Talk:KAI T-50 Golden Eagle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cleanup

Grammar could be tightened just a bit. Expansion would be nice, too... - Aerobird 02:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up considerably. Expansion would still be nice. :-) - Aerobird 03:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

How should I further expand it? Thanks (Wikimachine 05:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

Grammar

The aircraft can carry up to two pilots, and the high amount canopy and the tandem seating allow the pilots superior visibility, vital to successfuly locking onto enemy targets.

What exactly is "high amount canopy" supposed to mean? High-mounted canopy? Even that doesn't mean much. I want to clean this up, but as I am unsure of the origianl intent, I am waiting. --BillCJ 19:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It was supposed to be high-mounted canopy. Please go ahead & copy edit as much as you want. (Wikimachine 22:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

OK, thanks. That's what I thought it was supposed to be, but wasn't certain. --BillCJ 23:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

Could I ask anyone why some numbers on the statistics were deleted? (Wikimachine 23:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

Are you referring to this? A range given in feet smells of rat to me, and I wasn't too sure about a climb rate of 27,000 feet per minute...perhaps intial climb rate, but what's the sustained value? - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 01:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No idea. I gathered data from 2 ~ 3 sites at the external links (& possibly references) that gave list of stats. (Wikimachine 02:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

Measurement System

Shouldn't this article use metric as its 'main' measurement and imperial as the 'other' measurement system? It is (primarily) a South Korean aircraft and the measurement system in Korea is metric. Semi-Lobster (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably. KAI does list US Customary units first here. That could due to tie-in with Lockheed Martin. Or it may not mean anything. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I was just curious if there was an over-arching Wikipedia aviation policy on this or not, it would certainly make sense if there was. Semi-Lobster (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the nation of origin's system of units is generally used like with the WP:ENGVAR, etc on spelling. But exceptions exist. For example the Concorde article uses Imperial units, since it was designed in them before the UK went metric officially. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I thought so. So would anybody be against a quick switch or do you think this needs to be discussed some more? I know its a minor thing but it would make sense to switch the measurements, atleast for precedent's sake. Semi-Lobster (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of a reason to make an exception here. The Specs table can be fixed by {{aircraft specifications -> {{aircraft specifications/switch. The others will have to be switched manually. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Semi-Lobster (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

T-50 Golden Eagle is a joint venture

The main article implies that the T-50 is an aircraft model indiginous to South Korea. Actually this model is constructed jointly between Lockheed Martin and the KIA. The link I have given is Lockheed Martin's online brochure page for the T-50 from their corporate press kit section of their website. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/corporate/press-kit/T-50-Brochure.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.214.225 (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Golden Eagle is produced in South Korea. The brochure says it was developed jointly by KAI and LM. Support and maintenance are also mentioned but nothing about joint construction/manufacture as you claim. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There is two projects, one is joint-venture for selling oversea markets and other is to develop trainer for Korean airforce with support of Lockheed Martin.--Korsentry 00:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Calling a black spade a kettle?

Why do we call this plane a trainer? It has full-blown radar and the same type of single jet engine is found in the swedish Jas-39 Gripen fighter jet, the airframe size is also similar. The use of afterburner makes it a high-cost airplane, which is against any trainer use logic. This plane either makes no sense or it is actually a light fighter-bomber with a trainer excuse! 82.131.210.162 (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We call it what the manufacturer(s) and customers designate it. The main version is intended for training. Some trainer aircraft carry weapons for practice and there's an attack version (A-50) too. It uses the F/A-18's F404 engine. The Gripen's RM12 engine is a derivative of the F404. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Fnlayson. the T-50 is what is called a "Lead-In FighterTrainer" (LIFT), and is intended to mimic high-performance fighters without the higher cost of aircraft like the F-16. THe F404 eninge is comparatively economical, though even I thought it was probably too big an engine for the role. However, the A-50 variant is intended to be a lower-cost fighter, so it does make sense. Alos, the T-50 is designed to be a replaces ment for the T-38, as both are supersonic. Remember that the F-5 is a minumu-change variant of the T-38, but that didn't make the T-38 any less of a trainer. Most advanced trainers nowadays are high subsonic, like the Hawk and Alpha Jet. The EADS Mako/HEAT is also supersonic, and it uses the F414, a more powerful derivitive of the F404. - BillCJ (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur with previous posts. You cannot take a 4.5th generation fighter with Mach 2 capability and compare it to a trainer with limited combat capabilities. There have been a lot of supersonic trainers lately. The T-50 may have a lot of potential as a cheap alernative to dedicated fighter planes, but it's not in the same class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avmarle (talk • contribs) 09:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't completely concur with the points raised in the above posts anymore, as it has been more than two years since the points have been made, with a lot of developmental changes in the aircraft on the way, of which we've been better informed about since then. We were informed about what radar FA-50 is going to use, and we know better now of what A-50 is eventually going to equip as its weapons. Transformation of A-50 (previous designation) to FA-50 (new designation) will include BVR capability that is augmented by a modern radar which is even used as interim upgrades for F-16.

If you disagree with the contradictions I've made, point out what exactly the 'limited combat capabilities' of T-50's variants are, bring here credible evidences that oppose the official claims made by KAI about A-50's potential to be more than cheap alternative to dedicated fighter planes, and how those limited combat capabilities make the T-50 variants incomparable to all variants of Gripen, which you claim are '4.5th' generation fighters. the South African air force refers to Gripen A/B as 'air defense fighters' with no true 4th-generation multirole capability yet, and only Gripen C/D as 4th generation fighters. Give your best accounts of how 'they are not in the same class'.

Furthermore, do not underestimate the ability of South Korea to produce aircraft that's more than a cheap alternative to dedicated fighter planes, compared to India, China, or Sweden. Two decades of South Korean experience in producing various core components of KF-16 and F-15K, as well as T-50 and its variants' prototypes, were extensive and well accumulated. Do not be so quick to assume that KAI is lying when it claims it would transform T-50 into a capable fighter aircraft with weapons such as AMRAAM, Popeye, JDAM, electronic warfare pods, and advanced targeting pods, quite comparable to aircraft of those three aforementioned countries, just because it's the first dedicated jet aircraft being produced by Korea. Desagwan (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I called the Gripen a 4.5th generation fighter because that is how it is listed here on Wikipedia. Incidentally, being multirole has nothing to do with being 4th or 4.5th generation. I would also ask you kindly not to put words in my mouth. I never said that KAI was lying. For that matter I never even mentioned any countries.

On the T-50 page only the original T-50 2-seater is described in any detail. The version that might be compared with a dedicated fighter plane is the FA-50 which is only mentioned as being in developement. If you have an update on that, please add it to the page. As to performance differences, I think a 30 percent increase in top-speed is rather significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avmarle (talk • contribs) 16:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Gripen NG is not the only aircraft of the Gripen family. It doesn't even compose the majority, and it is not the standard of the Gripen family.

I have a separate suggestion: You should make a separate article for the Gripen NG, if you already have enough information to put in there. Mig-29K and Mig-35 have separate pages too from the Mig-29. It can help clearly distinguish Gripen NG from the original Gripens.

The weapons growth capability of A-50, the previous model to FA-50, is mentioned here:

http://img.blog.yahoo.co.kr/ybi/1/13/88/chongchol74/folder/250/img_250_6146_5?1218544616.jpg

It's already included as inline citations in the page. I assumed you already read it.

See the pictures in this link also: http://blog.naver.com/5thsun?Redirect=Log&logNo=130071452690

The EL/M-2032 radar that KAI decided to use as the base of FA-50's radar is the same radar that equip Block 52+ variants of the F-16 series. It allows integration with BVR weapons (Sparrow, AMRAAM, Popeeye, SLAM-ER) and precision-guided munitions such as JDAM and laser-guided bombs. KAI is already done modifying the airframe to accommodate the new radar, as shown in the first picture, and in the second picture you can observe the subsequent increase in weapon selection from the baseline A-50 on the right to the new FA-50 on the left. The models' suggestion of FA-50's eventual capability is in alignment with what was already suggested on that illustration of weapons growth capability of A-50.

Nothing makes Gripen any less capable if it's compared to the FA-50. It doesn't even describe which one is necessarily better or worse. I'm just linking other articles to T-50 article to introduce T-50 as both trainer and multirole fighter family. Among the lightest multirole fighters, we have Gripen (not just the NG, but the whole Gripen family), Tejas, and J-17, and also the F-16, F-2, and F-CK-1 Ching-kuo, which are already linked in the 'Related Development' section. At the same time, T-50 is also introduced to many of the trainers in the market. Desagwan (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Introducing the T-50 family

I contend that, after more than a decade of continuous development and eight years of flight, variants of T-50 slowly began to include multirole supersonic fighters with BVR engagement capability. It would be a misconception if the better augmented A-50 and FA-50 are still compared only to trainers just because they are on the same article as the trainer T-50. There's also the issue of not all Gripen variants being uniformly better than all T-50 variants. Gripen B, for example, still lack a full-fledged 4th-generation multirole capablity until they are modified to Gripen D (source: http://www.af.mil.za/equip/aircraft/Gripen.htm). I don't know what exact characteristics would make A-50 incomparable to Gripen B, and FA-50 incomparable to Gripen D, in roles and capability. Someone could better educate me on this issue, but my preliminary suggestion for now is that, we include both trainers and multirole fighters on the list of comparable aircraft of T-50. That way people can know that T-50 family of aircraft can be compared to both trainers and multirole fighters, according to major variants. Exclusive fighters such as Gripen are already compared only to true fighters in their respective articles, so people would understand the difference between T-50 and other fighters like Gripen, in terms of the niches they occupy, when they read the articles (T-50 niche is for both trainers and fighters, Gripen for fighters).

I'll repeat my opinion for further clarity; there's no doubt that one variant of T-50 is primarily a trainer. But there's another variant that's a multirole fighter also. So I suggest we connect aircraft of both types from the T-50 article, to better introduce the whole family.Desagwan (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

In the case of the FA-50 multi-role fighter, I think we are all just waiting for a mock-up or a flight test before any tackles the section further. Also its In my opinion that once the FA-50 project is closer to completion that the aircraft have a completely separate page. Semi-Lobster (talk) 05:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

We'll link FA-50 to T-50 until it gets a separate article. Prototypes of FA-50 had already flown many years before known as the A-50, redesignated as TA-50, and there's already a cited diagram in the article made by KAI that shows what a fully augmented A-50 can carry. A-50 might have BVR capabilities to train pilots on BVR combat (although not as full-fledged as FA-50), and once again, not all variants of some fighters like Gripen are truly multirole capable either; multirole capability depends on variants of those fighters also, just like T-50. Desagwan (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

T-50B is the light attack version?

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? Hcobb (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Images as references

Recently User:Desagwan 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 AgustaWestland Apache for example). Thirdly, regardless of the belief that an addition is 'correct', this does not justify breaking the WP:3RR 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. Kyteto (talk) 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 [insert date here], for example). Desagwan (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you cant use images as references it is considered original research and they are not always reliable. MilborneOne (talk) 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. Desagwan (talk) 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 WP:3RR 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. Kyteto (talk) 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 AgustaWestland Apache article's usage, is more conventional for a "hey I've got an image of the TA-50 mentioned here" type placement. Kyteto (talk) 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? Desagwan (talk) 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. Kyteto (talk) 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 [insert date here]', etc.

The problem is, that smacks of WP:Recentism: 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. Kyteto (talk) 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. Kyteto (talk) 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. Desagwan (talk) 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 WP:V goes in the bin and this encyclopedia might as well be printed on dirty toilet paper. Improvisation, AKA OR is forbidden by Wikipedia policy. You can do it if you want to, just not on this site. Kyteto (talk) 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. Desagwan (talk) 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. Kyteto (talk) 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. Desagwan (talk) 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. Kyteto (talk) 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. Kyteto (talk) 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. Desagwan (talk) 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? Desagwan (talk) 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. MilborneOne (talk) 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. Desagwan (talk) 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. MilborneOne (talk) 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 Wikipedia for examination (hosting the pictures in Wikipedia itself is a complex process).

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. Desagwan (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Images of display boards. Certainly using an image of a model then coming to conclusions about what they show is clearly original research. MilborneOne (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

We should continue our discussion in that noticeboard. I've posted my reply. Desagwan (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2011 (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.

So you can see that Israel is NOT considering the T-50 anymore. Hcobb (talk) 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. Desagwan (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon#See_also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDC_F-CK-1_Ching-kuo#See_also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_F-2#See_also

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

See the archived discussion there for the agreement to remove the list here. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Phil acquisition source

I post here actual article - link to 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. --SojerPL (talk) 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. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 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. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, I can see that the Koreans didn't lie 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 Crimson Tide: "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***!" --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 01:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. 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 blacklist request page. 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 request page on meta. 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.

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

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/t-50/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)