SMQ of the most recent fighters

[SukhoiLover]

The SMQ ( Summarized Maneuverability Quotient ), is a mathematical formula that gives you a better idea of a fighter real maneuverability.

SMQ= ( Ct/w / Sal ) × 1,000

Ct/w- Combat thrust to weight ratio
Sal- Specific area loading

Does anyone know whats the dogfight SMQ of the Typhoon, F-22, Gripen and Rafale?

[sicsok]

There are now only two kind of fighters in the state of art aerial duels. Perhaps that is news to some, but better to find it now than up there with company in sight.
Those air forces who fight with projectiles (AAM, guns etc.)
And those who use precision lasers.
The math is not useless, but this formula is a VERY rough estimate, mainly good for aircraft slesmen pitches and competetive sales.
The photo here shows a plane that only needs a couple of solid rockets (i.e.
those from missiles or ejection seats etc.) and will beat all others by the formula alone.

[SukhoiLover]

Guess what, it would get destroyed because the frame wouldn´t hold up.
Although the future of aerial combat is tilted to BVR combat, i´m still interested in dogfight performance, so, if someone has a useful answer, be my guest.

[sicsok]

No, there are quite a lot of comments or jokes this entry can evoke. But the issue here is to show limits of validity in a formula and show that exceptions (and some very strange ones) ALWAYS exist. That makes life (and flying) worth doing.

[SukhoiLover]

Ahhhh....

To have a good and more precise picture on this matter, you would need drag polars, thrust curves, wing loading, Specific Energy Power, etc....

Guess what, some of this data is classified, so you can´t get the real picture.

The SMQ allows you to get at least a little glimpse on the real thing.

The issue here is not showing limits of validity in that formula ( for some reason it is called summarized? ), the issue here is solving that formula so that we make a comparison, even though a limited one, between different fighters.

So, once again, if you don´t have a useful answer and all you want to do is pointing out something that i already know, then don´t even post, but if you have an answer, please be my guest.

[sicsok]

Besides this formula there had been many similar oversimplified "magic bullets" of knowledge in the past. Not the trivial solutions are in the interest. The variables of the mentioned formula are not argued against, but by know these are hardly anything new.
There are quite a few specific little items that a really good driver can (and will) exploit.
Example:
How long does it take on your plane to deploy full speedbrakes?
How long is the spool-up time if you slam the throttle(s)?
What is the drag to thrust ratio?
etc.

[SukhoiLover]

Originally Posted by sicsok

Besides this formula there had been many similar oversimplified "magic bullets" of knowledge in the past. Not the trivial solutions are in the interest. The variables of the mentioned formula are not argued against, but by know these are hardly anything new.
There are quite a few specific little items that a really good driver can (and will) exploit.
Example:
How long does it take on your plane to deploy full speedbrakes?
How long is the spool-up time if you slam the throttle(s)?
What is the drag to thrust ratio?
etc.

I know that, i really do, i really do know that this formula would just give a very, very , very tiny glimpse of what they can make, but is still a glimpse.

I´m not planning to use such data in argumentations, i´m just interested in the results it might give.