Nice. but I would say the catapult-bar is visible, faint but it is ... So I would say it's a J-35!
View attachment 126421
View attachment 126420
Luneburg attached, EOTS attached, and no pitot tube. Progressing smoothly.
Nice. but I would say the catapult-bar is visible, faint but it is ... So I would say it's a J-35!
View attachment 126421
View attachment 126420
I wonder if there's a reason for the 'strip' alongside the horizontal stabs, instead of the whole surface rotating or not having it at all.FWIW, AI enhanced versions.
I wonder if there's a reason for the 'strip' alongside the horizontal stabs, instead of the whole surface rotating or not having it at all.
What's up with the odd looking landing gear and tires?FWIW, AI enhanced versions.
Not sure how those are looking odd for a carrier-based fighter?What's up with the odd looking landing gear and tires?
Hmm there surely are. But could be due to photo distortions.Not sure how those are looking odd for a carrier-based fighter?
Hmm there surely are. But could be due to photo distortions.
That 'strip' is a structure of large volume. It only looks narraw like a strip if looking from under or above. It is pretty large looking from the side. It looks to be about 50cm tall. It would increase drag if its volume is abruptly reduced to zero. Therefor it is long. Why it is that tall? Because it houses the actuator for the horizontal stablizer (at the poit of arrow).I wonder if there's a reason for the 'strip' alongside the horizontal stabs,
The idea of "whole surface rotating" was done in FC-31 up to version 2 in the same way as Su-27, Su-57 and F-35. I am only guessing that the change has something to do with the optimization of J-35 from FC-31, 隐身舰载战斗机气动力设计关键技术, especially chapter 3.1instead of the whole surface rotating or not having it at all.