Talk:Mikoyan MiG-29M/Archive 1

Archive 1

Anybody have specifications

I'm just wondering if anyone have any specifications for the Mig-33. I think that they are like the Mig-29, but they must be a little different.CalSch 03:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've found a few, but I'm still researching. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• I copied the specs from the MiG-29 article as a start. They need to be updated/corrected for the -33. -Fnlayson 19:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Should be rename it MiG-29M?

I am gathering info for MiG-33, but I found that rather to make the "MiG-33" as the title, the aircraft should name MiG-29M, and MiG-33 should be a topic under "development". Because MiG-33 was a marketing name, a part of the MAPO-MiG marketing strategy. The model still remain as MiG-29M in the official site. Any ideas? ChowHui 13:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• If they sold aircraft with the "MiG-33" designation, then it should be OK as is. -Fnlayson 15:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, my point was that the aircraft was renamed 29M again, for new comers or reader that does not familiar with fulcrum series is quite misleading. 33 almost wiped out in the internet. Regards ChowHui 15:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not familar enough to say any more. Try asking about renaming the article on WP Aircraft talk. -Fnlayson 16:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd started a rewrite (offline) on this article, and found this problem to be a real challenge. First is that there were two aircraft called "MiG-33", the first of which never got off the ground. It was specs and test data for this design, which I chose to co-identify as "Project 33", that the Chinese purchased to support their design efforts with the program now known as "FC-1". The second use was as the initial marketing name for the MiG-29ME (the export version of the MiG-29M); although the "MiG-33" designation was soon dropped, the MiG-29M was a sufficiently changed variant of the MiG-29 that probably deserved to have a new designation. The MiG-29M, in fact, has evolved into the MiG-35, which integrates all the new features and capabilities of the MiG-29M with the TV/TR of the MiG-29OVT. The original intent in forking off this MiG-33 article was to deal with this complicated history of the "MiG-33", which really couldn't be adequately handled in the already lengthy MiG-29 article.

In principle, I have no problem renaming this article "MiG-29M" (and I'd recommend adding "MiG-29M" to the designation sequence since it's now "covered" by the MiG-33). If you would like, I could post a sandbox version of what I'd developed so you could see what I was at least trying to do with this article, and discuss what to do with the "MiG-33" material before renaming the article. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• That would be good. -Fnlayson 20:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Here's a link: MiG-33 draft. It lacks the font colorings and shadings that I have used in my offline MS Word draft to help me keep track of the state of various elements of the text, as well as annotations, but at least it gives a sense of the storyline I was trying to build. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Well, the part "Project 33" was mention in a short sentence before I eventually removed it due to no citation. I too aware of this abandoned prj33 but found no clue to present it along 29M/33. It seems you did hard work on it. All we need is just to discuss whether it should be a new topic or integrate it here. And the Chinese part, usually brings problem, you must be ready for challenge. Regrads ChowHui 03:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Misleading

Article is totally false! The MiG-33 was a never built light fighter design, whose complete blueprints were purchased by the chinese during Yeltsin's time. The chinese and the pakistani eventually built it domestically and today it is called the "FC-1 Fierce Dragon". 82.131.210.162 07:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

...Project 33 is *not* the MiG-33. Zaku^Talk 00:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you prove it is false? RegardsChowHui 05:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Rename revisit

I've just re-read the above discussion, and looked at AMark's MiG-33 draft page. I like to propose moving this page to Mikoyan MiG-29M. Mikoyan MiG-33 would then list the two models from the first part of Mark's draft page, covering the first in a little more detail, not being a full aircraft page, but rather a more of an expanded DAB. Comments? - BillCJ (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not anticipating any major objections to the move, I've been bold and gone ahead with that. I've also added some content from Mark's sandbox to Mikoyan MiG-33, though it needs references. - BillCJ (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I second that. Regards ChowHui (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Daredevil555

Recently I again noticed that you tend to delete things around and hope to take this chance to remind you that this kind of behavior is not welcomed here. Back to the topic. J-10 and Gripen may have slightly different specs but they are not significant. None of these fighter aircraft are identical. Your argument does not make sense here. ChowHui (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a strongly-worded note at Talk:Sukhoi Su-34 regarding Daredevil's continued addition of the F-35 to the Su-34 "Comparable" field. The F-35, by the way, is single engined, and has far less range than the Su-34! Hopefully we can encourage him to discuss instead of reverting in the future. - BillCJ (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

MiG-29SMT merge

(See WP:Merging and moving pages for details on performing mergers.)

I propose merging Mikoyan MiG-29SMT to this article. The SMT article is essentially a stub and is unreferenced. According to Jane's, the MiG-29SMT includes many of the improvements from the MiG-29M either through upgrade or new aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your entry using ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

• Support per nomination reasons stated above. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I copied the MiG-29M variant entries from the MiG-29 article here. This includes a SMT section, which I think has better coverage than Mikoyan MiG-29SMT. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. - BilCat (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, no opposition here after more than a month. I redirected Mikoyan MiG-29SMT to this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Super Fulcrum at MAKS 2005.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Super Fulcrum at MAKS 2005.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

SMT

More countries operate MiG-29SMT, so why only India is listed.