Look the correct way. 1 G is for level flight only. The G load does rise with speed. Even at 400 km/h the G load is higher 1,* G.
The next point you do miss about G-forces is. The kinetic engergy does allow to pull higher Gs, when adding “thrust” to do so. The way the Israels did manage to outperform MiG-21s in the “power-egg”. All that is called energy management and the “Rhino” did offer a lot when clever used. Because it was a typical stick and rudder fighter similar the Flogger it was in need of an excellent pilot to be pushed to the limits. The Flogger was even more demanding by constant changing behavior related to VG. So going with a Flogger into a dog-fight was never a clever idea. 😮

G load is related to weight, for example a MiG-23M weighs 13000kg, so 1G=1300kgf now 7Gs means 7 times its own weight, so it is 91000kgf.

Now any AoA exerts certain G force depending in the speeds it travels.

Structures break with the forces applied upon them, so if you are going to make more agile the MiG-23M, you do a trick you lighten it up and you increase the thrust, so now you can have an aircraft that has the same 91000kgf that equals not 7Gs but 8Gs, since the aircraft is lighter then its 7Gs weight is lighter.

Now if the AoA exerts some specific G force at each given speed, a different AoA will exert at the same speed a higher or lower G force.

A MiG-23 won`t pass 7Gs in a turn at a given weight because a higher turn means a G force beyond the structural limitation of the aircraft.

To make a better aircraft you need structures with higher strength and less drag and resistance to increase the load tolerance for a given structure.

For example for a Tu-160 3Gs are enough to break its wings but in a F-16 those are not 3Gs but 20Gs

I think it’s a mistake to compare the Su-15 to the “latest” J-8II as the newest J-8F is a whole generation ahead in avionics (up there with fourth gen designs I think)

A better comparison would be between the best Su-15 vs the best “old school” J-8II. Which is pretty much the basic version with the nosecone, I think. I’m sure that’s how Mad Rat intended it at any rate.’

A better comparison would probably be between the J-8F and the latest Phantom upgrades, like the Phantom 2000.

It is more or less comparable to the F-4 but i guess its 6.9G capability at 1000 meters in a turn is slightly less than the MiG-23 and F-4, because the F-4 will turn tighter at sea level it can turn holding close to 7.2Gs and the MiG-23 will do 7Gs so we can expect slightly better turn rates, AoA might be different since the MiG-23 can sustain more Gs, 8.5Gs to be exact.
However the radar upgrades that the J-8II has are effectively as good as those seen in the F-4, but i guess in general terms the J-8II is a more modern fighter in an old airframe

That’s based in a 1km radius turn actually.

Well i would not say which aircraft of these is the most agile, it seems the J-8II is slightly less agile than the MiG-23ML and F-4II, but i would not affirm it without knowing its real numbers.

however the MiG-23ML can execute a 7Gs turn at 1000m and this is carrying two R-23s and the F-4E can execute too a 7Gs turn at the same altitude armed

For the moment i would say is more or less in the class of the MiG-23 and F-4, but modern J-8II do not yield to modern F-4s or MiG-23s.

However the MiG-23 drops drastically its G limits at Mach 0.6 and 5000 meters so probably the J-8II might have an slight advantage at that altitude.
But this is just a guess

The Su-15 is merely limited to 6.5Gs, the J-8II to 8Gs, the F-4E to 7.6Gs and the MiG-23ML to 8.5Gs.

MIG, i know i said i’m not interested in debating with you anymore and that i wont reply, but yes i was curious and since you provided a link to the manual it doesn’t hurt to download it, so thankyou for that although honestly i do not really need it – but who knows….

Anyway, i do not know Russian but i do understand few words…. from what i understand at the start on page 90 as you suggested, even in my limited Russian knowledge i understood the words: uchebnoi…. mirnoe vremje… or there abouts….. i do not know what you make of it but i’m under the impression they refer to: during piece time and training flights etc, and during the rest of it (like i said i’m very limited with Russian words) i did not get the impression that the aircraft can not do this or that, they just tell you what to do and at what height and what speed etc, it is basically a manual and tells you how to do something properly. Also they mention the bombs it carries etc and the operation and speeds etc while doing so.

It is all based on a safe operation of the aircraft etc – it doesn’t mean it is the limit.

Now remember what i said that i do not care about what the manual said? that is the reason for it…

The manual tells you how to use something… and it is obviously normal operation during peace time and training flights etc…. during war or in a fight no-one cares what the manual says…. they push the aircraft to the limit or beyond, and that’s why pehaps the Iraqi pilot said : the situation i was in…
and also he said, he never carried bombs…

I must admit i find it strange that he said used RB as an interceptor, which by all accounts it is not, it is reconossance / bomber as such useless as interceptor – except to ram into the other aircraft (not a good idea:))

I’m wondering whether somehow PD is mixed with RB, since P in Russian is R or something like that….. maybe we need more details

Thanks for the link for that manual, one day if i have nothing bettter to do i may ask my GF who knows a bit of Russian ( a lot more than me anyway) to help me translate the interesting parts.

в мирное время полет сверхсвуковыми скорост разрешается на высотах не ниже 10 км из-за сильного физиологического воздействия ударных волн от самолетаямич

this means that the supersonic speeds are not allowed in peace time operations bellow 10km however at no moment they are saying they will fly at mach 2.35 or more at 10000km, they never imply or say that, already at 10 km they can achieve Mach 1.5 at the most.

However it is good you are translating the manual since it will show you Iraqi_Pilot claims things that are not supported by the manual.

If you care or not about the manual is up to you, however this is an aerodynamic and structural manual and simply says what aerodynamically and physically is posible to do, laws of physics are obeyed and recomended to operated the MiG-25 so in few words there are laws of physics that can not be broken so even if you like or not the manual, the MiG-25RB won`t fly Mach 2.8 at 10km simply by laws of physics

ok, let me reply to you one more time:

1. Yes, forum is to learn something or share opinions etc – i do not see what i can possibly learn from you – you keep quoting sources graphs and manuals that you don’t even know what they mean.

2. i do not care about the manual, yes – because you are telling us what it says, you don’t have idea yourself, if you did you would not have quoted in the first place that it can not go supersonic @ 10000 meters. then switched to something irrelevant to the first argument – acceleration etc….

3. if i need to read or look at a manual for something i’ll go and find it – guaranteed, i do not need or care about it because all it takes is common sense to figure out that Mig – 25 can go supersonic @ 10000 meters – it is the fastest operational fighter aircraft ever capable of almost m3 top speed – of course it can go supersonic @ 10000 meters.

That was the whole point of my “i don’t care of the manual” answer to you, don’t you get it…. you can have all the manuals and data in the world if you don’t know what to make of it – it is useless.
I do not need to see the manual to figure out that mig-25 can go supersonic @ 10000 meters… i know you edited and corrected your post…. but that is the point you just jumped to a conclussion without thinking or using common sense and you went to attack someone who (it is a good chance) had something to do with mig-25 or even flown it…. who may be speaking from experience (iraaf_pilot), i find his claims a bit strange too in some posts but either way even if he had anything to do with Iraq airforce during the war his presence here is valuable and it is not in our best interest to attack him without checking facts or proving otherwise.

yes, i can learn something from Iraq_pilot.

You can do what you want in fact since you are boastful well here is the manual download it and do a better job than me here is the source http://www.airwar.ru/other/bibl/mig-25rb_aero.html

read it translate it and later you tell me if Iraqi_pilot is in agreement with the manual specially about the Mach 2.35 speed at 10km.

you can go to the 4th chapter around page 90.

translate it and prove the MiG-25 flies at 13km at the speed of Mach 2.83 or it flies as Iraqi_Pilots says at mach 2.3 at 10km of altitude.

let us see as you bark you do bite.

By the way you need to read a bit of physics before claiming the speed of sound is the same for all altitudes;)

Who cares if the speed of sound changes with the altitude… for someone measuring clocking from the ground – aircraft travelling at say 1000km/h @ 1000, 10000 or 30000 meters is the same…..

As for the manual…. who cares… it could be a guideline or recommendation or a rule not necessarily a limit of the aircraft or could be – in case of RB with load (bombs?) … similar when a manual says not to exceed load of say 7g or 9g the aircraft maybe able to do 10 or 11G at the end – who cares… it does not say necessarily it can not do it… may not be safe to do it or not recommended to do it etc… not impossible to do it

Anyway, i’m not really interested to debate with you any more…. i use my own logics and common sense not blindly following manuals links graphs etc that i do not i understand or know how to read or translate etc
and then missinterprate them or missquoting them…

Have a nice day:)

Why you do not take a mature attitude, a forum is to learn and to increase knowledge, you do not care about the manual simply because you can not read it or do not want to read it, the manual has accurate data, not gossips or speculations.

I prefer to have exact data not gossips or speculation and the main reason i rechecked my data was simply because since you said i was wrong it forced me to do a better job and be more proffesional besides i was not completly sure about my original statement so i decided to recheck the source and re-reading the manual i found i was wrong about the max speed at 10km, however i knew all along it won`t achieve Mach 2.35 at 10km.

Therefore in order to do a better translation and give accurate information i read it twice.

Now you like it or not that is a flight manual and i have given it to you to traslate it by your self if you are not satisfied with my translation but i am pretty sure my translations are accurate most of the time.

Well the above 3000km/h @ 13000 meters altitude, is not more than m2.8 is it???!

3000km/h = ~ mach 2.45

still nothing to do with can not go supersonic @ 10000 meters or even Mach 2 for that matter…

You insulted and accused the IRAF_PILOT for making false claims while you making false claims yourself…

IRAF_PILOT is not right and i can prove it with the manual.

By the way the speed of sound changes with altitude but the manual says Mach 2.35 equals 2500km/h.

By the way 3000km is not mach 2.4

Well, again this is different that what you were claiming before isn’t it?

You were saying that it can do only Mach 0.92 @ 10000 meters so, not even supersonic @ 10000 meters – you said that not anyone else!!!

I do not need to look at the graph, you do as you were making claims that don’t make sense.

Here’s the first link that comes on google search about it’s speed @ sea level, and max level speed @ 13000 meters = 3000km/h etc etc…

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/mig25-01.htm

Max level speed

at 13,000 m (42,650 ft ,620 kts (3,000 km/h; 1,865 mph)

at S/L Mach 0.98 (647 kts; 1,200 km/h; 745 mph)

the last above clearly says Mach 0.98 @ sea level and not M0.92 @ 10000 meters, i think i was correct when i said it will not only go supersonic @ 10000 meters but probably Mach 2 as well.

you are mixing acceleration and max speed for some reason, i think…

Mistaken i was but i corrected my self and i can prove it to you, you are wrong by giving you this page from the MiG-25RB manual see it it says it won`t go beyond below 18km at speeds higher tham Mach 2.8 and you can not argue with a MiG-25RB manual