Forum: F-35 Design & Construction

i still wonder, why they used such old school aerodynamics Question

Even though the canard designs together with a delta wing has proven its superiority.

Until now i see no improvement over the F-16, but range and may be slightly increased cruising speed.

F-16.net Sponsor

habu2 wrote:

I'm trying to visualize the canopy opening ram and mechanism - looks like it would run right through the instrument stack, or maybe in the nose. That's pretty valuable real estate...

The production model canopy hinges kinda like the F-104s did. On one side of the cockpit and opened/closed manually by the pilot. See pic below (Lockheed-Martin photo)

That is the canopy styling of the X-35, not the F-35. While Lockheed stresses the great similarities of the demonstrator and the production there are quite a few airframe differences including: canopy, landing gear wells (moved to accomodate weapons bays missing on X-35), and the inlet design (The < noticeable in profile views, such as you picture is a good example, has been omitted from the F-35 design.) All signs point to a forward tilting canopy for the production F-35. I personally like the forward tilting "reverse" canopy design, it makes it look more cutting edge or what have you. That's really the only reason I can see for the decision to do it like that is that it distinguishes it from most other, older aircraft designs, which is a goal for the USAF and Lockheed.I suppose it could be that the F-35B has a different size canopy than the A and C; both start at the same position in front, but the B's is shorter and ends more abruptly. So maybe it's a design commonality to have it tilt forward.

As for the 'older aerodynamics' and simple wing / control surface design. Lockheed, at least some of their engineers, have been known to voice dislike for canards on their aircraft. Although, I would make the argument that the USAF has an idea in their mind about the way American aircraft look, and this is behind the reasoning of choosing both F-22 and F-35 for production instead of their opponents. Granted, that is an unprovable hypothesis. A more grounded reason may be cost. The F-35 is already going to be quite expensive, and a more complex airframe with canards would end up costing more for development than a more 'standard' airframe. Another reason for the chosen layout may be the necessity to accomodate for the Stovl variant. They may have felt that an even less stable airframe using canards may have been more difficult to obtain safe and reliable STOVL operations.

Forum: F-35 Design & Construction

F-35 technologies