Talk:Yakovlev Yak-141

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)

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)

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)

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)

Surivors?

any aircraft that are still around? or were they all scrapped?

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)

Is this fighter the first to be VTOL and supersonic?Agre22 (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)agre22

I think the question is, was this the first to get to this stage of development on the basis that it would be super-sonic or did it in fact get to super-sonic before the Yak team moved to the USA.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Per most reliable sources, Lockeheed bought some Yak-41 data from Yakovlev. I've never heard of a Yakovlev team going to the US as part of this or any other deal, so I'm not sure what that's about. - BilCat (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

Yak-41M to Yak-141

If I understand this correctly, Yak-41M was the official designation until 1992. So shouldn't this be mentioned in the lead like: Yakovlev Yak-141 (formerly Yak-41M)? -Fnlayson (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I moved this article from Yak-41 to Yak-141. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The Gunston book is from 1997. Y. Gordon's book, printed last year, tells a differnt story, that the Yak-141 definition was never official at any point. I intended to add that when I moved the article last week,but have been unable to do it so far due to health reasons. I'll add it whne I have a chance. - BillCJ (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Even more confusing. Sorry for the move then. This talk page never got moved in the previous renaming. So I missed these older discussions here. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not quite sure what happened there with the moves. I'll ask an admin to look at it, and see if a histmerge needs to be done somewhere. Bty, I saw that Ken claimed Y Gordon supports the Yak-141 name. I'm not sure what book that's from, but the one I added to the Refs last week does not support it, and says it's a Western misnomer. - BillCJ (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Yak-141 is official with Yakovlev. But the Russian military may not have accepted it. At least they did not change when Sukhoi renamed Su-27M to Su-35 in the early '90s. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yak-141 influence on the X/F-35

Per BillCJ's request, I have assembled some reference sources on the Yak influence on the X/F-35. I've inserted them on the X-35 Talk page. I've also provided a summary of what I remember from what I read or heard at the time. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Where's the original photo?

This article had in the last year, a photo far better than the available today. Where's the original photo?Agre22 (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

It had copyright problems, and was deleted. - BilCat (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yak-41

(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)

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)