All I'm going to say at this point is that you are confusing yourself. I don't want to sound snotty here, but so be it if I do. It's becoming obvious that you do not have much if any formal aeronautical engineering training or education. You're obviously picking up information from here and there, some of which you interpret correctly, some not. Where you go really wrong is when you start trying to educate people on these topics who clearly have experience and formal education in the field of aeronautical/aerospace engineering. It's sheer arrogance for you to do this. You should be trying to learn from these people, not offend them by questioning their grasp of fundamental aeronautical engineering concepts, equations, etc. It seems you don't really want to learn from anyone here. You obviously didn't learn anything from that graph I posted a while back.

Ughh... guys, nobody knows what the installed thrust performance of the F-35's F135 engine is. Nobody knows what its TSFC (i.e. installed specific fuel consumption) will be, nor do they know much about its drag polar (i.e. CL vs. CD at various discrete Mach numbers). All these things I've mentioned are basically what one would need to determine how fast the F-35 would fly, its range, and so on. So Corsair, it's foolish for you to imply that the F-35A, B, or C's performance will be inferior to that of the F-16C Block XX. You really have no clue, but your insinuations suggest that you do. As far as turn performance is concerned, the F-35 might be inferior to a clean F-16 *IF* loaded down with a full tank of gas and internal weapons. It's hard to say without knowing the precise details of its aerodynamic coefficients (namely CL vs. AoA and CL vs. CD... or CD vs. AoA if you prefer) and installed thrust figures just how well the F-35 will perform in terms of instantaneous turn rate, sustained turn rate, and minimum sustained turn radius. I'm 99.9% sure you don't have this data. I'm pretty sure only a handful of people on planet Earth have this data. And as far as a full data set, I'm sure it only comes from CFD models at this point in time seeing as how Lockheed Martin hasn't come close to completing the flight tests for the F-35A, let alone the B and C models.

Let me reiterate. Nobody posting to this thread knows what they're talking about. If for any reason they did, I suppose they'd be breaking some laws. My position is that I couldn't even make an educated guess as to the F-35's level flight or turning performance envelope even if I tried really really hard. It's also my position that no one posting to this thread could manage any better than me in this respect either. Enough of the BS. It's incredible how people sometimes fail to understand that they just don't know. Knowing what you do not know is an important skill to have when deciding whether to enter into debates like this one. It's also important to be open to the fact that your knowledge may be flawed or faulty at times too. I'm open to the possibility that I may be wrong in my assessment here. Seriously...

Read the latest Code One Magazine by Lockheed. They were able to cruise in the high subsonic region at about 40 percent of available mil power. You can interpolate from there. I still don't like the 28k pound empty weight, but I love the fact that it'll carry 20k pounds of dinosaurs internally.

Another strong impression is that the airplane wants to fly a lot faster than we are allowed to fly at this point in the flight test program. Most of the time we fly at about thirty to forty percent of available thrust. This airplane can go out to high subsonic speeds very easily without using afterburner.

The F-16s flying chase don't have near the fuel capacity or payload capability as the F-35. The Lightning II does very well in comparison. For example, the F-35 often forces the chase aircraft into afterburner when it is in military power.

Another strong impression is that the airplane wants to fly a lot faster than we are allowed to fly at this point in the flight test program. Most of the time we fly at about thirty to forty percent of available thrust. This airplane can go out to high subsonic speeds very easily without using afterburner.[/size]

OK, the article is finally online. The only excerpt which can pertain to what you said is as follows:-

It doesn't say 30~40% military power. It simply said 30~40% available thrust.

There is also no mention of whether that is whats needed to SUSTAIN high subsonic speeds (presumably Mach ~0.85) or simply what they flew on to go through the flight test including getting up to high subsonic speeds, climbing, turning, whatever.

The article also mentioned that...

Supercruise is not advertised of F-16 or F-15, even though both aircrafts will do it without bulky external stores and at high altitudes to the tune of Mach 1.1~1.25 depending on the engines installed and specifics of the variant. This is also not required for the F-35 and in fact officially denied. Nonetheless, an engine with a dry thrust rating of 28,000lbs is a lot of motor for an aerodynamically very sleek aircraft and relatively light aircraft like the F-35A carrying its fuel and weapons internally.

mmmm F-104. For an a/c with an engine as weak as it was (by todays standards) it was faster than heck. I read an unofficial top speed of 1700mph airspeed.

Somehow, I doubt that the F-35A's in total drag is more than 2.4 times higher than the F-104 at low supersonic speeds (Mach 1~1.3). That is how much more thrust the F135 has over the J79 -- 28,000 lbs vs 11,800 lbs. Aerodynamic performance at Mach 2~2.5 which can really benefit from the rocket shaped profile of the F-104 is largely irrelevant. Hey, the F-35 is 8% lighter with 20% more thrust than the F-4 Phantom while having the capacity to carry 65% more fuel, 5750 lbs of weapons in internal bays and presenting an RCS the size of a golf-ball.

It depends on how much thrust it has compared to its drag. The F-104 was more or less an engine case with a few minor appendages, lightly dipped in JP-4 and squeezed to remove the excess.

The comments about the F-104 made by Fox100 shouldn't even be taken seriously or debated seriously. The sheer fact that he tried to make the F-35 look like a poor performing aircraft by comparing it to the F-22 is all one needs to focus on to see how off base and out of touch his comments really are. Why he threw in the F-104 is beyond me. He might as well have thrown in a B-1B while he was at it. They both share about as much in common with the F-35... hell, the B-1B is probably more similar to the F-35 than the F-104. Completely ridiculous post all around by Fox100. I'm still trying to decide whether he actually believes what he's saying or if he's just trying to get a rise out of folks here. Probably the latter, but if it's the former... ???