1) For dog fight In WW I the most important aspect of fighter is max turn rate , by the start of WW II top speed is the most important thing ( hence the saying ” speed is life ” ) . 4 gen fighter design seem to emphasize on sustain turn rate , why is that ? What caused these changes ?

In WWI simply no other quality of aircraft mattered in dogfight; no aircraft could go fast enough, accelerate or climb quick enough to make a difference. In WWII its not ONLY the top speed, but speed acceleration and max turn rates all mattered. “Speed is life” appeared in late WWII with jet aircraft, as those were thought to be invulnerable to bullets, and many thought dogfighting was over. Then missiles appeared, and fighters even faster. This stopped when 3rd gen F-4Es struggled againist obsolete but more CAC capable 2nd gen MiG-21s, so everyone was convinced dogfighting is still valid. Everyone knew many parameters mattered, but it was the John Boyd’s energy maneuverability theory that merged them all. So the ability to gain the energy and use it efficiently is what makes 4th gen aircraft different from the rest.

2) with only enough fuel to fly about 500 km and empty weapon rack ( without missiles or fuel tank but the rack still there ) what are the max turn rate , sustain turn rate , acceleration of fighter like su-27 , mig-29 , f-16 , f-15 , mig-31 , gripen , rafale , typhoon , f-35 , f-22 ? ( no need to be very accurate , can be estimate number by yourself )

Well since you dont want accurate, linearly calculating for 500 km range with available data and attempt to source it; (I will rate the my own estimate of accuracy) For the conditions you state plus at S/L;
Su-27S instantenious turn rate = 33,45 deg/s (500/3530*9400kg+16300kg=17630 kg (approximation, would be less due to decrase in induced drag). Su-27 Clmax = 1.85 (from Su-27SK manual); 9G achieved at 150,39m/s) (Accuracy 10/10)
Su-27S sustained turn rate = 25,91 deg/s (Su-27 achieves 21,75deg/s with 50% fuel. decrease in weight will increase G load linearly, and linearly increasing STR. So I ratioed 21000/17630 change in L/D is ignored) (Accuracy 8/10)
Su-27S climb rate= 357 m/s (Su-27 has 300m/s climb rate at 21000kg. as climb rate is dH=(fNet*V)/(mass*g), mass change will affect it completely linearly, it will also change induced drag which will change fNet, which I ignore) (Accuracy 9/10)
MiG-29A instantenious turn rate = 28,57deg/s (500/1430km*3175+10900=12010kg, MiG-29 Clmax =1,5 (from MiG-29 flight manual, aerodynamics booklet) 9G achieved at 176,08m/s) (Accuracy 10/10)
MiG-29A sustained turn rate = 22,94 deg/s (MiG-29G manual says MiG-29 sustains 9G at 13000kg 460 knots, translating to 21,2 deg/s, modified it the way explained in su27 str) (Accuracy 8/10)
MiG-29A climb rate = 368 m/s (MiG-29A aerodynamic booklet says MiG-29 achieves 345m/s at 12800kg, modifying linearly as explained above, slight weight changemeans L/D or induced drag change is negligable) (Accuracy 10/10)
F-16 Block 30 instantenious turn rate = 26,2 deg/s (this value is given by flight manual for 20000lbs, which translate to approximately 500km ferry range) (Accuracy 10/10)
F-16 Block 30 sustained turn rate = 23 deg/s (this value is given by flight manual for 20000lbs) (Accuracy 10/10)
F-16 Block 30 climb rate rate = 343 m/s (found by interpolating distances of 600,800,1000 fps lines in the EM chart) (Accuracy 8/10)
F-15C instantenious turn rate = 27,46deg/s (Soviet information booklet gives ClMax=1.1 for F-15. Booklet estimates many specs like climb and envelope with high accuracy according to flight manual, 1.1 is also consistent for thin airfoils without LE flaps, so I am using this. According to F-15 flight manual, 0,16 nm per lb of fuel, and 500lb reserve, F-15 should require 2180 lb fuel for 500 km range, leading to 31180lb/14140kg) (Accuracy 7/10)
F-15C sustained turn rate = 24,3 deg/s (20,5 deg/s is the STR @ 37000 pounds. Linearly interpolating 37000lb/31180lb*20,5deg/s, exluding L/D and induced drag changes) (Accuracy 8/10)
F-15C climb rate = 376m/s@Vmax, 368m/s@97,7 trim (I had to interpolate Level flight acceleration datas for sea level, @38000lbs found 302 and 309 m/s for 97,7% and 102% trims respectively, then linearly interpolated. Too much calculations lead to error accumlation, so I gave accuracy rating low) (Accuracy 6/10)
Rafale instantenious turn rate 30,26 deg/s (On a big assumption that Rafale uses same airfoil as Mirage 2000, which Soviet information booklet gives Clmax of 1.05; Assuming close coupled canards improve this by ~15%, and assuming Rafale would need ~800kg of fuel for 500 km range, 10300kg + 1,2Cl +45,7m2 wing area gives such result) (Accuracy 3/10)
Rafale sustained turn rate 24,2 deg/s (On the same assumption Rafale behaves similar to Mirage 2000, which has 19,26deg/s STR, increase in 11% wing area will increase the drag by same amount and 59% increase in thrust will improve STR, , So 19,26*1,59/1,11/1.14 is the overall ratio) (Accuracy 2/10)
Rafale climb rate 370 m/s (Same assumption, same ratios above, 285m/s is the climb rate for M2k taken from wiki; 285*(59%-11%)/14%) (Accuracy 1/10)
Typhoon instantenious turn rate 27,82 (Again assuming Typhoon has the airfoil of Mirage 2000, and it has same vortex generators, and it would need ~800kg for 500 km range; 11950kg + Cl=1,05 + 51,2m2 gives the result) (Accuracy 2/10)
Typhoon sustained turn rate 22,41deg/s (Same method as Rafale STR, but now ratios are 124% drag 189% thrust and 131% weight; Translates to 19,26*1,89/1,24/1,31) (Accuracy 2/10)
Typhoon climb rate 359 m/s (Same as above, 285*(89%-24%)/1,31) (Accuracy 1/10)
F-35 instantenious turn rate 27,2 deg/s (@14800kg, According to the aerodynamic model I’ve created some time ago) (Accuracy 1/10)
F-35 sustained turn rate 21,5 deg/s (same as above) (Accuracy 1/10)
F-35 climb rate 286m/s (same as above) (Accuracy 1/10)
F-22 instantenious turn rate 31,12deg/s (Assuming it needs ~1500 kg fuel for 500km range, and Clmax=1,5 (would be consistent for 64A206 (though thickness of F-22 airfoil is unknown) airfoils with LE flaps) (Accuracy 3/10)
F-22 sustained turn rate 23,58deg/s (At 266kg/m2 wing loading, F-22 should behave similarly to F-15A at 35000lb with its 280kg/m2 wing loading; with 38% increase in drag, and 45% increase in thrust, and 5to10%(I take average of 7,5) lift improvement due to TE flaps, should make the str 20,5*(45%-38%)*1,075 ) (Accuracy 1/10)
Grippen instantenious turn rate 32,3 deg/s (Grippen is said to have 30 deg ITR. That is I assume at 50% internal fuel (1136kg). Grippen needs ~630 for 500 km range, so I assume 6830/6330 is the ratio) (Accuracy 1/10)
Grippen sustained turn rate 21,57 deg/s (Grippen is said to have 20 deg ITR. Assuming same ratio as above) (Accuracy 1/10)

3) f-22 actually have worse aerodynamic compared to f-15 right ? ( i mean it seem that f-22 only turn better due to tvc and fly faster as F119 have much higher thrust than f-15́s engine

Debatable. It certainly produces more drag and more lift, and has more thrust to compensate the drag. Depending on the choice of airfoil, which will define drag, end result can translate to more maneuverable or faster aircraft.

4) how long can fighter listed above turn their after burner at max ? ( with and without external fuel tank )

Would entirely depend on altitude; Even a MiG-29 with its pathetic fuel capacity can sustain full afterburner for 55+ minutes (on internal fuel alone), given the altitude is around 18000 meters . Same MiG-29 doing M1.2+ at the deck will deplate its entire fuel tank in less than 4 minutes.

5 ) are plane like x-29 , su-47 , x-41 alot more agile than normal fighter ?

A lot? No, they are still bound by the laws of physics. More Agile? Debatable; If they are not introduced into service I would say no. A Su-47 MAY produce excellent aerodynamics in theory, but with airframe designed for 3000+ hours it could weigh too much or it may need to sacrifice too much interior space for increasing wing rigidity, so that its aerodynamic advantages are negated.

I don’t know. However, even baseline Su-27S had an additional, vastly superior intra-flight datalink (TKS-2-27 as Peregrinefalcon named it) with 20-30 times bandwidth. Its interface with RLPK allows groups of 4 Su-27s to act as single unit to and share real time scanning, tracking and target information with other Su-27s in group and with small intervals, with other groups and GCI assets. TKS-2-27 can also recieve target information and intercept directives from Rubezh/Senez/Lurch/Vozdukh-1 sets and from A-50 SDRLO. System also allows group commander to make control directives and guide Su-27s in group to guide to their targets via autopilot, etc. Feature-vise, Su-27 had something very similar to Link-16, albeit with inferior bandwith. Such features were also present in MiG-31, but apperantly not on MiG-29, which stuck to lazur datalinks. If I were to guess, Su-35S will still have Lazur datalink -as its the only way to guide older MiG-29s or even older legacy aircraft-, plus something similar to upgraded/improved TKS-2-27 (or APD-518 of MiG-31).

Armed with 2x R-60s and 50% fuel; MiG-29A 9.12 weigh 12800 kg; with 2x AAMs and 50% fuel Typhoon should weigh around 13660 kg; 6,8% increase in weight and 10% increase in thrust; furthermore smaller wings of MiG-29 should reduce drag and allow for better low altitude STR, better low-G SEP and better vertical performance. For example, MiG-29A achieves 345 m/s at that weight. Its even higher than what F-15C offers at 50% fuel; Could Eurofighter do the same? Probably not. There are some certain points I wouldn’t expect MiG-29 to match Typhoon, thats why I said comperable performance.

BVR; N010 vs CAPTOR, R-27R/T vs AIM-120C, Lazur vs Link16. Yes, everything is clear on this one.

WVR;

-IRIS-T vs R-73M ?? R-73M has better range, better HOBS capability but lacks LOAL and has less G ability. While its older, R-73 both more mature and repeatedly proven that it works.

-PIRATE vs S-31 KOLS ?? PIRATE can be newer and may have better advertised on paper performance than KOLS, but KOLS repeatedly shown it has excellent capabilities in WVR, in both automatic target acquisition and its interface with HMS, plus its a VERY accurate gunsight. On practical usage for WVR, there is hardly anything PIRATE could improve upon KOLS, so both should work effectively, but KOLS is proven while PIRATE is not.

-HMSS vs Shchel-3UM ?? HMSS is obviously newer lighter, but for practical reasons it has no performance advantage; both are effective off-bore sights for their respective missiles.

No, I don’t think any single one of the 3 points I mentioned suggest a clear advantage to one side. Kinematics? That’s pretty much debatable too.

I think this is the point where I start the fire by saying;

Technical comparison for such dogfight would entirely depend on the remaining fuel of the aircraft; If fueled for certain time in combat or certain range, Typhoon should get upper hand in kinematics. If both are fuelled at 50%, MiG-29 would have just as good kinematics in overall, too close to guestimate without having actual data about Typhoon.

Apperantly they are the only ones with the stomach to respond to each other.

People -including me- who approximated 62%, 64% 67% are not silenced because they are convinced they are wrong. They stopped arguing because after getting such stupid responses, its pointless and disgusting to go on. Likewise, people who ignore JSR are not convinced russia makes best airplanes. They found it to be futile trying to reason with him.

I note you didn’t address the point about 3,000kg being a low fuel density for two x 2,000L anyway.

2000L tank does not necessariliy 2000.00 litres, there can be unusable fuel, or its a simple rounding for a public advertisment. Most certainly its not a good way to estimate fuel density.

An Su-35 only makes 4,500km on 14.5 ton of fuel (11,500kg internal plus 3,000kg external). That’s a hard fact from the manufacturers.

Su-35 uses different engine, with different fan stage for 15% higher thrust, 117S is not necesarily as efficient as AL-31F. Historically each engine upgrade without touching the engine core made it more fuel inefficient. I wouldn’t be suprised if Su-35 has only marginally better non-EFT ferry range with Su-27, despite 22% increase in fuel capacity.

BTW; with delta configuration I would expect Subsonic L/D of Typhoon to be inferior to Su-27, which uses an airfoil thick enough to be used in business jets.

EDIT; After re-reading your post, I now understand your mathematics and why you are so off in your calculations.

4,500 * [9,400/(11,500 + 3,000)] = 2917km
We know that the actual range is 3530km.
3530/2917 = 1.21

You are comparing different aircraft with different engines. Lets try to it by the same mathematics you are doing Su-35S has 1870 km A-A combat radius, Su-27S has 1760 km. Su-35 has 6% increase in mission range despite 22% increase in internal fuel capacity.

Assuming same 6% increase would hold true for ferry range too, 3742 km Su-35’s clean ferry becomes.
14500/11500 -> 26% increase in fuel capacity increases range by 4500/3742 = 20%, so remaining 6% is wasted on extra drag from EFT’s.

Getting back to Typhoon; Assuming 700L fuel is reserved for bingo;
3,800km * [(5700L-700)/((5700L-700) + 3000L)] = 2375 km

So Eurofighter has 2375km range on 100% internal fuel, IF it does NOT drop EFTs (as in this image) and Su-27 would require 67% fuel to match it.

If eurofighter drops EFTS it gets a 6% increase in range due to decreased drag (by trying to include lack of EFT drag just like your calculations); So a clean Typhoon’s range with internal fuel becomes 2517 km. Su-27 would require 71% fuel to match it.

The Su-27 is capable of carrying MTB-2000s AFAIK, at least some version are.

Su-27S/P/SM/SM3 and Su-30,-30M/M2 and Su-35 cannot carry EFTs, all sources are very clear on this one, and visually they dont have wet pylons to accomodate fuel tanks. Su-33 do have wet pylon (station #1) but that is for buddy refuelling, they should be able to carry EFT, but no source as far as I know claims as such. Some Su-30 variants are said to carry one PTB-3000 on centerline, and some are said to carry two PTB-2000s on wings, but I havent seen a single one carrying. From closeups, I haven’t seen any wet stations either. Su-34 can carry PTB-3000 on centerline. Su-35S is said to carry two PTB-2000s on wing pylons, but I haven’t seen one. There arent enough closeups to verifiy if stations 3,4 (which are most likely to get EFTs) are wet or not.

5t internal fuel was quoted in Eurofighter World but the link is now dead.

Ok, lets take it as 5 ton then, its still 96,2% internal fuel on Typhoon for matching 62,5% fuel on Su-27, like I’ve said.

(3800/15800)*11000 ~2650km But then you have to allow for the 3 tanks not being there, which represent a combined drag index of probably 50 or so, and the lighter weight. You’re looking at about 20% more than that. The Su-27 is at about 90% internal fuel to match a Typhoon on full internal fuel.

What 20% are you talking about? Su-27 at 90% fuel can reach 3177 km range. Are you implying Typhoon can reach this range on internal fuel? So each EFT only extend the Typhoons range by 200 km, Eurofighter engineers must be living in caves then.

Though its clearly more than idiotic to compare Su-27 and Tyhpoon with respect to range;

The Su-27’s ferry range is just that. Ferry range with 2 tanks (3 ton total) only. The Typhoon manages “>2000nmi” ferry range with 3 1000L tanks. If you divide both by total fuel and times by internal fuel, the Su-27 ends up needing 83% internal fuel to match a Typhoon on full internal fuel but that doesn’t take into account the greater difference in weight and drag when you take the 3 tanks off the Typhoon relative to removing 2 from the Su-27, or the “>”. So in all likelihood, the Su-27 will need about 90% internal fuel for it to be equal.

I still cannot find the logic (even by your standards) how you end up with this conclusion.

Su-27 with 100% internal fuel = 3530 km Ferry Range; 1760 km Combat Radius
Eurofighter with 100% internal fuel PLUS 3xEFTs = 3780 km; 1390 km Combat Radius

Assuming 5% reserve at ferry range, and assuming everything works linearly (which clearly doesn’t but this applies to both aircraft);

When Su-27 flies 1500 km; it is at 95%*(3530-1500)/3530+%5 = 62,5%;

When Eurofighter flies 1500 km; it has 95%*(3780-1500)/3780+%5 = 65% fuel.

Now calculating Su-27 is simple because its not even capable of carrying EFTs, this 62,5% is ONLY the internal fuel Su-27 has.

Eurofighter has 4630 kg internal plus 3280 kg external fuel capacity, totaling at 7910 kg; 65% means it has 5141 kg of fuel. This means its on 100% internal fuel plus 511 kg fuel on EFTs.

You may argue comparison is invalid as Eurofighter has 7% better Ferry Range with this fuel; Ok; mutliply 5141 kg with 0,93; its still 4781 kg; 151kg greater than Eurofighters internal fuel capacity. In either case, Eurofighter is clearly at 100% internal fuel to match Su-27 at 62,5%; we can only debate if an extra EFT is also needed or not. Besides Su-27 reach 26% greater combat radius than Typhoon, consider this also.

So I will repeat my comment to all Typhoon fanboys;
-A Su-27 at 100% internal fuel will have just as good if not better take-off time/length, climb and acceleration than Typhoon with 3 EFTs.
-A Su-27 at 62,5% fuel will outturn, outclimb, outaccelerate Typhoon with 100% internal fuel at ANY point on the flight envelope.