J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread

[Miyayaya]

Discussion moved here to avoid derailing initial thread.


Seen not exactly on Liaoning, but in the PLAN NAU. Though it is certainly reasonable to expect that the post-MLU Liaoning will have similar modifications.

For reference:

I am aware, however I don't believe the modifications have actually been done. See here

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

I am aware, however I don't believe the modifications have actually been done. See here

View attachment 138594

I don't think such modifications are outright noticeable with that kind of photo resolution and detail.

 

[PersianPrince]

I am aware, however I don't believe the modifications have actually been done. See here

View attachment 138594

 

[LuzinskiJ]

it seems like the horizontal stabilizer of the J35 overlaps the flaperon of the wing, if so, what purpose does that serve? On the F35C there is a angle cut-out to accommodate its oversized stabilizer:

 

[Schwerter_]

View attachment 138761
it seems like the horizontal stabilizer of the J35 overlaps the flaperon of the wing, if so, what purpose does that serve? On the F35C there is a angle cut-out to accommodate its oversized stabilizer:
View attachment 138764

They overlap because carrier-borne fighters need bigger wings (and consequently larger tailplanes) and if they get big enough they will start to overlap. Can’t say what effects it’ll have on aerodynamics but it seems to be acceptable, since both J-35 and F-35C converged on this solution

 

[LuzinskiJ]

They overlap because carrier-borne fighters need bigger wings (and consequently larger tailplanes) and if they get big enough they will start to overlap. Can’t say what effects it’ll have on aerodynamics but it seems to be acceptable, since both J-35 and F-35C converged on this solution

The flaperon on the F35C has an angle cut so it doesn't overlap the stabilizer (there is a air gap between the two) whereas on the J35 the stabilizer and the flaperon do seem to physically overlap . So it looks to me like the J35's stabilizer can't commit to a negative angle of attack without the flaperon moving down synchronously. On the F35 there is no such limitation. That physical overlap means either a design oversight (doubtful), or complete confidence in their design and the plane's control system that it doesn't matter.

 

[Atomicfrog]

The flaperon on the F35C has an angle cut so it doesn't overlap the stabilizer (there is a air gap between the two) whereas on the J35 the stabilizer and the flaperon do seem to physically overlap . So it looks to me like the J35's stabilizer can't commit to a negative angle of attack without the flaperon moving down synchronously. On the F35 there is no such limitation. That physical overlap means either a design oversight (doubtful), or complete confidence in their design and the plane's control system that it doesn't matter.

Picture angle is deceiving, there's a cut out.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

With all the s*** that have hit the fan in F-35 development, and it's not over yet... I'm more confident that the design of J35 will fair better.

 

[taxiya]

View attachment 138761
it seems like the horizontal stabilizer of the J35 overlaps the flaperon of the wing, if so, what purpose does that serve? On the F35C there is a angle cut-out to accommodate its oversized stabilizer:
View attachment 138764

The flaperon on the F35C has an angle cut so it doesn't overlap the stabilizer (there is a air gap between the two) whereas on the J35 the stabilizer and the flaperon do seem to physically overlap . So it looks to me like the J35's stabilizer can't commit to a negative angle of attack without the flaperon moving down synchronously. On the F35 there is no such limitation. That physical overlap means either a design oversight (doubtful), or complete confidence in their design and the plane's control system that it doesn't matter.

Isn't it against physics if there is actual overlap? It can't even take off.

They overlap because carrier-borne fighters need bigger wings (and consequently larger tailplanes) and if they get big enough they will start to overlap. Can’t say what effects it’ll have on aerodynamics but it seems to be acceptable, since both J-35 and F-35C converged on this solution

It is about wing size but nothing specific with carrier-borne or land based. F-22 also has this configuration.

Aerodynamicly this configuration will let less air flow from top of the wing to pass through the stablizer in high AOA. Since the main wing and stablizer is merging into one surface, the effect of steering is reduced comparitively.

 

[Rina]

View attachment 138761
it seems like the horizontal stabilizer of the J35 overlaps the flaperon of the wing, if so, what purpose does that serve? On the F35C there is a angle cut-out to accommodate its oversized stabilizer:
View attachment 138764

J-35 photographed with its refueling probe cover open. The photo has been mirrored (i.e. flipped horizontally). Posted by @空警世界 on Weibo.

View attachment 133559

Well ,the J35 there is a angle cut-out

 

[zbb]

Delete