J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread V

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
vesicles said:
It seems that only the J-15's have official tail art, a flying shark. No other PLAAF/PLANAF planes do that. I wonder why...
Click to expand...
Why J-15 has it? Or why others don't?

Either way, I think the not-having has something to do with the Communist ideology of "military force is defense of peace, not aggression". In line of this idea, menacing totems would not be appropriate in a people's army.

If we look back to the histories of Russia and Imperial China, both had rich fierce decorations in their flags and insignia designs. Then comes the Communist, all of them were/are replaced by numbers and words. After Soviet, Russia restored all traditions from the imperial past.

I think, in political culture, Communism is the only one that distance it from militarism represented by raw fiercefulness (tigers, eagles, dragons etc.)

Personally, I do enjoy the arts though.
 
K

kurutoga

Junior Member
Registered Member
Air Force Brat said:
actually its called "All Flying", and it adds quite significantly to "pitch transitions", in addition to the canards! In addition to its duties as a vertical stabilizer, like the Beech Bonanza, it would more correctly be referred to as a "Ruddervator", although spell check doesn't like that word, that's how Beechcraft referred to it...the YF-23 has a "ruddervator" in order to minimize "RCS".
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. The pair looks just like the "ruddervons" on F-117 but are further apart.
 
b787

b787

Captain
Quickie said:
I wouldn't say ITR is max lift coefficient as there're also other forces at play such as on the aircraft control surfaces.



Hmm... to increase lift, you improve on the high alpha capability which maximizes the lift coefficient at high angle of attack.



I rather not discuss on random speculation on specifications. It leads to nowhere.

Besides, I tend to believe the pilot's claim that the J-20 can supercruise. This is possible even with 14500 kg to 15000 kg engines because of the J-20's lower drag.
Click to expand...
sorry, but you are wrong, i suggest get a class of trigonometry, vectors, and the formulas for turn rates.

the turn rate is factored as a max lift coefficient see
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



you can simplify it as wing loading.
but okay let us drop it.

here let me disagree, China has no better engine that its main opponents, is easy to see.

J-10 relies mainly on Al-31, same is J-15; let us not forget they bought Su-35 just for the engines, i do not think J-20 at this moment supercruises nor it is lighter than Su-35 or F-22.

to claim it has less drag than its main competitors, well it is just a belief, and you can keep it but has proof nor base based upon the effects of canard have in drag and the sweep angle its canard have .

you statement is simply your belief.
 
Last edited:
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
b787 said:
sorry, but you are wrong, i suggest get a class of trigonometry, vectors, and the formulas for turn rates.

the turn rate is factored as a max lift coefficient see
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



you can simplify it as wing loading.
but okay let us drop it.

here let me disagree, China has no better engine that its main opponents, is easy to see.

J-10 relies mainly on Al-31, same is J-15; let us not forget they bought Su-35 just for the engines, i do not think J-20 at this moment supercruises nor it is lighter than Su-35 or F-22.

to claim it has less drag than its main competitors, well it is just a belief, and you can keep it but has proof nor base based upon the effects of canard have in drag and the sweep angle its canard have .

you statement is simply your belief.
Click to expand...
To claim that the J-20 is not lighter than the Su-35 or F-22, well it is just a belief. Your statement is simply your belief.

There are a lot of unknowns about the J-20. I would not recommend trying to shoot down one conjecture with another conjecture. It's not argumentatively sound.

Also, they didn't buy the Su-35 for the engines Those Su-35 are flying around. They're not sitting on tarmac with their engines missing.
 
b787

b787

Captain
latenlazy said:
To claim that the J-20 is not lighter than the Su-35 or F-22, well it is just a belief. Your statement is simply your belief.

There are a lot of unknowns about the J-20. I would not recommend trying to shoot down one conjecture with another conjecture. It's not argumentatively sound.

Also, they didn't buy the Su-35 for the engines Those Su-35 are flying around. They're not sitting on tarmac with their engines missing.
Click to expand...
aircraft technology is almost equivalent during a given time period.
J-20 is not 40 or 60 years ahead of F-22, if it is ahead you can not expect more than 4-8 years.

this is translated into equivalent technology and thus similar technology and specifications

If you think J-20 is much much lighter you live in an alternate reality, given both aircraft are of similar technology, even if J-20 is newer, you can not expect great differences.

F-22 at empty weight is around 19800kg.

So you can propose a very likely weight for J-20 of 18800kg to 20800kg at empty weight.

The differences are measured in very small margines.

F-16 is not much that different from Gripen or MiG-29 or J-10,

Do you think the specifications of MiG-3, Me-109 or Spitfire are very different?

Or F-104, Mirage III and MiG-21 are not more or less in the same weight and class?


see this

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


you can see aircraft in the same generation always have similar numbers thus J-20 needs similar weight, wing loading and thrust, the rest are ludicrous theories you have given
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
b787 said:
aircraft technology is almost equivalent during a given time period.
J-20 is not 40 or 60 years ahead of F-22, if it is ahead you can not expect more than 4-8 years.

this is translated into equivalent technology and thus similar technology and specifications

If you think J-20 is much much lighter you live in an alternate reality, given both aircraft are of similar technology, even if J-20 is newer, you can not expect great differences.

F-22 at empty weight is around 19800kg.

So you can propose a very likely weight for J-20 of 18800kg to 20800kg at empty weight.

The differences are measured in very small margines.

F-16 is not much that different from Gripen or MiG-29 or J-10,

Do you think the specifications of MiG-3, Me-109 or Spitfire are very different?

Or F-104, Mirage III and MiG-21 are not more or less in the same weight and class?


see this

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


you can see aircraft in the same generation always have similar numbers thus J-20 needs similar weight, wing loading and thrust, the rest are ludicrous theories you have given
Click to expand...

And what ludicrous theories have I given? Quote me.

My point was, and remains, anyone else's assertions are no more ludicrous than yours without hard evidences. Do you have numbers?
 
b787

b787

Captain
latenlazy said:
And what ludicrous theories have I given? Quote me.

My point was, and remains, anyone else's assertions are no more ludicrous than yours without hard evidences. Do you have numbers?
Click to expand...
first sorry if i offended you, but you get me desperate, please see, they are contemporary aircraft, thus the results are not that different, specially since they are designed with similar requirements, i am considering J-20 might have new manufacturing methods, despite it is a larger aircraft than the F-22 jet which i based my estimates.

you are free to believe it is lighter, has better engines, and all you want but for me, i have different opinion.

roger out, i will leave here since we have no official figures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top