Few idle thoughts on the string. You're right, Lomcevak, in the effect of power on turning radius in these jets: setting idle power at the top of a loop will lower base height by 500 - 1000 ft, depending on start conditions, height, speed and so on.
It also depends a lot on just where the AOA limiter is set, and that tends to fall out of the clearance processes that define what you're allowed to test. For all these aircraft, all the initial clearance work comes from lots of modeling in seriously good simulations. For example, before Typhoon's first ever flight clearance, a minimum of 500 hours qualification testing was flown in the simulator, looking not just at the basic aerodynamics and handling, but also all the worst case tolerances on things like air data accuracy and CG management - and that's on top of the many more hours spent before that in just developing the design and aerodynamics.
However (and here, put on your Health and Safety at Work mindset) it's still a simulation based on lots of estimated data, e.g. wind tunnel data and lots of computational aerodynamics, as opposed to "real" aircraft data, so there needs to be a degree of caution in how you apply the simulation results. This might mean, for example, that you won't clear the aircraft to fly to the maximum AOA you fly in the sim, because you haven't the necessary level of confidence that the data (in these non-linear, difficult to predict areas) adequately predicts the real performance.
That's a good philosophy to start with, but then you go fly the real aircraft, match flight data with aero model data and explain, understand and remove the differences, and your flight clearances get better. Or do they? You can actually end up in the Catch 22 situation where you can't get improve the data because you can't get the clearances to get the data to improve the clearances. As the exceptionally capable, and often very frustrated flight control system design team test pilot said, the only truth is from God's wind tunnel, so we have to go and fly to get the truth. But in a heavily politicised, process-driven and risk-averse development environment (and that's the customer as well, don't just blame the contractor) it can be impossible to find anyone prepared to sign their name to the clearance. (And no, pilots are never invited to sign clearances until well after others have deemed it appropriate.)
It's an interesting philosophical test dilemma. I flew the first carefree trials in Typhoon with an AOA limiter set higher than the current service limit, but subsequent modelling (not related to the flight test results) made the clearance empire reduce the limits for general testing, and that inevitably ended up in initial service. Notwithstanding that, the jet was absolutely solid at the peak AOAs, no matter what I did to it and I remain certain that there's still more usable lift (at much higher drag) at and beyond the AOAs I saw. No, I don't have the numbers to prove it (Catch 22 again) but I do have judgement and feel - which is why you use human pilots for this, instead of an autopilot.
Basck to the subject matter of displays. I also flew some displays in the jet, both with the earlier (higher) AOA limit and the subsequent service limit. The fundamental difference was that with the higher AOA I had some extra drag to play with, which made a big difference in speed control - I had something to help balance out the stunning thrust. In contrast, at the service AOA levels I could fly much of the display at full back stick but still had to sometimes play with the throttles to keep speed under control. (As Tarnished says, you don't have a problem getting speed back in these jets , but you can have a problem getting rid of it!)