J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread

[by78]

Sot they kept some side nozzles IR shielding over more control surface area if it's the case.

It's possible the new design didn't make it in time and/or might be added in the future, and I don't see it as much of a tradeoff between IR suppression and greater control surface area. The new design should also obscure the nozzles just as well in most situations, except when the stabilators need to be deflected significantly, such as during takeoff and dogfights, but those are mostly very transient. In those situations, IR suppression is probably moot, as you likely have more urgent things to worry about and/or major blunders to fix, such as a failure to secure the perimeter around the airfield or shaking the hostile off your tail.

 

[taxiya]

Take this with a grain of salt, although the Weibo poster is reliable and careful. The image allegedly shows an alternate stabilator design that didn't make it to the prototype bird, but the development on it continues. On the current prototype, the stabilator and tail boom/sting (marked with red box) are two separate pieces, with the stabilator being mounted on the stationary boom. This alternate design combines the tail boom and stabilator into a single piece just like the F-35, which means it likely has an increased moveable area.

View attachment 94566

I think it is the opposite. The one piece tail is the old design on 31001 (F31 V1). There was no tail boom.

31001 with the tail dropped.

and 31001 in demo flight, you can see the tail plane turns inward in a L shape exactly like F-35 and all Flankers.

From V2 the tail boom is added and it became

See V2


in 35003 the tail boom is larger vertically on the top side. I don't have photo of V2's top side, so I can't tell if there is a difference from V2 to 3500x.

I think the purpose is to some how using the tail boom to partially block the engine exhaust from the side. There isn't any advantage of the "F-35" style. All flankers use that design and SAC is very capable to do so if they wanted.

 

[by78]

I think it is the opposite. The one piece tail is the old design on 31001 (F31 V1). There was no tail boom.
View attachment 94570
31001 with the tail dropped.
View attachment 94569
and 31001 in demo flight, you can see the tail plane turns inward in a L shape exactly like F-35 and all Flankers.

From V2 the tail boom is added and it became
View attachment 94571
See V2
View attachment 94572

in 35003 the tail boom is larger vertically on the top side. I don't have photo of V2's top side, so I can't tell if there is a difference from V2 to 3500x.

I think the purpose is to some how using the tail boom to partially block the engine exhaust from the side. There isn't any advantage of the "F-35" style. All flankers use that design and SAC is very capable to do so if they wanted.

So they kept some side nozzles IR shielding over more control surface area if it's the case.

Thank you, and I stand corrected.

 

[taxiya]

So they kept some side nozzles IR shielding over more control surface area if it's the case.

Note the boom-less design is the old design on 31001 aka v1.

V2 and 3500x have the boom added, also the vertical stabilizer were reduced in size visibly compared to v1. This is an indication that v1 was designed as a demo very conservatively, in other words the control surfaces were excessively larger than necessary.

So SAC reduced it and in the mean time to gain better IR shielding. Not really tread-off.

 

[Kalec]

Source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[latenlazy]

Note the boom-less design is the old design on 31001 aka v1.

V2 and 3500x have the boom added, also the vertical stabilizer were reduced in size visibly compared to v1. This is an indication that v1 was designed as a demo very conservatively, in other words the control surfaces were excessively larger than necessary.

So SAC reduced it and in the mean time to gain better IR shielding. Not really tread-off.

I don't think these booms provide much shielding. There could be other possible reasons they went with the redesign, like if the booms are meant to house equipment in them.

 

[Schwerter_]

Take this with a grain of salt, although the Weibo poster is reliable and careful. The image allegedly shows an alternate stabilator design that didn't make it to the prototype bird, but the development on it continues. On the current prototype, the stabilator and tail boom/sting (marked with red box) are two separate pieces, with the stabilator being mounted on the stationary boom. This alternate design combines the tail boom and stabilator into a single piece just like the F-35, which means it likely has an increased moveable area.

View attachment 94566

Makes sense to a certain degree. IIRC Wang Xiangming had a paper specifically on this kind of horizontal stabilizer design, and a few months ago I’ve seen a claim by one semi-credible source saying that this is still undergoing development despite not being on the current J-35 prototype. All adds up.

edit: Apparently Wang published the paper (not sure if it’s the only one) in 2020 and the design in question is named “self balancing hinge horizontal stabilizer”. The picture used in said paper looks suspiciously like that leaked model design. AKA this is almost without a doubt not the same thing as the hinged tail on the 31001, it’s a completely new design and I’m really quite interested to see how far it’ll develop.

link to paper (albeit in Chinese):

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Picture in question (new tail design on top, traditional hinged tail design on bottom):

 

[taxiya]

Makes sense to a certain degree. IIRC Wang Xiangming had a paper specifically on this kind of horizontal stabilizer design, and a few months ago I’ve seen a claim by one semi-credible source saying that this is still undergoing development despite not being on the current J-35 prototype. All adds up.

edit: Apparently Wang published the paper (not sure if it’s the only one) in 2020 and the design in question is named “self balancing hinge horizontal stabilizer”. The picture used in said paper looks suspiciously like that leaked model design. AKA this is almost without a doubt not the same thing as the hinged tail on the 31001, it’s a completely new design and I’m really quite interested to see how far it’ll develop.

I actually think figure (a) is showing 31001.

Figure (b) is the flanker design, the bulge on the top side houses the actuator.

Figure (a) puts the house of actuator on the underside of the tail plane, therefor there is a ridge on the inside edge of the tail plane. You can see it on 31001

Even more visible.


I think the reason of the change isn't about which actuation mechanism is better. They are the same. the reason of change is more likely to increase the room to the tail boom to house some sensors as @latenlazy has suggested here #2,096
The new tail boom is visibly larger all the way to the end. There is a dark spot on the top side, could be a sensor window. J-20 does that.

 

[defenceman]

Hi if I may able to present a theory is it possible these tails been changed or may be more changes in coming years due to landing hook to be attached for ACC i don’t have much knowledge but just a thought
if anybody with more knowledge can shed some light on my thought
thank you

 

[phrozenflame]

The Chinese government has always been horrific at PR. Yet another example.

Re-emphasizing this post-Pelosi visit.