Talk:Mikoyan/Archive 1

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

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  MiG-29 Fulcrum comparable to F-15? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Mig-13

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: in video games

message: 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)
thread_title:  Meaning of "MIG" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Korean Use 

message: 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)
thread_title:  OKB short form name