Talk:Republic XF-84H Thunderscreech

Questions

Hi Everyone. Thanks for all the help on the info for this incredible, marvellous, yet ultimitely doomed aircraft.

There are a couple of points I am not sure about;

The Air-ram - I think it may have been deployed most of the time (not just in emergencies) - any ideas? most serious photos of the plane show it deployed.

Second - the first designation of XF-106. I actually saw on a TV documentary that the Navy had called it XF-106, but had abondoned the project very quickly, it was taken over by the USAF, who renamed it XF-84H. I have not been able to find any written confirmation of this (infact there is very little that even mentions it was ever called the XF-106 (the only link I have ever found is on the page) - any ideas?

Thanks - OscarG

According to The Great Book of Fighters by Green and Swanborough (2000), the project was originially a joint USAF and USN project. The XF-106 is an AF, not Navy, designation. The designation was changed quickly to XF-84H, and later reassigned to the F-106, showing that XF-106 was just a provisional designation. The USN also pulled out of the program after a short time, but I don't know the timeframe of redesignation and the Navy's pullout. Hope that helps. - BillCJ 17:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks BillCJ. Thats great, I have pruned that statement back til I can get more info on it. Do you have the ISBN of that book? - it can go in the references.

If anyone is feeling up to it, the specs at the bottom need to be cleaned up. I have put in all the original stats I can find, but it still needs metric/imperial - imperial/metric conversions. Thanks Oscarg 05:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

DISCUSSION; The word "unnofficial" was added to the world record entry. I consider this incorrect since it is not actually disputed wether or not it happened, and it IS in the GBWR, without an "unnofficial" notation. I thought unofficial was for situations like Ben Johnson's 100m record (now broken I think) - any other opinions? Oscarg 04:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

I do have another can of worms also... Since it uses the jet engine for thrust (as well as propellor) is it actually worthy of the record?. I am not sure of how much thrust comes from the engine compared to the propellor. - Any ideas? Oscarg 04:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of claims for fastest propellor-driven planes apart from the XF-84H. A XP-47J, a variant of the P-47 Thunderbolt achieved 440 knots (505 mph, 813 km/h) in level flight in August 1944. Rare Bear, a highly-modified Grumman F8F Bearcat set a 3 km World Speed Record (528.33 mph (850.26 km/h) in 1989. The top speeds for the experimental VTOL aircraft, Lockheed XFV and Convair XFY have maximum speeds claimed to be 580 and 610 mph respectively (these values are in Wikipedia and other places, but I find them hard to believe). Here's one that really a "can opener": the XF-88B, a propellor-equipped XF-88 Voodoo which may have been supersonic. Is there any interest in writing an article about about "Fastest propellor-driven aircraft"?, or is that opening the can of worms even wider?Silverchemist 04:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue is now very much debatable. One of the only two pilots who flew the XF-84H claims that the speed obtained was much less than the speeds that were published. Quote: "The XF-84H never achieved its designer's dreams of being the first propeller-driven aircraft to attain supersonic flight. In fact, it never flew over 450 kt indicated, since at that speed, it developed an unhappy practice of 'snaking', apparently losing longitudinal stability." Lin Hendrix, test pilot: XF-84H (Hendrix 1977, p. 408.) FWIW Bzuk 04:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC).

Do you want to collaborate on an article about "Fastest propellor-driven aircraft" (or some other name, but same topic)?. I spent about a hour surfing the web looking for what I thought would be a simple answer, but did not get a clear result.Silverchemist 05:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a great topic. Count me in. FWIW Bzuk 05:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC).

I have a problem with all of this. It is very important to establish what was/is the fastest propeller-driven aircraft. The point here is that the XF-84H has been for a long time the official entry in the Guiness book of World Records. I notice that this entry has been deleted and replaced with a myriad of various entries, as if this is reargueing the point. I have read entries where the testers (ie the pilot and ground crew) stated the 620 mph speed was reached (under the supposed limit of 670mph). There are many other factors (height above sea level) Imperial vs American measurements.But the point is that it is the Official record for the fastest propellor driven plane, and to remove that entry after "..I spent about a hour surfing .." is very disturbing behaviour. Don't get me wrong we should find the answer (and I will help doing so) but lets leave the official entry in until it is officially removed. Looking forward to working with you on this Silverchemist. OscarG

I removed the "Airbourne" photo, because it was fake. How do I know this? 1) It had the number FS-060 on the side. That prototype never flew. End of Discussion. 2) It had the propellors obviously painted in. The edges of the propellors in the real model spun at a constant supersonic speed. you would never see them, especially taken from another plane. 3) This is a retouch of another photo which was on the ground. identical light etc. I think this one was made for the cover a a Ravell(?) model kit set. Thanks OscarG —Preceding comment was added at 04:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Two things: firstly, about "official" records from the Guiness Book of Records. Records in Guiness are not "official", in the way FAI records are. I would rather accept the maximum speed given by the USAF Museum (and supported by published, personal anecdotes by one of the test pilots) rather than that given in Guiness. It is entirely possible that the editors at Guiness took the design speed as the actual speed. I did not suggest changing any records "after an hour surfing the web". That search only convinced me that there was a need for a more in-depth review of the subject. I don't believe conversion factors are responsible for any error. I rechecked the conversions and everything is correct to within a couple of units (due to rounding errors).

Secondly, the USAF fact sheet [1] clearly states that "The aircraft on display (S/N 51-17059) was the first of the two prototypes produced by Republic. It flew eight of the 12 test flights". Since there were only two aircraft, it would follow that the other prototpe did fly. Comments? Silverchemist (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow! seriously good points Silverchemist!. I have to go and find my sources again. It is great being questioned by someone with some real facts!!. THANKS!! Just to recap the points I have... I read an interview with Hank Baird where he spoke of the 623 MPH speed, and claimed he could have gone faster... I also remember that the ground crew had measured that speed with radar. Re the FS-060 I read that it was not flight worthy ever.. something to do with a moody driveshaft or something hmmm. You have to admit that photo was shonky though :). Apologies if my wording seemed a bit terse, I usually do this late at night :). I agree with your logic re FS-060 flying, and if the evidence is sound then the wording here should be changed. The wording at nationalmuseum.af.mil is a bit casual regarding that point, but it is not ambiguous. I would consider them an authoritative source.. let me find my stuff... its been a while. Re Guiness.. I disagree that they are "unofficial" infact their requirements are very strict.. I may see if I can dig up what they have. I really appreciate your help. Although I started this article, I don't own it, my only wish is that it is accurate. I am trying to get this article up to "A" rate. It still has quite a way to go.

BTW Big thanks also to Bzuk, BillCJ, Potatoswatter, Silverchemist and others for cleaning all this up. Not just from Me, but everyone, who does and will read the article. In two days it will be a year old. Thanks!! :)

Cheers Oscar Oscarg —Preceding comment was added at 10:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

This is a good article and should be submitted for a peer review. --Colputt 02:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)