Yes but it still produces an oblique shock before the normal shock, which is far superior to a normal shock. This is aerodynamics 101, there’s no way you have a degree, show me evidence.

Well I won’t show a ****, not only because I don’t see any reason to prove my degree to you, but also because I use same nickname in all websites I visit, and the present state of the country I am living in makes me would prefer to be anonymous.

My bachelors degree diploma has a big color logo of the university in the background and tiny golden logos as the texture of it. In my graduation year less than 15 people were graduated. I have already said I am currently master student at the same university and my thesis is related to aerodynamics. There are less than 5 masters degree students in mechanical engineering department and currently only myself is writing an aerodynamic related thesis.

My IP is already enough to reveal my city and district. If I also reveal my school, I would be openly revealing myself, even if hide my name. I wouldn’t want to wake up with police at my door just because I may have insulted a politican years ago or wrote an inconvinient post here & there, just to prove myself to you, thanks. I could have easily faked a degree here, but instead, I write my reasons. If my word is not good enough nothing ever will be.

F-22 isn’t, F-35 isn’t, EF isn’t, Rafale isn’t, Gripen isn’t, J-20 isn’t, PAK-FA probably isn’t. Get the picture.

Oh I got the picture pretty well. Other than your claim regarding “EF” none of these aircraft claim M2.0+ top speeds.

F-22 can be an exception because it simply has great thrust, but surely it won’t be as fast as F-15 it replaces, PAK-FA is limited by materials but it does have a variable inlet ramps.

M2.0 only came up due to lifetime durability consideration of the air frame material. It was never a T-D limit.

Do you think M2.35 limit of MiG-29 or Su-27 came for other reasons? ALL limits came from durability reasons. Aerodynamically, MiG-29 can sustain 10-11Gs indefinately. But its still a 9G fighter. Given a little cold air both MiG-29 and Su-27 will easily pass M2.35. But durability prevents even M2.35 speeds for F-15 Su-27 or MiG-29 to be used indefinately.

F-15 was stated at M2.5+. F-22 as ‘Mach 2 class’.

Ah kind of my point. You are right. F-15 was many times stated “M2.5 class” or “M2.5+”
Yet M2.5 is its top speed limit, and its top actual speed is M2,25 for PW-100, M2,45 for PW-220, and M2,3 for PW-229. So “M2,5 class” or “M2,5” doesn’t mean a s***.

Operational norms for different air forces differ.

So if a RAF Typhoon races with an Austrian Typhoon latter will win?

it’s the T-D trend that’s important, not the actual structural integrity.

Ah I agree on that 100%. Then why bother with top speeds? Again, in your analogy, you are saying “M2.5+ F-15A is faster than M2.35 Su-27S, so it must have less drag, greater excess power and greater maneuverability”.

Fact is F-15 isn’t faster than Su-27, but some basic analysis will say its still less draggy when supersonic. Greater excess power and maneuverability is unbelievably dependent on altitude, attempted G, and airspeed, but generally at higher altitudes Su-27 is better at subsonic and high supersonic, and F-15 is better high transonic and low-mid supersonic speeds.

Lessons learned. 1-Such top speed claims are likely to be wrong. 2-Top speed doesn’t reveal which aircraft is draggy and which is not.

Well the other trim figures are for short of 100%, so I would argue the 102% trim is the most valid. And it’s not necessary it would risk the engines. Adding a little more fuel to the reheat does not risk the crucial core components at all.

Well, no suprise you would be wrong again. 102% is Vmax graph. The large graph (obviously) is routine operations graph. With manual saying “Use of Vmax switch is strictly prohibited”, I wouldn’t say its comperable to normal operations of Su-27’s AL-31F. I could post the longer version from the manual about what Vmax does and after its use, how aircraft spends days inside the hangar with engines outside the aircraft, half dismantled perhaps.

Surely the MiG-29’s variable geometry intakes should help in supercruise, yet the Typhoon still manages 50% more. How embarrassing.

Only embarrassing thing is you fail to grasp the fact MiG-29’s engine is not designed for supercruising. You claim yourself an engineer, I don’t understand how mentally retarded one needs to be to keep making this claim.

If I were to make same analogy as you do, your Typhoon cannot even do M2.5 yet MiG-25 with its huge weight and puny T/W can go 25+% faster.

You’re the one twisting it Mr. ‘Fixed ramps are the same as pitot’.

Well my very first post was a “fixed inlet” will only work optimal only at a certain point, you cannot compare it with an inlet that is designed to work at optimal performance at a range of speeds.

In a sense you are right, I don’t see much of a performance between a fixed inlet types like DSI pitot etc etc. Not saying there isn’t, just saying there isn’t “much”; enough to be mentioned when comparing to a 3-5 oblique + normal shock inlets of various figthers.

Given that the subject was peak climb rate, you should have said SEP, if you wished to distinguish between the two. In the context at hand, the sentence was wrong.

Well, it was you that tried to include things like ascent angle to the discussion, so that overuse of technical terms would save you the day. Then I’ve asked the ascent angle at exact condition where MiG-29 achieved its 345m/s climb rate.

My claim was merely about climb rate all along; again you could have admitted your nonsense in ascent angle but you chose to humiliate yourself by saying 345m/s climb rate at M0,9 is impossible and I now no maths.. I don’t need to say SEP, neither I feel the need to distinguish two. I will post this one again:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]248680[/ATTACH]

Vy, m/s vs M graph. This is easily the climb rate by Mach number graph by any definition you can find. Hence my comment, if you don’t like it, mail MiG design bureu.

Haha, depends on what weights and configurations we look at.

Your choice of using 30000lbs is funny, as F-16 with full fuel load and 2 AAMs is 27316 lbs. Still I’ve noticed something curious: I’ve copied and pasted those 3 performance data from wikipedia I’ve thought they were exact same as quoted on eurofighter.com but somebody must have modified, upped and twisted these as well… Some guys really need a hobby…

This is the original claim:

Brakes off to 35,000ft / M1.5 <2.5 minutes
Brakes off to lift off <8 sec (Full Internals and Missiles)
At low level, 200Kts to Mach 1 =30 sec
Supercruise capability and Dry Power Acceleration from Sub to >Supersonic

This is the source: http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/TecGuide.pdf 10th page general performance characteristics (as they are provided by official manufacturer not lukos or wiki)

I apologise for trusting the wikipedia sh!t without confirming it.

Also to quote myself:

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.

So F-16 with its full fuel and full A-A payload is better accelerating than Typhoon.

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.

Skimming the EM graphs, best profile for F-16 should be to accelerate to M0,9 at deck, climb to ~20k, and as excess power is better at supersonic speeds at higher altitudes, accelerate to M1,3 at 20k first then make climb to 25k at M1,3 then climb & accelerate to M1,6 and 35k feet.

Conclusion is; Typhoon is slower accelerating than F-16, but perhaps a few seconds faster in climbs even if F-16 follows an optimal climb/acceleration profile.

Then your current comparison is with MiG-29, Even just at 25% fuel, DI=0 F-16 can barely achieve ~320m/s climb rate tops. Assuming the induced drag remains same, it would have around 254 m/s climb rate at 100% fuel. (“Interesting” I’ve found F-16’s cited climb rate of 50k feet/min, so manufacturer must have given climb rate for full fuel load) MiG-29 makes 345m/s climb rate with nearly 57% fuel. With 100% fuel, it has 311m/s again assuming induced drag remains the same (for the record it remains the same for MiG-29).

At M1,6 30k point, F-16 blk50 has 124 m/s climb rate @25% fuel. At same conditions MiG-29 has 180m/s @57% fuel. When both are at full fuel, F-16 blk50 has 101 m/s and MiG-29 has 164 m/s climb rates respectively.

So I have, once again, proven F-16 with full fuel and 2 AAMs has ballpark similar time from 0 to 35000k feet M1,5 above. If we take the manufacturer data as our basis and not your beloved wiki. I am sure you will dig better numbers from somewhere around the web, but whatever.

When both F-16 and MiG-29 are at full fuel, starting from deck, MiG-29 has 22% climb rate / specific excess power advantage compared to F-16 blk50. At M1,6s 30k point it has 62% higher excess power.. Yet another example as to why variable inlets are not only slightly better, but they literally rock compared to fixed inlets. Typhoon is an OK match for F-16 in climbs and acceleration. I am willingly accept its a few seconds faster in climbs, but suggesting Typhoon for a comparison with in a climb/acceleration contest with a MiG-29A is a joke, I am sorry.

I won’t calculate the brakes off to M1,6 @ 35000 feet time of MiG-29, even though climb rate graph is all I need for that. I think I’ve made my point clearly enough…

You really need me to prove something that is even present on RAM Air induction equipped sportsbikes?

I’m shaking my head at this stage. You really have a degree.

Hahahaha you are hopeless. Air is only considered compressible only at above M0,85 hence the name transonic. You are saying talking about compression due to ram at 100mph?? Why not mention “Ram air” of 1971 Mustangs? Idiot…

Curiosly, people accused you being the same bullsh**ing guy as Lukos, frankly I didn’t bother to think of it but curiously, I’ve posted this exact climb acceleration to lukos after he posted this:

I could be super generous and account for pitot intake at Mach 1.97:

0.97/0.91 = 1.066 (Difference in efficiency at Mach 1.5)

0.92/1.066 = 0.86 (Adjusted to provide same intake efficiency at Mach 1.97 relative to Variable ramp)

0.86/0.73 = 1.18 (Difference between adjusted efficiency and actual)*

Note this is unfair because Typhoon only has a fixed ramp which will yield roughly the same difference as variable ramp at Mach 1.5 but less at Mach 2. So this calculation greatly favours F-16.

[(1.97*1.18)/1.5]^2 = 2.4

[32,500-(1-1/2.400]/30,000 = 0.632 Net TWR

Still almost 10% down despite best possible case. So no, F-16 can’t out-accelerate a Typhoon, no way no how.

And my response to Lukos (you) 2 years ago:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Your response:

Do you have a degree or a PhD in the field?

Well idiot is an idiot despite 2 years of elapsed time between two discussions. Lukos just go **** yourself. When you take a new alias, humiliate yourself less for your own sake..

The F-16 uses a pitot intake. If you don’t understand the difference between a fixed ramp and pitot I can’t help you. I suppose an inlet cone is also pitot by that reckoning?

Inlet cone is also a fixed inlet if the cone itself doesn’t move to match the shocks.

One oblique shock and one normal is all you need a low supersonic speeds. If you have more than needed in terms of ramps for a given airspeed, it often reduces intake efficiency. See F-15 intake below M1.0 vs Pitot. There is no good reason for a fighter to have variable geometry given 99.9999% of its lifetime operating speeds.

Go tell that to MiG, Sukhoi, Boeing etc engineers. Latest F-15E variants, Su-35 MiG-35 are still built with ramps, they must be wasting their time.

The M2.35 is likely correct given that DA2 exceeded M2.0 with RB199s, which are higher BPR and not at all optimised for high altitude of high speed. On the same page you’ll also find analysis as to why M2.35 is much more likely.

You are basing your assumptions on a “likely” which isn’t shared by the manufacturer.

M2.0 is also a little too rounded don’t you think?

No I don’t think so, just like I don’t find M2.5 limit of F-15 “too rounded” to claim it is “likely” to be M2,67 or something…

How is the Austrian AF half official?

AF statements do make mistakes, and sometimes they are too negligent to check&update their website. The very fact that German UK and Austrian airforces give different numbers for exact same aircraft should at least make you question a little bit.

On some regards Official military websites DO give erroneous information. A particular Sovremenny destroyer Russian Navy website claims as operational doesn’t even have a engine inside it.

Actually you don’t because car manufacturers are well known for not always stating accurate hp and torque figures. Some under claim, some over claim. Same deal with top speed and acceleration. And I think I only need to mention the VW emissions scandal in passing to make a point.

Ah but there are reasons for it. too much hp&torque = more taxes & insurance costs, less buyers. too little hp and torque = underpowered vehicle, less buyers. But I don’t recall any car that has “underrated” top speed or acceleration. Because faster is always better, and no one will inflate their emissions, because higher emissions is always a bad thing (both for environment and for taxes).

The MiG-25 could do Mach 3.2+. It achieved M3.21 and 126,000ft in testing if I remember correctly. It was restricted to M2.83 because the HPT was inclined to warp above that speed.

Well, that is frankly irrelevant. its airframe + engine limit is M2,83. Given the cold enough air like -15 or so, I am 100.00% sure a Su-27 can do M2,5+ without any modifications, but its not safe at all, an sure as hell this is not its top speed.

MiG-25 has too much exess thrust at around M2,83 but that only helps it to overcome the additional drag comes from payloads, so it could still fly at M2,7 with 4x500kg bombs.. This doesn’t make its top speed a tad faster than M2.83.

You sure about the F-15 only managing M2.25?

Yes. PW-100 engined like I’ve said. Without Vmax of course, meaning no 102% trim. Risking destruction of engines is not exacly an apples to apples comparison with Su-27.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]248674[/ATTACH]

Though you reposted a graph probably either me or poster Eagle first posted on this forum, I thank you that it perfectly proved my point that no F-15A/C/E can reach M2.5 on level flight at standard day, despite M2.5 is often quoted as its top speed. Kind of proving my point that M2.35, even if it may be true, may only be the top limit speed but not the actual top speed…

M1.25 is cited in the referenced book but yes it should be 1,530kph at SAE. Nope the M1.25 is direct quote from a book cited on wiki, 1,470kph is some a55clown on wiki doing an ad-hoc conversion.

A book printed in 2002, giving info for an aircraft introduced into service in 2003. We are in 2016 and that book contradicts with everything else that doesn’t quote it as source. Great one.

SC definitely does have a bearing because it demonstrated how well the Typhoon operates in its M0.9-M1.6 optimised regime. I see the MiG-29 is struggling to crack M1.0 on dry thrust, wow, the Typhoon’s engines must be performing much better in that regime.

Speaking of DRY thrust, it obviously have far greater supersonic T-D. It doesn’t show anything else about optimisation or anything you spit on this forum. For the 13049134th time you are comparing an two different engines, in a flight regime one engine simply isn’t designed for.

Nope because MiG-25 is optimised for high altitude and it slower at low altitude, its climb is also affected by weight.

But its way faster at high altitudes, so climb rates at upper half of the envelope must be better? Funny to see you claim superior performance based on top speed, then get back to real world to type some “excuses” when your “proof” can lead to much more interesting conclusions.

I’m well aware of that but nevertheless the way you phrased it was incorrect. A plane doing M0.9 cannot be climbing at 345m/s.

“Climbing” does not equate to “climb rate”. I didn’t say how fast it could climb, I’ve asked for your explaination about a given “climb rate”. Don’t try to twist this as well.

I didn’t say anything was impossible, I said they couldn’t climb as fast as a Typhoon. No way, no how.

Ah I thought we were talking about climb rate. For climbing to an altitude/speed point, I’ve *PROVED* an F-16 (with not THAT spectacular climb or acceleration performance) can quite match (or exceed) both

“Brakes-off to supersonic acceleration: <30 s”
“Brakes-off to Mach 1.6 at 11,000 m (36,000 ft): <150 s”

Too lazy to quote myself, did the calculation in the past, a forum search would do it. Or better, don’t take my word for it, sum up the values yourself; here’s the relevant pages I am reposting:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]248669[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]248670[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]248671[/ATTACH]

You don’t have to do a guess work for optimal climb&acceleration path. Just accelerate to M0,9 @ S/L, climb to 30k feet then accelerate to M1,6. This rather oversimplified flight path will still yield quite interesting results.

Well let’s see.

1. You failed to recognise that the Typhoon had a ramp intake and then claimed it was the same as an F-16 pitot intake when proved wrong (in this very post).

Well, I still don’t see it as a ramp intake. In way-too-much laymans terms, ramp moves itself as such to make oblique shock “seal” the inlet. By doing so, when that shock expands, the “inlet side” of the shock has higher than atmospheric pressure but an exact M1.0 speed. If the oblique shock doesn’t align with the inlet area air still slows down, but for pressure recovery its not exactly useful.

Ramp intake = F-14/15 Su-27 MiG-25/29/31 etc etc.

Splitter plate, aircraft’s nose, wings, canopy rudders, even F-18’s LERX all cause oblique shocks. Otherwise calling a splitter plate an inlet ramp is simply WRONG even if a Dr. Engineer from Chrysler Aerospace claims as such.

If splittler plate is considered a “fixed ramp”, then F-16/18C, Rafale, B-1B etc all have fixed ramps.

I didn’t argue with your point because it did not matter.

Su-27 has variable inlet ramps with M2.35 top speed. Su-34 really did have a fixed inlet ramp (that is ramps welded in a certain angle) and its top speed is M1,8.

Exact same thing applies to B-1A -> B-1B, Su-24A -> Su-24B and some tornado variants, even F-14D.

2. Earlier you failed to know the difference between total pressure and static pressure.

You were talking about stagnation pressure, when you kept calling it “total” pressure. It did not matter in any case, because “dynamic” part of stagnation pressure is necessarily fixed by the intake velocity demanded by the engine. If its M0,6 it has to be at M0,6. So the actual variable on that part is the static pressure.

I didn’t bother going on with that discussion because P01 and P02 are arbitrary points. What is 01 and what is 02? If *I* were to name those in an inlet analysis, 0 would be atmospheric, 01 and 02 would represent pressures after shock#1 and shock#2. Its definately not so in your case, and its up to your source to properly mention WHAT those numbers represent.

3. You claimed the pressure in an intake couldn’t exceed atmospheric unless it was variable geometry.

Show me it can? Better yet, provide an dynamic Thrust data for ANY aircraft that has a fixed inlet, yet has impressive enough thrust to prove Typhoon *may* have good enough T/W at supersonic?

Never said the manuals were wrong, but dry thrust still demonstrates how well the engine and airframe is operating at low supersonic speeds.

Your comment is as idiotic as claiming painting the aircraft gray demonstrates how fast the aircraft is.

If the flow in the nozzle is choked in convergent configuration, then it must go to con-di.

IF being the appropirate word there. Again neither you or I have info about that. But mk1 eyeball observation.
Typhoon: idle = nozzles expanded. pilot increases thrust for take off:
First, nozzles close, then they start to expand, then afterburners lit. This early expension tells us (me at least) flow becomes supersonic after some point inside dry thrust.

MiG-29: idle = nozzles expanded just like Typhoon. Pilot increases thrust:
Nozzles close, remain closed as we see black smoke increase, then afterburner is lit and right at the same time nozzles start to expand. This tells us nozzles work in convergent on whole dry thrust regime and only con-di at wet thrust.

Now thrust is not only about velocity it has a pressure component as well, and skin friction and shocks from the body of the aircraft actually slow the air to quite subsonic esspecially near M1.0 airspeeds (that is why its called transonic), so MiG-29 can go a tad above M1.0 (M1.04 to be exact).

Well if the RD-33 and intakes and MiG-29 T-D are so great how come it can’t supercruise? Just because of the nozzles? Give me a break. Fitted variable geometry intake but didn’t fit correct nozzles to supercruise?

I don’t know I didn’t design RD-33. I would suspect however, not “just because” of nozzles. It has to provide sufficent velocity or pressure on DRY thrust at first to allow a nozzle converge enough so it can generate supersonic thrust. Without changing the design of engine itself, a simple nozzle modification won’t give supercruise ability.

As for T-D, I’ve never claimed MiG-29’s drag to be lower than Typhoon at supersonic regime. For all I know, MiG-29 is designed primarily for subsonic high manuevebility, and Typhoon is for supersonic. It would be very stupid to claim Typhoon would have higher drag at supersonic than MiG-29; about as stupid as claiming Typhoon would have less drag than Su-27/MiG-29/F-16 etc at subsonic, esspecially at lower altitudes. I still think MiG-29 would have greater T/W due to greater WET thrust, but much even greater drag would *probably* hinder it supersonic. Same goes for Su-27 which you were originally comparing.

You were making up horse**** based on “superior T/W” magic. I’ve shown MiG-29 has way greater T/W on some parts of envelope. At the very least, I’ve PROVED uninstalled thrust can NEVER be a basis of thrust comparison between aircraft. Nothing more nothing less. You could have accepted this like a man, but you immediately twisted your argument to Climb rate.

That didn’t make sense, climb rate is still best before wavedrag and around M0,85-M0,9 is subsonic, part of envelope MiG-29 will have similar or less drag and a higher thrust than Typhoon. Then, again instead of accepting this, you twisted your argument to top speed and supercruise.

In that area you could have sticked to manufacturer data, but you couldn’t do it because it didn’t fit your propoganda. Instead, you took your one top speed from Austrian airforce which could easily be an error on web designer’s part because NO ONE ELSE claims as such, and second (sea level) top speed you quote a source, who quotes 2002 book of “llustrated Directory of Fighters by Mike Spick”. Quoting an 2002 book is esspecially funny for an aircraft entered into service in 2003..

Su-35 has greater thrust than Su-27 yet manufacturerer says it is slower. That is good enough for me. Typhoon manufacturer says Typhoon is slower than MiG-29, and that is also good enough for me. I don’t care at all if that isn’t good enough for you, if you have to nitpick something else that says faster, just to prove yours is bigger in a pissing contest, that is your own inferiority complexity to deal with.

Because you keep quoting me, simples.

No, I didn’t, last time I’ve quoted you was on 27th september 20:45, you quoted/mentioned me 3 times since then but anyway this is a forum..

Ram effect increases static pressure by slowing done the airflow.

Yeah right.. See my school child analogy who thinks 5 cannot be subtracted from 2 because of his ignorance. Like I’ve said, you cannot “ram” supersonic air onto compressor face and expect a performance improvement. Unless you have some very exotic engine design, only result you will get is a compressor stall.

The Typhoon uses a fixed ramp, not a pitot, so there is an oblique shock first.

Really? Show me the ramp please? Google images are full of pictures showing Typhoon’s inlet in detail. I have full confidence in you that you will try the pass the splitter plate as a shockwave ramp, but anyway no harm in asking…

And the Typhoon is best shaped to avoid wave drag and suffer less drag supersonic.

Blah blah blah blah. So you claim it has zero or even negative wavedrag? Zero or negative change in supersonic drag despite the fact it isn’t even possbile on a supercritical airfoil, and the fact Typhoon doesn’t even use a supercritical airfoil?

Afterburning can be seen as a percentage augmentation over dry thrust, so we can make a very good estimate of it.

Ignorance level 101.

You know, before making this claim, you could have easily verified it by making some comparisons on dry and wet parts of dynamic thrust graphs by simply chosing same flight conditions;
S/L M0,0: DRY 4959kgf WET 8000kgf, 61% increase.
1km M1,2: DRY 5250kgf WET 11450kgf, 118% increase.
5km M1,6: DRY 4450kgf WET 10500kgf 135% increase.
13km M2,0: DRY 2100kgf WET 5900kgf 180% increase.

On these 4 data points alone, difference between increases of “percentage augmentation over dry thrust” is like 3 times. Funny thing is, you are so confident of your own BS that you even emphasize it by saying “we can make a very good estimate”. No, you cannot even make a correlation between them, let alone base ANY estimate on it.

You just can’t seem to handle that despite the MiG-29’s variable intakes, the Typhoon has better T-D at supercruise and a higher top speed (M2.35).

It’s therefore extremely likely that it also has superior T-D in a climb. Hardly surprising given that it’s a much newer aircraft.

Well, MiG-25 can go above M2,7+ with 2000kg bomb load, no aircraft -excluding MiG-31 and Tu-160- cannot even go M2,0 with that payload, so according to your logic, MiG-25 has greater climb rates than everything else on this world. Reality is, it has about the 1/3rd of climb rate of MiG-29, despite the top speed.

What is hardly suprising is, you’ve just humiliated yourself, again… For your own sake, let go of your thickheadness and for once understand if underlying reasons are unrelated, one good performance value in certain aspect at a certain point in the envelope does not equate to good performance values on all aspects throughout the envelope.

It means you have no understanding of maths because a climb rate of 345m/s is impossible at 306m/s.

I knew you would say that, given your ignorance level is of the roof. Climb rate is not a physical representation of climb, it means ability of the aircraft to gain energy at 1G flight equal to the amount it gains of potential energy climbing by that amount.

So when at M0,9 306m/s, MiG-29 would have climb rate of 345m/s, this means it could make a climb at 90 degrees, and still have 345-306 = 39m/s additional climb rate, which can be used for acceleration on a vertical climb. You can calculate the acceleration from dKE=dPE -> m*v*a = m*g*dH your dH is your climb rate, V is the airspeed in m/s, so MiG-29 will have 1,25 m/s2 acceleration on 90 degree vertical climb at M0,9.

You will see similar things for all aircraft if you knew how to look at it:

F-16’s flight manual gives climb rates as FPS = feet per second.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]248601[/ATTACH]

0 FPS is your sustained turn rate, 400-600-800-1000fps lines are the the points where F-16 has positive climb rate. 1000 feet/s = 305 m/s climb rate. F-16 blk50@ ~25% fuel achieves 305 m/s at M0,72 = 245 m/s. But this is impossible as well, right? Wrong. Also if you follow the FPS lines you will also see all climb rates max out at around M0,9, kind of supporting my claim of M0,85-M0,9 is max climb rate is achieved at lower altitudes for all modern combat aircraft.

You keep trying to insult me about mathematics and aerodynamics aspects of the topic, yet once again, only thing you’ve proven is you yourself is the one with no understanding about the subject..

You obviously don’t read anything I post. THE TYPHOON DOES NOT HAVE A PITOT INTAKE, IT’s A FIXED RAMP. Hence why every assertion you’re making is wrong.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADP011111

JUST STOP HUMILIATING YOURSELF!!!! Read what YOU are posting.

TITLE: Thrust Vectoring for Advanced Fighter Aircraft – High Angle of Attack Intake Investigations

QUOTE: During all the testing the intake lip position has been held fixed at its most open position (which has been determined for During the first test runs data points from former windtunnel the highest angles of attack considered sofar).

So you infer from this, Typhoon has fixed supersonic inlet ramps? Typhoon doesn’t even have a ramp. It has a splitter plate, a pitot inlet and a variable inlet lip for high AOA and NOT for supersonic flight. If all else were designed just right, those lips would still need to rotate/curve invards to “catch” the shocks originating from splitter plate as increasing speeds, like one on MiG-31, or something like inverted version of external compression ramp of F-15, but mk1 inspection of inlet reveal it isn’t shaped for that, and mechanical travel of the lip reveal it only comes to level, not curve invards. Both these points support each other.

In this form, those lips work in exact same fashion on MiG-29K; they allow more air in a less distorted form into the inlet at high AOA. At supersonic they all stay in a neutral position, and ramps (which Typhoon lacks) optimize shock angles.

I am repeating this too: You are posting some independent research about subsonic high AOA performance, that doesn’t even use factual data for Typhoon but merely uses a model resembling it in shape. Then you are trying to pass it proof of Typhoon’s high performance at supersonic 1G performance (which would happen at near 0 AOA). Either you are way too idiot to just to notice you are talking about mutually exclusive flight regimes (despite me repeatedly warning you of this), or you are deliberately misguiding everyone here in the hopes of no one would notice that and you would come on top in an argument. I’ve made similar arguments with many people, some provided convincing proofs trashing my claims, some simply accepted my version of the story and some were even more more biased, and narrow-minded then you do, but none resorted to trickery like this.

Less excess power huh? So how come the Typhoon can supercruise at M1.5, whereas the MiG-29 struggles to break M1.0 on dry thrust.

DRY thrust has nothing to do with WET thrust. You are comparing the dry thrust of an engine designed for supercruise, to an engine that is NOT designed for supercruise, at supersonic speeds.

Pegasus engine has more dry thrust than EJ-200’s wet thrust, and harrier has half the weight, less then half the wing area of Typhoon. Yet Typhoon can supercruise, can go M2.0+ on wet thrust, but Harrier, despite the great engine power, cannot even go supersonic, because pegasus isn’t designed to deliver thrust at supersonic speeds. You can’t draw the conclusion Harrier is a flying brick with no energy-maneuverability just because its way slower than typhoon, in fact its overall dogfighting performance was superior againist Mirage-5s and Mirage IIIs.

TIP: Perhaps you should read more and write much less.

Perhaps you should read more and not write anything at all.

He actually stated at M1.2 that it was higher (11500kgf, 113kN) than the bench rating (which is usually T-O thrust).

In case you haven’t noticed I’ve stopped responding to you, why keep quoting me? At least do so without twisting my words. My point is you cannot compare T/W of aircraft based on two numbers. Those graphs prove just that, nothing more nothing less.

But this is likely similar for both aircraft as the ram effect increases at higher speeds. And we know for a fact that the Typhoon can supercruise at M1.5, with AAMs, whereas the MiG-29 cannot.

What ram effect is that? You are talking only about a normal shock. If supersonic compression is done on compressor face, you would only lose thrust from that.

We also know that the Typhoon can supercruise at M1.21 even with drop tanks. So it’s clear that the T-D figure is superior for the Typhoon around the optimum climb rate speed. And we know that:

Again, pure ignorance. Climb rate is totally irrelevant from supercruise. Climb rate ONLY represents the excess power at a given altitude and speed. And since every single aircraft on the face of the earth suffer from same physical phenomenon called “wavedrag”, they have less excess power at above M0,9. That is somewhat reduced at quite high speeds as V component makes up the higher drag, but that is irrelevant to the S/L excess power.

So Typhoon, just like Su-27, MiG-23/29, F-4/5/14/15/16/18 will have its highest low altitude excess power just before wavedrag multiplies the overall drag of the aircraft. It can be M0,85, it can be M0,9; but all those aircraft achive their highest SEP there for a reason; and that reason applies to Typhoon pretty well.

W is equal for both aircraft (11,000kg empty, but also including wingtip jamming pods and TRDs for Typhoon). T-D is higher, we know this from the supercruise data.

DRY T-D is higher we know ONLY that. This has no relation at all to MAX AB thrust. You don’t need to complicate things as such, DRY thrust climb rate of MiG-29 at M1,1+ would be all negative (MiG-29 would need to trade altitude if it needs to maintain speed), but at conditions Typhoon can supercruise is all greater than or equal to 0.

Therefore the velocity of the climb and/or the angle of ascent, given by:

Angle of ascent = arcsin [(T-D)/W]

must be higher. Hence the Typhoon must have a higher climb rate.

I rest my case.

Once again you are spitting nonsense, and posting completely unrelated formulae from your physics 101 book to make it look like a well thought post, but that only helps to show your ignorance.

Can you calculate the “angle of ascent” for MiG-29 at its highest climb rate for me?
345 m/s climb rate at 306m/s airspeed (M0,9 @ S/L). Can you even explain what this means?

From M0,9 to M1,2, MiG-29’s Thrust increases by 12% due to supersonic inlets + engine design allowing it, but its Cd0 doubles due to its aerodynamics. This results in less excess power.
From M0,9 to M1,2 Typhoon’s thrust decreases by X amount due to its single shock pitot inlet, and its Cd0 increases by Y amount due laws of nature. Put whatever X or Y you want, This still results in less excess power.

Don’t get me wrong. There are still things the Mig-35 will never do vs Mig-29 9.12.
But overall the Mig-35 is a better jet, vs its older cusin.

A nice objectivity on the topic we rarely see these days. Typhoon doesn’t necessarily need to outturn a Su-27S or outclimb/outaccelerate MiG-29 9.12 to be a better combat aircraft than them.

Even remotely approaching their performance so that they are not simply at significant disadvantage is a clear victory for them.

Sacrificing kinematics a little for superior avionics is a common trade off. F-15A to F-15C and F-15E, F-16 blk30 to blk50, MiG-29A to MiG-35, and IMHO maybe even Su-27S to Su-35S transations all sacrificed at least some aspects of kinematics, but resulted in better fighters.. But some biased nationalistic people somehow believe their aircraft to be best of everything.

I was thinking about this for a bit, since we know Typhoon can fly supersonic on dry thrust while Mig-29 cant, shouldn’t that translate to either less drag or better dynamic dry thrust on supersonic regime?

A valid question. I think its not a either one or the other, but both;

[ATTACH=CONFIG]248563[/ATTACH]

As you can see on the graph on the left, MiG-29 has varying a Cd = 0,027 at M0,9, it has Cd = 0,05 at transonic, dropping down to Cd=0,047 at M1,4. That is simply too much Cd0 for us to talk about supersonic optimization. While Typhoon will have Cd0 ballpark similar to MiG-29 at supersonic, it being a delta could mean much lower Cd0 at supersonic speeds.

Flying at M1,2 @ 8000m would produce 6955 kg force of drag. MiG-29 has only around 6000kgs of dry thrust. 16% more thrust required.
Flying at M1,4 @ 8000m would produce 9086 kg force of drag. MiG-29 has only around 7000kgs of dry thrust. 29% more thrust required.

If EJ-200 behaves similarly to RD-33 on dry thrust (if designed for supercruise, it should perform even better on dry thrust), it already has 20% more dry thrust. Reduction in Cd0 by 30-40% at supersonic speeds is entirely plausible for Typhoon, so despite having inferior inlet performance, its not improbable that Typhoon can supercruise and MiG-29 can’t.

I dont think they removed equipments from Su-27 in airshow but didn’t they removed radar , electronics equipment ..etc from the Su-27 to make P-42 ? seem to fly alright

True, but that is different. It also has different smaller rudders, no tail fins, different engine cowlings, no drag chute, no wingtip pylons (which also act as counterweight to reduce wing flutter at high AOA), different inlets. P-42 didn’t have LE/TE flaps, it didn’t even have ailerons and it had a specially modified FLCS to make it fly as it is. There is quite an engineering involved in modifying a Su-27 like that.

Its not the same as flying an operational aircraft (with a serial & bort number) to Moscow (or wherever the airshow is), removing some equipment at hangar, then expecting it to reliably make dynamic maneuvers to the limits of the aircraft, then attaching those equipment back on and sending the aircraft back to operational duty.

You chose a density value of 1.225kg/m^3 and M0.9. That is SL not 1,000m. And the pilot is the limit in that scenario, so nothing to do with the plane.

My initial comment about comparing 2 different wing sizes was at same given speed was at S/L at M0,9 to sustain a specific G, which all aircraft sustain their maximum Gs. It CLEARLY showed one aircraft sustaing 9Gs better over the other. Your comment is a reflection of your idiocy, where else should I be comparing them? 3Gs at M0,3? 5Gs at M0,5? 9G at M0,9 is 10 times more realistic than those.

My second post is showing 3 Cl values are from 1km 5km and 11km altiudes, that had nothing to do with my first comment. I’ve stated Altitudes VERY clearly in both posts. I don’t think you are missing them, since I’ve repeated these two explainations several times. Then one question remains. Why are you openly resorting to trickery to make my comments look like false? I simply don’t buy you didn’t see or understand them, I can teach an ape those numbers with such numberless repetitions, so either you are deliberately trolling, or you are just an undignified man that does everything to came up on top of any argument. In any case you were already low, but you are getting lower and lower with each post you make.

Oh, getting upset. The document I posted proves you wrong, face facts. You can’t run the same instability margin if you put the canard nearer the wing.

I am getting upset with your thickheadedness. You cannot comment on the instability of the aircraft, let alone canards’ role or effectiveness in trimming without knowing the aircraft’s CG and Lift centers. The existance of canards, let alone their position does not change that. Post me CG CP graphs of Typhoon, and I will accept that, otherwise I am completely fed up with the nonsense you create from your rear end. You talk about a quantitative performance criteria, and your proof is nothing but hot air. I won’t be debating about your dream scenarios, so this discussion is over.

I never said that personally and I would definitely call it BS. There’s no way that can happen against competent pilots WVR.

Oh, I agree on this completely, but you do trust pilot’s comments about climbs or accelerations of the aircraft?

You’ve even managed to include some unnamed “test pilots” quote it the very same post:

Test pilots at BAE have stated the ability to retain supersonic speed in a vertical climb from near just above ground level.

Why is this more reliable or more definitive than the Indians guys claiming the decisive WVR victory of Su-30MKI over Typhoon? You are a living definition of “hypocrite”.

As far as I am concerned, I don’t think a pilot knows about the internal workings of his aircraft any more than a truck driver works about the workings of his own truck. Actually to be fair, there are truck drivers who make the maintenance of their Trucks themselves who may know a thing or two about its engine, but pilots don’t even do that as well.

As for performance data. Its like asking a honda driver how his vehicle performs againist his friends Ford. I can easily quote a MiG-29G pilot on how MiG-29 is wastly superior againist F-16 in WVR, and an F-16 pilot on how bad MiG-29 is on dogfighting. Those are all hot-air to me. But definately not to you, you love pilots/analysts who claim the superiority of Typhoon, but you blow gasket when a pilot or analyst claims to the contrary.

The weight is 11,000kg, that includes everything except fuel.

Military standard for all western aircraft define their empty weight as including oil, unusable fuel and pilot. Not everything and most definately not gun ammo or countermeasures.

MiG-29 9.12 is 10900 kg with those plus 100 30×165 ammo. It was only fair to compare them on equal basis, but whatever. I won’t argue with you over a 150 kg difference that would make a 1,3% differnence anyway.

MiG can’t win.

Don’t horse**** me “can’t”. SHOW me “won’t”, or shut-the-****-up.

You do understand how subscripts work with pressure don’t you? Pox represents total pressure at a point. Px represent static pressure at that point and it’s the Px that matters in terms of performance. P02/P01 is simply a measure of how efficient the intake is.

Ah I do know them, appearantly its you having problems comprehending them 02 and 01 are taken as arbitrary points not shown on any diagram or anything. I don’t blame your book, its purpose is to educate interested people by using simplest of laymans terms.

For 100% efficiency:

P01 = P1 + 0.5*Density*v1^2 = P02 + 0.5*Density*v2^2.

It is impossible to increase the total pressure using an intake as that would violate conservation of energy, the aim is to increase static pressure. JFC, there’s absolutely no way you have a degree in mechanical engineering!

Again, you are adding some formulae and some shallow aerodynamic / fluid dynamic knowledge to hide the fact you don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Primary purpose of the inlet is to change V0 (equals to aircraft speed as you would accept the aircraft as the boundry of the system), to whatever V the engine is optimised for. The aircraft flies above M0,85; so the flow is most definately compressible and density would be changing as well.

I can undestand one doesn’t have to comprehend all this. But I don’t understand the arrogance you have, to the degree question my profession. Even in formulae you wrote above, Its very clear to anyone who has a IQ higher than a bulldog how (inlet pressure)/(atmospheric) can be greater than 1, if V2 is < V1 for example.

You are making fool of yourself on every single post you make. Use your brain for a second, if an inlet by itself can never increase the pressure above atmospheric P0, how ramjets could ever exist?

The data is directly taken from measurements of F-16 and F-15 intakes and plotted against theoretical predictions. You don’t get to debate it, it’s fact. And again, this is total pressure, not static pressure, it does not increase above 1 in an intake no matter what variable crap you use. You also haven’t noticed the variable inlet in the doc I linked.

Ah I’ve completely ignored that let alone debate it. The problem is, you are posting something totally irrelevant from dtic.mil, that is titled “Thrust Vectoring for Advanced Fighter Aircraft – High Angle of Attack Intake” and you claim its somewhat related to a “Engines for combat aircraft” book once again hoping that people won’t notice your deception to cover up the fact you are full of crap.

The article “Thrust Vectoring for Advanced Fighter Aircraft – High Angle of Attack Intake” talks about varying pressure recovery at high angles of attack and change of both pressure pressure gradient at compressor face at subsonic conditions. It doesn’t have anything to do with F-15 or F-16, and while the model in flow analysis is based on Typhoon, it has nothing to do with real-life performance of Typhoon anyway.

Again, your book named “Engines for combat aircraft” doesn’t give where the P02 and P01 measurements are made. I didn’t say it has to be wrong, its simply incomplete.

Easy to prove otherwise, the exact thrust you get for a given engine is essentially based on the static pressure and temperature entering the first compressor stage. If that is rated at speed A and altitude X, which may be take-off thrust at SL, then at speed B and altitude Y, which may be 600mph, the static pressure entering the first compressor stage may well be higher due to greater RAM effect and the temperature may be a little lower too….. like say at 1,000m.

Great proof “may be” :stupid: did you make it up yourself?

Thrust at Max AB, is essentially based on massflow, more than other factors like inlet velocity and pressure. Despite the know-it-all arrogance, you are the first guy in this forum clueless enough to claim an engine, all by itself without intake recoveries, can produce higher thrust in thinner air at higher altitudes than it does so at S/L. Talking about “ram effect” on compressor face was especially entertaining.

But the situation at low altitudes and low speed is similar to that at high altitudes and slightly higher speed. The Cl is increased in both cases. The larger wing manages the same circumstances with lower Cl, which in turn reduces drag as the kCl^2 term becomes dominant under these circumstances. That’s advantage is compounded by having a higher TWR too. A larger wing area is as much a benefit at lower speed as higher speeds, more so in fact in turns, because higher speeds tend to make the kCl^2 term less dominant.

Look, I don’t deny the GENERAL idea you are providing. I understand your point that IF speed is low enough or altitude is high enough, it will translate to higher Cl, and due to exponential growth of the Cd, EVENTUALLY higher wing area will be benefical. Don’t just keep repeating that.

You are not really factually wrong, obviously if an aircraft slows down, -provided thrust remains equal- it will be able to withstand higher Cd number because V^2 component of the drag would go down. In extreme case, there are areas an aircraft can even sustain its Clmax, but what you don’t simply get is, fighter aircraft DON’T dogfight there (at least since WWII). Energy maneuverability dictates EFFICENCY in turns, and all aircraft designed in mind already operates at or near its max L/D (highest lift for lowest drag = most efficient) point. If that is 0,3-0,5 that is so, if its 0,7-1,0 like it is on F-16, or whatever that is on Typhoon.

You can’t simply say “hey Typhoon has lower wing loading so its better”. ******* no, just like an F-16 or MiG-29 or Su-27 or F-15 or F-18, it WILL make its best sustained turns at or NEAR its highest L/D ratio. I don’t even understand why I have to explain this in detail mathematically;

Lift = 0,5 * air density * Cl * wing area * airspeed^2.
For Sustained turn; Drag = Thrust.
Drag = Thrust = 0,5 * air density * Cd * wing area * airspeed^2.

Lift per thrust = Lift / Thrust = 0,5/0,5 * airdensity/airdensity * Cl/Cd * wingarea/wingarea airspeed^2/airspeed^2

Lift per thrust = Cl/Cd = L/D ratio. Your whole “wing loading” doesn’t even play ANY mathematical role in that.

I am sure you will go up to my MiG-29 example and say something about increasing wing area will decrease Cl to its best L/D point but thats a design choice; MiG-29 is, apperantly, designed to be energy efficient at around M0,8-M1,0 from a dynamic range 5G to 9Gs, not ONLY at 9Gs. Its wing area is sized accordingly, not viceversa, and no one cares about its wing loading comparison with Typhoon. Give it Typhoons wing area (despite very similar size&weight&thrust), and this new MiG-29 with large wings will turn like sh*t.

Typhoon has its own aerodynamic layout with both lower Cl (you can bet your house on that, just stop BSing) and lower Cd. Likewise, unless its designed by cavemen, it will be designed to operate its OWN best L/D regions.

You keep saying apples and oranges to many fundementally connected or comperable topics, but comparing wing loading of aircraft is TRULY apples and oranges, which can help in nothing but proving the posters ignorance.

If we generalise, L/D of deltas is LOW, period. Canards may improve L/D (or may not it depends), your claim of higher T/W (a point I am ignoring since then, but I will respond to that in this post as well) may mitigate it. But you CAN *****NOT***** draw ***ANY*** conclusion by simply comparing wing loading. An analogy is comparing the weight of the cars for handling or braking comparsions.

The dominant features correcting the moment are the canards not the elevators on the Typhoon.

You don’t know that, neither do I. Don’t just quote some pilots spitting nonsense, because they won’t be knowing that either. You have to know way more about aerodynamics and CG layout of the Typhoon than you can ever be able to in this lifetime, before you can even make an educated guess about that.

Well how about you stop posting incorrect things then, there’s an idea. And your guesses are just that, guesses.

Me guessing? I’ve posted 2 pages worth of DATA from MiG-29 aerodynamics manual, posted the picture of its L/D graph from the manual, made mathematical calculations based on those. I’ve posted Su-27’s stability graph to back up my claim that Su-27’s lack of canards don’t put it on handicap on trim drag. Only thing you did in response is providng links to some nonsense propoganda by swedish, posting your fundementally flawed, nonsense ideas which are merely dressed up with some superficial aerodynamic knowledge so that no one may notice you are full of crap.

The Typhoon is a more modern and more advanced design than the M2K as is the Rafale. Now the Typhoon beat the Rafale on performance 9 vs 7. So it’s been ranked significantly ahead a more far advanced design than the M2K, so your 10% figure is horse crap.

You think aerodynamics apply differently to Typhoon than Mirage 2000? So Typhoon is flies by some voodoo magic and M2k flies merely due to its wings?

Judging by their first fligths, MiG-29 is 21 years more modern than MiG-21, two generations more recent. Despite that, while MiG-29 achieves greater 20% Clmax, and much better L/D, at the cost of at the cost of 80% greater Cd0 and -generally- greater Cd. In any measure that matters this would mean MiG-29 is more draggy than MiG-21. Now, Typhoon and Mirage 2000 are 16 years apart, they belong to same generation of aircraft, yet you are really ignorant enough to expect “more advanced” excuse will somehow improve upon all its flight qualities? Improve Cl/Clmax, reduce Cd0/Cd, improve ITR STR Climb acceleration, blah blah blah at the cost of nothing. Why? Its modern. I really am wasting my time with a mentally retarded.

How do you know the tank was empty? And the fact it likely started with it full, means the aircraft may well have had much more fuel than the Su-27.

Well, it can’t start full because tanks have their own strict G and airspeed limitations. Here’s my own explaination, does “Likely” comes from your rear end or do you have an equally logical explaination

a) No measure of speed;

Irrelevant. All aircraft make a demo flight, they are allowed to use any speed they like.

b) No measure of altitude;

We know the altitude of airfields like common one, Farnborough. Rest is irrelevant as we know the aircraft are low enough to be seen together with the ground, or at the very least low enough to be seen by naked eye.

c) No measure of fuel load;

There would be cost/safety concerns to make it fly at higher than needed fuel loads, and there ARE flight regulations to prevent from flying with less than bingo fuel. Best maneuverability demo can be achieved with minimal fuel, so unless somene is a real fool to knowingly handycap their own aircraft, assume minimal fuel at the landing on ALL demo aircraft.

d) No verification of to-spec weights;

Idiocy in all posts claiming as such REALLY disgusts me, to an extend I didn’t even bother replying to them up until now. Aircraft spend years in flight tests. Then they spend addional years testing different payloads. Even after getting accepted into service, there are some payloads that require other payloads, or cannot use some payloads. Cg requirements are quite specific, to a degree an F-5E cannot take off without full gun ammo if it carries CBU-24 on outboard pylons, or cannot fly without a Cl payload if it carries same bombs on inboard stations.

But no. On Su-27 airshows, some redneck airshow crew simply removes 300 kg worth of RLPK-27 from the nose, which is not centimeters but 8 meters away from CG, and suddenly aircraft starts performing a lot better. but those guys don’t even bother so much as removing the removable drag chute as it is seen deployed after landing, they don’t even bother removing chaff/flare dispansers, some even don’t remove the pylons. But they strip aircraft from inside so that it would fly better.

Grew the **** up. CG shift can be compensated by a few cm, nothing more. Remove such heavy equipment and aircraft won’t even take off and fly in level, let alone perform agility demonstrations at airshows.

e) No measure of ambient conditions (high density vs low density);

Irrelevant, aircraft perform at various airshows each year. Eventually one will be at favourable conditions.

f) No guarantee it’s the maximum turn rate.

Guarantee? Of course not. But I don’t apply why that only applies to Typhoon? It equally applies to Su-27 demos as well. For all we know, there is an equal possibility that Su-27 may have the ability sustain 30 deg/s for 360 degrees and pilot simply didn’t chose to do that, and stick with 28 deg/s instead.

So you have 6 factors potentially compounding to thwart any decent assessment.

That is the funniest part. I’ve never said its a decent assesment.

Only assesment I would call “decent” can be made by either flight manuals or manufacturer stated specifcations, in other words factual data. I can make a decent assesment between F-16 and MiG-29 all you like. I can’t make as such for Typhoon, and frankly neither can you.

All we can do is to speculate on them.

Show us this quote. I can’t find it.

It must be deleted by some “angry” member there.

https://in.rbth.com/blogs/stranger_than_fiction/2015/08/07/flanker-fury-how-the-sukhois-blanked-the-typhoons-12-0-in-british-skies_382281

“The operational part of Exercise Indradhanush-2007 began with a series of 1 vs 1 air combat sorties… The RAF pilots were candid in their admission of the Su-30 MKI’s observed superior maneuvering in the air, just as they had studied, prepared and anticipated. The IAF pilots on their part were also visibly impressed by the Typhoon’s agility in the air.

Notably, in the exercise where a lone Su-30 was engaged by two Typhoons, the IAF jet emerged the victor ‘shooting’ down both ‘enemy’ jets.”

Here you go, since you have no problems digesting the similar nonsense propoganda like these.

Speaking of T/W… I’ve simply said you can’t comment on those without knowing the dynamic thrust, and kept mentioning about variable inlet mechanisms. Since you failed to take my advice on that as well, its time for me to trash that part of your comment as well..

How does Typhoons T/W compare to MiG-29 at lets say clean with 1500kg fuel?
Typhoon = (2* 9064kg) / (11150kg + 1500kg) = 1,433
MiG-29 = (2*8280kg) / (10900 + 1650) = 1,334.

So Typhoon has more than 7% better T/W right? WRONG.

Firstly, at Full AB, sea level, 0 airspeed; installed thrust of each RD-33 on MiG-29 is 8000kg, its a tad smaller than stated uninstalled thrust of 8280kg. T/W = 1,29.
Accelerate to M0,3 at S/L. RD-33 now has 7600kg of thrust. T/W = 1,22.
Keep the speed of M0,3 and climb up to 1000m altitude, now RD-33 has 7000kg of thrust. T/W = 1,13
Keep the 1000m altitude, accelerate to M0,8. RD-33 now has 8500kg of thrust, slightly MORE THAN uninstalled thrust. T/W = 1,37
At 1000m altitude at M1,2 airspeed RD-33 now has a whooping 11500kg of thrust (113kN of thrust per engine, more than the thrust of the PW-200 on F-16A). T/W = 1,85

Maximum thrust of RD-33 is 81,3kN. But at 1km altitude alone, it changes from 68,2 kN to 113 kN. that is a 66% difference due to thinner air, inlet losses, and inlet gains. Without doubt, losses due to thinner air and inlet losses of Typhoon would be similar, but without a variable diffuser and variable multi shock inlet ramps building up a pressure higher than the atmospheric pressure at the inlet and slowing down the airspeed to optimal condition at the same time, Typhoon’s dynamic thrust can never go above 100%. Can you now say Typhoon has better T/W than MiG-29?

And this T/W is very well reflected in MiG-29’s overly impressive climb rate of 345 m/s, which is -to my knowledge- is still second to none.

This difference is more pronounced at high altitude. At 13km altitude, RD-33’s thrust at full after burner is
-1550 kg @ M0,4
-3200 kg @ M1,2
-6500 kg @ M2,25.

That is 4,2 times difference in dynamic thrust. At this altitude a fixed inlet is actually OK, at thin air, fixed inlet will also gain thrust with increased speed, and it will achieve some M2,0 airspeed, but T/W at conditions that matters (at S/L @M0,7+ for example), MiG-29 has WAY greater T/W than a Typhoon, even if we assume Typhoon suffers exactly zero inlet losses (which can never be the case, it would actually lose more than MiG due to its fixed geometry)

Now TBH, I don’t have a similar data for dynamic thrust of Su-27. But as it shares its most of its inlet features with MiG-29 and due to fact its faster, I can bet any T/W advantage you assume by comparing uninstalled thrust would be nullifed at a major portion of the envelope.

Even if you don’t agree, which would be amusing since inlet features of those aircraft are well known, difference in RD-33’s dynamic thrust is crystal clear: from 0 to 13 km altitude and from 0 to M2,0 speed, it can be anything from 113 kN to 14,7kN. Without having a similat thrust data for Typhoon you cannot say it has a better T/W, let alone draw any conclusions from it.