J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[Deino]

20.5~20.6 meters actually. The J-20 is about 192-193 pixels long, and the Flanker is about 204-205. When we measured the 20.3~20.5 meter estimate it was with prototypes that had shorter stingers (if I recall stingers were lengthened starting with the 2015 air frame). If by "the club" you meant SDF, then Western estimates were not better (there are still serious sources citing the 22-23 meter figure). The measurements we converged on in this forum were right on the money.

And don't lie. I still remember how insistent you were that the J-20 was an F-111 sized behemoth despite all evidence to the contrary mig.

Here's my try including the full length from tip to tail.

 

[ougoah]

And you're not a fighter pilot either! Guess who is? The pilot of the J-20 who you're dismissing, as if you know any better than the pilot who actually flew the plane. By your logic all the claims by pilots of the Eurofighter, Rafale, and F-22 are just propaganda nonsense too, because fighter pilots don't know anything about the fighters they're flying

If the article was based on aerodynamics and design constraints, where is the CFD modeling? Where are the dimensional measurements? Where are the turn rate diagrams at different altitudes and speeds? The article didn't even get the wing area of the J-20 right. We have satellite images! You would think that if the article were so technically based it would employ some actual math and physics, instead of googled commentary from people who judge everything by eyeballing and speculation.

Accusing others of being cheerleaders when you have no answers to their logical reasoning really boosts one's credibility doesn't it? If you want to question my motives, why don't you question your own first? Calling others fanboys won't change the fact that you magically invent figures out of thin air and push them as fact. I'm no "fanboy", but even I if I were, there are much worse things to be in a debate. If it's possible that someone distorts reality because they're "fanboys" it's also possible that someone distorts reality because they're haters or deniers. If you want to play this game that sword cuts both ways. Yano what the arbiter of this game is? The merits of your logical reasoning, *which you continuously sidestep and deflect*.

NEVER bring logic to a B787 discussion, or rather, him soapboxing bs all day long. This guy is convinced Russian orthodox church will reign supreme in the future. Yes the same guys that bless military equipment used to murder other humans. And then have the stupidity and nerve to twist rationality and justify it. They all need to go back to primary school.

 

[ougoah]

Indeed finally no longer an estimation based on a grainy satellite image. But I’m sure certain members at the PDF will again present us a theory why the J-20 is still about 22-23m long.

People who can't change or open their minds and opinions even after REAL facts and evidence is presented to them, are not worthy of any attention. This planet is ruined by these people.

 

[ougoah]

nicest picture i have ever seen, basically this put into shame all those who said J-20 was 20 meters, J-20 was like always i suspected around 21 meters, what a good laugh i have now, all those who said western analysts were wrong are put to shame haha

We've always maintained that J-20 was not much if any longer than Su-27 since the beginning. This is because we have working brains and eyes. Not sure who you're referring to but have fun making yourself sound like you called something against the tide and proven right.

 

[Deino]

People who can't change or open their minds and opinions even after REAL facts and evidence is presented to them, are not worthy of any attention. This planet is ruined by these people.

Just like I said: his latest claim is....

...
I am simply questioning the identity of the flanker behind the J-20, and the statement that it's wingspan is 14.7m.
Why are you, or anybody else, so sure it's 14.7m?

 

[latenlazy]

Here's my try including the full length from tip to tail.

View attachment 42934

I noticed two things while trying to do these measurements. One is that the Flanker in the center is slightly angled relative to the J-20. If we measure tip to tip using a 90 degree line without rotating the Flanker every so slightly (maybe a half a degree to 1 degree) it will slightly exaggerate the Flanker's length relative to the J-20. We *should* be using the center Flanker relative to the center J-20, since the pictures don't capture a perfect top view of the Flankers on the side. The second thing I noticed is that if we want to measure wingspan we should compare widths to widths, as opposed to deriving wingspan from lengths. If you try to derive the wingspan of the Flanker by comparing it to its length, you're going to fall slightly short of the 14.7 reference figure. That suggests to me that there's distortion in this picture that stretches the photo a bit vertically. I'll post a more thorough set of measurements with the center Flanker slightly rotated once I get my laptop back from the shop, since the substitute computer I'm using right now doesn't have photoshop.

 

[Hyperwarp]

Classic Su-27 (With Pitot tube) - 21.93m
Su-33 (With Pitot tube and Shortened Tail-boom) - 21.19m
Su-35 (WITHOUT Pitot tube) - ??.??m
J-20 - ??.??m

Note: Nose is to blurry so a few pixels got cut in all the planes

EDIT: We need the correct length for the Su-35. We can't use the values for the Su-27 or Su-33

 

[latenlazy]

@Hyperwarp @Deino If I'm not wrong you're both using the cropped pictures posted by b787 right? If so, I think it might be prudent to use the originals instead, since it seems b787 magnified the pictures he posted.

 

[Hyperwarp]

@Hyperwarp @Deino If I'm not wrong you're both using the cropped pictures posted by b787 right? If so, I think it might be prudent to use the originals instead, since it seems b787 magnified the pictures he posted.

No, I used the photo posted by by78 - https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/j-20-5th-gen-fighter-thread-vi.t8169/page-67#post-480164

There is some lens distortion but the length of the J-20 is close to a Pitot-less flankers. The lowerst value I ever got was 20.8m highest around 21.5m. I think we can safely say the J-20 is a 21m (-/+ 3m) fighter.

 

[latenlazy]

No, I used the photo posted by by78 - https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/j-20-5th-gen-fighter-thread-vi.t8169/page-67#post-480164

There is some lens distortion but the length of the J-20 is close to a Pitot-less flankers. The lowerst value I ever got was 20.8m highest around 21.5m. I think we can safely say the J-20 is a 21m (-/+ 3m) fighter.

I'm consistently getting between 20.4 and 20.85 in length and between 12.86 and 13.27 in wing span using the J-20 and Flanker in the center with no magnification to the original image (I zoomed in till I could see each individual pixel to try to determine the edges of the wingtips, nose, and stingers). For the J-20 I got between 192 and 194 pixels in length and 119-121 pixels in wingspan. For the Flanker I got between 204 and 206 pixels in length and between 134 and 136 pixels in wingspan. I think the fudge factor for where the edges are is about 1-3 pixels in the original. I do think the Flanker is bigger than the J-20 by a bit more than what our measurements suggest though since, as I mentioned earlier, it is slightly angled in the picture. Attached is my homework, in case people want to judge for themselves where I chose to draw the edge of the wings, nose, and tail. Yes it's supposed to be that small (no magnification remember).