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

[plawolf]

Hard to tell for sure, but it looks like the canopy has been shortened a little at the front. The use of the inner support frame would also allow them to make the canopy itself thinner while maintaining the same level of structural strength.

It looks like they managed this shorter canopy by lowering the back end of the main cockpit display, and also shortening the distance between the pilot and the displays. They may have even pushed the ejector seat back a little, but that could be just optical illusion, or the seat having been adjusted for a slightly taller test pilot.

The main reason for making these changes could range from ergonomics to weight saving to improved safety or all three.

Ergonomics
If you look at the HUD placement, they pushed that back a lot from the pilot on 2011, could be that the pilots were experiencing problems with field of depth issues if the HUD and main instrumentation panels were spaced differently to their eyes and they have to glance rapidly from one to the other regularly.

But pushing the HUD backward while pulling the main displays closers could unify the distance between both and the pilot's eyes, reducing the need for their eyes to have to refocus when looking between the two.

Having the displays closer also makes the information displayed on them seem bigger, and also allows the pilots to reach them easier (looks like you had to almost lean forwards to reach the panels on 2001).

Safety
A smaller, lighter canopy can be propelled further away from the plane faster, improving ejection times and reducing the chances of the pilot hitting the canopy upon exiting the aircraft.

When tiny fractions of a second and the slightest clip with the canopy could mean the difference between life and death, its not hard to see why they might make the trade-off between a cooler looking canopy and minimally better visibility compared to a shorter ejection cycle and reduced risk. Of course, cost might also be a factor. This is the PLAAF after all. They seems to always prefer 'good enough' over having all the bells and whistles if there are significant costs savings to be had.

Weight saving is pretty self explanatory so I won't bother going into that in much detail.

I have also noticed that the main weapons bay seems noticeably longer, but that could just be an optical illusion from the slightly different angles between the two pictures and also the new sawtooth design. We will just have to wait for more, and better quality snaps to decide for sure.

 

[siegecrossbow]

I have also noticed that the main weapons bay seems noticeably longer, but that could just be an optical illusion from the slightly different angles between the two pictures and also the new sawtooth design. We will just have to wait for more, and better quality snaps to decide for sure.

I actually thought that the larger sawtooth contributed to the illusion, however I agree that it is too hard to tell, especially with the dimm lighting, lack of focus, and the workers in the way.

 

[latenlazy]

I actually thought that the larger sawtooth contributed to the illusion, however I agree that it is too hard to tell, especially with the dimm lighting, lack of focus, and the workers in the way.

The trick is to look at the hinges. It does seem like where the hinge starts hasn't changed positions from 200X, but it's hard to tell with where the hinge ends because there are people blocking it. However, it does seem to end slightly behind 200X, so it's entirely possible the weapons bay is slightly longer.

 

[siegecrossbow]

The trick is to look at the hinges. It does seem like where the hinge starts hasn't changed positions from 200X, but it's hard to tell with where the hinge ends because there are people blocking it. However, it does seem to end slightly behind 200X, so it's entirely possible the weapons bay is slightly longer.

Maybe they increased the length to accomodate the long range air to air missiles. Given the limitation of the air-intake I doubt that they could increase the depth of the bay significantly.

 

[latenlazy]

Maybe they increased the length to accomodate the long range air to air missiles. Given the limitation of the air-intake I doubt that they could increase the depth of the bay significantly.

Unless they get the frame to be thinner and use the door dimensions more efficiently, which is a possibility. We probably won't know until a 201X series starts weapons testing though. Wait and see, I guess.

 

[Air Force Brat]

The models shown in that video, J20, F22, F18? do not have any gyros on board

Yes, you're right, the first R/C Powers J-20, built on the F-22 model did require the gyros, I believe they used 3 of the them. This J-20 also built on the F-22 kit, uses thrust vectoring and vastly over size per scale control surfaces, to achieve nearly the same results, as mentioned earlier, this model has a very high thrust to weight ratio, and the three axis thrust vectoring, as well as very light weight, allow this incredible maneuvering, hopefully as the full scale prototype begins flight testing we will see some of this maneuverability in the real deal, that is after all Dr. Songs rationale for the distant coupled canards......

 

[by78]

A hazy new video of 2011 taxiing and opening all weapons bay doors.

[video=youtube;8U4oI1BlN_E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4oI1BlN_E[/video]

 

[latenlazy]

A hazy new video of 2011 taxiing and opening all weapons bay doors.

[video=youtube;8U4oI1BlN_E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4oI1BlN_E[/video]

Interesting enough, 2011's engines sound like neither the AL-31s nor the WS-10s. They do sound a bit more similar to the former than the latter though.

 

[Blitzo]

The redesign of the weapon bay door serration from 200X to 2011 remind me of the kind of change from "first generation stealth" F-117 to F-22.

 

[Blitzo]

I think I just realized where one (technically two) of the J-20s EODAS apertures are, namely, the under fuselage ones.

I've always wondered what that strange protrusion behind the weapon bay was, but just now looking at the j-20 photo I posted, I realized it bore a ridiculous resemblance to the F-35s under fuselage EODAS emplacement, which basically has one aperture looking forwards and one back.

Note the two red arrows pointing underneath the fuselage in the top picture, which are the F-35s Under fuselage DAS ports

A different picture to make sense of where they are. Clearly they are centreline, and sits in between the two weapon bays.

On J-20 OTOH, the port is offset to one side. On the first two prototypes they sat behind the weapons bay on the plane's left side, but on 2011 it appears to sit on the right.

I'm not sure if I'm pointing out the obvious for other people here, but I missed this rather obvious object staring me right in the eye for the last few years this entire time I've been looking for a more concrete DAS aperture on j-20. I think the highly distinctive geometry of the structure on J-20 lends itself highly likely to be a combined forward/rear DAS emplacement akin to the F-35s.