Lockheed Have Blue has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 10:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Do any of the mil aircraft regulars have a explanation of the code-name Have Blue? (And, for example, does it relate to the naming of the Northrop Tacit Blue?) It's an odd name, I would expect most casual readers would be curious -- PaulxSA 18:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Y E Pacific Hurricane 01:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Here are my comments:
Y E Pacific Hurricane 01:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Have-blue.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC) |
Why is this sentence relevant enough to be in the introductory paragraph? It's even questionably true- nobody sat down and wondered what would happen if they started an aerospace design process with the perspective of an electrical engineer. The story is, recounted in Ben Rich's autobiography, one of the radar specialists at Lockheed realized that he could write a computer program to fully calculate and predict radar cross-section (which was not possible at that time). The program worked, and so the aircraft was designed around using computer simulation to minimize that cross section.
To be accurate, this was the first aircraft designed by shaping the airframe to scatter radar beams. This required an unprecedented amount of computer involvement in the design of the aircraft, and it was the first aircraft that had unstable flight dynamics in all three control inputs (pitch, roll, and yaw). Both of these are related to electrical engineering, but I don't see how you can make the statement that the aircraft was designed from an electrical engineering perspective. 24.107.185.147 ( talk) 01:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the full-scale demonstrator: "Under the control of Harold Farley, the aircraft took off on 18 June for its maiden flight, nine months after the July 1980 first flight originally envisaged."
18 June 1981 is not nine months after July 1980. At least one of the three values is incorrect. Pete.pereira ( talk) 23:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Is "Have Blue" pronounced have as in "to have something" or have as in "pave a road" but with an "H" instead of a "P"? Taffy boeing b 17 ( talk) 22:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
One problem with articles about classified aircraft is that there aren't many publicly-available photographs, this being no exception. As such two of the images are essentially fan art made by Wikipedia users. They both have issues. This one - seemingly a digital painting of an F-117 with new tail fins pasted on - shows the tails with conventional rudders, but the actual aircraft had a system whereby the entire top half of the vertical stabiliser swivelled left and right. It's more obvious in the image at the top of this article. The artist seems to have mistaken the facet seam in the stabilisers for the hinge of a rudder. Meanwhile this image, which is ancient, shows Have Blue and the production F-117 layered on top of each other with the same wing sweep angle, but the actual F-117 was around 5 deg less sweepy. It's nice that the article has more than one image, but they're basically original research. We have to just trust that the two artists knew what they were doing. - Ashley Pomeroy ( talk) 15:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Lockheed Have Blue has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 10:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Do any of the mil aircraft regulars have a explanation of the code-name Have Blue? (And, for example, does it relate to the naming of the Northrop Tacit Blue?) It's an odd name, I would expect most casual readers would be curious -- PaulxSA 18:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Y E Pacific Hurricane 01:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Here are my comments:
Y E Pacific Hurricane 01:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Have-blue.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC) |
Why is this sentence relevant enough to be in the introductory paragraph? It's even questionably true- nobody sat down and wondered what would happen if they started an aerospace design process with the perspective of an electrical engineer. The story is, recounted in Ben Rich's autobiography, one of the radar specialists at Lockheed realized that he could write a computer program to fully calculate and predict radar cross-section (which was not possible at that time). The program worked, and so the aircraft was designed around using computer simulation to minimize that cross section.
To be accurate, this was the first aircraft designed by shaping the airframe to scatter radar beams. This required an unprecedented amount of computer involvement in the design of the aircraft, and it was the first aircraft that had unstable flight dynamics in all three control inputs (pitch, roll, and yaw). Both of these are related to electrical engineering, but I don't see how you can make the statement that the aircraft was designed from an electrical engineering perspective. 24.107.185.147 ( talk) 01:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the full-scale demonstrator: "Under the control of Harold Farley, the aircraft took off on 18 June for its maiden flight, nine months after the July 1980 first flight originally envisaged."
18 June 1981 is not nine months after July 1980. At least one of the three values is incorrect. Pete.pereira ( talk) 23:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Is "Have Blue" pronounced have as in "to have something" or have as in "pave a road" but with an "H" instead of a "P"? Taffy boeing b 17 ( talk) 22:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
One problem with articles about classified aircraft is that there aren't many publicly-available photographs, this being no exception. As such two of the images are essentially fan art made by Wikipedia users. They both have issues. This one - seemingly a digital painting of an F-117 with new tail fins pasted on - shows the tails with conventional rudders, but the actual aircraft had a system whereby the entire top half of the vertical stabiliser swivelled left and right. It's more obvious in the image at the top of this article. The artist seems to have mistaken the facet seam in the stabilisers for the hinge of a rudder. Meanwhile this image, which is ancient, shows Have Blue and the production F-117 layered on top of each other with the same wing sweep angle, but the actual F-117 was around 5 deg less sweepy. It's nice that the article has more than one image, but they're basically original research. We have to just trust that the two artists knew what they were doing. - Ashley Pomeroy ( talk) 15:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)