Maverick Su-35S

Was I wrong based on what you described? Buffeting on the F-15C's wings at 8 AoA? Here we're talking about the F-15C right, or are have you only been referring to the T-10 (Su-27 prototype) all along? Buffeting is a partial flow separation indeed. If for some reason (usually low Reynolds and very high to infinte AR) you have a buffeting at 8 AoA, there are just a couple more degrees of AoA until complete separation, 12..13 AoA or so, but for our subject which is the F-15's wing and it's critical AoA (which takes place at a quite high Reynolds), regardless of what separately happens over the fuselage, for the AR it has (about 3) a buffeting wouldn't probably (can't know for sure) occur before 14..16 AoA has been reached. I haven't contradicted myself anywhere! Check here: https://surjeetyadav.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/staj-7.png http://cfile219.uf.daum.net/image/115856534DE23F29347E44 https://ultralightdesign.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/flaps-fig31.jpg?w=660 https://www.theairlinepilots.com/forumarchive/principlesofflight/flapcurve.jpg The 4th link shows exactly what I am saying about leading edge flaps (which are not droops as you most probably believe) and for your knowledge they have a slot too, yet very small compared to slats, while the droops have no gap. Now you provide the difference in effects for each of them if you have better info!

Sorry, but one of us isn't true here, and I'm not the one. I've just provided a track, did you check it? How can it be that in my test, the Eagle did a 360 in 12.00 seconds at 1% fuel starting from 200meters MSL and 450 KIAS and you can't get it below 14, while for the same conditions but starting the fastest turn from 750km/h IAS, the Su-27 can't do it in less than 13.8? Again, I use the other reference, the F-16C. How can our DCS F-15C have a better STR than the F-16C? Somewhere, there's a nonsense, period!

For point 3, was too quick on that word "slats"! Yes, droops, not slats, but even so the critical AoA increment advantage should be there and in reality it is great as compared to F-15C. 1. How much of a difference in output performance do you believe would occur if one would have a symmetrical airfoil while the other has the most highly cambered airfoil ever used for high lift? You confuse what happens in 2D with what happens in 3D. In 2D, yes, the differences are high in CL0 (zero AoA lift coefficient), CL vs AoA (lift slope) and critical AoA (which decreases for the more cambered foil), but in 3D (and I understand you don't know) the differences exponentially decrease (can't tell an exponent but it's at least 2) as the AR (aspect ratio) decreases. So to answer your question, taking into consideration what I've just said and the fact that the airfoil differences for these aircraft aren't great (when the Flanker's droops are retracted), there can't be any advantage for the F-15 in this area, but rather a disadvantage when the Flanker's droops fully extend (which increase the camber at a position very close to the leading edge). 2. What does a washout help you with if you mentioned? In this domain, the F-15 has a disadvantage rather than an advantage. 4. Same as for point 1, you only seem to have 2D airflow knowledge. For infinite span or AR, the critical AoA won't usually go beyond 13..15 AoA (depends on camber). For 3D (limited span and AR), the critical AoA exponentially increases (can't tell an exponent, but the function is non-linear for sure) as the AR decreases. From my knowledge, the F-15's wings only (not vortex washed fuselage) stall above 20. This is the truth and it was perfectly simulated when the F-15C just came out as PFM. So above 20 AoA, you can't have any more aileron effectiveness on a real F-15 and have to use beta angles (obtained by rudder) in order to command a roll and the lift coefficient normally remains flat (lift vs AoA slope becomes null) up to a couple of degrees of AoA more and then find a shallow decrease (negative lift to AoA slope) up to around 30+ AoA. Above 30+ AoA the small energy vortex created between the Eagle's engine inlets starts to break away and by the time the AoA reaches 35, the lift slope starts dropping fast. Kind regards!

Which happens only in DCS and is not only in my mind. As you provided the Su-27's chart which already contains the Eagle and I doubt that the F-15C's performance in that chart are wrong, can you provide a more real chart for the F-15 then? We'd appreciate it. Well validated? Beating even the better powered F-16 in constant turn rate at any airspeed? And about being an excellent dogfighter, sorry, but that can't be more wrong! If you already know to build a plane which excels in aerodynamic lifting performance (F-5 which has LERX and droops or F-14 and F4 which have slats), who would you make a clean wing and with low AR (draggy in turns as compared to the provided lift). Again, even an F-16C powered with the worst engine variant (F100-PW-220) always outturns the Eagle (F-15A and C) in constant turning at all speed ranges, but in DCS the F-15 turns better even than the best F-16. I trust real data only and not what I see now in DCS flight models. Sorry, but I kind of start to lose my trust in how DCS planes performances are being dictated. It's not a problem for me if a plane outperforms another in reality in any way, it's a problem for me because I only wanted to fly a simulator which respects real life data, but what I find is way off...!

Wrong! The leading edge flaps are one type of LE devices. The slats are another type of LE devices and finally droops are another type of LE devices. In terms of aerodynamics only, disregarding their structural disadvantages / advantages, they are all quite different in performance output. The LE flaps only slightly increase maximum CL, with little effect on critical AoA (only move the lift slope upwards due to higher CL0 with small AoA increment). The droops (non-slotted LE devices) increase the critical AoA not affecting the lift slope (as a result the maximum CL also increases). The slats (slotted LE devices) re-energize the boundary layer by rapidly increasing the airflow on the appropriate region (usually the upper surface of an affected airfoil) and provide the highest amount of critical AoA and maximum CL increment. The presence of LERX induced vortexes increase the critical AoA, thus the maximum CL, with low effect on lift slope. Who talked about flaperons? Regards!

So you say we shouldn't care if things are wrong in this simulator (being an internet game).?!

Hi, For some reason, the ADI's ILS horizontal bar (the bank needle is otherwise correctly matching the real localizer) drifts away from the real glideslope as distance decreases to touchdown. Although the VOR/ILS instrument bars on the ADI work as a flight director (thus it tells you to climb or bank in advance to the movement of the HUD's ball indication) similar to a modern airliner, the error / difference in displacement between the ILS glideslope bar (up-down pitching needle) and HUD ball becomes very great as the distance to the ideal touchdown point decreases. At higher distances the indications are quite close although the ADI needles predict when you should climb or turn. There may be nothing wrong with the error between the ADI's horizontal bar indication and the HUD's ball (in pitch) at higher distances, but as you get closer to the touchdown point, the ADI ILS glideslope bar starts to drift more and more away from the real glidelsope path that is correctly measured by the HUD's indication only. In reality, the flight director bars (which our ADI ILS indicator mimics) may be having a great error from the glideslope and localizer indications if the airplane isn't already aligned with them, but as the distance to touchdown decreases, no matter if the plane is more or less aligned with the glideslope and localizer (as directed from the VOR/ILS facility), the difference or error between the flight director bars and the glideslope & localizer indications will also decrease. Here's a shot proving the high drift between ILS and HUD indication and track of a landing trial: VOR-ILS instrument and HUD glideslope indications error.trk If our ADI's ILS bars don't work like flight director's bars, let us know. Otherwise there's no reason for the ADI's glideslope bar to start deviating from the real path during the most crucial landing phase. Regards!

There are 2 problems at the moment. One regards the Su-27 which falls under that true chart (talking about STR of course), the other problem is the Eagle (after later tests prove) in DCS which outturns the Su-27 by 2 seconds in a 360 turn. There is one thing when talking about a 360 turn in which it seems that some people don't understand how to obtain the smallest amount of time needed and rather think of how the ITR varies with speed (which affects the average turn rate). They talk about managing the AoA as to not get it too high too soon (thus smoothing out the ITR increment as speed drops). That would indeed be useful if you want to obtain the highest average turn rate for more than one circle of turn, but if you want to obtain the highest average turn rate for just a 360 turn which was the only subject here, pulling full aft stick regardless of how the AoA and drag (thus airspeed drop) evolve, will always get you the lowest amount of time required, of course, unless you want longer turns (because you have indeed already wasted most of the energy). Here's another track which is proof that after some update (don't know which) the F-15C has "found" a greatly exaggerated lifting to drag performance (mostly lift increment as it seems the deceleration rate through the turn is the same as it was when PFM came out) which translates to an abnormally high turn rate for this plane in particular. DCS F-15C's exaggerated lifting performance.trk Both planes loaded with just 1% fuel (infinite). The Su-27 can't do a 360 i less than 13.8 seconds. The F-15 however does it in 12 seconds flat. How come the DCS Eagle outturns the Flanker in all areas (STR and average turn rates)? Let's not forget key facts regarding the F-15C. 1.The F-15 has no slats, thus a lower critical AoA before the wing stalls (about 6-7 degrees lower), not to be confused with the fuselage which stalls later due to the vortexes generated between the inlets. Another problem although seems to show up which is that above 20% AoA (where the wings stall for the real F-15C), the lift continues to increase O.o. Yes, those little vortexes between the inlets keep the fuselage (or the area they wash) from stalling until some 10 or more degrees of AoA (about 30+), but the lift should find a smooth decrease from 20 to supercritical AoA (at vortex breakdown). What we see is a constant lift increment above 20% which is nothing but wrong. 2.The F-15 has no LERX. Huge amounts of lift slope, maximum lift and higher directional stability and also very much higher critical AoA is achieved through this. Still in DCS it behaves like it has LERX, not like it hasn't. 3.The F-15's wing has an AR (aspect ratio which mostly influences lift slope, maximum lift, drag slopes and thus L/D ratio) of 3.0 which is lower than that of the Su-27 (AR = 3.5), so just from start, the F-15 finds an overall lower maximum lift coefficient (could be 10 to 15% lower) and lower lift to drag ratio (so it loses speed faster at a given G-load), thus irrefutably it's turn rates should suffer (both ITR and STR) even against a fighter with similar wing loading and thrust to drag ratio. The F-15 was mostly designed for interception, not to be an excellent dogfighter..., but in DCS it even outturns a real F-16. Take this as a reference: F-16 better than F-15 in terms of maximum lift and lower L/D and also better turning performance. Su-27 very close to the F-16 in this domain. This is reality, so in no way we should see the opposite in DCS, right? Here's a video of the best F-16 (equipped with the most powerful engine for it, the GE F-110) in which you can clearly learn that the fighter which always wins against the F-15C at turn rate, when having just around 2000lb of fuel left (around 25..30% left) takes at least 14 seconds to complete a 360 turn: So how in the world does the F-15C in DCS do it in less than 13 in comparable circumstances? Regards!

Very good man, but now try to fly the plane and match the very valuable chart you linked, the one with the 2xR27R and 2xR73 loaded Su-27 and make the comparison again. I have made mine and the differences are quite big. Fly a constant horizontal turn at 200msl at 600 or 700km/h IAS or as you wish (I did at 650km/h IAS), at 50% fuel, FULL AB (of course) and use Tacview again to see the turn rate, or pause the game when you consider you hold the AoA so that the speed and altitude won't vary, use the illustrated G-load (but substract 0.1 from it, because for some reason during play the outside view G-meter always shows a higher value by 0.1 or so (tested)) and actual speed on the circular pattern (actual IAS) and determine the constant turn rate. Formula is ω = G/V, where V is IAS and G is G-load. But using Tacview is more accurate anyway. Regards!

That is what I'm trying to say as well, but you formulated it in another way! So you also agree that the maximum STR can't be higher than the maximum ITR, as Ironhand suggested! Yes, that's what he said and I understood that, but at some point (other sentence) it seemed to me that he contradict with himself by making it look like the max STR becomes greater than max ITR which sounded absurd, or maybe I mistook it for a lower speed ITR (if that's what he meant) which indeed may become lower than the highest possible STR (which of course corresponds to just one speed value). Perhaps very interested if they get into that situation. About the weapons, maybe in less occasions as they usually score a hit before remaining with clean loadout, but about the fuel, in more occasions during dogfight. Ok, and could you give us an example of what would be so different? Do you want to say that the airshow plane misses a lot of weight compared to a combat ready one? How much weight can that be if it's true? First of all, you might confuse me with people who like role playing games, I don't. I don't care about "balance" and stuff like that. I want each plane to fly like the real plane flies, regardless of people's liking. Yes, as compared to it's MTOW, the Su-27's internal fuel covers a higher percentage than the F-15 does, but again, when I've said between 20 to 30% of fuel left when performing the quickest 360 turn I estimated the amount of fuel left if the airshow plane (F-15 or Su-27) would takeoff with 50% and until starting to do that turn it burned fuel until remaining with about 20..30% (25% let's say). So my comparison was strictly to related to each plane's turn rate abilities at airshows and hopefully in combat if there are no differences in actual weights for the same fuel, not about how a DCS F-15 vs Su-27 1vs1 guns only balance (for counterstrike lovers) would develop, cause again this is not what I seek. I know that very well, but this was not the point again, the only point is the comparison to the 30deg/sec AVERAGE (can't predict precisely the ITR from the video and there is no STR because the speed is dropping) throughout the whole turn. Couldn't be more correct, this is what I'm trying to merge into and as GGTharos gave us those golden Su-27 armed charts we have a good start for exactly that, and from my last post you can see how far our DCS Su-27 strings from those values. Looking at your initial post's charts what I see is the F-15 getting to an ITR of around 29 deg/sec, and then bleeding a huge amount of airspeed. A very reasonable result. Even without the limiter turned off, the Su-27 didn't get more than a second faster through the turn, what do you say about that? Looks like you don't see the big picture and start going off-topic. What I'm trying to prove is that no matter how well one would manage the turn by the AoA (hence stick), the F-15 completes the turn in less time than the Su-27, and I'm not talking about heading/nose pointing, but about speed/velocity vector carrying through the turn versus time. Even if for the tiniest split second the Su-27 would have a better ITR through a turn than the Eagle, it's dead, because the Eagle finishes the turn faster. So once again, either with a lower or higher Su-27 ITR compared to the Eagle, the Eagle carries it's mass (hence velocity vector) through the circle quicker. At least for any STR according to a constant speed range between 300km/h and above, the Eagle beats the Flanker, which is utterly opposed to the chart GGTharos just provided. Where is the truth? Yeah? Ok, then please be honest and do a test yourself trying to achieve the highest average turn rate with each aircraft (so be fair) and show us the results so we can see. "Combat ceiling, 4 AAM", it says. Probably, exactly the configuration told by GGTharos which corresponds to the diagram he provided. Yes it's a bit intriguing, so you might be right then and the airshow plane is much lighter, otherwise there's no explanation why in 2 authentic videos the airshow planes turn within 12 to 13 seconds. If you hopefully didn't want to play blind on the other side, let's look at the Eagle for the same source of info. What do you read there? Max ITR = 26.4. AhAA! So now the Eagle in DCS is an airshow configuration for reaching almost 30 deg/s? Regards7!

Ok, so you say you managed to do a horizontal 360 in 13-14 (rather said more than 13.5?) seconds, at what fuel? 1%? About the real planes, I say again, they takeoff for airshows at around 50% or maybe less, so by the time they start doing that turn they have quite spent a lot of fuel, that's why I say they have a maximum of 30% left at that moment, maybe 20%, but not less either otherwise they can't continue the show for so much longer. And about the video, again, you can find the originals on youtube, so they are the same, unaltered! I had no meaning to cut seconds from the moment the turn started until it ended. I want to seek the truth only! What are you looking for as a reference for the 360 turning time? Time needed between the moment the nose or heading started to change until it came back to the same position or time needed between the moment the velocity vector started moving acceptably (although we don't see it on a HUD it has a bit of lagging behind the actual heading change) and the time the velocity vector passes through the initial (unchanged) heading? I used the second mode as a reference, because what I find important is how fast the CG (or velocity vector) changes over time, not the actual heading (which is affected by alpha changes). In the video when the nose pointed the initial heading only 11 seconds have passed, so I took care of that to not falsify anything and by actual heading prediction on turn rate I allowed the timer to go for more than 1 second more before calling a count. That's how it terminated in 12.33 seconds (12.10 frames, where 30 frames are 1 second). Even if it may be +1 second more (13+ seconds), it still turns with at least 2 seconds better than what we can get in our simulator for 25% fuel left (infinite fuel used for this purpose), this is what the problem is all about, cause no matter how much someone tries to manage the AoA increment rate (different AoA onsets) during the turn (indeed not sharply pulling 30AoA by disabling the limiter) he can't do a horizontal turn below 13.5 seconds even at 1% fuel load or below 15 seconds at 25% fuel. Here is another track proving this last paragraph. 1% fuel loaded: [ATTACH]179238[/ATTACH] Maybe the devs believe this won't need a change because the difference doesn't seem great, but it is. 2 seconds difference means our plane in DCS turns at least 15% worse than real. About that turning diagram that you linked to us: I have tried to see if our plane matches those max STR values for the different altitudes and airspeeds in there and it turns worse than in the chart! The real graph clearly shows a max STR of 20 dps at 200 meters while carring 2xR73 + 2xR27R as you said. You can't reach that STR even with no loadout at 50% fuel. And by the way, as the resulted graphs from my test clearly show there is no difference between a loaded configuration with the 4 mentioned missiles and a clean loadout another problem emerges, which is that the Flanker doesn't get a G-load reduction (lower lift to weight ratio) while loaded with missiles and also the needed AoA for trimmed speed remains the same, which means the drag increment isn't present/simulated!? The missiles cannot create lift while being carried on wings because the local AoA on each missile is close to null, but should create drag otherwise. The test shows that the plane doesn't get a resultant G-load reduction for the same speed (hence turn rate) and doesn't get a higher drag either (hance the constant AoA is the same). The truth is straight in front of us, so why do we ignore it? Here is the plane's STR while flying at 12 AoA at 200m MSL, full AB, ISA conditions (15 Celsius), 50% fuel, NO loadout, having the speed trimmed at 650km/h IAS: Here it is under the same conditions (slightly lower AoA, around 11.2) but at 3000m MSL: Here is the plane's STR while flying at the same 12 AoA (surprisingly and abnormal) at 200m MSL, full AB, ISA conditions (15 Celsius), 50% fuel, loaded with 2xR-73 and 2xR-27R, having the speed trimmed at 650km/h IAS: Please verify that you obtain similar results! Regards!

This track shows that our Flanker in DCS can't do the benchmark 360 turn in less than 15 seconds even after pushing the frame to 10G: DCS Su-27's maximum turn rate capability.trk

What would the 14 deg/s mean! ITR? STR, and in which condition of weight and height? You don't start with sustained turn rate if you pull full stick at a speed for which you can achieve G-limit at critical AoA. That is instantaneous turn rate that you generate. What would you understand by sustained turn rate? I understand a constant rate of turn of my plane's velocity vector at a constant alpha, altitude and weight which will trim my speed and G-load to a constant value. By instantaneous turn rate I understand a momentary turn rate of my velocity vector for a given alpha (which may be constant or variable), weight, altitude according to a G-load which varies with speed. If you want to enter an ITR situation from a STR that's fine, but if you pull the stick in a way of making the airspeed (and thus G-load) vary, you conduct an ITR scenario. Please correct me if I'm wrong! Well, if it's the highest sustained turn rate airspeed (as you say), how can it be the lowest turn rate at the same time? The highest turn rate possible that you can achieve (and is always ITR and not STR) corresponds to the highest G-load at a given speed, so I don't know about what we're talking here. So you are saying that the STR is for a speed which is initially well beyond the one for maximum G-limit, so you fly at a low alpha, right? What would that help you with unless it's the one corresponding to the highest STR? If the speed is higher than for your highest STR (which is lower than the highest ITR anyways), you are only doing a big circle turn at a relatively low rate and wait for the drag to reduce the speed to a value below which upon reaching critical alpha the G eventually starts to drop and where you have touched the maximum possible ITR. I believe that what I've said was right. After pulling the stick to reach the critical AoA while flying at the exact speed needed to reach exactly the G-limit you have rapidly achieved the highest ITR and lowest turn radius possible, not passing through any STR or anything and as your speed drops (usually the T/D ratio is well below 1 at critical alpha), so does your ITR drops. A STR is only corresponding to a constant speed and G-load. By trying to review what you've said another way: Correct! Sorry, but wrong! How can you have the highest ITR lower than STR (even if it's the highest STR)? You mean about the lowest ITR which eventually turn into the lowest STR? Right, it won't be fast, because the drag will keep both your airspeed and G-load (thus STR) low for the given thrust you have. Perhaps the charts you have seen have a loaded and heavy plane, not with less than 40% fuel with no loadout. Regards!

Idk what's going on with that link, I've re-copied it now. Well, yes it's not 32dps as STR, I guess we both agree, but the mean dps is around 30 (12 seconds for a 360 turn). The deg/s is one thing, the AoA is another and hopefully no one mistaken dps for AoA. At least this was the flanker on which these manoeuvres at Farnborough and Woodford were done in the 1990s.

It's not my plane or someone's plane, it's reality's plane and yes, the real data should validate each aircraft's (helo or plane) performance in DCS also, but only through thorough testing... and here the turn rates, axial and normal accelerations according to various conditions are key to know if something's not right.

Thank you Tharos, very interesting charts, but something's weird, even though the planes are A-A combat loaded! How come the F-16 is so much worse at STR than the F-15 and Su-27? What is this, F-16A with downrated engine? It's strange! Besides the F-16's performance, even here we can see how the Su-27 should have better STR below 700km/h IAS, so..., how come in DCS the F-15 has better STR at all speeds between full aft stick to 9G (over 9G, of course it has much higher STR and ITR).?

Sorry, but I don't get your arguments. F-15>Flanker O.o. In reality or game? and if in reality, in which area? On the other hand I can't wait for the Hornet to come out and if you guys want to toast me, I'll toast you too...!:D Cheers!:thumbup: The Hornet has better ITR than the Flanker and better STR only in diving spirals, otherwise it's dead meat in the vertical against the Su-27, in reality I mean, no matter how will it "show up" in DCS! I understand you figured me out the wrong way buddy! I love all airplanes the same and I'm not pro or con for one plane against another...! ALL I WANT IS REALISM and perhaps you don't know what it is!

Right, fighter pilots may not necessarily be trained to withstand 12G for 16 seconds, although some do train for just that, like this guy: Although at 2:14 he had enough (got tired probably), he still withstood 2 seconds more at 12 Gs (7 seconds) than our "virtual pilot" in DCS can stand at 9G before passing, which is just 5 seconds. F-16 fighter pilots are grounded if they can't hold 9G for at least 15 seconds. The higher the G-load the exponentially lower the time available till blackout, so if the guy who held 12 G for 16 seconds, he can very easily hold 9 for at least 30 seconds, that's how curved the function is. In DCS right now, you can stand forever at 8G (even if you can't see much on your monitor) but blackout at 9 in just 5 seconds, so the G load to blackout time curve is incredibly exponential/logarithmic (depending on graph interpretation). About negative G-load redout in DCS, the function behaves the same as for positive Gs.

Good point man, exactly! And as I've tested the PFM Su-27 as it initially appeared (as PFM), the Flanker's turning capability matched perfectly with those in the video, which was 12 seconds needed for 360 turn. Now it takes almost 16 seconds for the same conditions, so apparently, the changes made it worse.

Correct. It seems to be in contradiction to DCS, in which you said you were just able to achieve 30 deg/s as ITR (that is maximum capable for a split of a second at very low fuel, no loadout and rapid AoA onset), which in reality is the average turn rate, below the highest ITR (at corner speed where it started turning) and above the lowest ITR (where the turn ends). Guess for yourself which is wrong, reality or...? The video is untouched in terms of frames/second or timing and it's not the only video proving the same qualities of the Flanker's turning performance. Regards.

No one said this is a bug. A bug is usually a writing error in a programming line, which isn't the case here. The case here is aerodynamic data which affects our planes turning performance in an apparently abnormal way.

Yeah, I also doubt that the Flanker can have a higher STR than the Eagle if the speed won't drop when the Eagle is in FULL AB and the Flanker only using 100% MIL power. I don't know what are you trying to point out because, indeed the fighters takeoff with full fuel and also tanks (who has them), but if they get involved in a dogfight, their actual fuel might be well below 60% left, that's why such comparisons of performance are mostly looked at for lower fuel quantities, not because you want to be low on fuel and not make it home, but because it's likely your fuel would be around half and below during a dogfight.

Ok, you are looking at the fact that the Eagle has a higher ITR than the Flanker due to higher G-load at a given IAS (also lower radius as a result) as it happens now in DCS, and let's say it is real and the Eagle has higher ITR than the Flanker at any speed beyond and below 9G as it goes now in DCS (which I strongly doubt for speeds below 9G, and the aerodynamics of the planes are there to support me). Now put some science in and how about testing to see both planes STR also? Constant similar G-load, full AB and let the speed trim where it likes. Result? The Eagle has higher STR at all speed regimes between lowest and highest G-load (below 9) at AoAs comparable to the Flanker. How could this be? It turns the aerodynamics laws upside down, seriously! How much for the cheapest bridge?

You're right, yet I personally couldn't get access to a Su-27's Cy (CL) vs AoA at any flight regime, so I had to improvise right now by rather comparing the Su-27 to the F-16, which I'm pretty sure is a good comparison, aerodynamically speaking. The F-16 beats the F-15 in constant turn rates, yet not ITR. Lack of documentation data won't necessarily discourage me to seek for alternatives in order to estimate what I'm looking for, although I am aware of errors, but how great the errors are depend on how I approach the problem. Simply by looking at those videos with the turning time of the real Su-27 we can directly figure out an average turn rate without the need of any scientific data (which I must admit that I prefer over beliefs). What can be more real than what the airplane tells directly in the air? So now, even if the real data (from flight manual and other documentations) confirms that the Flanker turns as it is also being proven by the videos, why doesn't the DCS Flanker prove the same? This is the problem, nothing else! In reality, this aircraft (the Su-27) completes a horizontal 360 turn in slightly over 12 seconds (Roughly 30 deg/s average turn rate. I don't know the ITR nor the sustained). in DCS, for some reason if other then inaccurate aero data, the Flanker can't manage to get an average turn rate higher than 24 deg/s or complete the turn in less than 15 seconds even if it has 1kg of fuel left, no matter what tricks one might try with the AoA limiter without breaking the wings. This is what it is! Regards!

I have my friend, but that won't change the turning limitations of this aircraft right now. With or without AoA limiter set, the instantaneous and sustained turn rates are quite poor to be comparable to the real plane, it's all that is.