At least we come closer. But why such side step again? It is not the fault of the F-4 design, when the Flogger is a little bit over-weight related to swing-wing design or limited in MTOW.

The F-4 has over 10 tons dry power and over 16 tons wet power (without overboost mode)
The ML has over 8,5 tons dry power and 13 tons wet power in overboost mode.
The F-4 has 5,9 tons of internal fuel, when the ML has 3,35 tons.
The F-4 has a wing-area of 49,25 qm without the flat underbody.
The ML has a wing-area between 34,2-37,5 qm related to sweep.
The fuel consumption of the J-79 in dry is noticeable lower and similar in wet, when compared to the R-35-300.
On half internal fuel the ML has 1700 kg of that.
On half internal fuel the F-4 has 2950 kg
Ignoring better dry sfc for the J-79, we have to bring both to a similar fuel ratio related to installed thrust to have a fair comparison about that.
1700 kg of the ML is 20% from dry installed and 13% from wet installed.
The same percentage for the F-4 are:
2000 kg for dry and 2100 kg for wet.
To field the same internal fuel load for installed thrust as the ML the F-4 has to carry 2100 kg fuel only. By that the F-4 is close to 16 tons only.
To find out the related data, we have to compare a ML at 13 tons with a F-4 at ~16,15 tons (two crew members + 4 AAMs) and not 19,4 tons or 42777 lb.
Mach 1 at sea level is 661 kt at a standard day.
Mach 0,9 is 1100 km/h
Mach 0,85 is 1040 km/h
Mach 0,8 is 980 km/h
Mach 0,75 is 918 km/h
To stay fair, the Mach 0,75 at 1000 m above s.l. is ~900 km/h.
But non is surprised to learn that a 200 km/h slower ML as a smaller turnradius with minimum sweep. The higher kinetic energy F-4 (speed*mass) can do a high Yo Yo and stay so inside a ML turn and still enjoy its speed or higher energy advantage.
The correct data from MiG do just show, that the ML is no real turning fighter. The Flogger-pilot can not exspect, that the F-4 will slow down to offer him the opportunity to make use of his lower corner-speed.
A lightly loaden Flogger is in advantage against a heavy loaden fighter bomber, no question about that. – That the ML superior to a F-16 is just a bad joke for every Flogger pilot, which had to struggle to survive against a similar loaden F-4. The best way to fight with a Flogger is to do hit and run attacks and to stay as fast as possible by that, when the AAMs do the turns in need.

It is more less true what are you saying, mach 0.9 is around 1100km, however its G loading capability is still higher at the same speed and by the way i said an approximation because the F-4 has a very difficult way to see if it is 7.5 nautical mile, 0.8 nautical mile or 0.85 nautical mile, however a nautical mile is 1852 meters and sea level can mean 100 meters of altitude in that case both graph do not give same altitudes and are not easy to compare but more to guess even more because at 1000 meters the F-4 turn radius will increase from the values at sea level and the sound speed will drop a few km/h , if you see that it can mean still the MiG-23 can have a smaller turn radius or at least equivalent, also you forget the MiG-23 is carrying mostly fuel a half of its weapon load only two R-23s, here you have to see that in same conditions two Sparrows do not weight more than two R-23s but more or less weight the same, so at 70% of their max take off weight it is mostly fuel not weapons.

Also consider that the F-4 is a twin engine fighter and it gulps more fuel and needs more fuel than a MiG-23, it means if you add only 2000kg of fuel as the MiG-23 might carry the twin engines will need more fuel perhaps 4000 kg to achieve same thrust to in both engines that is the reason the F-4 is more or less flying at same conditions.

however consider that the speed chances with the altitude

At sea level, the speed of sound is about 761 miles per hour (1,225 kilometers per hour). At 20,000 feet (6,096 meters), the speed of sound is 660 miles per hour (1,062 kilometers per hour).
source http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/sound_barrier/DI94.htm at 6000 meters the speed of sound almost drops 200km/h so by 5000 meters the data i gave first more or less match so this shows that the MiG-23ML is more or less in the F-4E class and below 5000 meters is either equivalent or slightly better in turn radius

in my humble opinion is possible that early F-4Cs are equivalent to early MiG-23Ms and late MiG-23MLs are equivalent to F-4Es, if you say the MiG-23ML is not a turning fighter, we can say the same about the F-4 since basicly both aircraft are equivalent

Not to reheat the discussion, but for the sake of clarity:
The turn chart, “MiG-23MLD” is sticking to, shows what happens if the pilot fully applies the control stick to the limit allowed by the max. elevator deflection and by the SOUA stick stop device during the complete turn. At 5000m and 900km/h (IAS) the max available g-load is 7g, in this case limited by the max. elevator deflection (Please have a look at page 221 of the MiG-23ML manual you mentioned.). Which is not sustainable and bleeding energy/speed. If the pilot would start with about 4.5g the MiG-23ML could sustain the turn not loosing speed. For sustainable g-loads have look at page 240 of the ML’s manual.
For the F-4E the sustainable g-load is about the same, refering to the numbers of the F-4E manual (http://forums.airforce.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=7569&d=1183809027).
Don’t know if the F-4F provides better numbers.
The max. 8.5 g-load doesn’t help the MiG-23ML at height 5000m. The is probably different at 1000m the Mig-23ML having the theoretically advantage pulling more instantaneous g compared to the F-4E. But the the speed is bleeding again.
Comparing the F-4E and MiG-23ML sustained turn performance they seem to be quite comparable, probably with a slight advantage for the MiG.
But I’m not an aerodynamic expert and this is oviously the wrong thread to discuss this. 🙂

here is the page 221 of the MiG-23ML
It says the MiG-23ML holds at 6000 meters and 900km/h that basicly equals 20000 feet a bit more than 6Gs while the F-4E at Mach 0.9 and 20000 feet around 4Gs i would not say it is a slight advantage in overload holding, at 5000 meters it holds 7Gs while the F-4 does not even get close to 5Gs not even at 10000 feet around 3000 meters will get close to 7Gs.

See that the F-4E is lightly loaded as the MiG-23, the MiG-23 weights in that configuration 13000kg and the F-4 42777pounds considering the F-4 gets to a max take off weight of 56000 pounds and the MiG-23ML gets to a weight of 17800kgs.

in fact the MiG-23ML is comparable to the F-4E at 6000 meters when it flies at 8000 meters, it is incorrect to say the MiG-23ML has not better G load capability since basicly it holds more Gs at any given altitude and at 1000 meters can even hold 8.5Gs while the F-4E is still a 7.6Gs fighter.

Now at page 240 when the MiG-23 is turning at 5000 meters has a max G load capability of 4.5Gs; the F-4 at 6000 meters barely gets to 4.2Gs that is only to say that both graph can not be compared without noticing they are at different heights consider that the MiG-23ML has a turn radius of around 2.5km when it flies at 900km/h and at 5000 meters of altitude, the F-4 at 20000 feet or 6000 meters has almost a 1.4 nautical miles turn radius or more less 2.6 km however what it is interesting to notice is the max turn rate for the F-4 in that graph is around 14.3 while the MiG-23ML has a max sustained turn rate of 14.1 and a instantaneous of 16.7 however at sea level both aircraft have similar turn radius of probably 1.3km in fact i believe these are more less comparable;)

Hi Schorsch, please look into the related details more carefully. Otherwise you come to such curious claim about F-4 or MiG-21.
Well trained US or Israeli crews had no problem to deal with MiG-17Fs or MiG-21s. That design from the 50s had to deal with a bomber threat and the related stand-off weaponary at first. It was the first design to operate in all roles successfull and to engage all hostile fighters with a high chance of success. One of the main advantage of the design was the crew. They shared the work-load and did rise the SA. Israel stick to double-seaters and France too. Related cost rise does limit France to do so. The F-4 kicked out the intended F-1 for the IDF-AF, which itself is a very cost-effective design.
From Nov 69 till Oct. 73
There were 25 F-4E kills. Just four were with the gun. From seventeen AIM-7Es fired were 7 kills claimed – a ratio of 42%.
When WVR the AIM-9B/D were the preferred weapon. First cheaper and much easier to operate and so first choise to utilise limited fire-opportunities within split seconds against targets like MiG-21. Some crews did reveal, that they never did operate the firing sequenz of the AIM-7. When it spring to their mind, it was too late and some firing opportunities lost by that. To built-up confidence and expertise in that, there was a lot of training in need. During YKW the number of gun kills was limited too. The mayority of that was against Mil-8 helicopters and MiG-17F in CAS-work at very low level. After that war no gun-kills any more, just AAM ones.
In Israeli service the F-4s were credited with 116,5 kills between November 1969 till June 1982.
By 1970 it become obvious that the MRCA could not fullfill the superiority role.
The F-4F ordered are reduced F-4E from Block 51>. The GAF was not allowed BVR weaponary nor to operate close to the ADIZ, but that did change later except ADIZ ban till 1991.

The F-4 is a great design but i think it has been over estimated, by 1974 its design was already obsolete, even staying away from the MiG-23/F-4 controversy, its losses are quit high, it has been hidden by many writers the fact that many F-4 were destoyed, more than any other third generation fighter several hundreds in fact were destroyed in combat.
By 1977 in Europe and Russia aircraft like the MiG-25, Viggen, Mirage F1 and MiG-23 were already better that is the reason in the first place they designed all the teen fighters.

Israel lost several during the 1973 in fact the West acknowledges around 102 Israeli aircraft lost in that war, of those 39 fell to SAMs and the rest to AAA and in those are around 30 F-4s.

It is true it was modern and had many good attributes but its real reign does not go beyond 1973, its true between 1961 to 1973 it was the mainstay of the US aviation, and its aging took it to the late 1990s, but frankly, many air forces still fly them more for a lack of cheaper western fighters.

That is just a load of dung. The Gripen is an unstable delta with a fully movable canard, not a stable 2:nd gen Mirage III with bolted on supersized strakes. And a ~20deg/sec STR is excellent for a plane with a TWR far below any of the competition.

man why you do not understand that it is true static unstability helps however the swept of the delta has the same aerodynamics with or without static unstability, the canards do help but no one has said the Gripen is crap, i just said the true, the MiG-29 and F-16 have better sustained turn rates.

Come on guy … why do You still try to discuss with him ???

It’s senseless … when a Kfir isn’t Mirage V related only because it has canards and the J-10 is a direct development of the Lavi because it shares a “similar” configuration … that says everything !

Deino 😡

Say that to Haaretz and to the Jerusalem post, or to the US department of defence or to the many russian media sources, stop listening to rumours and writing about it.

That is a wild guess from that source to stay polite.
In the late 70s some “older” Ms were reequipped with better combat-wings from the ML-modifications. Without the related wing-number given some claims are questionable. After the YKW the Nesher and Mirage mod were used in the A:A role, when the F-4s were kept for the strike role at first. The allweather A:A tasked ones were freed from that role from 1977, when the F-15A/B were introduced for that role. By the way, all Israeli fighters were tasked for A:G at first and the A:A role is secondary.

Well Sens i am not saying http://www.airwar.ru never is wrong simply i am saying by 1982 the F-4 was used as a strike aircraft and the F-15s and F-16s were used as scort fighters.

Now in the MiG-23 manual that you can downlod from http://www.airwar.ru, you can find the turn radius for the MiG-23ML at various altitudes, turn radius is one of the best indicators of turn rate in fact they even give you the time it takes to get the best turns at different altitudes and the time it takes to execute them..

Personaly i am open to hear the evidence the F-4 surpasses the MiG-23ML at 5000 meters and obviously the MiG-23M never will be better as an inference of that.

I calculated the inst. rate for the first ~5 seconds. I know that such data is variable with speed/altitude/weight/external loads/engine settings. Anyways, you are welcome if you have anything better or more precise.
The data is at hand, why don’t enlighten me?

I am pretty confident on this specific issue.

here we go your expertise against Russian expertise

При ведении воздушного боя с F-4E на скоростях 800-1100 км/ч на малых и средних высотах при перегрузках, близких к предельным по тяге, МиГ-23М в горизонтальном маневре превосходил противника, уступая ему в вертикальном маневре. Превосходство МиГ-23М над F-4Е (самым массовым самолетом израильских ВВС), косвенно подтверждает и тот факт, что со второй половины 1970-х годов, с момента появления МиГ-23 на Ближнем Востоке, ВВС Израиля перестали использовать “Фантомы” для ведения воздушных боев.

When conducting aerial battle with F-4E at speeds of 800-1100 km / h at low and medium altitudes, with overload at max thrust, the MiG-23M surpassed the F-4 on the horizontally maneuver (turn rate and turn radius ) , however the F-4 surpassed the MiG-23 in a vertical maneuver ( vertical turning). The superiority of the MiG-23M over the F-4 E is (the most numerous Israeli Air Force plane), indirectly confirmed by the fact that by the second half of the 1970s, since the advent MiG-23 in the Middle East, the Israeli air force had ceased to use the “Phantom” for air combat.

source http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/mig23m.html

One important aspect that can solve this issue is basicly turn radius i do know what are the turn radius of the MiG-23ML at given altitudes

For other people’s benefit: I have quoted sustained turn rate of F-4F, while the values of the MiG-23ML show instantaneous. I could show that the MiG-23ML has 1-2G less sustained load factor by using the aerodynamic and thrust data from the given document, maybe I do it later (I refrain from investing time to get in prolonged foolish arguments with ignorant users).

humility and modesty are self evident, it is better to be humble and not have pride, if you know better show it i have the full Manual even the MiG-23U manual if you really show me i can acknowledge my mistakes like i did, however be humble that is the first sign of being right, pride and name calling or self proclaimed expertise show a lack of real knowledge.

if you debate people show proof i am not so stubborn to acknowledge my mistakes but while you prove the F-4 has more than 10 deg/s and turns in less time refrain to call your self the expert, the real experts never call them selves experts humillity is sign of greatness, pride is only a sign of lack of confidence.