Jump to content

Talk:ST Aerospace A-4SU Super Skyhawk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Start

[edit]

Looks like a good start. It needs references. Is there much detail left to add? -Fnlayson 02:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a reference book that has details on the avionics upgrade, etc, that I will try to add some more details from. Most of what I have there now was culled from the A-4 and RSAF articles, and all of that was unreferenced. It's an interesting variant, as far as I know the only A-4s upgraded with the F404 engine. - BillCJ 03:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Into this fire I came

[edit]

Okay, things look pretty good now for the article after I had made so much addition and new images. Let me know if any more improvement is required. --Dave1185 (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are never done. Did the last 4 from the Advanced Jet Training Program get retired last year? -Fnlayson (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, as much I can tell there are no news of them retiring yet but it is slated for somewhere before January 2010 so I'm just waiting for the PR boys to make their press release next year. Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Flight

[edit]

The infobox has a FF of 19 Sep 1986 but didnt the first SU not fly until 1992. Perhaps it should be made clearer that the 1986 was for the earlier Super Skyhawk updates. MilborneOne (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mill, the FF of the SU was indeed conducted on 19 Sep 1986 but it was only to test the newly transplanted heart → the GE-F404 turbofan engine, it took a while longer (much, much longer because it was essentially a total rebuild conducted by our local fledgling aerospace company, Singapore Aerospace) to iron out the kinks, the wings and fuselage integrity as well as integrate the new avionic package into the airframe. Note that there hasn't been much of any accident since due to the this thorough re-manufacturing process, as pretty much most of the airframes survive until they were phased out of front-line service in 2005 when they were nearing the end of their fuselage life. Hope this helps. --Dave1185 (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cockpit comparison

[edit]

I don't believe the "cockpit comparison" images of the SR-71B and TR-1B really add to the article - yes, they have a similiar, odd cockpit configuration, but then so does the MiG-25U. It's unusual, but saying "see how these other aircraft have the same configuration" really doesn't help, IMHO, especially with such a large, ungainly block being used to hold them. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Read the edit history of the article and you'll see what I meant by that sentence and image placement. Too many newbie and ignorant editors just missed the point without realising it. Besides, MiG-25U was not built by Lockheed but TA-4S were, same goes for Lockheed SR-71B and Lockheed TU-2S. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to bring up the question raised by User:The Bushranger again. What do the photos of other aircraft with a similar cockpit arrangement add to the article that is solely about this specific aircraft? I understand the comparison, but I don't think it's relevant. For example, an article about the Beechcraft Bonanza doesn't show pictures of other aircraft that share its rare but not unique v-tail arrangement. 153.31.113.20 (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is very relevant because purpose-built TA-4E/Fs by Douglas were tandem seaters, whereas TA-4S/SU converted from regular A-4B/Cs by Lockheed were similar to the other Lockheed-built trainers of SR-71B and TU-2S, which are all stepped-cockpit designs with separate canopy and seats for the student and instructor pilot. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 20:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the difference between the two designs by the two different manufacturers. I understand why that difference is relevant to the article. What is not relevant to the article, the scope of which is one specific aircraft, is pictures of other aircraft from the manufacturer in question just to show that that company has other aircraft with a similar design. On an article about bats you don't need a picture of birds as an example of other animals with wings. Or to put it in more closely related terms, a photo of a 707 would not be relevant on an article about the 727 just to show that they have the same nose cross-section. Either way it seems moot now. 153.31.113.26 (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on ST Aerospace A-4SU Super Skyhawk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on ST Aerospace A-4SU Super Skyhawk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ST_Aerospace_A-4SU_Super_Skyhawk&oldid=1209996329"