J-35A fighter (PLAAF) + FC-31 thread

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
I think that's not quite right. Looking back at the paper on the original FC-31, hinge-type tails are more sophisticated and arguably superior:
View attachment 152970View attachment 152969

(Also the F-35 uses hinge-type tails)

There is never anything that is superior all the time. The digram indicates that the "hinge" type is worse all the way to mach 1 then becomes better than the traditional one which is better up to mach 1. The traditional solution is particularly better between mach 0.6 and 0.9, so it is perfect for subsonic flight and dog fighter.

1748372459572.png
J-35A (and FC-31) is intended for airforce to whom supersonic performance is important, so it chose "hinge". J-35 is for navy to whom landing on deck performace is paramount, so it choose traditional approach.

F-35 is a monstrous compromise (缝合怪) and should never be used as reference in judging anything.
 
Last edited:

mond

New Member
Registered Member
I think that's not quite right. Looking back at the paper on the original FC-31, hinge-type tails are more sophisticated and arguably superior:

(Also the F-35 uses hinge-type tails)

Yeah, the chatbot is clearly talking about elevators (moving aft section on a fixed stabilizer) and not hinge-type "stabilators" where the entire wing moves. Google made the same mistake when I was trying to research the topic.

Personally I would support disallowing AI content here...
 

by78

General
J-35A in green primer.

54553184431_271a3c712c_o.jpg
54553425383_c983a43686_o.jpg
 
Top