Frontal profile comparisons - F-35 vs other jets

A comprehensive collection of frontal profile comparisons between the F-35 and other jets...

dwightlooi wrote:A comprehensive collection of frontal profile comparisons between the F-35 and other jets...

Nice work! You and I seem to disagree about many things (global warming, capitalism, etc.) but your contributions definitely add a lot to these forums! Thanks!

Mike

I agree, this was nicely done.

I would guess that the overall size and the shape of these fighters appear to be the most stable for overall starting points of design and basis configuration (within reason).

Wing span, vertical tail, nose cone area, have "cousin like" qualities....good job.

I wonder if one type was actually the basic starting point for the another. I think you provide a nice, clean simple train of thought to start the conversion, I like what you did here...

Meathook wrote:I agree, this was nicely done.

I would guess that the overall size and the shape of these fighters appear to be the most stable for overall starting points of design and basis configuration (within reason).

Wing span, vertical tail, nose cone area, have "cousin like" qualities....good job.

I wonder if one type was actually the basic starting point the another. I think you provide a nice, clean simple train of thought to start the conversion, I like what you did here...

The pictures are not all to the same scale. Only the two halves within each comparison is of the same scale. This was achieved by drawing a line that is exactly the half-span of the F-35 in that picture. Then scaling this line to the exact ratio between the wingspans of the two aircrafts. The other aircraft is then scaled proportionally such that the half span exactly matches the guide line. For instance, for the AV-8 to F-35B comparison, the AV-8 is scaled -- with aspect ratios locked -- such that its half-span will be exactly (15.17/17.5)% that of the F-35.

I did not "draw" any of the pictures. These are all existing frontal renderings and line drawings which we found online. I merely brought each pairing to the same scale and put them side by side. The vertical alignment was simply whatever looks most coherent and neat.

I know but I like it anyway

Interesting on close the Super Hornet and F-35C are in general dims........

Although the pictures are interesting to look at in a purely aesthetic sense, you can't really draw any conclusions from these comparisons. As far as how a fighter aircraft (or any other aircraft) ends up looking in the end... it comes down to the requirements and overall design philosophy. For example, you can meet certain requirements by using either canards or elevators, so the choice often comes down to your aerodynamic and flight dynamics, stability, and control design philosophies. If the overall design requirements are stringent enough, there will often be an optimum shape/configuration that best meets all the requirements. It's no surprise that certain aircraft have similar physical dimensions either. The opposite is also true. For example, it's no surprise that the F-22's wing span is considerably greater than the F-35's. They probably have similar aspect ratios since they're both supersonic fighter-type aircraft, but their design requirements are totally different.

I agree too. These are pretty nice.

<i>They probably have similar aspect ratios since they're both supersonic fighter-type aircraft, but their design requirements are totally different.</i>

Speaking of wings, does anyone have any idea regarding the type of airfoil used on the F-35? The F-22 was said to have used a NACA 6-series derivative (the leading edges are clearly MUCH sharper). I wonder what the F-35 uses. There is a little bit of a reverse curve in the aft 1/3 of the F-35 wing on the undersides, but not enough to yell "supercritical airfoil". Nonetheless, the upper and lower contours are not as symetrical as a typical NACA 6 foil either.

I dont

dwightlooi wrote:A comprehensive collection of frontal profile comparisons between the F-35 and other jets...

How about a view from above?

How about a view from above?

Maybe later... takes time to do them you know...

dwightlooi wrote:

How about a view from above?

Maybe later... takes time to do them you know...

Understandable.............thanks away!

dwightlooi wrote:<i>They probably have similar aspect ratios since they're both supersonic fighter-type aircraft, but their design requirements are totally different.</i>

Speaking of wings, does anyone have any idea regarding the type of airfoil used on the F-35? The F-22 was said to have used a NACA 6-series derivative (the leading edges are clearly MUCH sharper). I wonder what the F-35 uses. There is a little bit of a reverse curve in the aft 1/3 of the F-35 wing on the undersides, but not enough to yell "supercritical airfoil". Nonetheless, the upper and lower contours are not as symetrical as a typical NACA 6 foil either.

It's difficult to tell what kind of airfoil is being used when all you really have to look at is the wing itself. By definition, an airfoil is two-dimensional so unless you have an accurate 2D cross section of the wing, you'll simply have to get reliable data on the airfoil used. I would hate to think it's a NACA series. You can design and test a much better airfoil than the NACA versions at this point in time. Even I could do that. Seriously. In fact, I have designed airfoils in an academic setting to outperform NACA existing NACA and NASA series airfoils. Not for supersonic flight though.

Raptor_One wrote:
It's difficult to tell what kind of airfoil is being used when all you really have to look at is the wing itself. By definition, an airfoil is two-dimensional so unless you have an accurate 2D cross section of the wing, you'll simply have to get reliable data on the airfoil used. I would hate to think it's a NACA series. You can design and test a much better airfoil than the NACA versions at this point in time. Even I could do that. Seriously. In fact, I have designed airfoils in an academic setting to outperform NACA existing NACA and NASA series airfoils. Not for supersonic flight though.

One of the things which is popular these days is to use a relatively symmetric upper and lower profiles over the first 1/2 to 2/3 of the air foil before you allow the flow speeds to differentiate. This tends to delay shock formation at high sub-sonic speeds further aft on the wing and thereby reducing drag. It is also popular to use a much blunter leading edge. However, some of these things may not be ideal for supersonic flight and the blunt nose is a big no-no for stealth.

One of the things I notice about the F-35 wing is that it has a lot of "curve" to it. This is especially true near the wing tips. There is a hint of reverse curvature on the aft lower surface, but nowhere near as pronounced as a classic Whitcomb style supercritical foil. The airfoil has edges -- leading, trailing and tip -- which are very sharp and almost knife like. From what I gathered, the outer most section of the wing -- beyond where the trailing edge control surface ends -- is largely a lateral housing for an antenna farm to support EW and comm gear. This location has minimal obstructions and integrating the antennas there beats putting them on a tail pod or as tabs sticking out of the fuselage.