Chengdu next gen combat aircraft (?J-36) thread

[zyklon]

Is it flying in a straight line and landing again ?

or is it pulling a high speed low altitude turn

and have you seen the size of the J36 to these little fighters

size and weight is a big difference

then my point stands

The J-36 is an impressive aircraft, especially in terms of the agility that its unconventional design has demonstrated.

However, it's only been publicly visible for about four months, and there just isn't enough information to draw many firm conclusions, especially a statement as broad and definitive as:

it’s pretty clear to everyone China has leaped frogged every 6th generation fighter project

I'm personally inclined to agree with you, but until we learn more, it's silly to get unnecessarily dismissive of @Deino or anyone else making a reasonable argument in good faith.

 

[asif iqbal]

The J-36 is an impressive aircraft, especially in terms of the agility that its unconventional design has demonstrated.

However, it's only been publicly visible for about four months, and there just isn't enough information to draw many firm conclusions, especially a statement as broad and definitive as:



I'm personally inclined to agree with you, but until we learn more, it's silly to get unnecessarily dismissive of @Deino or anyone else making a reasonable argument in good faith.

Again for the 6th time

Such manoeuvring is not possible without traditional and conventional aerodynamic control surfaces

There has to be an huge advancement and advantage in both hardware and software to fly a aircraft of this size and weight at low level in such a manner

this was my original statment

The flaps and aileron maybe be blended into the stealth wings but those alone can’t pull manoeuvres

So my point still stands

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Of course they screw up. A well-publicized example is the F-35, which is dogged by ongoing issues to this day. Doesn't mean it's not a good or effective aircraft, just that it has problems. Problems which the designers and pilots very much wish it did not have.

But when you are talking about top-tier technical teams screwing up, then you need to bring a great deal of hard evidence. Instead of just saying "I don't like how that looks."

I would say they didn't "screw up". They were given a set of requirements, they tried their best to meet them, the fact that they didn't wasn't some oversight but because of both contradictory requirements and overambitious ones that couldn't be met on their given resource budget.

 

[zyklon]

Such manoeuvring is not possible without traditional and conventional aerodynamic control surfaces

There has to be an huge advancement and advantage in both hardware and software to fly a aircraft of this size and weight at low level in such a manner

The problem is: how are you so certain that the US has not achieved comparable advancements?

 

[Michaelsinodef]

The problem is: how are you so certain that the US has not achieved comparable advancements?

No flying tailless 6th gen prototype.

You, me and everyone, know that Trump 100% would have shown it off if there was any.
(current US flying/flown 6th gen probably at best demonstrators, might not even be tailless)

 

[Deino]

Again for the 6th time

Such manoeuvring is not possible without traditional and conventional aerodynamic control surfaces

There has to be an huge advancement and advantage in both hardware and software to fly a aircraft of this size and weight at low level in such a manner

this was my original statment

The flaps and aileron maybe be blended into the stealth wings but those alone can’t pull manoeuvres

So my point still stands

You love to spoil the party don’t you like a proper loser

you even admitted that US demonstrators havnt flown and yet claim they are somehow better based on what ? Your wet dream ?

For the final time ... and at least for you for the next year!

- fact is, we saw it making a slow fly-over and a decent turn, no fancy maneuvers that could - or at least should - result in an orgasm and nothing that needs a fancy, word-breaking technological breakthrough as if China surpassed the US or any other country.
- fact is, the US flew several tailless fighter demonstrators and even (most likely) several NGAD demonstrators. We haven't seen them, we do not know what they look like nor what performances they did during their tests but to deny them is plain stupid!
- fact is, I never admitted anything of your lies and getting offensive is not the way we accept here!
- fact is, you have been warned several times before due to childish, fan-boyish behaviour, for overhyping numbers, things, achievements and so on ... that all is annoying but acceptable, but what is NOT acceptable, that you ignore facts and insult others!

Therefore take your time and reconsider...

 

[zyklon]

You, me and everyone, know that Trump 100% would have shown it off if there was any.

I share your suspicions.

It's why I'm inclined to agree that China may have surpassed the US in certain areas, namely control methods, when it comes to tailless 6th gen designs.

However, we shouldn't jump to definitive conclusions, especially based on a disclosure or lack therefore that may have hinged on Donald Trump's mood of all things.

We all know how erratic he is.

 

[Deino]

No flying tailless 6th gen prototype.

You, me and everyone, know that Trump 100% would have shown it off if there was any.
(current US flying/flown 6th gen probably at best demonstrators, might not even be tailless)

Yes, the same like these two ... they are the first of their kind and as such at best prototypes or do you expect them to enter service within the next 3-4 years!?
And again, yes we haven't seen the US projects but at least I am sure they were flown like the US flew so many secret types before ... that is no argument they are better or worse, but to claim we haven't seen any and so they don't exist is stupid!

Exactly therefore again: We all must admit these two types, it's all justified! We have every reason to admire them, to acknowledge SAC's & CAC's progress and achievement, but we should be objective and cautious about overdramatized claims.
Again, we are NOT a fan-boy-forum and anyone who thinks we should become one should better look for another forum or calm down his temper! Even more so I won't accept any personnel insults only just because someone feels his ego is hurt!

And now back to the topic!

 

[another505]

Aircraft designers are working with billions of dollars and state of the art national level scientific resources with multiple teams cross checking each other at all times and comparing to both physical prototypes and computational models.

They don't "screw up".

Come on, screw ups do happen. The three engine designs is intentional and I think it is the right move. But screw ups do happen, these designers are not omnipotent or omniscient.
Just look back and see how many giant billion dollar plans are a fail in history.

 

[burritocannon]

how would we know what a screwup looks like? westinghouse's inability to produce the promised 15klb thrust j40 screwed nearly a generation of american aircraft but none of those aircraft looked any different for it. in fact, if the planes were modified to account for the underpowered engine, then the fault may have been ameliorated.

if a design seems tailored to account for a limitation, that's an attempt to address a known issue. so while there may be a hundred problems with the j-36, i don't think the triple engine configuration will be one of them.

if we want to be rigorously critical, we should inspect why we even find the triple engine configuration suspicious. is it truly because we know the tradeoffs of such a configuration? or is it merely because we are uncomfortable seeing a disruption in the patterns we are used to?