Status of F-4D 66-7554 at NMUSAF

[eallen]

mig 25 at the restoration hanger...

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared ... 4b-004.jpg

mig 23...

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared ... 4S-001.jpg

[warbird1]

very sorry! forgive me! i just spent 20 or so minutes looking at pix on the museum restoration site...and have discovered the errors of my ways! you are correct that is not a mig-25 but rather a mig-23.

about 10 feet away is what i refered to in my message...the mig-25 with the missing wings that matches your info/pix. i actually saw the areas where the verticals were torched off...and somewhat repaired/fixed/put back in place by the museum restoration staff. i believe i remember our guide telling us the restoration staff is hoping the wings would show up someday when they were uncovered...presumably in the same area of the desert and they could make a complete restoration. the story made sense to me since i vaguely remember the pics/story from when the plane was found.

i do believe that the info/story on the mig-21 swap is accurate...restoring the actual vietnamese aircraft and then exchanging it with the other that is currently on display that is not a vietnamese aircraft. if this is not true i am fying back to ohio tomorrow and will post up outside in protest of bad info being handed out...

sorry...still no pics....i really blew it! maybe next time...

Don't worry about it, everybody makes mistakes. Believe me, there are enough anoraks on this forum to catch any mistake, big or small. I've been wrong before here and learned things as a result. I would venture to say that at least half the people here wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a Mig-23 and a Mig-25. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as the emphasis on this forum is older airplanes, not so much current or near current.

[JDK]

Don't worry about it, everybody makes mistakes.

We certainly do! None of us know everything, but if we could all play nice together we'd make an unbeatable team...

I would venture to say that at least half the people here wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a Mig-23 and a Mig-25.

Maybe, but the first MiGs were W.W.II era, and then or now, in western characters (Latin alphabet) rather than Cyrillic, it should always be MiG, not mig or Mig.

Maybe that's too much of a nit pick for some, but the reason (IMHO) is interesting: MiG was the abbreviation for a two designer bureau (Mikoyan & Gurevich Design Bureau) rather than a single designer like most of the others - Yak, Su, Il (eye ell, not LL or II), Tu, Pe, etc. Then (as I just found when checking the details) there's LaGG which was a three designer bureau! (Lavochkin-Gorbunov-Goudkov. It later became the Lavochkin company, and the prefix La only remained.)

For more oddities and exceptions, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mi ... nd_the_CIS

We live and learn...

[warbird1]

Don't worry about it, everybody makes mistakes.

We certainly do! None of us know everything, but if we could all play nice together we'd make an unbeatable team...

I would venture to say that at least half the people here wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a Mig-23 and a Mig-25.

Maybe, but the first MiGs were W.W.II era, and then or now, in western characters (Latin alphabet) rather than Cyrillic, it should always be MiG, not mig or Mig.

See, I told you we have a lot of anoraks around here, and JDK is the Chief Anorak!

I often get lazy by typing incorrect designations, Mig instead of MiG and Fw-190, instead of FW-190, etc.

Duly noted, James!

[JDK]

See, I told you we have a lot of anoraks around here, and JDK is the Chief Anorak!

Ergh. Maybe I'd aspire to that role, but the hoodie is definitely up for grabs, still. I'm often wrong, I just try and remember to get it right next time!

I often get lazy by typing incorrect designations, Mig instead of MiG and Fw-190, instead of FW-190, etc.

Capitalisation is something that's often regarded as unimportant today my many, and it's another area where generally it probably doesn't matter (certainly it'd be daft to get too fussy when on the internet) but sometimes it does and sometimes it can be really important. (There are people in responsible jobs today who don't know how to use capitals or write properly. Does it matter? If they want to have credibility and to communicate clearly, it does. And sometime in the future people won't even see the difference between MiG and Mig.)

Somewhere in the middle of all that important-or-not stuff is the example that the company chose to have a capital 'W' to differentiate them: a FW 190 is a modern Flug Werke Machine, while Fw 190 is the W.W.II beastie built by Focke Wulf. (Oh, and I meant to add last time that 'MIG' is a type of welding technique, rather than an aircraft manufacturer. Important? Who knows?

RegRdz

[warbird1]

You are correct, JDK. Those things are important, especially when all the W.W.II generation passes, as nobody will be left to correct those of us who say or write something incorrectly. An example that comes to mind is the controversial topic of "razorback" mustangs. What a can of worms!

James, I nominate you as Chief Anorak at WIX! I mean that in the most complimentary way, and I don't mean it derogatorily. Your attention to detail and insightful knowledge on aircraft history is very entertaining and beneficial.

I am going to make you a virtual name tag to put on your virtual desk here at WIX. Here it is:


JDK
Chief Anorak - WIX
May 11, 2004 to present
. . . . . .. . . . . . .

[warbird1]

Oh James, I forgot one thing for your name tag. Should I put this on the bottom line?

P-51 Mustang Hater





Cheers, mate!