Talk:Douglas X-3 Stiletto

Need to clarify the engine spex: AB alone produce 4000pd s.t., or 4000 in AB? (I'd guess in AB...) Might also note, the figs are measured on a static test stand.... Trekphiler 00:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Top Speed

The article doesn't mention this, and I can't cite this, but is it possible that the reason the X-3 didn't manage to go supersonic was that it wasn't area ruled. A quick look at the three view seems to reveal it. LWF 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a good point, and I'm sure it must have contributed. It's not clear from the article whether they still expected it to be capable of supersonic flight with the lower-powered engines they fitted. Mark Grant 03:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I found another online reference which had information on just how underpowered the engines were in comparison to the plans, and added that. Mark Grant 03:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Variants

The article mentions the F-104 as a variant of the X-3. Although the same wing design was used, the F-104 was a completely different aircraft. Even made by a different company. I will not edit the information, as there might be some other relation, which im unaware of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MONDARIZ (talk • contribs) 16:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

F-104

this paragraph dosn't sit right:- "The low aspect ratio, unswept wings were designed for high speed and later the Lockheed design team used data from the X-3 tests for the similar F-104 Starfighter wing design" as Kelly Johnsons team would barely have had time to breath let alone use useful data from the X-3 project.Petebutt (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Steve Pace's X-Fighters: USAF Experimental and Prototype Fighters, XP-59 to YF-23. Oscela, Wisconsin: Motorbooks International, 1991. ISBN 0-87938-540-5, documents on page 130, exactly that. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC).

Serial

It has the number 892 on the tail. Is that a USAF serial? Drutt (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, part of the serial it is 49-2892 which you can see on some X-3 images as 92892. MilborneOne (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not white front fuselage in retirement?

There was only one of these built, and it remains on display in Dayton where I visited it in 1996, and the photo of it in retirement confirms my memory. It seems like the front portion of the fuselage is silvery in appearance, rather than the white paint (with a red X-3 atop it) as it appeared during testing. Why might its stewards change its surface from what it appeared like in the 1950s for display? [signed] FLORIDA BRYAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:1000:4E2:9227:E4FF:FEF0:BBDE (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Really?

This article states that the Bristol 188 was an "aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era" As the Bristol aircraft first flew 10 years after the X-3, not sure you can claim that they are of comparable "era." Similarly, you really can't say that they have much in common in terms of configuration either.