Look I am not cheating I admitted that at lower mach numbers the F-16 has better acceleration simply and i know it should be because it has better TWR or Thrust to weight ratio, ok? you got it that is simple physics
View attachment 47620
Now at higher speeds F-16 has different type of intake so the TWR goes down because the engine can not give 100% thrust even at full afterburner
What the point of repeating something that I already said?
I have never said F-16 engine thurst is the same at all speed.
You are uisng the weight you think is best of course lighter but that lighter means at 20000lbs your F-16 flies with a single AIM-120 hahahah that was ridiculous and you wanted to present it as representative of the F-16.
two missiles you ask do you have the chart of MiG-23ML with two R-60? with 2 R-73? or 2 R-77?
View attachment 47621
No you do not, so you are cheating.
at 21000 LB internal fuel of course and two AIM-120 minimum you need a chart of Mig-23-98 with only two AA-12 adders.
Now Russian sources say Israeli F-16 did not deliver what General Dynamics claimed.
why? because in order to be more advanced Israel modified the F-16s, yes they were smarter but fatter.
SO you cheat using charts like if you knew all the MiG-23ML all features, Israel tested the MiG-23 with a F-15 too, so do not say it was a F-16B only it was a F-15.
In reality despite you think the charts say everything, they say not everything they might give you an Idea, but in order to know each aircraft you have to test it and Israel did it without bias, you are bias just to win a internet argument and you are cheating and picking the data that helps you in your quest in a bias way
Why are you lying?
Firstly, I didn't use the 20.000 lbs mark at any point in this discussion.
I used the 24,000 lbs at DI =0 and 28,000 lbs mark at DI = 50.
I showed you that an F-16C with pilot, 2 AIM-120, full load of cannon round and 2000 liter of JP-8 will be 24,417 - 24,703 lbs.
Secondly, your claim was that Mig-23ML has better acceleration characteristic than F-16C.
Mig-23ML didn't have the ability to carry R-77 so it is irrelevant, beside, R-73 is a LOBL short range weapon, which can't really be considered the same as a LOAL BVR missile like AIM-120. So the closest comparison would be between Mig-23ML with R-23 and F-16C with AIM-120, at the very least, they are BVR weapon.
Thirdly, Mig-23-98 never went into production, there was no interest in the market for it and it was not what Israel tested, so bring it here is also quite irrelevant
Lastly, flight manual data are test data and unlike an advertising brochure, there is no motivation for the manufacturer and user to increase the number in the manual because they are meant to help pilot use their planes. And with a manual, you could at least know the condition where and when the fighter can achieve a certain ability, they offer far more information and details than any generic story about a test which you don't even know the type they used or the condition.
Israel tested the MiG-23 with a F-15 too, so do not say it was a F-16B only it was a F-15.
But then again, does the F-15 have CFT installed? what weapon did it carry?
F-16 here at least have the centerline tank and some photo even indicate it to be the twin seat version.
And we both know the twin seat version is slower, just like how Mig-23UB is slower than Mig-23ML
www.jta.org
My lord, air to air missile are not air breathing machine (except for Meteor) so their acceleration normally increases with altitude. And zoom climb is done so that you can take advantage of aircraft speed in a climb rather than just lift, itis not because aircraft accelerate better at high altitude
and you lightened your F-16 for at least 200 kg wow and that is not cheating yeah you are cheating and even lie to your self
What the ..f.. make you think an empty F-16 mean they take out the M61 cannon ?????
