When that baby comes out, I will definitely get it and replace my existing J-20 "2001" model by TrumpeterSeems as if Trumpeter has its revised kit of the J-20 '201x'-preserials finished
Deino
The length of the fuselage suggest a high premium is placed on low supersonic drag. The extra canard suggests not so much. Which is it? A fast super cruiser or a only somewhat stealthy airframe with some weight distribution problems?RaibbowBear (BaiWei)draw this new CG base on the old Snowy owl design and research paper and call it the Sea owl.
View attachment 21424 View attachment 21425 View attachment 21427 View attachment 21428View attachment 21429
The length of the fuselage suggest a high premium is placed on low supersonic drag. The extra canard suggests not so much. Which is it? A fast super cruiser or a only somewhat stealthy airframe with some weight distribution problems?
Canards are actually rather optimal for supersonic drag...because they're better trim devices at supersonic speeds than tails are (aerodynamic center shifts rearwards at supersonic speeds).The length of the fuselage suggest a high premium is placed on low supersonic drag. The extra canard suggests not so much. Which is it? A fast super cruiser or a only somewhat stealthy airframe with some weight distribution problems?
New comers should read this regarding J-20 aerodynamics characteristics.The length of the fuselage suggest a high premium is placed on low supersonic drag. The extra canard suggests not so much. Which is it? A fast super cruiser or a only somewhat stealthy airframe with some weight distribution problems?
New comers should read this regarding J-20 aerodynamics characteristics.
Ah, I see. Nevertheless, design criteria is still the same, as the two projects were competitors. SAC went with triplane design to specifically address PLAAF's requirement of controlability up to 60 ° AOA.I think he was referring to the Snowy Owl design.
It's interesting how they came to their different design decisions. CAC decided to challenge itself with the FCS to reduce the number of compromises they had to make, while SAC ended up going with a more conservative approach.Ah, I see. Nevertheless, design criteria is still the same, as the two projects were competitors. SAC went with triplane design to specifically address PLAAF's requirement of controlability up to 60 ° AOA.