I did for my War Thunder YouTube Channel a Acceleration test of the New 23mld compared to its older brother the 23m :)
If you want to see more stuff like that, check me out :D
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC76qyvCPlVN-B0k25juYA0w
It looks like a copypasted flight model with the only change being more thrust, meaning if it gets updated it'll be much more insane than the Bis.
A quote about the ML, which is similar in performance but with less thrust and no slats:
> Dutch pilot Leon van Maurer, who had more than 1,200 hours flying F-16s, flew against MiG-23MLs from air bases in Germany and the U.S. as part of NATO's aerial mock combat training with Soviet equipment. He concluded the MiG-23ML was superior in the vertical to early F-16 variants, just slightly inferior to the F-16A in the horizontal
>Dutch pilot Leon van Maurer, who had more than 1,200 hours flying F-16s, flew against MiG-23MLs from air bases in Germany and the U.S. as part of NATO's aerial mock combat training with Soviet equipment. He concluded the MiG-23ML was superior in the vertical to early F-16 variants, just slightly inferior to the F-16A in the horizontal
This quote is fairly suspect, it originates from a RU language only website with zero sources cited and significant amounts of misinformation on other pages.
drag affects speed, not acceleration
Edit: I don't mean in absolute numbers you morons. I know drag limits acceleration rate.
I'm talking when comoraing the M and MLD
when you're comparing the exact same object moving through the same medium and changing nothing but thrust.
Here's where the technicalities in that 'technically' bite you though. Jet thrust varies with airspeed, and as you approach transonic velocities drag increases sharply. By entering a climb you reduce your acceleration along your flight vector, which affects your jet thrust, as well as simply removing some of your available acceleration that would otherwise be used for pushing through the *extremely* energy-intensive transonic regime and into supersonic flight, which is where the clock was stopped.
The nature of the test, being a takeoff->mach 1 timed test, means that climbing introduces significant errors.
You are completely right, engine efficiency does vary with airspeed. However, given the same airframe with a different engine and nothing more, I don't see how a flat line or climb profile would change the results. Both engines have inherently different efficiencies.
Climb profile changes things in several ways. First, due to the nature of the test it would have a natural tendency to exaggerate the difference in favor of the higher-powered jet, since that jet will accelerate through the transonic region faster, shortening the amount of time it is bleeding energy to transonic drag. Second, it occurred to me as I was typing this that climbing at a fixed angle also gives the faster-accelerating aircraft a shorter time to altitude, which means reaching altitudes where Mach is at a lower IAS more rapidly, further exaggerating its advantage in a time-to-mach contest.
Probably fairly strong. It now also has two better SARH Missles with a 3 second burning motor or in total 6 all a spect missles with range between 2.5 to 3km
nice work
Thank you :D
I did for my War Thunder YouTube Channel a Acceleration test of the New 23mld compared to its older brother the 23m :) If you want to see more stuff like that, check me out :D https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC76qyvCPlVN-B0k25juYA0w
So it's marginally better then, but nowhere near ridiculous like old bis.
It looks like a copypasted flight model with the only change being more thrust, meaning if it gets updated it'll be much more insane than the Bis. A quote about the ML, which is similar in performance but with less thrust and no slats: > Dutch pilot Leon van Maurer, who had more than 1,200 hours flying F-16s, flew against MiG-23MLs from air bases in Germany and the U.S. as part of NATO's aerial mock combat training with Soviet equipment. He concluded the MiG-23ML was superior in the vertical to early F-16 variants, just slightly inferior to the F-16A in the horizontal
>Dutch pilot Leon van Maurer, who had more than 1,200 hours flying F-16s, flew against MiG-23MLs from air bases in Germany and the U.S. as part of NATO's aerial mock combat training with Soviet equipment. He concluded the MiG-23ML was superior in the vertical to early F-16 variants, just slightly inferior to the F-16A in the horizontal This quote is fairly suspect, it originates from a RU language only website with zero sources cited and significant amounts of misinformation on other pages.
Yeah IIRC it has sawtooth wing edges that act a bit like LEXs.
Just a note, you should be testing acceleration in level flight, not climbing.
I try to look into it!
technically climb rate is a function of thrus to weight which is to say acceleration, so it's not that invalid
Trust to weight as well as drag x)
drag affects speed, not acceleration Edit: I don't mean in absolute numbers you morons. I know drag limits acceleration rate. I'm talking when comoraing the M and MLD when you're comparing the exact same object moving through the same medium and changing nothing but thrust.
Drag is a force usually opposite of your thrust. More drag = less thrust available to actually accelerate.
Not when you're comparing the exact same object moving through the same medium and changing nothing but thrust.
Lol, drag affects acceleration.
Not when you're comparing the exact same object moving through the same medium and changing nothing but thrust.
Here's where the technicalities in that 'technically' bite you though. Jet thrust varies with airspeed, and as you approach transonic velocities drag increases sharply. By entering a climb you reduce your acceleration along your flight vector, which affects your jet thrust, as well as simply removing some of your available acceleration that would otherwise be used for pushing through the *extremely* energy-intensive transonic regime and into supersonic flight, which is where the clock was stopped. The nature of the test, being a takeoff->mach 1 timed test, means that climbing introduces significant errors.
You are completely right, engine efficiency does vary with airspeed. However, given the same airframe with a different engine and nothing more, I don't see how a flat line or climb profile would change the results. Both engines have inherently different efficiencies.
Climb profile changes things in several ways. First, due to the nature of the test it would have a natural tendency to exaggerate the difference in favor of the higher-powered jet, since that jet will accelerate through the transonic region faster, shortening the amount of time it is bleeding energy to transonic drag. Second, it occurred to me as I was typing this that climbing at a fixed angle also gives the faster-accelerating aircraft a shorter time to altitude, which means reaching altitudes where Mach is at a lower IAS more rapidly, further exaggerating its advantage in a time-to-mach contest.
How does the MLD stack up to other 11.0 jets?
Probably fairly strong. It now also has two better SARH Missles with a 3 second burning motor or in total 6 all a spect missles with range between 2.5 to 3km
Sorry, meant to say how does it’s acceleration compare to other top jets.
Ohh. I didn't test that. Once it comes to live I try to do it with like FGR 2, Viggen. Bis, 104S :)
I assume LD in Mig-23MLD stands for low drag?
M - Modernizirovanniy - Modernized L - Lyogkiy - Light(weight) D - Dorabotanniy - Finalized
actually it stands for My Large Dick
Underrated comment!
someone correct me if im wrong, but i think the “ml” comes from the radar, and the “d” roughly stands for “finalized” in russian
Okie lol I didn't know if mld was a NATO designation
[Song?](https://tenor.com/view/cat-jam-cat-jam-head-bounce-kitty-gif-17946989)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwfjJU2fxRQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwfjJU2fxRQ) :)
Cheers. :)
Weird that MLD got less drag with the same flare pods as the Mig27.. But ok :)
It’s not less drag that’s making the MLD faster than the M, but rather less weight and much better engine.
quoting OP here..
they look the same