Read the forum code of contact
By: - 18th September 2016 at 09:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Supermanoeuvrability is energy-manoeuvrability taken to the next extreme and often involves the ability to push high g at supersonic speeds at high altitudes.
By: - 18th September 2016 at 09:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Supermanoeuvrability is energy-manoeuvrability taken to the next extreme and often involves the ability to push high g at supersonic speeds at high altitudes.
Energy maneuverability theory refers to aircraft performance in term of specific excess power ( mostly deal with sustain and instantaneous turn rate )
Super maneuverability often refers to post stall maneuver
By: - 18th September 2016 at 11:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Energy maneuverability theory refers to aircraft performance in term of specific excess power ( mostly deal with sustain and instantaneous turn rate )
Super maneuverability often refers to post stall maneuver
I guess it means different things to different people but I know with the F-22 and EF there was significant focus on supersonic turn performance.
By: - 18th September 2016 at 11:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i think sitting duck standing on yer afterburner is a non-starter so i like to refer supermaneuverability
to high alt supersonic agility
By: - 18th September 2016 at 11:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I temporarily out F15 is an aircraft designed with energy-maneuverability doctrine. Su-27 is an aircraft designed with ultra maneuverability doctrine. Article What is the difference? energy-maneuverability theory is a way of supermaneuverability call by WesternRussian emphasis on close-range slow-speed supermaneuverability runs counter to Western energy–maneuverability theory, which favors retaining kinetic energy to gain an increasingly better array of maneuvering options the longer an engagement endures
http://aviationweek.com/awin/sukhoi-test-pilot-explains-supermaneuverability
Do the USAF, USN, RAF, Luftwaffe etc, actually use such terminology such as slow-speed supermaneuverability or energy–maneuverability theory at all? If so, how often?
By: - 18th September 2016 at 11:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: - 18th September 2016 at 13:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The term supermanuverability stuck from with F-22 and Su-37/30.
And is a by-product of the TVC installed. If we exclude experimental jets. Mostly a useless company advs.
Its a purly inst high Alpha turn and ballistic where you rotate nose around your own axis.
But as of late, the Su-35s has demonstrated some new moves which is an evolved "Hook" manuvere, a mix of inst and sustained turn. IMO you do not bleed all energy and fall out of the sky.
In my mind this has nothing to do with supermanuverability, but rather an extension of classic energy manuveres.
It can clearly be seen here:
https://youtu.be/OfINfouJbTE
By: - 18th September 2016 at 14:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The term supermanuverability came from F-22 and Su-37/30 MKI.
And is a by-product of the TVC installed. If we exclude experimental jets.
Read the post above yours, term was used by Herbst of M.B.B. 10+ years before either flew. It does not require TVC, the Su-27/F-18/Mig-29 exhibited the type of post-stall controllability and nose pointing Herbst postulated in his paper written in 1980.
By: - 18th September 2016 at 17:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That may be so. But the interesting part is what Company like LM and Sukhoi mean by Supermanuverability.
By: - 18th September 2016 at 19:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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
By: - 19th September 2016 at 03:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I temporarily out F15 is an aircraft designed with energy-maneuverability doctrine. Su-27 is an aircraft designed with ultra maneuverability doctrine. Article What is the difference? energy-maneuverability theory is a way of supermaneuverability call by WesternRussian emphasis on close-range slow-speed supermaneuverability runs counter to Western energy–maneuverability theory, which favors retaining kinetic energy to gain an increasingly better array of maneuvering options the longer an engagement endures
You are pretty much wrong on those.
Maneuverability = Any maneuver that is made within lift limits of the aircraft. Any maneuver that actual turn rate of the aircraft flight vector -which would be equal to aircraft's direction vector + AOA difference-, achieved at or below what is achieved by Clmax.
Energy-maneuverability = Lift makes aircraft turn, Drag makes aircraft slow down, lose energy. L/D ratio Along with Thrust/Drag ratio determines how the energy is lost or regained. Actually both Su-27 and F-15 (along with F-16 and MiG-29) is designed exactly for energy maneuverability; putting all the bias aside, flight manuals will tell you Su-27 is FAR better aircraft than F-15 in energy-maneuverbility at low altitudes, and its still better than F-15 at high altitude subsonic conditions, but slightly inferior at supersonic speeds.
Super-maneuverability= Just like the word means, beyond maneuverability, beyond Clmax. As AOA increase, lift vector will decrease, so actual turn rate (as the rate that direction of flight of aircraft) will also decrease (this is the reason why most western pilots say post-stall maneuvers are useless), but aircraft's own direction vector (vector that is aligned to its nose) will keep changing.
Super maneuverability is NOT an alternative to energy-maneuverability, its a substitute that allows additional tactics to be made, and TVC improves many aspects like lateral stability at high AOA etc.
A Su-27 pilot going into dogfight at sea level (at half fuel) will keep its speed around 600 and 825 km/h, because former is the point where Clmax (1,85) is achieved at structural limit (9G) to give its highest instanteneus turn rate (30,19 deg/s). and latter is the point where Su-27 reaches its highest sustained turn rate ~21,75 @ 9G.
An F-15 pilot under exact same circumstances will have to be a little faster, because his aircraft produce less lift, so it reaches its 9G limits at faster airspeeds (23,83 ITR, 20,5 STR). That doesn't mean its better in energy maneuverability, at S/L its both sustained and instantenious turns are actually quite inferior to the Su-27. And that is not just at maximums. if vertical play is not a problem (climb rate improves with airspeed) a Su-27 pilot can easily stick at around ~600 km/h all the time; when he pulls the stick he has more than 30 deg/s ITR, and if he is gentle on the stick, Su-27's aerodynamics allow an 21 deg/s Sustained turn rate at that speed at just 6,3Gs at 600 km/h, still beating anything F-15C is capable of sustaining even at 9Gs. That is a clear edge provided by energy efficiency of Su-27's aerodynamic design, as no pilot can turn at around 9Gs for minutes but ballpark 6Gs are simply easy for any trained pilot.
What supermaneuverability adds to that? Imagine a TVC equipped Su-27 almost got an enemy on his sights; if Su-27 pilot flying at S/L ~600km/h pulls up to his maximum AOA of 24 degrees, he would be changing direction in 30+deg/s, but that will happen for a 1/10th of a second, then he will start slowing down.
550 km/h = 28,1 deg/s
500 km/h = 25,5 deg/s
450 km/h = 22,6 deg/s
and it will go down to around 17 deg/s @ 350 km/h where Su-27 would be slow enough to sustain a turn at its maximum AOA.
On Supermaneuverability, flying at 600 km/h, pilot can pull 30-40 degrees, his lift will be lower than clmax, his flight vector would be turning at just maybe 14-15 deg/s turn rate, but his nose pointing would change at 40-50 deg/s rate, and that may just allow to shoot missiles&guns at the enemy. Likewise, it can be used in defensive maneuvers to make a turn/climb/dive enemy can't follow etc.
No one really expects a Su-35 to dogfight a Typhoon or F-15 by doing circus tricks. It will turn with them, and outturn them in energy maneuverability. Only real difference is, in a little too harsh maneuver like when lateral stability is compromised by rolling hard at some high AOA, a Typhoon or F-15 pilot would be struggleing to prevent an aircraft from entering a spin, a Su-35 will do just fine as TVC would correct it.
By: - 19th September 2016 at 09:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
IMO you do not bleed all energy and fall out of the sky.
You bleed a heck of a lot, and it can be seen as falling out of the sky at air-shows. That's what 'post-stall' basically means by default, you're falling out of the sky.
By: - 19th September 2016 at 09:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No one really expects a Su-35 to dogfight a Typhoon or F-15 by doing circus tricks. It will turn with them, and outturn them in energy maneuverability.
OMG, it's assumptions, assumptions, assumptions time. The Typhoon was made with full knowledge of the Su-27 and was designed specifically to beat it. It has a massively lower wing loading and higher TWR. Aside from that, it doesn't even need to out turn the Su-27 to beat it. The Typhoon has to artificially handicap itself for the Su-27 to even have a chance in WVR.
By: - 19th September 2016 at 13:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Firstly, I didn't make an assumption about anything. That sentence only meant a supermaneuverable aircraft like Su-35 will still need to outturn a non-supermaneuverable aircraft in energy maneuverability if its going to win a dogfight.
Secondly, it is YOU that is making assumptions about Typhoon, so let me trash them;
Wingloading: Wingloading is utterly useless without other aspects of aerodynamics. An F-15C has ~340 kg/m2 wing loading, and 1,2 Clmax. A Su-27S will have around 387 kg/m2 and it has 1,85 Clmax. Which one is better? From effective wing loading, you will see (340/1,2)/(387/1,85)= 1,354; Su-27 has 35,4% lower wing loading, and its equally better in instantenious turn rates. This is easily proven by picking a single point at same speeds from their ITR graph; at the point Su-27 achieves 9G @ 30,19 deg/s, F-15C achieves 22,1 deg/s; that is 36,6% difference; 1,2% error can explained by roundups, or me not reading the graph precisely enough.
Now, typhoon has 312 kg/m2, while it has unknown lift coefficent, Clmax has to be greater than 1,5 to match Su-27's instantenious turn performance. You can bet your house and a million dollars no delta (with todays engine tech) can be made to even approach that number; for comparison similarly configured Mirage-2000's Clmax value is ~0,9.
As for TWR; Yes, when both are @ 50% fuel + 2AAMs, Su-27's T/W is inferior to Typhoon at by ~12%. But that is an unfair comparison, as Su-27 would reach nearly twice the range with that fuel. Su-27 @50% fuel has exact same T/W of Eurofigher @88% internal fuel, and probably will have similar range with that fuel as well. That being said, T/W alone is also irrelevant without L/D ratio. As a delta, again, you can bet a good money Typhoons maneuvering L/D at subsonic speeds will not even approach that of Su-27s; you are comparing a extremely thin airfoil on a delta with extremely thick airfoil on Su-27. You are comparing LERX and lifting body design with two puny vortex generators above main wings (we are talking about subsonic maneuverability, canards are too distant to come into play in Typhoon). There isn't even a contest here.
As for Sustained turn performance its the most difficult aspect to guesstimate; Wing area linearly contributes to both lift and drag, Lift increases linearly with AOA, Drag increases exponentially. If all else is equal, at points where slightly increase in AOA would cause huge increases in lift, (like low altitude or high airspeed), small wing area and higher wing loading is actually desirable for better sustained turns. That is why huge wings on F-15 doesn't really help much with its sustained turn rates at low altitude, and F-16 block 30, with higher wing loading and inferior T/W than all F-15, Su-27 and MiG-29, actually has highest sustained turn rates (@S/L) I've ever seen on a flight manual. Again L/D and dynamic T/W mentioned above will also come into play, I don't think there is any quality that gives an edge to Typhoon in this area as well.
Typhoon's delta, slightly better TWR and distantly positioned canard would come into play at supersonic, and would definately exceed Su-27 at between some supersonic speeds, but as Speed approaches M2,0 Su-27 will still gain an edge due to its variable inlets. This supersonic performance is highly irrelevant, as no one will dogfight at M1,5. This maneuverability will only help in BVR combat, missile evasion etc.
I don't have a flight manual for Typhoon, I can only judge it from its airshows, and its public specifications by taking into consideration its still a canard-delta. I've proven in the past all its publicized "superb" climb and acceleration times are easily matched or exceeded by a Blk50 F-16; an aircraft which isn't exactly renowned among 4th gen aircraft for its great climb or acceleration performances like F-15, MiG-29 or Su-27. So far everything about Typhoon is unimpressive enough for me to consider its not even on par with Su-27 in subsonic WVR combat, or with F-15 in high alttiude subsonic/supersonic or with F-16 in low altitude subsonic speeds.
By: - 19th September 2016 at 13:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Firstly, I didn't make an assumption about anything. That sentence only meant a supermaneuverable aircraft like Su-35 will still need to outturn a non-supermaneuverable aircraft in energy maneuverability if its going to win a dogfight.Secondly, it is YOU that is making assumptions about Typhoon, so let me trash them;
Wingloading: Wingloading is utterly useless without other aspects of aerodynamics. An F-15C has ~340 kg/m2 wing loading, and 1,2 Clmax. A Su-27S will have around 387 kg/m2 and it has 1,85 Clmax. Which one is better? From effective wing loading, you will see (340/1,2)/(387/1,85)= 1,354; Su-27 has 35,4% lower wing loading, and its equally better in instantenious turn rates. This is easily proven by picking a single point at same speeds from their ITR graph; at the point Su-27 achieves 9G @ 30,19 deg/s, F-15C achieves 22,1 deg/s; that is 36,6% difference; 1,2% error can explained by roundups, or me not reading the graph precisely enough.
Now, typhoon has 312 kg/m2, while it has unknown lift coefficent, Clmax has to be greater than 1,5 to match Su-27's instantenious turn performance. You can bet your house and a million dollars no delta (with todays engine tech) can be made to even approach that number; for comparison similarly configured Mirage-2000's Clmax value is ~0,9.
As for TWR; Yes, when both are @ 50% fuel + 2AAMs, Su-27's T/W is inferior to Typhoon at by ~12%. But that is an unfair comparison, as Su-27 would reach nearly twice the range with that fuel. Su-27 @50% fuel has exact same T/W of Eurofigher @88% internal fuel, and probably will have similar range with that fuel as well. That being said, T/W alone is also irrelevant without L/D ratio. As a delta, again, you can bet a good money Typhoons maneuvering L/D at subsonic speeds will not even approach that of Su-27s; you are comparing a extremely thin airfoil on a delta with extremely thick airfoil on Su-27. You are comparing LERX and lifting body design with two puny vortex generators above main wings (we are talking about subsonic maneuverability, canards are too distant to come into play in Typhoon). There isn't even a contest here.
As for Sustained turn performance its the most difficult aspect to guesstimate; Wing area linearly contributes to both lift and drag, Lift increases linearly with AOA, Drag increases exponentially. If all else is equal, at points where slightly increase in AOA would cause huge increases in lift, (like low altitude or high airspeed), small wing area and higher wing loading is actually desirable for better sustained turns. That is why huge wings on F-15 doesn't really help much with its sustained turn rates at low altitude, and F-16 block 30, with higher wing loading and inferior T/W than all F-15, Su-27 and MiG-29, actually has highest sustained turn rates (@S/L) I've ever seen on a flight manual. Again L/D and dynamic T/W mentioned above will also come into play, I don't think there is any quality that gives an edge to Typhoon in this area as well.
Typhoon's delta, slightly better TWR and distantly positioned canard would come into play at supersonic, and would definately exceed Su-27 at between some supersonic speeds, but as Speed approaches M2,0 Su-27 will still gain an edge due to its variable inlets. This supersonic performance is highly irrelevant, as no one will dogfight at M1,5. This maneuverability will only help in BVR combat, missile evasion etc.
I don't have a flight manual for Typhoon, I can only judge it from its airshows, and its public specifications by taking into consideration its still a canard-delta. I've proven in the past all its publicized "superb" climb and acceleration times are easily matched or exceeded by a Blk50 F-16; an aircraft which isn't exactly renowned among 4th gen aircraft for its great climb or acceleration performances like F-15, MiG-29 or Su-27. So far everything about Typhoon is unimpressive enough for me to consider its not even on par with Su-27 in subsonic WVR combat, or with F-15 in high alttiude subsonic/supersonic or with F-16 in low altitude subsonic speeds.
Well let me reply to that with this assessment done by the Swiss. The Typhoon scored a maximum in A/C performance against a Rafale and a Gripen C which are very well known for their massive STR and ITR.
Well that's just the point, even when you reduce fuel load to 50% (25% fuel fraction), the Su-35 is still 34% higher in wing loading than the Typhoon with full fuel (32% fuel fraction). The you have the TWR, where the Typhoon conservatively sits at 1.15 and I say conservatively because the engine rating is '>90kN' and BAE rate the TWR at 1.2.
http://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/product/typhoon2
That's again higher than the Su-35 on half fuel. So even at equal fuel fraction the Typhoon is still way ahead. I'm also pretty sure people haven't moved to delta canards for a laugh. There are advantages there even if they're not good for RCS reduction.
Cd = Cd0 + kCl^2
Now Cd0 dominates in cruise but at higher g loads the latter term dominates and Cl is inversely proportional to wing area for a given lift requirement.
Hell no, small wing area is not desirable for STR. See F-104 for details.
Apples to oranges. F-16 was designed with a CoP ahead of the CoG, F-15 was not. You've also got LERX vs non-LERX.
Aside from this, the Typhoon doesn't have to out-manoeuvre an Su-35, the pilot just needs to look at it. This performance analysis is only even relevant in a fictitious training scenario.
Yeah, judging turn rates from air shows, extremely accurate.
Wow, love to see you prove an F-16 can out-climb a Typhoon, this will be funny. Flug-revue, 1999, Wolfgang Schirdewahn, the Germany test-pilot:"The climbing ability of EF-2000 with 4 BVRAAM and 2 WVRAAM is about 25% better than the F-16 with 2 WVRAAM."
You've basically tried twist huge deficits in accepted performance determinants into positives. Result - fail. The Typhoon came after the Flanker and was purpose-built to beat it.
By: - 19th September 2016 at 15:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If you^^ really read Andraxx posts, you would learn something.
The data he use is from flight manual of Su-27S, not Su-35S.
So half your post does not make any sense in that regard.
The Flanker is a large heavy aircraft, with its role and mission right up in the same ball park as F-15C and EF.
Oh, btw, the Su-35S has even higher wingloading vs Vanila Su-27S. I've seen figure over 440kg/m2
And as Andraxx wrote, the wingloading is not an all in figure where you can cherry pick the performance.
And certainly not if you start compare jets like F-104..? They are so different in design, class and role as it is completly moot point.
What we all know is that Deltas has some ups and downs when it comes to Energy manuvereing. Deltas tend to bleed energy as a faster rate vs non delta wings, under high alpha turns.
The game between F-16 and Mirage 2000 is well known.
It sounds like you are suggesting having LERX on any jet is like cheating..? How rude of the Sukhoi putting LERX on their jet.. :)
LERX vs none LERX jets has absolutly no difference in Air arms. They are what they are, and they do what they do.
If you say Andraxx twist everything, then for crying out loud, prove him wrong and show us all where he did wrong.
And stop doing these general claims. That Swiss chart does not tell us much.. in fact it tell us Zippo in the BFM game.
By: - 19th September 2016 at 15:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You bleed a heck of a lot, and it can be seen as falling out of the sky at air-shows. That's what 'post-stall' basically means by default, you're falling out of the sky.
..You didn't even bother look at the youtube vid i posted, did you?
By: - 19th September 2016 at 15:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If you^^ really read Andraxx posts, you would learn something.
The data he use is from flight manual of Su-27S, not Su-35S.So half your post does not make any sense in that regard.
The Flanker is a large heavy aircraft, with its role and mission right up in the same ball park as F-15C and EF.
Oh, btw, the Su-35S has even higher wingloading vs Vanila Su-27S. I've seen figure over 440kg/m2And as Andraxx wrote, the wingloading is not an all in figure where you can cherry pick the performance.
And certainly not if you start compare jets like F-104..? They are so different in design, class and role as it is completly moot point.
What we all know is that Deltas has some ups and downs when it comes to Energy manuvereing. Deltas tend to bleed energy as a faster rate vs non delta wings, under high alpha turns.
The game between F-16 and Mirage 2000 is well known.It sounds like you are suggesting having LERX on any jet is like cheating..? How rude of the Sukhoi putting LERX on their jet.. :)
LERX vs none LERX jets has absolutly no difference in Air arms. They are what they are, and they do what they do.If you say Andraxx twist everything, then for crying out load, prove him wrong and show us all where he did wrong.
And stop doing these general claims. That Swiss chart does not tell us much.. in fact it tell us Zippo in the BFM game.
And if they were anywhere near close I would likely accept that other features might sway things, but they aren't. There is a gigantic difference in wing loading, even at equal fuel fraction, even when the Su-35 is running with a lower fuel fraction. That's the side affect of designing an aircraft to carry a shed-load of fuel internally - it gets big and weighs a lot.
I think the F-104 still emphasises the point that small wings don't help turn performance, even relative to other aircraft of that era, e.g. F-4s and MiG-21s.
Haha.... You'll the discrepancy between the Mirage 2000 and F-16 is more due to the Mirage 2000s sh!tty thrust-to-weight ratio (0.88), which is not an affliction the EF suffers from (it's nearly that good on dry thrust alone). That said, the only combat engagement between a Mirage 2000 and an F-16 resulted in a dead Turkish F-16.
No, I pointed out that there are fundamental massive differences in technology between the F-16 and F-15 which make the comparison null. That said, the difference in wing loading is also is somewhat smaller and the F-16 also has the benefit of slightly better TWR and even then the differences in turn performance aren't great. The difference in wing loading is twice as high for a fully fuelled Typhoon vs a 50% loaded Su-35 and even more with an equal fuel fraction.
Well he didn't really say anything of fact that could be disproved. I picked him up on the STR point however. kCl^2 is the dominant term in high-g loads and that reduces for a larger wing area, meaning that you can generate the same lift with a lower AoA and hence generate less drag. Aside from that, canards are known to accelerate the flow over the top of the wing and so provide an addition to lift even for similar wing loadings. If you want a drag analysis refer to the supercruise performance (M1.5 for Typhoon) and the fact that Air International states that the Typhoon is the only aircraft besides the F-22 can can pull over 6g in a M1.6 turn at 36,000ft. So the Typhoon has pretty much every known advantage in the book going for it wrt energy manoeuvrability and that's verified nicely by a maximum a/c performance score in the Swiss eval. Then you have the final insult, which is the HMD+LOAL+HOBS, which adds an element of unfair to natural advantage in this match. And aside from that his comment about a Typhoon entering a spin after pulling too hard on the stick is comical. Obviously he's not heard of fly-by-wire.
By: - 19th September 2016 at 15:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
..You didn't even bother look at the youtube vid i posted, did you?
Well perhaps if it came with a SEP-o-meter it might be useful.
By: - 19th September 2016 at 16:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well let me reply to that with this assessment done by the Swiss. The Typhoon scored a maximum in A/C performance against a Rafale and a Gripen C which are very well known for their massive STR and ITR.
The evaluation was not a "turn contest". The performance was based on DCA/OCA missions. For instance, the Gripen scored poorly on a interception mission profile. Climb rate, cruise speed/distance, acceleration at altitude, etc. All figured into scores.
Well that's just the point, even when you reduce fuel load to 50% (25% fuel fraction), the Su-35 is still 34% higher in wing loading than the Typhoon with full fuel (32% fuel fraction). The you have the TWR, where the Typhoon conservatively sits at 1.15 and I say conservatively because the engine rating is '>90kN' and BAE rate the TWR at 1.2.
That is because the EJ2000 is rated at 20,250 lbs of thrust, that is slightly greater than 90kN.
That's again higher than the Su-35 on half fuel. So even at equal fuel fraction the Typhoon is still way ahead. I'm also pretty sure people haven't moved to delta canards for a laugh. There are advantages there even if they're not good for RCS reduction.
What type of delta canard layout? The Typhoon's long arm canard/delta planform has a different function than the close coupled deltas of the Rafale and Gripen (their close coupled delta canard planform serves to increase lift at high aoa and reduce transonic drag).
Now Cd0 dominates in cruise but at higher g loads the latter term dominates and Cl is inversely proportional to wing area for a given lift requirement.
Effective wing area at increased g and angle of attack is not as simple as comparing nominal wing area. Lift coefficient at increased bank angle and aoa cannot be predicted by simply comparing wing area. Vortex generation, flow separation characteristics are not easy to predict.
Hell no, small wing area is not desirable for STR. See F-104 for details.Apples to oranges. F-16 was designed with a CoP ahead of the CoG, F-15 was not. You've also got LERX vs non-LERX.
Oversimplification, the F-104 was a tube with wings, again blended wing and body designs have significant (and increasing proportion of) body lift as bank angle increases. As you point out LERX vs. non- LERX wings do not perform the same. The LERX will give high Cl and higher Cl max.
Wow, love to see you prove an F-16 can out-climb a Typhoon, this will be funny. Flug-revue, 1999, Wolfgang Schirdewahn, the Germany test-pilot:"The climbing ability of EF-2000 with 4 BVRAAM and 2 WVRAAM is about 25% better than the F-16 with 2 WVRAAM."
Up to what altitude? what model of F-16 were they comparing, MLU? That would not be surprising. The Typhoon can definitely out climb the F-16, but 25% better than what? What is he comparing? Initial climb rate, time to climb to a given altitude?
You're making a large number of generalizations that don't even answer what andraxxus was pointing out.
Posts: 194
By: blackadam - 18th September 2016 at 08:54
I temporarily out F15 is an aircraft designed with energy-maneuverability doctrine. Su-27 is an aircraft designed with ultra maneuverability doctrine. Article What is the difference? energy-maneuverability theory is a way of supermaneuverability call by Western
Russian emphasis on close-range slow-speed supermaneuverability runs counter to Western energy–maneuverability theory, which favors retaining kinetic energy to gain an increasingly better array of maneuvering options the longer an engagement endures
http://aviationweek.com/awin/sukhoi-test-pilot-explains-supermaneuverability