Talk:Yakovlev MC-21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flags in order table[edit]

While this may not be necessary for western manufacturers who have a long list of foreign customers, it does help to have flags in the case of countries that dont have many foreign orders as it helps them be visible immediately rather than having to click on each customers article or have to google like for VEB leasing. Though Cairo and Azerbaijan may be identifiable but for the uninitiated the rest may not, each of those companies could be from any CIS member state unless you read its article, unecessarily time consuming and flags would eliminate that. 139.190.175.128 (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary for what exactly? To make an ideological point (as dumb as possible hence flags) to potential uninformed observers that a Russian plane is mostly sold in Russia and friends? One would think this is "Wikipedia" and not "NATO-pedia" or sorts? 83.240.61.1 (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MC-21 totals[edit]

With reference to the changes you made to the MC-21 totals, please use the MC-21 talk page to explain why you think the current totals are wrong and provide an explanation how you calculated the "correct" totals. Regards, C1010 (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 205 total is referenced by TASS (18 Jul 2018). The difference between adding the lines and the real 205 total might be because of lessors and airlines orders are not distinguished and some may be counted twice (e.g. the 30 order for VEB Leasing includes 10 for UTair, which are counted again). There was even a title on the table to avoid false counts "Total different than official count because of lessors and airlines orders not distinguished" but it seems insufficient. Don't revert before gaining consensus here per WP:BRD, the burden of proof is on your shoulders. Thanks!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article you cited refers to "firm orders". I consider it possible that there could other orders that are not yet "firm" for one reason or another (e.g. deposits have not yet been paid, delivery dates have not been agreed to, etc.)
In any case, there are sevel problems with your edit:
  1. The Total number you provided does not agree with the content of the table
  2. It's not even clear what the Total number refers to as it is currently located under the Options column
  3. You completely removed Options and Orders+Options totals.
I suggest you either edit the table and make it consistent with the total numbers, removing possible double entries, or I will restore the old numbers due to the reasons I described above. Regards, C1010 (talk) 09:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"firm orders": True, I clarified that. Firm orders are opposed to options, not tentative orders.
1. "Total number you provided does not agree with the content of the table" It's the opposite : the table don't agree with the official count (reported by TASS, Russia's news agency, and the MC-21 is produced by a state enterprise, so they know what the are saying)
2. "under the Options" Clarified
3. "removed Options and Orders+Options totals" Yes, and we have to avoid adding it ourselves, it would be WP:OR as we don't know which are duplicates.
"I suggest you either edit the table [...] or I will restore the old numbers" My edit has clarified things, but I repeat: no WP:OR additions please. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irkut MC-21. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irkutsk-Moscow Flight Test Pilot[edit]

Are we certain the pilot of this flight was Oleg Kononenko the cosmonaut? That seems highly unlikely.212.73.233.51 (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The images of him with the MC-21 dont look that different from the images when he was a cosmonaut, he would aged around 53 now, but I dont have a reliable reference. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to said images? From Kononenko's bio, he does not seem to be a pilot, let alone a test pilot.192.222.134.89 (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just used Google, it seems strange that they both have the same name, are both Heros of Russia, but one appears to be an engineer the other a pilot. MilborneOne (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The test pilot became a hero of russia in 2010[1] and the cosmonaut in 2009 so we should adjust the link in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So the original user that pointed this out is indeed correct. Would you like to go ahead and remove the link to the cosmonaut Kononenko? It's entirely possible that two people will have the exact same name.192.222.134.89 (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name extension[edit]

Should we add Irkut to the infobox name? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No as it is not normal practice per Template:Infobox aircraft begin. MilborneOne (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, thanks. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. sanctions and composite materials[edit]

Marc Lacoste, I specifically ordered the sentences as I did because the text flows better: (1) UAC started looking for domestic replacement, mentioning the wing box and consoles; (2) domestic replacement is found, again mentioning the wing box; (3) additionally mentioning that the wings will still be made from the composites as well.

Your phrase "UAC looked for Russian or Chinese replacements, maintaining a composite wing box and consoles: a return to a metal wing is "not on the agenda"" makes absolutely no sense. What is "maintaining a composite wing box and consoles"? How this "maintaining" informs us that there will be no return to metal wing? The wing box and the wing are different components. Also, the article clearly says that AeroComposit reported that it already have built the center section of the fuselage and the wing box from domestic materials, not that it just wanted to build them. Mikus (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikus: I agree with your ordering of the ideas, though both your wording and Marc's were suboptimal. I've copyedited your version, which will hopefully result in consensus. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has to respect the chronology. If a statement is made in January, it can't appear like a consequence of a March statement. I detailed the process and left the wording as it were.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of List of orders of MC-21 into Irkut MC-21[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge. John B123 (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not enough justification for a separate article DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yup.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bek Air status?[edit]

Bek Air had their air operator's certificate revoked in April 2020 due to their failure to correct safety violations, and no reputable English-language online source indicates that a revival is imminent; in other words, the company has by all indications ceased to exist as an operational airline. That being understood, does anyone know the status of their MC-21 order? Carguychris (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

МС-21[edit]

Are you sure that the transcription of cyrillic “МС-21” is “MC-21”? Shouldʼn it be “MS-21”? 41.221.207.44 (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The company website calls it the "MC-21" in English. MilborneOne (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don’t. They call it “МС-21” (Cyrillic characters). Try to do the following test:
  1. Go to the company website.
  2. Select the text “МС-21” (in the webpage in English) and copy it.
  3. Paste the text into Word (or any text editor).
  4. Now, perform one of the following tests:
    1. Select either of the characters “М” or “С”. In the menu “Insert”, click on “Symbol”, click on “More symbols” and there you will see that the character is a Cyrillic one, not a Latin one.
    2. Change the text to lower case. The Cyrillic letter “м” is different than the Latin letter “m”.
    3. Change the font to a font that doesn’t have Cyrillic characters. If the appearance of the font doesn’t change, or if you see blobs or question marks that means that the characters “МС” are in Cyrillic.
I can only conclude that, in the official website, they have put Cyrillic characters within English text, like we could have had Як-40, Су-80 or Ил-62 within English text. Some other sites (here, here or here) do transcribe to “MS-21”.
I believe that you guys should be coherent: either you keep the Cyrillic writing “МС-21” or you transcribe to Latin “MS-21”.
41.215.212.205 (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with the current common name in English "MC-21". MilborneOne (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I won’t insist on this discussion but, first, there is something wrong — it’s a wrong transcription since the Latin letter “C” may be used to transcribe the Cyrillic letter “Ц” —, and second, who said that that is the “common” name in English? Check out the internet for sources, you will mostly find either “МС-21” (in Cyrillic! not Latin) or “MS-21”.41.215.212.205 (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "something wrong" is this, from this source: "The manufacturer is deploying the marketing slogan "MC-21: only the best", and is adamant that this will be the aircraft's official name, rather than the MS-21 moniker that has been in common use." Reliable published sources have interpreted that to mean they should use the Latin letters "MC", not "MS", and that's what they have done. That makes "MC-21" (Latin) the common form in English, and per WP:COMMONNAME, that what we use in Wikipedia. It may seem nonsensical to you, but that the way the manufacturer wanted it. Take it up with them if you still have an issue with it. BilCat (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent major update[edit]

@Alexsandr Lazarev:'s recent major update has been reverted once, and now reinstated with some improvements. However, I still see some issues, primarily with sourcing: lots of non-English sources that hinder verification, several that appear to be self-published or user-generated sources, and a few cases where sources are older than the claim they purport to verify. Some of the Russian news sites are also marked as questionable on WP:RS/P. Before this update is reverted again, perhaps we should discuss the issues here. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for explaining this to me. I did make a couple of mistakes and listed unreliable resources, please excuse me for that. I have now spent a few days correcting the errors and have left only sources with verified information in the new version. If you have any questions about a particular source, I will be happy to translate and prove the validity of that information. As for the problem with non-English sources, unfortunately, due to the difficult political situation, most of the information about the current progress of this aircraft will only come from local news (of course there is misinformation everywhere, but as a rule, whatever is true in the future will be published by Rostec and UAC, on which I relied when fixing this page today). Alexsandr Lazarev (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged a few specific sourcing issues. It would also be very helpful if you could at least add a trans-title to the Russian-language sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, I have little experience but I am very pleased with your help.I saw all the problematic parts. I have a couple of questions (I would be very grateful if you could help me): the number of produced units of both mc-21 and other Russian planes can be tracked on this resource (https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Irkut/MS-21) is an official register with attached photos and sources. Can I use it?Regarding airfleet pre-orders, I managed to find an English-language news(https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2022-06-10/aeroflot-order-300-russian-made-airliners) . Is it possible to do that?Regarding the replacement of parts up to 97% , I was also able to find a verified Russian international source TASS (https://tass.ru/ekonomika/6049251)And the last remark I found about the wing's caisson, this information is on the Rostec website itself, which does not require verification(https://rostec.ru/news/ms-21-300-s-krylom-iz-rossiyskikh-kompozitov-vypolnil-pervyy-polet/)And can I also indicate that the 2 boards are being tested? Thank you Alexsandr Lazarev (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yakovlev_MC-21&oldid=1216433040"