EF cannot exceed Flanker in single performance parameter. Su-27 can be upgraded to Su-27SM with more powerfull engines, lighter avionics, new FBW, longer range AAM etc.
EF is un upgradable at this point.

Everything RadDisconnect just said plus EJ230 possibility.

At that altitude a Typhoon will exceed the Su-27 in pretty much every parameter of manoeuvrability and energy fighting sans tanks. To take the load out of the equation. The Su-27 empty TWR is 1.53, Su-35’s is 1.57 and the Typhoon’s is 1.75. On full internal fuel Typhoon is 1.2 and 1.11 with 6 AMRAAMs, 2 ASRAAMs and cannon rounds. Su-27 and Su-35 TWR is 0.97 with full internal fuel and no AAMs. Wing loading is 61.8lb/ft^2 (full internal fuel Typhoon) vs 77lb/ft^2 (Su-27 half fuel)) and 85lb/ft^2 (Su-35 half fuel).

There isn’t really any performance parameter the Su-27 beats the Typhoon on except maybe a ~5% advantage in ferry range. And for the most part the AL-31F are just fuel dumpers in terms of max thrust, with only 61% of it coming as genuine dry thrust and the rest just afterburning. The Typhoon produces 67% of max. thrust as dry thrust.

Furthermore the Su-27/35’s WVR missile engagement envelope is +/-60deg with R-73/74 vs full 360deg coverage with ASRAAM. If anything breaks out, the Typhoon doesn’t need to move into a firing position, it’s already in one. Chances are that the Su-27s’ INS positions were already programmed into 4 ASRAAMs waiting on the rails.

I disagree on all points, firstly those criticizing Sprey are those who are stuck in the early 50’s,
thinking that cruising subsonic in hostile environment is perfectly OK for as long as it is possible to accelerate from mach 0.6 to 0.95,
somehow and for some reason that is hidden from me, this is coupled with fantasies of plinking down fighters 100 km away,
“over the shoulder” and what-not,
tho i suspect the slogan ‘first look/shot/kill’ may be behind the misconception
along with misinterpretation on stated missile range, lacking parameters.
F-22 got it right on all points except sortie rate, cost, and operational cost, Sprey foresaw this before F-22 was even conceived.
The one parameter where radar are more accurate than passive sensors is range,
and btw ‘BVR’ constitute distances of ~5 nm, depending how big the fighter is,
the missile seeker itself can pick up at this distance.

Improved SA and surprise can massively improve BVRAAM effectiveness. Take the AIM-7D/E – pile of crap right? Yet in the late stages of the Vietnam War something called “Combat Tree” was trialled.

http://simhq.net/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1629955/Re_Combat_Tree_Enemy_IFF_Inter.html

This massively improved success rate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stephen_Ritchie

Thrust varies with speed due to inlet efficiency, so both variables in T – D are changing. Thats ok when considering small velocity deltas, but not significant accelerations.

Your right in that drag effects on acceleration start at 0 (at 0 m/s) and rise to 100% at Vmax, loosely rising on a quadratic curve.

But, broadly, the problem cannot be accurately described in a few lines on this forum.

It’s really more like a cubic curve once you factor in the variation in Cd0 and k with Mach as well as V^2 itself. Drag probably more than doubles between M1.5 and M2.0.

You hit the other point I was talking about with Andraxxus firmly on the head. Pitot intake vs a ramped geometry. Wave drag is also a major contribution to parasitic drag in the transonic regime and the delta wing helps out here.

The original source of the row on the first page was about speed and weight. Hence picking up on that.

Aside from that; F in this case is given by T – D.

[Which won’t make a big difference for similar aircraft, but could be substantial for dissimilar aircraft]

The problem is that drag is only a very small part of the (T-D)/m equation until near Vmax. Take the debate about subsonic acceleration with Andraxxus. At M 0.5, drag would only be 1/16 times drag at M 2.0 if Cd0 and k remained constant, but both those figures more than double from M 0.5 to M 2.0. So if we assume T and D are balanced at M 2.0, at M 0.5 D can only contribute ~2% to the acceleration equation, so any inter-aircraft differences are only likely to amount to <1% in terms of acceleration in the subsonic range.

Havent seen this post;

Apperantly not; You are broadening the discussion, and I will say, without knowing specifics you cannot comment on this either. Both EF and F-16 (or Su-27 as in this topic) is negative stable, so they will have continiously varying trim drags with respect to CG speed and altitude. A Su-27 with 10 missiles require 0.00 trimming at M1.33. If EF has different design point in this regard, you cant say it has less trim drag at very same speed, simply because it has canards. Same argument goes for F-16. You don’t know enough specifics to pointout such things to backup your claims. In the speed/payload/altitude we are discussing its possible F-16 MAY have less trim drag, or not.

First part TBH I was too lazy to get into such stupid discussion with any precission; merely multiplied with M with 339. By all means, mutliply your number with 206646. Happy now?

Really? fuel an Su-27 to ~50% or an F-15 80% to directly compare with F-16 or Typhoon, see what T/W they will get. Worse, add 1000 kg worth of A-A payload, or Fuel an Su-27 to 100% and compare it with EF with 3 EFTs (pretty much this is the REALITY as seen in this topic), then compare.

30 years old or not, Eurofighter will have hard time beating an F-16 or a MiG-29 when all are lightly armed, At heavier loads surely it will. But when comparing heavily loaded Eurofighter with Su-27, there is no contest. Its the nature of aeronautics when bigger engined bigger winged aircraft with bigger fuel tanks can manage heavy loads to long ranges more easily. Its simple as that.

Don’t talk utter crap, an Su-27 at 50% fuel has nowhere near fuel fraction that a Typhoon does full (32% – 11000/34100 vs 25% – 10362/41314). The Su-27 needs 75% fuel to make it even wrt fuel fraction and even then its engines are less efficient, with SFC some 5-20% higher depending where you read.

So in summary, despite carrying a lot more fuel, the Su-27 makes very little in extra range against a Typhoon on internal fuel.

An Su-35 makes about 20% more ferry range than Typhoon with 3000L of external fuel, with 20% more internal fuel than an Su-27 and 3500+L of extra fuel in drop tanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35#Specifications_.28Su-35S.29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35#Modernization

Ask for your F-16 infactuation, just get over it, the Typhoon’s TWR, wing loading and avionics will ensure it rapes an F-16 in any legitimate dog-fight, or any climb or acceleration contest. You’ve really brought a turkey to a gun-fight on that one.

Its your own “:stupid: ” not understading the topic. :stupid: Cd0 is not defined by the role of the aircraft. Even helicopter rotor blades have a Cd0.

Yes but larger civil aircraft generally have better Cd0s because:

a) They more dedicated to minimising it as part of their role.

b) The impact of the cockpit and intakes etc. is relatively small on the overall design.

Subsonic, true. Cd0 is *ONLY* related to wings, you are completely wrong, again. Cd0 increase is not from inlet or any BS you claim. Its due to air above the airfoil gets supersonic in pockets (see wavedrag) causing seperation. When aircraft goes supersonic, it drops closely to its subsonic Cd0 (however not to same Cd0 due to seperation at TE of the airfoil), because entire airflow is now supersonic.

Yeah, the point I’m making it that you have to consider more than the wings, e.g. frontal cross-section relative to weight. Yes, the Cd0 you quoted was subsonic, therefore the graph I photocopied above showing Cd0 for past and present designs was probably a very good fit.

Blah, blah, blah. You cannot analise ANYTHING emprically without knowing specific details about its wings. XB-70 uses hexagonal airfoil. Or Harrier uses Supercritical airfoil. Goodluck analyzing them with your BS formulae.

My ‘BS formulae’ is the well known Area Rule.

Not entirely subsonic but transonic, plus requested ability to go M2.0+ with two AIM-9s. Though you are right about the part Eurofighter has more emphasis for supersonic flight than F-16. However, in case you havent noticed, I am talking about subsonic to M1.5 realm, not anything beyond.

And the Typhoon was specifically optimised for Mach 0.9 to Mach 1.6.

Really?
according to technical specifications guide from eurofighter.com;
http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/TecGuide.pdf

@ Page 8 Says;
with a full Air-to-Air Missile Fit
Brakes off to 35,000 ft / M1.5 < 2.5 minutes F-16 can do same around the same time with its own full A-A loadout.
At low level, 200 Kts to Mach 1.0 in 30 seconds F-16 can do it better with full A-A missile loadout. GOT THAT?

Your link does not provide any payload or fuel for any assumption. So therefore you are making fool of yourself while trying to do the opposite;

Armed with 2xAIM-9s with minimal fuel at only 20000lbs, F-16 can do 200kias to M0,98 in 19 seconds, according to same page from the manual I’ve posted. Satisfactory?

And your link doesn’t specify which version of the Typhoon it is, single-seater or twin-seater, or whether full air-to-air missile fit could also include drop tank(s) and would entail 6 BVRAAMs and 2 ASRAAMs – see page 21. You also like to ignore ‘less than’ symbols. So now add 3 1000L drop tanks and 8 AAMs (weighing 2,400lb) to your calculation.

The BAE figures are taken at loaded weight for a single-seater with no cannon ammunition, hence the quoted 1.2 TWR (1.19 with cannon ammo – 40500/(15500*2.2)):

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#Technische_Daten

normal take-off weight 15.5 thousand kg

http://www.baesystems.com/enhancedarticle/BAES_156125/typhoon?_afrLoop=1286601462051000&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=null&baeSessionId=THnLTnQb2nvDn3TMs0sm58TGY0rB7zchf1QyQQyQqPyzzyjNsdMp!-1651352847#%40%3FbaeSessionId%3DTHnLTnQb2nvDn3TMs0sm58TGY0rB7zchf1QyQQyQqPyzzyjNsdMp%2521-1651352847%26_afrWindowId%3Dnull%26_afrLoop%3D1286601462051000%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrl-state%3D3cq8sc76h_198

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.
Typhoon’s robust design and Flight Control System enables the pilot to fly aggressively to outmanoeuvre enemy aircraft under all combat conditions.
Brakes off to take off in less than 8 seconds and supersonic under 30 seconds.
Brakes off to 36,000 feet Mach 1.6 in under 2½ minutes.

It should be abundantly clear to anyone with a brain that at low speeds drag is negligible relative to the thrust provided by engines capable of Mach 2+. Therefore:

(Thrust-Drag)/Weight –> Thrust/Weight up to Mach 0.8 since Thrust >> Drag

Above that I’m sure I don’t have to explain about sweep angle and local mach numbers… and re-explain the Area Rule.

Again without any payload or fuel or mission direct comparison is plain stupid, Yet I expect nothing less from you, congrulations to you too. If you want to go in that way; An F-16 with 2xAIM-9s needs only 40 seconds to go from S/L to 40000 feet; Required acceleration from 200kts to M0,91@ S/L for optimum climb is 16 seconds. Acceleration at 30k feet from M0,91 to M1,62 is 48 seconds.

So If i were to ignore payload, I can boldly say F-16 can reach M1.6 and 40000 feet in less then 2 minutes.

So instead of pimped up numbers from various articles, try to use the official numbers from http://www.eurofigher.com. At least they do define some payload.

And a Typhoon climbs 25% faster than an F-16 according to Flug-Revue. Shame that the Typhoon figures are for a full fuel load.

And I can’t make any sense of your climb graphs.

I can only imagine what a Typhoon would do to your ’70s trash can if we repeated this experiment on dry thrust alone.:highly_amused:

I often wonder the reason for these intercepts.
So the Russians are trying to gauge our response times? Why don’t we just track them and ignore them.
Then they won’t have any data. It’s unlikely they would actually overfly the UK.
During WW2 not all incursions into our airspace were contended. Some where feints and ignored.
These incursions are not even during hostilities.

Now, if we had a few Lightnings that would make an interesting intercept, and keep the Ruskies guessing 🙂

The only problem is that it’s not an ideal plane for an escort. When you’re right beside someone, stealth doesn’t exactly work very well. The F-35 would really struggle if the pace picked up and wouldn’t be able to hold a Flanker if it started playing dirty.

As a mechanical engineer that had additional turbomachinery courses plus a certificate on advanced aerodynamics, I dont have the slightest clue on what you are talking about.

Do you have a degree or a PhD in the field?

Utter BS#1. Cd0 is not related to modernity. The age old Concorde or MiG-25 is likely to have **FAR** less supersonic Cd0 than F-22 or F-35.

The graph I posted related to fighter parameters. Comparing airliners with fighter jets? OMG!:stupid:

BS#2. Cd0 is defined by airfoil. For NACA 64A204 F-16 uses, it is 0,02 period. For the UNKNOWN airfoil Typhoon uses, its UNKNOWN, period.

0.02 subsonic most likely although I can’t find anything verifying this. You’re also missing the fact that drag is produced by more than just the wing area. At supersonic speeds, the intake losses will also increase drag. So good luck at Mach 1.5 with a pitot intake/cow-catcher air dam.

Speaking of M1.5, what wavedrag are you talking about? Comparing a canard-delta and a conventional tailled aircraft, you don’t even know what emprical analysis are for.

Well I was hoping that you weren’t too retarded, such that we could actually analyse this empirically. The more gradually you vary the cross-section of an aircraft along the length, the less wave drag you get. Now long at how an F-16’s wings jut out compared to the delta wing. Ever wondered why Concorde, the XB-70 and XF-108 have delta profiles… and the logic behind swing-wings. The F-16 was designed for subsonic dog-fighting with zero role envisaged beyond M1.6.

BS#3, you are completely ignoring the fact that both Eurofighter and F-16 lose their thrust logarithmically, but with completely different curvatures.

No I didn’t. That’s why I did that calculation in the next post to factor in non-linear intake effects.

I also played it generously for the F-16 by factoring it against a variable intake (F-15) at both Mach 1.5 and Mach 2.0. In reality the Typhoon used a fixed ramp optimised at Mach 1.5. So at Mach 1.5 it will give the same difference vs the pitot intake as the variable ramp, but at Mach 2, the difference would be less that for variable ramp vs pitot. I corrected for the F-16 against the variable ramp at Mach 2.0 and still the Typhoon came out on top by 10%.

Reality is far from the FACTUALLY WRONG calculations you are making.

“Brakes off to 35,000 ft / M1.5 < 2.5 minutes
At low level, 200 Kts to Mach 1.0 in 30 seconds
Maximum Speed Mach 2.0
Operational Runway Length < 700 m (2,297 ft)”

Says Eurofigher.com.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]229432[/ATTACH]

An air-air payload of F-16 plus full fuel load makes roughly Drag index = 32 and 28000 lbs
F-16@ DI =0 28000 lbs -> 200 kts to M1.0 in 27,2 seconds.
F-16@ DI =50 28000 lbs -> 200 kts to M1.0 in 30,5 seconds.

Interpolating both will give us 29,3 seconds, FASTER than Eurofighters published 30 seconds.[/quote]
Seems you made a misinterpretation old chum:

http://www.baesystems.com/enhancedarticle/BAES_156125/typhoon?_afrLoop=1286601462051000&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=null&baeSessionId=THnLTnQb2nvDn3TMs0sm58TGY0rB7zchf1QyQQyQqPyzzyjNsdMp!-1651352847#%40%3F_afrWindowId%3Dnull%26baeSessionId%3DTHnLTnQb2nvDn3TMs0sm58TGY0rB7zchf1QyQQyQqPyzzyjNsdMp%2521-1651352847%26_afrLoop%3D1286601462051000%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrl-state%3D9x58rukoi_4

Without question one of the Typhoon’s defining qualities is its versatility

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.***

Typhoon’s robust design and Flight Control System enables the pilot to fly aggressively to outmanoeuvre enemy aircraft under all combat conditions.

Brakes off to take off in less than 8 seconds and supersonic under 30 seconds.

Brakes off to 36,000 feet Mach 1.6 in under 2½ minutes.

Supersonic from brakes off in under 30 seconds. Brakes off to take-off, less than 8s. Therefore 200kts to supersonic <22s, logically assuming it takes off under 200kts.

***Yes, German wiki is right, the single-seater only weighs 15,500kg!

You can use these to calculate it yourself. Did it once, too lazy to do it again.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]229433[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]229434[/ATTACH]

Eurofighter takes less then 150 seconds. Overly simplifiying DI=25 acceleration from 200 kias to M0,9 takes 23,5 seconds. Climb to 35k feet takes roughly 1 minute, acceleration from M0,9 to M1,5 @30k takes ~66,5 seconds, totaling at 150 seconds. Though take off and reaching 200 kias will also take time, a more optimal climb/acceleration profile (for example climbing at M0,9 at first then diving for quick acceleration at ~15k feet than continuing to climb at M1.5) will shorten those times. While this is not conculsive as the example above, its sufficent to say the performance difference between types is not that much.

Very good, now try for 11,000m (36,100ft) and Mach 1.6.

Congratulations on proving my case. If you carry on arguing beyond here you’re only making a fool of yourself.

:cool::cool::cool: