About the F-22 not showing its full performance. The only thing it could have left out (saw it at RIAT and Farnborough this year) was an increased sustained turn performance. Any other manouver would just be a variation of the TVC envelope which has been demonstrated really before. For me the most important parts are the accleration, climb and sustained turn. Anyone can stick TVC on its end and make it fly at zero-negative velocities (in my opinion).

How do you know whether an airshow display is the planes “max” performance. Simply you don’t. And, lmraptor, I too have read that article about his display, but what jet isnt holding something back?

The fighter’s performance you can see in airshow is alway its low-level (less than 10,000 fts) and subsonic domain, and Eurofighter has no particular superiority comparing with other modern Eastern and Western fighters in this flight envelope region.

Before the Block 5 fighter, the early stage Eurofighters have some very strictive FCS limitations: the maximal upper G limit is 7.25 to 8.1G, and the upper AoA limit is 25 to 27 degrees ~ If the fighter you saw in the airshow was this kind of early stage Eurofighter, then it would be nature that its performance in airshow seems to be “Below the standard”.

Even the fighter you saw in airshow was Block 5 fighter, the maximal upper G and AoA limitations for it are still 9.0G and 29.5 degrees, which would still make its performance in airshow not much more special comparing with F-15 and F-16, not to mention comparing with the masters of high AoA superagility such as F/A-18E/F, F-22A, Su-35, and MIG-35.

The main advantages of Eurofighter in TWR, SEP, wing-loading, and drag over most other Western and Eastern fighters today won’t be so obvious until they are compared at medium to high altitde and (especially in) supersonic area ~ At the height of 40,000 to 50,000 fts and the speed of 1.5 to 1.6 Mach, while most other fighters in the world today can’t even pull up to more than 3.0G without losing speed and altitude in this kind of condition, the Eurofighter is still be able to pull up to 5.0 to 7.0G without losing speed and altitude.

Low level I think its got a better acceleration than anything I have ever seen. Especially the takeoff then right into the vertical, easily the fastest jet I’ve ever seen do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfeC–zn0I the second jet takeoff demonstrates the ability.

Saying the eurofighter is sluggish is a joke. If your into air demo’s watch the display at Le bourget 2007 and compare it to all the other fast jets and you will see the raw sustained power the jet has, turn after turn after turn it just accelerates through them.

And yes many in service (I think all of them) eurofighter demos are done by jets with the limited FCS, 8G max, opposed to its ability for brief 12G capability.

Basically if you wanted a jet to do sustained turns with, the eurofighter is your choice. If anything is slugish I think its the flanker series of fighters, they seem too big and cumberson to have outright agility, obviously different from their manouverability.

oh and about those “sluggish, draggy rolls” The’re called velocity vector roles, it rolls as described by its name, in doing so covers a huge amount of frontal airspace in the direction its nose points to lock WVR missiles onto targets, other fighters can do it, but look at the difference between their enter and exit speeds! Here is the eurofighters version, 1:29;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPOOldlZymw

According to some British pilot calculated, the Su-27 can made a 360 degrees turn within 10 seconds.

Hmm that seems rather too quick, but if you have seen some of the early
su-27 demo flights flown at farnborough/le bourget ,a min radius/max rate turn was included and it was around 12 seconds for 360 deg.

Try this vid at 5:02

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M-ByZ0pBjQ

Obviously its nothing accurate, just gives a represention, general idea of the ability.

When the Mig-31 uses this “1000km range” radar, won’t it light itself up like a lighthouse in the dark, and if it is flying above 60k ft, looking down on any awacs how good is its ability for look down search, tracking? etc…….

What are the ECM like on the awacs, surely the very large missiles the mig fires can be prone to a large amount of jamming.

Say the strike/bombing portion had been completed in their respective missions, which is more likely to succed in any ata engaements?

Performance wise it goes to the F-15E, they really did turn that flanker into a bomber, not really a fighter anymore.

Does the su-34 have a radar in its tail? Or was that just hype and its just a parachute.

Anyone know if the su-34 can carry unguided weapons, if so would it have improved its low level bombing accuracy over the woeful su-24?

Hmm tough one.

I would go for the Tornado, GR versions more specfically. It gave a very certain possiblity of nuclear weapon delivery to the east without using missiles, of which only the F-111 had capabilities like it, which probably was the most important role for the RAF in that era . Not only that but its was a true multirole fighter in terms of naval, land (nuke)stikes, recce, CAS, relative interception capabilities, tanker etc.. The only area undefined was BVR AtA engagements, obviously later adressed with the F3. The plane brought so many capabilities and attack roles forward it has to be doesnt it :confused:

Regarding the phantom. It was excellent in what it did. Giving an early multirole capability, but mainly a proper BVR AtA engagement ability, from my knowledge, the RAF didnt have this at all until then which is a pretty massive capability. However in performance the lightning was certainly dominant. Climb, acceleration, turn, altitude, speed, well it should. It was a interceptor, more like a rocket ship, and it certainly did what it was intended to do, nothing could match it in the world at the time, bar the mig-25 in certain areas. TBH the jump from the hunter to the lightning was something massive aswell.

The typhoon, though outstanding,it doesnt bring anything totally new does it :confused: that the RAF has never had before, the F-22 ticks this box in terms of a stealth fighter.

I was sure that the Su-30 was superior to the F-15E, and that the latter was obsolete.

thanks for replying to this thread, as you can see, there’s not much interest in the topic, it seems.

still, the original question was about the best dogfighter.
a pure cannon modern fighter, and w/o the advantage of advanced short-range missiles.

more or less, this was supposed to be a thread where people would bring numbers to back up their position, like turn rates, t/w ratios and so on.

personally, one of my biggest mysteries is why the EF2000 is considered by many a superior dogfighter to both the Rafale and Su-35. it doesn’t even have thrust-vectoring.

This thread is rather daft tbh, far to much is unknown and will basically be My favourite plane is the best dogfighter because…….

Regarding TVC not on the typhoon, it doesn’t really need it (incase you do not believe that, watch this at 6:25 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOePR63Aquo and you will see the nose pointing ability of the plane which is a 15% capable T.2 trainer), and its hardley comparable to having high off-boresight missle and HMS.

I agree with schorsch

Great. How often does combat take place at 500ft and 200KIAS?
Sorry, your “first hand air show experience” isn’t worth a penny.

I didn’t say t cannot compete, I said I doubt that performance was so much better aside the supersonic performance. the Lightning was an aircraft consequently designed for the supersonic arena, and as such equipped with turbojets and the correct intake.
Reason is that basic data and design do not differ that much, wing loading, thrust-to-weight and other features are 1950 standard.

To be honest: in case of the Lightning (or take Buccaneer, TSR.2 and some other British designs) I sometimes doubt the overly and excessively positive remarks made towards it, especially on these forums.

have you read the links I gave you? It will complement my remarks about the performance, all by pilots flying the aircraft and there are hundreds more.

The airshow performance point wasn’t a fact, I do think you understood that but made a point of it anyway :rolleyes:, merely just giving an indication of the general apperance of the lighting.

Not being excessively positive, just alot is simply truth. The BAC/british aviaton industry was/is indeed brilliant. Even if america spent more etc.. the quality found in the UK was exceptional, the TSR-2 speaks for itself.