This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
McDonnell CF-101 Voodoo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | McDonnell CF-101 Voodoo is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This is a very well-written and interesting article and I'm pleased to see such good quality contributions relating to Canada. Great work! A few suggestions/points/questions:
In the lead section:
In 'The Decision to Acquire the CF-101'
In 'Squadron Operations'
In 'Operation peace wings'
Finally, any reason why the sources aren't numbered? I'm used to seeing numbered sources, but maybe it's done differently in these types of articles.
I would also remove the disambig at the top. It's unlikely that someone would search for CF-101 with the intention of seeing the F-101, which is mentionned in th first few sentences anyway. -- jag123 01:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
These are all good points, and I'll address them. Possibly, the reason for some of these concerns stems from the fact that this article is a condensation of a magazine article I wrote on the subject for a specialist audience, and some extra explanations would be necessary for a more general audience. (I had done some of this already, but it would seem that I need to do some more!).
One query -- I'm not quite sure what you mean by numbering the references. Do you mean footnoting? This would get rather involved.
Voodude 21:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The "unofficially" part is to compress the story a bit. Essentially, the Avro Arrow project was cancelled because of cost, circa 1958-59. The RCAF agreed to the cancellation of the Arrow on the condition that a less expensive interceptor was purchased instead. The Voodoo was identified early on as the necessary replacement interceptor. However, the 'optics' of purchasing an American interceptor aircraft just after the devastating cancellation of a domestic equivalent were awful, and so it was publicly maintained that the CF-100 was still adequate for the job. (It wasn't -- it had been designed to intercept piston engined bombers of late Second World War and late Forties vintage, and wasn't up to the job of intercepting jet bombers). Thus, the decision to acquire the Voodoo was deferred for a time until the controversy died down. As noted elsewhere in that section, there were additional controversies regarding the acquisition of a weapons system using nuclear warheads, and tradeoffs with the USA on costs of air defense overall, and these played a part in delaying the decision too. Voodude 18:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi Voodude: The cost per aircraft was the 650 million spent on the program to 1958,plus the two billion plus required from 1959 to 1964, divided by 169 ARROWS, OR FIFTEEN MILLION, SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY ONE THOUSAND PER PLANE, eleven millon three hundred thousand in unsunk cost.
According to the RCAF historial website, also quoted by Insinger, the TWO YEAR OLD Voodos cost ONE MILLION, FIVE HINDRED NINETY ONE THOUSAND PER PLANE, half of which was payable by offset, ie, Canada Staffed & maintained the eleven Radar stations on Canadian soil, previously staffed by Americans. Even after amortising the 116 million spent on the BOMARC ( 846,715.00) per CF101, Canada was miles ahead.
Insingers seminal work. http://scaa.usask.ca/gallery/arrow/thesis/thesis9.htm .
The RCAF & Defense depatment kept very accurate accounts, BTW.
Thanks for your sensible analysis,& if you can ever get your insights on the Avro Arrow site, I would be most gratefull.
Regards
Reg Saretsky August 21 , 2007
(BTW, Bill, WADR, there is "nothing vague" about the DOD or the RCAF accounts, or cost estimates. They are accurate to the nth degree.. ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.34.115.78 ( talk)
What is the difference between this aircraft and the F-101 besides the fact that they have different designations and have been in service with different airforces? Is there any reason except Canadian pride to keep this as a separate article?
Peter Isotalo 21:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Originally, this article was a part of the F-101 article. However, the content here is actually more extensive than the F-101 article, and I felt that the big chunk of Canadian history in the middle of the F-101 article would disturb its flow, so I broke it out as a separate article. As noted above, the story of the Voodoo in Canada is a significant piece of Canadian history, playing a role in the fall of the Conservative government in 1963, and tying in with Canada's little known role as a (former) nuclear armed nation.
-- Voodude 14:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
USAF and RCAF/CF Voodoos are not exactly the same (I'm not including the recon versions flown by the USAF). The first USAF 101's were single-seat and had 4 20MM cannon. All RCAF/CF Voodoos were two-seat and Falcons/Genies only. Early pre-unification RCAF 101's did not have the infra-red sensor on the nose. The second batch of Voodoos for the Canadian Forces were similar to USAF 101's (most of which ended up in the Air National Guard), but did not have the underfuselage air scoop and "slime lights" (formation-keeping light strips). A good source is the book Century Jets, edited by David Donald.-- MarshallStack 05:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
"(I'm not including the recon versions flown by the USAF)" But you are including the nuclear strike version operated by TAC for some reason. The only versions of the F-101 Voodoo that should be discussed are the twin-seat interceptor, and the twin-seat trainer. The CF-101Bs were ex-USAF F-101Bs. They were not modified for Canadian service. Early-USAF F-101Bs lacked the IRST (they were fitted to American F-101Bs in Project 'Bright Horizon'. CMarshall ( talk) 21:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The Specifications for the Canadian Voodoo were the same as the F-101B for which Canada was the only foreign customer.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
McDonnell CF-101 Voodoo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | McDonnell CF-101 Voodoo is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This is a very well-written and interesting article and I'm pleased to see such good quality contributions relating to Canada. Great work! A few suggestions/points/questions:
In the lead section:
In 'The Decision to Acquire the CF-101'
In 'Squadron Operations'
In 'Operation peace wings'
Finally, any reason why the sources aren't numbered? I'm used to seeing numbered sources, but maybe it's done differently in these types of articles.
I would also remove the disambig at the top. It's unlikely that someone would search for CF-101 with the intention of seeing the F-101, which is mentionned in th first few sentences anyway. -- jag123 01:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
These are all good points, and I'll address them. Possibly, the reason for some of these concerns stems from the fact that this article is a condensation of a magazine article I wrote on the subject for a specialist audience, and some extra explanations would be necessary for a more general audience. (I had done some of this already, but it would seem that I need to do some more!).
One query -- I'm not quite sure what you mean by numbering the references. Do you mean footnoting? This would get rather involved.
Voodude 21:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The "unofficially" part is to compress the story a bit. Essentially, the Avro Arrow project was cancelled because of cost, circa 1958-59. The RCAF agreed to the cancellation of the Arrow on the condition that a less expensive interceptor was purchased instead. The Voodoo was identified early on as the necessary replacement interceptor. However, the 'optics' of purchasing an American interceptor aircraft just after the devastating cancellation of a domestic equivalent were awful, and so it was publicly maintained that the CF-100 was still adequate for the job. (It wasn't -- it had been designed to intercept piston engined bombers of late Second World War and late Forties vintage, and wasn't up to the job of intercepting jet bombers). Thus, the decision to acquire the Voodoo was deferred for a time until the controversy died down. As noted elsewhere in that section, there were additional controversies regarding the acquisition of a weapons system using nuclear warheads, and tradeoffs with the USA on costs of air defense overall, and these played a part in delaying the decision too. Voodude 18:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi Voodude: The cost per aircraft was the 650 million spent on the program to 1958,plus the two billion plus required from 1959 to 1964, divided by 169 ARROWS, OR FIFTEEN MILLION, SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY ONE THOUSAND PER PLANE, eleven millon three hundred thousand in unsunk cost.
According to the RCAF historial website, also quoted by Insinger, the TWO YEAR OLD Voodos cost ONE MILLION, FIVE HINDRED NINETY ONE THOUSAND PER PLANE, half of which was payable by offset, ie, Canada Staffed & maintained the eleven Radar stations on Canadian soil, previously staffed by Americans. Even after amortising the 116 million spent on the BOMARC ( 846,715.00) per CF101, Canada was miles ahead.
Insingers seminal work. http://scaa.usask.ca/gallery/arrow/thesis/thesis9.htm .
The RCAF & Defense depatment kept very accurate accounts, BTW.
Thanks for your sensible analysis,& if you can ever get your insights on the Avro Arrow site, I would be most gratefull.
Regards
Reg Saretsky August 21 , 2007
(BTW, Bill, WADR, there is "nothing vague" about the DOD or the RCAF accounts, or cost estimates. They are accurate to the nth degree.. ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.34.115.78 ( talk)
What is the difference between this aircraft and the F-101 besides the fact that they have different designations and have been in service with different airforces? Is there any reason except Canadian pride to keep this as a separate article?
Peter Isotalo 21:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Originally, this article was a part of the F-101 article. However, the content here is actually more extensive than the F-101 article, and I felt that the big chunk of Canadian history in the middle of the F-101 article would disturb its flow, so I broke it out as a separate article. As noted above, the story of the Voodoo in Canada is a significant piece of Canadian history, playing a role in the fall of the Conservative government in 1963, and tying in with Canada's little known role as a (former) nuclear armed nation.
-- Voodude 14:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
USAF and RCAF/CF Voodoos are not exactly the same (I'm not including the recon versions flown by the USAF). The first USAF 101's were single-seat and had 4 20MM cannon. All RCAF/CF Voodoos were two-seat and Falcons/Genies only. Early pre-unification RCAF 101's did not have the infra-red sensor on the nose. The second batch of Voodoos for the Canadian Forces were similar to USAF 101's (most of which ended up in the Air National Guard), but did not have the underfuselage air scoop and "slime lights" (formation-keeping light strips). A good source is the book Century Jets, edited by David Donald.-- MarshallStack 05:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
"(I'm not including the recon versions flown by the USAF)" But you are including the nuclear strike version operated by TAC for some reason. The only versions of the F-101 Voodoo that should be discussed are the twin-seat interceptor, and the twin-seat trainer. The CF-101Bs were ex-USAF F-101Bs. They were not modified for Canadian service. Early-USAF F-101Bs lacked the IRST (they were fitted to American F-101Bs in Project 'Bright Horizon'. CMarshall ( talk) 21:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The Specifications for the Canadian Voodoo were the same as the F-101B for which Canada was the only foreign customer.