Every design is a compromise and has its pros and contras. There is no perfect design at all.
Suggesting that the MiG-29s aerodynamics are superior to that of Rafale or Typhoon is simply nonsense.
German pilots be it test pilots or airforce pilots have flown the MiG-29 operational and they now fly Eurofighter. As long as the MiG-29s were available they were pitted against each other and evaluated. EVERY pilot confirmed that the Eurofighter’s aerodynamics and flight performance is clearly superior.
And if you do your math you will figure out that Typhoon has a superior TWR with similar load and lower wing loading as well. Eurofighter excells the MiG-29 in nearly every area and not only a bit!
Higher top speed means nothing and the cobra might be a nice airshow manoevre which can’t be flown by the Eurofighter, but it isn’t really important in aircombat. The Eurofigher can pull into a 9 g turn much faster and over a wider flight envelope. It will push 9 g turns longer and loose less speed and provide better control authority at very low speeds and high AoAs. Acceleration and climb rate is superior as its altitude performance.The new MiG-35 performs better in this or that area than the MiG-29 baseline model, but that doesn’t mean it automatically performs better than the Eurofighter. Comparing a TVC equiped aircraft to a non TVC equiped aircraft is nonsense. TVC is a technology which could be integrated into the Typhoon as well, but there is simply no requirement for that at the moment. BTW MiG-29M-OVT is neither the MiG-35, nor is TVC standard for the MiG-35! TVC is an available option.
Your arguments are flawed, the MiG-29A that germany operated were first old and second they had detuned engines, the Germans would never say yes the MiG-29 is better specially when they needed to buy their own fighter.
The Russian analysis also affirm the MiG-29 is better in general terms than the Eurofighter in fact they say the Eurofighter was a political chosen aircraft, technologically the Russians affirm the Eurofighter concept was obsolete even before it entered operational service.
Now if we number the areas the Eurofighter is better, well only probably avionics, weapons and supercruise would speak better of the Typhoon, but in terms of AoA handling and agility or even acceleration the Eurofighter is not better, it is a fact the modern MiG-35 can out turn the Typhoon, if the Russians adapt new weapons and avionics the Typhoon won`t have any superiority beyond Supercruise but who knows perhaps the MiG-35 has achieved parity even in that
Now canards against LERXes and tailplanes won`t mean the Eurofighter Typhoon is better than the MiG-29, in fact strip down the Eurofighter of supercruise, avionics and weapons and the MiG-29 of thrust vectoring and you will find in what respects acceleration from 600km/h to 1200km/h both aircraft have the similar numbers same is climb rate and Sustained turn rate.
You want facts – draw yourself a force diagram on the aircraft in a heavy banked/high g turn – you’ll figure it out. 😉
Kilcoo316
Man facts are shown in real life and in that the Su-27 and MiG-29 have done it, i will give you a few real and hard facts:
The LERXed Su-27 and MiG-29 have been doing the Cobra or 120 deg AoA for a very long time.
The IAI Kfir and AJ-37 and even the Mirage 4000 did not perform the Cobra at any airshow in the past.
The Su-35 can do the Cobra turn i have never seen a public demostration of a modern delta fourth generation aircraft doing it. niether the Rafale or Gripen to my knowledge have done it at least publicly.
the Su-37, Su-30MKI and F-22 do the Kulbit regularly at airshows and the Su-37, MiG-29OVT do the double Kulbit also very regularly at any airshow they go.
Have you seen any Typhoon Rafale or Gripen doing it? see that the F-22 has done it simply to show expectators how good is its handling at high AoA.
The IAI Kfir C10. the DENEL Cheetah, Enaer Pantera, SAAB AJ-37 have canards but never have done any a Kulbit or a double Kulbit.
The more advanced Mirage 4000 never made news at LE Burget by doing the Pugachev`s Cobra.
I have never heard that the Rafale did perform the Boomerang or Helicopter.
But i know the MiG-29OVT and the F-16MATV have done them.
Canards by themselves do not make superfighters, the Russians aircraft are triplanes they still use tailplanes and in some cases thrust vectoring.
Consider that the Su-37 has more controls surfaces and vectors, aircraft also have inertia and any aircraft moving forward will retain some inertia and will try to remain moving forward, thrust vectoring is an extra vector helping in a turn, faster you go more inertia you get, any aircraft using thrust vectoring by simply physics will use the thrust vectoring control with discretion and in conjuction with aerodynamic surfaces.
Description: On Wednesday, April 24, 1996, the F-15 Advanced Control Technology for Integrated Vehicles (ACTIVE) aircraft achieved its first supersonic yaw vectoring flight at Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California. ACTIVE is a joint NASA, U.S. Air Force, McDonnell Douglas Aerospace (MDA) and Pratt & Whitney (P&W) program. The team will assess performance and technology benefits during flight test operations.
Current plans call for approximately 60 flights totaling 100 hours. “Reaching this milestone is very rewarding. We hope to set some more records before we’re through,” stated Roger W. Bursey, P&W’s pitch-yaw balance beam nozzle (PYBBN) program manager.
A pair of P&W PYBBNs vectored (horizontally side-to-side, pitch is up and down) the thrust for the MDA manufactured F-15 research aircraft. Power to reach supersonic speeds was provided by two high-performance F100-PW-229 engines that were modified with the multi-directional thrust vectoring nozzles. The new concept should lead to significant increases in performance of both civil and military aircraft flying at subsonic and supersonic speeds.
http://www1.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/F-15ACTIVE/HTML/EC96-43485-6.html
here some of the benefits
The new nozzles can deflector vectorengine thrust Up to 20°off center line, giving the aircraft thrust control in pitch (up and down) and yaw (left and right), or any combination of the two axes. This deflected (vectored) thrust can be used to reduce drag and increase fuel economy or range as compared with conventional aerodynamic controls. The nozzles are a production design that could be incorporated into current or future aircraft.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-048-DFRC.html
Ok, you like the MiG-29 und Su-27.
But please accept, that MiG as well as Sukhoi went for a canard configuration in their following designs.
And as example for post stall manouvering you could have a look at the X-31.
Aurel
I do like aircraft with canards however some people think canards are the best configuration for a fighter, first let us distiguish canards by themselves do not imply better agility for example we have different generations even in tail first aircraft among them we find the IAI Kfir and SAAB AJ-37 Viggen that basicly are third generation aircraft, we have the fourth generation in the JAS-39, J-10, MiG1.42, Typhoon and Rafale, but these have not been the only tail first aircraft the Japanese and Americans developed propeller fighter aircraft with tail first or canards with push propellers since WWII.
Kyushu J7W1 Shinden 
curtiss-wright xp-55 
Modern tail first aircraft are completly different we have two classes the Russian triplanes such as the Su-47 Su-30MKI, Su-34 and Su-33 and the delta canard configuration represented by the Gripen and Rafale
We have also some with fixed canards like the IAI Kfir and ENAER Pantera
and those with moveable foreplanes such as the JAS-39, Gripen, Typhoon and Rafale among others
In few words Aurel canards have different generation therefore different capabilities and some of them are cannon fodder even for aircraft like the F-16 or MiG-29A
You have to realize that the MiG-29OVT uses Klimov designed 3D nozzles, which can be regarded as second generation (same nozzles also offered for J-10). The MKI still uses first generation 2D nozzles, which only move in one axis only.
The nozzle design are still no issues when it comes at high speed maneuvers, which typically are what you don’t see in air shows. Whether or not the MKI’s canards are a factor in high speed maneuverbility is another issue, but at higher speeds, aerodynamic controls generally produce greater authority than TVC controls.
As for Kulbits and Cobras, these are ultra slow maneuvers, which are useless in the high speed air combat that are prevalent today. (Not withstanding that deltas can perform slow high AoA maneuvers; someone in secretprojects.co.uk posted a link to a video in youtube where I saw a Saab Draken perform a cobra like maneuver.)
The Draken`s cobra like maneouvre is not a Pugachev`s Cobra, the aircraft is banking, not like the Su-27 or MiG-29, the canards do help no one say they do not help, however they are not the only solution, the Cobra is a very high AoA maneouvre, the MiG-29 have no canards and do it thanks to large LERXes, the LERXes are basicly doing the same job a Canard does and remember the Su-27 and MiG-29 still have taiplanes, so the aircraft have enough control at high AoA thanks to LERXes and tailplanes.
The Su-35, Su-30MKI and Su-37 have canards due to post stall maneouvring where they need a safety net provided by the canards, yeah the Su-47 and MiG-1.42 have canards too but the Su-47 Berkut also has tailplanes and the MiG-1.42 still has more control surfaces than the Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen and J-10, this prove canards alone are not enough.
At high speeds thrust vectoring is still useful because aircraft like the F-22 still have taiplanes and these work with thrust vectoring nozzles, so Crobato no designer up to know is building aircraft without aerodynamic control surfaces, however there have been studies of aircraft that have eliminated even the vertical fin and used thrust vectoring in example the X-31
Sign In
