Do you have any data on the Gripen? I read once somewhere that it wasn’t much different than the F-16. I also have to think that such a small aircraft would have a less powerful radar than the F-16.

In turn it is better 30 deg/s instantaneous turn rate and 20 deg/s sustained turn rate, it betters the F-16 in turn rate.

In avionics is as good as the F-16 and in weapons it is as good, i would say it is slightly better

And I answer you, so you may learn:
The instantaneous turn rate is depending on the maximum lift and the maximum overload of the airframe. Both are set limits in practice (flight manual!), but are variables in reality (an F-4 can be stressed beyond 10g). At or close maximum lift both MiG-23 and F-4 will experience severe buffeting. The instantaneous turn rate depends on other, less obvious design criteria, which are maximum g onset and maximum trimmable flight condition (most conventional supersonic aircraft do not have enough control authority to pull more than 3 to 5g beyond Mach 1).

The other is sustained turn. Overload and maximum lift hardly influence this parameter, but the drag and thrust. Here the slatted F-4 wins against the MiG-23 due to better drag/thrust characteristics.

For practical considerations a mixture of both makes a useful benchmark. And the F-4F has about 1 or 2 G more sustained at most altitudes in the M0.7 to M1.2 regime than the -23ML, not to talk of the -23M, while it does have a nearly similar instantaneous load factor.

Also note: I didn’t say “defeat”, but …
loses against an F-4F in most speed/altitudes in terms of sustained G-load.

Note: Turn rate, load factor and radius are all closely related, effectively it makes sense to talk of the load factor.

Schorsch

I did a mistake when i said the MiG-23 turns 360 deg in 25 sec, in page 250 of the MiG-23ML manual it says it takes 36 sec at 5000 meters , in that my sincere appologies, however all the data i have seen from you does not show the F-4 will take less time at the same altitude and speed, therefore i consider your data inconclusive to say the least, and i still regard your statemenst as unproven, however you should post the F-4 manual where it says it will take less time, from the data you have given it seems it has a lower turn rate and a bigger turn radius since at 6096 meters it has a turn rate of 6 deg/s and at 3047 meters 11.5 deg/s

Hmm, Western experts said the exact opposite.
I checked the numbers and did the math.
Turned out, Western experts are right.

I invested some time in the hope you may be able to understand. I see that you are not able to understand. I will invest no further time. I hope others have gained somehow, cause otherwise the time is not only lost but also wasted.

Yeah 6 deg/sec at 6096 meters and 11.5 deg/s at 3047 yeah yeah must likely at 5000 meters the F-4 pulls more than 10 deg/sec yeah after 6096 is only when it reduces the turn rate from 11.5 deg/s to 6 deg/s, basicly it is losing 2 deg/s per 1000 meters gained, from 3047 to 6096 loses 5.5 degs if you rest 11.5 minus 6 this equals 5.5 so you can expect it will keep 11.5 deg/s at 5000 mters schorsch yeah yeah yeah

You are obviously unable to interpret the graph given:
At 45° sweep and 900 km/h initial indicated airspeed at 5000m with maximum power the aircraft will turn 360° in 36 seconds, giving it an average instantaneous turn rate of 10deg/sec. At the end it has lost 410 km/h indicated airspeed.
If one looks closer he sees that at 45°/5000m the MiG turns 66° in 5 seconds, giving it an initial instantaneous turn rate of 13-14 deg/sec. While for the last 66° (270->360) it needs roughly 9 seconds, so a rate of 7-8 deg/sec.

Basically everyone can see that one quick turn burns all energy. In 5000m (=16400ft) and 900km/h (486KIAS, ~620KTAS, ~M0.88) the MiG-23ML makes one full turn and is slow like a duck. Once again shows that a MiG-23 driver should not get involved in a turning fight but rather look for hit&run and vertical maneuvers. Interestingly the only person that carries the name of that aircraft doesn’t know that.

man relax that thinking of i am the expert you are the inept is called soberby, i did acknowledge i made a mistake i mixed two altitudes, you are right at 5000 feet and 900km/h it will take for the MiG-23ML close to 36 sec with an average turn of 10 deg/sec.

now no one says the F-4 is better if it has an average turn at 6096 meters a turn rate of 6 deg/sec not exactly a very good one considering it has 11.5 deg/s at 3046 meters so at half of the altitude the F-4 is not the best fighter turning either as you claimed

I said MiG-23ML. So we have the same document. You even helped me translate some passages back then.

Your statement however is unprecise as always. You first forgot to mention the speed/altitude/weight of the F-4, secondly the version and finally the configuration.

Let me show you like experts do it:
From page 251 of the -23ML manual you’ll see that with wing sweep 72° it turns 180° in ~19 seconds at 5000m, starting at 900km/h indicated airspeed and being at 500km/h when the half-turn is finished. Hence, it has bleeded about 70% of its kinetic energy. The instantaneous turn rate is 180°/18sec = 10 deg/sec. This is with maximum thrust.

The F-4F with full internal fuel and without external load at maximum thrust at 500KIAS (roughly 900km/h) will have 6.5 deg/sec@20000ft and 11.5deg/sec@10000ft sustained turn rate.

Please behave more expert-like in future posts.

My appologies you were right i made a critical mistake of translation, you are right, but the wing is not at 72deg but at 45 deg, it is true the

And I answer you, so you may learn:
The instantaneous turn rate is depending on the maximum lift and the maximum overload of the airframe. Both are set limits in practice (flight manual!), but are variables in reality (an F-4 can be stressed beyond 10g). At or close maximum lift both MiG-23 and F-4 will experience severe buffeting. The instantaneous turn rate depends on other, less obvious design criteria, which are maximum g onset and maximum trimmable flight condition (most conventional supersonic aircraft do not have enough control authority to pull more than 3 to 5g beyond Mach 1).

The other is sustained turn. Overload and maximum lift hardly influence this parameter, but the drag and thrust. Here the slatted F-4 wins against the MiG-23 due to better drag/thrust characteristics.

For practical considerations a mixture of both makes a useful benchmark. And the F-4F has about 1 or 2 G more sustained at most altitudes in the M0.7 to M1.2 regime than the -23ML, not to talk of the -23M, while it does have a nearly similar instantaneous load factor.

Also note: I didn’t say “defeat”, but …
loses against an F-4F in most speed/altitudes in terms of sustained G-load.

Note: Turn rate, load factor and radius are all closely related, effectively it makes sense to talk of the load factor.

And where you can prove that the sources i have mentioned are wrong, do you have real manuals to prove it?

Schorsch it is very easy to claim it has better sustained turn rate or even that the MiG-23M won`t pull its max corner velocity at 8Gs, however what i have read in other sources say thet F-4E was not better at 800-1100km and only beyond those speeds was better.

And comes out as “Best Fighters are American”. Just interesting half of the world air forces would disagree when seeing the price tag or the operational requirements.

The MiG-25 never was a real “fighter” but an interceptor. It was never deployed as fighter, and if, it was for pure lack of suitable alternatives. Rocky at least omitted the F-106 or F-102 from his list.
The MiG-23M never came in top. It had worse radar, weapons, range and maneuverability than the slatted F-4E and especially the F-4F (which of course lacks BVR (not too important for its role)). It was faster and had better field performance.

Which would be quite tough to prove for you. The MiG-23ML loses against an F-4F in most speed/altitudes in terms of sustained G-load, except for speeds beyond Mach 1.3 and below Mach 0.7. The -23M is considerably worse, still carrying the heritage of the pure high altitude and high Mach number ground guided frontline interceptor.
In contrast to single mission MiG-23 the F-4 (all versions) were quite capable fighter bombers.

Schorsh i want to ask you why a fighter with an overlaod limit of 7.6Gs can defeat another one of 8Gs, according to what i have read the MiG-23M was more agile in the region between 800km-1000km at medium and low altitudes, also it is little bit weird to think a fighter of 7.6 Gs like the F-4 is, it was going to be better than a fighter stressed to more Gs at the same speeds and altitudes.

If the 7.6Gs holded by the F-4 mean the MiG-23M`s 8Gs mean nothing then the Su-15 should be better than the F-4 with its 6Gs it can hold

The MiG-23M was never inferior to the F-4E it was a match and at some speeds it has advantages, the aircraft was also cheaper, faster, armed with similar missiles and in fact i do not believe the F-4 was better because if it was why then Israel clashed MiG-23Ms against F-16s and relegated the F-4Es to attack missions?

The F-4s were also killed in large numbers throughout its entire carrer.

no man the F-4 undoutedly is a classic but to say it was so great is not true
It was a jack of all trades but a master of none