Talk:Yakovlev Yak-141
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] F-35?
In the F-35 article one can read: The Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program was created in 1993. So, why it's listed among the projects of 1960..1970s? --jno 09:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- er...this is relevant to 'Freestyle' exactly how...? - Aerobird 15:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Review
please mention in brackets metric units for example Mach 1.7 is *** kmph.
- Mach units are neither imperial or metric; it's a factor of the speed of sound, which varies with altitude. If a performance in MPH had been given, then the metric equivilant would be required. - Aerobird 15:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Name?
So is it the Yak-141 or the Yak-41? The article title says one thing, but the introduction says another. Please enlighten me! --Bkkbrad 04:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Russian aircraft designations are highly confusing. The aircraft actually built were designated "Yak-141", a manufacturer's designation. Had they entered service, they would have been designated "Yak-41", a VVS designation (maybe -- the Tu-20 'Bear' became much better known by the manufacturer's designations Tu-95 and Tu-142). - Aerobird 15:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merging from Yakovlev Yak-43
The one-line stub Yakovlev Yak-43 article should be merged into this article, IMHO. - Aerobird 23:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- "It has been done." - Aerobird 20:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Surivors?
any aircraft that are still around? or were they all scrapped?
[edit] Yak-141 supersonic abilities
Just saw one of the TV series "Кρасные Звезды" ("Red Stars"), it was said, that Yak-141 actually had reached supersonic speed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.13.252.174 (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Considering we don't have a citation for the statement that the aircraft never achieved supersonic flight, I think this information should be incorporated into the article. Provided, of course, "Red Stars" is a reliable source and this is not merely propaganda - I'm not trying to be rude, but can someone comment on the reliability of this source? 57.67.17.100 (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Trying to clean up the page a bit
I've moved the notes about the P.1154 and Mirage IIIV to a section "Comparable aircraft". This section could probably go completely, but I didn't want to remove any information from the article. It was a bit jarring to read the "design and development" section and come across information about the P.1154 with no reference made to its relation to the Yak-141. The bit in this section about the F-35 may well be considered future speculation: please comment or remove it if consensus indicates it is not relevant; but given the design goals of the Yak-141 it may be relevant (if mention of the NATO types is relevant?). Not sure. Please comment. 57.67.17.100 (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks BillCJ, concur with reasons for removal. 57.67.17.100 (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)