Wildguzzi.com
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: redrider90 on September 13, 2016, 01:44:28 PM
-
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160905-the-pilot-who-stole-a-secret-soviet-fighter-jet
-
Neat read. thanks
-
I vaguely remember reading a book about the pilot and how he thought the CIA was staging things like supermarkets and clothing stores to make America appear better than it was when he first got to the U.S. That was up until they took him onto an aircraft carrier to watch flight ops where he admitted no one could set up such an elaborate ruse and thus had to be real. Having served on an aircraft carrier I'd have to agree with him, pretty amazing to watch in person.
-
I also read up on the pilot. He was a farm boy, and was beside himself over how good farmers lived and the machinery that they (and the banks) owned, not the state. Where he was raised they didn't even have decent barns, and under extreme cold they brought cows into the house at night to keep them from freezing.
-
Mach 3 paper tiger with a steel frame
The strange case of an aircraft that had been, first a little overestimated by westerners, and then, after having been closely examinated, grossly underestimated, due to its technology being simpler than expected, despite the fact tht it was effectively capable to do anything it had previously feared of.
-
Didn't Clint Eastwood fly that thing???
-
Didn't Clint Eastwood fly that thing???
I think it was called firefox.
-
The strange case of an aircraft that had been, first a little overestimated by westerners, and then, after having been closely examinated, grossly underestimated, due to its technology being simpler than expected, despite the fact tht it was effectively capable to do anything it had previously feared of.
Seems to me from this article the MIG 25 was far from "effectively capable to do anything it had previously fear of".
From the BBC article:
“The MiG-25 was not a very useful combat aircraft,” says Connor. “It was an expensive, and cumbersome aircraft, and it wasn’t particularly effective in combat.”
There were other problems too. Flying at Mach 3 meant enormous pressure on the engines. Lockheed’s SR-71 had solved this by putting cones in the front of the engines, which slowed the air down enough so it didn’t damage engine components. The air could then be forced out the back of the engine to help generate more thrust.
The MiG tracked at Mach 3.2 by Israel in 1971 essentially destroyed its engines in the process
The MiG’s turbojets generated thrust by sucking in air to help burn the fuel. Above 2,000mph (3,200km/h), however, things started to go wrong. The sheer force of the air could overwhelm the fuel pumps, dumping more and more fuel into the engine. And at the same time, the force exerted by the compressors would be so huge it would start sucking up parts of the engine. The MiG would start eating itself.
In hindsight, the MiG, which the West had been so worried about, turned out to be a ‘paper tiger’. Its massive radar was years behind US models because instead of transistors it used antiquated vacuum tubes (a technology that did, however, make it impervious to electromagnetic pulses from nuclear blasts). The huge engines required so much fuel that the MiG was surprisingly short-ranged. It could take-off quickly, and fly in a straight line very fast to fire missiles or take pictures. That is about it."
-
Where's kirby1923, when we need him ??
-
Where's kirby1923, when we need him ??
He said something about going to Japan to pick up a Sukhoi T-50 and flying it to Langley ....
-
Seems to me from this article the MIG 25 was far from "effectively capable to do anything it had previously fear of".
From the BBC article:
The article is not exactly the Bible. Many think otherwise. Among those, obviously, the Soviets that built almost 2000 of them.
Was the Mig 25 capable to fly at more than mach 3? Yes, it did several times. It was likely to damage the engines, that had to be replaced once on the ground. Those of the aircraft that was tracked in 1971 were, and the aircraft kept flying. Mach 2.8 was the max speed without stressing the engines, and was much more than any western fighter could do.
The vacuum tubes of the radar of the Mig 25 made it more resistant to nuclear EMP than any semiconductor based radar. Moreover, that radar was powerful enough to pierce the jammings of any contemporary western bomber. So what if it was based on vacuum tubes tecnology?
At the speed it was designed for, the Mig 25 had a longer range than any contemporary western fighter, and it's ferry range was comparable to that of a long range fighter like the Phantom II.
The "cumbersome" Mig 25, with a turn capability of 4.5g for it's entire range of speed was the most agile of the supersonic fighters. The only one that could do really something other than fly in a straight line at those speed.
So was it fast? Yes. Was it agile? Yes. Had a long range? Yes.
And, still in 1991, ten years after having been replaced by the Mig 31, in the higly hostile environment of the Gulf War, it could shot down a F18 and go away with it.
-
Where's kirby1923, when we need him ??
If he makes the Okie remind him to tell his Foxbat story , although we aren't really sure it wasn't some alien craft , he didn't ever see it , and the Phantom he was in was no match speed wise . Of course this will lead to his impression of the F35 , and how a good pilot in a Phantom could probably dispatch one :shocked: Ahh progress :laugh: Fact is , he could probably take on an alien space craft in a P51 , at least until they went to warp :grin:
Dusty
-
When they first examined the MIG 25 in Japan everybody had a laugh at how crude it was constructed. Made of steel and welded together, not exactly state of the art aircraft design. It even had vacuum tubes in the avionics package..WOW!
But when the spooks analyzed the whole package they changed their minds.
The welded steel airframe would be easy to maintain in service with minimal equipment and the vacuum tube avionics are simple and did not require "highly" trained techs to maintain.
Typical Russian (that era), method of being function over form. I think the Indians operated them until '05 or '06.
I met Blenko a couple of times as he used to come to our fighter symposiums and derbies.
To say he was a "colorful" fellow is an understatement.
:-)
-
F-4 Phantom:
Maximum speed: Mach 2.23 (1,472 mph, 2,370 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,190 m)
Cruise speed: 506 kn (585 mph, 940 km/h)
Combat radius: 367 nmi (422 mi, 680 km)
Ferry range: 1,403 nmi (1,615 mi, 2,600 km) with 3 external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,300 m)
F-15 Eagle:
Maximum speed:
-High altitude: Mach 2.5+ (1,650+ mph, 2,665+ km/h)
-Low altitude: Mach 1.2 (900 mph, 1,450 km/h)
Combat radius: 1,061 nmi (1,222 mi, 1,967 km) for interdiction mission
Ferry range: 3,450 mi (3,000 nmi, 5,550 km) with conformal fuel tanks and three external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 65,000 ft (20,000 m)
SR-71:
Maximum speed: Mach 3.3[122][123][N 5] (2,200+ mph, 3,540+ km/h, 1,910+ knots) at 80,000 ft (24,000 m)
Range: 2,900 nmi (5,400 km)
Ferry range: 3,200 nmi (5,925 km)
Service ceiling: 85,000 ft (25,900 m)
XB-70 Valkyrie (prototype):
Maximum speed: Mach 3.1 (2,056 mph, 3,309 km/h)
Cruise speed: Mach 3.0 (2,000 mph, 3,200 km/h)
Range: 3,725 nmi (4,288 mi, 6,900 km) on combat mission
Service ceiling: 77,350 ft (23,600 m)
MiG 25 Foxbat:
Maximum speed:
-High altitude: Mach 3.2[9] (3,470 km/h, 2,170 mph); Mach 2.83 (3,200 km/h, 1,920 mph) continuous engine limit[9]
-Low altitude: 1,200 km/h (648 knots, 746 mph) at altitude[87]
Combat radius 299 kilometres (186 mi)
Range: 1,730 km (935 nmi, 1,075 mi) with internal fuel
Ferry range: 2,575 km (1,390 nmi)
Service ceiling: 20,700 m (67,915 ft) with four missiles; over 24,400 m (80,000 ft) for RB models
The Soviets felt threatened by the B-70 project and built the MiG-25 to intercept it. The Americans felt threatened by the MiG-25 and built the F-15.
MiG-25 had a horrible combat radius, so was limited in what it could be used for. Pretty much had to get as high as it could, as fast as it could, fire missiles, then turn and run. Or, just turn and run when faced head-on with F-4s or F-15s.
The MiG-25 was tough to shoot down, when it turned and ran... LOL !!!
-
When they first examined the MIG 25 in Japan everybody had a laugh at how crude it was constructed. Made of steel and welded together, not exactly state of the art aircraft design. It even had vacuum tubes in the avionics package..WOW!
But when the spooks analyzed the whole package they changed their minds.
The welded steel airframe would be easy to maintain in service with minimal equipment and the vacuum tube avionics are simple and did not require "highly" trained techs to maintain.
Typical Russian (that era), method of being function over form. I think the Indians operated them until '05 or '06.
I met Blenko a couple of times as he used to come to our fighter symposiums and derbies.
To say he was a "colorful" fellow is an understatement.
:-)
I get the impression that the USA did essentially the same thing with the F-104 "Starfighter".
Designed with the sole purpose of getting high and fast to intercept Soviet bombers, fire quick, and turn and go the other way just as quick. No chance of dogfighting, not a whole lot of range, not very maneuverable with those tiny wings.
I hear that NASA or NOAA or someone is using some of the last ones as platforms from which to launch satellites, they get so high so quick ....
Lannis
-
Yes the 104 was designed to intercept not to do a turning fight. Having said that, the 104 had a very good power to weight ratio and could turn surprisingly well as I found out one time haggling with one in the F 4.
Taught me to beware of preconceived ideas about any machine. In the right hands they are all dangerous.
I have heard of the plan to use them for satellite deployment but I can't imagination how they would mount something like a satellite on a 104 without tripling the drag.
:-)
-
I get the impression that the USA did essentially the same thing with the F-104 "Starfighter".
Designed with the sole purpose of getting high and fast to intercept Soviet bombers, fire quick, and turn and go the other way just as quick. No chance of dogfighting, not a whole lot of range, not very maneuverable with those tiny wings.
Lannis
It's a generation earlier than the other planes being discussed, but its performance was exceptional for the time, and its combat radius was not bad.
A former co-worker was in one of the last operational Air National Guard units using this airplane. He had some good stories!
F-104 Starfighter:
Maximum speed: 1,328 mph (Mach 2.01, 1,154 kn, 2,137 km/h)
Combat radius: 420 mi (365 nmi, 670 km)
Ferry range: 1,630 mi (1,420 nm, 2,623 km)
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m)
Rate of climb: Initially 48,000 ft/min (244 m/s)
-
I have heard of the plan to use them for satellite deployment but I can't imagination how they would mount something like a satellite on a 104 without tripling the drag.
:-)
I went back and looked and this story was on the Beeb just like the OP ...
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160826-the-1950s-jet-launching-tiny-satellites
Must be Vintage Jet Week there ....
Lannis
-
OK that is a good read on the 104!
Now I can see that it might work quite well.
Thanks, mystery solved.
:-)
-
According to A Handbook of Fighter Aircraft, it agrees with most of what has been said about the Mig 25
Super fast, short range, not at all good in a dog fight. One did as Dogwalker alluded too, shot down a US Navy F18. It was the only confirmed, air to air victory by Iraq in the 91 gulf war.
Now the Saab Gripen, that's a beautiful modern fighter, the Moto Guzzi of fighter jets if you ask me.
-
At 1,000 miles per hour, a MiG-25's max (186x2) combat sortie will last about 22-minutes.
If some of that time is spent at 2000 to 2500 MPH, then it will be more like 10-minutes.
Doesn't seem real useful unless the sky if full of incoming B-52s, minutes over the horizon...
On the other hand, a 10 minute run from here to Little Rock would sure be nice sometimes, instead of the 3.5 hours drive!!!
-
Several years back one could purchase a ride in a MIG 29 thru the Hammacher Schlemmer catalog . Don't remember the cost for a 30 minute flight , but was pricey :shocked:
Dusty
-
When they first examined the MIG 25 in Japan everybody had a laugh at how crude it was constructed. Made of steel and welded together, not exactly state of the art aircraft design. It even had vacuum tubes in the avionics package..WOW!
But when the spooks analyzed the whole package they changed their minds.
The welded steel airframe would be easy to maintain in service with minimal equipment and the vacuum tube avionics are simple and did not require "highly" trained techs to maintain.
Typical Russian (that era), method of being function over form. I think the Indians operated them until '05 or '06.
I met Blenko a couple of times as he used to come to our fighter symposiums and derbies.
To say he was a "colorful" fellow is an understatement.
:-)
The Russians made them out of steel because they no doubt did not have the technology to make them out of titanium ALA the SR 71.
Soviet/Russian military history is replete with building monster war machines that just didn't do the job. Not that everything they did was crapy but their top down economy allowed them to build half a$$ machines and not pay the consequences for putting junk out there.
But who am I to talk when we have this boondoggle money eating piece of junk called the F35.
-
The Russians made them out of steel because they no doubt did not have the technology to make them out of titanium ALA the SR 71.
Had the US to make 2000 SR-71, they would have not made them out of titanium. The XB-70 was made of steel too, with titanium used only in high temperature areas, like in the the Mig-25 (that's made of an 8% of titanium).
-
Several years back one could purchase a ride in a MIG 29 thru the Hammacher Schlemmer catalog . Don't remember the cost for a 30 minute flight , but was pricey :shocked:
Dusty
That aircraft was based at Mojave CA. Ukrainian pilot, about 5 feet tall. He was hell of a pilot and his antics were legendary.
It was fun watching him put on a show. I was ferrying F 4s from DM in Tucson in those days in my spare time for the Q F 4 program (unmanned targets)done by Flight Systems based in at Mojave, and I got to do a turn or two with him..the 29 was an amazing aircraft performance wise.
We had a seat set up in my hangar where they would check the passengers out on the ejection seat, much easier than doing it in the aircraft.
Major fun.
:-)
-
Had the US to make 2000 SR-71, they would have not made them out of titanium. The XB-70 was made of steel too, with titanium used only in high temperature areas, like in the the Mig-25 (that's made of an 8% of titanium).
Look at the specs on the SR-71 and compare to the MIG 25. If you made a SR out steel even stainless steel as the B 70 it would be just like the MIG, unacceptable for the mission.
No the Russians used steel because the Ti would be to costly. They were and are very good with Ti construction.
The SR program was very expensive but was designed and built with black project funds as in invisible to congress. The only way to get the desired performance for the mission is to use Ti.
The only way to go Mach 3 is to use steel or Ti.
-
Quote from Dusty:
" Several years back one could purchase a ride in a MIG 29 thru the Hammacher Schlemmer catalog . Don't remember the cost for a 30 minute flight , but was pricey"
If I remember correctly, in the mid 90s you could purchase a package for around $5,000 that would pretty much cover your costs from the east coast, the ride, and return. It was my understanding you could either do either a turn and burn in a Mig 29 or a climb to 80,000 feet in a Mig 25.
GliderJohn
-
No the Russians used steel because the Ti would be to costly. They were and are very good with Ti construction.
They build whole submarines out of titanium, they OUGHT to be good at it by now.
On the other hand, you could probably build 500 MiG-25s out of the metal that it takes to build one submarine ....
Lannis
-
Look at the specs on the SR-71 and compare to the MIG 25. If you made a SR out steel even stainless steel as the B 70 it would be just like the MIG, unacceptable for the mission.
Considered that it had a bomb bay, the specs of the B-70 were not really that inferior.
What limited the performances of the Mig-25 was not the use of steel, but the fact that it's engines had to function decently in an ample range of conditions, instead to be dedicated only to very high quote and speed (and using a special fuel), and that the aircraft has to still function as a fighter, so its structure has to resist to a G load that it's 2-3 times that of the SR-71. In the Mig-31 the percentage of titanium in the structure is doubled (cause the cost of the titanium too had fallen in the meantime), but the aircraft is still made mainly of steel.
If you are going to manufacture 30 aircrafts (like in the case of the SR-71), your is an artisanal production. The cost of the material is not that important in respect to other factors (design, testing of new components, ecc...). If you are going to manufacture 2000 aircrafts at the rate of one a day, your is an industrial production, the cost of design and testing, for single aircraft, is not that important any more, while the cost of the material is. So the design has to be made with the goal to reduce the use of very expensive materials.
-
Russia plus Kazakhstan mine and smelt more titanium than any other countries, so I suspect that the cost of titanium isn't a big issue with a military that just requisitions what it wants ... again, it's why they build whole submarines out of it over there. All the titanium in one fighter plane wouldn't amount to a fraction of the conning tower for an attack sub ...
Lannis
-
They made submarines out of titanium for exactly the same reason the US made the SR-71 out of titanium. If you have to build few new submarines (seven Alfa had been completed in total), the cost of the material is not that important in respect to other factors (design, testing of new components, ecc...). If you have to build many of them, the cost of design and testing, for the single sample is not that important any more, while the cost of the material is. So the design has to be made with the goal to reduce the use of very expensive materials.
IE, of the seven Alfa built, three used a OK-550 nuclear engine, and four used a BM-40A nuclear engine. Those were two different types of liquid metal cooled reactors, whose entire tecnology was developed only to power those three and four vessels and that had not been used in any other application.
At that point, they could have used even a pure platinum hull, and it would not have been the most expensive part of the ship.
-
Aircraft are designed to perform a certain mission. In the 60's the MIG 25 was designed to be an interceptor and at that period Ti was not in wide use. The designers determined that the aircraft could meet its mission using steel so why try and develop an aircraft with a new and undeveloped material at triple or more the cost when you can use steel and meet the design goals.
On the other hand the Kelly Johnston had to design an aircraft with vastly different mission requirements than the MIG. Long range spy aircraft. The design team found that the only way they could meet the requirements was to build the aircraft out of Ti.
End of story.
-
The design team found that the only way they could meet the requirements was to build the aircraft out of Ti.
End of story.
Not really.
Tecnology is not a given thing. Many times, a design group that had to meet certain requirements, had to invent, o apply for the first time in a certain ambit, the tecnology to meet them.
It was more. "the design team had to choose between two paths. One, using a costly material which mechanical charateristics were well known to meet the requirements. Two, develop a structure that could meet those requirements using less expensive materials, something that would have required more studies, tests, etc...
For 30 aircrafts, titanium was convenient."
-
Well I can see that you are well versed in aircraft design so...
I don't have the words.
-
It's easy, but not fair, to ding an aircraft for being crappy at something when that something was not what it was designed to do. The Foxbat was designed to intercept bombers with a radar designed to burn through any sort of jamming, and shoot said bombers down. In the Foxbats' case you would want to look at the missiles it was to use to shoot the bombers down with as it was basically a high speed missile truck, used to ship the missiles into range, find the targets and launch them.
Pretty much what happened when the Mig25 shot down the F/A18, it was intercepting a "bomber".
To compare it to fighters of the era is like comparing the family wagon to a Vette. However; comparing it to the F-106 and F-104 does make sense as both were designed to be interceptors too. While the F-4 was a fighter, it was better as an all around bomber/interceptor. It has been described to me by guys that flew it as a Mack truck in the air. If you want to fight there were better choices.
For some reason we tend to designate airplanes as fighters that are not. E.g. the F-117, F-111 etc. Which really just confuses the matter.
One little Russian fighter that should get more respect than it seems it gets: The Mig-21. Still flying in some air forces and it still packs a nasty sting that will bite the over confident.
-
It has been described to me by guys that flew it as a Mack truck in the air.
Mack Truck? Nah...
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/be/11/ff/be11ffcb77c51c2dbb090979fdcc34c2.jpg)
Large Car? Yeah!
(http://www.tenfourmagazine.com/feature/2006/SeptCover1.jpg)
-
Nice footage of MiG-21 here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEa9jAVtve8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEa9jAVtve8)
-
Referencing Dogwalkers post = Submarines out of titanium. The old NATO designated Alpha class, Project 705 Soviet interceptor submarine. Ti was used because of the extreme depth the boat was designed to go to. The problem with that was Ti is brittle and has limited compression cycles. That coupled with the liquid cooled lead-bismuth reactor that cant be allowed to cool below 275F or the reactor "freezes" and cant restart spelled a limited life span for these boats from the beginning. Small crew, highly automated, very fast, deep diving, very NOISY at speed- more of a threat on paper than in reality but they did have an effect on U.S. policy and weapons development. If they were allowed to take to the field of battle in the way that Soviet doctrine envisioned they would have been very effective, however our doctrine at that time was to deny the enemy that advantage. Hence the importance and advantage of stealth and up to date intelligence. One slow but quiet 637 class boat lying in wait for an Alpha to pass and then put a MK 48 up their baffles and they would not know its coming until the shock wave hit. Bummer. The Alpha class was a lot like the Foxbat in concept and execution. A bit of digression from the original topic. Sorry about that.
-
Well, the Alfa class were few incredibly costly high performance vessels. The Mig 25 were a lot of mass produced and relatively inexpensive high performance aircrafts. They had in common to be high performance, but their design and building philosophies were opposite.
-
Perhaps I should have stated similar in mission concept and implementation. Held in port/airfield on alert then dash out at high speed to intercept and destroy incoming.
-
Back in the late 80's on the east coast, I went to a Dining Out with a buddy who was Air Crew on the Comfy Levi, 6994th ESS. I went because the speaker was Victor Belenko, but as a speaker, he was just another drunk Russian. I did find myself at one point standing in front a urinal in the men's room. Belenko and some USAF 3-star came in and took flanking urinals, and started talking to each other, over my head, about fishing for golden trout up at Chuck Yeager's place. I had nothing to add to their conversation, so I washed my hands and left.
One of my instructors in college was on the team that looked at the MiG 25. He said when they disassembled it, they were puzzled by odd spots of corrosion, until one held up a magnet and it grabbed hold. They laughed.
-
You do have to look at when it was designed and the mission intended before passing judgement. The Mig 25 was a one mission plane and it seemed to have been designed well for that mission and the intended deployment. I remember reading one tech journal article that explained part of the deployment option was to station these in remote airfields along the intended bomber paths, hence the ease of maintenance. And, yes, the engines were almost considered throw away items. But, if one aircraft could shoot down two to four bombers, it was probably considered successful. Remember that US doctrine at the time was bombers were not to have escorts so it was not designed to dogfight.
The Soviets at the time also tended toward cheaper and more of whatever they produced. Tanks were another good example. Make 100 for every one produced in the west. So what if they aren't perfect. They will do the job intended with the troops that they had to work with.
To me the Mig25 was a great single purpose design.
The US had it's own series of planes that were flops, even if they were single purpose. Only ours typically cost so much more due to the tendency toward "high tech' in most of them.
-
The US had it's own series of planes that were flops,
Which were those?
-
Interesting that the US purchased the Ti for the SR from the Russians. Back in 79-80 at Incerlik, Turkey we had a classified briefing on the Mig. As others have said, in the right hands even a glider can be deadly.
-
Quote from: charlie b on Today at 07:53:22 AM
The US had it's own series of planes that were flops,
Which were those?
F-111 comes to mind, but I think a lot was learned from it. F-102 until they figured out the "coke bottle" fuselage shape which then became the more successful F106. No that it should have been, but the F-20. Although I love the plane, due to cost and timing I would include the B-2 bomber.
GliderJohn
-
F-111 comes to mind, but I think a lot was learned from it. F-102 until they figured out the "coke bottle" fuselage shape which then became the more successful F106. No that it should have been, but the F-20. Although I love the plane, due to cost and timing I would include the B-2 bomber.
GliderJohn
F-111: Operational from 1967-1998 with USAF. After some early teething problems, a good medium range heavy tactical bomber. 4,000 missions in Vietnam with six losses. The 1986 Lybian raid was the longest strike mission ever. Overall, a pretty badass machine.
F-102: An early jet interceptor that served for something like 20-years. Could be unforgiving, but had a long career, being used by ANG after removed from front line service with USAF.
F-20: An export fighter developed from the F5. Outclassed by the F-16, so was a "flop", but never a US combat aircraft.
-
F-111: Operational from 1967-1998 with USAF. After some early teething problems, a good medium range heavy tactical bomber. 4,000 missions in Vietnam with six losses. The 1986 Lybian raid was the longest strike mission ever. Overall, a pretty badass machine.
F-102: An early jet interceptor that served for something like 20-years. Could be unforgiving, but had a long career, being used by ANG after removed from front line service with USAF.
F-20: An export fighter developed from the F5. Outclassed by the F-16, so was a "flop", but never a US combat aircraft.
Vought F7U Cutlass. Nothing worked right. A quarter of them were destroyed in accidents....
Lannis
-
Vought F7U Cutlass. Nothing worked right. A quarter of them were destroyed in accidents....
Lannis
Yep. 1st Gen jet aviation! LOL! Fairly short lifespan on that one, 1951 to 1959.
-
In 1981 a MIG-25 was intercepted by a locally modified Israeli Hawk missile. It wasn't a straight forward shoot down. Here is an interview with the Israeli AF tech who made the kill possible, explaining on the technical aspects. Hope the google translate doesn't mess things too much..
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ranlevi.com%2Ftexts%2Fmig25_vs_pini_text%2F&edit-text=&act=url (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ranlevi.com%2Ftexts%2Fmig25_vs_pini_text%2F&edit-text=&act=url)