More
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread V
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
- Status
For uncompressed pictures to download, I recommend that you go to the photographer's weibo album. He is a professional aviation photographer.
PS: I just realized that you need to register your weibo account before downloading those pics.
Here, I made an album.
PS: I just realized that you need to register your weibo account before downloading those pics.
Here, I made an album.
It is true f-22's nozzle does not give it perfect rear aspect stealth. But then there is no such thing as perfect stealth from any quadrant. But the f-22's nozzle does greatly narrow the angle from which it could be easily detected by radar compared conventional round nozzle.
There can be little doubt that when in military thrust, f-22 would be detectable from the rear by radar across a much narrower angle than the j-20.
Newst evidence from China Airshow 2016 suggests that WS-15 (or possibly WS-10 modified version) is equipped with AVEN TVC.
In comparison to similar TV control unit found on F119
Engineer
Major
No disagreement from me on this.
Well, that's the common claim. It may just be another groundless claim just like the "canard cannot be stealthy" claim. It is widely acknowledged that the engine's innards will contribute significantly to radar return. A stealthy nozzle isn't going help much when the rest of the exhaust functions as a good waveguide.
That is why the engines have to be hidden from frontal view. By extension, that's also why PAKFA isn't a fifth-generation fighter, because the engines are exposed and lack stealth.
Exactly, and while you have "educated" me on OVT, (if I were building an F-22B, I would NOT mess with OVT, for all the reasons you have stated, "complex", "expensive", "requires more maintenance" and "reduces available thrust")... all reasons why I would dispense with OVT...
But, an F-22's pitch rate, and post stall behavior are improved markedly by OVT. It does not necessarily bleed energy unless you want it too. As a pilot, I am well aware of energy management, every take-off, every pitch increase, every landing require very precise energy management.
For instance if you roll into a turn with a 10 degree angle of bank, there is no need to increase power. (though I realize that every pitch increase, or bank does bleed energy)
On the other hand, if I roll into a 60 degree angle of bank, I automatically advance the throttle, possibly even to full if I intend to sustain that angle of bank through a 90+ degree turn around the "compass rose".
In a 60 degree bank, you have increased the G force to 2Gs, loading the aircraft, and in effect increasing it gross weight by 2X. If I wish to roll our 172 Cessna into a steeper bank, something I would only do if flying in at a very light gross weight, myself and minimal fuel?? at some point even with full throttle the aircraft will descend if I don't reduce the bank angle, if I'm at 1500ft or so no big deal. If I'm at 100ft on the deck, I back off the bank angle quickly, possibly even using "top rudder" along with full aileron deflection to reduce that bank and "unload" the aircraft quickly, "lest the ground rise up to smite thee".
Yes, I have flown our old 172 to those limits and beyond, it does require very precise energy management, so OVT can be very helpful to increase/decrease the pitch rate rapidly. OVT like any other tool is best employed by a skilled operator. A good pilot in an F-22 or even Flanker, can employ OVT to advantage, and momentarily increase his turn rate, especially in Full Afterburner, without bleeding energy in a deleterious manner, in fact if you want to decrease your turn radius, you may crank it on to "blow that energy".
That is in fact the rationalization for the 360 overhead break, as you overfly the end of the runway, you roll the aircraft into a very steep bank, and at some point, when you reach "gear speed, you pop the gear and flaps to increase both drag and lift, and likely will have to come back in with a substantial power increase in order to avoid a very high sink rate.
So NO the J-20 does not need or require OVT, and NO it is not as underpowered as many on this forum love to harp on, I have noted that it handles very well, and has more than sufficient thrust to very effectively climb, turn, haul a load. It is NOT underpowered, but it could benefit from the increased thrust of the WS-15, to improve load carrying as well as aerodynamic performance.
My old man used to opine, you can't have too much horsepower, he was an IP in the C-130, and loved the approx. 17,000 horsepower or so of those four Allisons, having flown the pitifully under powered C-123 Provider???
- Status