Jump to content

Talk:Lockheed Martin RQ-3 DarkStar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photographs

[edit]

I added photographs of the RQ-3A Dark Star currently on display at the Museum of Flight in Seattle, WA, USA. I also added information from the Museum's display information to the article. --JimCollaborator 06:12, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Another picture

[edit]
RQ-3A Dark Star on display at Museum

Merge

[edit]

It makes sense to merge this page with DarkStar Tier III-. But this page would benefit from being made easier to find; I wrote the aforementioned article because I couldn't find this article. The public-domain DFRC site linked from the DarkStar Tier III- page could provide plenty of material for the merger. Willy Logan 06:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you can say that. This page is listed on all of the requisites. And to conform with standards, the other page would have to be merged into this one, not vice versa. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was searching for "DarkStar" without the space and "DarkStar Tier III-", neither of which had the aircraft yet. Oh well. They do now. Feel free to go ahead with the merger whenever you want. Willy Logan 16:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Polecat reference

[edit]

I've removed the reference to the Lockheed Martin Polecat being a mature version of this aircraft, after checking and finding that it is a very different design. Polecat is a twin engine, swept wing and designed very much like a miniature B-2. Dark Star is single engined and straightwinged. Development of Polecat didn't begin until mid-2004, after the "mature" RQ-3 was supposed to have been flown in Iraq. Akradecki 13:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Aerodynamic instability?

[edit]

It mentions that it was cancelled partially because it was aerodynamically unstable. This doesn't make much sense to me, as many modern aircraft are specifically unstable to aid in manuevering.

There's good instability and then there's bad instability. Yes, instability is designed in for a number of different purposes (the F-117 is probably the most extreme example), but it is compensated for by the fly-by-wire software. However, there's a limit to what a computer system can ideally correct for (or, at least, correct for within a specific budget!). Akradecki 23:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


DarkStar was statically unstable by design. It used redundant flight control computers to achieve flight stability. The pitch angle was tightly controlled to stay within the controllable region of flight.

Also, it was not a the "Lockheed" Darkstar nor was Boeing a subcontractor. Boeing and Lockheed had a 50/50 relationship on the DARPA program which sometimes created difficulty in reaching important decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.188.207 (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

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 10:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the Crash?!

[edit]

This article mentions that the RQ-3 was niknamed dark spot "in light of its poor performanceafter a crash. Of course it had bad performanceafter a crash-it crashed, didn't it? Is this a typo, or was it actually called dark spot after a crash? It was called "dark spot" after the mark it left in the desert when it crashed and burned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.4.226 (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use in Fictional Material

[edit]

The Darkstar was used extensively in Tom Clancy's war novel The Bear and the Dragon. It was used to monitor and observe the advance of the Chinese. I don't know if this should be included in the main article or not--probably not--but I thought it was at least worth mentioning. Minizilla (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, it was. we can probably stick it in there. I happen to have a copy right next to me anywasys... -- Aunva6talk - contribs 05:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lockheed Martin Article References

[edit]

The article is called "Lockheed Martin RQ-3 DarkStar" but no where in the article is Lockheed Martin ever mentioned. That's just weird.23.16.152.103 (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)BeeCier[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lockheed Martin RQ-3 DarkStar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_Martin_RQ-3_DarkStar&oldid=1203731273"