I am aware, however I don't believe the modifications have actually been done. See here
J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
I am aware, however I don't believe the modifications have actually been done. See here
I don't think such modifications are outright noticeable with that kind of photo resolution and detail.
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.
Picture angle is deceiving, there's a cut out.
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.
Isn't it against physics if there is actual overlap? It can't even take off.
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.
Last edited:
Well ,the J35 there is a angle cut-out