F-16.net

geogen wrote:

avon1944 wrote:

One thing that has not been highly publicized about the F-35 is that it was designed with canards! It was during the six hundred hours of wind tunnel testing at NASA Aims facility in Sunnyvale, Ca. that the canards were removed.

Adrian

Interesting, thanks for info. I just think if a 2-D vectoring canard fitted STOL version was marketed, instead of the lifting-fan STOVL, they might have chopped $5-10 billion off R&D, been better on sched, not have had to compromise on internal bay and not to mention, had a better air-air platform? I know.. hindsight.

But that won't meet the requirements. The reason for the STOVL variant is to permit operations from non-catobar carriers -- British ones and US LHA and LHD ships. A STOVL, canards or not, cannot be used in these applications regardless of the take off distance. The key is not the STO, the key is the VL.

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

geogen wrote:

avon1944 wrote:

One thing that has not been highly publicized about the F-35 is that it was designed with canards! It was during the six hundred hours of wind tunnel testing at NASA Aims facility in Sunnyvale, Ca. that the canards were removed.

Adrian

Interesting, thanks for info. I just think if a 2-D vectoring canard fitted STOL version was marketed, instead of the lifting-fan STOVL, they might have chopped $5-10 billion off R&D, been better on sched, not have had to compromise on internal bay and not to mention, had a better air-air platform? I know.. hindsight.

But that won't meet the requirements. The key is the VL not the STO. The B-variant's purpose is to permit operations from non-catobar carriers like the British ones and the US LHA/LHD assault ships. Regardless of the take off run distance and/or the presence of canards, a STOL F-35B cannot be employed on flattops without arresting wires.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Canard vs Tail