Talk:KAI KC-100 Naraon
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the KAI KC-100 Naraon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
First aircraft in its class to be developed in South Korea
editIs that the same class as the 1991 Korean Air Chang-Gong 91? MilborneOne (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Probably not really the same class, as that was only 200 hp and thus really would be up against the Cherokee etc. This is 315 hp and is up against the Cessna 400 and Cirrus SR22. The two cited refs that deal with this issue are interesting. This Koran news ref says "Korea has already developed an indigenous military jet, and exports are under way. But the country lacked the technology and infrastructure to develop civilian airplanes and had to import all of its non-military aircraft." AVweb says "The KAI KC-100, a four-seat general aviation aircraft that is the first of its kind to be designed and built in South Korea". The AVweb statement seems to imply that there has never been a Korean four-seat general aviation aircraft before. Of course they may just both not know about the Chang-Gong 91 or consider it a failed project? I based my somewhat more careful statement in the article on these two refs, but if you think the refs are wrong feel free to tone it down or remove it. - Ahunt (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- As it is all a bit subjective "class" could be anything perhaps we will leave it for now, I suspect the Korean media have never heard of the Chang-Gong 91! MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- I suspect that you are right - people have forgotten it. I think in the interest of fairness and accuracy then I'll just take the statement out and consider that the media is probably just wrong on that one. Ahunt (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- As it is all a bit subjective "class" could be anything perhaps we will leave it for now, I suspect the Korean media have never heard of the Chang-Gong 91! MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on KAI KC-100 Naraon. 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://archive.is/20120904114207/http://www.koreaaero.com/english/business/kpp_01.asp to http://www.koreaaero.com/english/business/kpp_01.asp
- Added archive https://archive.is/20120906221918/http://www.koreaaero.com/english/business/kpp_03.asp to http://www.koreaaero.com/english/business/kpp_03.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)