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

[delft]

I'm certainly no expert on aircraft engines , but nowadays main problem is not how to temporarily increase thrust (various stages of afterburner could do that) . Instead , main problem is how to make durable enough engine with special alloys to sustain high temperatures developed during the work cycle . That is way there is so much effort in metallurgy and materials science ( single crystal blades for turbines etc ... )

p.s. I forgot to mention , unlike piston engines in ww2 , power(thrust) of jet engines depends on temperature . Ideal jet engine would have maximum temperature in combustion chamber and absolute zero at exhaust .

F-22 would use A/B to achieve 6 g at that altitude and so would J-20. The question is how can the thrust of the engine be increased further to enable J-20 to achieve those 6 g at that altitude too. Injecting water-methanol somewhere in front of the turbine ( it was often injected in front of the compressor, but if you can find a better place you use that one ) cools the turbine and allows you to burn more fuel. Together it increases the mass flow through the turbine without decreasing the speed, thus speeding up the turbine and increasing pressure ratio.
Alternatively you use hollow turbine blades that are normally cooled by air but are cooled during a few minutes of combat by the water-methanol mixture evaporating within the blades. Design would be pretty difficult. Do you provide alternative channels?
I imagine that you use the mixture to achieve a sufficiently low freezing temperature.

Btw The power of piston engines also depends on the maximum temperature in their combustion chambers.

 

[airsuperiority]

The Lumia runs Windows Phone, not Windows Mobile. The difference is pretty huge.

Aside from that, there's so many different Lumias, a comparison to the F-35 probably isn't far off the mark. Although the Lumias are generally cheaper in price though, so I guess that's where the similarities end.

Or another way to compare...F-22 is Windows 7, and F-35 is Windows 8 (yes I hate that sh!t)

 

[MiG-29]

What kind of "stuff" are you referring to? If you are talking about the EODAS/engine/TVC stuff that some fellow members are debating heatedly, I would have to beg to differ. I am no expert in physics/engineering at all, that's why my head spins whenever I see posts like that. Too technical for me. .

If i am honest, forums are hardly a place to find facts, the only thing you can find in forums most of the time worthed of considering a fact are pictures and some times news articles.


If you really want to learn, do not consider me an expert, since i am not an expert, i am barely a student of university and i need to learn more math and physics.

Most coments you will see here are just chit chat and opinions.

If you really want to have more or less a clear idea, google article from respectable Universities or offical pages from aerospace Companies, compare different claims by different companies such as Almaz Antey or Lockheed, read about basic math an physics.

Try to be un-bias, let physics and not nationalism guide you, and very important remember that without a technical manual you can not really know the exact performance of a jet, after that believe me, you will see, in forums people do not admit mistakes, pride guide their comments, specially in military forums, at schools you either pass a test or you do not, in companies you give results or you are fired.
I am not always unbias, of course, but in the real life aerospace design needs to be unbias, simply because aerospace design is balancing pros and cons of different aircraft configurations.

At the end you will know more or less the compromises and have an approximation of J-20`s capabilities, in reality in forums you can not make any one agree, but reading real studies you can get an approximation, and only in war when you see wreckages of an aircraft downed by another, you more less can put to rest which aircraft was better.

 

[Air Force Brat]

F-22 would use A/B to achieve 6 g at that altitude and so would J-20. The question is how can the thrust of the engine be increased further to enable J-20 to achieve those 6 g at that altitude too. Injecting water-methanol somewhere in front of the turbine ( it was often injected in front of the compressor, but if you can find a better place you use that one ) cools the turbine and allows you to burn more fuel. Together it increases the mass flow through the turbine without decreasing the speed, thus speeding up the turbine and increasing pressure ratio.
Alternatively you use hollow turbine blades that are normally cooled by air but are cooled during a few minutes of combat by the water-methanol mixture evaporating within the blades. Design would be pretty difficult. Do you provide alternative channels?
I imagine that you use the mixture to achieve a sufficiently low freezing temperature.

Btw The power of piston engines also depends on the maximum temperature in their combustion chambers.

1. Ain't gonna happen, the F-22 remains the Alpha Chick, being at or above 50,000 ft DEMANDS lots of consistant available thrust, which ONLY the F-22 owns or posseses, that 6Gs at 50,000 will remain the benchmark, for a long time to come. Only the F-22 has superior aerodynamics, OVT, and that awesome F-119 with its consistant, reliable, tremendous thrust.........that trifecta will not be duplicated nor surpassed by only two of those elements....
That remains the real strength of the Raptor, that the J-20 and Pak-Fa will be measured against, as of today, the F-22 owns the HIGH GROUND.

So, I like your idea, it is a good idea and the stuff of thoughted men, the Germans in WW-II needed to catch the Mossies, and so came up with NO2 injection, that type of solution will likely not work for the F-22, it LIVEs up there, others may visit, but only for a short while......Air Force Brat

 

[Air Force Brat]

If i am honest, forums are hardly a place to find facts, the only thing you can find in forums most of the time worthed of considering a fact are pictures and some times news articles.


If you really want to learn, do not consider me an expert, since i am not an expert, i am barely a student of university and i need to learn more math and physics.

Most coments you will see here are just chit chat and opinions.

If you really want to have more or less a clear idea, google article from respectable Universities or offical pages from aerospace Companies, compare different claims by different companies such as Almaz Antey or Lockheed, read about basic math an physics.

Try to be un-bias, let physics and not nationalism guide you, and very important remember that without a technical manual you can not really know the exact performance of a jet, after that believe me, you will see, in forums people do not admit mistakes, pride guide their comments, specially in military forums, at schools you either pass a test or you do not, in companies you give results or you are fired.
I am not always unbias, of course, but in the real life aerospace design needs to be unbias, simply because aerospace design is balancing pros and cons of different aircraft configurations.

At the end you will know more or less the compromises and have an approximation of J-20`s capabilities, in reality in forums you can not make any one agree, but reading real studies you can get an approximation, and only in war when you see wreckages of an aircraft downed by another, you more less can put to rest which aircraft was better.

Here again, If you were honest???? you often question others integrity, and then to suggest that everyone else on this forum cares no more for their integrity than to label their posts chit-chat, by giving a disclaimer that you are no expert, and it is your "right" to post any kind of off the wall observation that you choose to make.
This kind of "small minded" attitude lowers the integrity and expertise of every member of this forum to NULL, I personally find other serious minded posters to be a far more authoritative sources of sound objective information than the advertising copy of certain foreign defense contractors who have no interest other than to advance their own financial or "professional" position at the expense of the truth!
When you address me and say "LOOK HERE", and then blah, blah, blah, and quote a source or 10 or 12 sources that sometime contradict your contentions, by pulling a line or two out of context, and finally to finish this response when you interject your opinion or your own set of rules such as "the only way we will ever know is looking at the aircraft wreckage wrought on us by the opposing team is "stupidity", the object of building superior weapons is to project power and deterence, that has been and remains US policy since the end of WW-II, if someone is foolish enough to presuppose that you are vulnerable, then you visit massive destruction upon the opposing team, its has worked well enough to avoid WW-III, for the last 68 years.

In conclusion please spare us your authoritative "pontification", and before you challenge the veracity of a fellow forum member, find an authoritative reliable source to "validate" your contention, the rest of us work very hard to keep Sino Defense the most accurate/authoritative source of credible thought on the state of the Chinese Military and their equipment, we may be pro/amateurs, but we strive to keep this forum accurate and reliable.. Brat

I suggest we get back on topic of the J-20 and how Chengdu are coming on 2003, I do believe that it will be rolled out this summer, and I also believe that there may be some rather substantive changes. In the end, this forum represents the best efforts of many of us to provide a serious and accurate assessment of this aircraft and her capabilities to date, and how she may fare in the real world of air-superiority, today and going forward into the future.

 

[MiG-29]

Here again, If you were honest???? you often question others integrity, and then to suggest that everyone else on this forum cares no more for their integrity than to label their posts chit-chat, by giving a disclaimer that you are no expert, and it is your "right" to post any kind of off the wall observation that you choose to make.
.

Yes, i knew, you wil answer me like this, but i will tell, number one you have no manual i say no manual to really know first F-22 is better to J-20 or PAKFA, all what you wrote in your last post comes from your bias.
If you have the Manual of T-50 and J-20 you could obviously tell me where the J-20 and T-50 are inferior to F-22.
In fact claims like this

1. Ain't gonna happen, the F-22 remains the Alpha Chick

prove you are bias since you have no manuals to really know that.



There i know i do not need to consider your opinion more than a forum opinion, do you think you are so authoritative to be quoted in the world press? Do you think with a Forum`s nickname your have more veracity than Pogyosan?

To start here all the non Photoshop pictures can be considered facts, for example if they roll a J-20 bort 3, besides that, everyone in this forum will have a different opinion, second people twist even reports, in real life at school, if you fail a math or physics problem your professor simply fluncks you, if you work in an aerospace company and you fail, simply your customer stops buying and you get fired.

And i will prove you why is chit chat, if i response your claim of F-22 is the gold standard, what proof do we have? first you will claim i am wrong if i say is not, second we have no manuals to have an exact performance comparasion, third the forum rules forbid comparsions for that.


Since people here have no manuals expeculate, with things like Radars, LOAL or EODAS and so on, aerodynamics are the closest things to see so people can make an approximation of the performance.


Now do you think because i have documents that say ITR and STR are improved by TVC nozzles, and one or two guys claim the opposite from their chest, do you think i will beleive them?

No, of course not, in forum people are so proud to even say your read bad that article, and so on, in real life in schools, you teacher simply flunks you, that is it.

When you can get in a forum a correct fact? when you quote the manufacturer.


If you come and quote Chengdu, saying its max length is 20.9 meters to put an example, then you have a fact, but what do we have here?

Speculation, that is what we have, what about speed? people will say DSI achieve this speed or that speed or Mach 2.2 and so on is it a fact?

Unless you have Chengdu`s claims performance is just simply a mystery.

Since people here have no manual only speculate, since people here have no Chengdu official release specification or technical characteristics of J-20 only you have myths or chit chat.

That is what we have

 

[latenlazy]

Yes, i knew, you wil answer me like this, but i will tell, number one you have no manual i say no manual to really know first F-22 is better to J-20 or PAKFA, all what you wrote in your last post comes from your bias.
If you have the Manual of T-50 and J-20 you could obviously tell me where the J-20 and T-50 are inferior to F-22.
In fact claims like this



prove you are bias since you have no manuals to really know that.



There i know i do not need to consider your opinion more than a forum opinion, do you think you are so authoritative to be quoted in the world press? Do you think with a Forum`s nickname your have more veracity than Pogyosan?

To start here all the non Photoshop pictures can be considered facts, for example if they roll a J-20 bort 3, besides that, everyone in this forum will have a different opinion, second people twist even reports, in real life at school, if you fail a math or physics problem your professor simply fluncks you, if you work in an aerospace company and you fail, simply your customer stops buying and you get fired.

And i will prove you why is chit chat, if i response your claim of F-22 is the gold standard, what proof do we have? first you will claim i am wrong if i say is not, second we have no manuals to have an exact performance comparasion, third the forum rules forbid comparsions for that.


Since people here have no manuals expeculate, with things like Radars, LOAL or EODAS and so on, aerodynamics are the closest things to see so people can make an approximation of the performance.


Now do you think because i have documents that say ITR and STR are improved by TVC nozzles, and one or two guys claim the opposite from their chest, do you think i will beleive them?

No, of course not, in forum people are so proud to even say your read bad that article, and so on, in real life in schools, you teacher simply flunks you, that is it.

When you can get in a forum a correct fact? when you quote the manufacturer.


If you come and quote Chengdu, saying its max length is 20.9 meters to put an example, then you have a fact, but what do we have here?

Speculation, that is what we have, what about speed? people will say DSI achieve this speed or that speed or Mach 2.2 and so on is it a fact?

Unless you have Chengdu`s claims performance is just simply a mystery.

Since people here have no manual only speculate, since people here have no Chengdu official release specification or technical characteristics of J-20 only you have myths or chit chat.

That is what we have

Mig, you treat fighter plane performance like video game stats. All I'm going to say.

 

[Engineer]

Yes, i knew, you wil answer me like this, but i will tell, number one you have no manual i say no manual to really know first F-22 is better to J-20 or PAKFA, all what you wrote in your last post comes from your bias.
If you have the Manual of T-50 and J-20 you could obviously tell me where the J-20 and T-50 are inferior to F-22.
In fact claims like this



prove you are bias since you have no manuals to really know that.



There i know i do not need to consider your opinion more than a forum opinion, do you think you are so authoritative to be quoted in the world press? Do you think with a Forum`s nickname your have more veracity than Pogyosan?

To start here all the non Photoshop pictures can be considered facts, for example if they roll a J-20 bort 3, besides that, everyone in this forum will have a different opinion, second people twist even reports, in real life at school, if you fail a math or physics problem your professor simply fluncks you, if you work in an aerospace company and you fail, simply your customer stops buying and you get fired.

And i will prove you why is chit chat, if i response your claim of F-22 is the gold standard, what proof do we have? first you will claim i am wrong if i say is not, second we have no manuals to have an exact performance comparasion, third the forum rules forbid comparsions for that.


Since people here have no manuals expeculate, with things like Radars, LOAL or EODAS and so on, aerodynamics are the closest things to see so people can make an approximation of the performance.


Now do you think because i have documents that say ITR and STR are improved by TVC nozzles, and one or two guys claim the opposite from their chest, do you think i will beleive them?

No, of course not, in forum people are so proud to even say your read bad that article, and so on, in real life in schools, you teacher simply flunks you, that is it.

When you can get in a forum a correct fact? when you quote the manufacturer.


If you come and quote Chengdu, saying its max length is 20.9 meters to put an example, then you have a fact, but what do we have here?

Speculation, that is what we have, what about speed? people will say DSI achieve this speed or that speed or Mach 2.2 and so on is it a fact?

Unless you have Chengdu`s claims performance is just simply a mystery.

Since people here have no manual only speculate, since people here have no Chengdu official release specification or technical characteristics of J-20 only you have myths or chit chat.

That is what we have

I will tell you why you wrote what you have written. It boils down to the simple fact that you do not have hard data to back up any of your claim, so you are attempting to shift the responsibilities away from yourself.

Take for example of your accusation on others' comments being nothing but "just chit chat and opinions". What hard data have you ever presented in your evaluation of F-22 or J-20? The simple answer is that you provided absolutely nothing. Accusing others of doing the same thing you are guilty of doing does not add validity to your baseless claims in anyway.

Next, you are trying to set up a little criteria that others have to have official manuals in order to challenge your claims. Such criteria simply has no validity. That's because it is simply another form of the argument "you do not have proof that I am wrong so I must be right", which is a form of fallacy known as

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. You make assertions on aircraft performance, so the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

lies on you and you must be the one responsible to provide such manuals for comparison.

You claimed others have provided no hard data, yet that's not the case. What happened is you simply go into denial mode when hard data doesn't support your myths. Your refusal of acknowledging existence of hard data does not mean they are not there.

Here is one such example. In it, you insisted that DSI does not allow an aircraft to fly faster than Mach 1.6 without providing hard data to back up your claim. You were then shown

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

which literally says DSI can operate at Mach 2.0. Your response to that was simply to invoke a logical fallacy by repeating your claim

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

You even go as far as completely redefining meaning of terminologies to suit your purposes. Here is one occurrence that happened when you claimed an aircraft in post-stall maneuver is not in a stall. You

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

a source for proofs, and completely ignored the paragraph adjacent to your quotes that contradicts your very claim in the process. However, nothing tops the time when you insisted that J-20's canard as coplanar with the wing, even when the two are at angle with one another. That was no different than calling an X as a straight line.

You claimed you have documents to back up your statements. As illustrated in the previous examples, what really happened is that you engaged in quote mining, twisting what those documents are actually saying. Very often, those very documents say the complete opposite of what you have claimed. One such example occurs when you claimed tailplane is used in recovery in Cobra Maneuver, but the three sources you have quoted from say the complete opposite to what you were claiming.

This is the same for those documents that you claimed to prove thrust vectoring improves turn rate. Like in this case, where you claimed thrust vectoring improves lift to increase turn rate, but the very NASA document you quoted from says it decreases lift. Or in this case, where you quote mined from a source to show F-16 sees turn performance improvement, ignoring the fact that improvement actually came from removal of AoA limits. Or in this case where you resort to your redefinition tactic to claim pitch rate as turn rate in an disingenuous attempt to misrepresent.

So to summarize, you are guilty of everything you accused others of doing. This means what you have accused others of are merely your own

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in an attempt to shift the blames on to others. You do not have any credibility to stand on for you to lecture others about facts, because you have already proven what you believe in has no basis in facts.

 

[rhino123]

Guys... I find that I really have to speak up (even if it mean to get me banned from this forum)...

I don't know why any of you keep wanting to reply to Mig-29 when all of you know full well that he will start another ranting and spinning and sending this thread further and further away from its previous intended purpose... whats with all the links and reference and finally the disclaimer than this is nothing but a forum and everyone had the right for their own opinions and things like that.

I am beginning to wonder if any of you are finding it pretty amusing to read comments by this member and his/her retorts and final disclaimers or was it fun to just reply then dig for the mistake he/she made in his/her post? I kinda find the old sinodefence forum a better place to be before all these nonsense start coming in

 

[tphuang]

Guys, let's drop this argument with Mig-29. Mig-29, I already sent you a PM about your posting behaviour. The next time you start another of your longer unending argument with other members, you will get suspended.