Talk:Chuck Yeager

Flight instructor

Can someone verify that Gen Yeager was/is a flight instructor? The FAA airman registry (search here: https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/default.aspx) doesn't have him listed as a certified flight instructor. Thirdgen (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

pronunciation

How is his name pronounced? Like the German "Jäger"? 87.123.4.68 15:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

YAY-GER. Long A, hard G.--Buckboard 08:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the parenthesised IbnA pronunciation template for "Chuck Yaeger": ({{IPAEng|tʃʌk.jeɪˌɡɹ}}). I was going to use the {{editprotected}} template, but that seems to be for "these edits need to be done NOW!", and I'd struggle to argue convincingly that this is the case here...

However, if a passing admin has his eye on this page, he or she is welcome to copy/paste this in. Regards, --DeLarge 16:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm German, and when the roots of the name are "Jäger", then the pronunciation is (or was)['jɛːgɐ] (http://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/J%C3%A4ger) Greetings, Volker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.204.77 (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Doolittle

this biog references a final flight by yeager which had jimmy doolittle following in another plane in 1997, but jimmys biog references him dying in 1993. Can we clarify the dates, as the date given is probably obsene or illegal - by Anon

That would be Gen Doolittle's grandson Col Doolittle III, I have clarfied because a number of editors have changed it. PPGMD 19:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

hi i am bob you know the most amazing thing about yeagers autobiography is the personal side of it.

he talks about how they were on missions to kill civilians in the war and him and his buddies would sya 'if we are going to do this type of thing we better make sure we win' ... they were more afraid of disobeying orders than of committing war crimes.

you can see the 'obedience' type of thinking instilled by the military here. the 'right stuff' talks about test pilots, test pilots who generally were accustom to sudden death, but made up all kinds of fantastic arguments about why it wouldnt happen to them and how the dead guy was to blame.

yeager goes into details about the emotions of someone in these circumstances, and they are amazing... for example, there is not pity or sympathy, there is anger. anger at the dead man.

and dont forget his 'autobigoraphy' is 1/4-1/2 written by other people commenting on the situation, his wife, his commander, and others. this is an amazing detail and account of life at the times and the impact of these situations on people. you might feel bad that life served them up this plate of horror and death and wonder what it would have been like otherwise.

I have known General Yeager for 14 years and my colleague, Dr. James O. Young, has interviewed him many times over the years. Yeager's book is peppered with small factual errors, mostly due to his habit of speaking without consulting the written records. Memory also comes into it. As General Yeager has told us more than once: "History is what I remember about it." That's a good rule of thumb under these circumstances. Raymond.l.puffer 17:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Raymond L. Puffer, Ph.D., Historian, Edwards AFBRaymond.l.puffer 17:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

there is also a lot of drinking and carelessness. a distant observer can see the emotional effect of the military and war on the men yeager talks about, as they careen through the desert and crash, as they have wild orgies, as they do stupid stunts that nearly kill many of them. and as they blame the people who do die and write them off. though it 'eats you up inside'.

and his attitude towards the war? he didnt care. he didnt even understand what hitler was all about, he just did his job, which was to fly airplanes and shoot people. for his team.

to say he 'escaped to spain' after being shot down is a bit like saying the bible is the story of some guy getting executed. he goes through all sorts of hell, he meets up with the french resistance, he has to sled down a snowy mountain and his partner nearly dies in the process, where they accidentally find a german occupied shack in the middle of the woods.

he flies all over the world with jacqueline corcoran, after that, many memorable incidents, including his encounters with the soviet pilots, they are about to talk friendly and drink alot, but some diplomat screws it up with one careless insult meant as a joke. it is odd how pilots share more in common with each other than civilians of countries at war. . . and odd thing indeed.

dont forget the time he is involved with the nuke squadron and they end up a couple of minutes from being in the middle of a nuclear World War III.

i dont know how to edit the main page but i just have to say that there is alot of stuff to talk about in regards to yeager, stuff that is bigger than any one person, it encompasses all of america, what it means to be american. or part of any elite group, or anyone attached to those people. to be a soldier and to be a man.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.245.163.1 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 18 February 2004.

You make some interesting points here, and I must admit I too was struck by this reading his biography and also The Right Stuff, Tom Wolfe's book. The thing is, this is how all military personnel think. If they didn't, armies, air forces and so on probably wouldn't exist. Many wars wouldn't either. ("Suppose war was declared and nobody turned up" sort of thing). Most nation's armed forces require their men to do their duty - "my country, right or wrong". You can't have freethinkers in the forces. Most of the training, apart from boosting your physical and mental fitness to the task, is for eliminating the freethinking element. That's what the spirit-breaking drills are all about. Those who can't hack it don't make it. Those who might privately harbour such thoughts, yet supress them in order to reach other goals - to fly, say - may think they've "bucked the system", but in fact they haven't, since a thought that cannot be expressed is the same as no thought at all. That all said, I don't think any of this belongs in the article about Yeager. All the encyclopeadia can discuss are the facts of the man's life as they are known. Speculation about his state of mind, or his morality, or lack of it, is opinion pure and simple, and has no place here. If the man himself had made much of it, it could be said in the article "Yeager himself feels that..." and so forth. If you do feel like adding such points, take care to ensure that they only the reported facts as stated in verifiable documents, and do not stray into speculation or moralising. Graham 03:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Spirit breaking?" What is that in reference to? In the training courses such as Basic, AIT, or SERE, the reason that the instructors yell and keep the troops awake for long periods of time is to teach them how to survive and not panic with little sleep under great stress and to show them that they are capable of doing so, not to break their spirit.71.63.82.37anon —Preceding comment was added at 06:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

ok man you have a good point there. im sure this fits somewhere in an encyclopedia im just not sure where—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.245.163.1 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 24 March 2004.

Take anything written in the books with a grain of salt. Yeager spins good stories--but they aren't always...totally reliable. And as a retired Air Force veteran, I find this is how all military personnel think to be, to put it charitably, incredibly simplistic. Pleasae take your own advice to Mr. unsigned--if you can't document it, don't stray into speculation or moralizing.--Buckboard 09:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeager was given the Peacetime Medal of Honor yet it's not on the wiki for Peacetime winners...

There is a comment about Yeager and "bomber pilot" Capt Fred Glover meeting with Eishenhower to get reinstated for flying duties after both had been shot down in France and received assistance from the French Resistance to escape. This needs to be editted to read that Capt Fred Glover was a P-51 fighter pilot with the 4th Fighter Group out of Debden, England. Glover was hit by flak and bailed during a freelance/general support mission to Lyon, France on April 30, 1944. He was picked up by the French Resistance and eventually got back to England. All this can be verified via the 4FG's web site: http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/resource/tidbits.html

Fractional Kills

Can anyone explain the 12.5 confirmed kills? Seems odd to have a fractional number there and some explanation in the article would be good. --/Mat 02:40, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This isn't uncommon. It's when more than one person claims a kill, or the actual person who delivered the fatal shot can't be positively identified. In which case the kill is credited to as many pilots as claimed it, but since obviously only one plane got shot down, it's recorded as half a kill each. Graham 10:44, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is that one-half or one-Nth (where N pilots are credited)? In other words, if the credit for a kill is split three ways, does each pilot get a half or a third of a kill?

Regarding the system of awarding credits for "kills" by allied pilots: Armt Air Force pilots ( and, if appropriate, their navigators) of World War II, received a proportion of the "kill" depending upon how many of their colleagues contributed to the downing of a particular enemy aircraft. Thus, while Major Bong, the highest scoring american ace of WWII, had a kill record of an even 40 aircraft, other leading WWII aces have fractional victories according to the unit historian, consider Major Preddy ( 25.83), Capt. Gentile ( 19.83), Col. Zemke (17.75) and Lt. Thornell (17.25). Claims of kills among combat pilots sometimes become acrimonious,as one attempted to garner a larger share of ( or sole credit for) an air to air victory . Of note, during WWII, only the Eighth AF awarded credit for planes destroyed on the ground, but eventually abandoned " ground kills", and fell into line with other commands, awarding credit only for air to air victories. This particular protocol of awarding fractional credit for kills evolved during WWII. Previously, during WWI, any pilot who claimed, and had confirmed, a kill, received credit for a kill - that is, if three planes downed an enemy aircraft, each pilot would recieve a full credit for a kill - not a fractional credit. This changed in WWII, when credit was divided between all aviators contributing to the destruction of an opponent...the kill credit could equal no more than one, divided among the claimants. In Vietnam, it again occured that a single kill could result in multiple victory credits. As the dominent aircraft was the two seat F-4, a kill resulted in two full credits...one to the pilot, one to the navigator. Thus, in comparing the records of aces, it should be kept in mind that credited kills reflected different systems from WWI through VN.<Source: Air Force Magazine/Journal of the Air Force Association,Vol 92, No.5, May, 2009.>Backlashunifrom (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Backlashuniform

Fractional victory counts seem rather silly and meaningless, considering that it is impossible to ascertain who fired that crucial individual shot that allowed the opposing plane to be brought down - although the point about 2 pilot planes is valid. Perhaps it could also be used to allow as many pilots as possible to become aces, as the less accomplished pilot who gets in a shot can get as much of a claim as the pilot who really brought the plane down. Also I guess it stops post combat antogonism/ hostilies developing between claimants? Generating as many aces as possible seems quite a plausible reason to me, as ace=hero and propaganda requires such things. I'm thinking in particular of total war conflicts like WWII where allied pilots' performance compared to their Luftwaffe counterparts appears distinctly lackluster. For instance take Hans Joachim Marseille (156 kills - all against western pilots in little more than 2 years). Also, just look at the Luftwaffe aces list - it stops mentioning pilots who scored less than 100 kills!. Incidently, the Luftwaffe aqdopted a system of assigning multiple claims on one plane to the unit as a whole - a good way of fostering unit cohesion. I guess different times do require different counting methods though. 82.36.25.12 (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the purpose of fractional kills is exactly the opposite of what you so wrongly speculate. It was clearly designed to reduce the proliferation of aces, as well as to encourage cooperation among fighters. It is loosely comparable to the "goals" and "assists" used to credit members of hocky teams for their performance. Rwflammang (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"Air Combat" game

Would it be too much of a stretch to mention "Chuck Yeager's Air Combat", an old computer combat flight sim from the early `90's? I think it's notable enough to deserve a small section here (and, consequently, a MobyGames or GameFAQs link to information about it).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.154.220.25 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 16 November 2004.

• Why not simply create an article for it, and put a brief mention in this article. PPGMD

Rocket lava??

Is "rocket lava" some sort of technical term or slang or simply just odd vandalism? From the article:

"He did, however, receive 3rd-degree burns on his head and hands from the rocket lava of the ejector seat."

Dismas 10:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe "rocket lava" refers to the burning molten remains of a rocket once it has fired. I think the phrase is legitimate, although it should be re-worded for clarity. -- FP ^{<talk><edits>} 11:13, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Solid-fuel rocket engines often contain molten oxidizer residue after all of the propellant has burned. It is about the same consistency as toothpaste, and can continue to ooze out until it cools and hardens. 208.110.158.124 05:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ejection seats use solid propellant rockets for launching the seat off the stricken aircraft. It is easy to imagine the residue of the ejection seat rockets has accidentally dropped on him while detaching himself off the seat mid-air. I have myself gotten rocket lava on my head from faulty fireworks New Year 2003 - it burnt hair, but didn't cause permanent damage.62.237.141.27 (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

11.50, not 12.50

According to the USAF Historical Research Agency at Maxwell AFB, Gen. Yeager has 11.50 victories, not 12.50. I think the mistake comes from the offcial claim of Louis Yeager who has one victory to his credit. Below is part of the total list of Aerial combat credits from the USAFHRA website. I copied the previous entry before those listed for Gen. Yeager, and also the one for Louis E. Yeager of the 53rd Fighter Group.

Aerial Victory Credits

Name and rank	Unit and date	War	Victories
YATES WILLIAM J Captain	66FTR 1942-11-07	WW2	0.50
YEAGER CHARLES E Flight Officer	363FTR 1944-03-04	WW2	1.00
YEAGER CHARLES E 1st Lieutenant	363FTR 1944-09-13	WW2	0.50
YEAGER CHARLES E 1st Lieutenant	363FTR 1944-10-12	WW2	5.00
YEAGER CHARLES E Captain	363FTR 1944-11-06	WW2	1.00
YEAGER CHARLES E Captain	363FTR 1944-11-27	WW2	4.00
YEAGER LOUIS E 2nd Lieutenant	53FTR 1945-04-17	WW2	1.00

Anyway, this is what I found. Al Lowe 04:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC) --82.41.36.238 23:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Most aviation historians count one more kill that the Air Force doesn't: Before Yeager was cleared to fly combat again, he was on a training flight in his P-51 in which he shot down a German bomber that was attacking a downed B-17 crew in the North Sea. Because he wasn't supposed to be flying combat that day, his gun camera film and credit for the kill were given to another pilot who needed one more kill to make ace. Iceberg3k 11:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

References for that? - Alureiter 12:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's in his autobiography, Yeager, among other sources. PPGMD 14:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Do we know the date of that kill, and the pilot it was given to? Al Lowe 08:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It was a JU-88, the kill was assigned to Cpt Eddie Simpson, which became his fifth kill, which made him an Ace. PPGMD 14:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh thats from Page 60, of the paperback edition of Yeager, also Cpt Simpson died on Agt 14th, 1944, when his Mustang collided with another in France. He was Yeagers Wingman during the flight. Cpt Ed Hiro gave the film to Cpt Simpson. The date was sometime between June 13th (the day after Yeager meet with Ike), and Aug 14th. PPGMD 15:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, not saying I doubt the General, but according to the USAF Historical Research Agency records, there was a pilot with the 363rd FG, named 1st Lt. Edward Simpson, Jr. He's credited with 4.25 victories, his last two were on July 6 and 7 of 1944. So, according to the USAF, Simpson did not make ace. Just makes you wonder, you know. Al Lowe 19:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Meh, there could have been a number of reasons why the kill doesn't show up. The only way to find out would be to contact the AFHRA. PPGMD 20:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have sent an e-mail to the AFHRA, lets see if I get a response. PPGMD 20:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok got some information, on July 6th, 1944 1LT Edward K Simpson shot down a JU-88, this would match the dates, and the aircraft type. The text of the response follows. PPGMD 22:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. PPGMD, According to our records, 1Lt Edward K. Simpson's aerial victory on 6 July 1944 was for a JU-88. Thank you for your request.

W. Butler Historian AFHRA/RSO

Be sure you have the right Simpson. He and Yeager flew with the 363rd Fighter Squadron, a part of the 357th Fighter Group. The 363rd Group was a Ninth Air Force photo Reconnaissance unit. Also, all claims of kills are re-examined post-war and subject to change, usually deletion. The 56th FG was the leading group in the ETO until post-war reviewed put the 4th FG ahead of it.

According to the official history of arial victories of WWII, Charles Yeager is credited with 11.5 victories. There is a record of 5 victories being attributed to another "Yeager" ( i.e., Capt. Robert Yaeger - note the different spelling of the names), which could confound the victory tally. There is no AAF ace identified as Simpson. If Simpson received credit for a JU88 downed by C. Yeager, it did not, as indicated above, render him an ace. As for Louis Yeager, attributing the downing of the German aircraft did not make him an ace either. Thus, giving credit to either of these pilots for an unofficial Chuck Yeager kill did not gain them the critical 5 victory record to elevate them to ace status , and would have been a hollow gesture. In addition, Yeager was a Captain at the time of his final credited kill. The tale of the "unofficial" Charles Yeager kill may be apocryphal, as it does not seem to have benefited anyone regarding their elevation to ace- contrary to General Yeager's claim. < Source: 2009 U.S.A.F. almanac, May, 2009> Backlashunifrom (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Backlashuniform

Second Star Source?

Anyone have a source on when he recieved his second star? I don't see anything about it anywhere. PPGMD 15:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok I e-mailed the Yeager Foundation, apparently Congress has authorized the President to promote both Mitchell and Yeager to Major General, but the President has not given the go ahead for the promotions. This was done by public law 108-375 Section 563 for Yeager, 564 for Mitchell. PPGMD 18:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

see http://www.defenselink.mil/dodgc/olc/docs/PL108-375.pdf , then search for "yeager"

The Right Stuff

"...wants to serve the NASA recruiters some Scotch and is puzzled when they only want a Coke." I have seen the movie several times and I clearly recall bartender Fred (played by Yeager) saying, "Y'all wanna drink whiskey?" I am going to change the word "scotch" to "whiskey." Hildenja 20:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I popped the DVD in it's whiskey, but scotch is a form of whiskey and I don't know bottles but that could very well be scotch. PPGMD 22:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Got bored did a little research, they are drinking Jack which is a Tennessee whiskey not a scotch. PPGMD 22:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Time article

I want to note this article here so it's not forgotten: "Man in a Hurry." It's from the April 18, 1949 issue of Time, and so is a good reflection of the mood at the time. It should probably also be noted in Sound barrier. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 07:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Also in this article on page 6 they mention the dedication ceremony of Yeager Airport when Yeager flew under a bridge along the Kanawha river in Charleston, WV. I'm from Charleston and that stunt was one of the first things I learned about Chuck Yeager, its almost local legend. I find it crazy that it isnt even mentioned on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.171.89 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 11 December 2007

Me 262 kill

The text mentions Yeager's WW2 kill of a Me 262 jet. It's sourced to his autobiography. I notice that this page has a (blurry) scanned copy of the official post-sortie encounter report (search for "yeager"). Perhaps it is public domain. It was declassified in 1958. He claims two damaged 262s and one shot down while it was trying to land - it is the "363FTR 1944-11-06" kill mentioned above. The page also has a report from September 1994 in which he describes his shared kill of an Me 109, the "363FTR 1944-09-13" fractional kill from the table up the page. -Ashley Pomeroy 17:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Rank?

If Yeager was promoted from Brigader General to Major General in 2005, why is this not reflected in the fact file on the top of the page? And does anyone have a reference that verifies the claim made that Bush promoted Yeager? Just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.169.250 (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Yeager's official bio, he is still a brigadier general (http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=7680). The USAF would have updated this had he been promoted. And if you look at these pictures from last month, he is still only wearing one star (http://www.chuckyeager.com/Gallery/latest.htm). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.112.75.238 (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I went to the USAF web page referenced above and its dated "(Current as of Aug. 1, 1973)" which indicates to me that it was as of his terminal USAF assignment. I have to assume that his promotion bill expired due to lack of Presidential signature -- possibly a Pocket Veto situation.--TGC55 (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Yeager's promotion to General- While Yeager, in his authorized biography, 
claims indifference to the promotion, and in fact bemoans the regulation that as a general    
officer, he would be reqired to fly with a co-pilot, Tom Wolfe insists, in The Right  
Stuff, that it was a political maneuver by his close friend, and politically well connected  
advocate, Jackie Cochran, which garnered him the star; Ms Cochran, it is claimed,
went directly to associates in the White House, including Ms. Truman, insisting upon a star  
for Col. Yeager. This, states Wolfe, is the origin of the promotion, which otherwise might
have been witheld as Yeager was quite assertive, and and could be abrasive, often 
irritating superiors. This is obviously hear-say, but the  
circumstances surrounding Yeager's promotion to a general officer are not at all clear, and 
perhaps not as cut and dried as suggestd in the main article.
It might also be mentioned that there is no such thing as a "Congressional Medal of Honor". The
award is promulgated by the service branch in the usual fashion. Thus, Yeager could not
have been nominated for a meritorious combat medal independent of the Air Force, and Congress
does not have the discretion to unilaterally award the highest medal conferred by the 
military.< "Yeager", authorized biography; "The Right Stuff", Tom Wolfe, both previously 
cited.> Backlashunifrom (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Backlashuniform

Why is this page protected?

Rracecarr 17:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Because there are several baseless factual errors and attempts to correct them have been rebuffed by the administrators. They sometimes rely on something just because it is written...anywhere. The media, without research, is not a reliable source!

Here are a few of the corrections required. Apparently some "administrator" has to okay them. No one will tell us the credentials of these administrators. There is a lot of incorrect information on wikipedia and they ask for donations - but can't find out if its a legal charity and how much is taken in salaries, etc. If it were a 501 (c) 3; it would/should be public knowledge.

1. Dr. Richard P. Hallion has long had an international reputation and, among scholars, the 2nd dition of his book (Supersonic Flight: Breaking the Sound Barrier and Beyond--London & Washington, Brassey's, 1997) is still considered the definitive scholarly publication on the X-1 program. On page 114 in this second edition, Dick tried to address what he calls the "rumors" that Wheaties was first. I quote him here: While Welch was reportedly an individual who might well have attempted to (break the sound barrier), an event of this sort would, in all likelihood, have generated more substantial proof than mere rumor, and, for its part, North American (now Rockwell) has always stated that the first supersonic foray of the XP-86 was on 26 April 1948, which is consistent with he Sabre's planned flight test program.

Until--if ever--substantial evidence is produced, rumors that the Sabre was first seemingly fall into the same mythic category as rumored flights before the Wrights, or propeller-driven aeroplanes that exceeded the speed of sound." So far, that substantial evidence that Dick talks about has not been produced.

2. "Bob Kempel has done the most detailed and thoroughgoing research and analysis concerning this specific issue--both from a historical and technical perspective- he would at least fit their definition of "neutral point of view."

3. "With regard to Chuck's supersonic flight on October 14, 1997, he didn't fly with Troy Fontaine. Lt Col Curt Elkin flew in the back seat that day as his IP, not co-pilot." Dr. Jim Young, Chief Historian, Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards AFB.

Wikipedia has no authority for its false information. We have the above authority.

4. "On Chuck's record attempt in the NF-104, - Of course he had to ask for and receive authorization to attempt to break the Russian's record. Any effort of that magnitude and with such potential for international ramifications had to be approved at the highest levels. There are several documents confirming this at the History OFfice, Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards AFB.

Wikipedia has given too much text to invalid claims and should leave that for a different category.

Also Victoria Yeager has an MBA in Finance from Columbia. They say Mrs. Yeager is not unbiased enough to write this. She gave Wikipedia permission to check and they have done nothing.

She is a financial consultant and nonprofit consultant. The admin refuse to put that on there, yet it is an easy independent substantiation.

She is President and Gen Yeager Chairman of the General Chuck Yeager Foundation and you can see what it does on www.chuckyeager.com - which they put on wikipedia and wikipedia refuses to put it on there saying the Yeagers can't just say they do that. The Yeagers gave them permission to check and have references. Wikipedia administrators won't do it.

They accept an Indian saying he shot Gen Yeager;s barron in Pakistan - and THAT cannot be substantiated at all except by the Indian's own self-serving article. - yet the administrators put that on there and keep it there when challenged.

Lots of double standards and perhaps fraud here.

Ray Puffer does not "know" Gen Yeager. Gen Yeager says hello is he's in the lobby and that's the extent of their conversation. Gen Yeager respects Dr. Jim Young and spends his time there with him.

Yeager Staff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.143.83 (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Link to new article on Lockheed NF-104A

Perhaps someone who is allowed to edit this page could link the NF-104 reference in the text to this newly created article, many thanks. Nimbus227 19:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The Right Stuff, redux

I understand wanting to keep trivia to a minimum, but at the moment there doesn't seem to be any reference to Yeager's appearance in the novel or the film version. This strikes me as odd, to say the least. Something simple would do the trick, along these lines:

Yeager appears as a character in Tom Wolfe's 1979 book about test pilots and the Mercury space program, The Right Stuff. The 1983 film adaptation stars Sam Shepard as Yeager, and Yeager himself appears in a cameo as the bartender in an establishment frequented by Edwards pilots.

It doesn't seem right to exclude all mention of The Right Stuff, especially since it's been cited in the article, and it arguably helped make Yeager famous. Madame Sosostris 04:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree, and say "major character", since his story is practically half of the book. --rogerd (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Broken Ribs?

This article discusses his broken ribs, and consulting with a veterinarian about it, however there is NO citation. At http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i5/murphy/murphy3.html, someone interviewing Yeager writes, "But when I ask Yeager whether Stapp ever checked his ribs, prior to the first supersonic flight, he gets upset. 'Who told you that?' he says forcefully. 'That’s a bunch of crap!'" Based on this, I find it hard to believe this information about broken ribs should be included without credible citation. I also don't believe Tom Wolfe's The Right Stuff should be used as a citation on this topic as it hasn't been corroborated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordoftheroach2000 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Glamorous Glennis

Why does this redirect to here and not the planes page? Didn't change it myself incase its been discussed before (I'v looked but can't see one). John.n-IRL 11:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Involvement in the Indian-Pakistan War of 1971

If I may suggest this, is it possible to add into Chuck Yeager's career account of how he was indirectly involved in the India-Pakistan War of 1971? If it's alright to do so, I might be able to dig up some old archive of this episode when he narrowly escaped being strafed on the ground by an Indian Navy aviator, Arun Prakash (Indian Navy Admiral, retired 2006), flying an Indian Air Force Hawker Hunter Mk.56A (IAF serial A463) on 4th December 1971. Please reply here so I can get things moving, thank you! ...Dave1185 (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

Please change "workers compensation" under Post-retirement history [1st para.] to "workers' compensation": the apostrophe is required here.

Age

Can someone remove the second "(age 85)" in his infobox

|born= (1923-02-13) February 13, 1923 (age 85)

Medal of Honor?

Should the article mention a Congressional Medal of Honor he got in 1976? See for example URL http://www.nndb.com/honors/056/000043924/ The wiki article lists his other medals. His autobiography mentioned that the award required special action by Congress because the skilled and dangerous testing being honored took place in peacetime. Hcunn (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No, because Yeager did not recieve a CMOH in 1976, but rather a Congressional Silver Medal. Check-Six (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Altitude Milestone

Was Chuck Yeager the first person to enter the stratosphere? That would be a pretty important milestone, it seems. Eebster the Great (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Young Eagles?

I believe that Chuck was a former patron of the Young Eagles, perhaps that could be included. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 04:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Me 262 airframe and the sound barrier

The article states that " Postwar testing, however, determined that the Me-262 would go out of control and break apart well short of Mach 1." However the article on Hans Guido Mutke states the opposite: "A computer based performance analysis of the Me 262, carried out in 1999 at the Munich Technical University, has shown that the Me 262 could exceed Mach 1." Since none of them cite sources I think both opinions should me marked as not validated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolulop (talk • contribs) 23:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the comment since no sources have been cited. Also, such claims belong in the Hans Guido Mutke page. --Korosuke (talk) 06:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Saving another "Evader"

As I recall the incident whereby Yeager "saved" a fellow evader, Yeager ultimately became exhausted by the effort , and gave up the attempt after the two rolled down a steep incline,leaving his colleague by the roadside, to be aided by a passing allied patrol, or to die. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the Yeager biography at present, but remember being puzzled as to why Yeager's actions - his ultimate abandonment of his fellow pilot, in feezing weather - would be constued as meritorious, gaining him the Bronze Star. If possible, it would be helpful if someone with the volume at hand would flesh out the incident, and the basis for the award.Backlashunifrom (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Backlashuniform

The point I believe is that, Yeager managed to drag his poor companion up and down enough slopes that they reached a road. Let's be honest. Just about any one of us would have given up on the unlucky bastard after an hour's worth of dragging. Afterward, we would simply have pushed him off some cliff, convinced that we had done him the greatest service possible in the circumstances and we might well have been right. Yeager doggedly pulled him along until they reached a paved road. His companion certainly did not consider himself abandoned. No dear Backlashunifrom, Yeager did not continue carrying his companion thereafter, but then how could he?. Let's all get over ourselves a little. Soz101 (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Place of Residence

It says near the end of the article that he currently lives with his wife in Oroville but I know for a fact that he lives in Penn Valley, CA. I met him several months ago because he is neighbor's with a man that I work for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakerfan26 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

First to break the Sound Barrier?

Some years ago I was interested in the development of the Messerchmitt 163, the tailless rocket powered interceptor, with an engine burn time of 10 to 15 minutes. In a book on this subject, whose name I cannot now remember, it was stated that during speed test the pilot had got to a speed at which the aircraft began to shake and he had control problems, but had continued to accelerate. After review by the development team they realised he had exceeded the speed of sound, and that the effect on the aircraft was such that a maximun in service speed was imposed. I therefore think Chuck Yeager cannot be said to be the first to break the sound barrier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J Lansdell (talk • contribs) 18:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the lede to read that he was the first. Any other belief is WP:FRINGE unless reliably sourced. Rapier (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It can be said

Chuck Yeager was the first to break the sound barrier.

Grammar

The article reads: "The Ridley/Yeager USAF team achieved Mach 2.44 on December 12, 1953. Shortly after reaching Mach 2.44, he experienced a loss of aerodynamic control due to inertial coupling at approximately 80,000 ft (24,000 m)., Yeager lost control of the X-1A. "

Corrections: 1. The correct term is "inertia coupling" not "inertial coupling". 2. Need to drop the comma after the period.

I suggest changing to: "The Ridley/Yeager USAF team achieved Mach 2.44 on December 12, 1953. Shortly after reaching Mach 2.44, Yeager experienced a loss of aerodynamic control at approximately 80,000 ft (24,000 m) due to inertia coupling, and lost control of the X-1A. "

Mikey (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Post Retirement History inaccuracy

In the paragraph about the 50th anniversary of the historic flight past Mach 1, it contains the following sentence: "Had Yeager gone to the flight surgeon with his broken ribs before the X-1 flight, he would have been grounded and Hoover would have flown the supersonic flight test, with Bud Anderson flying chase."

The inaccuracy is "with Bud Anderson flying chase". According to Yeager's own autobiography, Bud Anderson was not and never was assigned to the project to break the sound barrier let alone the USAAF/USAF Flight Test group in 1947. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.251.24 (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Teach2day, 4 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I just noticed the date of birth above the photo of Chuck Yeager is different than the one actually listed in the article. One is February and one is July. Might want to check and fix.

Teach2day (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Done! Thanks, good catch! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)