Check out how many missiles were shot at the SR-71, and note that NOT ONE ever hit it!!!

Add the fact that the SR-71 only had regular wing lift, and the B-70 had compression lift that would make it more manuverable at extreme altitude.

True but one A12 was actually struck by a piece of a salvo of missiles. They found it embedded in the structure when it landed after the mission..
One of the problems with the A12/SR71 with turns was unstarts. It took them quite a while to fix that.

@ MadRat.
I suppose they could only find one engine in the scrap-bin…
[ATTACH=CONFIG]241367[/ATTACH]

Do you mean the Eurofighter team were unfair to the Americans?

Jets (rockets, and other Reaction engines) do not create movement by contact or aerodynamic means, but by Newtons action/reaction, or Force.

Now a Turbo Shaft engine that powers a propeller, that can be measured as Torque (and by extensions HP).

Good points. Reaction engines do run by virtue of Newton’s 2nd and 3rd laws of motion. I was told by an engineer that when Rover built a jet powered car they did find out about the second law when they tried to turn it around a corner…
Turbo shaft engines are measured in SHP (Shaft Horse Power), sometimes with an e in front (estimated). Horse power is calculated by rpm x torque.

Were the contra Spitfires faster? Higher speed could have caused more lateral instability.

I think it would be better if you read up more about basic gas turbine theory. NASA have a good site that explains in simple terms how it ticks.
Compression ratio is not a term used on them, PRESSURE RATIO is.
Why some engines are faster? It’s not just about being a fan or turbo jet. How about cross-section, intake choice and design, convergent or con-di nozzle and very important, materials used. If it goes mach 2 then it needs more heat resistant materials than mach 1. If it goes mach 3 then it needs a shed full.
See, simple explanation, no percentages.

The Spey was also shorter and heavier, putting more weight aft. Lastly, in terms of “faster” the Spey took longer to spool up giving poor throttle response.

With your background, you could add to the discussions here without being didactic or pedantic.

Spooling up was not a problem with the engines even in BLC mode, I did many a run on the test-bed. Their response was as fast, if not faster than other engine types. What do you compare it with, the J79? Reheat was a little slow in engaging to start with, that is why they improved it later.

I could add to the discussion without using percentages.

Getting back to the crux, a report that the F-35 cannot dog-fight is missing the point. Can it shoot down a/c and get away? That’s my question.

Thankyou for your constructive criticism. I might be cocky because I have at least the experience. Andraxxus is on the other hand, not cocky, he is down-right arrogant. What he does is to inundate with minutae, expecting everyone to be snowed under his encyclopedic knowledge. I seem to recall a foul-mouthed bigot from Austria used that technique in the ’30’s & ’40’s.
Again though my last question. Why were the F4 K/M series slower than the J? The engines were more powerful than the J (J79=J RB168=K/M). Because the the engines were bigger, the airframe was made fatter, the cross-section bigger. They accelerated faster than the J but by virtue of the larger cross-section, they had a lower maximum speed. It was common knowledge years ago and the butt of many an American joke over our a/c.
It’s all very flight-sim discussion this thread, somewhat removed from reality. Actual combat be it dog-fighting or hit and run is about catering to your strengths and the opponents weakness. That is the whole idea of the test.
Seeing as you know so much about it, how much viffing did they use to date?