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

[by78]

The size of the J-20 constantly gets brought up in some other forums, and I've become known to get sucked into those debates quite frequently. Siege was giving some friendly feedback on the matter.

Well, you can't teach the blind to see, nor is it your responsibility to give geometry lessons that others have slept through in grade school

Cheers.

 

[Blitzo]

I tend to ignore JSR but I'm really tired of this size debate. If nothing else, I feel like it gets in the way of a proper discussion over the J-20's capabilities. I jump around these forums constantly in the hope that someone with proper expertise will say something insightful (like that one time Amiga was kind enough to explain some of the basic aerodynamics of different fighter designs), but I get the feeling that that's just not going to happen if every time a picture comes out the first comment is "Oh look the J-20 is so big and clunky and has such small wings good luck being maneuverable". If the J-20 must suck at maneuverability or not be that aerodynamically wonderful then so be it, but size and wing area clearly shouldn't be the issue because the math has already settled those points! That's what drives me up the wall about those comments more than anything else. It's the thought of people who could have some valuable knowledge they could apply but just won't because they're too darn lazy or negligent to look at simple measurements

I have a feeling that anyone with true knowledge about these matters won't be frequenting keypub too often


But yes, there are individuals with preset prejudices and have a egoist basis for deriding J-20's maneuverability or whatever.

All I know is that J-20 has been stated on many an occasion to have requirements for high maneuverability. Whatever internet people with strange usernames point out about wing area or size or whatever are more or less irrelevant, because unless they have wind tunnels and a supercomputer of decent capability or are in the industry, then they're as blind as any of us about the true aerodynamic interactions.

 

[latenlazy]

I have a feeling that anyone with true knowledge about these matters won't be frequenting keypub too often


But yes, there are individuals with preset prejudices and have a egoist basis for deriding J-20's maneuverability or whatever.

All I know is that J-20 has been stated on many an occasion to have requirements for high maneuverability. Whatever internet people with strange usernames point out about wing area or size or whatever are more or less irrelevant, because unless they have wind tunnels and a supercomputer of decent capability or are in the industry, then they're as blind as any of us about the true aerodynamic interactions.

Judging by SOME of the discussions there, there might be a few at Keypub. Short of taking some aerodynamics classes and getting access to a wind tunnel surfing around online is probably the best I got. I REALLY regret not taking a few engineering classes in college.

 

[xiabonan]

Haters gonna hate, guys. So just let them be. Time will prove them wrong

 

[Air Force Brat]

I tend to ignore JSR but I'm really tired of this size debate. If nothing else, I feel like it gets in the way of a proper discussion over the J-20's capabilities. I jump around these forums constantly in the hope that someone with proper expertise will say something insightful (like that one time Amiga was kind enough to explain some of the basic aerodynamics of different fighter designs), but I get the feeling that that's just not going to happen if every time a picture comes out the first comment is "Oh look the J-20 is so big and clunky and has such small wings good luck being maneuverable". If the J-20 must suck at maneuverability or not be that aerodynamically wonderful then so be it, but size and wing area clearly shouldn't be the issue because the math has already settled those points! That's what drives me up the wall about those comments more than anything else. It's the thought of people who could have some valuable knowledge they could apply but just won't because they're too darn lazy or negligent to look at simple measurements.

I should note that I don't deserve credit for the the pics I'm putting up. They were done by someone else (maybe Engineer or Deino) a lot earlier on this forum. If you search "J-20 Satellite" in google though they show up, so it's not really taking up much of my time to find and post them. It's nice that there's now quick answers to these size inquiries that don't depend on writing paragraphs of explanation on what an appropriate reference object is for measurement.

I know what you mean latenlazy, those same "experts" castigate the J-20, F-22, F-35, J-11, J-15, and like you I was very confused by the aerodynamics of the J-20, most particularly the downward deflection of the canards on the J-20, when there was no doubt it was in a positive 3 to 4g turn???? but the Engs patient and persistant clarification, and explanation of the distant coupled canards, and thinking back with the elevons, flaperons, and ruddervators the J-20 has LOTS of pitch authority, I even learned something by the Engs attempt to straighten out his "little buddy". While I doubt my words bring you any comfort, Dr. Songs own papers and stated design objectives assure us all that the J-20 is indeed a very agile, well designed fighter aircraft, keep the faith brother, I'm rather certain she is a winner, now come on Chengdu, lets overnight those tickets to Deino, so he can cover that first flight!

 

[A.Man]

More 2011 Video

[video]http://v.ifeng.com/mil/mainland/2014002/0142c6cb-82ab-4bd7-b0bd-ba92832f90a7.shtml[/video]

 

[Deino]

You can really see it: All that beast wants to do is to FLY !!!!

Don't hold it back any longer ... just leave it.

Deino

 

[latenlazy]

Well, I was skeptical, but it looks like they clipped the corners of the canards too.

 

[Deino]

Well, I was skeptical, but it looks like they clipped the corners of the canards too.

Seems indeed to be so ...

Deino

 

[latenlazy]

I think I also figured out why the engine nozzles might look shorter to some. I think the fuselage now covers the engine up to the nozzle entirely. That extended part of the engine housing which was black is now gone, I think. Will clearer pics of the rear to confirm of course.