Talk:KAI T-50 Golden Eagle: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:08, 10 May 2013 edit125.82.251.159 (talk) →So South Korea can earn many many money....haha: new section← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:14, 8 October 2024 edit undoFnlayson (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers148,231 edits Remove old external links sections
(40 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{talk header\|search=yes}}		{{talk header\|search=yes}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|
			{{WikiProject Aviation\|B-Class-1=yes <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
	{{WPAVIATION\|class= B
	\|B-Class-1=yes <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
	\|B-Class-2=yes <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->		\|B-Class-2=yes <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
	\|B-Class-3=yes <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->		\|B-Class-3=yes <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
Line 8:		Line 7:
	\|B-Class-5=yes <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->		\|B-Class-5=yes <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
	\|Aircraft=yes }}		\|Aircraft=yes }}
	{{~~WPMILHIST~~\|class= B		{{WikiProject Military history\|class= B
	\|B-Class-1=yes <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->		\|B-Class-1=yes <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
	\|B-Class-2=yes <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->		\|B-Class-2=yes <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
Line 15:		Line 14:
	\|B-Class-5=yes <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->		\|B-Class-5=yes <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
	\|Aviation=yes \|Korean=yes \|US=yes }}		\|Aviation=yes \|Korean=yes \|US=yes }}
	{{WikiProject Korea~~\|class=B~~ \|importance=Mid }}		{{WikiProject Korea\|importance=Mid }}
	}}		}}

			== Yak-130 look-alike ==
	== T-50B is the light attack version? ==
			The T-50 looks suspiciously like the Yak-130/Aermacchi M-346, down to the tiniest details ] (]) 06:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
	http://www.brahmand.com/news/S-Korea-deploys-armed-variant-of-T-50-jet-trainer/6688/3/13.html
	The new aircraft, called T-50B, has been designed “to carry out a lead-in fighter training mission and light attack roles,” the Yonhap news agency reported.

	:What gives? ] (]) 14:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

	== Images as references ==
	Recently ] has been adding a great number of sources. Normally, more sources are helpful, but this has been problematic addition. Many of the additional references come from seemingly inappropriate sources such as blogs, which are to by typically avoided like the plague. Secondly, some sources don't even seem to provide evidence for the statement they've been placed next to, making their addition bewildering and pointless. Random external images that aren't acting as evidence for a statement do not belong in the citations section, if they are to be added they belong in an External Images template (See ] for example). Thirdly, regardless of the belief that an addition is 'correct', this does not justify breaking the ] rule, editors do not just continually revert the edits of multiple other editors on an issue; if this is felt so strongly it is taken to a talkpage for dialogue. Please communicate on this issue of why the image is appropriate where it has been placed. ] (]) 16:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

	:It may be misleading to evaluate the credibility of what supportive evidence images provide for information by the blog nature of the site; observe and analyze the images themselves. I could upload the images on imageshack instead and the verifiability of the pictures taken during ADEX 2011 or other aerospace exhibitions wouldn't have made a difference. The 70th T-50 is a fully operational TA-50 aircraft (as indicated by all the flight instruments that should only be present in an operational aircraft, as opposed to a mock-up, even including a HUD cover that says 'remove before flight') and TA-50 are designated from tail numbers 61 to 82, making the aircraft with tail number 70 the 10th TA-50.

	:Additionally, the images that I myself commit time and effort to diligently appraise the value of before posting are anything but thoughtless random additions; they are purposeful devices of information verification some of which may not have been reported to the press in a written manner, but may still be worth the mention in the article for a legitimate set of reasons (proving that two squadron of TA-50 among planned four are operational as of , for example). ] (]) 19:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

	::Sorry, you cant use images as references it is considered original research and they are not always reliable. ] (]) 19:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

	::: Yes, you can, to some degree. I used tail numbers long time ago (by posting all the pictures of the aircraft with different tail numbers) to prove exactly how many UH/HH-60P existed in ROK armed forces, example. This debate may spur me to post the pictures of all aircraft with tail numbers 61-70 again. ] (]) 02:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
	::::So far, you have been told by three experienced aviation editors, one of which being an administrator, that this method is completely unacceptable as evidence of fleet numbers; and considering you broke the ] rule, I don't think your grasp of policy is sufficient to justify directly countering an administrator's interpretation of the rules as the complete opposite of what is stated. ] (]) 14:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

	:::The difficulty that I'm having with the image can be expressed in this line: "TA-50 are designated from tail numbers 61 to 82, making the aircraft with tail number 70 the 10th TA-50". While you may know that information, and thus can put that image into a context, that information is not presented to the reader by the image, it is just a random plane with a tail number of no explicit significance without outside information from other sources E.G. the information that tail nos. 61-70 are TA-50s. That is the information that should be being cited to here; while an image can be used to verify the existence of an aircraft with that tail number, for example, it isn't evidence that there is a batch of ten TA-50s, thus why is it places as 'evidence' of such an occurence of 10 TA-50s by the position of its placement? It isn't outwardly providing support for the statement, thus it shouldn't be linked there. An External Images box, like the ] article's usage, is more conventional for a "hey I've got an image of the TA-50 mentioned here" type placement. ] (]) 23:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

	:::: There are no pictures yet for tail numbers 66, 68, and 69(how many times do you see specific pics of 34th, 67th, and 156th Typhoon, really?), but if I post the pictures of tail numbers 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, and 70, it can at least be used to prove there are at least seven aircraft in ROKAF, right? ] (]) 02:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

	:::::Not really, no, as we can't tell if they are TA-50s, T-50s, F-50s or any other variant from the external pictures.

	:::::: You can easily tell them apart from their different camouflage paint, if the many years of observation that aircraft numbered 1-50 are T-50 and 51-60 are T-50B (thus aircraft with later numbers being TA-50 or FA-50) still remain unconvincing.
	:::::::That's the problem, where are these batch divisions coming from? They're not given to the reader, he has zero context for putting these images in. It'd be simpler just to cite the source stating these batch divisions, ala the conventional sourcing manner. There's no mention or detail on the finer points of the camouflage in the article either, personal observations just can't stand as objective evidence in this environment - It's the equivilient to the "I'm right and I say so - no proof needed" logic that we specifically built policies for. ] (]) 10:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

	::::::: Then we simply need to describe that the camouflage of T-50 and T-50B are supposed to be white-and-red or black-and-red. And it's easy to know that the currently existing grey-schemed aircraft are TA-50, not FA-50, because there's already a source that says delivery of production model FA-50 won't begin until 2013.

	I'll go write the description for T-50 and T-50's paint schemes. It is quite surprising how such an easily observed characteristic never got mentioned despite the age of this article and the length of time T-50 has been in service.

	::::: And it doesn't prove that there is only ten of them in existence if you were to collect pictures of all 10, as there could be other hypothetical aircraft that were simply missed.

	:::::: We can address that easily by using the 'at least' prefix. 'At least ten TA-50 are in service as of ', etc.
	::::::The problem is, that smacks of ]: We're writing/editing an encyclopedia, not a running commentry. And I don't see it as good practice to adapt sloppy improvised sources, then watering down the writing to correspond. And the argument is redundent when the informaton could be cited properly without resorting to images to begin with. ] (]) 10:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
	::::::: Some degree of recentism is inevitable when detailing the service history of an aircraft which takes substantial time to individually produce. Many incidents of such recentism have been excused in a vast number of aircraft articles due to their usefulness in informing readers the progress of an aircraft's long-lasting production program.

	:::::Traditionally, to prove that 10 TA-10s have been ordered by X, we link to a written source saying exactly how many have been ordered, that's what refs are meant for: Statements of Proof, the origins of information claimed in the article; not associated drip-drabs of related content such as an image of a unit. ] (]) 03:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

	:::::: That may be impossible for some aircraft like LIFT or CSAR helicopters such as HH-60P because they may be considered so minor in strategic value that information pertaining to them may not surface up until too much time has lapsed since the aircraft's induction. Tradition is some times meant to give way to improvisation for more useful scientific benefit. ] (]) 05:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

	:::::::''"until too much time has lapsed"'' There is no rush to cite things properly, we have time to wait for the work to be done properly. More to the point, if information can't be properly cited, it is removed. Jamming extra information and OR'ing it is completely wrong. We can't just craft Original Research on the basis of anybody-who-comes-along's say-so, otherwise the whole concept of ] goes in the bin and this encyclopedia might as well be printed on dirty toilet paper. Improvisation, AKA OR is forbidden by Misplaced Pages policy. You can do it if you want to, just not on this site. ] (]) 10:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

	:::::: We can verify the existence of individual aircraft with their live pictures in flight or showing operational flight instruments, complete with identification number. And as I've proposed above, some recentism is inevitable when detailing the program history of an aircraft which takes a substantial time to complete. ] (]) 11:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
	:::::::But we don't need to verify the existence of an individual aircraft, such a thing isn't practiced on other Aircraft articles and the existence of any TA-50s isn't being contested; what is being contested is how many have been ordered and their batch placement, something which the images do nothing upon and shouldn't be used as references for, it is chalk and cheese. ] (]) 12:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

	:::::::: I know referring to photographs of individual aircraft with distinct identifications is not the most usual method of verifying how many of an aircraft type have so far been produced now, But that doesn't necessarily mean it's not one of the viable ones. If we have legitimate photographs of 10 TA-50s with different ID numbers each, then a very simple scientific case based on legitimized observation could be made that a fleet of at least 10 TA-50s is now active among the planned fleet of 22. ] (]) 13:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
	:::::::::"then a very simple scientific case based on legitimized observation could be made" No, it's a guess. For instance, what if one had crashed, and one of the pictures was that of an attrition replacement for the lost unit? Or if one or more had been pulled in for extensive remodification, and thus had been given a new number sequence as a result, a routine occurance? Or one could have been modified out of its class and completely reclassified as a different variant now. Or one could have been returned to the manufacturer as a testing and demonstration model. All that pictures of ten aircraft with ten numbers prove is that at one point, aircraft with those numbers existed, but that doesn't mean that these existed simontaneously, or that all were put into service (Plenty of aircraft have been made where the first few were sub-standard and used as only for instruction and test purposes), or that renumbering hasn't occured. It is a simplistic guess that doesn't need to happen - I've already checked, we can already cite this fact NORMALLY without having to resort to flushing the rules down the toilet and rely on this amature and inappropriate manner. ] (]) 14:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
	:::::::::It also has another very simple flaw: It relies on a large amount of the faith that the Photographer is wholley correct and accurate. Even if we accept his declarations to God and all creation that he has photographed every single one in service, he may be telling the truth from his perspective, but made an honest mistake and missed one. Does this sound like a professional manner in which to compile encyclopedic information off of? It would be like me grabbing my camera and trying to prove how many 747s British Airways have service by logging the tail numbers of those that visit their maintainence depot over the next two months: I would be telling the whole truth from my perspective, but not every 747 may have flown with me there ready to log them, and not every 747 in the fleet may have visited this base at all. It is a Good Faith addition, but it is a method open to so many flaws, hence why it is simply not used in thhe vast majority of other articles - a snap shot collection can't be taken as evidence of an entire fleet's composition. ] (]) 14:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

	::::::::: I guess one remaining important task is to verify that these TA-50 aircraft came into existence simultaneously relatively recently within a short window of time, and that they are armed (these grey-painted T-50s cannot be attrition replacements for T-50 or T-50B anyway).

	I'll find the means to do that. ] (]) 14:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

	Multiple spotters here have seen more than five TA-50 flying with the 115th squadron in Yecheon AB. Yecheon AB is conveniently located less than an hour of travel by car from my location, so I'm of the mind to obtain images of each of them flying, showing the time and date of the image taken (and the ID of course), if photographing is allowed at the installation.

	http://forum.scramble.nl/viewtopic.php?p=535810

	Will that suffice to you as an evidence that ten (or more) distinct TA-50 aircraft are already flying with ROKAF at this moment? ] (]) 07:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

	:Forums and blogs cant be used they are not reliable sources either. You can take as many images as you like but they still cant be used as it would still be unreliable and original research. ] (]) 08:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

	I'm not suggesting using forums and blogs as the source.

	Then what about videos, exhibiting that the resources have not been tampered with? It's very easy to prove that ten TA-50 exist simultaneously that way. ] (]) 09:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

	:You are clearly being disruptive and edit warring over these sources, you cant use blogs and images as references and to add these back in after they were removed is not the best way forward. You cant use videos either to count aircraft, not sure what the big rush is if it is notable enough then a reliable source will report it in time you just have wait. ] (]) 13:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

	: I'm not using blogs themselves or self-made images as references here (or rather, I don't want to - it's just unavoidable). What I'm referring to are the official displays of T-50 by ''KAI itself'' in official ''KAI booths'' in official and well publicized ''aerospace exhibitions and air shows'' in Korea. There's no other convenient way to bring here the information that were officially, publicly and widely disseminated during these exhibitions and air shows by KAI through means of '' official models, posters, and brochures'' unless I or other editors use multimedia, like videos, photographs, or scans. It's you who started leisurely deleting the references to ''KAI's official information'' without first consulting here the necessary nature of image hosting sites, some of which could be blogs. The blogs and image hosting sites are merely used as portals to store the images taken of KAI's official models, posters, brochures, etc of T-50 and its variants, because otherwise they cannot be brought to Misplaced Pages for examination (hosting the pictures in Misplaced Pages itself is a complex process).

			:Except for the very tiny detail of the T-50 being powered by one more powerful engine, and having the tailpipe in the rear, with afterburner, instead of twin exhausts behind the wings. Honestly, no. It doesn't really look like an F-20 either. - ] (]) 08:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
	I'm open to alternative ways of bringing these exhibition materials to readers' disposal as supplementary resources without hosting them in blogs or image hosting sites. Some of these exhibition materials do give important insight into T-50's development and active service; for example, we already know that F-50 is going to have strengthened wing compared to its other variants, because a Flightglobal article already said so. However, the readers still may want to know more the specificity of the wing's structural improvement, like how really effective the improvement is intended to be. To demonstrate some of F-50's planned improvements to the public, KAI has exhibited a model of F-50 that has three weapons pylons underwing, instead of only two in the A-50 model beside it, which has now transformed into TA-50 and FA-50 in different configurations. Information like this should be attributed to KAI itself, not to the blogs or the image hosting sites, because the exhibition materials that provided the information were produced by KAI, not by the blogs or image hosting sites themselves. ] (]) 14:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
			:Totally different aerodynamics; therefore, T-50 is supersonic capable. It also has a digital FBW system based on Korean developed RTOS( by an established RTOS company in Korea).This is the largest difference from the Yak-130 which does not have such systems. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:: no I think you are wrong, that is another type of aircraft.--] (]) 14:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

			== T-5 Brave Eagle vs XAT-5 Blue Magpie ==
	:I would have thought if it was that notable it would have been published somewhere rather than use display boards and models as a source. I have raised the issue of display board images at ]. Certainly using an image of a model then coming to conclusions about what they show is clearly original research. ] (]) 15:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
			The T-5 Brave Eagle page makes no mention of a rename to Blue Magpie, so I reverted the dubious edit by the IPv6 address. When {{reply-to\|BilCat}} reverted that, he claimed the aircraft had been renamed and the article had a new name, the latter statement is definitely false, and the article itself makes no mention of a rename to Magpie. When I added Dubious and Citation Needed it was reverted along with a personal attack by {{reply-to\|Horse Eye Jack}}. How could there possibly not be a citation needed for this claim? Shouldn’t someone fix, with citations, the T-5 Brave Eagle page before messing with uncited claims about it in this one? ] (]) 15:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
			:Buddy you are either seriously confused or being willfully obtuse... See ]. Your claim of personal attack is also facetious, no such attack was made. ] (]) 16:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
			::More personal attacks, so any argument about the edit history is irrelevant. Your link says “On 24 September 2019, Tsai Ing-wen officially named the new aircraft as "Brave Eagle" during first prototype aircraft roll-out ceremony.”. Sounds pretty recent right? Where’s your citation for the rename back to Blue Magpie in the last 6 days? The rename was TO Brave Eagle, not FROM Brave Eagle. ] (]) 16:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

			:::Yes, the rename was TO Brave Eagle, not FROM Brave Eagle. Which is exactly what the IP changed in the . I think you owe the IP a big apology. Thanks. - ] (]) 23:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
	We should continue our discussion in that noticeboard. I've posted my reply. ] (]) 16:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

			{{Outdent}} It is not really that important to list the name for the XAT-5/T-5 in this T-50 article anyway. ] (]) 17:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
	==Not Israel==
	http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/lieberman-refused-to-have-luggage-checked-at-south-korea-s-airport-1.419230
	During his visit, Lieberman's also surprised his South Korean hosts when he said Israel is still considering purchasing South Korean training planes for the Israeli Air Force. "The option is still open," Lieberman told reporters in Seoul.

			::::Yep. But you two kept renaming it Blue Magpie (which is wrong), started raving about policies (which I am aware of), nevermind the personal attacks (which probably violate policy), and the fact that you’re just trying to save face at this point. Thanks for the intervention {{reply-to\|Fnlayson}}. If you want to argue about what the ] is named, take it over to that page. ] (]) 00:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
	:So you can see that Israel is NOT considering the T-50 anymore. ] (]) 21:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
			:::::Both Bilcat and I have told you exactly how you are mistaken, Bilcat is right too... You do owe the IP an apology. I genuinely don’t think you understand what a personal attack is. I note that you have yet to address your misleading edit summaries, I reproduce it here for your ease of viewing: "um, no there’s not a new article title. It links to Brave Eagle, which makes no reference to Magpie at all. Why are you claiming the inverse? Bring it to the talk page, or write an article about the Blue Magpie yourself.” At the very least you are completely incorrect that the page ] "makes no reference to Magpie at all” which you just blew by in your rush to make a nonsensical point about a rename back to Blue Magpie? Can you maybe explain yourself? ] (]) 08:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

	== T-50 ~~comparison~~ ==		== FA-50 vs. F/A-50 ==
			FA-50 appears to be a widely repeated typo for F/A-50. Is there a type certificate or some other official document that can confirm the designation of this variant? - ] <sub>]</sub><b style="color:#6B8E23">\</b><sup>]</sup> 20:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
	I want to see a good empirical precedence for having no comparison lists for T-50 when they exist for all three of T-50's related aircraft, apparently even after considerable period of time since the supposed conclusion of the discussion pertaining to that. I was unlucky enough to have missed it. I'd appreciate it if someone could provide a link to that discussion here. ] (]) 16:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

			: The manufacturer, Korea Aerospace Industries lists it as FA-50 (light attack aircraft) on its web site currently. ] (]) 20:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
	http://en.wikipedia.org/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon#See_also<br>
	http://en.wikipedia.org/AIDC_F-CK-1_Ching-kuo#See_also<br>
	http://en.wikipedia.org/Mitsubishi_F-2#See_also<br>

			== Possible sales: Ireland ==
	:A new discussion is being held at ] which you are welcome to contribute. ] (]) 16:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
			This section is pure speculation and the reference is to a speculative posting on a discussion board about a presumed need.
			Removed.
			] (]) 17:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

			== Odd assertion in 2nd sentence of 2nd para... ==
	:: See the ] for the agreement to remove the list here. -] (]) 04:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
			What does "The F-50 single-seat multirole fighter variant was considered." mean, please? Thanks ] (]) 09:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

			: It is supposed to mean that KAI had studied a single-seat variant in the past. ] (]) 15:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
	== Phil acquisition source ==
	I post here actual article - - it doesn't mention they signded deal or order planes, but i don't know if such "source" can be used in article, so i leave it in here so everyone knew current status of this purchase. --] (]) 11:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

			== Transition to FA-50 ==
	*Definitely not to be included for use, as it looks more like a procurement push by the PAF, which is a layman term for "Ongoing negotiations". The fact that "Phil officials said that they would like to have two of T/A-50s in country immediately to begin pilot training" is nothing short of telling the whole world that all their S-211s are now out of service and thus cannot be sortied, I also seriously don't think that the Koreans (or KAI for that matter) would specially rush off two aircraft from their assembly line to the PAF when they themselves have got a higher priority/commitment to the ROKAF and/or the TNI-AU since both are already confirmed deals with actual money being allocated to the procurement process. In short, what JDW's correspondent in Manila is getting are nothing but just "noises" from the local politicians, designed to coerce the Koreans in the ongoing negotiation. Note that I have removed the input pending more reports from the official Korean negotiation team, their press release will not lie. --<small>] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:black">]</span></sup></small> 16:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
			Perhaps this article should transition to being primarily about the FA-50 with the T-50 mentioned rather than the opposite, inasmuch as Poland is now purchasing FA-50's to replace Mig-29's (in part, along with F-35's) it is donating to Ukraine? https://wapo.st/3lkWeFa People are going to start searching for FA-50 more frequently than T-50, I expect. ] (]) 18:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
			:The FA-50 is a variant of the T-50, not the other way around. The type was originally designed to be a trainer, only later being considered for a combat role. Besides, a temporary surge in interest in a specific variant is not a good reason to change the scope of the article to said variant. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 00:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
			::In any case the article should be updated with the f50 sales to Poland. ] (]) 11:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

			== Fighting Eagle ==
	:* The entry only said they selected the TA-50. The order part was previously removed by SojerPL. I readded the text in the Op history section and removed the 2 aircraft in 2012 part because of your point and other reasons. Jane's online article is shown in the linked image above if anyone is wondering. -] (]) 17:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
			This name is mentioned in one caption and one source, but not in the body. It seems associated with FA-50 variant? How official is it? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</sub> 03:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

			== A/A missiles not integrated ==
	::Thank you, I can see that the Koreans after all. TBH, I'm not sure why these Pinay editors are so overzealous about the deal when both government are not even in the final negotiation process. ''Quoted from ]: "A long time ago, when the Russians roll out their rockets, the Yanks learnt to not go to '''Defcon 2/3''' until the Russians actually start to fuel their birds. Gentlemen, you don't unzip you fly unless you're ready to f**!"'' --<small>] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:black">]</span></sup></small> 01:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
			Strike the claim about Sidewinder until this is resolved?

			https://defence24.com/armed-forces/air-force/truth-about-the-armament-for-the-polish-fa-50s-commentary
	== So South Korea can earn many many money....haha ==

	~~haha~~] (]) 14:08, 10 ~~May~~ ~~2013~~ (UTC)		] (]) 14:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:14, 8 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the KAI T-50 Golden Eagle article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation / Asian / Korean / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Asian military history task force
	Korean military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Korea Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yak-130 look-alike

The T-50 looks suspiciously like the Yak-130/Aermacchi M-346, down to the tiniest details Santamoly (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Except for the very tiny detail of the T-50 being powered by one more powerful engine, and having the tailpipe in the rear, with afterburner, instead of twin exhausts behind the wings. Honestly, no. It doesn't really look like an F-20 either. - BilCat (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Totally different aerodynamics; therefore, T-50 is supersonic capable. It also has a digital FBW system based on Korean developed RTOS( by an established RTOS company in Korea).This is the largest difference from the Yak-130 which does not have such systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noob2013 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

no I think you are wrong, that is another type of aircraft.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

T-5 Brave Eagle vs XAT-5 Blue Magpie

The T-5 Brave Eagle page makes no mention of a rename to Blue Magpie, so I reverted the dubious edit by the IPv6 address. When @BilCat: reverted that, he claimed the aircraft had been renamed and the article had a new name, the latter statement is definitely false, and the article itself makes no mention of a rename to Magpie. When I added Dubious and Citation Needed it was reverted along with a personal attack by @Horse Eye Jack:. How could there possibly not be a citation needed for this claim? Shouldn’t someone fix, with citations, the T-5 Brave Eagle page before messing with uncited claims about it in this one? Dogshu (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Buddy you are either seriously confused or being willfully obtuse... See AIDC T-5 Brave Eagle#Naming. Your claim of personal attack is also facetious, no such attack was made. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

More personal attacks, so any argument about the edit history is irrelevant. Your link says “On 24 September 2019, Tsai Ing-wen officially named the new aircraft as "Brave Eagle" during first prototype aircraft roll-out ceremony.”. Sounds pretty recent right? Where’s your citation for the rename back to Blue Magpie in the last 6 days? The rename was TO Brave Eagle, not FROM Brave Eagle. Dogshu (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the rename was TO Brave Eagle, not FROM Brave Eagle. Which is exactly what the IP changed in the diff here. I think you owe the IP a big apology. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not really that important to list the name for the XAT-5/T-5 in this T-50 article anyway. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep. But you two kept renaming it Blue Magpie (which is wrong), started raving about policies (which I am aware of), nevermind the personal attacks (which probably violate policy), and the fact that you’re just trying to save face at this point. Thanks for the intervention @Fnlayson:. If you want to argue about what the AIDC T-5 Brave Eagle is named, take it over to that page. Dogshu (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Both Bilcat and I have told you exactly how you are mistaken, Bilcat is right too... You do owe the IP an apology. I genuinely don’t think you understand what a personal attack is. I note that you have yet to address your misleading edit summaries, I reproduce it here for your ease of viewing: "um, no there’s not a new article title. It links to Brave Eagle, which makes no reference to Magpie at all. Why are you claiming the inverse? Bring it to the talk page, or write an article about the Blue Magpie yourself.” At the very least you are completely incorrect that the page AIDC T-5 Brave Eagle "makes no reference to Magpie at all” which you just blew by in your rush to make a nonsensical point about a rename back to Blue Magpie? Can you maybe explain yourself? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

FA-50 vs. F/A-50

FA-50 appears to be a widely repeated typo for F/A-50. Is there a type certificate or some other official document that can confirm the designation of this variant? - ZLEA _T\ 20:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The manufacturer, Korea Aerospace Industries lists it as FA-50 (light attack aircraft) on its web site here currently. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible sales: Ireland

This section is pure speculation and the reference is to a speculative posting on a discussion board about a presumed need. Removed. 78.17.198.80 (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Odd assertion in 2nd sentence of 2nd para...

What does "The F-50 single-seat multirole fighter variant was considered." mean, please? Thanks CharlesSpencer (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It is supposed to mean that KAI had studied a single-seat variant in the past. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Transition to FA-50

Perhaps this article should transition to being primarily about the FA-50 with the T-50 mentioned rather than the opposite, inasmuch as Poland is now purchasing FA-50's to replace Mig-29's (in part, along with F-35's) it is donating to Ukraine? https://wapo.st/3lkWeFa People are going to start searching for FA-50 more frequently than T-50, I expect. Ealtram (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The FA-50 is a variant of the T-50, not the other way around. The type was originally designed to be a trainer, only later being considered for a combat role. Besides, a temporary surge in interest in a specific variant is not a good reason to change the scope of the article to said variant. - ZLEA _T\ 00:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

In any case the article should be updated with the f50 sales to Poland. Aitorbk (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Fighting Eagle

This name is mentioned in one caption and one source, but not in the body. It seems associated with FA-50 variant? How official is it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

A/A missiles not integrated

Strike the claim about Sidewinder until this is resolved?

https://defence24.com/armed-forces/air-force/truth-about-the-armament-for-the-polish-fa-50s-commentary

Hcobb (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Categories: