Talk:KAI T-50 Golden Eagle - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Desagwan (talk | contribs) at 10:27, 18 September 2010 (→Calling a black spade a kettle?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:27, 18 September 2010 by Desagwan (talk | contribs) (→Calling a black spade a kettle?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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 not 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 not 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

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 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))

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'. Desagwan (talk) 10:26, 18 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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Categories: