Talk:Yakovlev Yak-18T

message: I'm not sure where the spec data comes from but that is not the standard engine.  So the rest of the info is suspect.  Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All the performance data other than the stall speed comes from Brassey's World Aircraft & Systems Directory 1999/2000 - a high quality reference compliled by a well known aviation writer who in past past was responsible for large chunks of Jane's All The World Aircraft - I have checked the performance specs against those quoted Jane's All The World's Aircraft 2003–2004 and apart from the Vne, match pretty closely. The stall speed is from  which quotes a range of stall speeds of between 100 and 123 km/h depending on the weight and power settings - Jane's quotes 125 km/h as a landing speed.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The universal convention is to quote stall speeds at MAUW with least favourable CoG (i.e. usually at forward limit) at 1G clean Vs or dirty Vs0 and this is what we should do here. Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

text: The aircraft flight manual or pilot's operating handbook should trump any other reference in almost all cases esp. when it comes to reporting performance figures. Where else do Janes or Brasseys get their data? Hangar chat? Brasseys is usually wrong if it contradicts the POH. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of spec info 

message: One can find references on the Web and in books that say the 18T is still in production. One cannot easily find references that it is not in production. The aircraft is however not in production. Zero new aircraft have been manufactured in the last ten years. One cannot order an 18T from its manufacturer. There is in fact no legal manufacturer as the original manufacturer refuses to support the aircraft and there is no other holder of the type certificate. What therefore to do on Wikipedia? By the rules we should reflect what others are saying, we are not a primary source of knowledge, and therefore this encyclopedia cannot represent the facts if these are not easily established by citable reference.
Well, I can tell you what we can do: We can represent what others say in a way that reveals the facts of the matter. And we can also neglect to repeat that which we know not to be true. I am *not* advocating that we say in the main 18T article that "the aircraft is not in production" - I am merely suggesting we neglect to say "the aircraft is in production".
What say you? Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the one ref that says it is in limited production and the degree of quite reasonable doubt you have cast here, how about then we leave the infobox blank as it is now and I fix the text to indicate that it being in production is a claim only? - Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Just as a proposal I have made that change to the text under "Operational history", see what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the text as written. However, putting the WP-purist hat on, there is an appearance now that the reference you found supports the assertion that zero aircraft have been manufactured. If you separate out the cited material from the assertion zero were actually manufactured then this is more correct. We do run the risk then that someone asks for a reference to support that. It will be difficult to do so for the general reason it is difficult to prove a negative. Therefore by WP rules the zero newly made claim would have to be removed. And that returns us to where we were yesterday. A "correct" article representing a falsehood. Hence my preference just to remove the 2011 reference entirely. It adds nothing save the falsehood. Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, let me shift the ref so that it covers the text actually cited. That will leave the tail of the sentence uncited, but we can refer people here to discuss if that is deemed a problem. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

text: LOL, WP:CIRCULAR applies! - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dodgy references