Ken,
I am interested in your comments on the Zero. I feel you just have focussed on turn rate exclusively.
Turn performance was the top design goal and the premier fighting characteristic of the zero.
I suspect if you look at the energy manoverability spectrum a P-40 would have places where it can dictate the fight - probably by staying fast.
Precisely my point. Early in the war Warhawk and Wildcat pilots tried to fight the zero on its terms. They lost. Badly. When they fought to maximize their mount's advantages against the zero's weaknesses, they did much better. My point being that while turn performance is important in a fighter, if your mount lacks turn performance (like the F-35) and you fight to maximize your mount's advantages and to exploit your opponent's weaknesses, you can do well in a dog fight, despite the disadvantage in turn performance.
I think the F-35 can be more compared to the F-105 or the 104 in European duty than the A-7.
Maybe the F-105. The Thud was primarily an air-to-ground fighter like the F-35 and neither were intended as dog fighters. The 104 (like the Lightning) was designed as a high altitude interceptor, not a dog fighter or bomb dropper. It had mediocre turn performance at best, quite a bit worse than F-35. Indeed, after the Sabre no American fighter had stellar close-in performance until the F-15 and F-16 were introduced. 1950s vintage subsonic MiG-17s used by N. Vietnam could out turn every American jet used in Vietnam (except possibly the F-8) and the US loss rate against Mig-17s was totally unacceptable. But USN's Fighter Weapons School program (Topgun) and other similar programs trained US fighter pilots to maximize their aircraft's advantages against their opponents' weaknesses. And they did
very well after that. So decades after learning the lessons flying against the zero, American fighter pilots
relearned the lessons of how to fight against an aircraft with better turn performance. And won. Consistently.
Of more relevance I'm interested how you think the F-35 stacks up?
Stacks up? Relative to what? Relative to an F-16, its got lousy turn performance and OKish acceleration. Relative to a Tornado (a European air-to-ground fighter) F-35 is MUCH more maneuverable and agile. But USAF claims that when fought to maximize its advantages, the F-35s consistently beat even F-16s in actual air engagements. I would assume that means they avoid the close-in turn-and-burn fight just as the Warhawk and Wildcat pilots avoided the turning fight against the zero. The test some folks here are all upset about did not test nor was it designed to test dog fighting ability. And those same folks insist that avoiding the turning fight in an F-35 makes it "defective". They are welcome to their opinion. I disagree.
Now, let's compare how the F-35 "stacks up" against any other airplane in the air-to-ground role for which it was primarily designed. Both the Tornado and the F-35 were primarily designed for the tactical air-to-ground role. It would appear that NOTHING (not even A-10) beats the F-35 in the air-to-ground role in a contested air environment. I would assume the folks that are buying the F-35 are smart enough to know they've got a stellar air-to-ground platform with "good enough" air-to-air performance. It's certainly MUCH better than a Tornado or even a Phantom in close in dog fighting. And oddly enough, plenty of air arms did quite well flying the Tornado and the Phantom.
Further, it seems to me that although the F-35 is meeting or exceeding its design specs, there are some folks here who insist the F-35 MUST be defective because it does not meet what
they think its specs
should be. They are welcome to their opinion, but plenty of folks here disagree (I'm one of them), and lots and lots and lots of very high level test, design, and procurement folks also disagree. Of course the handful of local self proclaimed experts insist they know better than all of them combined. And of course
I am the bully when I stand up against them even though they significantly outnumber me.