Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25/Archive 3

MiG-25 top speed
MiG-25 top speed is 3494 kmph in Google Bengal Informer (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Wiki info
Why did they say that 3000 km is equal to Mach 2.83?Mach 2.83 equal to 3494 km in Google .But McSly edited MiG-25 top speed as 3000 kmph.Also,He said the top speed of MiG-25 is Mach 2.83 at altitude.Why Wiki and Googles info are always different?Its not good for people .I always wanted to put similar info at Wiki and Google so that people can get correct info. Bengal Informer (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Nothing
MiG-25 is my most favourite aircraft .I love this aircraft so much .That is why I always wanted to put correct info about it .But since last year,I noticed that most of the info of Google and Wiki are different .So I started to unbelieve Wikis info. Bengal Informer (talk) 07:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "info from google." Google is a search engine that finds other websites for you. So what you are finding is discrepancy between other websites and Wikipedia. In which case, you need to tell us what sites, and then we can look at how reliable they are. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thrust/Weight ratio clarification?
It is unclear what values the 0.41 Thrust/Weight ratio is based on in the specifications section. If I did my calculations correctly, it uses the dry thrust of the aircraft and the gross weight listed to get a value around of 0.408, which is rounded up to 0.41. Should a descriptor be added after the value, perhaps similar to the one in the F-4 Phantom II article's specifications section? Even if the values used would be assumed by aviation engineers, I still think this would make it easier for the reader to more quickly get the correct information. --2601:182:380:5658:ECA8:F45B:2BF5:D368 (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Speed

 * First, I wrote that the top speed of the MiG-25 is mach 3.5+ and gave a link to a video on YouTube that contains a diagram of the speed of the MiG-25RB, which confirms this.
 * After that, another editor placed the template "Verification needed", and then removed this link.
 * After that, I gave an additional link to the Manual of the MiG-25RB with an indication of a specific page. Thus, the verification requirement was met.
 * But this link was also removed under the silly excuse of " taken out of context"! It was May 9, you can see it all in the story of the article.
 * So, we see stupidity and demagogic techniques. I have restored reliable information, which I have confirmed with all the necessary sources. MTR700 (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Don't link to copyvios. Any such links MUST be removed - continuing to add copycios will results in blocks2) The graph appears to give theoretical speed vs altitude rather than actual speed reached - we need evidence of actual top speeds reached - note that there are plenty of post-Glasnost sources on the MiG-25 and subtypes by respected authors (including by the head of the MiG design bureau) who don't refer to Mach 3.5+.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Listen to me, stupid monkey. First, there is nothing copyrighted there. Secondly, when we talk about the maximum speed, we are talking about the maximum speed, and not about the actually achieved. Do you understand, sly, slippery mouse? MTR700 (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec)Also note that the article shouldn't be talking about things in the lede that aren't talked about in the body of the article, so theoretical top speeds shouldn't be discussed there. The body does talk about the Mach 2.83 for 5 minutes limit, and also mentions that on occasion this was exceeded - currently cited to Spick (although without a page number), who states that Mach 3.2 was reached which led to the engines being scrapped - Gordon 1997 also talks about the limits being exceeded, with it mentions that one may have reached 3400 km/h (it states "other sources state"), which did not cause airframe damage. What can be also talked about in the body (which isn't currently) is that the MiG-25M upgrade, with R15BF2-300 engines giving more power and with higher temperature limits, and with other temperature-sensitive parts of the airframe to have duralumin or composites replaced with steel or titanium honeycomb, was intended to reach speeds of Mach 3.0 to 3.2. Testbeds for the MiG-25M, with the new engines, were used to set a series of time to height and altitude records.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So - what do we do with the article now? Do we revert the changes by the (now blocked) OP? The article still needs to sort the large number of cites vaguely pointing to a book without page numbers, which are about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nite that we still have the copyvio links in the lede - even if Practical aerodynamics of the MiG-25RB aircraft is a usable source (and as we cannot read the cover/title page of the book we cannot verify that it is what it is claimed to be) we still shouldn't be linking to a suspect copy of it or a dodgy Youtube video with screen grabs of what is alledged to be this book.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed the "Top speed of the MiG-25" ref. Others can handle the "Aerodynamics of the MiG-25RB" reference as needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me add some observations to the argument. I have looked at the book on that website you don't like. I do not know that site and cannot tell if it is a copyvio site per se. The particular document on the other hand does not seem to represent a copyright violation. Contrary to some statement above there is no problem to see the title page if you simple go back to page 1. It turns out to be an official Soviet document and those are not copy protected because the entire western concept of copy proctection was not applicable in what you would call "Communist Countries". So there should not be a copyvio argument against using that historical document. And since it is available in its entirety and appears consistent there should be little doubt to its authenticity afaics. The same book is probably also available at the site mentioned in the top right corner of the page as a second and more original location. I would argue that people who distribute materials violating the copyright would rarely place their coordinates on such material. I mean yes it's Russia, but please keep the Cold War emotions in check, this is a state document after all. Anyway, finally coming to the point - directly to the left of the diagram there is a page of text which introduces the reasoning leading up to that diagram and there it says in Russian (caps 4 highlighting) "The aircraft MiG-25RB has a larger range of speeds and altitudes in comparison with existing supersonic aircrafts. THE MAXIMUM SPEED OF FLIGHT IN THE STRATOSPHERE EXCEEDS THE SPEED OF SOUND __ALMOST__ THREE TIMES ...". The rest of the explanations points out that a purely theoretical analysis of the possible speed range based on energy provided versus energy needed follows. So the curves in that diagram actually provide outer boundaries which are impossible to be exceeded because of theoretical limits. There is no claim that (or to what extend) an actually existing airframe could actually get close to those lines. So to me the important take-away from this document is the sentence above, not the diagram.
 * This is a written confirmation in an official government document of the era that the plane was able to get close to Mach 3 in reality. Obviously this may not have been the last word about it and there is always to chance that the true potential was not published. But that's how I understand the data provided by MTR700. I understand that the SR-71 vs MiG-25 controversy is highly emotional and some nationalistic publications on both sides did not help the matter, but so far I have not seen any evidence that the MiG got significantly over Mach 3. Side note: My father proudly flew MiGs ;-). JB. --92.195.60.183 (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me try to add a translation of the title page of the document although my Russian is a little rusty. "Practical Aerodynamics of the Aircraft MiG-25RB". It the mentions the Deputy Commander of the Military Air Forces regarding battle preparation and learning of abilities to fly. This last part is not a perfect translation as I understand the words but struggle with some minor things. But it is clear that this is a document intended for teaching pilots. There are numerous stamps and signatures which show that this was actually vetted, introduced and used. This particular copy has serial number 270. It was published in 1978 by The Military Publishing House of the Ministry of Defense of the Soviet Union in Moscow. No names of any authors apear on that page but at the top the Ministry of Defense of the Soviet Union and particularly their Air Force are provided as the "authors". As mentioned before and as MTR700 also claimed there is no copyright applicable to such documents since they precede the introduction of the mere concept. It is a little as if asking why the decendants of Mozart do not get royalties. Yes, it's over 70 years after his death, but that's not the point. JB. --92.195.60.183 (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Google Books has it, or more precisely some guy reissued the original under his own name so the second page shows the original title page. Sorry for the unreadable link, but Cyrilic letters get converted into this nonsense. Page 85 shows the diagram, page 84 shows the context. You can search for "4.1." and probably also translate things since it is digitized:  https://books.google.de/books?id=ncb8AgAAQBAJ&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&dq=%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F+%D0%B0%D1%8D%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0+%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0+%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%93-25%D0%A0%D0%91&source=bl&ots=tnYLMdEqM7&sig=ACfU3U0Qu6piLPM5Cfq5BqeZKpqa_UrLZA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwivpsOa0fXyAhUa_7sIHcmYAPMQ6AF6BAgWEAM#v=onepage&q=%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F%20%D0%B0%D1%8D%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%20%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0%20%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%93-25%D0%A0%D0%91&f=false   JB. --92.195.60.183 (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Civilian edge-of-space flights
Does anyone have additional information about this aircraft's use as a "space tourism" vehicle for civilian edge-of-space flights? It's mentioned briefly in the intro, but the listed sources don't really mention it. The only information that a quick search revealed was a grainy video. Also, the companies who are currently offering edge-of-space flights in fighter jets don't appear to be using the mig-25 anymore: the mig-29 is the aircraft that I saw advertised in my search. I think it'd be interesting to have a bit more detail, maybe about who operated these flights, how much they cost, when they were offered, and maybe how that relates to the economic situation in the air and space industries of the post-soviet states. It could also be interesting to talk about similarities and differences with current space tourism. But, I'm having trouble finding sources for any of it :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedeseuss (talk • contribs) 21:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Mig 25 vs hawk mim-23 missile
Israel destroyed mig-25 with hawk missile.

Read about the story of pini shpater. 2A0D:6FC7:404:2622:2CEE:F5FF:FEC6:FAA2 (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Comparison about two 60s planes
Can you please published about the comparison of Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird and MIG 31K Foxhound, I would be grateful and thankful. Archangel Oxcart (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia can not write comparison articles or paragraphs unless this information is provided in a reliable source. What you can do though is open both specifications sections in two browser tabs and switch between them to make your own comparison. For convenience you would need to open Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird and Mikoyan MiG-31. I should also note that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source (WP:NOTSOURCE). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  16:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)