Isn't it just that the naval variant's wing is larger? IMO the tail's position is exactly the same.
J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
Isn't it just that the naval variant's wing is larger? IMO the tail's position is exactly the same.
The wing is larger, but there are other differences too. The way I see it, there is a longer tailboom on the AF plane, holding the tails. So the tails start a bit more to the back. I will Try overlaying two images one over the other to show it, when I get around it.
Hmm? I see the other next bigger difference the different size and shape of the landing gear bays/doors. If the tailboom for the tails is really longer I'm actually not sure.
I agree with Deino, there are no grossly obvious differences in horizontal tail placement of J-35A versus J-35 in those images, considering that the two aircraft are not taken at the perfect identical angle to one another (even if they are very close).
Certainly there are no such gross obvious differences to speak of a difference in tail placement as if it was a sure thing or to write it as "never noticed before".
It would be more correct to ask/wonder if the horizontal tail placement was different to begin with rather than speaking of it as if it were already established fact.
For me still the most interesting part and biggest question is still the different exhaust!
Could they really be using different engines?
I don't see much of a reason to be using different nozzles otherwise.
Using the diameter of the contracted engine exhaust nozzle as reference, it appears to me the tail booms are the same length on the naval and airforce versions.
i think the overlap between the trailing edge of the wing and leading edge of the tail plane on the naval version, which creates the illusion that the horizontal tail is farther forward, can be attributed to the naval version having larger and wider chord wings for lower wing loading and lower approach speed, and better handling at low speed, and better go around characteristics for carrier deck landing. It also seem possible to me the naval version also has slightly wider chord horizontal tail for more control authority at lower speed. This would also contribute to the overlap.
larger wings and appanage would cause more drag, and adversely affect performance. the Air Force and naval versions would naturally have different perception of the optimal compromise between performance and low speed handling characteristics Because Air Force version doesn’t have to do deck landings.
Last edited: