Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Soviet Union (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Russia / Technology & engineering / Military (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
 

Old talk[edit]

MiG-19 versions are a bit of a mess. However, I could find no evidence of a MiG-19F or -PF. It appears that there was no Farmer-D either. Emt147 09:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about when SM-1 was dropped and SM-2 was developed. Emt147 20:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Somone deleted a very good quality black and white photo which used to be on the page. This photo should be returned.

Operational history[edit]

Vietnam anyone?!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.2.216.193 (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

The three pilots shot down in the 1964 incident now have pages on wiki, but I don't know what is the appropriate way to point to them. They are Captain John F Lorraine, Captain Donald Grant Millard, and Lieutenant Colonel Gerald K. Hannaford.

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Number built[edit]

The box says some 2,100 plus China but the text says 5,500 including China. Can anyone confirm the worldwide total and adjust the figures in the article?

B Tillman 4 Aug 09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.218.122 (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Have Drill: MiG-17 or MiG-19?[edit]

I've seen conflicting sources on this. Davie's book "Red Eagles: America's secret MiGs" mentions only the MiG-17 in relation to the Have Drill program. However, according to this interview with an F-86 pilot, there was a MiG-19 involved. (http://sabre-pilots.org/classics/v23les.htm). I'm willing to bet this interview is where the info in this Wikipedia article came from, but since the info is un-cited, I can't say for sure.

I'm tempted to consider Davie's book the more authoritative source, and delete the Have Drill section from this article. But I wanted to see if there were other opinions before doing so.

-Skyraider1 (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the Have Drill section, based on the fact that it was uncited. -Skyraider1 (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Cannon fire[edit]

The section on cannon fire under the Vietnam War seems a bit over simplistic. Cannon shells tend to be explosive so the actual weight of fire is not as critical as with machine gun fire. The statement on weight of fire also assumes that all 30 shells hit the target; more accurate to consider the amount of sky covered by the burst and lethality of individual shells? I copyedited for what I think flows better but perhaps more polishing is required.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I was going to put 30mm back into the charts because the heading sentence was awkward. But it seems ok now. Regarding that "weight of fire" comment above, thats part of the U.S. 50 caliber vs cannon debate from the early 1950s, U.S. pilots were weaned on machine guns, particularly the "fifty." Note that the F86 had 6 fiftys. None of the Vietnam War U.S. jets had fifties anymore, excepting the B57 Canberra and tail gunners of the B-52s. Most if not all US jets used 20mm cannons in the Vietnam War. Additionally, US ordnance men measured weight of metal similiarly to "rate of fire" that is to say that U.S. machine guns "fired 600 rounds per minute" (as an example) but no US machine gun came with 600 rds in a box. During the VN War .50 ammo came 100 rds per fifty can (metal can); M60 ammo (7.62mm NATO) came 200 rds per box, a 100 rds to a cloth bag located inside the narrow metal sixty can. In order to fire "600 rds per minute" a man had to LINK several boxes of ammo together to get a 600 rd burst in order to gain a "600 rds per minute" rate of fire. Not realistic for the fighting men on the front lines, but thats how the ordnance people measured their work. But you are correct, that would assume that "all 30 shells hit the target." And thats apparently how the ordnance people looked at it too. A worst case scenario for the hit aircraft and a lucky burst of hits for the victorious jet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.21.110 (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Measuring based on weight of fire is an old tradition; I've seen it done with numerous guns and cannons, regardless of explosive content. That just add even more power per unit of weight. Also, since any projectile can carry an explosive charge, including the .50cal, assuming all rounds were explosive, the ratio would remain roughly the same. A certain weight of fire will deliver X amount of explosive, whether numerous small rounds or fewer larger rounds. In the event, the .50 doesn't (technically) have an explosive charge, although the incendiaries do burst (hence the questionable legality of officially using them against human targets, as rounds that aren't "artillery" are not allowed to be explosive, per the Hague Convention. As for weight of fire, there really is no better way of comparing relative outputs of weapons, taking both caliber and rate of fire into consideration. I note that you complain that not all thirty rounds will hit the target, but that's not relevant: the assumption is that for a given burst, a similar percentage of projectiles will hit the target, either numerous smaller ones, or a few larger ones. The overall percentage will be about the same. If ten of 50 .50cal rounds per 2 second burst hits the target, probability says that 1 of 5 30mm shells will hit the target; that one shell will roughly match the ratio of thrown weight as the initial burst itself. This gets somewhat derailed on larger guns; say you're using a 75mm gun, then the odds of hitting are closer to 1:5...you might miss 4 out of five shots, but the last one will destroy the target (statistically). AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-19. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-19/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The amount of detail is fairly good, possibly more would be needed for a Good Article, but the article might do with more structure (subheadings?) and it is in need of referencing. The Land 21:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 00:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Second generation[edit]

If the MiG-19 is "second generation", then what is the MiG-17? Generation 1+? Gen 1.5? It's obviously quite a bit more advanced than the real first generation fighters like the Me 262, Meteor, MiG-9, etc. AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)