Talk:IAIO Qaher-313

why you edit it?

can i ask why are the pics get removed?! they are free... and it don't look like F-22 or 35 or anything else! so i just removed that!! cause the reference say's based on a pic of saeghe the other iranian fighter! Senaps (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The images seem like Non-free content. The source page has a copyright notice at the bottom, and doesn't seem to allow free use of the images (although I don't personally speak Persian, and the machine translations are iffy). If these images are non-free, then we would have to use them under a fair use rationale (which we would have a good claim for here, considering there are no free images of the thing at this point). — daranz [ t ] 21:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

According to the current Iran-United States copyright relations (or, rather, the lack of such) the work is public domain. It's fair; Wikipedia itself is public domain in Iran. 208.118.25.22 (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It might be better to upload them to English Wikipedia under WP:NFCC restrictions using {{Non-free use rationale}} to specify use. I assume access to the plane is restricted to military, development, dignitaries and the press at the moment? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Max speed of Qaher-313 is 555 km/h

From one picture inside the cockpit, that shows an air speed indicator that goes up to 300 knots, it appears Qaher-313 flies with no more than 555 km/h. This Iranian plane can be used for ground attack operations or anti ship missions, also it can shoot down helicopters but can not fight against supersonic planes, can not even shoot down a cargo plane.

However, if Qaher-313 is stealth its low speed would not be an impediment for striking any target that moves slower than it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Lower speed in certain aircraft is not a problem when the weapons are advanced, in fact its a pro, like harriers are in some cases. But the speed will be higher than 555 km hr, closer to 1000. At least they are making aircraft not just buying other nations using US tax payers money like the zionists Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

To me, this plane looks no more sophisticated than some kind of a homebuilt jet. The control panel looks very crude, not better than that of some old warbird jets with newer civillian avionics. It will have bad visibility under direct sunlight. Location of air intake and its possible proximity of vortex does mean that it is definitely not a fighter plane.In any case, I would like to see the real flying plane. I would choose a Cessna 182 instead if I were a pilot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noob2013 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Why would you choose a 182? That's nothing but a poor FAC plane. The Long-EZ is more sporty, the DHC-3/3T is an excellent bush plane, a Super Tucano is an actual military plane -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Even someone who is not an aircraft expert can see that this is not a "real" aircraft. As others have pointed out, the intakes are too small (and not stealthy), there is no exhaust nozzle, there are no clamping mechanisms on the canopy, the canopy itself seems to be impossible to actually see through, the avionics do not appear to be on a par with typical modern fighter planes, in fact they don't appear to be real at all, there is no fly-by-wire sytsem, and the structure of the plane appears too small to contain modern avionics and radar assemblies. In short, it's a mockup of something they'd LIKE to build SOMEDAY, kind of like the missiles displayed in that North Korean parade, impressive at a distance, obviously not real to anyone who knows what to look for. Let's stop debating if it's "real"...it's no more real than the latest Loch Ness monster pictures.

Guyonearth (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheap copy of the F-22?

The article states that the BBC thinks it is a cheap copy of the F-22, however it looks more like the Bird of Prey from Boeing Bird_of_Prey_stealth The size of the air intakes relative to the frontal area of the plane seem surprisingly small and the ejection seat seems small compared to the pilot... Latest pictures of Iranian Qaher 313 fighter jet Hschantang (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The guy which has written that analysis for BBC is an Iranian journalist. He is not an aerospace specialist. He is a journalist which writes about politics and almost everything else. See this page http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12289080 : "Cyrus Amini, who worked in Iranian print media in 1998-2003, said the practice was "quite usual and understandable" because of the differences between Western and Iranian culture.". Sarmadys (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems more like one of the F-19 aircraft models. Hcobb (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Our feelings, as an individual, of what it looks like doesn't matter.--98.209.42.117 (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The F-19 Testor aircraft model is very thin and has curved wings, moreover the vertical stabilisers are canted inwards in the F-19. The Iranian version has angular rear wings. Iran reveals new Qaher 313 stealth fighter Hschantang (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You can note that there is now text comparing it to the Boeing Bird of Prey and Have Blue sourced to Flight Global. - Ahunt (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

X-36 with tails? Mztourist (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The hoax section

I have removed the hoax section and moved the Haaretz references to the "Status of development" section. The status section already covers the doubts that have been raised about the authenticity or efficacy of the aircraft. I'd avoid using the word "hoax," as it may be seen as POVy and and imprecise. "People have pointed out this wouldn't fly" is better than "they lie."

Additionally, I have removed the ShortNews.de ref. ShortNews is a user-driver news aggregator, similar to Reddit or StumbleUpon. The ref was a posting which summarized and linked the already referenced Aviationist article. — daranz [ t ] 04:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Even the assumption that it would not fly is under question. There is photos and videos of smaller models (one with propeller and one with jet engine) that obviously fly. That means the aerodynamics of the design is air-worthy. Besides, in order to judge such a thing certain credentials are needed. News papers with anonymous speculations do not carry weight in that regard. Sarmadys (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that I have eliminated the need for the section by more cautious wording in the body of the article. gidonb (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on. Anyone with half a brain can look at the cockpit photos and realise that this is not an aeroplane, it's a fiberglass mock-up. The introduction should be rephrased to make this clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.255.115 (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

We need refs that call it a hoax or mock-up, to look at photos and draw your own conclusions is WP:OR. - Ahunt (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

http://www.timesofisrael.com/irans-cutting-edge-fighter-a-hoax-critics-claim/

So yes, it is as fake as an Iranian space monkey. Hcobb (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, I have incorporated it into the article. - Ahunt (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Stop adding POV hoax claims. Such claims are not neutral and worthy. This is a wikipedia page , not a freak show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarmadys (talk • contribs) 01:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, some people won't be happy about including that. But, I think it belongs. If it's a quote from an aviation expert (it is), and from a reliable source (it is). Their opinion is noteworthy.--98.209.42.117 (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Well we don't build articles based on people being happy, but upon verifiable reliable sources and the Times of Israel is a RS. - Ahunt (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, that's what my post says, I'm supporting it's inclusion.--98.209.42.117 (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

http://www.rferl.org/content/iran-stealth-fighter-questions/24892356.html

A good summary article, but surely not a source itself. Hcobb (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I have gathered all of the hoax contributions which were scattered throughout the article (as of earlier today) and formed a new section Doubts of viability of aircraft (generally replacing a previous section headed "Hoax" etc.) and refocused the sections "Design" and "Development Status". That way they design parameters and development status (as far as we know) can be described. This way there is now (again) a section to discuss the viability and verifiablity of the aircraft. At least by putting under the heading Doubts... rather than making an outright statement "Hoax" we can hopefully have a more dispassionate discussion of the true status.

Enquire (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Article name

Since we now have a ref indicating that this is built by Iran Aviation Industries Organization, I am thinking as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming which specifies names for aircraft type articles should follow manufacturer-designation-name, we should move the article to Iran Aviation Industries Organization Qaher-313. - Ahunt (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I oppose. We know too little about this project. I'd stick with the common name in the press for now. gidonb (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Separating discussion of static and flying images

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said "...it's got similar features to the world's most sophisticated jets" here: [1]

There are some indications that this may not be entirely true, but it is difficult to find any facts. To try to clarify whether it really exists and if so, what it is capable of, it might help first to separate discussion of the static images from that of the flying images.

Static images This photo shows the cockpit from the side: [2]

The canopy seems to be of dimpled plastic with a rubber seal around. I don't think this dimpled plastic would provide good visibility for the pilot. There are no locking mechanisms anywhere except perhaps associated with the hinge. I can't see how this canopy would stay in place in flight.

This view of the cockpit [3] looking down from on top, shows that the edge of the cockpit looks like poorly moulded glassfibre.

There are other views which all have a "glassfibrey" feel to them.

Putting these things together, my impression is that this is a mockup. I don't know whether these images were claimed to be a flying aircraft or not, if it is not possible to establish whether they were, would it be reasonable to state that "It appears to be a mockup"? Or is that "original research".--Chris.Bristol (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)--Chris.Bristol (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chris, if you'd be expressing your own opinion in the article, it would be OR. If you'd be quoting published experts, it'd be fine as longs as you follow the relevant guidelines. gidonb (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Follow the links in the welcome message on your talk page for more information. Happy editing and welcome to Wikipedia! gidonb (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

RC, Sub-sized model or Prototype flight tests

Iranian have not claimed a flight test of a full scale airplane. I carefully checked resources and I could not find such a claim (specific to a full sized prototype).

However the presentations by the head of the design team, apparently mentions that they have built two sub-sized unmanned models. I am adding links to those slides. One of the photos is titled "Sub-sized propeller model" and the other is titled "Sub-sized jet model". Propeller (http://i1024.photobucket.com/albums/y307/sarmadys/250662_10151268717323603_1355114109_n_zpsbee1bdb9.png) , Jet (http://i1024.photobucket.com/albums/y307/sarmadys/542333_10151268717468603_1294585182_n_zpsa70a5345.png). I have taken these slides from this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGd0EU-1uYc and the other video shows the model airplane's flight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hSIFPOaILXE Sarmadys (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

An assessment of the "prototype"

...that was made by a poster on another forum I'm on.

No cockpit locking, enlargement of instrument panel shows the ASI is set to a max speed of 270 knts - taken from a turboprop, the inside of the cockpit shows the inside of the external skin - too thin for any sort of flying, the "pilot" had his knees above the cockpit rim, and when standing must have had his feet in the lower skin, the air intakes shown are aerodynamically impossible, but some pics show where they really are disguised. And what size engine could they fit into it? The flying shots are grainy and dark - of an RC model. The aircraft shown has very poor external skin finish - its an underscale mockup of something - in someone's imagination.

...in addition, it's been pointed out that the "cockpit instruments" bear a striking resemblence to those of a Colonial Viper. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying it's a Colonial BlackBird? (built from pieces) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neither a discussion forum nor a place for personal opinions (let alone sci-fi fantasies). We gather facts and credible sources from media and references and put them together. Sarmadys (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Text that falsely quotes Israeli experts

This text should be removed from the Wikipedia page about Qaher-313: "Israeli experts doubt the Iranian claims, saying the fighter presented was nothing more than a "very sleek plastic model." They note that the canopy appears to be constructed of "basic plastic," and its engine air intakes are unusually small. They say it gives the impression of plastic parts pasted to an old flying platform. The cockpit and ejection seat seem real, but the Qaher-313 displayed seemed too small to be a capable fighter." The text above claims to give the opinions of Israeli experts when in fact quotes two articles out of which only one has an evaluation from an Israeli aviation expert with an unknown name (see http://www.timesofisrael.com/irans-cutting-edge-fighter-a-hoax-critics-claim/ ). This is what the expert said: "an Israeli aerospace engineer who spoke with The Times of Israel on condition of anonymity said ... the plane displayed by the Iranian press on Saturday ... integrated advanced stealth design with extreme maneuverability. He said that while the Qaher’s design lacked bombing capability, it had the potential to be an effective interceptor capable of defending Iran’s skies from aerial threats. “They need a defensive interceptor that gives them the element of surprise, and it is big enough to carry real air-to-air missiles,” he said." Also the expert doubts the displayed Iranian prototype is a working plane he acknowledges that Qaher-313 has the potential to be an effective interceptor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Israeli Freak Show?

The whole article is converted into a list of claims by Israeli media and sources. This is Wikipedia, not a political freak show.

The excessive POV needs to be removed from the page. Sarmadys (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The article quotes reliable sources. In the case of a subject like this there will be controversies and these should be reflected in the text by showing that experts disagree, not by removing text you don't personally like. - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have added a dissenting Israeli opinion that says this is potentially a viable design from a WP:RS. The key is to achieve a good balance of opinions on controversies. - Ahunt (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I am removing Isareli POV on the page and will continue to do so. Do not convert the page into an Israeli publication. Sarmadys (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Your large scale deletion of cited criticism of the aircraft has been reverted. If you want to sanitize the article and remove all criticism then you need to gain consensus here first. Since I restored them the current criticisms offer some degree of balance, so I for one oppose removing these criticisms. - Ahunt (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ahunt, you seem to be a good editor from your edit history, but can you really accept what you just said? Quoting people (even from WP:RS) is not a bullet-proof test as per WP:UNDUE. As Sarmadys just said, this article should not become a "freak show". Iran is destined to become the 4th country in science production by 2018 and is the 9th country to place a domestically built satellite into orbit by using a domestic rocket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.101.219 (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Iran is destined to become the 4th country in science production by 2018 and is the 9th country to place a domestically built satellite into orbit by using a domestic rocket."

Yeah, okay, no NPOV issues with that comment.--98.209.42.117 (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The section about Iran's international ranking in Science and technology does not really matter for the article here but I gave it to provide a context. But for your info it is all sourced to WP:RS. Please read the Science and technology article for the citations. It comes from SCImago, Scopus and others. It is not disputed by anyone serious!

Geo Politics

Maybe we need a section to discuss the geo-politics of Iran, Israel, Syria etc... Comments? Enquire (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. What is the need for that? This should be like all other aviation articles. Is there a particular reason to make an exception? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 05:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think discussing geopolitics here would skirt dangerously close to WP:SYNTH/OR. While people may draw conclusions about the motivations of the parties involved for making claims or disputing them, we're in no position to write about that unless we actually have reliable sources that describe the political implications of the event and responses to it. And "reliable" means reliable, impartial analysis rather than opinion pieces discussing possible motivations of involved actors. This is already tricky enough to keep NPOV. — daranz [ t ] 06:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a technical topic about an airplane and a flying object. A technical article has nothing to do with politics let alone Geo Politics! Sarmadys (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Iran has the capability to build planes

There is at least a fighter jet made in Iran (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Saeqeh ) which is operational. Someone who claims that Iran is not capable to build planes (Tal Inbar) is in total denial of the reality. This text should be removed: "The Times of Israel labelled the aircraft "a hoax". Israeli aeronautics expert Tal Inbar said, "It’s not a plane, because that’s not how a real plane looks. Iran doesn’t have the ability to build planes. Plain and simple."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This is an expert quoted in a WP:RS publication expressing his own opinion and the text is presented as such. If other experts disagree then that can also be presented with refs in the text to show that these remarks are controversial. We don't just remove reliably sourced expert opinion because you don't like what he says. - Ahunt (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The so called expert is not aware that Iran is actually building aircrafts? He either trolls or is not aware. In any case we are not supposed to put evidently wrong opinions on the page just because they are some beloved Israeli. Sarmadys (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Where is your proof that they are building jets? You can't use Wikipedia as a source. If you have info from a reliable source, then post it.--98.209.42.117 (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Qaher-313 and Bavar 2 stealth flying boat

It looks like Iran already has experience with stealth flying vehicles, an example being Bavar 2 flying boat that is mass produced (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTIoezhRS3g ). So Qaher-313 did not come out of nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Cyrus Amini of BBC Persian

Cyrus Amini which has written the analysis for BBC Persian (also quoted on BBC English) is not an aerospace professional rather an Iranian journalist (possibly dissident) which writes about politics and almost everything else.

This is an example of the articles he writes, which has nothing to do with aerospace: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12289080 : "Cyrus Amini, who worked in Iranian print media in 1998-2003, said the practice was "quite usual and understandable" because of the differences between Western and Iranian culture."

This guy does not have the credibility of assessing a military aircraft, let alone calling it a cheap copy. This kind of rant from a politics writer does not have any place in a technical article. Sarmadys (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Despite the fact that you may not like his conclusions this is a WP:RS with extensive editorial oversight and meets WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

We are not supposed to list the whole WP:RSs in the world just because you like to convert the page into a freak show.Sarmadys (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You need to read WP:CIVIL to learn how to contribute to articles constructively. Insulting other editors and throwing tantrums to get your own way is not how we build an encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

J85 Engine

"Possible" use of J85 for the airplane's engine is not a fact but a very far speculation. Iran has several other options.

- According to Wikipedia itself, Iran has access to new Russian jet engines (RD-33 and many other types), American engines (TF-30 turbofan, J79 and J85 turbojets etc.) and French Snecma 9R-50. Also according Jane's defense a Venezuelan F-16 was transferred to Iran for research. Iran had signed agreement with Russia for 100 RD-33 engines a few years ago (which might have been delivered).

- As documented in Wikipedia, Iran produces localized J-85 engines (for their F5 derived Saeghe fighters) and possibly limited number of TF-30 (for their 30 years old but still operational! fleet). Iran has 40-45 years experience with TF-30 and 20 years experience with RD-33.

This is a "partial" list of engines available to Iran (referenced in Wikipedia pages):

Turbojets: J85 14kN, Snecma Atar 42kN (Mirage F-1), Tumansky R-195 (su-25) 44kN, J79 50kN (F4), AL-21F (su-24) 75kN, Khatchaturov R-35,R-29 (Mig23,27) 83kN

Turbofans: RD33 50kN (Mig-29), TF30 65kN (F-14)

A 1.5 lines reference to J85 is not justifiable since it is only an speculation by a person who has no access to the design team. Sarmadys (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a reasonable conclusion from a WP:RS and meets WP:V when presented as a quote and not as a fact. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There are several thousands of quotes which match you WP:XXs. Are we supposed to let you abuse them for your trolling? I will start removing your edits if you continue adding such nonsense.Sarmadys (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Remove it without consensus and watch yourself get blocked. It's a quote from a reliable source. You can't use other Wikipedia articles as a source to counter the quote. If you want to include info on other jet engines they could be using, then find a reliable source (that talks about the plane and the engine it could be using) and post it. How difficult is that to understand?--98.209.42.117 (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Although Iran has access to all type of different jet engines, there is one thing that is very peculiar about the Qaher 313...The size of the air intakes compared to the frontal cross section of the aircraft. Take the frontal cross section of any of the aircrafts previously mentionned (F-14, Mirage F-1, Su 24, Mig 29, Mig 23 etc) and you will notice that the size of the intake relative to the rest of the aircraft makes up a significant percentage. Why? Because jet engines need air (oxygen) to burn the impressive amounts of fuel. In the case of the Qaher, the intakes seem a bit too small to provide enough oxygen. I am not saying the Qaher should not be able to fly, just that something is fishy...Hschantang (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb the intake(s) has(have) to be at least the same frontal area size of the engine's inlet size. The nuzzle size depends on the speed; it can be smaller if it's only subsonic; at least the same size if it's super sonic; and bigger if it's Mach 3 and above. As it is it would be a very weak single engine. Perhaps comparable to the Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet but with only one engine. Mightyname (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there's the iranian Owj Tazarve that's very comparable in size, engine, and intake. http://network54.com/Realm/tazareve/tazareve2.jpg http://img479.imageshack.us/img479/5326/tazarv21cb.jpg Although, there's a lot of doubt regarding fly worthiness of the displayed mockup it's reasonable to believe a similar looking flying version is possible. Mightyname (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)