Also, both the F-16 and Mig-29 have nominally high wing loading but excellent turn performance because both were amongst the first blended wing and body designs.

There are also many simple explainations to those; Cl, Cd and wing area affect lift and drag linearly, and sustained turns primarily depend on the efficiency of the turns; As to why low wing area does not directly lead to bad sustained turns;

MiG-29 pulling 9Gs @ M0,85; S/L; 12500kg will need a lift coefficient of Cl = (12500*9,81*9)/(0,5*1,2*38*(0,85*343)^2) = 0,50.

Taking directly from aerodynamics booklet of the MiG-29 flight manual;
[ATTACH=CONFIG]229517[/ATTACH]

In order to have 0,5 Cl; MiG-29 requires 0,08 Cd. So it will have 174kN of drag;

If it had double the wing area; it would need 0,25 Cl, However at that point same airfoil would generate 0,06 Cd. Now due to doubled wing area, drag would increase to 261 kN; much more inefficient way of generating lift. F-15 has two certain disadvantages; it lacks LE flaps, so its Cl graph behaves similar to the lowest one in the MiG-29 graph; its wing area (which reduces wing loading) actually increases its drag at low altitudes, a trade off for having better turn performance at higher alttiude.

Getting back to Typhoon; It has the wing area of the F-15, and the thrust of an F-18, this is not a good combination;

Speaking of utterly useless X/Y ratios; let me introduce a new one (just as useless); Thrust/wing area;

F-16 blk30 = 4,54 kN/m2, MiG-29A = 4,27 kN/m2, Su-27S = 3,95 kN/m2, F-15A = 3,76 kN/m2 Mirage2000 = 2,31 kN/m2

Now compare their clean sustained turn performances at very low altitudes when fuelled for equivalent T/W (incedently this is ~1.0 for all 4th gen aircraft). This is not coincidence, because at such conditions minimal Cl is needed. So Cd difference will be negligable and wing area will be the sole major factor in drag. With increased payload and altitude, entire curvature of L/D matter, or the ability to generate greatest ClMax, so this ratio will not guestimate STR performance.

Where new aircraft stand; F-22 = 4,0 kN/m2, Typhoon = 3,47 kN/m2, Rafale = 3,47 kN/m2 Grippen = 2,68 kN/m2 Like all other ratios; this is not a certain indicator of anything.

My ‘BS formulae’ is the well known Area Rule.

No, they are for interpolating the Cd curve by using Cl curve. Since you don’t know Cl curve of Typhoon, or its relation to Cd, you are BSing.

It should be abundantly clear to anyone with a brain that at low speeds drag is negligible relative to the thrust provided by engines capable of Mach 2+. Therefore:

(Thrust-Drag)/Weight –> Thrust/Weight up to Mach 0.8 since Thrust >> Drag

Above that I’m sure I don’t have to explain about sweep angle and local mach numbers… and re-explain the Area Rule.

And it should be abundantly clear that *static* T/W is NOT an indication of acceleration or top speed at ANY speed. Re engine F-22 with F-135, it will not supercruise despite better dry thrust, it will have better acceleration at very slow speeds due to large fan, but it will not do the same at higher speeds due to slower exhaust velocity. Harrier has better T/W than MiG-25. How will they accelerate?

You are discussingly misinformed about your thrust assumption. EJ200 wont give 89 kN at 0 kts@s/l. it will not give 89kN at 30k feet M1.5 either. Its dynamically changing. So does the dynamic thrust curve of F-16. If flight manual says it can accelerate just as well, it can. Your point is not valid enough to disprove LM written flight manual.

And I can’t make any sense of your climb graphs.

Not my, from the supplemental flight manual of block 50 F-16. Anyway, you decide inital GW, go right to determine altitiude, then go down to determine distance and time. Climb schedule indicates at what speed aircraft should start climbing, graph assumes steady Mach number when climbing.

Even then its engines are less efficient, with SFC some 5-20% higher depending where you read.

So in summary, despite carrying a lot more fuel, the Su-27 makes very little in extra range against a Typhoon on internal fuel.

An Su-35 makes about 20% more ferry range than Typhoon with 3000L of external fuel, with 20% more internal fuel than an Su-27 and 3500+L of extra fuel in drop tanks.

Wow, your bias towards Typhoon is really at illness levels.

-Su-27 with 4 AAMs rated at 1760km combat radius on internal fuel. Typhoon is rated at 1390km combat radius. Though exact mission specifics are unclear, its simple as that. Want proof? Go look at the images above.
-Su-27 has 3530 km ferry range. Typhoon has 3790 km ferry range with 3xEFTs. So when they flew same range at their ferry config, Su-27 will be at 50% fuel, and Typhoon will be at 100% Clear?
-AL-31F is rated at 68,5 kg/(kN-h) SFC and EJ-200 is rated at 82,5 kg/(kN-h). As usual, its you who are talking crap, its the Su-27’s engines that are 20% more efficient than EF.

Ask for your F-16 infactuation, just get over it, the Typhoon’s TWR, wing loading and avionics will ensure it rapes an F-16 in any legitimate dog-fight, or any climb or acceleration contest. You’ve really brought a turkey to a gun-fight on that one.

Infactuation = facts from flight manual vs facts from eurofighter.com that eurofighter consortium provides. As your psycological problems regarding to Typhoon will prevent you from digesting this you hopelessly try to trash that info. No, they don’t mention its a single seater because Typhoon IS a single seater aircraft with two seater trainer variant, as written in the very same page. Any sane people would know performance data would be given on single seater. No, Typhoon is not carrying EFTs, as written it is carrying full air to air missile fit. Don’t try to dispute what is written clearly simply because you don’t like it. Besides, Typhoon will not reach M1.5 with EFTs because are not yet cleared to supersonic flight.

Even if your pimped up numbers gathered from various sites and articles including wikipedia would hold true for armed aircraft they would only mean Typhoon is only marginally better than F-16. , I will not continue this discussion further. Its not contributing to anything.

Havent seen this post;

I have enough tool right here thanks. I’m not talking about aerofoil differences, I’m talking about the reduction in trim drag accomplished through using a combination of increased stability margin and canard augmented lift. Wing loading is fundamental to Cl.

Apperantly not; You are broadening the discussion, and I will say, without knowing specifics you cannot comment on this either. Both EF and F-16 (or Su-27 as in this topic) is negative stable, so they will have continiously varying trim drags with respect to CG speed and altitude. A Su-27 with 10 missiles require 0.00 trimming at M1.33. If EF has different design point in this regard, you cant say it has less trim drag at very same speed, simply because it has canards. Same argument goes for F-16. You don’t know enough specifics to pointout such things to backup your claims. In the speed/payload/altitude we are discussing its possible F-16 MAY have less trim drag, or not.

You haven’t shown me jack really and you can’t calculate for **** and don’t even understand the variation of density and speed of sound with altitude.

First part TBH I was too lazy to get into such stupid discussion with any precission; merely multiplied with M with 339. By all means, mutliply your number with 206646. Happy now?

Your last statement lacks logic, because the same things you point out in the Typhoon vs F-16 comparison also apply in the F-16 vs F-15/Su-27 comparison wrt wing loading and TWR.

Really? fuel an Su-27 to ~50% or an F-15 80% to directly compare with F-16 or Typhoon, see what T/W they will get. Worse, add 1000 kg worth of A-A payload, or Fuel an Su-27 to 100% and compare it with EF with 3 EFTs (pretty much this is the REALITY as seen in this topic), then compare.

30 years old or not, Eurofighter will have hard time beating an F-16 or a MiG-29 when all are lightly armed, At heavier loads surely it will. But when comparing heavily loaded Eurofighter with Su-27, there is no contest. Its the nature of aeronautics when bigger engined bigger winged aircraft with bigger fuel tanks can manage heavy loads to long ranges more easily. Its simple as that.

As a mechanical engineer that had additional turbomachinery courses plus a certificate on advanced aerodynamics, I dont have the slightest clue on what you are talking about.

So you can see that modern aircraft are likely to have a raw 20% reduction in k and 30+% in Cd0:

Utter BS#1. Cd0 is not related to modernity. The age old Concorde or MiG-25 is likely to have **FAR** less supersonic Cd0 than F-22 or F-35.

F-16:
Cd = 0.036 + (0.3*0.0289) = 0.04467

Typhoon:
Cd = 0.24 + (0.26*0.0121) = 0.027

BS#2. Cd0 is defined by airfoil. For NACA 64A204 F-16 uses, it is 0,02 period. For the UNKNOWN airfoil Typhoon uses, its UNKNOWN, period.

But of course this doesn’t take into account the reduced wave drag for canard-delta designs or the improved lifting parameters above Mach 1 or the improved intake efficiency. All much more complicated, which is why empirical analyses are best.

Speaking of M1.5, what wavedrag are you talking about? Comparing a canard-delta and a conventional tailled aircraft, you don’t even know what emprical analysis are for.

Ultimately we know how the Lift – Drag equation plays out. For the F-16 it reaches zero at Mach 1.97 and for the Eurofighter it doesn’t reach zero until Mach 2.35.

(2.35/1.97)^2 = 1.42.

So we know that at Mach 1.97 the Typhoon has at least an extra 42% thrust in reserve, ignoring the deterioration in thrust at high speeds due to less efficient intake compression.

So:

(1.97/1.5)^2 = 1.72.

So the F-16 has ~72 % spare thrust at Mach 1.5 again ignoring intake compression efficiency. So the F-16 is using 58% thrust at a steady Mach 1.5.

(2.35/1.5)^2 = 2.45.

So the Typhoon has ~145% extra spare thrust again ignoring intake compression efficiency and the fact that the Typhoon intakes are optimised for Mach 0.9-1.6. So the Typhoon is using just 41% thrust at a steady Mach 1.5.

BS#3, you are completely ignoring the fact that both Eurofighter and F-16 lose their thrust logarithmically, but with completely different curvatures.

So in reality.

Reality is far from the FACTUALLY WRONG calculations you are making.

“Brakes off to 35,000 ft / M1.5 < 2.5 minutes
At low level, 200 Kts to Mach 1.0 in 30 seconds
Maximum Speed Mach 2.0
Operational Runway Length < 700 m (2,297 ft)”

Says Eurofigher.com.

At low level, 200 Kts to Mach 1.0 in 30 seconds”

[ATTACH=CONFIG]229432[/ATTACH]

An air-air payload of F-16 plus full fuel load makes roughly Drag index = 32 and 28000 lbs
F-16@ DI =0 28000 lbs -> 200 kts to M1.0 in 27,2 seconds.
F-16@ DI =50 28000 lbs -> 200 kts to M1.0 in 30,5 seconds.

Interpolating both will give us 29,3 seconds, FASTER than Eurofighters published 30 seconds.

Brakes off to 35,000 ft / M1.5 < 2.5 minutes

You can use these to calculate it yourself. Did it once, too lazy to do it again.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]229433[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]229434[/ATTACH]

Eurofighter takes less then 150 seconds. Overly simplifiying DI=25 acceleration from 200 kias to M0,9 takes 23,5 seconds. Climb to 35k feet takes roughly 1 minute, acceleration from M0,9 to M1,5 @30k takes ~66,5 seconds, totaling at 150 seconds. Though take off and reaching 200 kias will also take time, a more optimal climb/acceleration profile (for example climbing at M0,9 at first then diving for quick acceleration at ~15k feet than continuing to climb at M1.5) will shorten those times. While this is not conculsive as the example above, its sufficent to say the performance difference between types is not that much.

You should first note that the F-16 contains 3.5 ton of fuel making the TWR difference nearer 7-8%.

According to the calculations I’ve made, its 1.11 vs 1.063; 4,4%. Remember “empty” F-16 also includes two AIM-9s, wheras Typhoon does not.

You should also note that the equation is rather more complicated than that, since drag doesn’t pertain specifically just to wing area but also Cl through Cd = Cd0 + kCl^2, and having a higher wing loading means you need a higher Cl in any condition.

Again, you are assuming too much with limited knowledge. Assume any k you want, we are talking about M1.5+ speeds. That is 508m/s, You are multiplying your Cl with 258402. Lets go numeric, for F-16 at M1.5 30k feet, Cl will be 0,07. Speaking of Typhoon, 37% improvement in wingloading will reduce it to 0,05.

Assuming cd0 = 0,01; you are looking at (0,01 + kTyphoon * 0,0025) versus (0,01 + kF-16 * 0,0049) How much “k” you will need to overcome 83% increase in wing area with 35% increase in thrust? As you need to drop Cd by 62%, you simply cant. Plus cd0+kCl^2 is an emprical formula. Its not valid for any AOA

Go to airfoiltools.com and find me a single airfoil that will make a difference in drag

As such, by having a 40% higher wing loading, the F-16 has a 96% higher kCl^2 term. k >> Cd0.

BS. You cannot assume ANYTHING about kCl^2 with respect to wing loading. Its ONLY dependent on airfoil data. A design can always have same wing area but change airfoil to get different cl/cd relation. On the contrary, a deltawing SHOULD use thinner airfoils to improve drag charactheristics would have smaller “k” than a conventional wing.

Furthermore at Mach 1.5 an F-16’s intake loses 10% more Ptotal than an F-15s for a pitot vs ramped comparison. Plus the greater instability margin on the Typhoon and foreplane reduces trim drag. Then you have the whole wave drag effect which is very obviously smaller for the canard design.

But basically the F-16 has a trash engine that makes its power by shovelling fuel into the jet-pipe. Wet Thrust for the F-16E is almost 90% more than dry thrust. Use a similar tactic on the Typhoon and you then have 23.5 tons of thrust and a 40% better TWR.

Agreed on these. Yet none of these are good enough to conclude Typhoon can climb and accelerate better than Typhoon. We have published data from Typhoon’s manufacturers. I shared relevant pages from F-16’s flight manuals -which is also manufacturer data- and shown F-16 can do the same just as quickly as Typhoon. There is no scientific reason clearly proves those factual numbers are wrong and Typhoon should have better acceleration or climb than an F-16; It has some features, but F-16 stands less draggy. None are enough to clear edge.

So I assume those numbers are correct and I conclude is as F-15/Su-27 can climb accelerate better than F-16, they can also climb and accelerate better than Typhoon.

You can publish from wherever you like but it’s BS. The Typhoon has a superior TWR and ramped intakes, the F-16 can’t possibly match it.

You know, both acceleration and climb is related to specific excess power, which is related to (Thrust-Drag)/weight? In which we can assume it as “(Thrust/weight) – (drag/weight)”; Its interesting that you mention less than 3% increase in T/W, -which is only the half of the equation- but fail to mention how 83% greater wing area contributes to drag.

Yes it does. More weight requires more lift meaning more drag.

True if you are looking exactly numerically, but for operational means its negligable. For most airfoils, drag increases exponantially at above certain AOA. for a level flight at M1.5+, there is certainly so miniature drag increase that top speed wont change noticably. Compare an F-16 top speed at 20000lbs and at 36000 lbs; weight is almost doubled, but top speed stays the same, if drag is unchanged. However at slower speeds (due to increased drag) or at higher altitudes, maintaining level flight requires greated AOA -and drag- increase so top speed goes down with increased airspeed.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]229416[/ATTACH]

You are comparing 1300 kg increase on a 25000+ kg aircraft. It won’t change the top speed or maintained airspeeds by a measurable amount.

The Su-27’s main advantage in top speed is copious amounts of afterburning (1.63 wet to dry thrust ratio) producing a very fast jet. Very inefficient.

Efficiency is irrelevant. Su-27 has efficient enough inlet to provide good enough SFC at supersonic speeds. Its surely less efficient than supercruising, but has more than enough fuel to compensate.

Top speed has nothing to do with weight. Lighter aircraft should only accelerate quicker to that speed.