Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-15 STOL/MTD/Archive 1

Archive 1

(no title)

Is this still in use? What branch of the military uses it?--Stang281 17:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Name

Isn't it called F-15 ACTIVE?83.244.99.250 17:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The plane was used for the F-15S/MTD project, then the F-15 ACTIVE project, and is now currently being used for the F-15 IFCS project. I added some information in the article, as well as specs for the F-15 ACTIVE to clear up the confusion. If anyone wants to improve it, go ahead. Some people might be confused because Namco mis-labeled the F-15S/MTD as the F-15 ACTIVE in the game Ace Combat 4. --[User:??????] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeroyon (talk • contribs) 2006-04-04T06:54:05 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the picture of this plane is not actually of this plane; it's an edited picture, if I remember correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.87.83 (talk) 2006-07-25T06:15:05 (UTC)

Once the aircraft was with NASA it was always TN 837. TN 835 (HIDEC) was retired in 1993. TN 836 (used for Quiet Spike) is still in active service at the NASA Armstrong Flight Research Facility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.134.82.15 (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Corrected image

The original black and white image was the work of photographic fakery. It showed the plane in a cammo paint scheme even though the F-15 STOL/MTD was part of the NASA ACTIVE program, not a military program. And it also showed F-22-like pitch-axis thrust vectoring nozzles, whereas the F-15 STOL had pitch-yaw-axis nozzles. I wonder why they went with pitch-only on the F-22. Cost? Reliability? ROI? --JJLatWiki 23:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The F-22 nozzles are too close together for vectoring of axis and yaw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.50.130.159 (talk) 2007-03-02T21:58:43 (UTC)

Additionally the flat nozzles of the F-22 give it better stealth characterestics. I guess it would be difficult to have 3D directed exhaust in such a flattened nozzle configuration. POVPlaneIgnoramus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.191.48 (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The picture used to replace the faked black and white one is labeled wrongly - The plane shown is the ACTIVE: note the round, pitch/yaw (so called 3D) vectored nozzles. The S/MTD had flat, rectangular, pitch only (so called 2D) nozzles, like the F-22. --Myk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.182.139 (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the black and white photo is the right one. STOL/MTD was not part of NASA program. the military number and the 2-D Thrust-Vectoring Nozzle in the photo matched the program. Matthew hk (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional comment for this thread. This article actually covers F-15 STOL/MTD and the same aircraft USAF S/N 71-0290 (with modification) as F-15 ACTIVE, as well as early research before the STOL/MTD (probably using USAF S/N 71-0291 and may be 0290). So, the 2D (before STOL/MTD era, STOL/MTD and NASA) and 3D Nozzle (NASA era) versions existed. Also, both photos (Photo ID: EC96-43485-3; C-1984-6457) are valid.

Also, the book did shown 2D-Nozzle version of the aircraft with tricolor livery. However, we can't extract the image unless we known the photo id and request it from US government (or NASA or US military) (see also Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:F15smtd02.jpg for reasoning of File:F15smtd02.jpg (that photo in the book was deleted).

Off-topic , seem a NASA wiki may be able to cover the part before the actual start of STOL/MTD in 1984. https://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/Test_372:_F-15_/_2D_CD_Nozzles_(Burley/Berrier) Matthew hk (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Page name

Per WP:AIR naming conventions, this article should be McDonnell Douglas F-15S/MTD. Karl Dickman ^talk 19:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe so. But S/MTD is not a regular letter designation like A, B, C, etc. -Fnlayson 04:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

History

Could someone improve the history before 1993? As i seen from the NASA image in 1993, the plane had the coat of arms of Air Force Systems Command, Flight Dynamics Laboratory and a unknown one. Matthew hk (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

after 1993 the coat of arms became Air Force Materiel Command as the merger of Air Force Systems Command and Air Force Logistics Command. Matthew hk (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I found the photo of the plane before modification. [1] Matthew hk (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked the military project, the first one is Air Force Flight Test Center. Matthew hk (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As i found the photo in 1989 Air show, the 2D thrust-Vectoring Nozzle was not equipped. according to Popular Mechanics Sep 1989 (could be search in google book), the nozzle was installed later that year. Matthew hk (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Conflation of a physical aircraft with an aircraft prototype

This page drifts around because it ends up discussing all of the roles a physical aircraft filled, rather than focusing on a single R&D effort it participated in.

There are 3 separate roles discussed on this page, and that is unfortunate as it obscures the timeline of what research was done when --Solidpoint (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC).

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-15 STOL/MTD/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Text is pretty good. Specs, infobox, and footer need to be standardised. Karl Dickman talk 18:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 17:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Revert with no explanation

User BilCat reverted edits to this article without explanation. The original edits removed language that frankly sounded like it was written by a 2nd grader and was sourced. Do we really need random extra adjectives, and sentences tacked on the end of paragraphs that don't fit the flow of the paragraph? 162.18.172.11 (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

"Unencyclopedic" really wasn't a suitable explanation, and was indistinguishable from vandalism. However it sounded, the sentence is a logical statement following from the rest of the paragraph. Considering the entire section is unsourced, we can probably remove the section. - BilCat (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

BilCat, I looked at your edit history and I think you need to take a bit more time looking at your reverts if you think the changes to this page you reverted were "vandalism". You may disagree with the explanation "Unencyclopedic" but it was very clearly not vandalism. Randomly adding adjectives like "powerful" without qualification is something a low level writer would do and it does not belong in an encyclopedia (hence "unencyclopedic") likewise, adding a sentence that applies but does not fit in the context of the bullet or even section is unencyclopedic. Certainly one could discuss why the aircraft exists is of values, but adding a random sentence that says "This kind of maneuver might be useful in a dogfight." to the end of the "F-15 STOL/MTD special features" secion is unencyclopedic. 162.18.172.11 (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you should focus your "research" on the article instead of my edits. No one added "a random sentence that says 'This kind of maneuver might be useful in a dogfight.'"; it has been there from the first version of the article! Yeah, the "powerful engines" part was added later, but that's not your primary objection here. None of the original version of the article was sourced, and although sources have been added since then, none have been added to that section. I'd support removing the section entirely if no sources are found for its claims in a reasonable amount of time. - BilCat (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't care when it was added, it doesn't matter. It's bad writing. I tried to fix it and you added it back without expiation or understanding. 162.18.172.11 (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

well i think some of the content was added by me in 2010 by quoting and sightly paraphrasing. So, if i have time i would add back the page number. Other content without source did require clean up . Matthew hk (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@162.xxx: You deleted it without a proper explanation (note correct spelling), and your subsequent one is still weak, being based on erroneous assumptions. @Matthew hk: That would be good if you can add sources/page numbers. I can tell a lot of work was done on the article since the original version, so thanks for your contributions and improvements. - BilCat (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

BilCat you have continued to WP:AGF in violation of Wikipedia policies, on this and many other pages. I strongly recommend you reconsider your blind comment-less reverts. 162.18.172.11 (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I've explained my edits to my satisfaction. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not critiquing editors. Another editor has promised to cite sources for the questioned section, and hopefully will be able to improve the content as he's done in the past on this page. - BilCat (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It was long due to add back page number (the PDF file of the book was on my windows Desktop for so long). Now the page numbers are added, but since the book was about "Contributions of the Langley Research Center to US Military Aircraft", there is no information for "F-15 STOL/MTD" as a NASA aircraft era. More citation is required. Matthew hk (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)