While interesting in its own right i am one sad, sad panda over how this thread derailed from a very very interesting discussion of tactics and doctrine into a pissing match over turn rates.

in my simulator derived opinion, sustained turn rate doesnt mean all that much. once the fight gets beyond 2v2, good instantaneous (nose pointage) and energy regaining are far, far more important than half a degree a second of sustained turn.

On a BVR joust its another thing, but there sea level performance is utterly irrelevant, we need to look at what the planes do at angels 30.

I think large scale air combat, BVR or WVR is a bit of a zero sum game. Everybody loses (some).

Here this is relevant, the MiG-29 was designed as a fighter that first was going to use its BVR AA-10 Alamos and later get close with four AA-11s, the Su-27 was different it supposed to use six Alamos first and just later use its last four AA-11s as a last result.

The Graph show the most likely conditions of a Dogfight between a F-15 and a Su-27, with the Russian plane using two AA-10s and two AA-11s versus an F-15 with four AIM-9Ls, this is the most possible combat situation since the Flanker carries six AA-10s versus the F-15 with four AIM-7 so it is likely the Flanker was going to face a F-15 without AIM-7s and still the Flanker was going to have a pair of AA-10s that is tactics, also most combat is spent at low speeds where the aircraft is more agile and can dodge Air to air missiles more easily. those are cold war tactics by making the Su-27 agile at lower speeds and lower overload values

Some actual flight experience in service evaluation of the MiG-29 reposted for clarification of several points about the Fulcrum versus Eagle/Viper scenarios.

And I should add I’ve personally watched Eagles outdo Vipers at Red Flag on camera due to pilot skill, and those were highly experienced aggressor squadrons. Ergo, Eagles with good pilots can get Fulcrums in dogfight, easy enough. Just that simple, there is no great chasm between them and the flight systems on Eagles/Vipers are so very much more advanced than the Fulcrum. Flight systems, not talking BVR, talking aircraft-pilot interface and making it do what you want when you want, how you want.

interesting, but by looking at Su-27/F-15 chart shows the the MiG-29 will very likely do the same, but under what condition you will say here is another interesting chart this is th Su-27 versus F-16
however this is an F-16 with four AIM-9s and the Su-27 carries again two AA-10s and two AA-11s, in it you can see the SU-27 totally surpasses the F-16 in turn rate.

As I thought – it’s hopeless. Cant you see that there is also a 1km line?

hahaha, now you change your strategy, the Russian G load chart say max load in a turn considering pylons and thrust and it is given at 1000 meters anf 5000m

here i leave you another chart where the russians simply say the Su-27 is superior to the F-15 in turning capability at all altitudes
see they say границы предельных расворотов у самолета Су-27 проходяат левее и выше чем ы F-15

ето означает что су-27 на всех рассматриваемых висотах имеет лучшие показатели
which basicly says it has better turn performance than the F-15

Do you know what does it mean? If we want to compare them we have to stick to the charts that shows clean performance.

No use, but since I dont have charts for aam armed F-15 we have to stick to the ‘clean’ charts. And believe me, MiG with 6 AAMs will have much more degraded performance than the F-15 with 6 AAMs.

The Russian graph says the MiG-29 armed can hold 9Gs at 1100km/h and 9G at 1200km/h without weapons
stick to mother Russia, they made the MiG-29

Is english your first language? I’m really not trying to be rude but the charts are there and you are twisting it all up? He has charts for both aircraft both clean…. I’m sorry if you’ve missed this about 20 times. This is comparable, especially remembering that the Mig will carry all its missiles outboard with more drag and less power, while the F-15 will carry most of its missiles conformal with the fuselage and only a couple of Aim-9s on the wing pylons. I’m sorry that you can not understand that the F-15 is not the Dog you had hoped. It is MORE maneuverable than even a Su-27 at higher speeds and altitudes. The Mig has the advantage down low (although only slightly) due to its better nose pointing ability, and with the HMS at the time that advantage grew. Its just too bad that most of the Mig pilots imo would never have gotten in that close because they would have been taken out BVR or the F-15s had the choice to engage or disengage before its even started.

The Russian charts are with and without weapons, ah and a detail, his chart is on clean configuration only, his own MiG-29 chart says clean or with two AA-11s so tell me who is going to win? the F-15 with no weapons or the MiG-29 with weapons?

The F-15 aces who shot down MiG-29s always used AIM-7s or AIM-120s and had enough gas to go home, they even say the MiG-29 is more agile, why because the F-15 is not more agile armed it was a better BVR fighter but not a better dofighter

Terrence Fornof is a F-15C fighter pilot he gave the 16 deg/s STR for the Eagle

Didn’t know that.

I know, we have to calculate true airspeed separatly for every line.

That’s right.

Here is the G load with weapons so you make more logic assumptions, since you insist that the F-15 is more agile i will give you the Russian chart where it says the G load on a turn, with weapons two AA-10 Alamos and 4 AA-8 Aphid, since you want to sound smarter than Terrence Fornof tell me how your F-15 will fight a MiG-29 without a single weapon and it is going to return to base after having to dodge missiles ah i forget your F-15 will shot down missiles with its own gun at 15Gs
by the way calculate the MiG-29 is loaded with 1500kg of fuel and six AAMs how much does it weight?

Look at the Luftwaffe manual page I posted – there you can see performance of the MiG at many different altitude levels including sea level. I say it again – you can compare it to the graph of the F-15. And all I’m saying is that the MiG-29 appears to have slight advantage in sustained turn capability at sea level (can do 9g turn in slightly lower speed) but at 10 000 ft and higher the Eagle has an advantage.

It’s actually 16.5 deg. So if the Eagle at that altitude can pull 8.7g and the MiG can only pull 8.2g (at the same speed!) guess which one would have better STR?

But you DO HAVE graphs with equal conditions!

It’s more agile than the Fulcrum at med and high altitudes.

Man, I think you’ll never understand it. Max STR is completely irrelevant! What matters is how many Gs can an aircraft pull at certain altitude and speed – this tells us how ‘quick’ the aircraft can turn.

Probably. My graph says gross weight of the MiG is 13000kg so it’s similar. F-15 carries +/- 7500 lb of fuel (empty weight ~27500 lb)

they are not equal conditions one is at sea level other at 1000 meters, in one you have a fighter armed with normal weapons load in the other clean, you have the MiG-29 without weapons but still at 1000 meters not at sea level.

the graph you have has an aircraft unable to do combat, in the MiG-29 one with full load of weapons.

now tell me at 1000 meters what is the F-15C turn rate? and armed with 4 AIM-7s and 4 AIM-9s at 1000 meters what its turn rate? very likely 16 deg/s as the US pilot said who is an F-15 driver.

In all three manuals you have sustained g turn capability for both aircrafts in a clean configuration. You have max g-load at specific speeds, so you can calculate max sustained turn rate for the MiG-29.

Stop looking at the turn radius. Look at max g-loads. Do you see that at sea level MiG-29 can pull 9g a little bit earlier than the Eagle? But at altitude 3000 meters and more F-15 can pull more G than the MiG-29.
At 3000m F-15 can pull 8.7g while MiG-29 can pull just 8.2g.

Now you demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea what are you talking about.

That is a lie. I never said anything about Cesar Rodrigez.

try to understand something to do a real comparation you need the same conditions, you can not say the MiG-29 at 1000 meters is comparable to a F-15 at sea level, now because these graphs are at different altitudes, can not be compared properly, now if you have the F-15 drops from 21deg/s at sea level to just mere 16 deg at 10000 feet or around 3000 meters, calculate how many degrees will drop at 1000 meters very likely it will drop to 19 deg/s now guess how much it will drop with weapons? in my guess will drop to 16 deg/s as it is said in the youtube videos you will need to have equal conditions, this show us your comparation is not accurate, Yefim Gordon and Fomin give numbers under combat conditions, the F-15`s 21 ITR and 16 STR is under combat conditions, same is the MiG-29`s STR of 22 deg/s.

Now you need the fuel fraction too and altitude.

You are trying to say the F-15 is more agile to what?
the G load does not give you the best STR, it is the max lift coefficient at the max AoA before the lift coefficient starts decreasing and stalling the wing.
The MiG-29 has a ITR of 28 deg/s.
It seems the MiG-29 in the graph carries 1500kg of fuel around 3300pounds of fuel but i just guessed T might mean toplivo and that is fuel in Russian and the graph has Mt-1500kg so i guess it is fuel