Talk:Novi Avion

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Novi Avion article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Yugoslavia Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Novi Avion is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aviation: Aircraft Start‑class

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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

What may have been

If, only Socialism stayed, Yugoslavia wouldn't have broken up and just think, that jet would've defended it's airspace along with the MiG-29,and would've been a great benefit to the military. This plane would've been awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.95.114.241 (talk • contribs)

Not really relevant to discussing the article, but it certainly shouldn't go in the text on the article page. Please stop adding unsourced commentary such as this to the article. - BillCJ 04:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many prototypes were built? I'm pretty sure that the series production of the aircraft was to begin at Mostar factory, Bosnia, but the plant was destroyed by the serbs in the war. --Eurocopter tigre 09:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prototypes were built. Construction of the first prototype started but was not completed. I believe only the cockpit has survived and it can be seen in (I think) the Belgrade aviation museum. Like most military hardware built in the SFRJ, it would've been built by factories all over the country but final assembly probably would've happened in Soko Mostar. Edrigu 00:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wish-powered warplane

This project had zero reality! Sweden struggled a lot to push their 4+gen Gripen fighter plane into service and they were 10x more industrially advanced compared to Yugoslavia. France is still troubled with Rafale introduction, germano-british Eurofighter still lacks full operational capability after 15 years.

Even if yugos tried for real, this Novi Avion warplane project would have ruined their national economy anyhow. The article should be rewritten to provide a more down-to-earth viewpoint. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what you think, fine. But this article is for verifiable facts, not your opinions.

Hj108 (talk) 12:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, former Yugoslavia had an enourmous military budget, and it was hurting its economy. But still, it is not a topic here. 109.121.27.94 (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]