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

[by78]

Well we had a good few page argument about whether the HUD had changed when those really blurry pictures came out. It's not unfeasible...

That was fun, and we were both wrong. Oh well

 

[by78]

I don't remember exactly which one, I've been on so many It was like a year and 1/2 ago
but it started with Indiandefence or Indian aviation/army of some combination
(is it even ok to mention another forum here? if not I'll delete)

Not surprised, since the Indians are incredibly voluble.

 

[tphuang]

Even though j-20 flew 2 years later than t-50 I get the impression from this photo that 2011 is closer to production configuration stealthy fighter than latest t-50 prototype, and the stealth aspects of j-20 program is running well ahead ahead of that of t-50 program.

I think at this point the latest t-50 prototype is still only a signature reduction aircraft, embodying some basic signature reduction shaping, but lack most of the refinements needed to come close to American level of stealthy in actual service. I wonder if t-50 is really not intended to achieve a level,of stealth comparable to f-22 or even f-35 at all.

I would not be surprised if j-20 design aimed for a much higher level of stealth from the front and side than t-50.

I agree, it seems like T-50 was just aiming for less. I was thinking more of T-50 as a stealthy version of su-27. Both J-20 and J-31 to me seem to have higher lo design requireemtns than T-50.

 

[kyanges]

That was fun, and we were both wrong. Oh well

I always saw that there was a slight frame around the new HUD. .

 

[Jeff Head]

View attachment 9376

This pic seems to have summarized all observable changes in appearance, at least from the side angle.

I know what most of them are, but could someone provide a translation. it would be nice to have one of these in English.

 

[chuck731]

I know what most of them are, but could someone provide a translation. it would be nice to have one of these in English.

One change not noted in the drawing is it appears to me either the cockpit canopy has shortened and moved forward, or the intake as well as the canard has moved back.

The leading edge of the intake on the 2011 is definitely further back relative to the aft end of canopy than on the 2001.

Another is geometry of diverterless bump in front the jet intake seem to have changed. The bump is now longer.

Also the design of the leading edge extension or chine in front of main wing seem to have been simplified. It was a ogive shape on the 2001, it is now straight.

 

[Quickie]

I counted the number of lines. The two meshes should be identical, so it's probably an effect of angle. Still no clue what it does though.

The angle effect would be too minimal to be detectable because of the long distance from the camera compared to the distance between the 2 meshes. If the 2 meshes are identical, you would see both of them as either being darker or lighter at the same time at the different angles. It looks to me the 2 meshes have different gauges.


Edit:

I just notice the forward mesh is actually at a different angle because of the bend at the front of the inlet.

So, we'll have to wait for more pictures to confirm whether the 2 meshes are different or not.

 

[latenlazy]

The angle effect would be too minimal to be detectable because of the long distance from the camera compared to the distance between the 2 meshes. If the 2 meshes are identical, you would see both of them as either being darker or lighter at the same time at the different angles. It looks to me the 2 meshes have different gauges.


Edit:

I just notice the forward mesh is actually at a different angle because of the bend at the front of the inlet.

So, we'll have to wait for more pictures to confirm whether the 2 meshes are different or not.

Check again and notice that which one is light and which one is dark alternates depending on which one is perpendicular to the angle.

 

[delft]

One change not noted in the drawing is it appears to me either the cockpit canopy has shortened and moved forward, or the intake as well as the canard has moved back.

The leading edge of the intake on the 2011 is definitely further back relative to the aft end of canopy than on the 2001.

Another is geometry of diverterless bump in front the jet intake seem to have changed. The bump is now longer.

Also the design of the leading edge extension or chine in front of main wing seem to have been simplified. It was a ogive shape on the 2001, it is now straight.

The cockpit canopy didn't move wrt the nose landing gear, as far as I can see. But the intake is of course changed.

 

[kwaigonegin]

For some reason no one here is talking about the placement of the pitot tube which is quite obvious. Question is why was it offset on the radome in the first place? Why not have them at the tip like it does now on the 2011? did something internal change to force that change? Maybe it was interefering with the AESA transmitter etc? or did 2011 and 2002 even have an actual functioning AESA inside the nose?