To me, the early T-10 was some sort of F-18A/C enlarged with gap between air-inlet-duct, don’t you think？

Thats interesting.
If we look at the T-50, it still has that space between the intakes making the whole fuselage pretty wide & sleek, allthough not as much as Flanker does.

Something I have to come to correct. Many people seen the PAKFA as so-called flankerish just due to how the inlet duct arranged on PAKFA in despite of many others applied such layout as well as YF-23, F-14, SR-71, Yak-28 and some provision of ATF.
Actually the fuselage of PAKFA really is wider than Flanker, and this is an huge advantage for not only aerodynamics but also stealth, why shall we neglect or even deny it?
Limited by conceived requirement of stealth which Iranian already knocked of not long ago, designing inlet of sacrificing aerodynamics not only block the F-22’s top speed under Mach 2, which originally supposed to achieve beyond Mach 2.4, but also will pay the price on aspect of supersonic agility in believe.
A proposition without basic physical knowledge is “even stone can do maneuver as long as power enough”, said by many Chinese who down faith in criteria of anything made in USA. Lacking inertia, the condition is insufficient, the conclusion is incomplete. Unless merely keeping straight flight, more agility necessarily means through in and out high speed region and low speed region to both, however, a destructive aerodynamic design must cause longer time for acceleration even with great power or same T/Wr.

What’s keypoint linked to F-111? Don’t you think the F-20 already had inheritor, then look at JF-17/FC-1

I believe that twin-seat version of JF-17 will beat these all ^_^

Ahh yes, Kfir, the fighter the F-20 was really close to….
Anyone were seeking a sort of fighter jet as well as F-20 would prefer Kfir which had already been to service.

well they did in the beginning, a huge edge. .but still an edge near the end.
but go to the eastern front where the Soviet philosophy relied on numerical advantage, you can see some cases of victories against the Soviets there.

late model BF109’s spanked many Lavochkins, P-39s, Il-2’s and MiG-1s there.

Those pilots specially in Bf-109 were more skillful than Soviet pilots who flew the medley

Under this thread either each single word you typed or those combined are irrelevant.
Do you think this rephrase will be more polite?
I was avoiding to say nonsense and was afraid of rude to you.

Unfortunately, these numbers do not reveal enough information.

The turn rate values are for an instantaneous turn. Nothing is said about sustained turn rate…this is the number that is more important. Delta wing planforms tend to bleed energy at higher rates that conventional wings. Before we make a conclusion, more data is needed.

Due to considerably smaller wing load, [URL=”http://www.mirage-jet.com/COMPAR_1/compar_1.htm“]
Either Mirage 2000 or F-20 achieved 11.5 degrees per second at same altitude, but the former at M=0.7, the latter at M=0.8, we can assume they are similar for STR

Actually, related to air-combat in future, STR is more important than STR, the era of pure dogfights will never return.

The Mirage roll rate is actually relatively low for a fighter, if that is an instantaneous value. If the F-20 roll rate is similar to that of an F-5/T-38, then expect to see a higher value.
These are rates for no external stores…an unlikely combat configuration.

For a fighter as you said, what about F-15?, considered Su-27’s roll rate according to American tested is remarkably higher than F-15, whereas the roll rate the Mirage 2000 achieved was similar to Su-27 indeed.