The aircraft must have

*WIDELY SPACED ENGINES (doing this increases wing surface area to provide extra lift) thats why the SU-27/30/35/37 can do cobra
*Thrust vectoring
*Canards
*Phased Array Radar
*IRST with laser designator and helmet mounted sight

Widely spaced engines only add to lift if the airframe design that houses them adds to lift. The F-14 was one of the first aircraft to have almost no fuselage, it was almost all wing too. One problem than comes with wide spacing of the engines is gyroscopic inertia, which decreases the aircraft's instantaneous roll rate. The Kobra...while an impressive airshow maneuver...is pretty much worthless in combat, and can even lead to the premature death of the pilot who performs it in combat.

Thrust vectoring. I agree...it is a technology that is quite useful in combat aircraft.

Canards. Maybe. A bit over-rated, but maybe.

Phased Array Radar. Technically, virtually all combat aircraft radars are phased array radar. The phased array actually refers to the design of the radar antenna, more commonly referred to in modern radars as the plate. I understand what you meant though. You are referring to PESA (Passive Electronically Scanned Array) and AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radars. Either one has undeniable advantages over mechanically-scanned radar, with AESA being able to easily direct its energy at several, focused, scan zones, almost simultaneously. This ability gives true, simultaneous a2a and a2g functionality to the radar.

IRST and laser designators are not often used together. JHMCS is a technology which has been in use for a couple of years, and the F-22/F-35 version of this system add even more functionality.

I disagree with you about the widely spaced engines IguanaKing. In dangerous airspace I would rather be in an aircraft that can pull vertical (pitching) hard Gs than have a good roll rate. Having good roll rate is useless as it wont pull you out of danger in the sights of a tailing aircraft or an incoming missile. Thanks to widely spaced engines and large combines surface area I can do pull myself out of danger or move in for a kill.

Also having a quadruplex 3 plane digital fly-by-wire system (1 computer for canards, 1 for main wings, and 1 for tail planes) is a must to keep the aircraft stable at low speeds and prevent spins and regain control in spins.

quote:

Originally posted by colmvandyck:
I disagree with you about the widely spaced engines IguanaKing. In dangerous airspace I would rather be in an aircraft that can pull vertical (pitching) hard Gs than have a good roll rate. Having good roll rate is useless as it wont pull you out of danger in the sights of a tailing aircraft or an incoming missile. Thanks to widely spaced engines and large combines surface area I can do pull myself out of danger or move in for a kill.

I tend to disagree with that. While the ability to climb is important, widely spaced engines such as on the F-14, reduce the turn radius significantly, if thats the picture I am getting from. Turn rate and turn radius are generally as tight as the space between the engines you put on. For example: the F-16 has a high turn rate and low turn radius. The F-15 has a high turn rate but not as tight as the _16 simply because the -16 has a single engine. Catch the drift?

Instantaneous roll performance is also important in how quickly it can get you into a position to perform an out-of-plane maneuver...which is important for both missile evasion and switching from a defensive to offensive position.

Get X-Plane and try it out! you can make some cool designs in it. What's your opinion on X-plane any way, is it really all it's cracked up to be?

In my limited time playing around with X-Plane, the feel is pretty good. Not thrilled with the avionics in it, but its got a more realistic feel to it than MSFS.

Everyone thinks's it's sooooo great. some aspects of it are. but others? no. lockon is definitaly better over all.

"What makes a good fighter aircraft?"

The pilot

Not sure what books people are reading but turn rate and radius have nothing to do with engine spacing!

Lift allows you to turn, thrust allows you to overcome drag created by lift and therefore sustain the turn. The more of both the better.

9G at 400kts and 5000ft is the same rate and radius no matter what ac is pulling it.

A Jag has a tiny wing and not much thrust while the F-15 has a huge wing and loads of thrust, pretty obvious who the winner would be, but in formation at 3g level, they will be at exactly the same AoB and turning the same circle.

generally the pilot is the limiting factor for max Gs, so I would take a greater roll rate, as it let's you change vectors faster.

quote:

Originally posted by AngularError:
Not sure what books people are reading but turn rate and radius have nothing to do with engine spacing!

Lift allows you to turn, thrust allows you to overcome drag created by lift and therefore sustain the turn. The more of both the better.

9G at 400kts and 5000ft is the same rate and radius no matter what ac is pulling it.

A Jag has a tiny wing and not much thrust while the F-15 has a huge wing and loads of thrust, pretty obvious who the winner would be, but in formation at 3g level, they will be at exactly the same AoB and turning the same circle.

I agree with almost all your statements here (I don't know about the engine spacing) but you do have to keep in mind that thrust comes at a price: weight. You need a bigger engine (or even a second engine) to get more thrust, adding more weight to the jet. When making a turn, the lift of the aircraft is constantly changing the direction in which the mass (the aircraft) is moving. You can imagine that changing the direction of a moving mass is easier (and thus, quicker) when it's lighter.

So, when it comes to turn radius, we shouldn't forget the weight of the aircraft.

quote:

Originally posted by AngularError:
Not sure what books people are reading but turn rate and radius have nothing to do with engine spacing!

Lift allows you to turn, thrust allows you to overcome drag created by lift and therefore sustain the turn. The more of both the better.

9G at 400kts and 5000ft is the same rate and radius no matter what ac is pulling it.

A Jag has a tiny wing and not much thrust while the F-15 has a huge wing and loads of thrust, pretty obvious who the winner would be, but in formation at 3g level, they will be at exactly the same AoB and turning the same circle.

Who said anything about turn rate? I was talking about instantaneous roll rate, not turn rate.

Originally posted by AngularError:
Not sure what books people are reading but turn rate and radius have nothing to do with engine spacing!

Lift allows you to turn, thrust allows you to overcome drag created by lift and therefore sustain the turn. The more of both the better.

9G at 400kts and 5000ft is the same rate and radius no matter what ac is pulling it.

A Jag has a tiny wing and not much thrust while the F-15 has a huge wing and loads of thrust, pretty obvious who the winner would be, but in formation at 3g level, they will be at exactly the same AoB and turning the same circle.

that is exxactly right and as far as roll rate go that comes from controlsurface area. the more surface area the better the roll rate. but none of that matters if the person controling has no skill.