J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

Status
Not open for further replies.

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Okay, this looks like the turn radius is between 151 and 400 meters. Assuming 9G (and the aircraft slows down a lot towards the end, so assuming it hits turn rate limits is not impossible), you get between 414 and 616 km/h for the maneuver. It's difficult to play with, since the turn looks elliptical, not circular. Still, the funny thing is, at 616 km/h, 9Gs is still 30 degrees / second, and at 414, it's around 40 degrees / second.
So I don't know how you're calculating this right now, but I feel like when you're estimating 100-300m or 151-400m, that's not going to be good enough to get any meaningful numbers. Maybe if your range was 290-300m, you'd be onto something. I mean, could you imagine if someone estimated J-20's length at 10-30m?? Plus, there's nothing to indicate that that video represents J-20's maximum performance. So I guess I'm just saying, maybe take it easy on this.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Looking at the video again, but at full screen, it's a 22.5 degree/sec turn of 4 seconds for 90 degrees. I'm trying to figure out how many J-20 lengths the J-20 is from the center. Most likely, this is not a 9G turn, given that the radius looks like 5-15 J-20s, or 100 to 300 meters. I'll try to measure the video a bit more closely. So this is possibly a low-speed turn below corner speed.

Okay, so you're referring to Deino's short video, which shows the J-20 entering a vertical line from somewhere in the neighborhood of 350 to 500 knts,,, this in not necessarily done at "Full Burner", in fact, its normally done from a medium to high subsonic cruise, with throttle feed in as the energy begins to "bottom out" near the top of the vertical line..

so as you "pull to the vertical", its a rather hard pull, likely somewhere around 6 Gs or so, could be more, could be less, throttle is advanced as energy and airspeed begin to "bleed off"... at the top when the airspeed has dropped substantially, power is like fairly high in order to prevent the aircraft from further deceleration! at the top, where you see the airplane make a sharp transition from the vertical line the pilot has applied full aft stick, popping the aircraft onto its back and continuing on through in one very sharp pitch transition back to level flight in the same direction, at a much higher altitude than the initial pitch up!

This is an "airshow" maneuver that everybody does, and for reference, "Max Moga", the first Raptor Demo Pilot referred to this as his "power loop", of course the F-22 and the Flanker each has OVT, the J-20 has the "distant coupled" canards, which are quite capable of performing this "rapid pitch transition", which occurs at very low airspeed..

If you are looking for a nine G, full afterburner turn in every ones airshow routines, look for the "vapor cloud" type maneuvers, which could be a hard pull to the vertical, the "Pugachev Cobra", or even a very tight, full burner level turn..

the purpose of the J-20 performing this maneuver is to illustrate that even without OVT, the J-20 has "full pitch authority" to make very rapid pitch transitions, both very high positive, and very high negative G pitch transitions,, I would add the the Flanker and even the F-35 are able to perform similar "pitch transitions" without OVT..

so as different as all these aircraft may or may not be?? they are all extremely capable of very high G, very rapid pitch transitions, whether the limit is 9Gs or even 11 or 12Gs,,, (AF-02 has been to a documented 9.9 Gs), these maneuvers are very difficult physiologically and not terribly relevant most of the time....
 

Inst

Captain
Well, we're trying to determine the J-20's kinematics. From the photographs and videos we've seen, nothing about the J-20 suggests strong maneuverability, while pilot reports claim that the J-20 has reasonable subsonic maneuverability and excellent supersonic maneuverability. What we're looking for, then, is corroborating evidence of their claim.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
Well, we're trying to determine the J-20's kinematics. From the photographs and videos we've seen, nothing about the J-20 suggests strong maneuverability, while pilot reports claim that the J-20 has reasonable subsonic maneuverability and excellent supersonic maneuverability. What we're looking for, then, is corroborating evidence of their claim.
What you’re looking for is confirmation bias in lieu of actual sound methods or qualified evidence.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Well, we're trying to determine the J-20's kinematics. From the photographs and videos we've seen, nothing about the J-20 suggests strong maneuverability, while pilot reports claim that the J-20 has reasonable subsonic maneuverability and excellent supersonic maneuverability. What we're looking for, then, is corroborating evidence of their claim.

I can absolutely assure you that the J-20's performance limits were NOT approached in that little short video blurb, the J-20 is unlikely to be publicly demonstrated as are the F-22 and SU-57,,, even the US have NOT put the F-35A out there in a max effort, everybody is being much more "coy" than in the past!

there's no reason to suspect the J-20 will not have outstanding performance, but its very dicey, to try to determine an aircrafts ultimate capabilities by short video vignettes? I hope my explanation of how that maneuver is performed, will help clarify how difficult it is to determine true capabilities by watching videos...
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


According to Yankee, the J-20 and J-16 were used to simulate F-22/F-15E in an aerial penetrative strike against an air base defended by SAMs and Fourth generation fighters. They achieved their objective with minimal losses.
I would really really like to see this exercise done with JY-26 anti-stealth radar instead of traditional SAMs but I'm pretty sure there's no way they'd declassify those results...
 

Inst

Captain
What you’re looking for is confirmation bias in lieu of actual sound methods or qualified evidence.

Once again, the angry Chinese fanboy comments. The thing is, if you're looking at maneuverability videos, it's far easier to prove it's maneuverable than un-maneuverable. Get a video of a 30-40 degree instantaneous turn, and blam, we have a decent lower limit on the J-20's performance. On the other hand, if the aircraft is moving at high subsonic, with full canard and elevator deflection, and you're only getting 10 degrees / second, we can reasonably assume the J-20 is not maneuverable, but it's harder to get the latter video than the forum.

You really should stop hiding behind equivocation. This is like Thomas Chen on CHF claiming that Chinese swords were comparable to Japanese swords in the Ming Dynasty, when China was not a martial civilization, emphasized ranged weapons more than melee weapons, and the relative labor-to-metal cost was far higher in China than in Japan, which had a shortage of good quality iron.
 

jobjed

Captain
I would really really like to see this exercise done with JY-26 anti-stealth radar instead of traditional SAMs but I'm pretty sure there's no way they'd declassify those results...

Anti-stealth radar still doesn't solve the problem of accurately tracking the target. Without missiles that can home in on stealth aircraft or 5th-gen interceptors of their own, anti-stealth radars simply give commanders a great view of the aircraft that kills them.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
Once again, the angry Chinese fanboy comments. The thing is, if you're looking at maneuverability videos, it's far easier to prove it's maneuverable than un-maneuverable. Get a video of a 30-40 degree instantaneous turn, and blam, we have a decent lower limit on the J-20's performance. On the other hand, if the aircraft is moving at high subsonic, with full canard and elevator deflection, and you're only getting 10 degrees / second, we can reasonably assume the J-20 is not maneuverable, but it's harder to get the latter video than the forum.

You really should stop hiding behind equivocation. This is like Thomas Chen on CHF claiming that Chinese swords were comparable to Japanese swords in the Ming Dynasty, when China was not a martial civilization, emphasized ranged weapons more than melee weapons, and the relative labor-to-metal cost was far higher in China than in Japan, which had a shortage of good quality iron.
Not angry at all, actually. Just making an observation about your analytical tendencies.

Also, where have I equivocated? As has become apparent in many of our interactions you seem to misinterpret many of my (and others) points on a frequent basis. When I say that I think a method or piece of evidence isn’t reliable or good I mean it isn’t reliable or good. You usually try to make this about personal prejudices when that happens without registering at all the substantive arguments of people who clearly have a better grasp of a topic you’re trying to be an expert in. I think you need to listen better rather than strike away at imaginary straw men when people challenge the quality of your work.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top