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

[latenlazy]

Also, if you're in the mood for J-20 knockoff accusations, here's a concept of the Project 701 interceptor that was designed to succeed the MiG-31 in the 1980s. It's a fortuitous find via the Aviationist on a thread about the Russian post-MiG-31 interceptor program.

Unlike say, the MiG 1.42/1.44, the planform needs relatively minor changes to go from here to the J-20. Move the engines from the back and down into the body, inlets move to the side of the aircraft instead of being on the top, double the tailfins and cant them, install a weapons bay, add back-swings to the rear of the delta, and presto, doesn't this plane look awfully familiar?

The F-22 and PAK-FA look awfully familiar too. I'm of
the mind that the differences are always subtle but significant.

 

[Equation]

Also, if you're in the mood for J-20 knockoff accusations, here's a concept of the Project 701 interceptor that was designed to succeed the MiG-31 in the 1980s. It's a fortuitous find via the Aviationist on a thread about the Russian post-MiG-31 interceptor program.

Unlike say, the MiG 1.42/1.44, the planform needs relatively minor changes to go from here to the J-20. Move the engines from the back and down into the body, inlets move to the side of the aircraft instead of being on the top, double the tailfins and cant them, install a weapons bay, add back-swings to the rear of the delta, and presto, doesn't this plane look awfully familiar?

This design was possibly enable it to be attached to a rocket as well. An early testing bed for ram jet or hypersonic plane by the Russian perhaps?

 

[siegecrossbow]

Also, if you're in the mood for J-20 knockoff accusations, here's a concept of the Project 701 interceptor that was designed to succeed the MiG-31 in the 1980s. It's a fortuitous find via the Aviationist on a thread about the Russian post-MiG-31 interceptor program.

Unlike say, the MiG 1.42/1.44, the planform needs relatively minor changes to go from here to the J-20. Move the engines from the back and down into the body, inlets move to the side of the aircraft instead of being on the top, double the tailfins and cant them, install a weapons bay, add back-swings to the rear of the delta, and presto, doesn't this plane look awfully familiar?

No, just no.

It is harder to change from that plane to the J-20 than it is to change MIG 1.44 to J-20. You are talking complete revamp of internal space/inlet here. Rear aspect is nothing alike.

 

[latenlazy]

Took a peek at other pics of the 7.01. It looks nothing alike in all the other angles and renders.

 

[Engineer]

Also, if you're in the mood for J-20 knockoff accusations, here's a concept of the Project 701 interceptor that was designed to succeed the MiG-31 in the 1980s. It's a fortuitous find via the Aviationist on a thread about the Russian post-MiG-31 interceptor program.

Unlike say, the MiG 1.42/1.44, the planform needs relatively minor changes to go from here to the J-20. Move the engines from the back and down into the body, inlets move to the side of the aircraft instead of being on the top, double the tailfins and cant them, install a weapons bay, add back-swings to the rear of the delta, and presto, doesn't this plane look awfully familiar?

Here is Chengdu's J-9 wind tunnel model from the 1970's, predating the above design. It even has side intakes that do not exist in the above picture:

 

[Blitzo]

Also, if you're in the mood for J-20 knockoff accusations, here's a concept of the Project 701 interceptor that was designed to succeed the MiG-31 in the 1980s. It's a fortuitous find via the Aviationist on a thread about the Russian post-MiG-31 interceptor program.

Unlike say, the MiG 1.42/1.44, the planform needs relatively minor changes to go from here to the J-20. Move the engines from the back and down into the body, inlets move to the side of the aircraft instead of being on the top, double the tailfins and cant them, install a weapons bay, add back-swings to the rear of the delta, and presto, doesn't this plane look awfully familiar?

You're pulling our collective leg, right?

 

[Pmichael]

Looks like every other canard-delta design from the 80s.

What a surprise that the laws of physics are the same for all people on this planet.

 

[rhino123]

Also, if you're in the mood for J-20 knockoff accusations, here's a concept of the Project 701 interceptor that was designed to succeed the MiG-31 in the 1980s. It's a fortuitous find via the Aviationist on a thread about the Russian post-MiG-31 interceptor program.

Unlike say, the MiG 1.42/1.44, the planform needs relatively minor changes to go from here to the J-20. Move the engines from the back and down into the body, inlets move to the side of the aircraft instead of being on the top, double the tailfins and cant them, install a weapons bay, add back-swings to the rear of the delta, and presto, doesn't this plane look awfully familiar?

If you really believe in what you have stated... then wouldn't every fighters in this world actually kind of the same? You just need to move the intakes - side or underneath to side or underneath the aircraft, take away or increase one engine, then add or remove canards. Then viola, everyone is copying the Russians or the Americans.

 

[Inst]

You're pulling our collective leg, right?

Well, only half. There are no concrete indications that Chengdu either pilfered or obtained technical assistance for its project from MiG's 701 interceptor, and in any case we don't know if the MiG Project 701 actually hit the prototype stage. The identifying trait of the J-20 airframe is its canard-lerx-delta layout, and your community has identified its canard-lerx-delta as being the "radical" shape that identifies the J-20. The only other aircraft that has anything similar is the Rafale, but the Rafale is heavily-optimized for low-speed maneuver, while the J-20 is more oriented towards higher speeds.

Here, we have a canard-lerx-delta interceptor oriented towards speeds of at least Mach 2. There are many differences between this aircraft and the J-20, of course, but the fundamental shape of the lifting body is the same. It is, I think, the airframe with the most similarities to the J-20, which is why I'm posting it.

 

[latenlazy]

Well, only half. There are no concrete indications that Chengdu either pilfered or obtained technical assistance for its project from MiG's 701 interceptor, and in any case we don't know if the MiG Project 701 actually hit the prototype stage. The identifying trait of the J-20 airframe is its canard-lerx-delta layout, and your community has identified its canard-lerx-delta as being the "radical" shape that identifies the J-20. The only other aircraft that has anything similar is the Rafale, but the Rafale is heavily-optimized for low-speed maneuver, while the J-20 is more oriented towards higher speeds.

Here, we have a canard-lerx-delta interceptor oriented towards speeds of at least Mach 2. There are many differences between this aircraft and the J-20, of course, but the fundamental shape of the lifting body is the same. It is, I think, the airframe with the most similarities to the J-20, which is why I'm posting it.

I'm not entirely certain that this particular picture is definitive of what the design of 701 would look like. I checked out some others and got the impression that no one (except the guys who worked on it) actually knows.