Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15/Archive 2

Sentence Phrasing Question
Towards the middle of the article there is a sentence that reads:

The MiG-15 was originally intended to intercept American bombers like the B-29, and was even evaluated in mock air-to-air combat trials with interned ex-U.S. B-29, as well as the later Soviet B-29 copy, the Tu-4 "Bull".

I think that I am understanding the editors intent correctly, that the sentence means that the MiG-15 was evaluated against a interned B-29 (or possibly multiple?). I propose that the sentence be rewritten as:

The MiG-15 was originally intended to intercept American bombers like the B-29. It was even evaluated in mock air-to-air combat trials with an interned ex-U.S. B-29, as well as the later Soviet B-29 copy, the Tu-4 "Bull".

Let me know what you think. StarsTrainsAndRandomThings (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

25mm gun
The weapon list includes 25mm gun. I know of no 25mm aircraft gun of Russian origin, only AA. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thebiggestmac (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

THIS IS ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA PEOPLE
Why is it so hard to read this article without hitting gramically incorrect or awkward sentences? If you can't write in the damn language DO NOT EDIT OR CONTRIBUTE to the article. There are other language wikipedia's that probably cover your language and which you can contribute to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.79.201 (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Or, instead of complaining but offering no solution, you can edit it yourself. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. LikeHolyWater (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Translation
You can see this article has obviously been translated from another language(parts of it at least), but I think the comments from unsigned are a bit harsh. It is a long and comprehensive article and good deal better than nothing. The author has obviously expended a good deal of time an effort on it, but it just needs someone to go through and tidy it up a wee bit, add some US/Imperial measurments and correct a few bits of grammer and spelling, an hour, hour and a halfs work maybe. I'll go through it and see what needs to be done and make the changes as time permits.

Yakacm (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. Wikipedia is and should be an international project and for those areas that first language English speaker are not more knowledgeable, I for one sincerely welcome their contributions. This page always had a large gap in the Korean War section representing a very western view of both the conflict and the aircraft. If someone who does not have English as their first language makes so much effort to produce additions to this page they deserve _respect_ and those who complain should step-up and edit to correct the English. This is a global, open forum for information there is nothing stopping anyone from helping out… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.244.246.25 (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've gone through the "Korean War" section of the article and fixed up the grammar and generally made things into ideomatic English. I removed most of the parenthetical asides about what pilots belonged to what Wing of what Division -- not because I think it's unencyclopedic (though I do), but because the large number of facts and figures made the article difficult to read.


 * I also added a few "citation needed" tags in certain areas -- there are a large number of references citing this guy shot down that guy in this or that aircraft, but few for the (IMHO more important) claims of "this plane was better than that plane" or "these guys won more than those guys." Some tags asking for clairification were added to abbreviations that were not explained in the text, and to other confusing statements such as nights spanning two days.


 * Though I applaud the attempt to make the section more balanced by adding infomation from the Communist view point, I fear the balance has now swung too far the other way, with the majority of the text and seemingly all of the citations speaking from a pro-Communist point of view of the conflict. -- jhf (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How can a MiG-15 shooting down a Piper Cub be called a "victory"?
? -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the Eastern Bloc takes what they can get... 97.104.73.112 (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Fighter aircrafts where first invented to intercept observation aircrafts, not to fight against each others... 18:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.165.69.38 (talk)

––That doesn't matter, during the MiG-15's service life it's primary goal certainly wasn't to shoot down Piper Cubs. 74.140.113.85 (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

do you imply sabers didn't try to shoot down po-2? 94.154.66.240 (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Supposedly Egyptian Airforce MiG-15 seems to belong to the Nigerian Airforce according to insignia
212.114.206.91 (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Soviet Bias
This article is laughable. Perhaps "western experts" (who?) acknowledge pilots "earned bigger individual scores" because the Soviets made shit up. The article reads like Russia Today wrote the article using some poorly translated Soviet Era propaganda. Maybe Putin contributes writing to the english language Wikis. Sure, the Americans - my people - made shit up too, but no one can compete with the Soviets in producing laugh out loud B.S. about how awesome they are. "Brothers, this year the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics produced 4,000 metric tons of bulgar wheat, 9,000 tons of millet, and shot down over 2,000 F-86 Sabres. Long live the proletariat!". The F-86 Sabre article does a better job with the ratio issue.

Antecesors
If you look at the drawings of the Focke-Wulf P.VI and the Focke-Wulf Ta 183 Huckebein (not Huckleberry) -German Jet Genesis: David Masters; Jane's 1982, ISBN 0 7106 0186 7-, and the MiG 15, its hard to say nothing but that they're extremely similar. If you look from above at the shape of the wings of modern jet Airliners, such as Lockheed 1011 TriStar, you'll notice also a very similar overall arrangement to the wings of the Me 262. Discussing about the qualities of projects that never saw the stage of flying machines would be quite purposeless, and this will go worse if you start making comparisons between Airplanes built in a country or other, specially if never built. Regarding the Me 262, it was said that it was heavy and slow in turning, and as neither the sighting devices nor the pilots were prepared for its speed, they had to slow down to shot against bombers, and this put them momentarily at the reach of the bomber's gunmen. Theodore von Kármán, in his book: "Aerodynamics. Selected topics in the light of their historical development", Dover edition, published in 2004, an unabridged republication of the 1957 2nd printing of the work, ISBN 0-486-43485-0, page 134, tells that in 1945 they found in a laboratory near Braunschweig, Germany, wind tunnel models of an airplane with sweptback wings and pertinent high-Mach-number wind-tunnel data. A member of this group was George Schairer, head of the technical staff at Boeing Aircraft Company, that reportedly wired back to his office: "Stop the bomber design", the newly acquired information leading to the B-47 airplane that actually went airborne.--Jgrosay (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

References About the I-310 Prototypes
I tried to edit the main page but the preview displays too much changes and as I don't want to make things worse. So here are the references asked about the I-310 prototypes. Before an american edition was published in 1993, R.A. Belyakov and Jacques Marmain first published their book in France at Editions Larivière, Paris in 1991 under the title "MiG : 1939 - 1989" (book #33 of the Docavia collection). ISBN 2-907051-00-8. The I-310 prototypes (S-01, S-02 and S-03) are described from page 91 to 99. This is about their type name (please note that the I-310 is missing on the Mikoyan wikipedia page). About the word "resulting" of the studies made through the MiG-8, sure they have had benefits from this experimental aircraft but the link is theorical not direct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.11.224.196 (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ref added to the I-310 to a different edition of the Belyakov/Marmain book.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect photo?
I may be wrong, but the photo captioned "Lim-2 at Polish Aviation Museum" looks much more like a Lim-5 or Lim-6 (aka MiG-17) than a Lim-2/MiG-15. It strongly appears to me that it has three wing fences, which makes it a MiG-17 unless the Polish performed some modifications to the basic MiG-15 design that aren't mentioned on this page. Either way it's a shame that it appears to be quite neglected, whatever type of aircraft it is. .45Colt 12:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Look at the wing fences on that photo. If I am correct the Mig-15 has two and the Mig-17 has three. Articseahorse (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

A clean of of the photo layout should help with this article. Better selection of photos to be used from commons to replace a Mig-15 (or Lmi-2)that has a Soft drink logo on it in the description for the history of the Mig-15. Articseahorse (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I DID look at the wing fences, and counted THREE. I just checked again and STILL count three. That makes it, as you say, and as I said, a MiG-17, not a 15. Thus it doesn't belong here, yes?.45Colt 06:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggest new/revised layout?
I truly think this ENTIRE ARTICLE needs to be redlined and started over; The focus should be just the MiG15, the rest of the article, biased as it may be but nonetheless well written, should be moved to the heading of "Russian Aviation". The information that I needed was buried in a sea of superfluous Cold War dogma. The name of the article, again, was just MiG15 Fagot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAH00T (talk • contribs) 20:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see that much on "Russian Aviation" here. There's some material on early Soviet jets, but that's not all that large. Everything else is about the MiG-15 and its operational history. - BilCat (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Unguided rockets in air combat
I assume it must be a MiG-15bis, since this says that only a bis could carry rockets, but I saw a sequence of gun camera photos in an old Time-Life book yesterday that supposedly shows a MiG-15 shooting down an F-86 with an unguided rocket. I've never heard of them using unguided rockets in aerial combat during the Korean War, and they certainly wouldn't be any good for dogfighting, but it's possible that a MiG was carrying some rockets, hoping to use them against a B-29? That is why small-caliber rocket pods were invented, to make it easier to shoot down bombers. But fighters? Probably just with luck. Anyway, the footage was shot from an F-86 which had just hit and damaged a MiG. You can see it smoking in the photos, shot from behind. But a second F-86 enters the frame and passes directly across in front of the MiG. You can see a white blurb leave the MiG and hit the second F-86 in the wing, and there's an explosion and half of the wing flies off. I just thought that was interesting, for several reasons. Did MiG's carry rockets for air combat in Korea? If they did, did they ever try to use them for dogfighting, or were they intended for bombers (which was what the main focus for MiG's was, one of the reasons they shot down fewer F-86's)? Perhaps he was trying to attack a bomber, and was shot up by an escorting F-86? Why did the second one fly directly in front of an enemy fighter? Seems unwise, even if the hit (which appears to be a single rocket) must have hit by a thousand-to-one chance And is it possible that the image actually shows a cannon shell with a tracer, and someone simply mis-identified it as a rocket. Because somehow the idea of a jet fighter being shot down by a single unguided rocket while passing at a 90deg angle directly in front of an enemy fighter that has another enemy on his tail and is already damaged seems unlikely to me. I can more easily picture a burst from the 37mm, and a single shell connecting. That ought to be sufficient to blow half of a wing off, right? And come to think of it, the fireball seemed a bit puny for an unguided rocket warhead....45Colt 08:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

i don't get why an article about a soviet plane mostly has american photos
i mean i would better see the gun footage of the migs targeting american planes and stuff than vice versa since it's an article about them after all. this article is also slightly biased but w/e 94.154.66.240 (talk) 07:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "Most" of the photos aren't American, so stop with the exaggerations. The ones that are there are public-domain images, because most images taken by US government personnel in the course of their duties ar PD. Most other governments copyright their images, so there are less of those available to be used. - BilCat (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15. 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 tag to http://www.historic-battles.com/HBforum/index.php?topic=1799.0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090408021413/http://www.korean-war.com/nokoreaairforce.html to http://www.korean-war.com/nokoreaairforce.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070115115045/http://worldairforces.com/Countries/afghanistan/afg.html to http://www.worldairforces.com/Countries/afghanistan/afg.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070115205758/http://worldairforces.com/Countries/albania/alb.html to http://www.worldairforces.com/Countries/albania/alb.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206092118/http://www.korean-war.com/ussraircombat.html to http://www.korean-war.com/ussraircombat.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101119035909/http://aviationclassics.com/ACL/Warbirds.html to http://www.aviationclassics.com/ACL/Warbirds.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A19860066000
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060626012002/http://www.airtoaircombat.com/background.asp?id=41&bg=856 to http://www.airtoaircombat.com/background.asp?id=41&bg=856

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

List of Most Produced Aircraft needs citations
Howdy all Wikipedians! This aircraft appears on the list of most-produced aircraft but there is no citation for the production figure cited in that article. I respectfully ask your help in adding a citation, along with any necessary explanatory notes about the production figure (e.g. whether it includes licensed production and significant minor variants, and if so, which ones). Thanks in advance! Carguychris (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)