Proof: F-35 can out-accelerate Su-27/35 in subsonic region

QUOTE: When asked about my first flight in the F-35, I compared it to flying a Hornet (F/A-18), but with a turbo charged engine. I now can quote a USMC F/A-18 Weapons School Graduate after his first flight in the F-35: «It was like flying a Hornet with four engines!

https://theaviationist.com/2016/09/20/d ... snt-agree/

I now know it was silly of me to open the thread again, come on guys, take it back to keypub. clean f-16s vs loaded f-35.

you have the flight manuals, put the pods EW ect on, along with tanks and similar weapon load. They show what you think transonic acceleration is.

there are drag index value in the table optimist, or you can add individual values as you like

Thanks, but I'm not trying to put an argument together. I'm sure you agree that it's up to those that do

Ok I think I should distinguish two terms: subsonic acceleration and transonic acceleration.

F-35 is definitely a beast in subsonic and I do believe it could out-accelerate Su27/35 at subsonic. But transonic is a whole different story.

QUOTE: When asked about my first flight in the F-35, I compared it to flying a Hornet (F/A-18), but with a turbo charged engine. I now can quote a USMC F/A-18 Weapons School Graduate after his first flight in the F-35: «It was like flying a Hornet with four engines!

https://theaviationist.com/2016/09/20/d ... snt-agree/

Think that will calm the "must have twin-engine" crowd?

Ok I think I should distinguish two terms: subsonic acceleration and transonic acceleration.

F-35 is definitely a beast in subsonic and I do believe it could out-accelerate Su27/35 at subsonic. But transonic is a whole different story.

Transonic under what conditions? It would depend on the fuel state, and payload. 4 to 6 AAMs, and 50% fuel? Or 2 2000lb JDAMs, 2 AAMs, and 18,000lbs of fuel? Same goes for Flanker. If it has a large payload/high fuel state, it's not going to be nearly as nimble, as a lightly armed/50% fuel state aircraft. Not all F-35s will be configured for A2G. The transonic acceleration figures assume 2 JDAMs, etc....

Ok I think I should distinguish two terms: subsonic acceleration and transonic acceleration.

F-35 is definitely a beast in subsonic and I do believe it could out-accelerate Su27/35 at subsonic. But transonic is a whole different story.

True but the F-35 has exceptional aerodynamic qualities. Which, I doubt the Flanker can match clean let alone with a combat load!

Ok I think I should distinguish two terms: subsonic acceleration and transonic acceleration.

F-35 is definitely a beast in subsonic and I do believe it could out-accelerate Su27/35 at subsonic. But transonic is a whole different story.

True but the F-35 has exceptional aerodynamic qualities. Which, I doubt the Flanker can match clean let alone with a combat load!

Quote: Alan Norman Chief Test Pilot for F-35

Performance of the F-35 is Outstanding, In fact the benefits of the F-35 are so great in its Aerodynamic Performance, its "Eye Watering"!

But the problem is that the assumptions made in the OP thread no longer works in transonic region. We can not obtain a precised estimation.

Nevertheless, most WVR dogfights take place at subsonic region, where F-35 has the power and the turn rate to excel.

But the problem is that the assumptions made in the OP thread no longer works in transonic region. We can not obtain a precised estimation.

Nevertheless, most WVR dogfights take place at subsonic region, where F-35 has the power and the turn rate to excel.

The assumptions regarding transonic performance, include 5000lbs of weapons, and >50% fuel state vs a clean F-16.

But the problem is that the assumptions made in the OP thread no longer works in transonic region. We can not obtain a precised estimation.

Nevertheless, most WVR dogfights take place at subsonic region, where F-35 has the power and the turn rate to excel.

The assumptions regarding transonic performance, include 5000lbs of weapons, and >50% fuel state vs a clean F-16.

Well, that is definitely not fair

My understanding about pedal turn + acceleration:

The pedal turn is executed at low speed, which means it does not require high initial speed like other air combat maneuvers. So, after executing this maneuver, with strong subsonic acceleration, F-35 could easily regain the speed required for this maneuver, and execute the next one. The short energy recovery time is crucial, which means F-35 could apply constant pressure on its opponent and force it to bleed energy. As long as the opponent does not recover energy as fast as F-35 does, it will become a sitting duck sooner or later.

Considering that the F-16 / F-35 pilot states that it's a sustained 28 deg/s, there may not be any need to regain speed if you're in the space that you want to be.

F-15C at 40K feet need 90 seconds to go from Mach 0.8 to 1.2

F-35A at 30K feet need 64 seconds to go from Mach 0.8 to 1.2
But iam not sure how 10K feet different would really affect them

F-15C at 40K feet need 90 seconds to go from Mach 0.8 to 1.2
But iam not sure how 10K feet different would really affect them

Quite a bit apparently - an F-16 B50 at 32,000 lbs (DI=50) at 40,000 ft is given around 90 secs but at 30,000 ft it is under 50 seconds.

Ok I think I should distinguish two terms: subsonic acceleration and transonic acceleration.

Quite a big difference between subsonic and transonic acceleration where the drag starts to make a big difference - often differences in subsonic acceleration are in seconds whereas transonic acceleration differences are often in tens of seconds.