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

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:19, 12 August 2016 editGreenC bot (talk \| contribs)Bots2,548,645 edits →Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page: spelling: necessaryily -> necessarily← 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
(32 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{talk header}}		{{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 ==
	==Not Israel==
			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.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.

⚫	~~:So you can see that Israel is NOT considering the T-50 anymore.~~ ] (]) 21:00, 17 ~~March~~ ~~2012~~ (UTC)

⚫	== T-50 ~~comparison~~ ==
	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)

	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>

	:A new discussion is being held at ] which you are welcome to contribute. ] (]) 16:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

	:: See the ] for the agreement to remove the list here. -] (]) 04:03, 8 May 2013 (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)

	*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)

	:* 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)

	::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)

			: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)
	== Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page ==
			: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 ==
	Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
			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)
	Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Misplaced Pages.
			: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)
	This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
			::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)
	If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the ].
	If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the ].
	If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the ].
	When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
	The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
	Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

			:::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)
	'''Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:'''

			{{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)
	*<nowiki>http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/t-50/</nowiki>
	*:''Triggered by <code>\bairforce-technology\.com\b</code> on the local blacklist''

			::::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)
	If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact ] and ask him to program me with more info.
			:::::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)

		⚫	== FA-50 vs. F/A-50 ==
	From your friendly hard working bot.—] ]<sub style="margin-left:-6.1ex;color:green;font-family:arnprior">Online</sub> 13:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
			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)

			: The manufacturer, Korea Aerospace Industries lists it as FA-50 (light attack aircraft) on its web site currently. ] (]) 20:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
	{{done\|Resolved}} This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—] ]<sub style="margin-left:-5.8ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">Online</sub> 20:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

	== ~~External~~ ~~links~~ ~~modified~~ ==		== 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.
			] (]) 17:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

			== Odd assertion in 2nd sentence of 2nd para... ==
	Hello fellow Wikipedians,
			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)
	I have just added archive links to {{plural:1\|one external link\|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx\|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx\|nobots\|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
	*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110514083748/http://www.aviaciontotal.cl:80/2011/03/interes-de-espana-en-el-entrenador-kai-t-50/ to http://www.aviaciontotal.cl/2011/03/interes-de-espana-en-el-entrenador-kai-t-50

			== Transition to FA-50 ==
	When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
			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 ==
	{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}
			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 ==
	Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 06:06, 12 January 2016 (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
	== F-20 Tigershark lineage ==

		⚫	] (]) 14:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
	The aircraft is not largely derived from the F-16, but rather from the F-20. The only design component in common with the F-16 is the wing. For anyone at all familiar with of the 70s and 80s, this design's origins in the F-20 are fairly obvious. Nearly the entire aircraft, from the engine inlets, the curve and geometry of the jet inlets, the tailplane, the landing gear, etc, is identical to the F-20. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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: