J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread IV (Closed to posting)

[bd popeye]

There are only two so far: 2001 & 2002 ... with 2003 so far not seen and - esp. me - eagerly awaited !

No. 2007 & 2007 are photoshoped images.

Deino

Thank you. I wish those stupid fan boyz would stop that. People want the true information. Not someones dream.

and that is why this is the premier forum on the internet when it comes to China's military discussion. Unlike 90% of forums out there this one is very professional and everyone for the most part discuss things in a civil manner and don't go into childish and antagonistic rants except for very rare ocasions which turns so many other forums into trash and a big turn off to those folks who are genuinely interested in these things.
Kudos to the mods here also for keeping this forum smooth going and professional.

I agree. I've followed this forum for about three years and It is one of the best military forums on line. Very informative. And that's because of the members keeping the quality of the post high. And the great moderation. Unlike some other forums that allow just about any thing.

 

[kwaigonegin]

I have a question. Most here have argued that the reason J-20 went with canard was to augment a 'weak' engine and that canards can also alleviate some of the shortcomings of having a weaker engine or lack of TVC.

IF that is indeed the case then Chinese engineers must be very short sighted because the J-20 is here to stay for the next 20 or 30 years! Surely they must have taken into consideration that in those timeframe China would've mastered jet engine development including TVC and the notion of a weak unrealiable powerplant would be a problem of the past.

Actually with the amount of R & D poured into jet engine development, the likes of AVIC, Shenyang, Chengdu etc will be very close technologically to the likes of P & W, GE, RR and certainly those of Saturn Lyulka in the next 10 or so years.

I mean you can always put new engines in an airplane but you can't take the canards off so I still don't understand this argument of canards and powerplants.

 

[kyanges]

that will be fine if no one talks about aerodynamics in this thread, which is basicly impossible since people here and i include my self has an opine about J-20 based upon what they understand upon aerodynamics.


But my objection was not only aerodynamics, but RCS or the physics related to stealth or the new weaponry based on HHOBS, in few words all the time you will get technical stuff if you really want to opine, otherwise the thread should be like the game cards children play saying see i have this picture and me this and the technical stuff will be a lot af absurd things.

See it is impossible if you want to have a nice opinion based upon real facts skip math and physics, J-20 is a product of math and physics an chemestry, if you want really opinions you need to read technical stuff, other wise poeple only will opine upon nationalistic and jingoistic bases.

Opine there, discuss J-20 facts here.

 

[latenlazy]

I have a question. Most here have argued that the reason J-20 went with canard was to augment a 'weak' engine and that canards can also alleviate some of the shortcomings of having a weaker engine or lack of TVC.

IF that is indeed the case then Chinese engineers must be very short sighted because the J-20 is here to stay for the next 20 or 30 years! Surely they must have taken into consideration that in those timeframe China would've mastered jet engine development including TVC and the notion of a weak unrealiable powerplant would be a problem of the past.

Actually with the amount of R & D poured into jet engine development, the likes of AVIC, Shenyang, Chengdu etc will be very close technologically to the likes of P & W, GE, RR and certainly those of Saturn Lyulka in the next 10 or so years.

I mean you can always put new engines in an airplane but you can't take the canards off so I still don't understand this argument of canards and powerplants.

Well, the idea is that if you have weaker engines you need to depend on aerodynamics (high lift to drag) to achieve high alpha. That translates to even better performance with a better engine though, so it doesn't really hurt to go with a better aerodynamic design in the first place.

 

[MiG-29]

Opine there, discuss J-20 facts here.

What facts?

if i go for facts i will not even consider your opinion, first because i would only trust what Chengdu says officially, and only very but very few officially released data by the PLAAF.

Here we spent pages and pages about how much J-20 weighs, or its dimensions?
and tell what is the official version?

here none all is opinions.

Tell me facts?


Do you have the computer and wind tunnel data of J-20?
Do you have blue prints of its engines?
can you explain me with detail its avionics?


All what we do here is opine, unless we would work at Chengdu we are basicly fans.


If i would see only facts believe me i would not even opine here i would only see pictures, not even opine about the pictures.


When we opine we need basics of aerodynamics, at least to know how stealth works otherwise, it is better no one opines unless we have Chengdu official data.

Basic of metalurgy and chemestry. in reality this is not a school, most people what we do here is just opine upon our experiences and interests.

If you have ever worked in the aerospace industry, being a pilot or mechanic, or at least study an engineering you know the world of aerospace is basicly science.

Just to calculate roll rates or pitch rates you will need basics of algebra and trigonometry.

So honestry if we only want facts i will only wait for officially realeased data, and i would only see pictures without opine about them

 

[kwaigonegin]

Well, the idea is that if you have weaker engines you need to depend on aerodynamics (high lift to drag) to achieve high alpha. That translates to even better performance with a better engine though, so it doesn't really hurt to go with a better aerodynamic design in the first place.

But I thought the argument was canards offer less aerodynamic advantages vs regular tail planes and it was only chosen to supplement less powerful engine.

 

[latenlazy]

But I thought the argument was canards offer less aerodynamic advantages vs regular tail planes and it was only chosen to supplement less powerful engine.

I don't know where you got that idea from?

What facts?

if i go for facts i will not even consider your opinion, first because i would only trust what Chengdu says officially, and only very but very few officially released data by the PLAAF.

Here we spent pages and pages about how much J-20 weighs, or its dimensions?
and tell what is the official version?

here none all is opinions.

Tell me facts?


Do you have the computer and wind tunnel data of J-20?
Do you have blue prints of its engines?
can you explain me with detail its avionics?


All what we do here is opine, unless we would work at Chengdu we are basicly fans.


If i would see only facts believe me i would not even opine here i would only see pictures, not even opine about the pictures.


When we opine we need basics of aerodynamics, at least to know how stealth works otherwise, it is better no one opines unless we have Chengdu official data.

Basic of metalurgy and chemestry. in reality this is not a school, most people what we do here is just opine upon our experiences and interests.

If you have ever worked in the aerospace industry, being a pilot or mechanic, or at least study an engineering you know the world of aerospace is basicly science.

Just to calculate roll rates or pitch rates you will need basics of algebra and trigonometry.

So honestry if we only want facts i will only wait for officially realeased data, and i would only see pictures without opine about them

I think the problem is that when you make declarative absolute statements based on features, you're not only expressing an opinion, but painting science with a broad brush. Applying a science is ultimately about the details and specifics, and from an engineering standpoint it's not about specific features but the whole. Without knowing details it's really hard to say, for example, that canards are always worse for stealth than non-canards, or that DSIs are always limited to mach 2.0, etc etc. When you make a declarative statement like that, that's when the discussion gets derailed and unproductive. Let's stick to what we can know and verify for sure based on objective and factual details, and not make overly general claims that require the support of data that is simply unavailable.

 

[MiG-29]

I don't know where you got that idea from?


I think the problem is that when you make declarative absolute statements based on features, you're not only expressing an opinion, but painting science with a broad brush. Applying a science is ultimately about the details and specifics, and from an engineering standpoint it's not about specific features but the whole. Without knowing details it's really hard to say, for example, that canards are always worse for stealth than non-canards, or that DSIs are always limited to mach 2.0, etc etc. When you make a declarative statement like that, that's when the discussion gets derailed and unproductive. Let's stick to what we can know and verify for sure based on objective and factual details, and not make overly general claims that require the support of data that is simply unavailable.

Latenlazy


I think perhaps the issue is we should not go so deep, and let other things come up like picture and other things like first flights etc, i think that is what the moderators mean.

But in my opinion aerodynamics and RCS will come time after time simply because J-20 is an airplane and as such the product of science and human invention.
We need to learn to simply agree to disagree.

 

[latenlazy]

Latenlazy


I think perhaps the issue is we should not go so deep, and let other things come up like picture and other things like first flights etc, i think that is what the moderators mean.

But in my opinion aerodynamics and RCS will come time after time simply because J-20 is an airplane and as such the product of science and human invention.
We need to learn to simply agree to disagree.

The problem isn't so much whether the topics of aerodynamics and RCS come up, but the speculation and loose comparisons that are brought in when those topics are introduced. What's fueling recent discussions about aerodynamics and RCS lately has had very little foundation on specific facts related to the J-20. If there's a difference in opinion, that only exists as a function of people pushing their own conclusions as factual, when details to support those conclusions are poorly related to known facts about the J-20 at best.

 

[T-U-P]

The problem i see and i acknowledge is we should learn to see when we are not going any where and stop on time, but i think making a taboo of aerodynamics canards, engines or what ever technical aspects of the J-20 and just make a photo albums just makes the thread boring simply because all members want to opine.

I think you've hit the nail on this one. It is inevitable that some discussion of aerodynamics and engines will be done here from time to time, but there comes a point when that discussion becomes stale without new information. Knowing when to stop is important. I mean sure J-20 is new and fancy and all, but that doesn't mean something has to be discussed about it ALL the time.

Just as an example: it's not like the type-99 tank thread is full of debates about armour material composition or something like that when the news is slow.