H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)

Blitzo said:

It depends, how does one define an "academic exercise"?

AVIC have done wind tunnel models of B-2 and F-22, and I suspect most of the major aviation institutes and companies of the world would've done modelling of the major aircraft types that exist in the world given making a wind tunnel model and using a bit of computer time is relatively simple (compared to actually developing an entire aircraft).

Click to expand...

AVIC testing wind tunnel models of the B-2 and F-22 would most likely qualify as design studies for R&D or intelligence gathering purposes . These are not academic in nature.

The question that needs to be asked is for what purposes would you need wind tunnel model data. If you’re doing wind tunnel models you’re devoting resources to acquire precise real world data. Given the availability and power of simulations these days you only go for the level of precision a real world wind tunnel model produces if your interest is related to reproduction of realistic performance data. That level of detail is only necessary if you’re trying to get some practical application out of the study.

latenlazy said:

AVIC testing wind tunnel models of the B-2 and F-22 would most likely qualify as design studies for R&D or intelligence gathering purposes . These are not academic in nature.

Click to expand...

Well, that's what I mean by asking what "academic" means.

Because in my book, anything that advances general industry R&D is academic.

I think that aerodynamic configurations that range from studying pedestrian and proven configurations all the way to more exotic and aerodynamic configurations, and everything in between, is all part and parcel of normal aerospace industrial development of knowledge.

by78 said:

Not disinformation per se, but probably a product of the enthusiast community based on published patents and academic papers, which may or may not have much to do with H-20. I'd pay more attention to the flying wing models that have appeared at PLAAF's RCS testing facility. They have a much higher chance of being connected to the H-20 than a model presented by a company known for flight simulators.

Anyway, I don't know the origin of that silver model in your image. I'd like to know the context: who's behind it, where it was shown, etc. I guess it's not the model I'm interested in per se, but the source of its unique layout. Who proposed it and for what purpose? Was it from an institution affiliated with AVIC and/or was it just an academic exercise done to advertise in-house design expertise? I'm not saying that there is no chance that it's related to the H-20, but I'm skeptical.

Who knows, the J-20 turned out to be exactly the same as depicted in one of the earliest artist impressions. We had known what it looked like all along, but we just didn't know it at the time.

Click to expand...

I certainly agree that the model that the people were holding is likely not official in any capacity, and absolutely should not be viewed as the likely final configuration of H-20.


However the wind tunnel model is slightly different.
IMO, until we have a clear source of the wind tunnel model images today, I am tempted to say that the wind tunnel model may depict one (of likely many) considered/studied configurations for the H-20 -- but at the same time I would be very surprised if the real H-20 is the exact same as the wind tunnel model, as getting that level of detailed confirmation for such an important aircraft would be unprecedented.


Overall, my view is that for the last couple of years there have been enough indicators towards the "flying wing with folding V tails" idea that I think at the minimum such a configuration was likely at least studied and considered for the project that would become H-20, for it to eventually filter through to the public in this way.
But even then, there are many specific configurations for a "flying wing with folding V tails" to be arranged (think size of the aircraft, trailing and leading edge geometries, inlet arrangement, location and size of V tails etc) -- and the final product might not have that sort of configuration anyway.

Blitzo said:

Well, that's what I mean by asking what "academic" means.

Because in my book, anything that advances general industry R&D is academic.

I think that aerodynamic configurations that range from studying pedestrian and proven configurations all the way to more exotic and aerodynamic configurations, and everything in between, is all part and parcel of normal aerospace industrial development of knowledge.

Click to expand...

Just because something is R&D does not make it “academic”.

If you’ve gone as far as to take a design concept and put it through wind tunnel testing you’re no longer just acquiring knowledge about a concept. The creation of a physical model and collecting data from it is what you do when you move forward to treating a design or concept as part of your portfolio for potential product applications. For example, the reason why wind tunnel models were created for that 6th gen flying wing concept with those novel control concepts is most likely because those control concepts are actual candidates for use in future plane designs. Given the way aerospace development works today anything that has gone to wind tunnel models will most likely have already been looked at with digital simulations, which means you’ve moved on from exploratory concept phase and you’re now looking to confirm your simulations with concrete physical analogs. You don’t commit to that step to data collection from practical models if your interest is just in concept level work.

latenlazy said:

Just because something is R&D does not make it “academic”.

If you’ve gone as far as to take a design concept and put it through wind tunnel testing you’re no longer just acquiring knowledge about a concept. The creation of a physical model and collecting data from it is what you do when you move forward to treating a design or concept as part of your portfolio for potential product applications. For example, the reason why wind tunnel models were created for that 6th gen flying wing concept with those novel control surfaces is most likely because those control surfaces are actual candidates for future fighter designs. Given the way aerospace development works today anything that has gone to wind tunnel models most likely have already been looked at with digital simulations, which means you’ve moved on from exploratory concept phase and you’re now looking to confirm your simulations with concrete physical analogs. You don’t commit to that step to data collection from practical models if your interest is just in concept level work.

Click to expand...

As I said, that's what I meant by asking what you meant by "academic".

To me, "wind tunnel testing of various aerodynamic configurations and control surfaces for their potential role in future applications" is absolutely academic. It's one of the most base levels of research you would do as part of an aircraft's overall development cycle and it often can be done many years or even decades ahead of an actual aircraft beginning formal start as a program.

That isn't to say that "all" wind tunnel testing is academic -- but rather that wind tunnel testing in general absolutely can be academic.

You're just collecting data, without knowing if a concept that you're studying will absolutely have an application on a future project (and the future project might not even exist at the time that you're doing the study) -- but you know that you need to build a broad base of general knowledge and data because it might help in the direction that you think things will go.

Blitzo said:

However the wind tunnel model is slightly different.
IMO, until we have a clear source of the wind tunnel model images today, I am tempted to say that the wind tunnel model may depict one (of likely many) considered/studied configurations for the H-20 -- but at the same time I would be very surprised if the real H-20 is the exact same as the wind tunnel model, as getting that level of detailed confirmation for such an important aircraft would be unprecedented.

Click to expand...

I didn't think it was a wind tunnel model. I mere glanced at Deino's image and assumed he had re-posted , which doesn't show signs of airflow around the model. Now that I've re-examined Deino's image, which clearly shows airflow, so yes, it's indeed a wind tunnel model. This does change my views and bring them in line with yours. We shall see if and how much the H-20 prototype will resemble it. Let's hope the wait will not be long.

by78 said:

I didn't think it was a wind tunnel model. I simply assumed Deino had re-posted

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, which doesn't show signs of airflow around the model. Now that I've re-examined Deino's image, which clearly shows airflow, so yes, it's indeed a wind tunnel model. This does change my views and bring them in line with yours. We shall see if and how much the H-20 prototype will resemble it.

Click to expand...

interesting that’s two slightly different images of the same image popped up almost simultaneously… I would love to know where these models are from.
So just for completeness here are both!

Blitzo said:

As I said, that's what I meant by asking what you meant by "academic".

To me, "wind tunnel testing of various aerodynamic configurations and control surfaces for their potential role in future applications" is absolutely academic. It's one of the most base levels of research you would do as part of an aircraft's overall development cycle and it often can be done many years or even decades ahead of an actual aircraft beginning formal start as a program.

That isn't to say that "all" wind tunnel testing is academic -- but rather that wind tunnel testing in general absolutely can be academic.

You're just collecting data, without knowing if a concept that you're studying will absolutely have an application on a future project (and the future project might not even exist at the time that you're doing the study) -- but you know that you need to build a broad base of general knowledge and data because it might help in the direction that you think things will go.

Click to expand...

These days if you’re doing wind tunnel models you’re already moving into application and design, not just concept development. Not all forms of knowledge building and data collection exercises reflect the same phase in R&D maturity. And wind tunnel models are a bit more advanced in R&D phase than simply conceptual exploration. I recognize that some of this is quibbling over semantics, but I do think that your read of what a wind tunnel model reflects is a bit less advanced in the R&D process than what is actually the case. You don’t commit the resources to collect the practical real world data from a wind tunnel unless your intention is at the very least to initiate the process that eventually becomes something available as a submission option for a product proposal. Not every wind tunnel model arrives to that point, but the point of wind tunnel models is to engage in that part of the product development process.

Just a question… could it be that this model could feature such folding fins, but we just didn‘t notice?

Deino said:

Just a question… could it be that this model could feature such folding fins, but we just didn‘t notice?

View attachment 95953

Click to expand...

Assuming the folding fins are even there, I don't know how we could have noticed them given how grainy the image is.

But a different model in the image below (in the lower-right corner) might conceivably show folding fins: