Talk:Mikoyan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I'm confused. The MiG pages states: "... and MiG-23 was manufactured after MiG-29." On the other hand the MiG-29 Fulcrum pages states: "The Mikoyan-Gurevich? MiG-29 is a jet fighter plane designed in 1972 as a replacement for the MiG-21? and MiG-23? in the fighter role." How can the MiG-29 replace the MiG-23 if the latter was not manufactured at the time? --Css

MiG-23 was manufactrured AFTER MiG-29. THe MiG-29 page gave the wrong info. User:Kt2

---

Edit details:

• Removed "famous" for Mikoyan and Gurevich. Famous had been added just as a counter for infamous.
• Could not fit in MiG-7 after MiG-5, as the text above it says "the 3 aircraft which saw ..." Was MiG-7 used in WW-II ?
• I'm not sure if MiG-8 was a non-fighter.
• Removed MiG-11. I could not find references to MiG-11 anywhere on the net (except in wikipedia)
• Added year of start of service for each aircraft.
• Restored concept of odd-numbering from User:Ktsquare's original version of the article. I don't know why it was removed thereafter.

Jay 20:47, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)

According to this, MiG-8 was a research plane. -- Ortonmc 21:12, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

08:01, 4 Dec 2003 . . Jay (reverted to last edit by 62.109.92.252, check talk page for "Was MiG-7 used in WW-II")

Well, I did not know that the format of the article should express something meaningfull. To me it just looked like a smashed up layout. Now, after reading your reverting comment I understand what was intended by the layout. Some thoughts on this:

• Wouldn't it be better to mention the use of those planes in WWII in the text? Otherwise I see no reason why not to sandwich all the other wars that happened since this into this list: Korean War, Vietnam War, Six days War and so on. This quickly results in one problem: There are planes that where used in different wars and some planes where never used in any war. Consequence: It's may not such an good idea to mix a type list with with a list for war use.

You're right about separating the sandwich of war names and MiG names. Each plane should be sorted chronologically and have its own sentence detailing its importance. Jay 08:56, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• WWII started in 1939 and ended in 1945. What do you think when MiG-1 was used if not in WWII? What about the MiG-9? It was ready in 1947 by this time WWII was two years over. On the other hand it could not have been created earlier because it made use of a modified BMW 003 engine which the Sovyets captured from Germany.

So obviously the information in the article is wrong about Mig-9. Jay 08:56, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• according to http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/mig-7.html the MiG-7 was only a prototype of which only a single exemplar existed. So it hardly was actually used.

So that clears up the question of whether it was used in the war. Jay 08:56, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• by the way you deleted the MiG-7 link by reverting my changes

IOOI 22:28, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sorry for the deleted link, I've put it back. Jay 08:56, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Requested move to Mikoyan (2005)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This page needs to be moved to Mikoyan, to reflect the name that the bureau has had for decades. Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support —Michael Z. 2005-09-21 20:43 Z
• support --Irpen 23:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• no -- the bureau name was OKB-155. Period. MiG (which is short for Mikoyan-i-Gurevich, where i is "and" in russian) is the name prefix for aircraft designed by the OKB and entered service. Like in MiG-21. --jno 11:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

I won't edit this page, since i'm not in the "maintenance" team, but please note that parallel between fictional MiG-31 Firefox and real world MiG-31 Foxhound is flawed. MiG-31's radar set is not NATO designated "Fox Fire", it's designated "Flash Dance". MiG-25's radar set is "Fox Fire". Zb10948 06:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"No" to what? "No," as in you want it to stay Mikoyan-Gurevich, "no," as in you want it to be OKB-155, or "no," as in you're being obstinant? Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

"No" to move to mere Mikoyan. Names like Mikoyan-Gurevich, MiG (the current company name is RSK MiG), and OKB-155 have some meaning while simple Mikoyan is a source of possible mess (his brother was a famous politician is exUSSR, for instance).--jno 12:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Mikoyan-Gurevich is inaccurate, MiG is inconsistent with the naming of other OKBs, same with OKB-155. I think Mikoyan is the best choice, but if we have to, we can call it Mikoyan (company) or Mikoyan (design bureau) or something olike that. Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, folks. I don't understand why is it "inaccurate" and/or "inconsistent". I'm a russian fun of aviation history and dont know of western naming traditions. All the "proper" (not too popular) russian-language books refer to any design bureau or production facility by their "numbers", except of some R&D institutions ("NII"s). Yes, Gurevich is mostly known for his missiles as the head of OKB-155-2. But his name was and is the part of OKB name. I believe, it's a sort of "popular vs scientific" (of "physics vs lyrics", if you want ;-) discussion. --jno 09:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It's inaccurate because the company/design bureau is officially named "Mikoyan," and has been so named for thirty-three years. The inconsistency would be in that we don't name the article for Sukhoi "Su", and we don't name the article for Ilyushin "Il." Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, my God...

• 8 December 1939 - experimental design division of Moscow plant No1 (Опытно-конструкторский отдел (ОКО) завода №1 (Москва))
• October 1941 - experimental design division of Kuybyshev plant No1 (Опытно-конструкторский отдел (ОКО) завода №1 (Куйбышев))
• March 1942 - design bureau of experimental plant No155 (OKB-155) (опытный завод №155 (ОКБ-155))
• 1966 - Moscow mechanical plant "Zenith" (ММЗ «Зенит»)
• 1971- MMZ "Zenith" named after A.I.Mikoyan (ММЗ «Зенит» им. А.И.Микояна) sic! it was. i'm a fool.
• 1978 - MMZ named after A.I.Mikoyan (ММЗ им. А.И.Микояна)
• since 1990s - ANPK "MiG" (АНПК «МиГ»)
• December 1999 - RSK "MiG" (РСК «МИГ»)

Yes, it was named after Mikoyan. Just because Artem Ivanovich dead before Mikhael Iosifovich. Not 33 years, but long enough. Hence, you have all rights to rename. --jno 07:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

official history page

"...while simple Mikoyan is a source of possible mess" If this article is renamed Mikoyan, the current standard disambiguation set-up handles it nicely. —Michael Z. 2005-09-28 15:15 Z

That's ok. --jno 09:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW, how about to, say, move "Blum und Voss" (German industrial company) to mere "Blum"? What is the common practice in such a name reduction? --jno 15:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Blohm + Voss did not change their name, though. In this case, it's the same as FedEx Corp. becoming FDX Corporation and then changing their name again. Other than that, I'm not sure I understand your question. Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Decision

Page moved. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

MiG-29 Fulcrum comparable to F-15?

This looks like a major flop to me. The MiG-29 Fulcrum wasn't intended as a BVR fighter or interceptor, and definitely isn't comparable to either the F-15 Eagle or the F-18 Hornet. Going by role, the Fulcrum is a modern-era dogfighter, comparable to the F-16 Falcon, and the article should really reflect that, unless the comparison was based on shape only (twin vertical stabilizers and dual engines), but that's usually the less important part. However, I will not edit the article until someone can prove or disprove this. Stealth 08:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right. But I'll avoid to edit as well - my level of english does not allow me to engage folks into a real flame. Hence, we have to wait for a real english-speaker to edit this. ;-) --jno 09:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The MiG-29 is generally considered comparable to the F-16 and F/A-18 (which are comparable to each other); it is not comparable to the F-15. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mig-13

The mig-13 page directs here MiG I-250 (N). The page states that the I-250 never entered service and never passed its trials, which, I would argue, put it into the experimental section. Crocodilicus 22:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

in video games

MiGs appear in computer games like command and conquer generals, and red alert 2 yuri's revenge so shouldn't that be added as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.199.43 (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That should be added to the article of the aircraft that appears, but please only insert notable video game references. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of "MIG"

I don't know if it was intentioned when it was created (although it must have been semi-intentioned, at least), but perhaps it would be good to mention that миг (mig) in Russian means "moment, instant, blink", suggesting the speed (the association certainly doesn't escape the Russian ear). 62.176.111.68 (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Korean Use

The beginning of the article states that MiGs were (or are) used by South Korea. I think it should probably be North Korea, but I'm not an expert. -Athaler (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

They were the one of the primaray fighters for North Korea during the Korean war. So yes they should be. 168.212.190.2 (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

OKB short form name

Is the abbreviation "MiG" short for "Mikoyan i Gurevich (Mikoyan and Gurevich)" or is it derived from "MIkoyan-Gurevich?" I've always understood it to be the former. This may seem like a trivial matter but I want to clarify it for inclusion in my dissertation. 165.91.64.144 (talk)RKH —Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC).

Requested Move (2014)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. If we include the opinions expressed in the discussion mentioned by the proponent there is not a consensus in favor of this move. EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Mikoyan → MiG – Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Mikoyan-Gurevich, pertinent to all other pages that use Mikoyan instead of Mikoyan-Gurevich. Brandmeister^talk 19:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support in part: Move the company's primary article but take the aircraft pages case by case. A year after our 2005 article move to "Mikoyan," the company changed its name to "Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG". The first bit, the "Russian Aircraft Corporation," is more of a formal status than a name, similar to the British "plc" or the American "Corporation". WP:COMMONNAME requires that for the current company we use the name commonly adopted by the more recent reliable sources. This is "MiG." As for the other pages, many of these are for aircraft types which were created under the "Mikoyan" name and these should remain so. Only types created since 2006 should be moved to "MiG." For new variants of older types, we need to follow what the RS do. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Over the history of the company, "Mikoyan" is the most common phraseology; "MiG" is ambiguous (MIG welding, for instance). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

We already have a mig disambig page to help those people who cannot tell "MiG" from "MIG" - or from a load of other things. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

And that PoV assertion that "Mikoyan" is historically commonest appears false. Formally the company began as "Mikoyan-Gurevich" then, when Gurevich died, "Mikoyan" and since 2006, "MiG." Meanwhile the "MiG" aircraft type designation has remained in use throughout and everybody has always commonly referred to "MiGs". Google counts about 7,440,000 for "MiG aircraft" but only 1,190,000 for "Mikoyan Aircraft." Sure "Mikoyan" was common during the Mikoyan era, but that was then and this is now.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC) [Update] In case it hels establish that I have no PoV to grind, I certainly think that a number of entries in the List of aircraft (M) need renaming from Mikoyan-Gurevich to Mikoyan. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.