Jump to content

Talk:Albert Scott Crossfield

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

yeager

[edit]

In RE: Yeager commenting on the death: I found no media references that Crossfield said anything to the media about Yeager's coming off the runway in 2003. That may not mean much. The biggest story I saw was 198 words (AP regional wire, 10/2/03), very small; and the subject is minor enough that likely no reporter would think it worthwhile to get comment from anyone else. In short, we don't know what Crossfield said about Yeager's accident, if anything, because likely no reporter called him. Crossfield's death, on the other hand, is a big deal, and it's only natural to expect that reporters pursued Yeager (rather than the other way around) as a former coworker. --Thatnewguy 01:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This bio is almost completely a verbatim copy of the Edwards AFB bio from USAF (not NASA, as the attribution claims.) Is that kosher? Hmmm. -N328KF 19:04, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Some more background here. I took some from the awards, but haven't played with the rest. This is also marked part two of two. http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=bd026744-a86c-42e0-ae69-9ace738d3567 --Thatnewguy 13:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Date of Death

[edit]

According to this AP story, the crash was on Wednesday April 19th, but the body wasn't discovered until the Thursday April 20th.Blackeagle 18:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't mind hearing what type of plane it was that he crashed, if you can find it Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 19:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Type aircraft

[edit]

I knew him slightly. He owned a Cessna 206 last I heard. B Tillman

FAA Registry N-Number Inquiry Results

N6579X is Assigned


Aircraft Description


Serial Number 21057579
Type Registration Individual
Manufacturer Name CESSNA
Certificate Issue Date 12/11/1989
Model 210A
Status Valid
Type Aircraft Fixed Wing Single-Engine
Type Engine Reciprocating
Pending Number Change None
Dealer No
Date Change Authorized None
Mode S Code 52125144
MFR Year 1960
Fractional Owner NO

Registered Owner


Name CROSSFIELD A SCOTT
Street 12100 THOROUGHBRED RD
City HERNDON State VIRGINIA Zip Code 20171-2009
County FAIRFAX
Country UNITED STATES

Airworthiness


Engine Manufacturer CONT MOTOR
Classification Standard
Engine Model I0-470 SERIES
Category A/W
Date 12/06/1960

Scott Wilson

[edit]

Link to Scott Wilson goes to the wrong Scott Wilson (a judge, not an actor). I'm going to disable the link for lack of a proper stub to go to. --Thatnewguy 19:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

[edit]

I moved it back to its original name. You just now decided to move the article, after it's had this name for over a year? Anyhow, there are tens of thousands of Google references to "A. Scott Crossfield," and many articles here had him referenced as such within the article itself (not referring to the links.) Also, that's how he's officially cited in many cases. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no wish to step on anyone's toes by making a name change... But I think it would be sensible to make it clear in the page's first paragraph that Albert Scott Crossfield is generally referred to as Scott Crossfield and that he used the name Scott instead of Albert. The two NASA web pages linked below both make it clear he was known as Scott Crossfield as does his charitable foundation which is called the 'Scott Crossfield Foundation'. I'm not suggesting a page name change to 'Scott Crossfield' just that it should be made clear up front that he is best known by that name.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/improvingflight/crossfield.html
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/Biographies/Pilots/bd-dfrc-p021.html
http://www.scottcrossfieldfoundation.org
HTH. Mattstan 2014-11-13 15:56:32 UTC

Scott Flew a Cessna 210A

[edit]

FAA registry number was N6579X. Info on the aircraft is available on the FAA web site at: <http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/nnumsql.asp?NNumbertxt=6579X>

Skeet Shooter 17:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral Flyover Made By F/A-18s Not F-22s

[edit]

Scott's funeral at Arlington included a flyover/missing man formation by Navy F/A-18s, not Air Force F-22s as was posted. Reference <http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/ascrossfield.htm>

I've held off editing the article to reflect F/A-18s instead of F-22s until I could find additional web references, but I have been unable to find any attribution for the flyover other than the Esquire article. I am 100% certain that F/A-18s performed the flyover as I've seen the USAF video of the funeral and my father had lunch with the F/A-18 pilots. But I'm trying to follow the spirit of Wiki...

Skeet Shooter 04:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Skeet Shooter that F/A-18s would be the most logical aircraft for any flyover of a deceased naval aviator's funeral. Something about the airliner flying over in a slight bank so the passengers could see sounds made up. If indeed the flyover crossed a runway departure corridor, I'm pretty sure that the Air Traffic Control would have prevented an airliner from taking off until the Navy jets were clear, since the missing man formation involves one aircraft climbing above and away from the others. Unless anyone else has any objections I'm going to update the info about the aircraft and remove the reference to an airliner over the missing man formation on 14 Feb, 2007. Anynobody 04:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant Feb 4th not 14th, sorry about any confusion. Anynobody 23:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott An Astronaut?

[edit]

Could someone post a reference to Scott receiving astronaut wings? I noticed the page was changed to list him as a USAF astronaut. Although Scott had many outstanding accomplishments, I didn't think he passed the 50 mile limit needed to receive astronaut wings. Skeet Shooter 21:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I did a quick search but found only the following article which states that three NASA test pilots (Bill Dana, Jack McKay, and Joe Walker) were awarded astronaut wings for flying the X-15 above 50 miles. Skeet Shooter 03:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Talk page for Astronauts, the definition of "astronaut" is in a state of flux. I had assumed that to be a USAF astronaut, one would require USAF astronaut wings, but that may not be the case, at least per the Wiki definition. Since Scott trained to be an astronaut, he meets the definition of astronaut on the current Wiki page. Therefore, I retract my comment. Skeet Shooter (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you read Scott's bio, he flew X-15 acceptance tests which were less than 1/2 full performance and altitude. His in-person talk (where I am where he once worked) was quite professional (he showed his flight envelope performance data on various aircraft). Nice guy. A test pilot's test pilot. 143.232.210.38 (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was Scott's bio that prompted my question. I couldn't find where he ever claimed the title astronaut. In several places (e.g. p. 284) he expressed exasperation at receiving undue credit and titles. But I agree with the Wiki definition of astronaut, and Scott is correctly listed as one. Scott was indeed a fine man and gifted engineer/pilot. Skeet Shooter (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the title of astronaut was removed from Scott's wiki article due to a NASA web page which lists him as a test pilot rather than an astronaut. While that is certainly true, how do we deal with the inconsistency between this change and the Wiki definition of astronaut? According to this Wiki article, an astronaut or cosmonaut is a person trained by a human spaceflight program to command, pilot, or serve as a crew member of a spacecraft. By that definition, Scott is an astronaut since he was selected for and trained with the Man In Space Soonest group in 1957. Skeet Shooter (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Farcross#Albert_Scott_Crossfield where his daughter says he was never an astronaut. - Ahunt (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see the problem here - but is there no Wikipedia precedent to this abstract situation where a person's technical job description within their industry does not match a more common, non-technical, definition of their job? Quaeler (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, but in this case two or more reliable sources appear to disagree. NASA's definition of astronaut excludes some trainees such as Scott Crossfield while the popular definition from dictionaries includes them. WP:UNDUE states "the minority view may (and usually should) be described" so perhaps both viewpoints should be mentioned? Skeet Shooter (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This issue affects other Wiki articles such as Robert Henry Lawrence, Jr., Richard E. Lawyer, Albert H. Crews, etc. These individuals trained as astronauts but for one reason or another did not get to fly reach space. NASA does not list them as astronauts but Wiki does. Skeet Shooter (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting.. i would vote for having their info box title reflect their technical label (like 'Test Pilot' in the case of Mr. Crossfield), and then a small chunk of verbiage in each article (even a template) describing the difference between the wiki definition on the technical definition. Quaeler (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


The web page has been saved by the Internet Archive. Please consider linking to an appropriate archived version: [1]. --Stwalkerbot 21:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Now linked to http://web.archive.org/web/20061009111238/http://www.edwards.af.mil/history/docs_html/people/pilot_crossfield.html --rogerd 23:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Yeager?

[edit]

This article has zero mentions of Yeager, and they were direct rivals. 65.166.89.2 (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing this guy to Yeager is like comparing Weird Al Yankovic to Mozart ! This is the guy who got an X15 and only went 1,900mph, this is a guy who was killed by adverse weather conditions FFS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.30.192.106 (talk) 08:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Crossfield, as the manufacturer's test pilot, was 'selected out' of the X-15 programme by project manager Paul Bikle once he'd proved the aircraft (Michelle Evans, The X-15 Rocket Plane: Flying the First Wings Into Space, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London, 2013, ISBN 978-0-8032-2840-5, p.30), but Yeager was rejected outright. 'Chuck was the commandant of the air force's test pilot school at Edwards... Milt Thompson [NASA X-15 pilot] remembered, "Yeager was pressuring Bikle for years to try and get on [the X-15]... Bikle was a very pragmatic person and he wasn't about to do anything stupid just to satisfy someone's desire. He looked at it and asked Yeager, 'What are we going to get out of it?' In Yeager's case, there really wasn't much he had to offer." ' (Evans, op. cit., p.218.) It was an engineering task, with every flight made to an exact profile for an exact purpose, and Yeager was not felt to have what you might call the right stuff (to coin a phrase) for the job. Such as a college degree and a proper attitude. 'Because of this rejection, Chuck launched his own program to acquire a rocket plane for his school. This idea culminated in mounting a rocket in a pod above the tail of a modified F-104 Starfighter, redesignating the vehicle as the NF-104... On 10 December 1963, in an attempt at an altitude record in the plane, Yeager lost control and had to eject. The NF-104 destroyed itself on impact as Yeager floated down on his parachute, a bloody mess after being hit by the separating ejection seat.' (Evans, op.cit., pp.218-9.) Yeager's last previous rocket flight, in the X1A on 12 December 1953, made simply as a spoiler to break Crossfield's Mach 2 mark, had also resulted in loss of control, though that time he recovered. You can see why Bikle didn't want Yeager near the precious X-15. Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Albert Scott Crossfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Actual speed of first Mach 2 flight

[edit]

The link in the citation is broken and the official report of this on the NASA website cites a speed of "over 1320 mph". I think in this instance giving an exact speed which is non corroborated is less helpful. Also citing an exacte Mach speed is false information as the speed of sound changes with both altitude and temperature and whilst the margin of error means we know he broke mach 2 there is absolutely no way to know his exact speed in Mach. I would suggest rewording and including a the nasa source. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/Biographies/Pilots/bd-dfrc-p021.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.50.213 (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Albert Scott Crossfield. 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) 02:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Albert Scott Crossfield. 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) 04:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albert_Scott_Crossfield&oldid=1206831447"