| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yakovlev Yak-141 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.png)
.svg)
Yak-41
edit(moved from Talk:Yakovlev Yak-41)
I quote from Yefim Gordons book Yakovlev Yak-36. Yak-38 & Yak-41 pgs 120-121:-
On 11th-25th April 1991 Yakovlev OKB chief test pilot Andrey A. Sinitsyn established a series of 12 record in Yak-41 '75 White', showing that the fighter had no equal among VTOL aircraft. This is when the bogus designation Yak-141 came into being - it was stated in the official papers submitted to the FAI for the purpose of registering the records. This was common practice in the USSR [alterring designations to hide true identitiies or embellish for propaganda purposes].
So there you have it Yak-141 IS FICTITIOUS!!Petebutt (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Even from the Gordon quote above, it seems clear that "Yak-141" is the designation that Yakovlev (temporarily?) applied to a single Yak-41 used in the record-breaking flights in 1991. In other words, the designation is real enough, regardless of the motivations behind its creation. The only mistake is to apply it to all Yak-41s. I think your addition to the "variants" section sums it up nicely; although I do question the use of the word "fictitious". --Rlandmann (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Moves should be discussed beforehand. The Yak-141 designation issues seemed to be already covered in the "Yak-41 or Yak-41?" section. In any event, the redundant content should be combined somewhere... -Fnlayson (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Pete, it's high time you stopped making unilteral changes to articles and moving pages before discussing them. You've been on WP long enough now to know better. I don't know if you even bothered to read the talk page first, but it's a good idea to do so before making major changes to an article. The designation issue has been discussed here, and while I also disagree with it, the current consensus is to use Yak-141, and that needs to be followed until the cnsensus changes. - BilCat (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Fair cop Guv!, but at least I have supplied evidence!Petebutt (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Pete, it's high time you stopped making unilteral changes to articles and moving pages before discussing them. You've been on WP long enough now to know better. I don't know if you even bothered to read the talk page first, but it's a good idea to do so before making major changes to an article. The designation issue has been discussed here, and while I also disagree with it, the current consensus is to use Yak-141, and that needs to be followed until the cnsensus changes. - BilCat (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- And your evidence will be reviewed. If the consensus here is to accept those sources as overiding the others, then the article will be moved. If not, it won't. But again, this matter should have been discussed before you attempted to move it, not after. SUch behaviour on your part is disruptive, and, if you value your time here on WP, it needs to stop. - BilCat (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
mission
edit"The requirement was for an aircraft with only one mission: air defense of the fleet."
Maybe, but the loadout graphic shows X-31 (Kh-31) missiles, which are anti-ship or anti-radar missiles (depends on version).
So it's misleading to make the (likely correct) statement without pointing out that it was at least later envisaged as a more multi-role aircraft. 193.25.47.211 (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)