I been thinking about this for a bit , since we know that CL increase with AoA ( to a certain point )

Is there any chance the canard on Typhoon improve CLmax over Mirage design simply because it allow the Typhoon to be controlable at higher AoA ?

Well, yes and no, being able to create lift / delaying stall at higher AOA is the usual way in acheiving higher Clmax for fighter aircraft. But that is not exactly related to controllability, or ability to go to higher AOA. In your example graph, there is no point in flying that airfoil at 18 deg AOA, because it would lead to exact same maneuverability (as in both G and turn rate) as it is at 10 deg AOA.

I am sure no one would argue Su-27S, even without TVC, has better controllability at high AOA than F-16 or MiG-29 9.13. But its Clmax AOA is lower than both, so while remaining controllable while stalled, Su-27 pilot in a dogfight won’t go above 24 degrees, but F-16 and MiG-29 pilot would want to go 25 and 26 degrees respectively, if they want to get tightest turns from their aircraft.

How come CL for Mig-21 wing configuration is so high compared to Mirage 2000? , they both use delta wing , both has tube body ?

1- while MiG-21 is called “tailled delta” because it looks exactly as that but its still a conventional layout as much as F-104 or F-16.
2- Wing loading. MiG-21 enjoys ~330 kg/m2 wing loading at 100% fuel and 2 AAMs, whereas Mirage 2000 has around 260. Just like MiG-21 designer has no other option than to use thicker airfoil to achieve good maneuverability, Mirage 2k designer needs to use thinner airfoil if he desires M2.0+ airspeeds.

Shouldnt this depending on the size of their stabilizers and wing configuration as well ? , like for example i dont see the point of making canard aircraft negative stable

Well it depends the purpose of the canards. A Canard -like on Typhoon- do produce a little downforce, but like Starfish says, its vortex increases the lift of the main wing, which is greater than the downforce of the canards. L/D improvement is debatable as canards are nothing short of draggy, but you get higher Cl for a given AOA.

This improvement, in itself, depends on the location of the canards. A close coupled canard like on MKI or Rafale works better at Subsonic, but as speed increses, there is no distance to allow faster vortex to grew in intensity; in other words useful vortex start to form way too behind of the main wings to contribute to lift. Placing canards in the same fasion of Typhoon solves that, but it greatly reduces, even eliminates benefits of canards at low and very slow speeds.

The calculation clearly shows that larger wing area will be a benefit at lower speeds or lower air density due to needing lower Cl to achieve the same turns.

I’m speaking to a wall here.. Who said it doesn’t? ME MYSELF said low wing loading DOES BENEFIT higher altitudes, but AT THE COST OF performance at lower altitudes. Its also crystal clear that Typhoon is optimized for high altitude high supersonic speeds, and Su-27 is optimized for Low/high altitude subsonic speeds. Then you go on by claiming, Typhoon is also better than Su-27 at subsonic speeds, which sounds like nothing but a blind and nationalistic bias to me.

Repeating myself for 2000th time, wing loading is a compromise. if low wing was a way-to-go for higher maneuverability, everyone would be building Gliders with afterburners,

With a tail, the tail is balancing to moment about the CoG already, so the canard has no need to produce downforce, and hence no need to speed up airflow over the wing in producing that downforce, this is why they are positioned level or even slightly below the wing. So it’s apples to oranges.

With a delta, the canard is above the wing, so the faster airflow under the canard increases lift for the wing.

On Typhoon, its STILL elevators that are balancing the moment about CG. IF canards produce a downforce or CG shifts or different AOA shifts CP, those area still corrected by elevators on both designs. Just because you don’t see a seperate tail on Typhoon or M2k, you really don’t think there is no elevator on those designs, do you?

Positioning of canards above or in level of the wing is another design choice. Above = you get canard’s lift improvements at very low AOA, like in level flight. Placing in level = you get improvement only at higher AOA, but you get less drag penalty at low AOA. Since Su-27 is designed to cruise without canards in the first place, it makes is no sense at all to put canards above main wings.

So you’re correcting you BS estimate now that it’s worked against you?:stupid:

Your estimates suck.

My original post.

Have baseline M2k, improve it by 20%, lets add another 10% improvement due to “advanced aerodynamics” magic, and let me add another 20% improvement from my rear end, and you have Clmax of 1,42; still 30% away from what Su-27 has, unable to match its instantenious turns at subsonic speeds at any equalised fuel load.

and this was your response

Well based on your earlier ‘estimate’/BS guess of 1.42 Clmax for the Typhoon,

I am not correcting anything because, clearly to everyone with a brain, my original post was intented to be anything but correct. If you didn’t get my point in that post enough to think that was even an estimate, then well.. I can’t find anything to say.

You are desperately trying to twist everything to suit your nonsense, but it simply isn’t working.

Nah, your video was 14-15s at least. My video is with a drop tank and the aircraft climbs during the turn and it also looks like the pilot eases up 4s in to avoid blacking out.

I’ve already said 14,7 seconds myself so what’s your point?. Your video is 16,1 second with an empty fuel tank. You know apart from a Mach limit, empty fuel tank has little drag index and negligable weight to make a difference in maneuverability, right?

Wow, quote on wiki, must be true.

I don’t understand how you can trash a wikipedia quote with a citation. You can trash the citated source as its probably an aviation magazine etc, but your logic in this, once again, is unclear to me.

…………

I would almost consider you a troll, but you do understand why MiG-25 is faster with its lower wing area, so you definately are not, I still don’t get why you understand my point. STR envelope is not as wide as you think.

You accuse me of picking an arbitrary point, and I’ve kept repeating myself one arbitrary point is enough to prove you are wrong. Fine, lets have it your way.

Between 1000m and 11000m, clean MiG-29 with 1500k fuel (in other words lowest Cd0 possible) can sustain between 0,51 to 0,69 Cl. I can expand that envelope further if you like, but aerodynamics manual give only values of 1000m, 5000m and 11000m, I would have to use German MiG-29G manual, but that gives IAS not TAS, I am simply too lazy to convert them all.

And I’ve marked those 3 points (0,51 0,54 and 0,69) on the L/D graph of the manual:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]248452[/ATTACH]

Though you are right in a sense that a slight increase in wing area on clean MiG-29 would increase max STR performance in this case (25% decrease in Cl increases STR up to 4%), those are extreme points, max available STR. This just steepens the graph, you get a negligibly higher max STR value, but it would cost STR values lower speeds, less than max G excess powers at max STR airspeed, 1G climb rate.

To give realistic numbers, 9Gs at Cl=0,51, MiG-29 is most efficient (by 4%) when sustaining 7Gs at same speed, and it lift efficiency at 5,3Gs is exactly equal to what it is at 9Gs. Increase wing area, make it most efficient at 9Gs, and it will have higher max STR (by 4%), but its efficiency will drop at 7Gs (by 7,1% of original) , and it will drop further at 5Gs (by 12% of original).

It wouldn’t be the case if air density allows the aircraft to achieve its max STR at Cl=0,69, every increase would bring “usable” Cl area more closer to the more efficient points.

Hence, I will repeat a 100th time, Wing loading is not an automatic, direct indicator of better performance. Its a trade-off like any other parameter in the design of the aircraft.

Well that’s nice but the Typhoon’s instability margin is higher than the Su-27’s at any point on that graph – 8%.

1- That in itself, has nothing to do with higher maneuverability, that instability is eventually compensated by elevators, higher instability = higher elevator deflection. If that passes the max L/D point of the elevator, it gets more inefficient.
2- My graph isn’t a percentage of instability, it shows elevator deflection angle to keep constant Gs at given speeds.

Canards do produce downforce, but in doing so, as already mentioned, they speed up the flow under the canards, which in turn augments lift over the wing.

F-4 and F-15 both had tailplanes though. The original Lockheed ATF design was a canard delta but it was found not to best meet RCS requirements.

You are avoiding the factual answer to my question. On Typhoon Rafale Mirage 2k, elevators are the flaps of the main wing, they act in exactly same manner as Su-27M or F-4/15 testbeds. and 99% of the time canards are just canards. So your assumption canards work on deltas because they lack tail is invalid.

Well based on your earlier ‘estimate’/BS guess of 1.42 Clmax for the Typhoon

Well that was exeggareation/BS; take M2k’s 0,9-1,1 mutliply it by 1,15-1,25 for canards, you get my estimate of 1-1,37 for Typhoon. Not a tad higher than that, just as Su-27’s estimate is not a tad higher than MiG-21-Su-27 comparison.

But giving your error for the MiG-21 to Su-27 guessformation was 5%

It was not, my guess was it can be anything between two numbers, and guess what, its a number between them. Its lower then my highest estimate.

More like 14-15s and seemed to be slowing down, suggesting it was probably an ITR. Let’s face it, 12s would be 30deg/s, which is definitely an ITR. Not all airshows push fighters to the limit either for safety reasons. This is why they don’t crash into crowds like Russian aircraft.

There are also lot’s of ways of cheating. a) Using very low fuel, b) doing the same as they did for climb rate records – lightening the aircraft to give an empty TWR of over 2:1.

When the Typhoon does those 18-20s turns it usually goes straight into a vertical climb afterwards.

Don’t get THAT low. Take a chronometer and measure, 12,8 seconds. Then your video wasn’t 15 seconds it was 16,1 seconds anyway, and it seemed slowing down as well and not making a circle but spiral. You can’t sustain an ITR for 360 degrees, you can’t sustain it even for 90 degrees.

Using very low fuel = true, otherwise there is no way Su-27 can sustain 28 deg/s, its STR at 50% fuel is 21,75.

Removing s*** from aircraft is not so easy, especially for maneuverability. I won’t even get into that.

Good old Su-27, at farnborough (for your “safety” concerns), and operational aircraft (for your radar removed concerns)

Starting around 4:26, 14,7 seconds full 360 turn then vertical climb, then barrel rolls to slow down:

Your 1st and and that 15-16 second turn in last video were impressive nonetheless, but honestly, 2nd and 3rd and remainder of 4th is still not any better than this (forewarning the videos volume is a little to high):

Which pilots were they? Show me direct quotes. They’re likely referring to the TVC, but that’s only an advantage in gun training or when the HMD is disabled to some extent.

I don’t know, frankly I don’t care that much about quoting someone. It was on the wikipedia, you can follow the citation link.

But I just proved that it does. You picked an arbitrary speed and air density where turn rate was not drag or lift limited, so you ended up with a similar result to level flight, where the aircraft with a lower wing area won. However, when you move to more demanding conditions at lower air density or lower speed, where Cl increases, the larger wing comes out on top and that is very much the design intent.

No, in your example, both aircraft had the same performance of 9g. One had more drag but that was irrelevant for the flight condition in question because it was not drag or lift limited.

I stated the text book where my Cd0 and k values originated from,I also used your values to prove your calculation wrong. A 9g turn at M0.9 at SL is not lift or drag limited, therefore your calculation is invalid. At 71% of the speed or half the air density, the Cl doubles and the larger wing comes out on top. Why not just accept the facts. rather than continuing to delude yourself by picking data points that aren’t at the edge of the envelope.

Your thickheadedness in defying all the logic is really getting annoying. Your premise: all else being equal lower the wing loading higher the maneuverability.

If I can post ANY SINGLE POINT on ANY OPERATIONAL AIRCRAFT with FACTUAL DATA to show increased wing area would lead to lower maneverability, then your premise is disproven, PERIOD!!!

You can post a hundreds or thousands of more data points, that suits your theory but that won’t prove it. You can post any number from any textbook to show theoratical airfoils that doesn’t behave as such, I don’t give a rats *** about them. You’ve had a theory, and one example contradicting the theory is all what it is takes to trash it as a whole.

I’ve never said it will hold true for ALL conditions, its a trade-off.

Another false premise, if you speed up at higher altitude you are then supersonic, which means the wing with the highest sweep and will see reduced drag.

Another nonsense that I’ve come to expect from you. Then will you care to explain how MiG-25 with its uninteresting layout, ****ty wingloading and TWR achieve greater speeds than, well, every other fighter? Or why your “reduced drag” Typhoon isn’t even faster than “underpowered and draggy” Su-27?

But this is not a maximum STR condition, which would be seen at lower speed at sea level.

Ah hence my comment, aircraft with higher wing loadings actually have better STR; because higher wing loadings improve low altitude sustianed turns.

And there’s also no way you’re going to beat a canard delta in a supersonic turn using a Flanker.

Well, that is WHOLLY a different discussion, that is irrelevant to WVR ability of the respective airframes. When clean sure, there wouldn’t be contest between them just as there is no contest in my eyes between a Typhoon and a Flanker subsonic. But since supersonic turns are more related to BVR capabilities, I don’t think Typhoon would outturn a F-15 or Flanker in supersonic flight, when all those airframes carry 8 AAMs and fuel for ~1500 km combat radius.

Canards do increase lift and a larger instability margin also improves turn rate, not to mention reducing trim drag. Then you have the fact that the Typhoon has a clear TWR advantage on top of all that, which also aids turn rate and lift.

Your comment regarding increased instability and reduced trim drag is a textbook quote, your conclusion for comparing it with a real life aircraft is unfounded without knowing its specifics;

Su-27’s stability diagram;
[ATTACH=CONFIG]248437[/ATTACH]

As you can see, Su-27 is quite neutral stable most of the envelope, and only requires less than +/- 1 degree flow angle on elevators, which wouldn’t increase drag much more than the neutral position in either case. So elevators lift is reserved for controllability, and lift is provided by main wings, with higher reynolds number for more efficiency. And this graph will tell you some amazing features of Su-27’s aerodynamics:

At below 20000 feet, Su-27 is always negative stable, its instability increases like mad at transonic regime to assist in sustained turns.

Around 30k feet, Su-27 is highly stable at transonic regime (a drawback from its design trade-offs), but reverts to slight negative stability IF armed with 10 AAMs (see BVR maneuverability), if its not, it slightly positive stable, requires 0,5 degree down angle on elevators.

Well the Su-37 did have canards but then it’s also running a tailplane, so it’s an oddity. If the tailplane is already balancing out the moment, then why would you have the canards? Possible cost issue on the M2000 also the focus has moved away from manoeuvrability lately anyway. Did the IIIS come out before or after the 2000?

Again ignorance. I don’t see where the “oddity” is, do you really think Typhoon uses its canards as elevators, or they are canards are just canards 99% of the time, and Typhoons elevators are actually operates in EXACT same fasion as M2k. Careful, as my next 3 questions would be 1-then is the Typhoons CG behind lift or not? 2- is Typhoon relaxed stable or not? 2- Do Canards produce a lift, or a down force?

Also I don’t buy your excuse regarding M2000. Mirage III is a 3rd gen fighter with generation-wise counterparts MiG-23 and F-4E. Mirage 2000 is a 4th gen aircraft, that is focused on maneuverability more than any 3rd gen aircraft. IDK about -IIIS coming before or after introduction of M2k, but had that been a considreable improvement, it would be flying with Canards. Same could be said for F-4 and F-15, both flew with canards as testbeds, F-4E is refitted with LE flaps but not canards, and F-15 is fitted with fly-by wire but, again, not canards. Draken came after viggen didn’t have canards. Canard is not a magical tool, its not that hard to implement too. It has its own pros and cons. I don’t know why this is so hard to digest.

If you can approximate a Typhoon from an M2000, then I will approximate a Flanker from a MiG-21.

What makes you think you can’t? You can if you had sufficent knowledge base. MiG-21 uses TsAGI S-12 with 4,2% camber, or let me be more precise as airframe not just airfoil;

[ATTACH=CONFIG]248435[/ATTACH]

So MiG-21 has Clmax of 1,25.

Increase given by a movable LE flap is between 15-20%.
Increase given by LERX is between 10-20%
Increase given by negative stability to calculate effective Clmax of entire airframe (not only the airfoil) is 3-5%

By this simplistic assumptions we can guestimate Su-27’s (and F-16’s as they share all these features) Clmax would be somewhere in the ballpark between 1,62 and 1,89, 1,76 is average. F-16’s 3G clmax is 1,72 stands in the middile because it also uses similar, only slightly thinner 4% camber airfoil, but Su-27 1,85 stand at the higher end, because it uses thicker ~6,5% airfoil.

So you see? Physics don’t apply to Su-27 and F-16 any differently than much older MiG-21. Same physics wont apply to Typhoon any differently than Su-27 or MiG-21.

The TWR doesn’t just overcome drag, it also points in the lift direction, whereas the drag is tangential. Higher the Cl, higher the drag. The larger wing does not need to attain the same Clmax to win because Cl is only a measure of the lift per unit area. And in limiting conditions, if you can generate the same lift with a lower Cl, it’s better. Then we can also factor in the reduced drag of semi-recessed BVRAAM carriage.

So much wrongs here, I couldn’t decide where I should even start. Again for the thickheaded, L/D is nothing to do with low Cl nonsense. Getting back to my MiG-29 example, MiG-29 achieve its best L/D of 10,2 at Cl = 0,4.

In any turn that requires Cl > 0,4, IF increase in wing area reduce Cl to something closer to 0,4 its an improvement. That is a general improvement of deltas, which provide better ITR, all else being equal.
If you increased wing area reduce necessary Cl = 0,5 to Cl = 0,3 its not an improvement, as L/D at these points are the same, and you would be increasing zero lift drag which is fundemental for climbs acceleration cruise and top speed.
If you are already making a turn in Cl <0,4 any increase in wing area will reduce L/D as Cl requirement would be lower. This is a general problem where deltas have poor low altitude STR, all else being equal.

Points in lift direction is another form of horse****. You provide T*sin(AOA) of your thrust to add lift component, but losing T-T*cos(AOA) of your net thrust. Any lost thrust can be considered as increased drag force. Ratio those and you will effectively get a L/D ratio. Wings on combat aircraft easily reach L/D of ~10 or even 10+ at optimal conditions. At above 11,4 deg AOA, what you mention (thrust adding to lift but costing net thrust in drag vector direction) is VERY undesired for sustained turns. At 15 deg AOA for example, your engines will provide “L/D” ratio of 7,59 far worse than what is achieved by the aerodynamics of the aircraft.

some airshows of it fumbling about on TVC while falling out of the sky and some guy on a forum claiming it can out-handle everything in subsonic turns.

Don’t let me start trashing Typhoons airshows…

From 4:25 mark, Su-27 complete a 360 turn in ~12 seconds, at 28 deg/s average turn rate. Waiting for your video response about your ultramaneuverable, non-fumbling about, non-falling Typhoon that does better. Can you even find a video of it completing an 360 in 15 seconds? 18 seconds? No? If all you can find is 360 turns in 20 seconds, than there is a big problem. There are videos of F-15/F-16 or MiG-29 demonstrating such turns in around 15 seconds. Rafale didn’t do that, but judging from its 90 degree turns, it certainly seems capable. We have a few operational F-35 videos, even they seem quite capable of such performance even though they are still initial airframes limited to 6 or 7Gs, I have a problem with Typhoon and F-22’s airshows however. Of all their demo flights, I have watched more agile MiG-21 or F-4 demos then those aircraft.

Artificial G limitation or fuel load is not an excuse for that. A Su-27 at 50% fuel can sustain 5,1Gs at 500 km/h, translating to 20,25deg/s; still be able to complete a 360 turn under 18 seconds without slowing down. At 400 km/h, it can sustain 3,7Gs, still can complete an 360 turn in under 20 seconds without slowing down noticibly (to mk1 eyeball).

I am some guy on a forum that reads flight manuals. Me telling Su-27S out handles everything 4th gen at subsonic turns, sole exclusion is older F-16 blk 30 at lower altitudes is not a claim, its merely reading graphs and putting them on excel for comparisons.

I am also a “some guy” with mechanical engineering education, had expertise in aviation industry, and currently writing its master thesis about an aerodynamics related topic. Had you’ve provided anything convincing, I would be all ears. But no, all your comments are in the lines of a school child claiming “5 cannot be subtracted from 2” because this is the limits of his knowledge, and he is too arrogant to see it, too narrow minded to accept it.

On top of all this I have an actual eval where the Typhoon scored maximum for performance and a statement by Air International that it’s the only fighter bar the F-22 that can sustain 6+g at M1.6 at 36,000ft.

Well, if we are taking statements as facts Typhoon pilots themselves admitted Su-30MKI demonstrated better maneuverability than their own aircraft, and this whole discussion is over.

Keep up with the conversation, I changed the air pressure and speed in your calculation to a more lift limited situation and the larger wing won. GO BACK and READ!

And why your calc was flawed.

Ah, i didn’t bother replying to that specifically. You are still not getting my point, or you are delibaretely twisting your own comments to came up on top. My point was (and is still) quite easy to understand:

A lower wing loading does not ALWAYS lead up to increased performance. I’ve just proved that, by making a calculation on actual k and cd0 of a real life operational combat aircraft. You can pick arbitrary k and cd0 numbers, you will even find cd0 to be ballpark around 0,005 if you look solely at airfoils and not whole airframe, and claim YOU THINK they WOULD BE similar to Typhoon; no proof but only because you like them to, so that they support your argument better.

Again I will stick to my original comment. A lower wing loading does not automagically increase performance. I’ve proven just that MiG-29’s wings are enlarged, and all its other specifications stay the same, its low altitude sustained turn rates will decrease, and I’ve used MiG-29’s real life data to prove that. I’ve never said a lower wing loading will decrease performance throughout the envelope. If you really halve the air density (15k feet), and not slow down like you suggest but instead speed up to calculate 9G point you will find STR to be similar, if you decrease it by 50%, however aircraft with lower wing loading will be vastly superior. Congrats, you have just reached 30k feet. Hence my usual comment, Low wing loading = achieve superior performance at higher altitude at the cost of low altitude performance. The “great advantage” you keep chespounding about Typhoon is nothing more than simple trade off of one performance criteria over the other.

Like I’ve said, I find it stupid to use an emprycal formula with k and Cd0. It can be twisted to virtually anything like you do. Take a realistic number from flight manual, deflect LE flaps and those will change. Those numbers won’t even be same at M0,6 and M0,8.

You are oversimplifying everything down to wingloading like every know-it-all new poster keeps doing in the first few months of their membership. I mean what is this really?

It is if y1 ~ y2, which it likely will be to within less than 34% in this case

Well it is not, F-15 and Su-27 -despite quite similar layout- differ by 54%, a delta layout M2k and a conventional Su-27 differ as much as 105%. Can you show one reason -other than your own nationalistic bias- on *WHY* Clmax of Typhoon and Su-27 is “likely” to be less than 34%??? You don’t even have a suggestion about that, other than posting usual crap of “canards increase lift”.

Which brings us to:

M2000 does not have canards, it is a less advanced design. No they don’t, the Typhoon has much lower wing loading and higher TWR than an Su-27 at similar fuel fraction, so the two are not comparable.

Yes, all active posters on this forum know canards increase lift, the question is how much, and at what cost?

Ballpark 10-20% is accepted, but an all designs that added canard, removed them in later stages;

Mirage III doesn’t have canards. Mirage IIIs has close coupled canards, Mirage 2000 doesn’t have canards. WHY?
Su-27 doesn’t have canards, Su-27M and Su-30MKI has canards, Su-35 doesn’t have canards. WHY?

If canards are the magic tool like you claim, why remove them in following designs? The simple answer to both examples above is they’ve increased lift, at the cost of increased drag. Then lets apply this “cost” to the Typhoon as well? Have baseline M2k, improve it by 20%, lets add another 10% improvement due to “advanced aerodynamics” magic, and let me add another 20% improvement from my rear end, and you have Clmax of 1,42; still 30% away from what Su-27 has, unable to match its instantenious turns at subsonic speeds at any equalised fuel load.

Lets talk about equally increased drag when comparing T/W ? None of it simply doesn’t point Typhoon as the “winner” in overall subsonic maneuverability.

how thicks the airfoil of Su-27″ is compare to Typhoon?
i know f-15 use NACA 64A203 but have no idea about the Su-27 or Typhoon

Its ballpark around 6% maybe more, though its my own measurement from this technical drawing:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]248386[/ATTACH]

The issue is not “only” the thickness of the airfoil, but also mechanisms that augment it;

Lets list the principle 4th gen aircraft by their airfoils and aerodynamic features:

Mirage 2k -> Unknown very thin airfoil (suitable for delta wing) + vortex generators + LE Flaps -> Clmax = 0,9-1,1
F-15 -> NACA 64A203 -> Clmax = 1,2
MiG-29 -> TsAGI P-177 + LERX + LE flaps + body lift -> Clmax = 1,5
F-16 -> NACA 64A204 + LERX + LE flaps + relaxed stability + a “weird” FLCS that limits AOA by function of G (numbers are for CAT-I) -> Clmax = 1,16@9G; 1,33@8G; 1,5@5G; 1,72@3G
Su-27 -> Unknown airfoil with ~%6 thickness + LERX + LE flaps +relaxed stability + body lift -> Clmax = 1,85

Now if we are to guesstimate, Typhoon is a delta, has vortex generators, LE flaps and canards… It looks very simple to me where it Cl will fall.

A fixed ramp works fine until you exceed M2.0. Even pitot works fine up to M1.6 (-5% loss for F-16 intake vs F-15 intake at M1.6).

Define “fine”?

One is designed optimal efficiency at M1,6 @ 20k feet, it will work “fine” from zero to 50k feet, from M1,0 to M2,1. That is you won’t have a problem if
a) your inlet struggles at subsonic speeds or high altitudes, because your throat area is fixed, and whole inlet has to work in suction. (to be honest Typhoon has mechanisms to mitigate that)
b) your inlet struggles at high speeds or low altitudes, because again your throat area is fixed, you will encounter spillage.
c) your inlet stuggles because your oblique shocks fell inside the engine cowlings and reducing recovery pressure above designed speeds,
d) your inlet struggles because oblique shocks fell outside the engine and you won’t be recovering any pressure from them.
e) your diffuser geometry is fixed engine will be recieving air at varying velocities.

That is “fine” as long as everything works “ok”, its a simple, cheap and reliable solution, but not really comperable in terms of *performance* to an inlet design that doesn’t have any of those problems, and works next to optimal efficiency throughout a wider speed/altitude range.

They examined canard position thoroughly and moving it forward would only have improved lift for a less unstable aircraft.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p010499.pdf

You simply have no understanding on the subject. “Nosewheel lift” is not the same as aerodynamic lift. From what I’ve read, and what I’ve see from the pictures I’ve posted, canards on Typhoon are not to improve lift, but to improve controllability. Hence, go back to my comment regarding aerodynamic similarity of Mirage-2000k and Typhoon.

For max ITR the M2000 beats the F-16C by 5deg/s. It would be interesting to see what happens in lift-limited turns at lower altitude rather than drag limited turns at high altitude.

Actually as altitude increases aircraft became more and more lift limited, and all ITRs at any altitude are lift limited before 9G structural limit. The problem with F-16 is its FLCS limits AOA to 15 deg at 9Gs, increasing linearly to 20,5 deg @ 7,33Gs then increasing at a higher rate 25,2 deg @ 1Gs. F-16 has aerodynamics to create tremendous amounts of lift, but has pathetic structural strength to withstand at high AOA angles. Its simply too focused on STR (that is high Gs at low AOAs for maximum efficiency), and forgoes ITR.

Not all vortices are always visible and if you look carefully you can just see a feint vortex under the left canard in the bottom picture. Top picture, nothing too wrong with how it’s working. The other vortex generator you mention is more for body lift.

Vortices are not the concern, pressure difference is. As vapor clouds form by reduction in air pressure, they show all there is to see. It also shows two things about canards; 1- Vortex from Canard is completely unattached to the main wing’s own vortex at this high AOA condition, unlike the tiny vortex generator, which nicely feeds and enhances the vortex above main wings on both pictures. 2- Canards are not producing lift, but they are producing a downforce to keep the aircraft’s nose down. I don’t see how that is more efficient than a F-15 with its negative lift generating elevators.

I’ve demonstrated in my response to Andraxxus that larger wing area becomes more important to hold g at lower speeds or higher altitudes, because the kCl^2 term becomes dominant.

You haven’t demonstrated a s***. I’ve just used your own Cl0 +kCl^2 formula to prove you wrong. Though you are right, eventually **all else being equal** larger wing area is better at higher altitudes. However if larger wing area comes with worsened L/D due to aspect ratio, lack of Cl improving mechanisms like LERX and inherent NECESSITY of using thinner airfoils that inherently have lower L/D, it doesn’t always translate as you claim.

So the case at 15,000ft, won’t necessarily be the case at 30,000ft

This is the only factually correct thing you’ve ever said.

As the required Cl increases the lower wing loading prevails, and TWR also becomes a major benefactor at high altitudes where the drag during high g turns increases due to high alphas.

Your generalisation may be true, but T/W is nothing without L/D. You brag about 10% wing loading, or 10% higher T/W all the while ignoring the fundementally low L/D of delta wings.

You are comparing two extremes. at 50% fuel, M2k is a delta with lowest wing loading of 4th gen aircraft, its lower than Typhoon, F-15, everything. On the other extreme, F-16 is a conventional design with highest wing loading of 4th gen aircraft.

This is by no suprise -and irrelevant of T/W ratio- if both aircraft climb sufficently high, one with lower wing loading will eventually have superior STR. Climb to 70k feet, and a U-2 will have better sustained turn performance than a F-15/16/22 Typhoon etc etc, just because it has very low wing loading.

The problem is, Su-27 F-15 MiG-29 Typhoon ALL have very similar parameters on T/W Wing loading etc, you can’t even remotely compare them on by just looking at those.

Well let me reply to that with this assessment done by the Swiss. The Typhoon scored a maximum in A/C performance against a Rafale and a Gripen C which are very well known for their massive STR and ITR.

Well, Grippen C is not exactly known for its massive STR only half official statement is “30deg ITR 20 deg STR”, puts its sustained turn performance inferior to all 4 principle 4th gen aircraft I’ve mentioned. Rafale is a mistery in here as well, so I don’t see what that chart exactly proves? Indians liked Rafale over its competitors, Turkey preferred A-129 over AH-64D or Ka-50. This doesn’t prove anything.

wing loading than the Typhoon

Again you are missing the point. All, delta wings inherently have large wings. As a result, they are inefficient at sustained turns in general. You are taking a single multiplier in a formula (wing area), but ignoring the others.

In mathematical terms, you are saying x1*y1 = 30; and since x2 > x1, x2*y2 will always be greater than 30. This is clearly not the case.

According to your logic F-106, a delta with just 255 kg/m2 wing loading has higher maneuverability than its generational counterpart F-104, it even has greater maneuverability than Typhoon F-15 or Su-27?

Cd = Cd0 + kCl^2

Now Cd0 dominates in cruise but at higher g loads the latter term dominates and Cl is inversely proportional to wing area for a given lift requirement.

Hell no, small wing area is not desirable for STR.

Ok, for the record, I hate using empyrical formulae for proving anything, but lets have it your way.

We have two aircraft, both have equal weight at 10000kg, and airfoils correspond to Cd0 = 0,02 and k = 0,12 Only difference is, Aircraft #1 50m2 wing area, greater than the wing area of aircraft #2 which is 40. I want to pull 9Gs at M0,9@sea level.

Aircraft#1 -> 9*10000*9,8184 = 0,5 * 1,225 * 50 * Cl1 * 309^2 , Cl1 = 0,302; Cd1 = 0,02+0,12*0,302^2 = 0,0309. Cd1*Wing Area1 = 1,547.
Aircraft#2 -> 9*10000*9,8184 = 0,5 * 1,225 * 40 * Cl2 * 309^2 , Cl1 = 0,377; Cd2 = 0,02+0,12*0,377^2 = 0,0370. Cd2*Wing Area2 = 1,48.

As you see, its quite easy to prove HOW an aircraft with higher wing loading does not necessarily translate to inferior STR. When maneuvering at 9Gs sea level, 25% reduction in wing area actually resulted in 4% decrease in drag, even if we ignore the fact that aircraft with smaller wings would be lighter in reality.

And before you start questioning it, none of my numbers are arbitrary; Cd0 = 0,02 is MiG-29s Cd0, k=0,12 corresponds to MiG-29’s airfoil at 0 LE flap deflection. Likewise, 10000kg and 40m2 wing area is ballpark similar to what MiG-29 has, and 50m2 and 10000kg is also the middle point of Eurocanards, namely Rafale and Typhoon.

So I ask two questions; #1, had MiG-29 had larger wings like Typhoon or Rafale, would it sustain turns better or not? #2, do you think MiG-29’s wing area is “just” 38m2 and not 50m2 just because inability of Mikoyan Gurevich engineers or is this a result of a thorough optimization that some performance points would degrade (as simple shown above) with increased wing area?

Apples to oranges. F-16 was designed with a CoP ahead of the CoG, F-15 was not. You’ve also got LERX vs non-LERX.

Ah, apples to oranges, you mention relatively insignificant differneces like relaxed stability or LERX in two conventional layouts, but you have no problem comparing wing areas of two entirely different aerodynamic layouts?

Aside from this, the Typhoon doesn’t have to out-manoeuvre an Su-35, the pilot just needs to look at it. This performance analysis is only even relevant in a fictitious training scenario.

Same could be said for even 30 year old Su-27S with its R-73 and HMS combination.

Yeah, judging turn rates from air shows, extremely accurate.

If you have anything more solid and accurate, I am all ears.

Wow, love to see you prove an F-16 can out-climb a Typhoon, this will be funny.

A forum search will help you in this, one I am not inclined to re-do what I’ve already done by writing a wall of text and posting some 10 pages of the manual.

Result – fail.

Only failure here is your inability to prove any word I’ve said wrong.

Look, I am not saying I am 100% correct, I openly say I am guesstimating the maneuverability of Typhoon, but some nonsense examples like F-104, or some charts provided by the buyers of the product who may twist the truth in both ways, or some pilot quotes contradicting a numeric comparison of what is published by Typhoon’s manufacturer and what is written on F-16 flight manual is just not enough.

The Typhoon came after the Flanker and was purpose-built to beat it.

By the same analogy, Su-35 came after Typhoon, and was purpose built to defeat it. Again, I don’t follow the logic here.

I temporarily out F15 is an aircraft designed with energy-maneuverability doctrine. Su-27 is an aircraft designed with ultra maneuverability doctrine. Article What is the difference? energy-maneuverability theory is a way of supermaneuverability call by Western

Russian emphasis on close-range slow-speed supermaneuverability runs counter to Western energy–maneuverability theory, which favors retaining kinetic energy to gain an increasingly better array of maneuvering options the longer an engagement endures

You are pretty much wrong on those.

Maneuverability = Any maneuver that is made within lift limits of the aircraft. Any maneuver that actual turn rate of the aircraft flight vector -which would be equal to aircraft’s direction vector + AOA difference-, achieved at or below what is achieved by Clmax.

Energy-maneuverability = Lift makes aircraft turn, Drag makes aircraft slow down, lose energy. L/D ratio Along with Thrust/Drag ratio determines how the energy is lost or regained. Actually both Su-27 and F-15 (along with F-16 and MiG-29) is designed exactly for energy maneuverability; putting all the bias aside, flight manuals will tell you Su-27 is FAR better aircraft than F-15 in energy-maneuverbility at low altitudes, and its still better than F-15 at high altitude subsonic conditions, but slightly inferior at supersonic speeds.

Super-maneuverability= Just like the word means, beyond maneuverability, beyond Clmax. As AOA increase, lift vector will decrease, so actual turn rate (as the rate that direction of flight of aircraft) will also decrease (this is the reason why most western pilots say post-stall maneuvers are useless), but aircraft’s own direction vector (vector that is aligned to its nose) will keep changing.

Super maneuverability is NOT an alternative to energy-maneuverability, its a substitute that allows additional tactics to be made, and TVC improves many aspects like lateral stability at high AOA etc.

A Su-27 pilot going into dogfight at sea level (at half fuel) will keep its speed around 600 and 825 km/h, because former is the point where Clmax (1,85) is achieved at structural limit (9G) to give its highest instanteneus turn rate (30,19 deg/s). and latter is the point where Su-27 reaches its highest sustained turn rate ~21,75 @ 9G.

An F-15 pilot under exact same circumstances will have to be a little faster, because his aircraft produce less lift, so it reaches its 9G limits at faster airspeeds (23,83 ITR, 20,5 STR). That doesn’t mean its better in energy maneuverability, at S/L its both sustained and instantenious turns are actually quite inferior to the Su-27. And that is not just at maximums. if vertical play is not a problem (climb rate improves with airspeed) a Su-27 pilot can easily stick at around ~600 km/h all the time; when he pulls the stick he has more than 30 deg/s ITR, and if he is gentle on the stick, Su-27’s aerodynamics allow an 21 deg/s Sustained turn rate at that speed at just 6,3Gs at 600 km/h, still beating anything F-15C is capable of sustaining even at 9Gs. That is a clear edge provided by energy efficiency of Su-27’s aerodynamic design, as no pilot can turn at around 9Gs for minutes but ballpark 6Gs are simply easy for any trained pilot.

What supermaneuverability adds to that? Imagine a TVC equipped Su-27 almost got an enemy on his sights; if Su-27 pilot flying at S/L ~600km/h pulls up to his maximum AOA of 24 degrees, he would be changing direction in 30+deg/s, but that will happen for a 1/10th of a second, then he will start slowing down.
550 km/h = 28,1 deg/s
500 km/h = 25,5 deg/s
450 km/h = 22,6 deg/s

and it will go down to around 17 deg/s @ 350 km/h where Su-27 would be slow enough to sustain a turn at its maximum AOA.

On Supermaneuverability, flying at 600 km/h, pilot can pull 30-40 degrees, his lift will be lower than clmax, his flight vector would be turning at just maybe 14-15 deg/s turn rate, but his nose pointing would change at 40-50 deg/s rate, and that may just allow to shoot missiles&guns at the enemy. Likewise, it can be used in defensive maneuvers to make a turn/climb/dive enemy can’t follow etc.

No one really expects a Su-35 to dogfight a Typhoon or F-15 by doing circus tricks. It will turn with them, and outturn them in energy maneuverability. Only real difference is, in a little too harsh maneuver like when lateral stability is compromised by rolling hard at some high AOA, a Typhoon or F-15 pilot would be struggleing to prevent an aircraft from entering a spin, a Su-35 will do just fine as TVC would correct it.

Not really, the F-5E was a variant of an old design.

Who cares? F-18E is a variant of the old design. Is it the product of 1983 or 1999?

The MiG-21 and F-4 were brand new variants in 1959 and 1960 respectively

True, then MiG-23 was brand new in 1970, and F-14 introduced in 1974. They aren’t exactly comperable too, aren’t they?

The Su-11 had worse raw stats than the MiG-21 anyway.

It was quite comperable to F-4D actually. fast but non-maneuverable, it was solely designed for BVR combat with 4xR-98 missiles; which has arguably similar performance with AIM-7E fielded that day.

Or perhaps the F-4 was the response to the MiG-21

In way, but “response” is not a good explaination of it.

US always led in this generation thing, they were the ones set the new standards, they were the ones to make the giant leap that made design criteria of legacy aircraft obsolete. Soviet side only responded to it by building equivalent or maybe slightly better aircraft.

2nd gen. aircraft were supersonic high speed aircrafts. F-100 was a distinctly better aircraft from previous F-86 or MiG-17, distinct enough to be called a new generation of aircraft. The most perfected example of the design philosophy is logically the one that came last; MiG-21.

3rd gen aircraft were high speed aircraft with BVR capability. This distinction started with F-4 and AIM-7 combination, responded by Su-11+R-98 in ~2 years. Su-11 is already an overworked derivative of Su-9, so subsequent F-4 modifications were countered by Su-15+R-98. Logically, the most advanced aircraft of the design philosophy of this generation was again the last one, being MiG-25+R-40; its a) fastest b)has the best BVR missiles c)has the best radar for interception.

4th gen aircraft focussed on dogfighting ability while keeping BVR capability. By no suprise US designs (F-14/15) were the first, but latest Su-27 was the best in this criteria.

5th gen made stealth priority, while keeping dogfighting and BVR capability. F-22 is introduced in 2005, we are in 2016 and PAK-FA is years away from being operational. But I don’t think any sane man -irrelevant of his nationalism or bias- would compare F-15SA, Su-35 or Typhoon with F-22 on overall combat capability, just because they became operational few years apart. Just like that, I don’t find comparing MiG-21 with F-4/5 is also fair.