25

My sources also list a 7.3 design G load. The 6.5 limit was added later to preserve the airframe.

I have sources which say that it has 9 G limit, other sources say 7.33 G, etc.These are all lies and pure propaganda values.
The F-14A and D, both, have 6.5 G service limit G. No matter of year of production. Source: Manuals.

The F-14 generated a lot of lift with its tunnel, If you factor that in, it could generate much more lift than the MiG, or nearly anything else in the sky. The T/W was a little lower, not a lot. The MiG-23 is no F-16.

The F-16 has no tunnel. The F-18 also. It is not so important, as Grumman brochures wanted us to believe.
As for T/W ratio, the combat T/W ratio of MiG-23 MLD with 2x R-24 and half fuel is about 1:1.
The F-14A had miserable T/W of 0.82 with half fuel and 4 sparrows.
A very important issue is that F-14A and D, with relatively high by-pass ratio engines, losses thrust with altitude fast, so that at say 6km height, the difference in T/W ratio compared to Mig-23 is even higher.

The higher the altitude, the higher the difference.

The vanes don’t extend until above mach 1.4. ACM rarely takes place at such speeds. The vanes were designed to cure the excessive stability that VG aircraft have at full sweep and high mach. They did what they were supposed to do.

That is all true what you say, but the fact is that the glove vanes was unnecessary in practice. It only contributed in weight escalation.

A fighter doesn’t want to get so slow that it is in the part of the flight envelope where those slats deploy. But if an F-14 gets that slow, it can out turn next to anything at that speed.

You can not hold high speed in maneuvering fight. It always deteriorate to slow speeds, in real dogfight. That is why the F-18 often bits F-16 in close combat.
The F-16 is better at higher speeds but when the speed drops, the F-18 is better.

G limits have relevency for fatigue life, not combat.

You think that it is irrelevant whether the figher a/c is limited to 6.5G like F-14D or 9G like F-16 ??
No, it is always better to have higher G limit, but it depends of aircraft structure. When you have weak structure like F-14 it has to be limited to lower G numbers.
In air combat, the F-16 (or Mig-21 or Mig-23) will always pull more G than F-14.
The F-14 had too weak structure. Multiple its service 6.5 G with 1.5 and you will get its ultimate G.
It is about 10G. Anything more and it will break.

That is lower than the MiG-25 demonstrated.

I know of some libyan Su-22 and MiG-23 pilots who would strongly disagree with that, if they survived.

It was a matter of missiles, not aircraft.
The AA-2 versus AIM 9L.

Mig-25 at Indian Air Academy.

Non sense.
See the chart.
When it accepts 11g but is only allowed for 4.5, the design engineers are either very dumb or they know that there is more in structural design than a single event (which actually put the aircraft in question out of service).

The aircraft which can pull 11G and stay in one peace has strong airframe by any standard. That is the point.
In aeronautical engineering the coef 1.5 is used when you calculate ultimate and service max G load.
I say, imagine what would happen to YF-12.

The version described here is the MiG-25RB, which entered service in 1972 according to some sources.

You know very well that these diagrams are taken from manual which say that “this version entered in 1970.”

So, these diagrams are not representative for standard version which entered in 1972.

The F-16 still has (even at 3g) an excellent lift over drag of close to 9 (best value at 1g is 12), while the MiG-23 at 45° never exceeds 8.5.

You have to mention also that the F-16 is very slow compared to Mig-23.
With is max speed of 1.6 Mach, with 2 AIM-9, it compares miserably with sparkling 2.35 Mach of MiG-23 carrying 2 large R-24.

And one post especially for firebar.

MiG-25RB maximum vertical load factor:
[ATTACH]164207[/ATTACH]
3.8g are not much.

And how do you explain that ultimate 11G pull outs are possible with MiG-25 ?
I say again: divide ultimate G with coef 1.5 and you will get service permited G. That applies to any a/c.

The flight envelope:
[ATTACH]164208[/ATTACH]
No Mach 1 before 5000m.

But you did not pay attention that this diagrams applies for the first version which entered in 1970. It was much upgraded in 1972.

Actually the aerodynamics suited the mission, which was flying longer legs and landing on aircraft carriers. 100% of your MiG-21 would have stalled on approach.

True, but high subsonic maneuvering needs high allowed G. In such condition the F-14, with it 6.5G and no slatts alowed over 5G, is a deadmeat.

LE devices are for landing and take-off only. The MiG-23ML is not even allowed to pull 5g when having wings forward.
And in a combat situation the Sidewinder will fire regardless of the slat setting.

The forward wing setings are for TO and landings only, in every VG a/c.
But the Mig-23 MLD has combat flaps. This is a big advantage over F-14.

As for Sidewinder firings, the Tomcat pilot can risk to fire Sidewinder when slatts are extended but departure is likely to occur in such condition.
And Tomcat is not known for good behave in a spin.

The F-14 first of all has 7.33g.

Why do you think so?
Manuals for both A and D versions say 6.5G max.

The MiG-23ML may have nice excees power in some more or less irrelevant corners of the flight envelope, but as soon as you start to turn your energy drops like hell. For maneuvering flight the MiG-23 is a very bad aircraft. Specific excess power only tells you about 1g, if you look at 3 or 5g you start to see the difference.

But The Flight mechanics say otherwise.
In order to have good subsonic sustained turn rate, you have to have high aspect ratio wing, low wing loading and high T/W ratio.
The MiG-23 has both. It has also very low induced and parasite drag coef.

The F-14 had about the same wing aspect ratio, higher wing loading and far lower T/W. Its Specific excess power was miserable compared to Mig-23.

But we are talking about over gs and special cases there, i agree that ppl understimate the agility and airframe strenght of the foxbat (specially the agility at height), mainly due cold war myths , and because ppl claim the g limit as 5-4 gs, when that is under supersonic speed, anyway at low level the plane is not a dogfighter specially against a 4th gen plane

BTW…welcome back…

Thanks.
Of course, it is not dogfighter as is Mig-21 or F-18, but multi role Mach 3 combat aircraft.
To design multi role Mach3 aircraft is by itself extraordinary feat because you have to include many contradicting requirements.
That is where the YF-12 failed.

It has strong airframe, capable of carrying heavy bomb loads, 4 tonnes and later 5 tonnes.