Talk:Yakovlev Yak-140

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Sturmvogel 66 in topic GA Review

Competitors

edit

Do we know specifically which MiG and Sukhoi aircraft were favored over this aircraft? Parsecboy (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

They're probably the Sukhoi T-3 and the Ye-4 prototype of the MiG-21, but my source doesn't specifically name them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

chronology

edit

The article's last two paragraphs jump around quita a bit, time-wise. The engine wasn't ready until 1956, and then proved to be too powerful (requiring a rebuild, from the looks of it), but the air ministry forbade testing in early 1956?--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not at all, the engine was estimated not to be available until '56 so they went ahead and used an AM-9 instead, but MAP prevented it from actually flying in 55.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

merge from Yakolev Yak-140

edit

More or less duplicate article with wrong name. Some content should be merged into this one and redirected. --Denniss (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Look at the photos. Yak-1000 has T-tail, cockpit very close to the nose, no visible shock cone in the air intake and cropped delta wing planform. Yak-140 has mid-position tail, conventional swept wing, etc. God knows the Yak-140 article needs to be cleaned up, but it's a legitimate article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Um, I think you're confusing the two pages. This page is being proposed to be merged into from Yakolev Yak-140, a spelling error page. Yakovlev Yak-1000 and Yakolev Yak-1000 are an entierly seperate merge proposal. That said, Support. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 16:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
OOPs, I hadn't noticed the difference in spelling.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Yakovlev Yak-140/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 23:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed