Talk:North American FJ-2/-3 Fury

Infobox edits

I'm not sure there's an easy tsolution to being accurate about which airframe was developed from which. THe FJ led to the XP-86 which led to the F-86A, the F-86E led to the FJ-2 and 3, and the FJ-4 has no real F-86 equivilent, being a derivitive of the FJ-3. About the only way to be really clear about it is to split the straight wing FJ-1 off from the swept wings, but there really isn't enough content as yet to do that. Any thoughts/suggestions? - BillCJ 20:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The FJ-1 looks completely different to the F-86/FJ-2 and subsequent variants. Not just the straight wings - it's also a fatter, stubbier plane. Drutt 14:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

For comparison, FJ-1 and FJ-2 Drutt 14:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, technically they are different planes, but as above, they are closely related. In addition, they share the same basic US Navy designation. Given the current lack of extensive coverage on the page, especially usable pics, keeping all the variants together is probably best. Perhaps at some point in the future a split could be made, but right now it would just turn a stubby article into 2 or 3 stubs. - BillCJ 15:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft

The T-2, F-84, MiG-17, Mystère, etc were not comparable at all, these were much more advanced aircraft. For a real comparable list check FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II --Jor70 (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur that the list should represent aircraft that had the same general performance which the F-84F, MiG-17 and Mystère although from slightly different eras, qualify as "comparable" having about the same basic subsonic capabilities. I would suggest adding some of the Pulqui list and trimming the present list where applicable. The only aircraft more advanced in terms of equipment may have been the T-2 but even then, the real reason for deleting it is that it represents a training rather than combat aircraft. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The T-2 was originally in the "related" section, as it is related to the FJ-1, though not a variant of it. Another editor moved it to the "comparable" section, per this diff. I'm moving it back to the "related" section.

As to the F-84, MiG-17, Mystère, etc, remember there are three separate aircraft covered on this article: The FJ-1 straight-wing, the swept-wing FJ-2/-3 (naval equivelant to the F-86E/F range),a nd the FJ-4, more advanced, but still only near-sonic. The whole Lead is written for the FJ-1 only, and so that may be where part of the confusion is coming from. I've been considering splitting the page for some time, but was not quite sure how to do that. At this point, we could split the FJ-1 from the swept-wings, moving it to FJ-1 Fury, which would enable us to be more specific in the whole "see also" section. - BillCJ (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's always interesting when some obscure aircraft is introduced into a Wiki discussion such as here with the Pulqui II (wow not that's an airplane that you don't hear mentioned every day) - a personal favorite is the Lockheed Jetstar Wiki article where some Francophile has inserted a sentance that the Jetstar was proceeded as the first purpose built business jet by some obscure French military trainer that, while somewhat vaguely similar in planform, was never actually used by anyone as a business jet, purpose built or otherwise. Anyway, as noted above, the F-84, MiG-17, and Mystere would certainly be contemparies with the Fury and certainly were not "much more advanced." Indeed one could make a very interesting comparison between the evolution of the straight wing F-84E to swept wing F-84F and straight wing Ouragan to swept wing Mystere with the evolution of the Fury. Of course, none of these are really comparable as they couldn't or at least didn't (suspect the former is more appropriate) operate from aircraft carriers. There must also be some British aircraft that are also "comparable" (not just the rather obscure Swift, well that's an oxymoron as most British aircraft are rather obscure). Jmdeur (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Shhhhhhh! The British are quite sensitive in regards to their arcraft, and generally regard the aircraft of all other nations as being obscure! Similarly, we haven't told them that their precious EE Lightning is ugly! Talk about aircraft only a mother-country could love! - BilCat (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

FJ-1, FJ-4

I extended the article with more detailed descriptions of the variants. That highlights a problem with the structure: It is inconsistent to put the FJ-1 on a separate page and the FJ-4 on the same page as the FJ-2 and FJ-3. The FJ-4 was too was an almost entirely new aircraft, perhaps the least Sabre-like of the entire lineage. Mutatis Mutandis (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please remember WP articles are works in progress - just because one thing has been done does not preclude another being done at a later date. - BilCat (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I always think the late model Furies look a lot like F-86H Hogs with those deeper inlets. As for the least Sabre-like, nothing beats the F-86D Dogs in appearance or mission. Hate to admit it, but I rather think the latter are the best looking of the breed, especially in the more over-the-top ADC squadron colors. Jmdeur (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Redesignation

This section currently reads: "With the new designation system adopted in 1962, the FJ-4 became the F-1E and the FJ-4B the AF-1E. AF-1Es served with United States Naval Reserve units until the late 1960s. The FJ Fury was the first aircraft of the VF-84 incarnation of the legendary Jolly Rogers Squadron. A total of 1,115 Furies were received by the Navy and Marine Corps over the course of its production life." What exactly does the middle sentence about VF-84 have to do with this subject? Jmdeur (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Good catch; I've removed it. Who knows how these things end up where they do! WP is a collaborative work, and, being "a encyclopedia that anyone can edit", "anyone" often does! If you want to troll through the article's edit history to see when the item was added, by whom, and it's original place in the text, feel free to do so. Such research is often enlightening! - BilCat (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)