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

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:03, 24 November 2011 editDave1185 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,447 editsm rmv redundant text← 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
(75 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{talk header\|search=yes}}		{{talk header\|search=yes}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|
		⚫	{{WikiProject Aviation\|B-Class-1=yes <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
	{{WPAVIATION\|class= C
⚫	\|B-Class-1=no <!-- 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= C		{{WikiProject Military history\|class= B
	\|B-Class-1=no <!-- 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. -->
	\|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 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=C~~ \|importance=Mid }}		{{WikiProject Korea\|importance=Mid }}
	}}		}}

			== Yak-130 look-alike ==
	== Calling a black spade a kettle? ==
			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)
	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)
			: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 ==
	: 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. -] (]) 15:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
			The T-5 Brave Eagle page makes no mention of a rename to Blue Magpie, so I reverted the dubious edit by the IPv6 address. When {{reply-to\|BilCat}} reverted that, he claimed the aircraft had been renamed and the article had a new name, the latter statement is definitely false, and the article itself makes no mention of a rename to Magpie. When I added Dubious and Citation Needed it was reverted along with a personal attack by {{reply-to\|Horse Eye Jack}}. How could there possibly not be a citation needed for this claim? Shouldn’t someone fix, with citations, the T-5 Brave Eagle page before messing with uncited claims about it in this one? ] (]) 15:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
			:Buddy you are either seriously confused or being willfully obtuse... See ]. Your claim of personal attack is also facetious, no such attack was made. ] (]) 16:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
			::More personal attacks, so any argument about the edit history is irrelevant. Your link says “On 24 September 2019, Tsai Ing-wen officially named the new aircraft as "Brave Eagle" during first prototype aircraft roll-out ceremony.”. Sounds pretty recent right? Where’s your citation for the rename back to Blue Magpie in the last 6 days? The rename was TO Brave Eagle, not FROM Brave Eagle. ] (]) 16:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

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

			{{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)
	:::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-->

			::::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)
	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.
			:::::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 ==
	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'.
			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)
	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)

			== Possible sales: Ireland ==
	: 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.
			This section is pure speculation and the reference is to a speculative posting on a discussion board about a presumed need.
	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.
			Removed.
	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-->
			] (]) 17:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

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

			== Transition to FA-50 ==
	The weapons growth capability of A-50, the previous model to FA-50, is mentioned here:
			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 ==
	http://img.blog.yahoo.co.kr/ybi/1/13/88/chongchol74/folder/250/img_250_6146_5?1218544616.jpg
			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 ==
	It's already included as inline citations in the page. I assumed you already read it.
			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
	See the pictures in this link also:
	http://blog.naver.com/5thsun?Redirect=Log&logNo=130071452690

		⚫	] (]) 14:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
	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)

	== 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)

	== Images as references ==

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

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: