Talk:Yakovlev Yak-48

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 articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the aircraft project.
	This article is supported by the Soviet aviation task force.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Yak-48 and IAI Galaxy astra

Ok, lets wait for the verification. But also, comparison to other sources is needed[1][2].--Gilisa (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issue also discussed at Talk:Gulfstream_G200#G200 design and Yakovlev involvement (?)

I don't have the Yakovlev Aircraft since 1924 book to check that. But I did check Jane's. There's no mention of the Yak-48 in the G200 ir G250 articles. The Yak-48 entry says: "Prior to terminating its plans for collaboration with Israel Aircraft Industries on the Astra Galaxy programme (which see), Yakovlev allocated the Yak-48 designation to a possible Russian version." The Yak-48 part is from Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1996-1997 for whatever that's worth. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't see how it imply that the Yak 48 is actually the G200. Guess we agree on that.--Gilisa (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does imply that they are the same basic design, the G200 being the westernized version (engines and avionics), and the Yak-48 being Russianized. Since the G200 was produced first, one could say it is the main design, and the Yak-48 would have been a variant; the opposite, as this article has claimed, is a stretch. Jane's also make it clear the Yak-48 was only in the (probably) early planning/design stage when they pulled out of the program. We should change it to be based on what Jane's says, and this is a reliable source (and it's probably wha the Yak book says also). - BilCat (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't imply that, it don't imply that the G200 is Yak 48 with different avionics and engines-that's your own commentary. We should not base anything that written in the article on this source. The statments in the article itself are very far reaching and I do not agree to their inclusion unless you can verify the original source.--Gilisa (talk) 05:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yak 48/G 200 relation

As can be seen in the discussion above and in the article body, striking similarity between Yak 48 and G 200 was suggested with only one reliable source cited to support this assertion. However, as reliable as this source is, it was not verified. About month ago pressing verification was called but yet none of the active editors on this talk page, including myself, was not able to get to the book and verify it was used correctly. The extent for which this source was used by one single editor both in this talk page article and in the G 200 article made short verification process to be asked. Not only that this single source was used extensively in this article and that the nature of the arguments were drawn by it is very disputed, it also seems that there is no other available and reliable source to support these arguments. More, it seem like the editor who used this source in these articles has cited incorrectly the authores names-omitting the name of one of them (Yafim Gordon)-as for this, I was advised that previously this editor made the same mistake in other article but then correct it himself. However, it's still reasonable to assume that he most probably used this source incorrectly. So, I think that there is no point to wait any longer and that this article should be edited again, without source 1, based on reliable sources for which at least one of the editors have access and with the lowest extent of original research.--Gilisa (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]