Of course current pilot say both planes are wonderful. With the political climate in Washington if they didnt, they would be thrown out of the service!!!!

If that was the case we would never got a single bad record about the F-35, but the fact of the matter is we did got a few complaint about the aircraft when the program is still early in its testing phase, just now that the problems are fixed that we received more good new. Moreover, many pilots that compliment the F-35 did not served in USAF either

These types of comparisons lead to non-productive p*ssing contests.

I find it rather interesting because in this kind of thread sometimes we get to read very interesting and informative post from knowledgeable people like Andraxxus

IMHO if combat radius being equalized
in term of acceleration it probably go like Typhoon > F-15C > F-15E > rafale= F-16 =Mig-29 =gripen > su-27
in term of sustained turn rate at low altitude it probably go like Su-27 > rafale > F-16 = Typhoon =gripen = mig-29 > F-15C > F-15E
in term of sustained turn rate at high altitude it probably go like Typhoon > Su-27 > F-15C> F-15E > Mig-29 > Rafale = F -16 = Gripen
Though if we know their respective lift coefficient it would be easier to compare

As long as the shape of parts (fuselage parts) stays the same as before, but then they change it into a favorable stronger/lighter composite/super alloy, they do not necessarily need the change anything else.
.

Sorry but i have to trim in abit . The problem with mechanic is not as straightforward as we would like it to be, there are more about a material rather than just strength and weight. There are mainy others factors that you have to consider like yield strength ,specific strength ,modulus of elasticity , heat resistance and so on. It rather impossible to come up with a new material that is superior to the old one in every single aspect,thus testing is a must. Take for example a common table comparision of carbon fiber and alluminium

The first look at the table will give you the impression that carbon fiber is far superior to alluminium in all aspect, however it is important to remember that all properties are at room temperature. Environmental conditions have a great effect on carbon composites ( If temperature goes up above 150 F, carbon fiber epoxy composite properties will be reduced somewhat whereas the steel and aluminum properties will remain the same).High humidity with heat will have an even greater effect. Moreover,the value above is for a single-direction , while carbon fiber needs to be layered in multiple directions (Otherwise all the fibers will be going in one direction and the material will be prone to splitting because there will be no strength in the cross-wise direction, just like wood veneer. If you layer carbon fiber in such as way as to have most uniform properties { aka “quasi-isotropic” laminate} you will end up with overall properties rather similar to aluminum.
That is just an example ,but you can see that chaging airframe material canbe rather complex and costly

It doesn’t “good” to me, it looks great! 🙂

Thanks GarryA for putting this together, well done!!!

Thanks for your kind words 😀 i will try to keep it up

Like loke said, it looks great, the gif load a little bit slow at first, but all web browser have cache so it wouldn’t be a problem in my opinion. But if you still concerned about the load speed then you can convert them to gifv instead of gif, reduce files size dramatically.Alternatively, you can convert them to BPG

So i followed your suggestion and was able to convert GIF to BPG using this https://www.reaconverter.com/convert/gif_to_bpg.html software , the files size reduced significantly from 19 MB to just over 500 KB, too bad though WordPress doesnt recognize .BPG files type and neither is most software in my laptop, I already tried to convert GiF to GiFv but WordPress doesnt allow me to upload video. Anyways i optimized the GIF abit , reduce their colour and resolution a tiny bit so now the front page is only half the size ( 10.1 MB now as opposed to 19.5 MB before so hopefully the loading time would be more bearable ( unless you are from Australia , in which case the loading time would be enomous for some weird reason that i havent been able to figure out why )

TBH the traffic actually not that bad

.

Sufficient for a tactical aircraft but I don’t believe it will be able to match 4th gen aircrafts. No wonder it remains very shy at air shows after all those years…the few public demonstrations completely fall behind other 4th gen aircrafts.

I disagree
F-35 only started to go to air show very recently, and it actually done pretty well
https://youtu.be/7XeViHEWzLk
From 2:44-2:51 ( or 7 seconds) , it finished a 180 degrees turn, that equal to average turn rate of 25.7 degrees/second, among all the new fighter i actually found PAKFA and Typhoon airshow performance a bit underwhelming compare to the their fame, that being said, however air show performance is not the same as war performance

I am guessing Russians won’t need polls regd. whether the T-50 flies better than a MiG or an Su-25 because that’s freaking self-explanatory.. My $0.02 only..

The similar comparison for Russian would be T-50 vs Su-35 and Mig-29SMT, to be completely honest, at the moment there is no evidence that T-50 would have better sustain / instantaneous turn rate than Su-27 in all parts of flight envelope, and IMHO it would be hard for that happen especially since they are around the same size and T-50 would need to be more dense ( internal weapons bay, RAM and what not)