Talk:Mikoyan Project 1.44/Archive 1

Archive 1

Started 29 Aug 2004 by Tin_soldier

Unfortunately, this aircraft will never actually get anywhere. I'm quite dissappointed at this.

There isn't even a page on the Russian wikipedia (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAK_FA shows the dead link to Микоян 1.44)Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

V-tail or twin tail?

I changed the description from V-tail to twin tail after checking to see what constitutes a V-tail. It seems that the fins on this craft (given their nearly-vertical orientation) can't significantly substitute for elevators (which is what the canards do). So I classify them as twins. --Paul Richter 16:57, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're right, that's a twin-tail. A V-tail is what aircraft such as the F-117 and Beechcraft Bonanza V-tail models have. Impi 10:24, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Weight

In Description it says "35-ton aircraft", while Specification gives a takeoff maximum of 20000 kg. Which one is in error, and by how much?

Signing post for archiving. Redalert2fan (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent news story

LWF, for some reason, you have removed a link to today's (8/18/06) news story that quotes Russian Air Force commander saying that MIG, in addition to participating in the PAK FA project (which he called a "medium" plane), is also working on a new light fighter. I think this news story is relevant to this article and I put it back. Profhobby 02:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

I'm a little confused with about MIG-35/MG 1.44 in the Design sequence section because there is a page on MIG-35. And according to http://www.warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=255&linkid=1608 (Russian Military Analysis) MIG-35/MIG 1.44 is MIG-39/1.42 MFI and I'm a little confuse.

Model numbers are only assigned when the airplane is ready for serial production. The airplane described in this article was just a technology demonstrator, a test bed for for the future Russian fifth-generation fighter. Therefore, it was never assigned a model number, but instead remained a "project" number 1.44. MIG-35 model number seems to be used by the MIG corporation to market its latest variant of the MIG-29. Profhobby 19:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

ID

Is the 1.42/1.44 correct? I'm thinking it should be I.42/44, per I-270. Correction? Trekphiler 00:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Speed

You also said this aircraft is faster than the F-22. How do you know this when the F-22's top speed is classified and the other page on wikipedia about the Raptor says it can go Mach 2.5+.

The Raptor's engines are limited in their output, in a (successful) effort to reduce it's heat signature, thus giving IR missiles a harder time when searching for a heat source. With the Raptor now in full serial production and as it has been in squadron service now for around half a year, we know it's maximum (governed) speed is around Mach 2.0. However, we also know that the maximum thrust produced by the F-119 engines is equal to the maximum thrust provided by two F-4 Phantom IIs, which implies (given that the Raptor is more aerodynamic and lighter than the Phantom) that it is capable of moving much faster, if necessary.

Alright, so we know why the F-22 doesn't go faster. Anyone know why this thing doesn't go faster? With a combined thrust higher than an X-15, it certainly seems like it should be going faster. Airframe limitations? ASWilson 03:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Easily - the F-22 engine is F-119-100 with 158000 кгс. The MiG 1.44 engine is AL-41F (АЛ-41Ф) with 21000 кгс. Now try to convert what is кгс.

MiG-25/MiG-31?

How exactly is this plane a related development to the MiG-25/31 series? PolarisSLBM 04:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Mig-35 has nothing to do with Mig-29OVT

MiG corporation had their first official international Mig-35 presentation during the Air India 2007. Apparently Mig-35 is a further development of the previous Mig-29M. Mig-29OVT is related, however a rather independent project as a thrust vector engine demonstrator. ChowHui 03:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Shafaq really comparable?

Under comparable aircraft, the article lists the Shafaq. I don't see how the Shafaq is comparable to MiG 1.44. The Shafaq is a subsonic trainer jet in the same class as the Golden Eagle and the Alpha Jet. Entirely different sort of plane. Unless someone has a good reason, this really needs to be fixed.

No, I don't think so, just for the fact that Mikoyan 1.44 can reach MACH 2.6 and Shafaq MACH 1. --Eurocopter tigre 21:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Mere stub

Article has no photo and no 3-view drawing, even though the Mig-144 is an actual flying aircraft, not just a concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 08:14, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Plasma stealth?

Removed sentence on account of vagueness and weasel-wordiness. Who believes this? Intelligence agencies and Jane's Information Group are trustworthy sources, the guy in the corner wearing a tinfoil hat is not. But the sentence's construction doesn't give any cues as to who it's believed by, so out it goes. Iceberg3k 15:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_stealth —Preceding unsigned comment added by - - - (talk • contribs) 13:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Keldysh Research Center has made claims that they have been able "to shrink a plasma generator to only 100 kg which could easily fit in the aircraft". ITAR-TASS (a russian news agency and no I have no idea what ITAR-TASS stands for) did an interview with Doctor Anatoliy Koroteyev who claims on a test run they were able to reduce a Su-27 return signature by a factor of 100. And why Jane's dosn't have it? Cause it might be all made up just to get funding, but so far the only thing we have is their claims so I would like to see it included but with a dissclaim that it hasn't been verified (67.55.223.34 (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

Error in the image

Compare http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXuSOdl6K3w&feature=related

The intakes are squared off in the video, but the picture has them as rounded. Not sure if anyone cares.Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This video has been removed due to terms of use violation. 95.132.164.128 (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Difference between 1.42 and 1.44?

• I think I got it, although I need someone with more expertise to verify it. Project 1.44 is the aircraft depicted in the article, with two engines. Project 1.42 is this [1], a lightweight aircraft with a single engine but otherwise with nearly identical design features. Or is this just speculative fan art by aircraft geeks? What do you think? Vicarious Tendril (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Sorry, I noticed the part where it says that the 1.42 was a twin-engine design. The artist must have gotten the name wrong. The above picture seems to fit the description of the Yakolev entry for the MFI program. Alternatively, it could be something called the MiG project 4.12 (easily confused with '1.42' I guess) which seemed to have been an entry or early concept for the LFI project that is not mentioned in this article.[2] Vicarious Tendril (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the 1.42 is meant to be a production version of the 1.44. The 1.44 is a demonstrator version that lacks the technolegy and other functions of the 1.42, so it's a prototype. The 1.42 is also known as the "Foxglove". That's the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.32.252 (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Program cost = $100 billion

100 billions = 20 aircraft carriers, nice :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samez (talk • contribs) 16:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Just Wrong

There is so much wrong with this page it should just be deleted.

• Such as? Vicarious Tendril (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
• Program cost = $100 billion = 20 aircraft carriers = 1000 PAK-FA or 800 Raptors:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.186.205 (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Mig-1.44-3.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Mig-1.44-3.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)