J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[Tirdent]

I'm more and more convinced that Deino is correct and we are looking at the FC-31v2 rather than the J-20 here. They may be difficult to tell apart from the section shown, but I've found one feature that supports the FC-31 theory:



Furthermore, if we assume that my own hypothesis of a canopy jettison (either to determine its trajectory as a hazard to people in an emergency on the ground, or in an ejection test) is true, that doesn't fit a J-20. It has a detonation chord to shatter the canopy - it probably doesn't get jettisoned at all! Same with the AV-8B or T-45A, for example - they shatter the canopy even in a rescue on the ground.

 

[latenlazy]

Pretty sure it’s the J-20. Look at how the canopy spine terminates into the fuselage. In the J-20 the taper of the fuselage to meet the spine is much more immediate and at a sharper taper. The FC-31 not nearly as much.

 

[Inst]

Here's a fun diversion with the J-20. Do we know what the J-20's take-off distance is?

 

[secretprojects]

I'm more and more convinced that Deino is correct and we are looking at the FC-31v2 rather than the J-20 here. They may be difficult to tell apart from the section shown, but I've found one feature that supports the FC-31 theory:

View attachment 54601

Furthermore, if we assume that my own hypothesis of a canopy jettison (either to determine its trajectory as a hazard to people in an emergency on the ground, or in an ejection test) is true, that doesn't fit a J-20. It has a detonation chord to shatter the canopy - it probably doesn't get jettisoned at all! Same with the AV-8B or T-45A, for example - they shatter the canopy even in a rescue on the ground.

I believe its FC-31V2, the shape of the radome is wrong for J-20.

 

[Xizor]

Something is clearly written on the body right below the cockpit. It is 31.

 

[lcloo]

Check the angle.

 

[Tirdent]

Pretty sure it’s the J-20. Look at how the canopy spine terminates into the fuselage. In the J-20 the taper of the fuselage to meet the spine is much more immediate and at a sharper taper. The FC-31 not nearly as much.

I believe its FC-31V2, the shape of the radome is wrong for J-20.

Check the angle.

It's a "photo of a photo" at a non-trivial angle, so that kind of judgement is very difficult due to distortion. For example, my gut instinct is that the canopy brace does not seem consistent with the one on the J-20, where it meets the cockpit sill approximately at right angles, as opposed to being inclined forward - it's hard to be sure though. I'd tentatively agree that the nose shape better matches the FC-31, but the best bet in such a situation is to find some kind of feature that is present in only one of the candidates and hence positively identifies the type.

 

[Tirdent]

... the best bet in such a situation is to find some kind of feature that is present in only one of the candidates and hence positively identifies the type.

Speaking of which:



I think the rear view mirrors clinch it.

 

[Xizor]

Speaking of which:

View attachment 54607

I think the rear view mirrors clinch it.

The Number 31 is written under.

 

[Iron Man]

Note the smoke near the portside of the aircraft. This is a photo of the J-20 literally shooting down theories that it carries no gun (pun very much intended).

Not so fast. Why is the canopy open (or in the process of opening)? How do you know this is not an ejection seat test?