The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article is stable, with the main contributors
Sturmvogel 66, who authored 42%,
Petebutt, who authored 21% and
Kyteto, who authored 19%. The article was rated B class in December 2013 but has been subsequently developed, with particularly high activity in November 2020 and February 2021. The article is generally well written in an accessible style.
The article is illustrated with relevant images that are marked as licensed in the public domain.
The references should be
consistent and follow the style of the first major contributor unless there is a consensus otherwise. The first inline citation was added on 11 May 2010 by
Nimbus227 in the form of a footnote citation with author, year and page, and then a separate full bibliographic reference. This is currently the same for the majority of references, but there are some citations that are not. For example "Buttler & Delezenne, pp. 162–163; Carbonel, p. 57" should be "Buttler & Delezenne 2010, pp. 162–163; Carbonel 2016, p. 57", "Hartman, p. 12" should be "Hartman 2007, p. 12", "Hartmann, p. 14" should be "Hartmann 2007, p. 14", "Carbonel, pp. 93–94" should be "Carbonel 2016, pp. 93–94".
Good catch
The speed is given in
Mach numbers. While Mach number is linked in the lead, I think it would be useful to also wikilink the first mention in the text. I suggest including the speed in km/h and mph as Mach numbers do not seem to be widely used as a sole measure of speed in the literature.
If it were a longer article, relinking Mach number might be worthwhile, but I disagree for something this short. We're expressly forbidden to convert Mach numbers into mph/kmh as the Mach number varies by temperature and altitude. One conventional speed figure is given in the article, so readers will have some idea of what the aircraft could do.--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
15:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)reply
The performance data looks sparse. Winchester's X-Planes and Prototypes and Concept Aircraft, both of which are on archive.org, may be able to add more.
Added some data from Concept Aircraft, but his figure for top speed is below those that the aircraft demonstrated. What should I do about this? Use the record speeds instead?--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
14:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Good question. The article on
North American XB-70 Valkyrie, which is a GA on another aircraft that remained experimental, and the GA
Lockheed F-104 Starfighter seem to also have different maximum speeds listed to the speed records in the narrative. In comparison, I think it would be good to be consistent across the article and put the speed record figure.
simongraham (
talk)
14:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I think that it would be interesting to include content from Noël Daum's lecture "The Griffon Aircraft and the Future of the Turbo-Ram-Jet Combination in the Propulsion of Supersonic Aeroplanes" given to the Royal Aeonautical Society on 12 March 1959. It is available in The Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society volume 63 (582). There is also an interesting article by David A. Anderson in Aviation Week in 1958, which is also on archive.org, which tells some more of the aeroplane's saga.
it contains a
reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
all inline citations are from
reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or
likely to be challenged.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.