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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

You still don’t get it though. At SL and M0.9, either aircraft can sustain 9g, it’s not a limiting manoeuvre for the aircraft, the pilot it the limit. To create a situation where the aircraft is the limit, you either need to raise g, lower speed, or lower density (increase in altitude). I explained this in my very first reply. You may as well have picked cruise conditions.

Sorry but the document proves you wrong, either you wish to acknowledge it or you don’t. Already posted it three times, so not doing so again. Clearly if the canard position determines how much instability they can cope with, it is the deciding factor. They hadn’t chosen CoG or CoP at that point, they were still optioneering.

Simply because there’s no nationalistic bias in that quote, or even a comparison. He’s just stating the capability of the aircraft, he does need to know how it works. He didn’t claim superiority, he was just giving a presentation on the aircraft.

Other sources say 11,000kg for MiG-29. The empty weight of 11,000kg for the Typhoon is minus only the 5,000kg of fuel, which brings weight to 16,000kg total. The 11,000kg also include the two attached wing-tip pods that house a jamming system and and 2 TRDs if you want to get funny about this.

It can’t, simply as that. The Typhoon has way more thrust. “In excess of 1.2:1 TWR” loaded according to manufacturer and purpose built for supersonic flight and both reduced trim and induced drag and wave drag minimisation.

So how come you didn’t understand them and mistook total pressure designation for static pressure?

Ramjets slow air down from hypersonic, therefore the velocity is reducing. At M1.2, the stated speed you mentioned, air is slowed down, not speed up. And you still aren’t understanding the difference between static and total pressure. Total pressure, as shown in the diagram you commented on cannot increase, only static pressure can, and that is done by reducing velocity. Maybe we have a language barrier here or something.

No, you didn’t. You questioned whether it was right, when it’s measured values for F-16 and F-15 (pitot vs variable geometry). I didn’t say the two documents were related. Actually it has everything to do with Typhoon.

P01 is total pressure at start of intake, P02 is total (not static!) pressure at compressor face.

Yeah, and when you reduce temp. for a set pressure, volume decreases, ergo density increases. Hence why combustion engines are more powerful in cold air. No, strawman, I didn’t argue that. I said that if quoted thrust is at take-off (140kts) at SL and 288.15K, then at 1,000m, near same pressure but at 281.65K and 600kts, the ram affect will increase P2 (static pressure) to above P2SL@140kts and the colder air will also increase density and hence mass-flow.

I give up, without someone understanding the difference between total and static pressure, this is impossible.

Okay, cheers.

Once again, no, they are not.. 9G is a structural limit at 1000m, but surely you don’t expect 5000m or 11000m sustained turns to be limited G or AOA, they are solely limited by the ability of aircraft to sustain turns. 6,7Gs for 5km and 3Gs for 11km altitudes. Rest of your comment, is as usual, nonsense based on wrong ideas.

What flawed? just STFU on topics you don’t understand, you are using an empyrical formula that is an approximation, and doesn’t even reflect the affects of LE flaps etc etc.

So? I still don’t see anything related to wing loading there? You were supposed to back up your “wing loading = everything” nonsense, remember?

Where did I say, it is such? Its definately lower for wings alone as they are airfoils, its ballpark same for airframe itself, as thinner wings don’t really change the drag of the aircraft’s body.

Thats it just go away this is my last reply to you on this topic…

Its amusing when similar crap came from Typhoon guys, like when they claimed to have defeated 3 F-16 alone, you don’t have a problems with that.

Well I am not wrong, you are just a liar. 40500 lbs = 12474 kg. Surely Typhoon doesn’t weight 10974 kgs. Its 11150 kg with gun ammo & countermeasures.

You could have just asked for my source like an honorable man with a dignity, but instead you act like an a**hole, go insulting for no reason. (Unlike my own insults which do have well deserved reasons 😀 )

[ATTACH=CONFIG]248544[/ATTACH]

How you guarantee it really? I think I’ve just trashed your T/W advantage claim anyway. Lift advantage? Ignorance. Lift has nothing to do with climb rate, its done at 1Gs.

MiG-29 climb rate graph:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]248545[/ATTACH]

Though sources are right in a sense there is another graph that shows MiG-29 do have maximal 330m/s climb rate; when armed.

Source:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]248546[/ATTACH]

It truly pitiful after dismissing my “pilot quote” because wikipedia is so unreliable, you post a link to wikipedia for MiG-29’s specs, when I read them here from its aerodynamics book of its flight manual.

The very page you’ve posted to support your claim says it can’t build up 😀 P02/P01 < 1. Are you done humiliating yourself?

BTW, you are posting simplistic data from a simplistic book. P02/P01 is not necessarily <1, and P02/P01 is not equal to ~1 at < M1,0 either. Engine work at suction stage at slower speeds (that inlet area is insufficent for airflow, engine sucks the air that would othervise flow around the inlet) so P02/P01 maybe as low as 0,8. If throat area is large enough, and a variable diffuser coming into play to slow down the air, it can easily go above 1, and with supersonic inlet using shocks to compress air, P02/P01 can go well above 1, even above 6-7+ which then you would have a ramjet or something like SR-71.

You are right though most inlets don’t go above S/L atmospheric pressure to prevent engine damage. Thats another design choice, either to give maximum possible thrust at S/L (which obviously don’t hold true for RD-33), or be limited due to other considerations like max-RPM limit or engine diameter etc, and give maximum thrust at higher altitudes. Or in a different scenario, an engine design can still give its max thrust at S/L, but wont see as much degradation of performance as another engine. In short summary, YOU CAN NOT KNOW THE ACTUAL THRUST OF ENGINE. Because of that, repating 230957th time, you cannot compare T/W of aircraft solely based on their test bench results of their engines.

In any case, I’ve proven above that engine+inlet design of MiG-29 allow for as much as 110kN + thrust from each RD-33 rated at 81.3 kN. This gives it a wastly superior T/W at a variety of supersonic conditions.

And I say, engine+Inlet design of Typhoon wont allow above 90kN+. Prove it otherwise, post some factual dynamic thrust data about it. Or simply just stop posting nonsense about T/W comparisons, period.

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.

No dude, you simple stuck in Cl/Cd, without realising that the latter is dependent on Cl, so it approximates to Cl/(Cd0 + kCl^2), and I have also shown that Cdi reduces even for a given wing planform with increased instability.

Have you forgotten already that Cl reduces with lower wing loading, hence the denominator of that expression is much lower at high Cl values, which are lower for a lower wing loading. In fact since kCl^2 dominates at high g, it approximated to Cl/kCl^2 = 1/kCl^2, so it can be seen that high Cl is not good.

Exactly, so the lower Clmax wing with have a lower Cd0 from the off too.

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

The weight is 11,000kg, that includes everything except fuel. BAE state that with fuel the TWR is 1.2. So likely the engine thrust rating is conservative. In fact it says ‘>1.2’.

http://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/product/typhoon2

Powered by two Eurojet EJ200 engines providing an excellent combat thrust-to-weight ratio in excess of 1.2:1 with 30% thrust growth available

Working back that puts the TWR with 1,500kg fuel at a minimum of 1.54. I can’t see why you find it surprising that it kicks the MiG’s a55 given that it’s some 20 years newer.

And I’m sure a similar thing happens for Typhoon.

Trim drag advantage, supersonic wing planform, wave drag advantage. MiG can’t win. Test pilots at BAE have stated the ability to retain supersonic speed in a vertical climb from near just above ground level. And that isn’t even an optimum climb angle, yet already it’s >340m/s.

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. 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!

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/inleth.html

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.

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

For low Mach number and for high angle of attack operation a variable cowl lip (vari-cowl) has been implemented into the design. Because of the vari-cowl no auxiliary intake doors are necessary. For the stabilization of the shock system at supersonic Mach numbers a bleed system (porous wall) has been incorporated on the intake ramp. For the improvement of the intake flow (reduced distortion) air is dumped via an intake bleed slot on the ramp side downstream of the intake throat.

http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/46202/1/AIAA-26830-529.pdf

e. The potential of variable intake geometry lies not only in
variable capture area, but also in allowing it to adapt to variations in
the angle of attack of the flow (as on the F-15 or the Eurofighter
Typhoon)

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.

Back to school for you.

As said one design the phase interferometry system according to the ambitioned accuracy. An airborne direction finding interferometry base solution will at minima have 3 short base lines meters apart thus making 3 possible combinations of long base lines, this in order to cope at minima with resolving AOA in both the vertical and horizontal plane. Not counting Radar receiver whose pre-shewed trash is not necessarely going to waste to everybody.
The point was that multiplying the number of said elements required by such architecture would not yield much better AOA accuracy as such. There are also other technics for dealing with the phase ambiguity . As said earlier , a phase interferometer setting does not prevent from using concurrently other more classical , but less precise, technics . It is not like there would be no signal processing behind the hardware.

From his link.

7.3.4 Additional Antennas
The system was designed to work with either two or three antennas. More could be
theoretically be used in the system. Adding more antenna could increase the accuracy of
the system as once the ambiguity is removed any pair of antennas could be used to make
the final calculation. The farther apart the antennas used to make the final measurement
are, the less of an effect noise has on the calculation. If a fourth antenna was added at
a larger separation it would provide a more accurate phase measurement for the final
calculation. In addition to increasing the accuracy of the system, adding additional
antennas can also allow the system to measure the angle of elevation. By placing another
three antenna interferometer offset in elevation angle from the original interferometer the
system could determine the elevation angle as well as the azimuth angle (Jacobs and
Ralston, 1981).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Well that one little point is the crux of this entire matter, because those are the envelope limiting conditions not the fictitious point you pick in the middle of the envelope.

Energy manoeuvrability is again aided by lower wing loading at envelope limiting condition. The larger wing can produce more lift at lower Cl values, which in turn reduces the dominant kCl^2 term in the drag equation. Further helping this in the case of the Typhoon is the enormous TWR.

Actually the fastest turn is generally around the slowest point at which enough lift to produce 9g turns can be managed. The turn is not drag-limited but lift limited in this situation. At higher speeds or altitudes then drag can become a limiting factor. So your calculation is irrelevant, especially so in the case of ITRs.

Your calculation is also flawed because it hides the fact that Cd = Cd0 + kCl^2, so actually

Lift/Thrust = Lift/Drag = Cl/ (Cd0 + kCl^2)

You also seem to assume that Cd0 is roughly the same for lower Cl wings….. which it ain’t for obvious reasons. So you’ve completely ignored all interrelationships between the different variables. Back to school for you.

Yes, I know that because in deciding the position of canard placement, the pitching arm was of prime importance. It’s very obvious that it was the main feature in stabilising the aircraft. there’s also a nice graph on page 1-5 showing the variation of Cdi, so hopefully you can see how your approximations based on an M2K are complete BS from that graph.

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

Nope you’ve hashed together % improvements, which come from fresh air and nothing else and also demonstrated a poor understanding of basic maths by ignoring variable interdependence, as shown above.

Yes but given that Typhoon 360 times vary across different demos, clearly they aren’t always at their limit, so very relevant actually.

Yes, but in my video the Typhoon climbs during the turn and no, ambient conditions do make a difference to both aero and propulsion performance.

Yes, there are, low fuel is an even greater safety concern, especially with less gung-ho air forces.

History shows it was done during climb rate record setting.

Yes but the Su-27 has been around for longer, therefore more footage to find the perfect storm. Typhoon has been around a relatively short time, and we see widely varying times at airshows, however my first video showed a 12s 360deg turn quite a bit above ground level.

So all those 6 points are still valid and may also act at once to widely change performance.

a) No measure of speed;

b) No measure of altitude;

c) No measure of fuel load;

d) No verification of to-spec weights;

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

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

So why use a crap analysis?

Not surprised in was deleted, it’s bullsh!t originating from Vishnu Som. Let’s examine it:

The IAF Sukhois were reportedly able to defeat the Typhoons not only in one-on-one combat, but also in situations where one IAF pilot was pitted against two Typhoons.

Experienced air combat analyst Vishnu Som explains:

Now let’s stop right there. 1 vs 1, okay, that’s pilot dependent but 1 vs 2. Come on, that’s horse5h!t, that’s not bad planes, it’s terrible pilots and then they say cream of the RAF. All these claims were later refuted by the RAF.

http://forces.tv/00317417

Your calculation is already wrong from the off, damn you suck at maths.

Typhoon TWR at 1500kg fuel is 40,500/27500 = 1.473 and 1.331 for MiG-29, so 11% difference.

I think you’re pulling numbers out of your a55 again. The Typhoon’s engines are conservatively rated for one and the intake system is quite complicated. It’s well know that western air forces state thrust classes. Similarly the F-22’s engines are nearer 37,000-39,000lbf (July 2015 AIR International)

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

A fixed ramp would not make only negligible different at M1.2. Even the intake losses between an F-16 and F-15 are not pronounced at that speed.

And it indeed manages the same Vmax as a MiG-29 even with fixed ramps.

http://www.bundesheer.at/waffen/waf_eurofighter.shtml

It won’t beat a Typhoon on climb rate, I guarantee it. The Typhoon has many advantages working for it. The TWR advantage, the reduced wave drag, the lift advantage. The climb rate known to date is >315m/s. This should be viewed in the same way as the F-35A’s stated range, >2,200km. The source provided for the MiG-29’s climb rate is also questionable and most sources state 330m/s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29#Specifications_.28MiG-29.29
https://web.archive.org/web/20080620004748/http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/frtypen/FRMiG-29.htm

What we do know is that the Typhoon’s thrust was optimised for medium altitude and M0.9-M1.6.

Can’t build up pressure above atmospheric? What now? All intakes build-up static pressure in decelerating the airflow. Pt = Ps + 05*Density*v^2. Seriously, didn’t you say you had a degree? You actually have to take measures to make sure it doesn’t get too high for the engines to handle. The aim of variable ramps over fixed ramps is to reduce Pt losses at high supersonic speeds. Not significant (<5%) even between F-15 and F-16 until ~M1.5 and negligible at the same point between fixed ramp and variable. Certainly less than say ooh 11%.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]248540[/ATTACH]

Can’t build up.

Keep trying.

All of these arguments hang on this kind of flippant absolutism. You cannot designate an aircraft stealthy or not on these kinds of arguments.

The pilots head is a sphere. So the F 35, F 22 and Pak Fa are not stealthy. Because a sphere is a fundamentally unstealthy shape. That’s how your argument sounds.

The pilot’s head is not sitting bare on the nose of the aircraft though. That’s like saying, oh a GBU-31 isn’t stealthy. No but it’s inside the aircraft.

I think it’s simply cost prohibitive at the moment. Just to have your watch head DLC coated costs you ~$900.00.. Depending on the size of the bezel, that would be ca $3.00 for a square mm surface.

Now get me an aircraft with say 300 sqm surface, that makes 9E+8 dollars in total.. 🙂

http://internationalwatchworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/jack-IWW-work-order-form-2016.pdf

I don’t think you can make such an extrapolation. May not even be the same material. And I’m sure there’s a healthy amount of profit in there too.