Read the forum code of contact
By: - 29th November 2005 at 20:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wrong forum.And 0.5 victory?That is just absurd.Shared victory.Give me a break.What he shoot down just the half of the plane?
"You take the wings,i get the tail.."
By: - 29th November 2005 at 20:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
lol
By: - 29th November 2005 at 21:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Doesnt half a victory represent either that there was lethal ammount of damage done to bring the plain down and/or both aircraft in the engagement were downned..
By: - 29th November 2005 at 21:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Half a kill means that two different aircraft contributed to the victory. Maybe one fighter damaged the aircraft and another finished it off, or probably both got hits that were each enough to take it down. The one victory is shared - each gets half.
By: - 30th November 2005 at 08:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://users.accesscomm.ca/magnusfamily/82lebsyr.htmso i dont get mig-23 took out. i know kind funny
i want your opinions guys, give me more information lmao. :D
In 1982 war, the Syrian MiG-23s were derated versions compared to Russian MiGs.
They had only basic ATOLs !! with derated radars and engine thrust.
The Israeli F-16As, on the other hand, were the newest and best what USA could have offered.
The F-16A (without AIM-120) is definitely outclassed by standard MiG-23 ML, especially at higher altitudes, where thrust of F-100 turbofan engine is very low.
At low altitudes, the F-16 is, of course, a better performer.
The AIM-120 is straw of salvation for F-16C.
By: - 14th February 2011 at 04:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Does anyone get Climb Rate data of MiG-23 and F-16 at all altitude?
Someone told me Climb rate of MiG-23 can whelm F-16 at high altitude and supersonic speed.
By: - 14th February 2011 at 07:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In 1982 war, the Syrian MiG-23s were derated versions compared to Russian MiGs.
They had only basic ATOLs !! with derated radars and engine thrust.The Israeli F-16As, on the other hand, were the newest and best what USA could have offered.
The F-16A (without AIM-120) is definitely outclassed by standard MiG-23 ML, especially at higher altitudes, where thrust of F-100 turbofan engine is very low.
At low altitudes, the F-16 is, of course, a better performer.
The AIM-120 is straw of salvation for F-16C.
Wrong. The MS were limited to Atoll, when the MF had Apex too, which came along with MiG-25P. Low to medium level air combat is limited to the transsonic range. Depending on wing-setting and weight the MiG-23 had several G-limitations compared to the F-16A. Without a perfect GCI support the higher pilots workload (no FBW, no automatic radar modes a.s.o.), limited SA (no bubble view f.e.) and no wide aspect AAMs the Syrian MiG-23 pilots were at the disadvantage from the start. The later ML were better, but the named disadvantages were still alive. ;)
By: - 14th February 2011 at 08:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Remember to take it with a grain of salt.
According to ACIG.org, in 1982 the F-16 accounted for 14 Mig-23s, mostly with Python-3 (5 kills) and AIM-9L (5 kills). The same site puts the Mig-23 vs F-16 total at 6 all with R-23R missiles.
One thing of note, none of the Syrian claims is confirmed while all the Israeli claims are confirmed. Syria also claimed a F-15 which we know has never lost in an A2A engagement.
By: - 14th February 2011 at 08:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
1.Did anyone ever saw a pic of F-16A Netz with Python 3s?
2.Israeli kills confirmed how? Wreckage photos ? Gun camera stills ? Because they said so ?( Personally, i take the 88 or 92 or 100 or whatever number of kills for the israelis as claims. IMHO half that number of REAL kills is a logical and sensible assumption . But that just my opinion.
3.According to some, AT LEAST one F-15 was damaged by and R-60 fired by a Mig-21bis. If true, the syrian pilot could easily report that as a kill.
4. With all due respect , but don't believe everything you see on acig without corroborating with other sources too.:D
By: - 14th February 2011 at 09:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
1.Did anyone ever saw a pic of F-16A Netz with Python 3s?
2.Israeli kills confirmed how? Wreckage photos ? Gun camera stills ? Because they said so ?( Personally, i take the 88 or 92 or 100 or whatever number of kills for the israelis as claims. IMHO half that number of REAL kills is a logical and sensible assumption . But that just my opinion.
3.According to some, AT LEAST one F-15 was damaged by and R-60 fired by a Mig-21bis. If true, the syrian pilot could easily report that as a kill.
4. With all due respect , but don't believe everything you see on acig without corroborating with other sources too.:D
The damaged F-15 is confirmed. The Syrians themselves gave such a high number of losses. The most important question is, who had the air-superiority over the battle-field in 1982?! Main activity was over Zahle. The Israeli ground-forces did not pass highway No 1 sw of Zahle. ;)
By: - 14th February 2011 at 10:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article6.html
In 1982 Phyton 3 pics were still censored. ;)
By: - 14th February 2011 at 13:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sens those F-16 pics you linked to show Python-4, not Python-3.
G. Norton in "on the edge" says Shafrir-2 and Python-3 were not integrated on the F-16.
I also read somewhere, can't remember where though ( could have even be F-16.net), that the israelis could not put Python-3 on the F-16 because of some compatibility issues( missile bigger and heavier than AIM-9, maby flutter etc.etc.) When they put it on F-4 and F-15 , they also installed new pylons for it.
My 2 cents.
By: - 14th February 2011 at 17:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sens those F-16 pics you linked to show Python-4, not Python-3.G. Norton in "on the edge" says Shafrir-2 and Python-3 were not integrated on the F-16.
I also read somewhere, can't remember where though ( could have even be F-16.net), that the israelis could not put Python-3 on the F-16 because of some compatibility issues( missile bigger and heavier than AIM-9, maby flutter etc.etc.) When they put it on F-4 and F-15 , they also installed new pylons for it.
My 2 cents.
The Python -3 were not installed on the wing-tips of the F-16A, but under the wing stations with the special pylon. The Shafrir -2 were phased out in the late 70s. The new AIM-9 which came along with the F-16A in 1980 were much more capable. The F-4 from 69. sqn got their first Python-3 in March 1977 already. The F-15A from 1978 to augement the AIM-9G. For the more capable AIM-9L of the F-16A the more expensive Phyton 3 was. just a tested option.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_(missile)
Compare the weight data and dimensions of the Phyton-3 with Phyton-4
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/weapon/pl8.asp
By: - 14th February 2011 at 22:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=60.65;wap2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-23_(missile)
Some details about the weaponary of the MiG-23MLs in the 80s.
By: - 16th February 2011 at 01:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I always considered the MiG-23 to be the equivalent of a third Gen EE Lightning. Chin missiles. Radar. VWG. Internal gun. Stuff the Lightnings lacked. They lacked the elegance of the Lightning, though, using a single engine.
By: - 17th February 2011 at 21:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Does anyone get Climb Rate data of MiG-23 and F-16 at all altitude?
Someone told me Climb rate of MiG-23 can whelm F-16 at high altitude and supersonic speed.
The MiG-23ML has superior high altitude supersonic performance when we talk about 1G. As soon as turning is involved, the MiG looses big. The performance advantages of the MiG are hard to use for advantage in a 1980ies combat arena.
Low and medium level the F-16A was basically superior in all aspects. Add to that the fact that the MiG-driver has a hard time handling the workload in real combat, the MiG-23 is worst choice.
1G performance is often overrated.
By: - 18th February 2011 at 12:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Much thanks
Do you have flight envelop to prove or detailed G data?
By: - 20th February 2011 at 11:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Much thanks
Do you have flight envelop to prove or detailed G data?
Yes.
Posts: 27
By: crazyrussian - 28th November 2005 at 22:17
http://users.accesscomm.ca/magnusfamily/82lebsyr.htm
so i dont get mig-23 took out. i know kind funny
i want your opinions guys, give me more information lmao. :D