Talk:Kamov Ka-50

message: I think the Ka-52 needs a separate wikipedia page because much more Ka-52's have been produced than Ka-50s at this point. Also i think the two helicopters are different enough to have separate pages. The fact that the Ka-52 was made on the basis of the Ka-50 should not be reason to have them share a wikipedia page because with that logic all of the Flankers (Su-27, 33, 35, 30, 37) should be listed on the Su-27 page yet they all have separate pages. Also the MiG-15 and MiG-17 have separate pages, and the F-15 Eagle and F-15E Strike Eagle have separate pages.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.77.39.92 (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, The Ka-52 started has a variant of the Ka-50 just like the Su-30 and the su-35 started as variants of the su-27 but became separate air crafts. The KA-52 has different specifications ,systems and design from the Ka 50. UMDP (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

text: No-one opposing or supporting this? Hammer5000 (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no problem with splitting off the Ka-52 to itw own article. I actually started doing it a few months ago, but reverted myself as I didn't have time to complete it due to real-life issues, but forgot to get back to it. - BilCat (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ka-52 Separate page 

message: Range: 545 km (339 mi; 294 nmi)
Combat radius: 470 km (290 mi; 250 nmi)
Ferry range: 1,160 km (720 mi; 630 nmi) with 4 drop tanks
What? How can combat radius be more than half of normal range? What's the source of this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDestroyer111 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range issue 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kamov Ka-50. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151225124803/http://bmpd.livejournal.com/700413.html to http://bmpd.livejournal.com/700413.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Cyrillic  TLA “ГСИ” appears twice in this article, in  the section about the KA-52 variant, but nowhere is it defined or explained.  What does it mean? — Bob Blaylock (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It means государственные совместные испытания - state joint trials, with 'joint' meaning joining factory trials and customer trials; such trials would be conducted by specialists of both producer and customer, under the management of state-appointed commission. Russian wiki does not have an article for that, BTW. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does <i>&ldquo;ГСИ&rdquo;</i> mean? 

message: I think the connection with kitefin shark is bogus. That name/moniker wasn't supposed to relate to biological species and would be better translated/approximated by shark of black colour (like, 'more menacing'). Yury Tarasievich (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biological species link bogus? 

message: Is there any such thing as too many references? If there is, than I think this article has too many. 15 references in an infobox? Every other article I've seen has up to 5 references, but usually just 1 or 2. KingAviationKid (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: For multiple refs supporting the same text, that can be overciting.  See the essay at WP:OVERCITE for more info. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many refs? 

message: During the invasion of Ukraine 3 were lost:
8 03 2022 https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
24.02.2022 https://postimg.cc/jCmC8Nx5
02.03.2022 https://i.postimg.cc/Zqj182jJ/987.png  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.160.252 (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operational history Ukraine 

message: The intro calls it a single-seat helicopter, but the first sentence of the 'design' section says it has two seats? Obscurasky (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ka-50 is the single-seat variant, while the Ka-50-2 and Ka-52 are the two-seat variants. Ka-50 and Ka-52 are both mentioned throughout the article. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  One or two seats [both] 

message: No matter what the source says, North Macedonia never operated Ka-50. In fact, no example of Ka-50 or any variant of it ever landed on Macedonian soil. Understandably, there's no other source on the internet that makes this claim, there are no photos of Macedonian Ka-50, or anything else really. This is expected since Macedonia never operated this type of helicopter. If a given source says the opposite, that source is unreliable and shouldn't be quoted, because it only contributes to the reduction of Wikipedia credibility.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filip.vidinovski (talk • contribs) 09:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the source states two Ka-52 Alligators, not Ka-50. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and has never claimed to be. Instead, it cites reliable published sources. You either need to cite a better source that states the existing source was mistaken, or else prove that the existing source is unreliable. BilCat (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

text: In fact the Macedonian MoD denied having bought any Kamov 50/2 helicopters 2603:8081:8AF0:87B0:2224:A9F2:8783:5060 (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norhth Macedonia