The far aft mounted wing tells us that it is a tandem wing configuration (CG somewher b/w the two wings respectively to their surfaces), even if the front wing is restricted to an inner wing section b/w the front fuselages. Giving the already fairly large size of the twin vertical non-canted fins, we can easily assess that any outer wing installation in the front section had to be dismissed (Yaw-in drag and high AoA of the the alt/low speed regime).

This goes toward the theory that aeroelascticity is the prime reason for choosing such a configuration. But it could be sensor obviously (L band).

Anyhow, the picture has been too much PS’ed in my view to be considered as a viable base for a discussion. See the Bus details, the ground d projected Shadows geometry, the fuselage shadow suggesting a faceted trapezoidal fuselage section that looks more as a post edited feature, the engine perspective, the rear fuselage junction etc…

Regarding the fuselage section, I am more hesitant since the tall fins geo is a converging point toward that configuration.

F-16 collides with a Cessna C-150 over South Carolina

The collision involved an F-16 fighter aircraft and a Cessna C-150, the Federal Aviation Administration said in a statement. The agency said the crash occurred at around 11 a.m. north of Charleston.

The two people aboard the Cessna were both killed, a spokesman for the National Transportation Safety Board said. The agency is investigating the crash.

The pilot of the military aircraft ejected safely
[…]

[it seems as if] the military plane struck the other, small aircraft broadside,” […] Debris from the small plane had been found scattered over a wide area,

Source:
Reuters.com

Thx for the update. I was not sure if those were not two different events. Yes facts are a bit blurry. i would like to read some witness accounts but after a quick search with ggl.mx only found the same editorial here and there.

Mexico gunmen attack Navy helicopter in Tamaulipas

None of the Marines on board the Black Hawk helicopter was hurt when it was hit by seven bullets.

On the contrary to the Cougar earlier

? You said there was too much PS? Which picture were you referring to?

Post 1338.

My answer was to clarified the fact that I don’t believe you’d had modified the picture yourself, what Blitzo last comment was somewhat suggesting. But we are OT.
What remains interesting is that the Tandem Wing suggests (or confirms) that Chinese Industry still face trouble designing wings regarding aeroelasticity.

The temperature tolerance of the materials used is certainly a factor. Even composites are not all the same (heck, reinforced concrete is a composite), and even in the case of aircraft and carbon fiber-reinforced composites their physical properties can vary quite a bit. The F-22, for example, uses BMI matrix composites (Cycom 5250-4 and/or 5250-4HT) for most of its skin panels, and it can withstand a temperature of 400°F/204°C – 500°F/260°F which is significantly higher than typical epoxy matrix composites; most of the rest of its skin is made of titanium, so there is no temperature issue with that. For comparison, the F-35 uses quite a bit of epoxy composite in its skin, so there is probably a reason the F-22 uses the more expensive BMI, and it’s probably ultimately related to speed. In the worst case, based on stagnation temperature at the leading edges of BMI-skinned panels, the F-22 should be good for Mach 2.6-2.85 at 50000 feet. I’m NOT saying that it necessarily can go this fast–maybe it can and maybe it can’t for a variety of other reasons–but its skin can withstand the associated temperatures without losing structural strength.

As for the PAK-FA/T-50, who knows at this point? It depends on precisely what it’s made of (and where), among many other things. All we know is that its top speed is at least Mach 2, that is all. It might be faster than the F-22, but based on comments made by those in the know, at least so far, probably not. But it really doesn’t matter because neither will likely ever use their top speeds–they’re both fast enough for their envisioned roles.

Thanks for correcting some of the slight error I made.

Here is the chart (reminder T[°C] = T[Kelvin] -273)

This idea of F-35 being a concept instead of a plane is quite interesting , would you please explain it better?
Are you meaning that f-35 would depend more on their own avionics, sensor fusion and networking capabilities than in its own being? or something other?

Because you see, conceptual development are interesting things but it can happen that they end up proving themselves wrong or better to say unable to cope with an everchanging environment.
My general impression is that many of the supposed advanced features of the F-35 are just the US way to apply new technological advancements to their own planes.
Certainly comparing them to their own legacy airplanes would made seem them a quantum leap in this field but many of those new things are instead not so shining new if compared with similar ones implemented in production aircrafts in both Europe and Russia and in some cases (DSI intakes and AESA radar) even by China.

No. I don’t mean a concept drawn on paper and pushed through a PR campaign for fund raising. I meant that the F35 was first designed around a core of technologies structured toward ensuring a full mission capability. It’s not an upgrade. Its the result of a long and strategic acquisition process hardened by professionals with the most experiences in the world.

The tri-services have enjoyed the benefits of a constant aircraft dev tempo during the last 30 years. This is pure gold and I put this as the main reason for the surge of tech we are enjoying today (that will ultimately have to benefit the civil society in the long term).

This not a single man plane. This is the result of massive million man hours done by thousands of selected individuals (over several countries). This is a complex system that would require an humble approach to partially understand it. But that simple fact seems to overstretch the cognitive potential of some…

By the way, I didn’t meant to insult you in anyway when I referred to barking dogs.

~S!