People here think that high wingloading equals sluggish plane. The F-16A/B -> low wingloading. The F-16C/D -> high wingloading. By such implication, the F-16C/D is a sluggish plane (Dodge Voyager).
Nothing is further than the truth. In WWII, the FW190 has a high wing loading, and yet it is more nimble than fighters with lower wing loading including Spitfires, Mustangs, and various Russian fighters that can turn around a pin.
That's because few factor another important quality in agility---roll rates. High and low wingloading dont change that. Late model MiG-21s also have high wingloading and yet, they can roll and quickly snip into a turn.
What high wing loading affects is the turn rate and turn circle but that is also in consideration of altitude. A plane with low wing loading can do turns better when the air thins out, but on sea level, even a plane with high wing loading can turn quickly. Low wing loading helps very tight turns that are done on low speeds.
The equivalent of a plane doing car slalom runs would be doing a series of S turns, and that has to do more with roll rate than turn rate. Thus the description of the F-16C being a Dodge Voyager in a slalom won't be true---the -C could still roll as fast as any -A.
Twin engined planes with seperated engines like Su-30s, and likewise, F-15s and F-14s are likely to suffer from lower roll rates than planes with single engines ala F-16s and MiG-21s. This has to do with the position of the engine mass with the bore of the plane. The more you have of it right in the dead center, the better.
I do think the Su-30 can turn tighter, do better on instant turn rates and achieve higher AoA than the F-16C, but the F-16C still has better roll rates and can flick into turns quicker. This is more like a Spitfire vs. FW190 kind of fight in my opinion.
