The Flakpansie holds every advantage over the M16, which is why it is used approximately 4 times more often.
Bad example, since neither vehicle was built to fight other vehicles anyway. Besides, in engagements between ground vehicles (in real life) "operator skill" plainly accounts for far less in a one-on-one engagement than the type of vehicle. If it were a single Russian T-55 against an Abrams M1A1, I'd bet on the Abrams every time. However, when you extend the battle into an entire battalion of T-55's against a battalion of M1's, then while the Abrams still have the material advantage, the tactical abilities of the group commanders play much more influential roles than in the 1 vs. 1 case.
Osties are used more because they are more survivable against attacking aircraft, as opposed to dying from the first few hits like the tissue-armored M-16's. However, I personally believe that for the purpose of defending an area, such as an airstrip, a group of M-16's are considerably more effective since they are far more capable of hitting aircraft that aren't flying directly at them.
Oh yeah, back to the actual topic.
I'm going to lean toward pilot skill (and prudence) and say 50/30/20 pilot/plane/luck. In my experience, in a solo engagement between two pilots of dead-even ACM skill, SA, reflexes and quick-thinking, and both with an equal knowledge of how to exploit weaknesses and emphasize strengths, the pilot at the initial disadvantage should always be able to at least force a stalemate, as long as the difference in planes isn't TOO pronounced (If it's like a Pony vs. a Hurri I, then that 30% for the plane gets some added weighting in the average
).
And as always, that luck factor is there, like if one pilot receives unlikely, but ultimately fatally bad damage from a low-probability snapshot during the fight, such as a pilot wound, radiator hit or fuel leak.
