The Mig vs. F-16 thing has been beaten to death, I’ve never heard any pilot slag their ride in an interview. Obviously they talk about the strengths of their aircraft. In regards to the Mig-29/F-16 acceleration and performance. It is as easy to find articles saying the F-16 is superior, or usually performance between to two nearly equal, and F-16 is the better weapon system. Safe to say both had exceptional acceleration (esp. in early Mig-29 before fuel capacity was increased).
http://www.510fs.org/squadron/code-one-magazine/item/78-schlemming-with-the-fulcrum

Most often quoted comparison from USAF exchange Pilot:”Both aircraft display good performance throughout their flight regimes in the comparison configuration. The MiG-29 enjoys a speed advantage at high altitude with a flight manual limit of Mach 2.3. The F-16’s high altitude limit is Mach 2.05 but this is more of a limit of inlet design.” “Charts that compare actual maneuvering performance of the two aircraft are classified. It was the researcher’s experience that the aircraft have comparable initial turning performance. However, the MiG-29 suffers from a higher energy bleed rate than the F-16. This is due to high induced drag on the airframe during high-G maneuvering. F-16 pilots that have flown against the Fulcrum have made similar observations that the F-16 can sustain a high-G turn longer”

I very much doubt the statement made on the previous page about the Migs dominating the F-16 without reheat.

Chart is similar to ones in Sweetman’s book “F-22 Raptor”, There is another one showing dry vs ab thrust in the book. Problem is, chart has no mention of weapons load fuel, etc, for the 5g maneuver envelope. The E-M diagram for the F-15 is available (A version) so here:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]223619[/ATTACH]
I don’t think anyone is comparing the F-22 and F-35 as equals, especially at high speed/high alt. Most jets wouldn’t compare well on that (obligatory’s) chart, loss of control surface effectiveness at high alt. makes strong case for thrust vectoring as chart shows (and a high bypass turbofan). Btw, I believe the original ATF requirement was 7+g’s at 30,000 feet. Don’t think that was quite reached by the raptor, but damn. Back on topic look at chart from obligatory and put a little red dot where 8. mach and 15,000 feet meet that is the one data point (with no mention of weights) that’s what people are basing assumptions of f-35 maneuverability on.

“Now, if you can show me the F-35 can usefully go through the barrier and obtain M1.3+, with full internal load, without it compromising critical fuel levels and make it into a meaningful advantage I will retract my argument.
And finally when he states no transonic performance with external tanks and weapons, typhoons blast past M1.4+ with 2 tanks and 8 ata missiles. So you have to ASSUME he is talking about heavy atg loads with restrictive flight parameters.
Simple.”- Typhoon 1

Again, stated it on the previous page. You will not find specific charts with ANY E-M or acceleration at loads and altitudes for the F-35. This is an aircraft that is still in flight test, and generally speaking militaries refrain from making those readily available. However, the F-35 has flown to the 1.6 mach operational limit with a full load (internal), Lockheed makes the program highlights available so look it up if you so wish. You will also not find those same diagrams that would show a Typhoon is capable of mach 1.4 with 2 tanks and 6 to 8 missiles, nor is there any anecdotal evidence for it. I would not be surprised if a Typhoon is capable of supercruise with a typical loadout of 4 amraams recessed against fuselage, 2 sidewinders (asraam) on outer pylons, and a centerline tank. Two tanks? Possible perhaps, sounds a bit draggy. But it’s all conjecture, hard evidence about specific performance data on modern weapons is limited. The rest is left open to one’s own interpretation, and frankly isn’t that the point of this forum?
(edit- unclear if Typhoon1 was talking super cruise or full power when alluding to mach 1.4 load out, in light of post below…. there is some anecdotal evidence of the latter)

@ MSphere ..
Now show me YOUR data in return. At least some..

That is exactly the problem with making assumptions about the F-35 performance. People are trying to read into the numbers:
The http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/fy2012/pdf/dod/2012f35jsf.pdf, give no indication of: altitude, weights, test vs. production spec aircraft, end of life engines. All we have is a number “5.3G to 4.6G” and “acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 by 8”
The Bowman report is often quoted https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q_mod_be0e99f3-fc56-4ccb-8dfe-670c0822a153/q_act_downloadpaper/q_obj_19233467-2759-4d04-8da4-e22afe648499/display.aspx?rs=enginespage

This report uses both actual specifications and assumptions where details are lacking “The fuel levels and payloads at which maneuverability is calculated differs for each variant but generally focuses on a post-weapons release payload and fuel state at 50% of the required combat radius” and “The USAF includes a threshold requirement for a 9.0 G capability at 60% fuel and no air-to ground ordnance remaining”. The chart which APA and others have used gives the conditions as “15k feet and .8 mach” for the threshold 5.3g. I’m not sure where you got 5,000 feet from when making the comparison to an f-104. The bottom line is that what some are presenting as “facts” which prove that the F-35 have poor maneuverability and acceleration (or the opposite arguement) are impossible to support without E-M diagrams, and acceleration charts at various altitudes (which we are not going see due to- ongoing testing, classified information) The information presented to Australian Parliament mention the 30,000 feet for the acceleration numbers as well as this tidbit ” If we compare those two, the legacy aeroplane with fuel tanks and weapons on it, if we take a fourth generation fighter, typically an F16 or an F18, in that configuration it would take substantially longer than 63.9 seconds. If you took a 4½ generation aircraft it actually could not accelerate to supersonic in any time over that 0.8 to 1.2 range with a combat configuration of external tanks and weapons”
(http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2Ffb49a6a2-5080-4c72-a379-e4fd10cc710a%2F0002%22)
I’m not defending the aircraft per se, as I feel there are serious issues still to be overcome in this program. It is frustrating to see conclusions made on partial information and the concerted effort by some to present a false picture of the program and attack anyone who might take a more measured approach.

Rarely do I feel the need to chime in on this forum, but there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what low observable, i.e. “stealth” brings to the table. It is not a fashionable trend, nor a gimmick. Air combat tactics have always stressed the idea that the advantage lies with the shooter who enters the fight unobserved. The very earliest of tactics involved attacking from above, or out of the sun when the mark I eyeball was the key sensor of a fighter. Later, with the advent of early radar, tactics involved high speed, then the exploiting doppler shift. Low observable aircraft are not “just” radar signature, it is designing an aircraft that does not emit, and can use passive means to communicate with each other, locate targets, and gather a tactical picture of the battlefield. The f-35 combines these characteristics to a greater degree than any other aircraft currently fielded. Yes, the F-22 may have better kinematics, and a lower radar signature, and the t-50 appears to be a aerodynamic exemplar. The question is to what extent does this really matter in a tactical sense. Those nations who are buying into the F-35 are buying into the idea that fights of the future will be based on superior C3, not two aircraft facing off like a JOUST ( pun intended).