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

[Engineer]

Thats right siege, but the J-20 does call the MIG-1.42 Momma, nobodys ever seen the Mig1.42 in a decade and the Su-47 was never serious, but the J-20 is fairly lengthy as well as rotund, and all that mass, well, # 1 I have never nor do I now believe the J-20 has any roll as an Attack Aircraft, and #2 the Western definition of interceptor is a LONG RANGE, Fast Fighter, designed to go out an stop the bad guys, the J-20s picture is in the dictionary in that role, and I can't for the life of me determine why that is an insult, nobody's saying it won't turn, it will quite likely be very agile, but it is what it is and the laws of physics are what they are.

No. The relationship between J-20 and MiG1.44 is entirely conjured up by Western observers. J-20's configuration originates from the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

which predates the MiG1.44, and other delta-canard aircraft from that matter.

Here is a wind tunnel model of J-9.

 

[Blitzo]

Actually, if you look closely you would notice J-20 and J-15 actually have the same length. The J-15 was parked a bit forward of the J-20 which gave the illusion that former aircraft is shorter. However, keep in mind that Su-33 doesn't have a sting and is shorter than a typical Flanker, which means J-20 is also shorter than a typical Flanker such as Su-27.

That is a good point. It also appears the J-15 is parked at a slight angle to the left, which would have some effect in making it appear shorter than it actually is.

In any case, it appears to be on the high end of 20-21m, but I'm relatively confident it shouldn't exceed 21m.

 

[kyanges]

i am fixing it for you

this is a realistic size comparasion

I never understood this image very well.

It measure the J-20 from nose to the very end tip, and then measures the F-22 from the nose to some seemingly random part of the plane.

Actually, if you look closely you would notice J-20 and J-15 actually have the same length. The J-15 was parked a bit forward of the J-20 which gives the illusion that the latter aircraft is shorter. However, keep in mind that Su-33 doesn't have a sting and is shorter than a typical Flanker, which means J-20 is also shorter than a typical Flanker such as Su-27.

I just spent 30 seconds in Photoshop. When an image is this pixelated, isn't it kinda useless?

 

[Engineer]

Now I want to see a side way comparison between 2002 and an F-22. I want to confirm that J-20 can mount a bigger radar.

 

[Quickie]

I think a lot of the push back isn't because of insult, but on a more rudimentary dispute about credible sources and accuracy information. For example, the notion that the J-20's is genealogically related to the 1.44 seems pretty baseless and founded on speculation, especially for those who've followed the J-20's development for years. There is nothing to base mass on, simply because mass isn't something you can guesstimate from a picture, and it'd be hard to know just how well the plane rolls with its anhedral wings. I think too much hasty speculation and not enough facts deserve some kind of push back.

Well, the T-50 has wings, horizontal/vertical stabilizers in similar postions as that of the F-22, so the T-50 must be based off the F-22.

 

[Engineer]

I just spent 30 seconds in Photoshop. When an image is this pixelated, isn't it kinda useless?

Pixelation gives you percentage of error about the length estimation. Your image is interesting, as the shadows reveal that J-20 is still slightly shorter than the Su-33.

 

[Equation]

Pixelation gives you percentage of error about the length estimation. Your image is interesting, as the shadows reveal that J-20 is still slightly shorter than the Su-33.

To me the thick black lines seems to miss the SU-33 tipping point a little bit therefore the two planes seems to be the same size.

 

[MiG-29]

Yet J-20 is still quite significantly smaller than the J-15/Su-33 next to it, which is 21.19m long...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Almost a meter shorter, it seems.

And no, western estimates were still way off. Their calls of 23 meters long clearly was effective aircraft length, not aircraft+air data probe.


Incidentally, this makes the previous pictorial estimates of ~20m very accurate. Well done, those who participated about a year ago!

not significantly smaller, at most is the same size, since the Su-33 is forward of the J-20

 

[kyanges]

not significantly smaller, at most is the same size, since the Su-33 is forward of the J-20

Yet J-20 is still quite significantly smaller than the J-15/Su-33 next to it, which is 21.19m long...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Almost a meter shorter, it seems.

And no, western estimates were still way off. Their calls of 23 meters long clearly was effective aircraft length, not aircraft+air data probe.


Incidentally, this makes the previous pictorial estimates of ~20m very accurate. Well done, those who participated about a year ago!

When the image is this blurry, what does "Significantly" even mean? 1 meter? 2?

 

[MiG-29]

I never understood this image very well.

It measure the J-20 from nose to the very end tip, and then measures the F-22 from the nose to some seemingly random part of the plane.




I just spent 30 seconds in Photoshop. When an image is this pixelated, isn't it kinda useless?

J-20 is around 21 meters body slightly less or slightly more add pitot tube probe around 23