During WW1 there was an ACE named MVR and he flew a red DR1. This AC would run circles
around anything that dare come in contact. It's manuverability and full rudder made it the perfect killing machine. He was able to rack-up kill after kill time and time again.

Simply put, the first pilot to maneuver into position will ultimately win.

F16 Fighting Falcon - Single hole, Small profile, Very light.

Su27 - Two hole, Large profile, Very heavy.

Answer:________________

Last first: Virenmohan, high AOA helps, but will play less of a role in a turning fight where the speeds stay around corner. From what I've read, fighters will only attain their highest AOA angles after bleeding off speed to something well below corner speed. Until then it is not a deciding factor.

T-Bone, don't you mean "rate" instead of radius? Engine thrust would improve rate of turn, I would think...feel free to set me straight on that one. I thought aerodynamic design (for the most part) decided radius.

Alex, outstanding point regarding the helmet sight. Cheating! Cheating!

J1, I must point out that your source is a gaming manual, which is unaware of the classified performances of the aircraft it models, and completely unaware of the SU-33's performance. Games, while excellent, are still just games. And I admit to becoming a recent Falcon 4.0 lover!

FalconF1, wieght in a turning engagement is offset for the most part by thrust to weight ratio, I would guess, which also overcomes the change in intertia that the wieght amplifies.

Everyone has such outstanding answers...is anyone a fighter pilot? Now, just reading the Falcon 4.0 manual one can see all kinds of hints as to hidden and classified weapons that Microprose was unfortunately not privy to...I wonder what hidden goodies the F-16 can do in a turning fight? Or, are all the secrets out of the bag? Same question for the SU-33....

My money is on the Falcon, simply because of a mix of Patriotism and I like the little jet.

After that, we're just all guessing....

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Dan

I'm no pilot, but I'd like to add my $0.02, even though it's a bit of a cop-out. KNOW WHO MY MONEY"S ON?

Neither!! It's a draw. I say the Falcon takes 5 out of 10 rounds, and the Sukhoi takes the other 5. These are just 2 superb aircraft and the flight envelopes of both have tremendous overlap, with any slight performance advantages being negated by the opposing pilot's knowledge of those advantages. I'm sure any F-16 pilot worth his salt has been trained how to try and counter a "Cobra" or a high AOA maneuver by a Flanker. And I'm sure an experienced Flanker pilot has been taught tricks to deal with the deadly turn radius of the Viper.

So, quite frankly, any advantages in flight envelope, or in thrust-to-weight ratio wind up being marginal, there is simply too much overlap in the performance of these 2 beasts.
That's why it's a draw. Unless of course one of the pilots has a greater fighting spirit, but I think we're going on the assumption of equally capable and motivated fighter jocks.

An object in motion tends to stay in motion.
The Flanker's extra (20,000lbs?) weight hinders its chances against an f16 at a guns only fight.

The real pilots are watching...and I bet they can't keep themselves from laughing. I speak from personal experience(still reeling from the emotional pain).

I guess we can "agree to disagree".

Hmmm, considering that both wieght and gravity are the constants here, you have a good point. I honestly do not know, but I see where thrust (as in ratio to wieght) does not play the same role when it comes to overcoming enertia.

I have coffee with an engineer every morning, and I will pose the question to him. If you're interested in the answer, post here, and I'll tell you how the conversation went.

As for real pilots laughing, first, they better be fighter pilots or they too know not of what they speak, and second, yeah, I can see why they're laughing!!

Si Vis etc,

In Flanker2 the Su27 beates the F16.

So it depends on the sim you are flying.

I have some answers regarding inertia. Fred, you're pretty close.

Here goes, based on this morning's conversation with an engineer and what I've read regarding ACM:

There are two factors to be concerned with when discussing actual "dogfighting" versus say merge and BVR shooting. First is sustained turn performance, or which fighter can hold a tighter, faster turn longer. This is where both lift, drag, and thrust to wieght ratio become players. Sustained turn performance is important when attacking with and defending against guns and rear aspect only missles, as the tighter turning fighter will stay out of the enemy weapons envelope and get into his easier. Another factor to take into account is roll rate, or the ability to change direction fast.

Now, the other aspect of "manuverability" is instantaneous turn performance, or how fast the nose of the aircraft can be whipped around to face the enemy. For instance, as I understand it, two fighters merging on an offset course, the fighter that can swing his nose on target faster and get a shot off has the advantage. Instantaneous turn performance has recently become important with the advent and perfection of all-aspect short range missles such as the AIM-9M Sidewinder (did I get the right one there?).

Inertia plays a small role in a sustained turn performance fight, and a good thrust to weight ratio is needed to maintain corner speed during the engagement.

In a situation calling for good instantaneous turn performance, overcoming inertia is critical, and the lightwieght (or lighter-wieght) fighter will have the advantage, all else (pilots, weapons, t/w ratio, aerodynamics) being equal.

As for the winner in a "dogfight" between the Falcon and the SU-33, geez, who knows? So many variable even considering equal pilots. Even that definition, "equal" is subject to argument. When training in DACT, or Dissimilar Air Combat Training, I've read that the performance difference between aircraft needs to be greater than 10% in most regimes, (Robert Shaw's excellent Air Combat Tactics). Do these aircraft have a performance difference that great, because if they don't you might as well ask if a Falcon can beat a Falcon. Or let them use BVR weapons.

Andy Bush, you out there? Please feel free to correct me on my inaccuracies; I'm just a well read rookie.

Hope this sheds a little light, or at least adds fire to the discussion!

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Its not the sim that you're playing...

In Falcon 4 its "Apex inboud!" Boom...

In Flanker 2 its...turn, turn, go vertical, turn, watch out for the gunfire, turn...until one of you is a smoking hole in the ground...

I agree with you that the F-16 and SU-33 are probably not dissimilar enough for the initial question to be valid.

However, my research and comments were more directed to FalconF1's comments regarding inertia.

Yes, inertia plays a vital role in ACM, and yes, the lighter fighter has the advantage, all else being equal. However, this advantage of overcoming inertia lies only in the area of instantaneous turn performance, and not in sustained turn performance.

Stan, your claim that both fighters would overcome inertia equally because of similar thrust to weight ratios is, according to physics, incorrect.

Would this be enough to dictate the outcome of a "dogfight" between these two aircraft? Anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's.

Si Vis etc

If what you say is correct, it makes the situation that much MORE interesting and un-predictable.

If the lighter fighter has a better "instantaneous" turn advantage, we are talking about its' VECTOR, in other words, the ability of the pilot to snap not simply the nose of his aircraft around, but to actually CHANGE the direction or VECTOR of his aircraft's travel quicker. BUT in modern ACM this does NOT necessarily confer an advantage. Remember this: the Falcon pilot CAN change his INSTANTANEOUS VECTOR faster than the Flanker pilot, BUT....and here's the big BUT: can the Falcon pilot snap the ASPECT (or nose) of his jet faster than the Flanker????

Picture this: A Falcon driver is starting to approach a good angle for a guns kill, and maintains corner velocity, continuing to gain angles on the Flanker. BUT now the Flanker, with its' famous Cobra and tail slide ability can snap his nose in such a way as to get his HUD onto the F-16, even as he continues to lose the VECTOR part of the battle due to his greater inertia.

Who has the advantage NOW? The Flanker is still "sliding" away from the lighter Falcon, but his nose is perfectly positioned for a gun shot or an all-aspect IR shot.

It is precisely this high-sustained AOA ability of the Flanker that makes it so dangerous. No current production US fighter can do this.

So once again, advantage: neither.

Stan Man, you must be talking about using the Cobra to fire off an Archer right?

EXACTLY! However, I thought the Cobra manuver was a LOW airspeed HIGH AOA manuver, no? If it is, then an engagement such as you have described, with both aircraft approaching at their respective corner speeds, advantage Falcon with all aspect SRM's. However, if the Cobra can be pulled off at corner velocities, then at the very least I assume the SU will get a snapshot. In a guns only engagement, I can't see this helping. With all aspect short range missles, we're back to tit for tat.

If however, the SU is merging with the Falcon at a slow airspeed, then the Cobra is ineffective unless the Falcon is approaching high on the SU's lift vector. If the merge is co-altitude and offset, the Cobra manuver will have to be performed "sideways," or from a banking angle to get the nose onto the Falcon. This would surely result in the SU-33 departing controlled flight. Not a recommended technique for fighter pilot career advancement.

Again, I want to stress that I'm making educated (well, okay really good) guesses at all this.

ANY FIGHTER PILOTS OUT THERE WILLING TO ANSWER ALL THIS AFTER YOU'RE DONE LAUGHING?

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

You guys mught be right regarding the Flanker's limitations, I don't have enough info on that. I have only seen the Cobra performed in level flight, but I never took that to mean that it absolutely CAN'T do it during a turn. If it CANNOT, then the Falcon driver wins the engagement I described. But, if it can, it makes for a tense stand-off.

There is a novel just out where dogfighting has been turned into an international sport. Going through a series of "meets" is about the only way we'd find out. You take the two best pilots and let them practice in the same aircraft, then put them head to head. Following that meet, you put them into the two air craft that you're arguing about, then see if one can pull out consistent wins. That's about the only way you'd ever be able to prove the point.

Since it's very difficult to make an accurate assesment of both these aircraft, you can look at there actually performance and judge from there. The F-16 has more then 18 years of combat experience... it's weapons systems are farely proven in that we have an extremely GOOD idea how an AIM-9R/P/S etc., AIM-120B/C etc., and dammit, even a Sparrow will react. The SU-27 and all it's variants are largely untested (actually, I may be very wrong on that)... we see the G-Whiz, and we've got a GOOD idea of how it's SUPPOSED to work, but it has never had real operational experience.

As far as the Cobra Maneuvre actually being used in combat is highly unlikely, it is used ony to demonstrate the SU-27´s high alpha characteristics during airshows etc etc. The ground crew actually has to bypass some systems and rewire the birds flight control system a little bit to allow it to peform this maneuvre. And even IF the SU-27 could peform this manouvre without a hassle it would most certanly get it killed since it would be a sitting duck in that position.
I could only see this manouvre being is in totall and absolute desperation to try and get a missle or a quick gun shot on a straight flying aircraft wich just happends to be EXATCLY on the flankers lift vector

also there´s a saying that goes "Its not the plane your flying, its how you fly it"

I´m not saying wich aircraft would potentially be the winner in the situation, thats purely academic to me.

Sabers smoked MiGs.
Phantoms and Thuds smoked MiGs. Eventually.
Israelis smoked MiGs. Even using silly French planes.
Tomcats over Sidra smoked MiGs.
Coalition smoked MiGs and Sukes over the Gulf.
Its the pilots, gentleman. We will (pray to god) never see AtoA engagements between crack U.S. and Russian pilots. On the other hand, we may have seen such engagements over Korea and Vietnam.
Western hardware has proven superior in every campaign. Tell me the last U.S. AtoA loss since Vietnam? Not AAA, not SAMs...AtoA.
Superior pilots, superior hardware.
My money is on the Viper.

It's actually pretty well-known at this point that an Iraqi MiG-25 shot down an American F/A-18 Hornet on the first night of the Gulf War. It was covered up for a while, but the truth eventually came out. So there's your A-to-A loss right there. Apparently it wasn't the Hornet driver's fault either. AWACS took too long sifting through friendlys and hostiles.

Remember, the Pentagon excels at cover-ups so we may find out about other instances such as these in due time.

But overall, I agree with you.