J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread V

[AlyxMS]

Nope nope nope nope.
Too many structral changes.
If it is real it's going to be J-21 not J-20B.

Change 1: Intake no longer canted forwards suggests non-DSI. Considering the trend of CAC putting DSI on everything, that's just odd.
Change 2: Back swept main wings and smaller canards would shift the lift center back. Suggesting a shift of center of mass to the back.(Due to heavier engines&larger rudders? There's no way WS-15 will have a insane TWR of over 9. If it is going to have a thrust of >160kN, it is going to be heavier. Besides TVC nozzles are quite heavy)
Change 3: Canards no longer on the top of the aircraft for no apparent reason.(I know practically nothing about aerodynamics, some one make a educated guess?)
Change 4: Larger rudders(Due to removed ventral fins&Higher demand for AoA&lateral stability?) that is canted inwards.(There were rumours of J-20's rudders producing negative lift, might be the fix?)
Change 5: Entirely different engine configuration. T-50 style tail sting+engine on both sides(changes the overall structure of the entire plane) F-119 style 2D vecotring nozzles??? Wasn't WS-15 going to feature 3D TVC?

My conclusion: 90% chance just a fighter made up for the purpose of writing a paper. If it is real, it would not have a direct relation to J-20.(More like the relation between Flankers and T-50) Also, it's hell of an ugly bird.

 

[Blitzo]

Nope nope nope nope.
Too many structral changes.
If it is real it's going to be J-21 not J-20B.

Change 1: Intake no longer canted forwards suggests non-DSI. Considering the trend of CAC putting DSI on everything, that's just odd.
Change 2: Back swept main wings and smaller canards would shift the lift center back. Suggesting a shift of center of mass to the back.(Due to heavier engines&larger rudders? There's no way WS-15 will have a insane TWR of over 9. If it is going to have a thrust of >160kN, it is going to be heavier. Besides TVC nozzles are quite heavy)
Change 3: Canards no longer on the top of the aircraft for no apparent reason.(I know practically nothing about aerodynamics, some one make a educated guess?)
Change 4: Larger rudders(Due to removed ventral fins&Higher demand for AoA&lateral stability?) that is canted inwards.(There were rumours of J-20's rudders producing negative lift, might be the fix?)
Change 5: Entirely different engine configuration. T-50 style tail sting+engine on both sides(changes the overall structure of the entire plane) F-119 style 2D vecotring nozzles??? Wasn't WS-15 going to feature 3D TVC?

My conclusion: 90% chance just a fighter made up for the purpose of writing a paper. If it is real, it would not have a direct relation to J-20.(More like the relation between Flankers and T-50) Also, it's hell of an ugly bird.

Yes, it's definitely not meant to be a J-20 variant, likely just a configuration used for the study, or perhaps a past configuration that has been considered and used for the study...

Though to give credit to hyperwarp, I don't think he was seriously suggesting a J-20 variant would look exactly like that.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Nope nope nope nope.
Too many structral changes.
If it is real it's going to be J-21 not J-20B.

Change 1: Intake no longer canted forwards suggests non-DSI. Considering the trend of CAC putting DSI on everything, that's just odd.
Change 2: Back swept main wings and smaller canards would shift the lift center back. Suggesting a shift of center of mass to the back.(Due to heavier engines&larger rudders? There's no way WS-15 will have a insane TWR of over 9. If it is going to have a thrust of >160kN, it is going to be heavier. Besides TVC nozzles are quite heavy)
Change 3: Canards no longer on the top of the aircraft for no apparent reason.(I know practically nothing about aerodynamics, some one make a educated guess?)
Change 4: Larger rudders(Due to removed ventral fins&Higher demand for AoA&lateral stability?) that is canted inwards.(There were rumours of J-20's rudders producing negative lift, might be the fix?)
Change 5: Entirely different engine configuration. T-50 style tail sting+engine on both sides(changes the overall structure of the entire plane) F-119 style 2D vecotring nozzles??? Wasn't WS-15 going to feature 3D TVC?

My conclusion: 90% chance just a fighter made up for the purpose of writing a paper. If it is real, it would not have a direct relation to J-20.(More like the relation between Flankers and T-50) Also, it's hell of an ugly bird.

if you are able to click on the link, you will find it is a design study on aircraft vulnerability to a single projectile hit, and establishing a kill chain. They do mention multiple hits, as well as multiple systems that would "kill" the aircraft. Written by a graduate student, his professor Yang Wei, and an associate professor. Professor Wei does have connections to Chengdu, and this was obviously a design study model, possibly even commissioned by Chengdu??

Professor Wei is associated with NorthWestern University.

So has NOTHING to do with WS-15, although it is a single engine depiction of J-XX and might have some structural modeling similar to J-20????

 

[b787]

if you are able to click on the link, you will find it is a design study on aircraft vulnerability to a single projectile hit, and establishing a kill chain. They do mention multiple hits, as well as multiple systems that would "kill" the aircraft. Written by a graduate student, his professor Yang Wei, and an associate professor. Professor Wei does have connections to Chengdu, and this was obviously a design study model, possibly even commissioned by Chengdu??

Professor Wei is associated with NorthWestern University.

So has NOTHING to do with WS-15, although it is a single engine depiction of J-XX and might have some structural modeling similar to J-20????

i agree, the J-20 configuration on the real aircraft, reduces its cross section on the engine nacelles exactly where the delta wing is located, but a podded configuration has higher engine survivability to gun fire.

So they chose less drag over survivabiity to gun fire, the long distance coupled canard add less drag.
Very fast aircraft like the Tu-144 or XB-70 use them as well Eurofighter, X-31 which are supersonic jets and aircraft like the Beechcraft Starship, aircraft like the one seen on the link bellow, which uses the long couple canard as a lift balance to a wing located far aft, canards are mostly used on fast aircraft to improve the delta wing low lift coefficient that is reduced but has the advantage of low drag for high speed, the F-22 has a much shorter intake engine nacelles length, thus the long coupled canard is handy on the J-20 to slim up its aft body-wing section

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Air Force Brat]

i agree, the J-20 configuration on the real aircraft, reduces its cross section on the engine nacelles exactly where the delta wing is located, but a podded configuration has higher engine survivability to gun fire.

So they chose less drag over survivabiity to gun fire, the long distance coupled canard add less drag.
Very fast aircraft like the Tu-144 or XB-70 use them as well Eurofighter, X-31 which are supersonic jets and aircraft like the Beechcraft Starship, aircraft like the one seen on the link bellow, which uses the long couple canard as a lift balance to a wing located far aft, canards are mostly used on fast aircraft to improve the delta wing low lift coefficient that is reduced but has the advantage of low drag for high speed, the F-22 has a much shorter intake engine nacelles length, thus the long coupled canard is handy on the J-20 to slim up its aft body-wing section

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Thanks for agreeing with me, I think, LOL. The Proteus is more correctly a "tandem" wing design, the forward wing is just that a forward wing, it is fixed and has control surfaces attached although it does in fact function much like a canard, the larger aft wing does in fact carry more structure and weight.

The distant coupled canard does indeed move the center of lift forward, but its main function is to increase "pitch rate", due to a longer moment arm, it is able to "pitch" the aircraft with much less resistance. The close coupled canard on the other hand would usually be a much more effective "vortex generator", and create greater lift over the mid-aft mounted delta.

 

[siegecrossbow]

This is to all you aeronautical and aerospace engineers! Found this at CDF -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Any comments? Just imagine if J-20 Block 2 with WS-15 looked like that




View attachment 32729

Aren't inward-canting vertical stabilizers detrimental to maneuverability?

 

[b787]

Thanks for agreeing with me, I think, LOL. The Proteus is more correctly a "tandem" wing design, the forward wing is just that a forward wing, it is fixed and has control surfaces attached although it does in fact function much like a canard, the larger aft wing does in fact carry more structure and weight.

The distant coupled canard does indeed move the center of lift forward, but its main function is to increase "pitch rate", due to a longer moment arm, it is able to "pitch" the aircraft with much less resistance. The close coupled canard on the other hand would usually be a much more effective "vortex generator", and create greater lift over the mid-aft mounted delta.

i agree totally, i was just mentioning that once an Aircraft engineer friend of mine said to me compare these two aircraft
Piaggio Avanti P.180

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Beechcraft Starship

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

He said to me the piaggio has a smaller canard thanks to its aft t tail

the proteus high altitude aircraft has a canard but not a all moving canard, yes you can call it tandem wing but any canard is a wing and the fore wing also is responsible of lifting part of the weight in relation to the center of gravity

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Going back to the J-20, the long couple canard is to slim up the entire fuselage which is much longer than the equivalent F-22 engine nacelles and intake segment.

So the long coupled canard it was a solution to reduce drag and allowing the use of a delta wing, any way we are going a bit off topic so i leave it here,

 

[Air Force Brat]

Aren't inward-canting vertical stabilizers detrimental to maneuverability?

Yes Sir, I believe in almost every case that would be true, and to my minds eye, the J-20 has one of the most outstanding vertical stabs/ventral combinations I've ever witnessed. Those smaller all flying ruddervators, with the vents allow you to still have outstanding yaw stability, even post stall. That was one of Dr. Song and his engineering teams primary drivers, that J-20 would be able to recover from post-stall maneuvering even without OVT

 

[Air Force Brat]

i agree totally, i was just mentioning that once an Aircraft engineer friend of mine said to me compare these two aircraft
Piaggio Avanti P.180

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Beechcraft Starship

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

He said to me the piaggio has a smaller canard thanks to its aft t tail

the proteus high altitude aircraft has a canard but not a all moving canard, yes you can call it tandem wing but any canard is a wing and the fore wing also is responsible of lifting part of the weight in relation to the center of gravity

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Going back to the J-20, the long couple canard is to slim up the entire fuselage which is much longer than the equivalent F-22 engine nacelles and intake segment.

So the long coupled canard it was a solution to reduce drag and allowing the use of a delta wing, any way we are going a bit off topic so i leave it here,

That's correct, and that distant coupled canard gives the J-20 an outstanding rate of "pitch transition", as its also a very long throw, allowing the canard to maintain lift in addition to the forward fuselage to a very high angle of attack. So as others here have stated, the distant coupled canard is the real secret to the J-20s very agile pitch transitions.

 

[siegecrossbow]

What do you guys think about this theory? Is it possible that the gunpod is mounted within the main bay?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!