By: Marcellogo
- 29th August 2016 at 21:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Rafale and Typhoon combat capabilities correspond to the MiG-29M in 1986
[ATTACH=CONFIG]247865[/ATTACH]
I'm considered filo-russian there but in this case I call it spades.
Not false n.b. because as said several times eurocanards and russian 4+ planes have similar basic concept and similar flight pattern, just gained in different ways.
Yet calling any plane of any nationality that went out in the eighties better of another, any of any nationality the same, that went out in the new century is a far, far,far,far cry.
Above all, it risk to get all of us back into the usual fanboy's male reproductive contest that, almost until now, seems this thread has been largely immune.
By: garryA
- 30th August 2016 at 09:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Table thousands of numbers , which confuses you ?
For example the Min and Max RCS just seem like a bunch of random number ,i dont know where do you get the source for them and i dont think there is one.
Or the engine thrust row : the thrust is at what altitude ? , what speed ?
or the Aerodynamic efficiency row : what exactly are they and how do you come up with these value there ? ( since they are neither Cd or Cl obviously)
By: paralay
- 30th August 2016 at 10:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The task - to compare the aircraft on the basis of the available data. characteristics that can not get officially calculated . Even these simple methods allow to obtain satisfactory results.
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 30th August 2016 at 10:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i assume man-machine interface is not accounted for at all ?
every western pilot reporting on the matter starting from west german pilots claim flying Mig-29 is hard work,
leaving little capacity left for combat
By: garryA
- 30th August 2016 at 10:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The task - to compare the aircraft on the basis of the available data. characteristics that can not get officially calculated . Even these simple methods allow to obtain satisfactory results.
I know what you mean ,but what iam trying to say is : those rows i listed doesnt look like available data or involved any forms of simulation , calculation
New
Posts: 170
By: Sergeleboss
- 30th August 2016 at 11:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Only objective technical data
Where do you get Min and Max RCS for Rafale/Typhoon/Gripen... or F-22 for example ?
By: Marcellogo
- 30th August 2016 at 11:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i assume man-machine interface is not accounted for at all ?
every western pilot reporting on the matter starting from west german pilots claim flying Mig-29 is hard work,
leaving little capacity left for combat
Again, what version of MiG-29?
The B model i.e. the monkey model WP air forces had when passed to Nato?
Even in the second half of the eighties VVS had the Mig-29S with FBW.
Because of that if you give a look at the little, rule of thumb, list I have made, I've put the two version in a different tier of capacities.
Paralay has had a good idea with those tables, kudos to him, also if some conclusion in it left me quite dubious.
MiG-29, Rafale and Typhoon having more range than Flanker???????????????????????
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 30th August 2016 at 11:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i assume man-machine interface is not accounted for at all ?
every western pilot reporting on the matter starting from west german pilots claim flying Mig-29 is hard work,
leaving little capacity left for combat
With no intention to enter the debate, he is talking about MiG-29M (9.15, later evolved into 9.41/9.47 and 9.61/9.67)
The German ones were classic oldie 9.12As..
The difference is roughly as much as F-16A --> F-16C --> F-16E.
New
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime
- 30th August 2016 at 11:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The lowest fuel fraction in there is the Gripen at ~20%. For that same fuel fraction (20%) the wing loading and TWR figures are as follows:
By: MSphere
- 30th August 2016 at 12:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If you bring up MiG-29 and Su-27, why not F-16A or Mirage 2000C? Comparing aircraft which entered service in ~1983 with something that was introduced 20 odd years later seems quite biased, at least to me..
New
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime
- 30th August 2016 at 13:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If you bring up MiG-29 and Su-27, why not F-16A or Mirage 2000C? Comparing aircraft which entered service in ~1983 with something that was introduced 20 odd years later seems quite biased, at least to me..
I conducted the comparison of the aircraft mentioned in the title, no bias was intended. But since you asked.
Su-35 / 76 / 1.26 / No / No / Yes / No / No
MiG-35 / 74 / 1.31 / No / No / Yes / No / No
New
Posts: 269
By: Byoin
- 30th August 2016 at 16:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I conducted the comparison of the aircraft mentioned in the title, no bias was intended. But since you asked.
Su-35 / 76 / 1.26 / No / No / Yes / No / No
MiG-35 / 74 / 1.31 / No / No / Yes / No / No
to add
J-10 YES NO YES YES NO
PL-10 is IIR, russia does not have it yet.
Russian economy is the size of California. what they do so far is very impressive, but hard to stretch that money to do R and D for all of those.
Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 29th August 2016 at 15:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
J-20 and PAK-FA are not operational yet...
Rafale and Typhoon are definitely not "behind" paper planes.
Posts: 1,344
By: paralay - 29th August 2016 at 18:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Rafale and Typhoon combat capabilities correspond to the MiG-29M in 1986
[ATTACH=CONFIG]247865[/ATTACH]
Posts: 1,765
By: Marcellogo - 29th August 2016 at 21:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm considered filo-russian there but in this case I call it spades.
Not false n.b. because as said several times eurocanards and russian 4+ planes have similar basic concept and similar flight pattern, just gained in different ways.
Yet calling any plane of any nationality that went out in the eighties better of another, any of any nationality the same, that went out in the new century is a far, far,far,far cry.
Above all, it risk to get all of us back into the usual fanboy's male reproductive contest that, almost until now, seems this thread has been largely immune.
Posts: 1,344
By: paralay - 30th August 2016 at 06:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I conclude on the basis of facts.
Line 209: advantage in dog fight
Line 221: advantage ranged
All planes are compared with the Su-27. In the cells of the formula. As the calculation is carried out can be found by downloading the table.
MiG-29M best in dog fight - 1.31.
Rafal best ranged - 1.30
[ATTACH=CONFIG]247872[/ATTACH]
http://www.paralay.com/paralay_tab.xls
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 30th August 2016 at 06:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I cant read Russian so how do you come up with these ratio ? I downloaded the table but everything inside seem like they are random number TBH
Posts: 1,344
By: paralay - 30th August 2016 at 08:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
random ? in which place?
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 30th August 2016 at 08:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In how you come up with these ratio, doesnt seem to have any reasonable explanation behind those number IMHO
Posts: 1,344
By: paralay - 30th August 2016 at 08:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Table thousands of numbers , which confuses you ?
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 30th August 2016 at 09:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For example the Min and Max RCS just seem like a bunch of random number ,i dont know where do you get the source for them and i dont think there is one.
Or the engine thrust row : the thrust is at what altitude ? , what speed ?
or the Aerodynamic efficiency row : what exactly are they and how do you come up with these value there ? ( since they are neither Cd or Cl obviously)
Posts: 1,344
By: paralay - 30th August 2016 at 10:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The task - to compare the aircraft on the basis of the available data. characteristics that can not get officially calculated . Even these simple methods allow to obtain satisfactory results.
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 30th August 2016 at 10:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i assume man-machine interface is not accounted for at all ?
every western pilot reporting on the matter starting from west german pilots claim flying Mig-29 is hard work,
leaving little capacity left for combat
Posts: 1,344
By: paralay - 30th August 2016 at 10:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Only objective technical data
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 30th August 2016 at 10:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I know what you mean ,but what iam trying to say is : those rows i listed doesnt look like available data or involved any forms of simulation , calculation
Posts: 170
By: Sergeleboss - 30th August 2016 at 11:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Where do you get Min and Max RCS for Rafale/Typhoon/Gripen... or F-22 for example ?
Posts: 1,765
By: Marcellogo - 30th August 2016 at 11:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Again, what version of MiG-29?
The B model i.e. the monkey model WP air forces had when passed to Nato?
Even in the second half of the eighties VVS had the Mig-29S with FBW.
Because of that if you give a look at the little, rule of thumb, list I have made, I've put the two version in a different tier of capacities.
Paralay has had a good idea with those tables, kudos to him, also if some conclusion in it left me quite dubious.
MiG-29, Rafale and Typhoon having more range than Flanker???????????????????????
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 30th August 2016 at 11:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With no intention to enter the debate, he is talking about MiG-29M (9.15, later evolved into 9.41/9.47 and 9.61/9.67)
The German ones were classic oldie 9.12As..
The difference is roughly as much as F-16A --> F-16C --> F-16E.
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime - 30th August 2016 at 11:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The lowest fuel fraction in there is the Gripen at ~20%. For that same fuel fraction (20%) the wing loading and TWR figures are as follows:
Aircraft / Wing Loading (lb/ft^2) / TWR / 90deg HOBS / LOAL / HMCS / IIR AAMs /VTAS
MiG-29 / 74 / 1.21 / No / No / Yes / No / No
Su-27 / 68 / 1.22 / No / No / Yes / No / No
Gripen C / 58 / 0.97 / Yes / Yes / Yes / Yes / No
F-15 C / 58* / 1.36* / Yes / Yes / Yes / Yes / No
F-16 C / 79 / 1.21 / Yes / Yes / Yes / Yes / No
Rafale C / 55 / 1.25 / Yes / Yes / No / Yes / Yes
Typhoon / 54 / >1.35 / Yes / Yes / Yes / Yes / Yes
*Used 28,000lb empty. Af.mil states 31,700lb??? Which would change figures to 66lb/ft^2 and 1.2 TWR.
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104501/f-15-eagle.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-27
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 30th August 2016 at 12:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If you bring up MiG-29 and Su-27, why not F-16A or Mirage 2000C? Comparing aircraft which entered service in ~1983 with something that was introduced 20 odd years later seems quite biased, at least to me..
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime - 30th August 2016 at 13:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I conducted the comparison of the aircraft mentioned in the title, no bias was intended. But since you asked.
Su-35 / 76 / 1.26 / No / No / Yes / No / No
MiG-35 / 74 / 1.31 / No / No / Yes / No / No
Posts: 269
By: Byoin - 30th August 2016 at 16:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
to add
J-10 YES NO YES YES NO
PL-10 is IIR, russia does not have it yet.
Russian economy is the size of California. what they do so far is very impressive, but hard to stretch that money to do R and D for all of those.