But the whole point is speculating which may be, isn’t that right?

I look at all the traits of past classics, and I come up with a list.

1. Great flyability and handling (takeoffs, landings, etc,.)
2. Maneuverbility, agility, nimbleness
3. Strength and robustness
4. Role versatility
5. Basic design simplicity
6. Cost for the bang factor.
7. Mission Availability
8. Maintainability.
9. Upgradability, expandability.
10. Pilot visibility and awareness.

Crobato

Aerodynamically speaking the MiG-29 versus the Gripen has the following advantages:

Highly swept low aspect ratio wings have worse low speed handling than less swept higher aspect ratio wings such as the 40 deg wings in the MiG-29, the porpose of the canard is to create low preassure vortices that delay the formation of the main delta wing vortices and therefore the stall of the delta wing when the delta wing vortices burst and breakdown

Which has NOTHING to do with sustained turn rate.

Actually sustained turn rate can be worst with low sweep wings at high subsonic to supersonic speeds due to the higher form and wave drag of the low sweep wing.

instantaneous turn rate however the sustained turn rate proves you the MiG-29 can keep higher sustained turn rates, delta wings suffer a quick flow separation and the creation of vortices that stall the wing at high AoA, the canards do not offer more advanatages than LERXes in fact at very low AoA canards offer more drag than a tailess delta wing and the benefits of canards only appear at high AoA.

And how many times you are told that you are wrong, eh?

How many times do I have to tell you that canards, by virtue of being variable, can maintain vortice lamination at a much wider range of angles and at higher angles of attack than fixed, non movable LERX?

You must be a complete idiot to ignore this.

You seem to ignore your own evidence that the Gripen is nearly as fast as the MiG-29 despite a much lower TWR in sustained turn rates.

Beyond the fact canards offer a two centers of lift between the center of gravity, they do not offer more lift since the delta wing is under the down wash of the canard and this reduces the max potential lift the main delta wing can achieve due to the drag the canard imposes upon the leading edge of the delta wing.

That is complete BS.

For main wing to be affected, the canard downwash must flow under the main wing, which is not possible in a biplane configuration.

This two centers of lift are and aid at supersonic speeds when the center of lift (aerodynamic center) shift occur, this helps the instable Gripen at Mach 2 however LERXes also give lift ahead of the center of gravity.

However, canards offer typically a larger lift surface that can be variably controlled and trimmed in angle. LERXes cannot.

Therefore the LERXed MiG-29 can achieve higher sustained rates than the Eurocanards and J-10 thanks to flaps, integral layout fuselage wing blending, LERXes and a wing swept at 40 deg.

You have no evidence that the MiG-29 has better sustained rates than the Eurocanards and evidence proves otherwise. Flaps actually add to drag, which lowers potential sustained turn rate. Fuselage wing blending absolutely has nothing to do with it. Wing sweep does not have anything to do with sustained turn rate.

You keep confusing sustained turn rate with tighter turning. All the things you mention contributes to a TIGHTER turn, but it does not contribute to a FASTER turn.

A plane with a tighter turn can still have an inferior sustained turn rate than a plane with a _faster_ outside turn.

Crobato

I never said the MiG-29 was at 50% of fuel and the Eurofighter at 100% internal fuel, i said very clearly that Yefim Gordon claims the MiG-29SE at 50% of fuel and 3000 meters of altitude will have a turn rate of 23.5 deg/s and the Eurofighter at 50% of fuel and 3000 meters of altitude will have a max sustained turn rate of 22 deg/s

Clearly you want to justify the Su-27 and J-10 since both fighters are PLAAF aircraft and you can not consider the MiG-29 will be better than both aircraft because you like PLAAF aircraft.

That’s BS and you know it. Now since BAE claims otherwise, its their word against Yefim Gordon’s. One is trying to sell a plane, another is trying to sell a coffee table book.

The Su-27 is clearly better of the two Russian jets according to those that have both planes, starting with the Ukraine. It is as if you never figured out that the PLAAF had plenty of opportunity to try out the MiG-29 themselves, and it is in fact, the MiG-29 that was their original choice, since the MiG brand name was all they ever knew, and they never owned a single Sukhoi in their history.

The Eurocanards and the J-10 might have excellent instantaneous turn rates, but i doubt they will have really good sustained turn rates, i guess the J-10 might have a max sustained turn rate in the range betwen 22-20 deg/s very close to the F-16 and MiG-29 and probably it might have a 30 deg/s instantaneous turn rate, can the J-10 be better than the Flanker? probably yes it can since the Flanker has an instantaneous turn rate of 27 deg/s and it has a max sustained turn rate of 21 deg/s.

I already told you why canard-deltas can maintain high sustained rates. Combined with instability, the high pitch authorities canards generate means less trim is needed to go around a turn, and less drag. Now you keep on going about why deltas at a high AoA has a tendency to create a high profile drag, but that is also true of lifting body jets like the Su-27 and MiG-29. The drag is simply caused by having plenty of lift area being exposed at high angles of attack. The so called energy bleed you are saying is only caused at higher angles of attack.

But you have no idea that sustained turn rate and angle of attack are not related. A plane with a low angle of attack can still maintain a high sustained turn rate by navigating through an outer wider circle faster.

Which means speed is essential for sustained turn rate.

At supersonic speeds, the advantage is more pronounced.

The MiG-29 is one of the best fourth generation fighters in sustained turns and in that i do not agree with the Eurofighter website that the MiG-29 is less agile than the Eurofighter and Su-27 at subsonic speeds simply because the Flanker was designed as a long range interceptor with more emphasys in BVR combat rather than dogfights, the Su-27 carries more fuel internally and relies more in AA-10s or AA-12s it is going to be difficult for a Su-27 to be light enough to be as agile a MiG-29 and several publications give you a 28 deg/s instantaneous turn rate for the MiG-29 and those number are for even the old MiG-29A.

I quite disagree with that.

I trust Fomin`s book simply because the guy writes also for Russian publishers and the same can be said for Gordon who has a pleatora of books published in Russia and England either in Russian or English and always has been supported by MAPO MiG or Russian publishers like Polygon.

That only proves to you that the writer is a hack and a paid publicist. Nothing more.

Also you can read several webpages that claim the Super Hornet has a sustained turn rate of 18 deg/s besides the main trade off of the delta canard configuration is excellent instantaneous turn rates with regular sustained turn rates and the best example is the Gripen which has a very low 20 deg/s max sustained turn rate even it has a very high 30 deg/s instantaneous turn rate, and the J-10 or Eurofighter are not different 😉

You may have read that people also don’t like the Super Hornet’s performance (some consider it inferior to the F-18C). When the F-14 is compared to a 1970’s musclecar, even with underpowered TF-30 engines, that does not bode well for the Super Hornet in my book at least in terms of grunt.

The sustained rate of 20 degs for the Gripen in my book is quite excellent considering its low power to weight ratio. As for the Typhoon charts, note the fact that they have no commercial bias to promote the Rafale in the same charts, and yet they show it faster than most of the other aircraft in sustained turns.

And finally, lets not forget that instantaneous turn rate is probably more important for transient performance anyway. By far most BFM isn’t built around running in circles consecutively.

Cheap and small does not disqualify a plane from being a classic. Look at F-5A/E. It is underpowered but the plane really knows how to handle business from a pilot’s point of view. An F-5E with AIM-9L will tear into the best of any third generation fighter like the F-4 Phantom, even in equal numbers.

The JF-17 is light, but it’s not small. Consider its dimensions against an F-16. The plane is built with a lot of consideration for internal room like radar and avionics, with great accessibility. Its quite maneuverable from the start, with very little flight flaws, a reason why the program went quite rapidly. The new version makes it better.

The Tejas has a lot of potential too. Very efficient in the use of internal space, and the basic design is structurally sound. The design has every potential to be very nimble, like the 21st century version of the Skyhawk, which is another classic in my book.

I am also keeping a good eye on the Korean A/T-50. It may be able to fulfill the promises of the original Ching Kuo design.

Against bigger planes I don’t consider them to be easy, because small planes have terrific transient performance. There is no denying that less mass is simply better when it comes to transient performance. and bigger planes with more engine power does not replace that. A smaller plane can change its energy state much faster than bigger planes, regardless of wing loading or engine thrust. And numbers do count, especially if these numbers are equipped with active guided BVR and WOBS missiles.

I hardly think Formin and Gordon are absolute and objective sources to start with. So their figures can be questioned. So comparing a MiG-29 at 50% fuel vs. an EF at 100% objective and correct? BSht. If you want to compare figures, compare it at the same internal fuel levels. A MiG-29 at 50% internal fuel will go bingo in no time.

And no, the Rafale is claimed to boast over 30 deg/sec instantaneous. The 24 deg/sec is actually sustained from one boast I’ve heard. I would think the Typhoon can get up over 30 deg with no problem, and I’ve heard similar rumors on the J-10 to that effect.

The Gripen has about 0.90 to 0.95 for TWR, both the Rafale and the Typhoon are at least 1.13 with full fuel load.

Su-27 is around 28 degrees instantaneous from what I understand. Same with the MiG-29 and F-16A/C. From what I understand also, based on experiences from the Ukraine, the Su-27 is overall, more maneuverable than the MiG-29.

Claiming that Su-27 and MiG-29 will have better engines in the future is another dufus argument, since the same argument can also apply to the Typhoon and Rafale. And don’t talk about EF/Rafale needing ET to match Flanker range. Flanker with full internal fuel is a flying slug and does not perform very well. Sukhoi only recommends the plane at 56% internal fuel for optimal performance. A Flanker with full fuel if caught in a dogfight, will not have any options to quickly dispose of the extra fuel unlike external tanks.

About sustained turn rates. I’m trying to find any evidence about the Su-27 or MiG-29 matching that of the Typhoon or Rafale.

While this is not an objective website, it shows clues to the contrary.

http://www.eurofighter.com/et_sr_me_sb.asp

Subsonic sustained turn rate

In order:
Typhoon (of course)
Rafale
Su-27 (really close and in the heels of the Rafale)
F-18C (Surprise!)
F-15C
MiG-29, M2000, F-16C (packing up the rear)

http://www.eurofighter.com/et_sr_me_su.asp

Supersonic sustained turn rate.

In order
Typhoon (obviously)
F-15C (surprise!)
Rafale
F-18C/F-16C (tie)
Su-27 (just a wee bit behind F-18C/F-16C)
MiG-29 (falling well behind of the Su-27)
M2000 (dead last)

u simply cannot make a missile like Russia can make now under capitalist system. there 2% immigrant scientist have more impact on software/semiconductors than the rest of the world. think about 98% rest of which top 50% works for defence enterprizes.

Show me more of your ignorance of the semiconductor industry. Ha har har.

Ohhh, that is poorly understood. Definitely not a problem of the T-tail, actually the T-tail improved the authority over the standart layout when stabilizers were in the wake of the main wing. The problem were non all-movable horizontal tails, which were loosing effectiveness due to compressibility effects at Mach1. AFAIK they fixed that problem with late production series of the supersonic Mig-19 using all moveable stabilizers.

I should have mentioned that the T-tails were not all movable, and plus the fact they’re really small.

Again, not only due to the T-tail, but mostly because of non-supersonic “thick” wing profile, on the other side having far,far,far better Lif to Drag ratio than all nowadays military aircrafts. Simply the drag would build up and ailerons gone un-effective.

Noted. Excellent observation.

That is correct, but the most substantial change between the Mig-15 and Mig-17 was the increase of wing sweep.

The change is not just the sweep but the geometry, which is now compound, where inner wing has a more acute sweep than the outer. Starting to foreshadow our modern concept of aerodynamics.

Basically the Mig-17 had identical airframe with the Mig-15. Why build another doubleseater version, where is the logic?

The Russians also didn’t build a double seater version of the MiG-19, and that’s a totally different airframe, with significantly different aerodynamics and power levels than the MiG-17. So where is the logic in that? So called “MiG-19UT” are really all Chinese JJ-6s.