| Revision as of 14:26, 3 April 2011 editHcobb (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers14,752 edits →T-50B is the light attack version?: 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, Rollbackers148,263 edits Remove old external links sections | ||
| (79 intermediate revisions by 27 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. --> | |||
| {{WikiProject Korea|class=C |importance=Mid }} | |||
| |B-Class-2=yes <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> | |||
| {{WPAVIATION|class=C | |||
| <!-- |
|B-Class-3=yes <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> | ||
| |B-Class-4=yes <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> | |||
| |B-Class-1=no | |||
| <!-- |
|B-Class-5=yes <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> | ||
| |B-Class-2=yes | |||
| <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> | |||
| |B-Class-3=yes | |||
| <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> | |||
| |B-Class-4=yes | |||
| <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> | |||
| |B-Class-5=yes | |||
| |Aircraft=yes }} | |Aircraft=yes }} | ||
| {{ |
{{WikiProject Military history|class= B | ||
| <!-- 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-1=no | |||
| <!-- |
|B-Class-3=yes <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> | ||
| |B-Class-4=yes <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> | |||
| |B-Class-2=yes | |||
| <!-- |
|B-Class-5=yes <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> | ||
| |B-Class-3=yes | |||
| <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> | |||
| |B-Class-4=yes | |||
| <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> | |||
| |B-Class-5=yes | |||
| |Aviation=yes |Korean=yes |US=yes }} | |Aviation=yes |Korean=yes |US=yes }} | ||
| {{WikiProject Korea|importance=Mid }} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Yak-130 look-alike == | |||
| ==Cleanup== | |||
| The T-50 looks suspiciously like the Yak-130/Aermacchi M-346, down to the tiniest details ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 08:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Grammar could be tightened just a bit. Expansion would be nice, too... - ] 02:38, 7 March 2006 (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--> | |||
| :I've cleaned it up considerably. Expansion would still be nice. :-) - ] 03:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: no I think you are wrong, that is another type of aircraft.--] (]) 14:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::How should I further expand it? Thanks (] 05:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| == T-5 Brave Eagle vs XAT-5 Blue Magpie == | |||
| ==Grammar== | |||
| 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) | |||
| :''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.'' | |||
| :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) | |||
| 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. --] 19:14, 1 October 2006 (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) | |||
| :It was supposed to be high-mounted canopy. Please go ahead & copy edit as much as you want. (] 22:34, 1 October 2006 (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) | |||
| OK, thanks. That's what I thought it was supposed to be, but wasn't certain. --] 23:11, 1 October 2006 (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 {{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) | |||
| == Recent edits == | |||
| :::::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 == | |||
| Could I ask anyone why some numbers on the statistics were deleted? (] 23:33, 31 January 2007 (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) | |||
| :Are you referring to ? 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? - ] <sup>] - ]!</sup> 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. (] 02:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| == Possible sales: Ireland == | |||
| == Calling a black spade a kettle? == | |||
| 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... == | |||
| 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 ] 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! ] (]) 14:27, 23 May 2008 (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) | ||
| == Transition to FA-50 == | |||
| ::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 ] is also supersonic, and it uses the F414, a more powerful derivitive of the F404. - ] (]) 16:58, 23 May 2008 (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 == | |||
| :::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. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| 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 == | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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 | |||
| 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'. | |||
| ] (]) 14:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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. ] (]) 10:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : I called the Gripen a 4.5th generation fighter because that is how it is listed here on Misplaced Pages. 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. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| 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. ] (]) 23:51, 23 September 2010 (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. ] (]) 13:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Probably. KAI does list US Customary units first . That could due to tie-in with Lockheed Martin. Or it may not mean anything. -] (]) 15:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well I was just curious if there was an over-arching Misplaced Pages aviation policy on this or not, it would certainly make sense if there was. ] (]) 18:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I think the nation of origin's system of units is generally used like with the ], 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. -] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 <nowiki>{{aircraft specifications</nowiki> -> <nowiki>{{aircraft specifications/switch</nowiki>. The others will have to be switched manually. -] (]) 20:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ok, thanks for clearing that up. ] (]) 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 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| : 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. -] (]) 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) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 14:26, 3 April 2011 (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. |
|
| 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion met
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)
- 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)
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?
Hcobb (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- B-Class aviation articles
- B-Class aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aviation articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- B-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- B-Class Korean military history articles
- Korean military history task force articles
- B-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- B-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- B-Class Korea-related articles
- Mid-importance Korea-related articles
- WikiProject Korea articles