ROFL.. engine thrust passes through the CoG (or as close as possible), it won’t stop the torque caused by CoG too far to the rear from making the aircraft pitch up even further

Engine thrust at an aoa will create both vertical and horizontal components. The vertical one could help counter the torque

anyway, the whole discussion is pointless.. if the CoG was so far back that the tail couldn’t stop it from pitching up, the thing would pitch up at its first take off, stalled and crashed… if you can’t grasp how absurd your statement is, nobody here an help you (but then, it may explain how you can be so fond of this bombtruck in fighter role”…)

Not as absurb as trying to speculate ITR from extrem slow speed AoA. Then assuming all aircraft had the same AoA limit when they at the same speed

Cruz probably not (but then again, it is a 1950’s design, if your goal is to beat 60 years old designs, you most probably succeeded, indeed), Mirage 2k or Rafale easy… unless you load them up with lots of heavy stuff which this obviously didn’t carry either…

as for “higher cruise speed of the design…”, to me it is rather “poor low speed performance design”… when looking for approach speeds, I get about 130-135kts for the C version and 150-160kts for air force version… for comparison,a Rafale (any version) lands at 115kts… quite obvious it has much more excess lift (meaning more G’s, climb, and so on) available for a given speed. The F-16 lands @ 141kts… sitting more or less in the middle of the two

To begin with, the higher AoA could also due to the fact that the negative stability margin is more backward ( at low speed tail lift may not be enough to counter the CG too far backward). For example: in this video F-22 show higher AoA than F-16 ( most noiticeable around 0:16)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BN6pg7-0Gw&feature=youtu.be&t=15s

In this video below , F-35 and F-22 has similar AoA when cruising at slow speed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykcMpsO0-HY&feature=youtu.be&t=2m7s

If your theory about excess lift is correct then F-16 with 2 drop tank will have more excess lift than a clean F-22 which is extremely unlikely IMHO

Furthermore, regarding the issue of body lift and AoA. I took the question to Johnwill. To anyone here who not familiar , he is one of those engineers in F-16 program. Here is his answer

Moreover, available lift depending on CL and air speed. CL depending on AoA. However, not all aircraft has the same AoA limit at the same speed and G load. For example: Even in air to air configuration , F-16 AoA is limited to 15 degrees at 9G which mean CL is around 1.2



By contrast, thanks to its twin vertical tail , Su-27 can maintain 20 degrees AoA even at Mach 0.8 ( about 5 degrees better than F-16 ) which lead to much better CL value of 1.45

I am not so convinced by your theory. Why go with the IR-system for Su-35S, if it has such issues that they don’t want to use it (or more developed version of it) on their 5th gen project? To my knowledge we saw both systems for the first time in 2011. Su-35S’ IR system on the first production plane which made its first flight on May 2011 and 101KS-U on the T-50-3 during the same year. KS-U was also shown on MAKS 2011.

Could be a risk management or cost reduction kind of thing as well, just like how f-22 not intergrated with IRST or HMD eventhough these things are available

I think we can see this difference even in the stealth preferences. In this regard it is interesting to compare YF-23 and PAK FA. Both have a tunnel between the intakes/engines, which from certain angles probably poses a signature management problem. On YF-23 the tunnel was placed on the top of the plane to keep the bottom as simple and clean as possible whereas on the PAK FA the opposite was done. Because for YF-23 the main threat comes from below and for the (hypothetically) low-flying PAK FA the main threat comes from above.

That possible i guess , and probably the reason why it got small vertical tail too

Having a DIRCM on a fighter aircraft is unusual or even the first? But if PAK FA is to be operated as a low-flyer then it would make a lot more sense as MANPADS would be a substantial threat to an aircraft operating in the hypothesized manner. This is also where 101KS-U as an ultraviolet system fits the picture. As an UV-based MAWS has an advantage over IR-based MAWS on dealing with ground-launched missiles and directing DIRCM, because of the high IR background clutter.

It rare , but not the first though. And DIRCM would be effective against AAM as well

http://aviationweek.com/awin/northrop-aims-fast-jet-laser-jammer-f-35
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/42557/uk-fast-jet-dircm-reaches-milestone-(july-20).html

Talks about IR signature reduction through use of flat nozzles vs circular, and the images below show an aerosol system used to reduce IR.

The flat nozzle is the one tested on the Su-27UB, photos have been available for many years.

the aerosol one is very interesting , what sort of aerosol we are talking about here ? salt water ? will the aircraft have to carry extra aerosol in addition to normal fuel ? what is the consumption rate ? will it be on all the time ? will it reduce thrust ? will PAK-FA use that method to reduce IR signature ?

It is quite curious that PAK FA apparently uses a simpler UV system for MAWS when Su-35S is already using an IR-based system. http://www.npk-spp.ru/deyatelnost/avionika/126-optiko-elektronnaya-razvedka-.html

You sure that one is IR based rather than UV ? i cant find detail of either anywhere on that page though. But if i have to guess the system probably just IR rather than IIR so there high false alarm rate which is why PAK-FA use UV instead

What was said is not a made up claim. The low bypass ratio engines on the Russian jet is better for speed and high altitude.

Is lower bypass better for high speed and thrust : yes
Is lower bypass better for fuel consumption and IR signature : no
Simple as that. It is his Russian strunk attitude in every topic that getting on my nerve
For PS-90A and Tu-214 case ,it will not make much different either ways due to their design.

Su-30MKI is 10% heavier than Su-27 while F-16E is 50% heavier than F-16A.

Firstly , no F-16E isnot 50% heavier than F-16A
Secondly , do you understand sarcasm ?