Talk:CF-101 Voodoo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	CF-101 Voodoo is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Aviation WikiPortal

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

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:

'...CF-101 Voodoo was the Canadian designation...'. This seems like an odd way to start the article. Maybe something like "The CF-101 was an interceptor aircraft used by the Canadian Forces in xxxx to yyyy...." and mention later that the aircraft is the same as / equivalent to the F-101. The way it is now seems to place too much emphasis (because it's mentionned first) on the fact that the CF-101 is just a Canadian designation of an American aircraft.

In 'The Decision to Acquire the CF-101'

Use of "Off the record". This seems a bit weird for an encyclopedic article, especially since it is historical. The previous sentences don't really say that there was no bomber threat, so saying that it was recognised, "off the record", seems out of place.
'in February 1959, the Canadian Minister of National Defence publicly". Maybe say who the MND was?

In 'Squadron Operations'

How about listing the location of the squadrons? ie: 416 Squadron (New Brunswick). I know you had listed them in the previous section, but I don't think it would hurt to re-mention them.
'aircraft after only 57 seconds!' This is impressive, but I've never seen an exclamation point used in an encyclopedic article (not that I've read that many). If this is common and accepted, then disregard.

In 'Operation peace wings'

'actually older than the original fleet, but were lower time airframes with updates' I don't understand this part (maybe it's just me). Do you mean the airframes had less (flight) time? Seems like there is a hyphen missing, a spelling mistake, a wrong word, or a grammatical error somewhere.

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)

I really like the changes, especially the lead section. Re: references, I was refering to the lack of '#' or '*' beside the citations, but that's been fixed. I'm still a bit puzzled by the "unofficially the bomber threat was there" thing. Was the Avro not capable/suitable for intercepting bombers? Was this some kind of backroom deal? As a reader, I feel like I'm missing some key piece of info that would tie it all together. --jag123 00:03, 5 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)

[edit] They're the same...

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)

Yes, there is reason for it to be a separate article. While it is the same aircraft, the acquisition of the aircraft was controversial in Canada. Once in service, however, the CF-101 had a unique role and service history in Canada. That would not be done justice to within the scope of the article on the F-101. Sunray 06:42, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so absolutely no difference except that it flew for a different airforce. It's like having separate articles for commercial airliners for each airline they've flown for. I know you like this stuff, but seriously... It's not encyclopedic. Summarize the information and put it in Canadian Air Force and F-101 Voodoo. And please don't say that you can't simply remove a lot of information. This is just plain airforce (not airplane) cruft.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:29, 31 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)

A fine article, most informative and um, encyclopedic... Sunray 09:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not exactly the same

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)