J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread

[Schwerter_]

What's the reason for the "F-35B sized hump" behind the cockpit since it can compromise rear visibility.

According to the paper apparently they found that enlarging the hump provides quite substantial gains in drag reduction.

 

[siegecrossbow]

What's the reason for the "F-35B sized hump" behind the cockpit since it can compromise rear visibility.

Drag reduction in transsonic regime. added benefit of more space for fuel/electronics.

 

[by78]

What's the reason for the "F-35B sized hump" behind the cockpit since it can compromise rear visibility.

It's there to reduce drag in order to improve transonic acceleration.

 

[taxiya]

What's the reason for the "F-35B sized hump" behind the cockpit since it can compromise rear visibility.

Drag reduction by reducing the negative pressure behind the cockpit.

 

[by78]

It is arrogant for you to judge based on paper... So you just pick random paper to justify your position!

It his capacity as academician and not as official of Shenyang 2 different thing So your opinion is worth a toilet paper as far as I am concern nice to hear but move on!

So you're saying we shouldn't trust the designers at Shenyang? OK.

And who are you to judge are you designer of Shenyang or Chengdu ? you are just amateur like the rest of us!

Wait, I thought you just said we shouldn't trust the designers at Shenyang. Now you're telling us that they are respected experts worthy of our trust.

Why the sudden change?

 

[Petrolicious88]

Drag reduction by reducing the negative pressure behind the cockpit.

View attachment 94083

Ah ok. Just curious if the trade off between drag coefficient and rear visibility is worthwhile (did they mention how significant of a reduction in drag). One of the biggest initial criticisms of the F-35 from Top Gun pilots was their difficulties in checking their 6 o'clock due to the hump and large "headrest". Makes sense if it is also on the J-35 for greater fuel capacity though.

 

[by78]

Ah ok. Just curious if the trade off between drag coefficient and rear visibility is worthwhile (did they mention how significant of a reduction in drag). One of the biggest initial criticisms of the F-35 from Top Gun pilots was their difficulties in checking their 6 o'clock due to the hump and large "headrest". Makes sense if it is also on the J-35 for greater fuel capacity though.

My Chinese is limited, but I can see no specific drag reduction figure for the hump alone. However, the paper does mention a combined 10% drag reduction from several design optimizations, including the enlarged hump, modified intake inlets, and reshaped afterbody.

 

[Maikeru]

Sorry to interrupt the cripplefight, I'd just like to add that I see no particular reason why naval J-35 cannot achieve export success. Many international customers bought the fully navalized classic F/A-18 for land use, despite Northrop/MDD/Boeing proposing a lighter, de-navalized 'L' variant, which never took off either literally or figuratively.

 

[taxiya]

Ah ok. Just curious if the trade off between drag coefficient and rear visibility is worthwhile (did they mention how significant of a reduction in drag).

by78 has answered this. There is only the combined reduction figure.

One of the biggest initial criticisms of the F-35 from Top Gun pilots was their difficulties in checking their 6 o'clock due to the hump and large "headrest".

Why does the pilot need to turn their head when EODAS is meant to remove that necessity? EODAS' optics should be able to look further than naked eyes, plus IR and night vision.

Makes sense if it is also on the J-35 for greater fuel capacity though.

I won't put fuel at that position if I were the designer. Fuel tanks should be close to the engines in the wings and central fuselage.

 

[Schwerter_]

Sorry to interrupt the cripplefight, I'd just like to add that I see no particular reason why naval J-35 cannot achieve export success. Many international customers bought the fully navalized classic F/A-18 for land use, despite Northrop/MDD/Boeing proposing a lighter, de-navalized 'L' variant, which never took off either literally or figuratively.

I thought that the F-18L variant didn’t go through mainly because of internal politics and squabbles between Northrop and McDonald Douglas, the idea itself was quite good and would in theory provide more performance than the contemporary naval F-18 (less weight, more fuel, extra pair of hard points and G-limit raised to 9G, etc)