Messy, sh*tty civil war. Bloody dictator propped up Shia terror groups fighting hodgepodge of Sunni terror groups and various ethnicities who want out from under.

And the topper- Major powers protecting thier “interests”, at the expense of Syria’s people. Gulf states bankrolling it, and no end in sight.

Well the F-16C, page A8-57, manages an identical max STR at the same altitude anyway.

https://info.publicintelligence.net/HAF-F16-Supplement.pdf

The TWR of the C is 1.1 fully fuelled and 1.3 at 22,000lb, which is about 25% more than the M2000. The F-16C weighs more, so we see that a higher wing loading has been a detriment but compensated for by increased thrust. For max ITR the M2000 beats the F-16C by 5deg/s. It would be interesting to see what happens in lift-limited turns at lower altitude rather than drag limited turns at high altitude.

Yes, above mach .8, the Block 50 (at GW 22,000lbs) comes close to matching an F-16A at combat weight (50% fuel to 2 AAM). That is the point you are missing. The two charts you posted were comparing the F-16A and Mirage 2000 at combat weight. The Block 50 weighs 20,200 lbs at operating weight (pilot, unusable fuel). Add to that the two Aim-9, ammo, chaff, and that leaves roughly 1,000lbs of fuel. So, no at 50% fuel the F-16C Block 50 does not match the F-16A, nor does it have a 25% thrust to weight ratio advantage over the Mirage 2000. You cannot pick arbitrary points to compare.

It shouldn’t be suprising that the delta wing 2000 has an excellent instantaneous turn rates, the trade-off is that a delta wing bleeds energy in a hard turn (less so with the close coupled delta/canard)

What is the actual instability margin though. Looking at the M2000, it’s evident that there are no canards or tailplane to balance the moment about the CoG. Seems to be largely based on the Mirage III layout. The point is that the M2000 is losing out in STR because of lower TWR, the Typhoon doesn’t suffer that problem and has increased relaxed stability.

No, idea what the instability margin is. What the Mirage has is body strakes for drag reduction at supersonic speed and increase lift over wings at high AoA (like the Typhoon’s body strakes). The Mirage most likely has higher drag (a trait of delta wings) in a turn than the f-16, that, and not the lower thrust to weight ratio are likely the reason for the difference.

The newer delta-canards do not suffer the as much from this drawback.

Ah okay, well most aircraft are above a 1.5:1 wet/dry ratio.

Says 0.25:1 here.

http://www.mtu.de/engines/military-aircraft-engines/fighter-aircraft/f414/

I would expect higher BPR engines to benefit from afterburning more, because the core gas is already very hot anyway.

Umm no, F-16C is 1.1, M2000 is 0.88, 1.14 is a mis-calc, it’s 1.37 at that weight – 28,600lbf. The thrust figure they state is not for a -200, it’s for a -100. That’s a 25% advantage. And bear in mind that the M2000 is canard-less and doesn’t run relaxed stability and despite that, only a 1.75deg/s advantage for the F-16 and a 4deg/s ITR advantage for the M2000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Exactly, which is why the Typhoon is likely to win on turn rate.

What are you on about? You’ve posted two pages from the F-16A and Mirage 2000. The F-16A with a F100-220 has 23,770 lbs of thrust. That is correct, no F-16A EVER had 28,000 lbs of thrust. ( if you want to compare the F-16C I can put up the numbers. However, the thrust to weight ratio does not change much at the -C is considerably heavier, depending on model, and again depending on the model, the sustained turn rate is less for some F-16C’s)
The thrust to weight ratio is listed at the two combat weights right on the side of both pages, those are the two you were using to make your comparison, so that is what I am using, and the difference is 8.5%.

Second, at what speed are you comparing them? I told you at Mach .8 15,000 feet the sustained turn rate for the f-16 is 2.2-2.4 degrees better. That is directly from the pages of the manuals you posted. Hence there is no 25% greater thrust to weight ratio and the sustained turn performance for the F-16A is consistently 2+ degrees superior until they approach Mach 1. Lastly, the M2000 IS a relaxed stability design. You are fabricating or cherry picking, just stop.

A/C Performance covered everything, including those things and turn performance. And the Typhoon came out 30% ahead of a Rafale.

I’ve read the report multiple times. There is NOTHING about specific performance numbers. The performance based on the OCA/DCA mission performance. It does not mean that the Typhoon has superior turn performance, nor does it mean inferior. Simply put, there is nothing to support either in the Swiss Eval, except that the overall aircraft performance on the missions was superior.

Nah, that’s just approximated based on dry thrust + 50%. If you look about most fighters on reheat increase by more than 50%. E.g. F414, lower dry thrust, higher wet thrust. And that’s before WEP.;)

What numbers are you using? Wiki? The F414 produces 14,770 lbs in intermediate and 21,890 in wet thrust. The EJ2000 is very similar at 13,500 and 20,250. These are the manufacturers numbers. There is no credible report that he EJ2000 has a war emergency power setting the pilot can activate similar to some Migs. What the typhoon starstreak site stated was:

An interesting point to note is that the baseline production engine is also capable of generating a further 15% dry thrust (69kN or 15525lbf) and 5% reheat output (95kN or 21263lbf) in a so called war setting.

Like any engine, that means simply, that engine can produce more thrust at higher operating temps at the cost of engine life. There is nothing to suggest that the pilot can control this or that any air force would allow it.

Note also, add 5% to the stated 20,250 lbs of thrust. What do you get? Simply put, the Ej2000’s thrust is known.

And if the two figures were anything like close I would agree but they ain’t and the canards tend to help in that respect anyway. They’re not remotely close. 63 vs 85lb/ft^2 even with the Ef at 32% fuel fraction and the Su-35 at 25%. Put them on the same fuel fraction and it’s 63 vs 90lb/ft^2 and 1.2 vs 1.07 TWR.

BTW, I’m not arguing that the Su-35 has a higher sustained turn performance than the Typhoon. I’m saying your reasoning is flawed. Your trying to compare wing loading of canard/delta wing to that of cropped delta/tail planform. I shouldn’t have to explain why using simple wing loading numbers do not support that the Typhoon would have superior sustained turn performance

So compare the F-104 to other fighters of that era like the MiG-21. That was also a tube with wings but massively superior in turn performance

.
That is the point, they were both designed without high lift devices, and neither likely have significant body lift. So, obviously the Mig-21 with it’s larger wing will have superior turn performance as most speeds/alt. ( I see that andraxxus beat me to the comparison below) The F-106 is a good comparison, significantly lower wing loading than the F-4. It could out turn the early F-4 variants at high altitude. The situation was reversed once the slatted F-4E was introduced, it had significantly better sustained turn performance at all but the highest speeds.

And high Cl will increase drag, so it’s damned on two fronts.

What? what are you comparing? I was talking about to similar wings one with leading edge root extensions and one without. Which one is going to generate more lift as AoA increases? What are you arguing? That the lift generated by leading edge root extensions on a cropped delta like the Su-27 (or strakes on the F-16) are dragger than a pure delta at high AoA? Sorry, that is one of the major penalties of a delta wing.

Good NASA article on the origins of x-31 from Herbst’s ideas on supermanuverability. He also worked early on in the EAP (some of the design was worked into the x-31)

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Flying_Beyond_the_Stall.pdf

Supermanuverability was the term used by Herbst to describe the post stall, side slipping agility he began to write about in the late 70’s and early 80’s. (He is credited with coining the term).

The USAF both used the term in studies from the late 1980’s, 90’s, researching post-stall maneuvers.

It’s time to bomb Washington. And of course apologize

Thanks, but I’d like humanity to survive, at least until all the new “Star Wars” trilogy is completed.

This forum has been overrun with crazies as of late.