That’s BS and you know it. Now since BAE claims otherwise, its their word against Yefim Gordon’s. One is trying to sell a plane, another is trying to sell a coffee table book.

The Su-27 is clearly better of the two Russian jets according to those that have both planes, starting with the Ukraine. It is as if you never figured out that the PLAAF had plenty of opportunity to try out the MiG-29 themselves, and it is in fact, the MiG-29 that was their original choice, since the MiG brand name was all they ever knew, and they never owned a single Sukhoi in their history.

I already told you why canard-deltas can maintain high sustained rates. Combined with instability, the high pitch authorities canards generate means less trim is needed to go around a turn, and less drag. Now you keep on going about why deltas at a high AoA has a tendency to create a high profile drag, but that is also true of lifting body jets like the Su-27 and MiG-29. The drag is simply caused by having plenty of lift area being exposed at high angles of attack. The so called energy bleed you are saying is only caused at higher angles of attack.

But you have no idea that sustained turn rate and angle of attack are not related. A plane with a low angle of attack can still maintain a high sustained turn rate by navigating through an outer wider circle faster.

Which means speed is essential for sustained turn rate.

At supersonic speeds, the advantage is more pronounced.

I quite disagree with that.

That only proves to you that the writer is a hack and a paid publicist. Nothing more.

You may have read that people also don’t like the Super Hornet’s performance (some consider it inferior to the F-18C). When the F-14 is compared to a 1970’s musclecar, even with underpowered TF-30 engines, that does not bode well for the Super Hornet in my book at least in terms of grunt.

The sustained rate of 20 degs for the Gripen in my book is quite excellent considering its low power to weight ratio. As for the Typhoon charts, note the fact that they have no commercial bias to promote the Rafale in the same charts, and yet they show it faster than most of the other aircraft in sustained turns.

And finally, lets not forget that instantaneous turn rate is probably more important for transient performance anyway. By far most BFM isn’t built around running in circles consecutively.

Crobato

Aerodynamically speaking the MiG-29 versus the Gripen has the following advantages:

Highly swept low aspect ratio wings have worse low speed handling than less swept higher aspect ratio wings such as the 40 deg wings in the MiG-29, the porpose of the canard is to create low preassure vortices that delay the formation of the main delta wing vortices and therefore the stall of the delta wing when the delta wing vortices burst and breakdown

The non coplanar high canard on the Eurofighter or J-10 allows more lift at high AoA than the coplanar canards such as those on the X-31, this allows quick turns and high instantaneous turn rates however the Gripen delta wings stall faster than the less swept wing of 40 deg due to faster flow separation and vortices formation that can burst earlier and stall the wing, this is proven by the fact the Gripen has a very good high AoA and an excellent instantaneous turn rate however the sustained turn rate proves you the MiG-29 can keep higher sustained turn rates, delta wings suffer a quick flow separation and the creation of vortices that stall the wing at high AoA, the canards do not offer more advanatages than LERXes in fact at very low AoA canards offer more drag than a tailess delta wing and the benefits of canards only appear at high AoA.
Beyond the fact canards offer a two centers of lift between the center of gravity, they do not offer more lift since the delta wing is under the down wash of the canard and this reduces the max potential lift the main delta wing can achieve due to the drag the canard imposes upon the leading edge of the delta wing.

This two centers of lift are and aid at supersonic speeds when the center of lift (aerodynamic center) shift occur, this helps the instable Gripen at Mach 2 however LERXes also give lift ahead of the center of gravity.

Therefore the LERXed MiG-29 can achieve higher sustained rates than the Eurocanards and J-10 thanks to flaps, integral layout fuselage wing blending, LERXes and a wing swept at 40 deg.

About sustained turn rates. I’m trying to find any evidence about the Su-27 or MiG-29 matching that of the Typhoon or Rafale.

While this is not an objective website, it shows clues to the contrary.

http://www.eurofighter.com/et_sr_me_sb.asp

Subsonic sustained turn rate

In order:
Typhoon (of course)
Rafale
Su-27 (really close and in the heels of the Rafale)
F-18C (Surprise!)
F-15C
MiG-29, M2000, F-16C (packing up the rear)

http://www.eurofighter.com/et_sr_me_su.asp

Supersonic sustained turn rate.

In order
Typhoon (obviously)
F-15C (surprise!)
Rafale
F-18C/F-16C (tie)
Su-27 (just a wee bit behind F-18C/F-16C)
MiG-29 (falling well behind of the Su-27)
M2000 (dead last)

Crobato

The figures can be true no ones denies that probably those figures are accurate but everything depends on what conditions, for example with only 50% internal fuel tank the MiG-29 is better than even the Eurofighter according to Yefim Gordon`s book; Andrei Fomin`s book says that the Su-27 has less impressive sustained turn rate than the Rafale and Eurofighter, however both authors claim the Eurofighter and Rafale have a sustained turn rate of 22 deg/s.

The best MiG-29 variant has a sustained turn rate of 23.5 deg/s, this is the MiG-29SE variant, the MiG-29M has a sustained turn rate of 22.8 deg/s this is at 3000m and with 50% of internal fuel only, the Eurofighter at the same conditions has a sustained turn rate of 22 deg/s.

Now let us see if it is probable these conditions are accurate, the Max sustained turn rate for the Gripen is merely 20 deg/s, the Su-27 has a max sustained turn rate of 21 deg/s and the MiG-29A has a Max sustained turn rate of 22 deg/s, so it is probable that both the Rafale and Eurofighter are in the range of 22 deg/s since the less powerful Gripen has the same configuration and it has almost a thrust to weight ratio of 1:1 at take off weight but barely gets to 20 deg/s way below the F-16, MiG-29 and Su-27, this has been even explained by the fact canard delta configuration bleeds energy and have the tendency of having lower sustained turn rates than the tailplane configuration

What is probable is the Instantaneous turn rate of the Eurofighter and Rafale are in the region of 28-30 deg/s since the Gripen gets a max instantaneous turn rate 30 deg/s.

The Su-27 is capable of handling up to 30 deg of AoA almost in the range of the Rafale and probably Eurofighter, If the Eurofighter website claims the MiG-29 is inferior even to the Su-27 in turn rate probably must be at max take off configuration, however the Gripen and MiG-29 as fuel is consumed get lighter and their thrust to weight ratio at combat changes in the MiG-29SE it gets to 1.52:1 and in the Gripen in the range of 1.5:1

Also the conparation between the MiG-29 and the Eurofighter can be an early MiG-29A with a Max sustained turn rate of 22 deg/s and an Instantaneous turn rate of 28 deg/s but not with newer MiG-29s that have better turn rate and i guess the MiG-29SE must have also a better Max instantaneous turn rate

However Andrei Fomin claims the Su-27 has a better instantaneous turn rate than the Rafale he claims the Rafale has an instantaneous turn rate of 24 deg/s way below the Su-27`s instantaneous turn rate of 27 deg/s and the MiG-29`s instantataneous turn rate 28 deg/s, this sounds a bit unlikely since the Gripen achieves an instantaneous turn rate of 30 deg/s unless the comparation was made under an specific condition such as altitude, speed or thrust to weight ratio

I trhink Doug wondered about your generation claims (Su-34 = 5 g & MiG-31BM = 4++ or 5 g). That’s indeed funny that older aircraft should be in a newer generation than newer ones, or that a simple upgrade is seen as a complete generation boost. I suggest all to skip the generation bla bla. It means nothing and the views are to different. In the end its the aircraft capability that matters, not if it is a 4, 5 with + or ++.

Lets see if the K-77M is ready earlier and if its performance is better than that of the Meteor. Speed and Altitude is important, but its not all alone.

The MiG-31 is definetively a 4 generation aircraft, the latest variant can be called 4.5 or 4+ generation, but what probably he meant is among the latest 4+ generation fighters only the MiG-31 sticks out as the best match in terms of weapons and speed versus the F-22.

The Eurofighter well probably is a good weapon too and is also at the same level however the interesting part of it is the original design concept is quit old, the early MiG-25 is a 1960`s fighter and the MiG-31 is no more than a 1970`s one so it is quit amazing to see a very old fighter still being able to fight the F-22 in some equal terms.

However it is important to see that all the Eurocanards can not compete with stealth and thrust vectoring because thrust vectoring gives you excellent lift drag ratio and stealth surprise, also the coplanar wing-tailplane arrangement is a stealth compromised configuration and no Eurocanard uses it creating more drag with their offset wing-canard arrangement and making them less stealthier than the F-22 or F-35

http://www.cias.org/lineup.html
however the X-36 uses the coplanar arrangement on the canard-wing configuration and thrust vectoring

The inst. turn of the ML is given 18°-20°/sec and the sust. 8°-10°/sec by OKB MiG.
A turning MiG-23 was no serious threat to the next generation F-15 and F-16.
So the US-fighters trained to counter slashing attacks with AAMs from the MiG-23 head-on. When suprised by that, such becomes a serious threat. The same way tried the MiG-23s in adversary training at Mary to surprise MiG-29 mates with some success. When the MiG-29 drivers learned their lesson from that exercises, it was no longer so. Similar things were done by nimble A-4s against F-14s for example against less experienced crews from that, just to show the scope of such training results.
The GAF MiG-29 drivers did all to train other NATO flyers to overcome MiG-29s flown by good pilots. At first they outsmarted their adversaries and surprised them with unaware capabilities from the MiG. Reduced overconfidence boosted by every young pilot, before restoring their confidence in showing those the possibilties to overcome the MiG. The GAF has a number of their pilots sent to other AFs every year to learn the tactics there or the different way to deal with threats surplus to NATO training exercises.

The Kfir C2 have a similar turning capability and speed-envelope like the MiG-23, but did not field the weaponary to counter the BVR one from the late MiG-23s, what became decessive when oprated by similar level pilots and CGI support.
The canards were fitted to the Kfir to overcome the heavy-nose behavior related from heavy J-79 engine into Mirage 5 fuselage. With an Atar 9K the max inst is 21° 15000 feet.
Just to add some others ideas, how a specific aerodynamic solution was selected. The French way from Mirage III to Mirage F1 to Mirage 2000 with FBW and Rafale is related to different demands. The naval variant with related landing requirements dominated the selection of configuration of the the Rafale. The MiG-29K did require a “new” wing related to that.

Sens

There a few things you forget, number one the MiG-23 has three wings settings, so it has three instantaneous turn rates not one, with the wings set at 45 deg, the MiG-23ML has a Max instantantaneous turn of 16.7 deg/sec and a better sustained turn rate of 14.1 deg/sec.

The IAI kfir has not swing wings but a fixed geometry delta wing it only has one Instantaneous turn rate at minimun combat weight and up to what i know it is 18.9 deg/sec however the IAI Kfir has a sustained turn rate of 9.6 deg/sec

Arrow wings suffer very badly pitch up stall worst than Delta wings since they have less wing area, if you look at the F-16XL it has an increased trailing area making it not a pure delta like a Mirage III`s or Kfir`s wing with that have more straight trailing edge area, in the other hand the F-16XL has an increased trailing edge area sometimes called trailing edge extension to the inner delta wing of its cranked wing and also the F-16XL has a leading edge notch to reduce leading edge vortices and alliviate pitch up movements that cause stall at the outer part of its wing.

Check the wing straight trailing edge on the Mirage III

See the F-16XL has not straight trailing edges, it has a trailing edge area extension and has a notch at the root of the leading edge

Low aspect ratio highly swept wings (Delta wings) had defficient handling characteristics at low speed and suffer greatly when the aerodynamic center of lift shifts downwards behind the center of gravity, the cranked wing such as that of the F-16XL improves all that, the cranked wing has better handling at low speed and reduces the aerodynamic center of lift from subsonic to supersonic flight conditions improving the lift/drag ratio.
The F-16XL leading edge notch weakens the leading edge vortices reducing the pitch up movement and therefore the outboard wing section stall.

Source
http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/ABMSThes.pdf

well a MiG-23ML must have a very poor sustained turn rate at 72 deg yeah of course you might have the figure you gave of an instantaneous turn of 18°-20°/sec and the sust. 8°-10°/sec according to the OKB MiG because the MiG-23ML at 72 has an arrow wing that becomes a semi delta only thanks to the tailplanes but in reality it is an arrow wing, however accoding to the manual the best turn a MiG-23ML does is at 45 deg wing setting so the best turn a MiG-23 does is at 45 deg of wing setting giving to the MiG-23 a better sustained turn rate than that the IAI Kfir has

You seem to be totally unaware of the impact the TWR has on STR. I hate to be rude but you seem to be in such denial that I’m going to end it right here. No reason to discuss any further. It’s obvious you haven’t read what others have posted. Or you just choose not to take it in.

NO robban i am not unaware, what happens is you think Canards and delta wing are the best configuration and you can not see other nations have opted for other aerodynamic layouts, why? well simply aircraft have many requirements many are contradictory and each manufacturer chose a configuration according to the demanding requirements that each force sets.

the MiG-29 was for the for the former USSR the best design in the early 1982 and the Su-27 later became their best fighter; Sweden needed the best agility in the smallest airframe with the least of weight and limited thrust, and adding they needed some STOL capability and Mach 2, well the Gripen fills well those demands but because of that it does not mean canards are perfect or do not have drawbacks.

Same is the Su-30MKI or MiG-35 they have prices that might not be good for some nations despite they have excellent agility, besides agility is not the only thing driven a design but also avionics and weaponry play a part, consider also price.;)
Also remember many nations opted for designing and building aircraft just to remain in the technological race, the Rafale and Eurofighter are clearly examples of an anti american attitude and pan European aircraft independece, however the Americans designed a more advanced fighter

Bla bla bla. Compare the TWR’s.

NO Buddy is not bla bla bla its the fact the Delta wings bleed energy very fast, the MiG-29 just needs to fly fast yeah fly fast and the Gripen will become easy to hunt and that is not bla bla bla, once the Gripen leaves its corner speed and starts going faster trying to chase or keep up with a MiG-29 it will loose the battle, in fact see this fact, a modern F-16 with IRIS-T or Python V will also hunt the Gripen very easily at higher speeds from the Gripen`s corner velocity and with equal missiles a modern Greek F-16 will more likely blast the Gripen out of the sky.

If the Gripen was the best fighter very likely the modern F-16s would be out of the competition but it is not the case, the Gripen is not superior to the F-16 and MiG-29 because it simply bleeds energy so fast in turns that its sustained turn at higher speeds from its corner velocity makes it less capable than the MiG-29 or F-16

Maybe you should read english more closely. There is nothing there that says the canards produce leading edge wake at least short enough to affect the main wing. They produce leading edge vortices, and showed they will last longer at higher AoA before degenerating into wake, and all these articles point to the POSITIVE use of canards vs. LERX.

Crobato

Canards as well as LERXes have almost the same function and similar drawbacks, canards do affect the lift of the main wing and some times on unstable designs the vortices they make and their small size is not effective to trim the pitch up movement these aircraft have, designers ponder what is the best compromise, it is true you can make bigger the canards but this will increase the drag, buffeting and lateral instability check the Eurofighter and Gripen use strakes right behind the canards for more lateral stability and vortices control

Do not think canards do not have drawbacks, they do have drawbacks however any design gains in some area but looses in others, canard double delta aircraft have no good sustained turn rates and in the case of the Su-27 a big tailplane is enough to trim the unstable Su-27 back from high AoA pitch up forces and this is at 120 deg AoA flight, this is enough to prove you do not need canards to achieve those AoA;) .