Believe me I know what facets are. Facets = polygons. And I see polygons in my frickin’ sleep. Clearly YOU don’t know what a facet is. I’ll tell you though. It’s a planar surface defined by 3 points. (You can have a planar surface defined by more than 3 points but you can’t have a non-planar surface defined by 3 points.) There are dozens of flat surfaces on the F-117s (don’t remember the specific number), there are none on the F-22. A straight EDGE is not a facet. A 3 dimensional surface does not become “faceted” simply because you’re only viewing it in 2 dimensions and don’t understand what you’re looking at.

And you can take damn near any aircraft and do the same thing you did with the F-22 (if one felt like wasting the time that is).

Sferrin

The F-22 has a diamond shape has fewer facets much fewer and its facets are very clear from a front view, a facet is simple a flat surface, faceting means cut several facets on a geometrical patern, the rhomboid cross section shows you facets on the F-22, the Rhomboid shaped inlets and engine nacelles, the angle seen on the edges of all the airfoils, taiplanes, fins, inlet lips are using a fractal angle alignment.

what more polygons you want than the F-22 rhomboid (rhomboid is a polygon) cross section :rolleyes:

in fact see that the F-22 cross section is made of three rhomboids: nose-cabin cross section and two rhomboids shaped inlets, that is a fractal

Of course the F-22 is not a diamond but a plane so it won`t look as a gem, it is an F-15 faceted not a gem 😉

Want to see it in video watch it
this is the Su-34 cockpit

For SU-27 against Mig-29, while i don’t know for fulcrum C (but what changes in the C variant against the A?) i can assure you the 27 is better at all speeds and heights as far as STR and ITR , G’s are concerned.
The SU-27 is also better a climb rate above 3000 meters.

Lighter does not mean better a thoses parameters, yet it means less inertia wich in general translate into less roll rate, but NOT always!
As an example the SU-35 prototypes all underpowered by AL-31 had significantly increased roll rates over the basic 27 thanks to the new FBW FCS.

About the EF:
This is true de plane had gone overweight, but in fact the F-22 is also overweight, and so does the SU-35 that you all saw flying.

While turn rates are difficult to estimate i can assure you that the STR of EF was at shows were i saw him, better than both flankers, Rafale and F/A-18 be it an A, a C or An E/F.
Flankers , rafale and EF were all in the 21+/sec wich is the standard done by the F-16 (and mig-29A).

For supersonic speed, i bet none of us can really know what is for sure so only exceptations.
I just can say the 27 is not the best supersonic fighter there.

And as for TVC: yes TVC can be used at supersonic speed, and it does help maintenaing trim drag/form drag lower, but first, the most usefull usage is on yaw axis as demonstrated by the F-15 active program, wich is not possible on F-22 and also using TVC at those speeds poses some problems of both overstressing the airframe and having sufficient deflection (because gaz flows are not easily deflected at high speed) so we don’t know how the F-22 FCS uses the TVC.
Is it for pure manoeuvering? is it only for triming? difficult to say. Paul metz once said the TVC was not used at mach 1.5 on the raptor.

There is something very important to mention, both fighters were designing using the same TsAGI data, the Fulcrum and Flanker are basicly very similar but the big differecne is the MiG-29 is a frontal aircraft it does not need too much fuel, the Su-27 was a scort fighter it needs lots of fuel.

Fully fuelled the Su-27 is too heavy, lightly fuelled well is as good as the Fulcrum however all the data i have read mentions the MiG-29 has better turn rates, canarded Su-27s are more agile than the basic MiG-29 Fulcrum A or Fulcrum C in terms of post stall agility, thrust vectoring nozzles equipped MiG-29s are very good.

I do not think the MiG-29 is inferior to the Su-27 and the only big difference is the Su-27 is a bigger MiG-29

The actual combat value of cobra is very much unknown… the only thing it is confirmed is that the ability to do a cobra shows ur aircraft’s pointability. I dun think u need to do cobra maneuvers to show ur aircraft’s pointability. Moreover there are plenty of air maneuvers out there, how can u judge one’s maneuverability based on ONE air maneuver?

No one here has ever flown a Typhoon nor Flanker and probably no one here designed and built fighters aerodynamics. But most of us here in this forum would agree, in theory, that a delta based canard equipped fighter for most cases have better flight performance in the transonic and supersonic regime than fighters with other layout.

And Su-35, which is based on Su-27, is an airframe that is optimised for superb subsonic maneuverability… however it doesn’t seems to me that its a supersonic performer!

Aircraft have only two types of maneouvrability, vertical and horizontal, sustained turn rates are tha basic parameter for horizontal agility, vertical turns or Loops are the other.

The Cobra is a parameter for horizontal agility, in fact the Su-35 has the horizontal version of the Cobra and it is called Cobra turn.

The Su-37 developed the Frolov Chakra and the MiG-29OVT and the F-16MATV developed the helicopter thanks to 3D TVC nozzles.

I have read data claiming the Eurofighter has an instantaneous turn rate of around 30 deg/sec and a sustained turn rate of 22 deg/sec.
What i have watch is a Discovery Channel program where eurofighter claims to have the best agility because their pilots wear a special G suit allowing them to endure longer G forces and because it has supercruise.

Up to what i read the Eurofighter has an excellent rate of climb as good as the MiG-29 and Su-27.

So the fighter must be very good at supersonic speeds.

Now i do not have data for the Su-35 in terms of turn rates or load factor at speeds beyond Mach 0.9.

Now the Su-35 must have good agility even at supersonic speeds because it has a triplane configuration and supersonic aerodynamic center of lift shifts wont affect it s much as other fighters, its canarded LERXes must generate more drag than the MiG-29 or Su-27 though

The Su-35 has the best of both worlds, it has canards and it has taiplanes, this configuration is probably the best for a non stealthy fighter without thrust vectoring nozzles.

Aerodynamic center of lift shifts in aircraft like the F-111 for example make it very nose heavy and limited it`s agility, and the F-14A had canards for that reason, in order to allow the F-14A to increase G loads at supersonic speeds

according to this documentary the Rafale should be as good as the Eurofighter

here is one of the Eurofighter

Why, because you say so? I’m fairly certain the stealthy F-22 is more manueverable than the non-stealth F-104 Starfighter. I’m pretty sure it’s more manueverable than the non-stealth Mig-21 also. So who’s to say it couldn’t be more manueverable than the non-stealth Flanker? Oh yeah that must be MiG-23MLD’s First Law of Aerodynamics “No aircraft may be more manueverable than the Flanker” :rolleyes:

yes but the F-22 is not a pure stealth fighter like the F-117 and it has Thrust vectoring to correct the fuselage limitations provoked by the faceting stealthy treatment.

The best stealthy faceting is a spinning diamond, diamonds can not fly, and the F-117 is a good example where faceting gave horrible handling.

I’m pretty much english educated so no need for Oxford explainations…

But in high speed, the advantages of TV control over aerodynamic control is pretty much non-existent.

The same can be said about all Euro-canards, Mig-29 variants, F/A-18 variants, etc…

Su-35 is probably not as agile as say the Typhoon in transonic regime, neither does it has significantly more pointability in slow speed than say the Super Hornet…

Well let`s say no one at this moment has proven any fact with authentic manual information or video images but i am pretty sure there are no videos of the Eurofighter doing cobra maneuvres or Cobra turns in the thread

you have to show me that

In fact the Eurofighter group is the one claiming no one has better agility than the Eurofighter at supersonic speed, there is no proof in pilots manuals either about the Su-35 or Eurofighter that proves that beyond the Eurofighter group claims

And please give some source for the FCS not being able to do the cobra then but being refined to do it now ?? It is called OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY and the raptor has acheived for some time now and no change have been made to the FCS since that capability was reached !!

There is no more refining to do as far as the FCS is concerned , it is operational and everything is working as planned . Please provide sources which suggest that it is going to be refined between now and next year ?? And no it wont be at Paris next year !!

The FCS is fully developed ( not parially developed or ” refining to do” ) in an operationaly F-22 raptor .

Apparently the Pilot was so confident that he went with enough fuel , no changes ( NO REFINMENTS) , 8 missiles and pulled it off , got tanked up and did it all over again !! Then did it again next month with a different machine with a full missile load and enough fuel to do a routine and go back home to his operational squadron NOTHING THAT WOULD SUGGEST IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO DO on the contrary the USAF was so confident about it they let a combat coded Major do it instead of a fancy expereinced test pilot like sukhoi and boeing use !!

No dont nor do I but when A pilot who I respect deeply ( have indulged in conversation with) tells me something about the handeling of his jet and There is a weapons program officer who has filed a STA to the program office–>USAF–>DOD–>Congress/Senate testifying that a program has tested X Y Z and the results were X Y Z and done so under oath in a procedure which from the formulation of Concept to execution had INDEPENDENT oversight by watchdog groups such as GAO then I’d believe him !!

But 3D TVC doesnt even come into the COBRA picture , the raptor has done cobra without yaw vectoring and that is FACT . It can acheive 30 degrees Sust. Yaw rate without Yaw TVC -FACT- Sustain 60 degrees AOA -FACT- And much much more . Regarding doing Back flips etc which SHowers claimed he can do – those have not been done yet so i wont include them because i will wait until we see his footage of doing those aswell in the future , Maybe langley – we shall see !!

And the Su-37 and Mig-29OVT are also experimental aircrafts !! The MKI according to many has a pitch -+ TVC with yaw vectoring being Obtained by Canting the nozzles so that they appear to make the best of both worlds !!

I doubt the F-22 can do the Cobra without TVC nozzles