Lol that’s indeed one of the most completly wrong posts I have ever seen!
You have still not realized what the matter of this thread is. We are speaking about the aerodynamical performance of the raw airframes, which has nothing to do with TVC.

Once again some facts about TVC:
No one here denies or has denied that TVC will improve the performance of an aircraft in some areas. TVC enables super manoeuvreability which isn’t possible to that degree without TVC.
What bothers me is that you seem to think that the Russians are the inventor of TVC and that only russian designs offer this possiblity and that is completly wrong!
The idea of TVC was in fact invented by a german back in the 1970’s. TVC was studied by soviets and americans mainly in the 1980’s for the first time.

In the late 80’s first TVC were tested on legacy fighters. The F-15S/MTD was the first aircraft to fly with 2-D TVC, if I remember right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15S/MTD

This aircraft used TVC for both engines and was later equiped with 3-D TVNs in the mid 90’s and renamed to F-15ACTIVE.

While this F-15 demonstrator used TVC for both engines, the Russians used the the Su-27LMK (Su-27UB T-10-16) for first tests and fitted a large flat 2-D nozzle to one of the aircraft’s engines. The aircraft flew in 1989 for the first time. The Su-27LMK was developed from the Su-27LL-PS which was used for thrust reverse, if I remember correctly.

Already in 1990 the west equiped another aircraft with TVC. The F/A-18 HARV already used 3-D TVC!
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-002-DFRC.html

A TVC equiped F-16 demonstrator followed shortly.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article19.html

And there was the german-american X-31 3-D TVC, super manoeuvreability demonstrator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-31

The point I want to make is that TVC is no news to the west. The west has even equiped more different types with it and mastered 3-D TVC long before the Su-37 appeared with 2-D TVC. Meanwhile the Russians have mastered 3-D TVC as well (more than 10 years after the west) and I would say they are roughly on par in that area. The west is able to equipe its modern fighters with TVC as the Russians are. And as mentioned posts before it would improve the performance in some areas of the flight envelope for all aircraft being equiped with TVC independent if it is the Eurofighter, F/A-18 or the MiG-29.

About your “disadvantages” of canards and deltas, you take the single things completly out of the context. You list the disadvantages of them without making a single look at the entire aircraft configuration!
You repeatly claim the flap function for tailed aircraft as an advantage, which it is not. ECDs do not need flaps unlike tailed aircraft. The delta/moveable canard configuration will bleed much less energy than a pure delta and partitially even than a tailed plane. Close coupled canards which are placed higher than the wing won’t reduce wing lift, they increase it!

And your assessment of the canards adding more weight and drag is once again completly out of context. It adds weight and drag for an aircraft like the Flanker where the canards are fitted in addition to the tailerons! But the much smaller canards of the Rafale or Typhoon which are tailless planes are for sure not draggier and definitely not heavier than the much larger tailerons of tailed aircraft such as F-16 or MiG-29.

Another point you still haven’t get is the design philosophy of canards for the Flanker. At the time when the Su-33/34/35 where developed TVC was not existent or in an early developement stage. TVC was therefore out of question at that time. The canards improved the Flankers manoeuvreability, as well as low speed and high AoA controlability. This was perfectly demonstrated by the Su-37 after it has been renamed to Su-35 in 2000, retrofitted with conventional AL-31F engines without TVC and a completly reworked flight control softwarfe. I was unfortunadely not able to see the aircraft life after this conversion, but from what I heared it was more manoeuvreable than any Flanker before (without TVC of course).

BTW: Has anyone a video of the 711’s airshow performance AFTER its conversion without TVC?

Of course the addition of canards added drag and particularly weight to the Flanker. For the new Su-35 canards were rejected for some very simple reasons:
1.) Safing weight and drag
2.) Desired manoeuvreability is achieved with TVC
3.) Its more easy and less costly to keep the airframe, rather than changing it

One should know that the Su-35 (T-10BM) is primarily intended to be an upgrade for existing Su-27s. For sure an extremly comprehensive one. But the new Su-35 is of course offered as new built plane as well, as it is done by RAC MiG for its MiG-29SMT.

Let me see your logic

Su-37 has canards bad canards 😉 yeah because it is Russian, uhmmmm! Eurocanards have good canards uhmmmm? buddy do not dream Canards do induce trailing edge wake specially when they move

See in this position the canard becomes an aerodynamic brake it generates lots of drag and this affect of course lift

another shot using the canard as a control surface
creating drag in order to change direction

Why don’t you take a good look at the aircraft once again?

The canards and the main wing of planes like the J-10, Lavi, Gripen and Rafale are **NOT** in the same plane like the Su-33/35. They are higher than the main wing. For turbulence to reduce lift, the turbulence must affect the airstream at the lower part of the wing, and that is simply not possible with biplane layout canards because the wake is well above the main wing. The fact that the canards are dihedral, while the main wing is anhedral, increases the seperation of the canard plane and the plane of the main wing.

Crobato

Canards even if they are canted they still produce a trailing edge wake and vertical fin buffeting, if they cant the canards the wake is farther from the wing but still it creates a wake and affects the wing of course in a lesser way but still has a wake and the moveable canards still affects the wing when it operates as a control surface reducing lift to the main wing and inducing drag in fact canards are used as aerodynamic brakes;) .

This is completely wrong. A canard delta can be carefully designed to minimize wake, which by the way is over the main wing and not under it. If its over the main wing it simply does not affect lift. Period. Canards are not in the same plane as the main wing, they are above it.

Look at the Rafale, J-10, Lavi, and Gripen, and all have diehdral canards, while the main wing is either straight or anhedral. From the front view, this creates an X like profile. Because the canards are canted upwards from the tip, the wake goes to the top, while the wings are straight or canted downwards.

Turbelence only affects the yaw stabiilty of the aircraft which is why these planes have large rudders. As a matter of fact, the canards also create vortices over the main wing, and these low pressure areas add to the lift..

Crobato

LERXes as well as canards do have a small problem their low pressure vortices do burst and create buffeting, canting the foreplanes won`t reduce the wake as much as you think in the way you over play it, you increase buffeting too, canards can be canted and reduce in some way the wake it is true however in the Eurocanards as well in the J-10 these aircraft they use foreplanes, once you have a moving canard you increase drag and therefore trailing wake, LERXes are not moveable they just create turbulances and buffeting to the vertical fins, but foreplanes are constantly moving and therefore they creating constantly drag and trailing wakes and this affects the lift of the main wing, it can be reduced it is true you can cant the canards but it does not mean you won`t affect the lift.

In the Su-35, Su-33, Su-34 and Su-37 case, these aircraft have flaps and tailplanes a luxury the Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen and J-10 do not have, add to this thrust vectoring and you can understand why the more advanced Su-30MKI can make the Kulbit and Cobra turn. 😉

Oh, so the MiG-29 has a similar initial climb rate like the F-104A (307 m/sec)?!
So much throwing around data out of the blue.
The record P-42 had a thrust:weight ratio 2:1 and managed true climb rates of 220 m/sec.
I will not waste time to explain the reasons for that.
In the late 80s was a comparision between F-16/MiG-29/M2000/F-18, when it came to accelaration capabilities. All four contenders did differ a few seconds only, depending on height. When it was a nose to nose between F-16/MiG-29 depending on height and starting speed, those were followed close by the M2000 and F-18. Till 400 kt the MiG-29 was the nose-tip winner, in the transsonic range it was the F-16 and in the supersonic range the M2000.
But air combat is no dragster race and every modern AAM is faster at all.

Sens

Like always trying to teach without knowing this sounds like you but me saying it:D :rolleyes: , man Initial rate of climb chances with the altitude and speed but it is not a lie the fact that both the MiG-29 and Su-27 have an initial rate of climb of 330 m/s, however as speed and altitude increases the rate of climb slows down in m/s because they are reaching their max speed

I had read the entire thread before engaging into the discussion and I’m well aware about affects pros/cons of canards, LERX etc..

No one of the 3 european 4th gen fighters depends on flaps. They achieve similar if not lower takeoff & approach speeds than MiG-29, F-15 etc. without flaps.

Proves nothing in terms of overall agility and manoeuvreability from aerodynamical performance.

Prove it!

Of course they do not use flaps because they can not use them as well as a tailplaned aircraft, you just avoid a true reality the Cobra, kulbit, double Kulbit and boomerang show that thrust vectoring is the best solution your answers are just excuses to a real fact the F-22 and MiG-29OVT will beat any eurocanard fighter in agility in fact the only way you can design a superior Eurofighter is to make it like the MiG-1.42 with thrust vectoring and additional aerodynamic control surfaces

See that the MiG-1.42 had two twin fins instead of one, thrust vectoring nozzles, hinged ventral fins and two flaperators between the tailbooms and the fuselage this give a really better agility than the Eurocanards and make it similar to a triplane like the S-47 Berkut

As it is as senseless to speak with you as to discuss with Star49, this is my last reply to you for now.

I will simply give you some straight facts.

I do not believe that the Eurofighter is superior to the MiG-29, I KNOW it. Unlike the Russians who had never ever the ability to fly, test and evaluate the Eurofighter, the West had the oportunity to fly and even operate the Fulcrum, though these are the oldest examples. The Eurofighter has been flown against various types in service by now and the aircraft performed significantly better than legacy types including F/A-18, F-15, F-16 and MiG-29. The Rafale did so either and even the TWR handicaped Gripen was highly sucessful.
What the Russians claim for marketing reasons doesn’t matter. ANY manufacturer anywhere in the world hypes its own product and bashes the opposites one. This is called marketing. If some really takes it serious, then can’t help him.

You should ask your self how someone could define proven facts as personal speculation.

Lol it is really funny that russian whoevers should know better what the Europeans decided and why, than the Europeans themself.
There were numerous reasons to select the Eurofighter, not to say the Eurofighter was the only solution for them!
The reasons are:
1.) It was back in the 1980s and the only alternatives were US types
2.) Developing your own fighter allows you to optimize it for your needs insead of taking an aircraft which isn’t optimized for your needs.
3.) Independence from the US.
4.) Own economecal benefits
5.) In the reevaluation in the early 90s it was found that no aircraft could fulfill the needs of the airforces as the Eurofighter would do, even Su-27 and MiG-29 were evaluated.

You seem to lack any knowledge about the Eurofighter’s roots and background and it looks like you aren’t aware of the conditions at that time. Eurofighter partners were not countries with an open competition as it is the case for India nowadays. The Europeans defined their requirements and tasked the manufacturer to develope an aircraft which fullfils that requirement. In fighter competitions such as India’s MMRCA the airforce defines a requirement and evaluates different types and looks at which would fullfil the requirements best. That’s a completly different situation!

I’m afraid you are mixing things up again and again. We’re speaking about aerodynamics and associated flight performance, not about the entire aircraft as a weapons platform. It’s interesting that you suddenly refer to the Gripen which is in a different class to Rafale or Typhoon in terms of performance as it is much smaller and single engined.

You should exclude the “in fact”. Yefim Gordon is someone with great knowledge about russian combat aircraft, but he is for sure not known as an expert about european fighters.
Some thoughts about this:

1.) Why of all Fulcrum’s should the MiG-29S should perform better? The “S” is a bit heavier than the normal MiG-29, while keeping the same aerodynamics and engines. Only FCS was improved to higher the AoA by 2°. It is out of any logic that particularly the MiG-29S should perform better.
2.) There are pilots out there who have flown both aircraft and who have flown them against each other. They all came to the same conclusion that the Eurofighter outperforms the MiG-29, be it in terms of acceleration or agility! This is a fact unlike the thoughts of someone who has probably not even seen the Eurofighter in reality.
3.) Many people have the Eurofighter mid 90’s airshow performance in mind, when the aircraft was using the much weaker RB-199 turbofans and had a much restricted FCS. At that time many people said the MiG-29 or Su-27 would be way better in terms of agility based on what they have seen in the airshow. That the restrictions were there for safety reasons and that the envelope would be continously extended in the developement process was widely ignored and many people still have this old picture!
4.) Yefim Gordon’s books are not the very newest and at the time they were released the Eurofighter was even more unknown than nowadays. And even today many details of the Typhoon are unknown because they are classified. It’s highly unlikely that someone like Yefim Gordon knows more about the Eurofighter’s performance than what is officially published or has been unofficially disclosed in interviews, with pilots and people involved into the project.

TVC is as mentioned before a technology which has nothing to do whether the aircraft has a conventionel wing/tailplane configuration or a delta/canard configuration. TVC will provide advantages to both configurations, but says nothing about the aerodynamics. It’s funny how you want to compare the aerodynamical layout, but you mention again and again TVC. It is internationally accepted that types like Rafale or Typhoon outturn teen series and teenski series fighters and that they outperform them more or less good in many/most other regimes of flight performance too. It’s interestingly only people who have never ever the opportunity to fly the ECDs or had been able to fly against them who doesn’t accept such figures. Maybe it is also wrong pride who knows.

If you are unwilled to accept the opinions from various fighter pilots who are able to judge about the topic and if you prefer to believe in what marketing guys or people tell you who doesn’t know much about the european fighters then its your own decision. But don’t wonder if no one takes it serious and if people start to ignore you.

The cobra is a nice airshow manoeuvre not more. Of course it demonstrates the excellent aerodynamics of the Flanker or Fulcrum, but the aircraft are hardly “controlled” at such AoA. And flying a cobra is not turning in a dogfight. As mentioned before Eurofighter has proven its superiorty during operational test and evaluation. This being said for the last time.

To speak about the aircraft as a weapons platform one has to consider all factors, as an aircraft is the sum of its parts. Suggesting that new MiGs or Sus are “better” is fine, proving it is another topic and beyond the topic of this thread either. Let alone what “better” means. Yes for sure Flankers and Fulcrums are looking better than the Typhoon:D

Man the typical threat of i know better than you, yeah my last reply to you:rolleyes:

If you read the first page and the begining of the thread, you would had noticed the advantages and disadvantage canards have:

A)The canards have the advantages of giving lift ahead of the center of gravity then giving a positive extra lift to counter act the nose down force product of the aerodynamic shift of the center of lift

B) canards produce low presure vortices and can work as control surfaces

C) canards are a safety net to the aircraft since the canards stall first prevent the nose from leting the wing stall

Yeah buddy those are the real factors however
LERXes also produce low presure vortices and extra lift ahead of the main wing center of lift and in conjuction with tailplanes help the aircraft to have excellent high AoA behavior

Canards also affect negatively the wing with a turbulance wake that reduces the wing max potential lift, canards have several potential center of gravity positions and do not produce a nose up movement as the wing deploys flaps, making difficult the design of the wing with flaps

Thrust vectoring also has the advantge that produces less drag than control surfaces, canards produce more drag than thrust vectoring and reduce range and power.

Proof well the MiG-29 can make the Cobra, the MiG-29OVT can make the Boomerang, Kulbit and double kulbit, and all MiG-29s have better sustained turn rates therefore buddy you have no proves the Eurofighter is better.

Must be complete nonsense. There is no 4000 hour life engien for the Flanker and Fulcrum. And in the IAF, the MiG-29 does not beat the M2K, which was the original front runner, and the plane the MRCA specification was originally concieved for.

Maybe one should ask the RMAF. In their own exercises, their Fulcrums try to stay away from a close turn in dogfight against Hornets because they know which plane can turn tighter.

Pilot ineptitude or different tactics do not mean the Fulcrum is less agile, the canadians who flew in the MiG-29 said the MiG-29 is not inferior to the F-18, in fact it is more agile, the only thing they said the MiG-29 in the 1980s was inferior in avionics