Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

Should YF-22 crash be moved to YF-22 article?

Given that YF-22 has its own article, should the crash mentioned here be moved there as well? Steve7c8 (talk) 06:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't make a difference much to me. I think a brief mention is germane to this article, and perhaps a bit broader explanation over there, but don't see that it hurts either way. Zaereth (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I moved the entry to Lockheed YF-22#Accidents a week or so ago, FYI. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Tuning the lead

I noticed that the lead has been tuned, but the second paragraph ends with this phrase "unmatched by any known or projected fighter, USAF officials said in 2009." I find the placement to be rather awkward and perhaps somewhat promotional. While the Su-57 and J-20 probably won't match the F-22 as a system, I still think that line sounds off and perhaps it would be better to remove it, especially since it was stated 10 years ago. Steve7c8 (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I did that tuning; this change sounds good to me. I'll go ahead and remove that clause. PRRfan (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Is thrust vectoring worth mentioning in the Origins section?

I've tuned the Origins section to add some important background information on the ATF development process. At the same time, I feel that it's unnecessary to mention thrust vectoring in the high level summary of the design history, so I removed it. Does anyone feel strongly otherwise? Steve7c8 (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I added a mention to thrust vectoring in the following paragraph, as it's a bit more relevant when comparing the YF-23 and YF-22. Steve7c8 (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This was a great addition, I found this information fascinating. Thank you Steve7c8, keep up the great work --TomaHawk61 (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Some ATF history in Origins

I just finished adding some ATF development history in the Origin section. I'm not sure if the information is too much for this article and perhaps should go into the dedicated ATF article. Does the current writing look concise and high-level enough? Steve7c8 (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Source that states hadrpoints can hold 5,000 lbs is incorrect

This article states that the F-22's hardpoints can hold up to 5,000 pounds. However, it also says it can carry 600-gallon drop tanks. 600 gallons is over 5,000 pounds, and then there is weight of the actual drop tank itself without the fuel; I don't know where you can find a correct source but I know the one used is incorrect.2601:245:C102:C0B0:0:0:0:EF02 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I've seen multiple sources that say the exact same thing. These numbers are most likely round figures and not necessarily accurate, because most of the true specs are still classified. There are also a number of other factors involved. 600 gallons of JP4 is about 5300 lbs., but there is no requirement that it be filled all the way. The 5000 lbs. rating (on the ground) is also for 3.5 Gs in the air, so the true holding-capacity is many times the max-rated loading capacity. The max-rated load itself is typically much less than the true breaking-load, to leave a margin of error. But all we can do is go by what the reliable, non-classified sources say, and 5000 lbs. for a 600 gallon tank is what they say. Zaereth (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I take that back. My math was off. 600 gallons of JP4 is about 4100 lbs., so this is all really moot. Zaereth (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)