crobato, let me warn you before you go farther…..debating with MiG-23MLD is has almost become something of a faux pas here……He will flat out ignore just about everything you put his way, and when you get him started on turn rates, there’s just no stopping it. Gracefully stepping out of the “debate” is your best choice unless you just like constantly typing the same things over and over again….

If you review some older threads you’ll see what I mean. I was one of the few who attempted debate with him, and it wasn’t much fun after a while…..

Just a fair warning…..

Phantom II

Man why you do not let others be like they want to be, what bothers you about me if i like turn rates? number one i do respect you and i am not going from thread to thread saying this guy is this or that, i suggest you be a gentleman, and being a Gentleman means respect others i do respect you and i am not making you a bad reputation like you are trying to do to me, respect other`s opinions is a part of the forum rules, respect the areas i do like, respect me, and debate me if you do not agree with the figures i give, however if you do not like my opinions please do as i do to you simply let others be, you have opinions and attitudes to which i do not agree but i do respect you, why? because i simply know you won`t change your mind at least in the near future and it is better let you be rather than that start a campaign against you, in fact if i did ignore your opinions in past debates it was simply because you were wrong but of course everybody thinks about themselves as being right and the opposition wrong and that applies to both of us but try to see that respect is the basis for harmony between humans and try to see some of your opinions are as subjetive and bias as mine and if you can not get to an agreement it is better let pleople be.

By the way i do admit when i am wrong in the best of my capabilities and i have acknowledged in the past my mistakes however Phantom II if you prefer this way of debating see that basicly i won`t consider you discuss matters with reason and figures but rather you attack the persons reputation as a politician does.

You are somewhat in contradiction with the article you pointed previously. Static margin make a whole lot of difference.

And the article you pointed, also pionted that the tailess delta (without tail or canards) has the highest lift coefficient of all, did it not?

Crobato

Static marging improves drag, and the least drag you can get of course is the tailess delta, nevertheles the lift coefficient is totally different, the Tailess delta is the configuration that provides less lift trim coefficient followed by the canard wing configuration

source http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/canardsS03.pdf
and you can see in this other article they say the same
The differences between aft-tail and canard configurations’ maximum lift capability is again related to the trim constraint. There exists one position of the center of gravity for which each surface carries maximum lift. This optimal static margin is shown in figure 11. Nearly neutral stability is required for canard designs while static instabilities from 0 to 20% are necessary for aft-tail designs.

http://aero.stanford.edu/Reports/MultOp/multop.html

by the way i have been trying to find out why the J-10 and Eurofighter have dihedral and anhedral canards and it seems it has to be with lateral stability

You must read wrong, though I know where this one comes from.

http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/review/mig21/mig21.htm

The MiG-21 should roll a lot faster than 90 degrees a second but this is within the first 90 degrees, so this is a mis read. I think what it should mean it gets the best control authority within the first 90 degrees. It is said in a TV interview that the MiG-21 rolls so fast you actually risk the plane going out of control. F-16 is screaming around 325 deg/sec within the first 90 deg, though this says nothing about the roll rate past 90 deg.

Mirage III can deal with MiG-23, just as F-86 is able to shoot down MiG-21s,

Something interesting.

http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/Sprey%20Quarter%20Century.pdf

Crobato

Honestly i do not think the Mirage III would had tackled the MiG-23 or MiG-23ML with ease, these two fighters first were basicly single seat F-4s, they were armed with better weaponry than a MiG-21, were faster, had quicker acceleration and would had ruled the engagement, at WVR with a MiG-23 were not handicapped, basicly they were much better than the Mirage F1.

The MiG-23M against the Mirage F1

Practically in the entire altitude range at the speeds of 700-1100 km/h, the MiG-23M surpassed the Mirage F-1 on maneuverability and rates of climb. At speeds more than 1100 km/h at average and high altitudes, the MiG-23M had lower sustained turn rates than the Mirage F1.

The Mirage III was not as good as the Mirage F1, the Mirage III would not had an easy kill, in fact it was not armed as well.

The Mirage III in some aspects was inferior to the MiG-21 however the Israeli did use the Mirage more wisedly than the Egyptian and Syrians their MiG-21s, it is not that the MiG-21 were inferior, but that the Israeli were better trained and teh same they said about the Bekka Valley, they said they were better trained not that the MiGs were inferior.

In August 1966, an Iraqi pilot defected to Israel in a late-model MiG-21F-13 (Fishbed-C). The IAF began studying the plane. The first to fly it was – who else – Danny Sha-pira, the IAF’s veteran chief test pilot.
The systems in the cockpit were bulky and unwieldy. The pilot’s view of the out-side world was almost completely blocked off, and turning his head sideways was difficult. The Russians believed that the pilot should look forward at all times.
In the air, Danny Shapira discovered that the MiG-21 was a powerful bird. When taking off simultaneously with a Mirage, the MiG shot ahead and accelerated better, in both subsonic and supersonic speeds. Its drawbacks became apparent at low-altitude high-speed flight: the high pressure on the rudders limited the plane’s maneuverability, which – under those conditions – was not much better than a Piper’s.
In the course of the test flights, Shapira gradually discovered the areas in which the MiG-21 could be outperformed by Mirages. He imparted his discoveries to pilots from the different squadrons, advising them to try and engage the MiG-21 in specific altitudes and speeds, which would put the MiG-21 at a disadvantage.

“No Margin for Error” (1993) by Ehud Yonay

On August 16, 1966, an Iraqi defector landed a MiG-21 in perfect working order on the Hazor tarmac and Dani Shapira, the IAF’s chief test pilot, took the MiG through every nook and cranny of its flight envelope. “We found out that at high speeds it had trouble maneuvering as well as the Mirage, which meant that we had to try to get it into tight turns at high speeds. Also, at slow speeds it had a tendency to spin out, and at tight turns at low altitudes it would snap and flick into the ground.” After completing his test series and writing a book on the MiG-21, Shapira began flying it alongside and against the Mirages. By the end of the year, each Mirage squadron was thoroughly familiar with every as-pect of what was heretofore the world’s most mysterious and formidable fighter.

“Israel’s Best Defense” (1993) by E. Cohen

When the Chief Test Pilot of the IAF, Danny Shapira got into the cockpit of the MiG-21 for the first time, he was surprised by a plethora of levers and buttons in an illogical order. It looked very inferior to the elegant Mirage with its ‘no hands’ flight. Iraqi Captain Muneir Radfa, who brought the plane to Israel from Iraq, agreed that the cockpit was uncomfortable and disorganized, but insisted that the plane was easy to fly. The first flight confirmed his words; it was easy. To Danny, it felt like the Mirage, but was a bit faster and had a lower peak altitude of 40,000 feet. When Danny began to maneuver, he discovered how the MiG differed from the Mirage. The MiG was difficult to steer at speeds over 500 knots. Danny had to use tremendous strength on the stick to steady the plane in turns, especially in sharp ones. At greater speeds the danger increased. The nose and the right wing pulled downward. Since the back of the cockpit was obstructed, the pilot’s field of vision was severely limited. After many dogfights, Danny concluded that in terms of handling, the MiG-21 was even with the Mirage.

“Air Warfare in the Missile Age” (1985) by Lon Nordeen

The Israelis highly rated the MiG-21 as a medium-altitude dogfight aircraft. With its slightly higher thrust-to-weight ratio and lower wing-loading, it was able to out-accelerate and out-turn the Mirage IIIC. Nevertheless, the Mirage’s pilots managed to shoot down MiG-21s as Arab pilots generally did not fly the plane to its limits of performance.
However, the MiG-21 was found to be highly susceptible to battle damage, having a tendency to burn or explode after being struck only a few times with 30-mm cannon fire. On the opposite, a Mirage was hit by the Soviet-built Atoll infrared-guided air-to-air missile fired from an Iraqi MiG-21 over an Iraqi airbase where the Mirage was patrolling. The Mirage’s tailpipe suffered extensive damage, but the pilot was able to return to the base.]

Peebles, Curtis. Dark Eagles. Novato, CA, USA: Presidio, 1995

Capt. Monir Radfa, an Iraqi pilot, took off from Rashid Air Base outside Baghdad and landed at Hatzor Air Base in Israel on August 16, 1966, with his Mig-21F-13. For the next several months, it was subjected to a series of flights to learn its strengths and weaknesses. These were made by Lt. Col. Dani Shapira, the Israeli Air Force’s chief test pilot. He recalled later: “We found out, for example, that at high speed it had trouble maneuvering as well as the Mirage, which meant we had to try to get it into tight turns at high speeds.”
At low speeds, the Mig-21 would tend to spin out in tight, low-altitude turns. The Mig-21 was then used to train Israeli Mirage pilots. Some 100 hours were spent flying in mock combat with Israeli Mirages. By the end of the year, every Mirage squadron had been familiarized with the Mig-21.

XXX
MiG-21: Its delta wing allows it to turn very well, but the induced drag of that configuration ‘bleeds’ energy rapidly and when MiG-21 turns, it costs. So the trick is to get the MiG-21 down to an altitude below 20,000 feet. That’s where the Phantom really performs well with its wing; it turns and accelerates well. But if you get above 20,000 feet and tangle with a MiG-21, he will chew you to pieces because of the advantages of his wing and his speed.
Steve Ritchie, a Phantom ace, considers the MiG-21’s speed and turning ability to be excellent, but the MiG has roll rate troubles at maximum speed, as well as longitudinal stability problems.
The delta–wing design of the Mig-21 also loses energy in turns faster than the F-4 does and the Mig has a tendency to lose speed in turns.

“Aircraft vs Aircraft” (1986) by N. Franks.

Full-afterburner thrust:
MiG-21 — 13,117 lb.
Mirage 3C — 13,670 lb.

The MiG-21’s delta-wing configuration gave it poor lift at subsonic speeds.
In a high-angle-of-attack situation, the MiG-21 bucks about almost uncontrollably and can only be pointed rather than aimed.

“The Threat” by Cockburn.

The handling of the MiG-21 was bad. U.S. pilots who flew the 12 MiG-21s presented to the U.S. by Egypt in 1978 reported that below 15,000-feet altitude, where the air is dens-er, the control stick becomes very difficult to move: “Like pulling on a telegraph pole” was one comment. The cockpit visibility was extremely bad.

“Modern Fighter Combat” (1987) by Mike Spick.

The MiG-21 design is based on tailed delta wing planform while the French Mirage was a tailless delta. The pure delta has many advantages in high-altitude, high-speed flight. It also has no clearly defined point of stall and develops max lift at very high angles of incidence. But it pays a high price in increased drag. Drag is also high while maneuvering.
The tailed delta avoided the worst drawbacks of the tailless variety.
Turning ability of the MiG-21 is good and at the lower speed levels it is very good. But increase speed to Mach 0.9 at 15,000-feet altitude and the MiG-21’s instantaneous turn rate becomes worse than that of the Phantom though still better than the Mirage 3C can achieve.
The controls are heavy, to a degree where a fair amount of muscle is needed. The pilot’s view out is not good, rear vision is almost non-existent and even the view ahead is restricted by both avionics displays and a heavy canopy bow. A fairly low fuel fraction reduces the combat radius without external fuel to a ridiculously short distance. The performance above 20,000 feet was described as poor.
The truth is that the MiG-21 is a very ordinary fighter and had it been of Western origin, it would have probably sunk without trace prior to 1970.
At the same time, the latest MiG-21bis (Fishbed-N) has a more powerful engine and a far superior thrust-to-weight ratio. Its performance has to improve dramatically and it must be a formidable dogfighter.

http://www.waronline.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5472&postorder=asc

As I said these turning rates are not necessarily wrong, though the lock on figure in terms of max. STR looks even more reasonable. However exact data are unknown. I predict a STR of 24-26°/sec at best depending on the speed. Typhoon will probably reach its best turning performance at 350 kts. Unlike the MiG-29 or F-16 the Eurofighter is not only able to achieve 9 g over a wider speed envelope, at higher speeds 450 kts+ the Typhoon will even accelerate at high g, while the MiG-29 or F-16 will loose speed even with full AB selected. The result is of course a lower STR if the pilot does not reduce thrust. I assume the Eurofighter’s STR at 750 km/h (~400 kts) is similar to that of the MiG-29 or F-16, but Typhoon can sustain them longer and maintain more energy. At lower speeds the Typhoon is likely to be superior as well as at supersonic speeds.

I don’t know why you repeatly bring up examples of stable delta and delta/non moveable canard designs. They are more or less pointless for the discussion.

I will tell you why i do compare the Viggen with its limited 15.6 deg/s instantaneous turn rate and the Kfr with its instantaneous turn rate of 18.9 deg/s and sustained turn rate of 9.6 deg/s to the recent Eurocanards, the reason is to prove you that despite the gread advances with delta wings and canards even with static margin instabilities, some aerodynamic properties seen on the delta wing do not disappear, yes you now have better canard and delta wing aircraft, however some properties of the configuration are still present.
When it comes to static marging and max lift coefficient the tailed configuration offers better lift and the issue of the use of canards in many aircraft configurations will depend in many aspect among them: the type of mission the aircraft will do, costs, performance etc etc.. another thing is time frame and technology available, in the 1980s of course the Eurocanards were quit advanced, now with Thrust vectoring, stealth and new materials well you can build a fighter like the F-22 and F-35 without canards.

The Issue of the instantaneous turn rate and sustained turn rate only proves you that many do not accept a known fact that the delta canard configuration bleeds energy fast and among one of its drawbacks is it does not endow the aircraft configuration with sustained turn rates as good as the instantaneous turn rates it does provide.

You can expect if you want turn rates in the range of 24-26 deg/s, personally Lock on has the most likely highest value for its sustained turn rate of 24.5 deg/s and this is at relatively low speed and once the Typhoon gets at a speed beyond 750km/h its turn rate drops abruptly, this is logic if you see it from the aerodynamic point of view, because delta wings always struggle with enduce drag during turns

In fact the Gripens TWR is not that much different from that of a Kfir.
The Gripens superior turning performance is primarily achieved by its superior aerodynamical design. And BTW Kfir is based on a 2nd generation fighter from the 1950s.

Lets say they are at least not entirely wrong.

Close and long coupled canards has both their pros and cons. BTW the Rafale has a lifting body as well, like the LERXes of MiG-29 etc., though a bit different. In fact there is no best design, every one has its finer or less finer points, it is ever going to be a compromise.

Except a similar airlift intake configuration and the low mounted wings, the J-10 and Eurofighter haven’t that much in common.

Typhoon’s canards were in fact placed to affect the wing and fin airflow as few as possible. Their main task is to stabalize the aircraft, which is more unstable than other delta/canards. All the aircraft’s control surfaces adjusts to mach number and AoA to optimize performance, meaning keeping drag low and optimizing the lift.

Scorpion82

See for example this, the AJ-37 has a Max overload factor of 7Gs and an instantaneous turn rate of 15.6 deg/s at the speeds of Mach 0.5 and Mach 0.6, consider we can not expect things that are not in the order of the possible range of reality.

The Eurofighter is more less in the class of the MiG-29 and F-15 and probably is slightly better in agility up to some level, so i consider it must be more or less in the range predicted by Gordon, Fomin and even Lock on.

In order to make the airframe smaller, it was early decided to replace the navigator with a good navigational computer. It’s designed to withstand 12 G, but the limit in operation is 7 G.

sources
http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/text/37viggen.htm

http://www.temporal.com.au/Viggen_Final.Pdf

Lol once again you show that you consume everything you can find which suits your mind. Where is the reference behind these graphics? From where did they get the data? Looks much like flying the MiG-29 in Lock On and the EF2000 in Eurofighter Typhoon, creating the graph and you take it as serious lol. Honestly Lock On has good flight modells, only stupid that you can’t fly the Typhoon there.

Scorpion82

You are first the one who does not accept anything that goes against your own mind set, it is obvious that the graph comes from Lock on but also see that Gordon fives you similar figures for the Eurofighter sustained turn rates, in fact lock on gives you a better sustained turn rate that what Yefim Gordon or Fomin give, they give a pure max sustained turn rate 22 deg/s, in aerodynamics it is known that deltas bleed energy and speed faster, if you look at the graph it is most likely accurate because also the Gripen bleeds 10 deg/s from its instantaneous turn rate of 30 deg/s to its 20 deg/s sustained turn rate why you do not like the graph? well easy you are simply workshiping the eurocoanards and anyting that makes them look bad bothers you even to the degree calling others with bad words such as abjectives used to denigrate the reasoning capability of others, please buddy first learn to argue in peace, a smart people does not need insults specially when he or she is right;) insults are only a reflex of lack of evidence and lack of convincing arguments

For your convenience, videos from the Dogfight episode of modern jet combat in the Middle East are up in Youtube. You can see how Mirage III, superior roll rate but inferior turn rate, just pwns the MiG-17, which has superior turn rate but inferior roll rate.

You’re right, turn rate is only one parameter in agility, but you always treat it like its the ONLY one. You keep forgeting about other factors, such as roll rates and transient performance.

When swing wings are extended forward, they generally produce do not good roll rates. Wings with typically long physical wingspans, including variable wings, cannot put large ailerons that would exert better authority to roll. Wings that are longer in length but shorter in wingspan, allow you to put longer ailerons. Long wingspan also increases lateral stability, hence more resistance to roll, due to both wing pressure. and inertia (more weight outboard of the plane’s centerline). Another factor comes in because the wings are shoulder mounted, which also increases lateral stability, not in the center or below, which decreases lateral stability. For planes that have shoulder mounted wings, they compensate with an anhedral layout (wings canted downward, like in Jaguar and Harrier), and anhedral wings improve roll ratates but swing wing layout forces you to keep the wings flat.

When you don’t have good roll rates, you cannot start a turn quickly, since you have to roll in order to get the position to turn. It also affects you with a whole bunch of BFM like scissors. One of the main centerpieces of the F-16’s agility is its prodigous roll rates (its the fastest in the US inventory), and roll rates also excels in planes like the Mirage 2000, Mirage III, F-5E, A-4 Skyhawk, and not the least, the MiG-21 Fishbed.

For that reason, the MiG-23 prefers to fight with its wings swept back,mostly because it does best in hack and slash attacks but also because it gets the best roll rate that way, even if turn rates are lower.

Another problem with swing wing, is that the position of the swing wing already gives away the plane’s energy state and telegraphs that to the opposing pilot. Thus for an experienced pilot, they would already be figuring out a counter move. Something the Israelis rely on from their Phantoms and Kfirs when they engage the Floggers and VG Fitters.

Crobato

The MiG-23 and F-14 are good examples of VG wing aircraft, the F-14 with VG can roll better than a MiG-21, just to cite you some information the F-14 can have roll rates of 120 deg/s while up to what i know the MiG-21 only of 90 deg/s, the MiG-23ML will deal with a Mirage III quit easily in fact it is not a real adversary, and the israelies knew it that is the reason they bought F-15s and F-16s.

Comparing a MiG-17 with a Mirage III is not the best example why you do not compare a F-14 versus a Mirage III?