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

[Engineer]

you are just fantasizing.

there is no such DSI intake.

A fixed intake as that of J-20 is only good up to Mach 1.8, and saddly for you mixed compression intakes are only used above Mach 2.8 XB-70 used one like that, internal compression requiere lower mach speeds of Mach 2.0 and are very difficult to make and design for such all aircraft use mixed compression variable geometry at Mach 3 in example MiG-31 or SR-71.

So you have a gap of 1200km/h from Mach 1.8 to Mach 2.7 that usually is filled by variable geometry external compression intakes like the one of F-14 or Su-27.

J-20 has fixed DSI intakes you like it or not or you believe or not

The claim that a fixed intake cannot go faster than Mach 1.8 is purely your own fantasy. F-22 is a good example debunking such a myth, and there are also existing evidences showing your statement to be false. Just because something is used on the T-50, that doesn't mean it is automatically better than what anybody else uses.

 

[Skywatcher]

you are just fantasizing.

there is no such DSI intake.

A fixed intake as that of J-20 is only good up to Mach 1.8, and saddly for you mixed compression intakes are only used above Mach 2.8 XB-70 used one like that, internal compression requiere lower mach speeds of Mach 2.0 and are very difficult to make and design for such all aircraft use mixed compression variable geometry at Mach 3 in example MiG-31 or SR-71.

So you have a gap of 1200km/h from Mach 1.8 to Mach 2.7 that usually is filled by variable geometry external compression intakes like the one of F-14 or Su-27.

J-20 has fixed DSI intakes you like it or not or you believe or not

Read the post again. The presence of DSI (intake is redundant) does not mean that you cannot install internal compression intakes.

And spell check next time, please.

 

[MiG-29]

All inlets only work within a certain speed range as designed by the engineers regardless of whether they are fixed or have variable ramps. However, the boundary of speed range is determined by the capabilities of the engineers, not because a certain type of inlet was chosen.


.

look i have argued this with you before, you can say what ever, but i brought you the patent of T-50, bring an official chinese source patent where it says the DSI on J-20 can fly Mach 3 and is a varioable geometry otherwise arguing with you is senseless.

You like it or not DSI are for Mach 1.8

J-10 has a variable geometry intake and a speed of

Maximum speed: Mach 2.2 at altitude,[42][38] Mach 1.2 at sea level[7]g-limits: +9/-3 g (+88/-29 m/s², +290/-97 ft/s²[7])

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

DSI on J-10 is no better than Mach 2 and an ideal speed is Mach 1.8.

But since we have argued this many times just bring the patent and we can continue the discussion otherwise you can believe your myths but i won`t DSI is limited to speeds of Mach 1.8


and even in Zhuhai 2012 they showed specifications of Mach 1.8

 

[MiG-29]

Read the post again. The presence of DSI (intake is redundant) does not mean that you cannot install internal compression intakes.

And spell check next time, please.

internal compression intakes are dificult to start the shock, thus the use of mixed compression, J-20 uses a DSI with very good results even for supercruise at Mach 1.7, there is nothing bad about it, DSI are efficient below Mach 2.

The Russians have some difficulties since they will requiere lots of composites, RAM and more maintainance in order to achieve Mach 2.5 on T-50, but the Russian approach to stealth is different to the F-22, they will use more jamming and passive radars to beat F-22 and higher speeds to stay out of the reach.

J-20 perhaps is closer to F-22 than T-50 with more emphazies on stealth rather than jamming and passive radars

 

[Engineer]

look i have argued this with you before, you can say what ever, but i brought you the patent of T-50, bring an official chinese source patent where it says the DSI on J-20 can fly Mach 3 and is a varioable geometry otherwise arguing with you is senseless.

You like it or not DSI are for Mach 1.8

You can claim whatever you want. We already have evidence showing DSI can exceed Mach 1.8. From the research paper: "at Mach 2.0 the pressure recovery ratio reaches 0.87."

J-10 has a variable geometry intake and a speed of

Maximum speed: Mach 2.2 at altitude,[42][38] Mach 1.2 at sea level[7]g-limits: +9/-3 g (+88/-29 m/s², +290/-97 ft/s²[7])

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

DSI on J-10 is no better than Mach 2 and an ideal speed is Mach 1.8.

But since we have argued this many times just bring the patent and we can continue the discussion otherwise you can believe your myths but i won`t DSI is limited to speeds of Mach 1.8

You can keep on repeating how DSI is limited at Mach 1.8, but you have no evidence to prove it which makes your claim a pure myth. DSI can exceed Mach 1.8.

and even in Zhuhai 2012 they showed specifications of Mach 1.8

The specifications shown at Zhuhai 2012 is not the specifications of J-10B. It does not prove there is a limit of Mach 1.8 on DSI. Once again, we already have evidence showing your claim to be wrong. Case closed.

 

[Skywatcher]

Apparently Lockheed Martin must be in on the DSI conspiracy. They managed to get a speed of Mach 2.0 for the F-16 DSI testbed (which is the F-16's maximum speed, pretty much).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[MiG-29]

.


The specifications shown at Zhuhai 2012 is not the specifications of J-10B. It does not prove there is a limit of Mach 1.8 on DSI. Once again, we already have evidence showing your claim to be wrong. Case closed.

haha haha so tell me how avic claims J-10 has a speed of Mach 2.2 and later in Zhuhai they say Mach 1.8 uhmm....... strange do not you think?


haha the case is closed is true, since F-35 and JF-17 never claim speeds of Mach 2, only you in your fantasy, since AVIC claims J-10 has a max speed of Mach 2.2 but J-10 has a variable geometry inlet.

 

[MiG-29]

Apparently Lockheed Martin must be in on the DSI conspiracy. They managed to get a speed of Mach 2.0 for the F-16 DSI testbed (which is the F-16's maximum speed, pretty much).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

DSI can get you to Mach 2, true but the matter is the engine, PAKFA can get up to Mach 3 theoretically, but it won`t go more than Mach 2.5 in real life.

The engine life is what limits the speed, at speeds of Mach 2 the DSI on F-16 or J-10B will have lower pressure recovery and thus efficiency.

a Mach 1.8 is the realistic speed for a DSI equipped J-10 and a J-20.

 

[latenlazy]

haha haha so tell me how avic claims J-10 has a speed of Mach 2.2 and later in Zhuhai they say Mach 1.8 uhmm....... strange do not you think?


haha the case is closed is true, since F-35 and JF-17 never claim speeds of Mach 2, only you in your fantasy, since AVIC claims J-10 has a max speed of Mach 2.2 but J-10 has a variable geometry inlet.

When the F-22 first came out the top speed was listed as Mach 1.6, then figures were being thrown around Mach 2.0 a few years later. Now some sources go as high as Mach 2.2 or Mach 2.0+. These numbers don't mean anything. The J-10's Mach 2.2 speed could have been pure speculation, or they could have down-rated its maximum mach number, or it could be related to the engine. You're using weak evidence to assert strong conclusions. Doesn't work like that.

 

[leibowitz]

haha haha so tell me how avic claims J-10 has a speed of Mach 2.2 and later in Zhuhai they say Mach 1.8 uhmm....... strange do not you think?


haha the case is closed is true, since F-35 and JF-17 never claim speeds of Mach 2, only you in your fantasy, since AVIC claims J-10 has a max speed of Mach 2.2 but J-10 has a variable geometry inlet.

Could be that the J-10 specs shown at Zhuhai are for future export, and Mach 1.8 will be the speed of any exported J-10. They probably don't want to artificially inflate the specs of their exportable fighters and then disappoint prospective customers later.

From a technical perspective, having two top speeds in the same fighter variant is not surprising at all, especially if China uses one set of engines for export versions and another for domestic use.