Comments by "Golden Croc" (@GoldenCroc) on "PilotPhotog" channel.

  1. Not to be a Debbie Downer, but the wing area is probably off with a decimal point or something like that? 243 square feet sounds more plausible, because even taking the entire max length and wingspan of the plane, and making it an entirely covered rectangular surface, only adds up to 1000 square feet or so. Surprised nobody caught this mistake, I guess most folks dont dwell too much on what numbers could be plausible. Ah well. Nice video though.
    2
  2.  @PilotPhotog  Just from an eyeball measurement on my screen, I got a very rough estimate of 180 squre feet from the main wings, I guess the canards are included as well and (again just looking at my screen) looks to be about 50-60 sqft or so?. Thats why I find the "one decimal place" error theory quite plausible, since that would be 230-240 square feet. I see that wikipedia states the 2430 number as well, but as you agree, that just isnt physically possible within the dimensions of the aircraft. A good old B17 got about 1500 sqft of wing area for comparison, almost 1000 less than stated for the X31. I sure hope no one thinks a small fighter like the X31 got larger wings than a B17... Thanks for answering. Great video.
    1