J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[vesicles]

Too much blah blah blah, the J-20 has a smaller wing because the aircraft has a very long fuselage, if it would had a wing as big as F-22 in proportion it wing would be enormous, but draggier, thus the small wing is aided by the canards, thus reducing the need for an aft tail, thus making for smaller tail and making for a lower drag wing, the solution is quiet logic since the fuselage from radome tip to nozzle end is around 20 meters, while on the F-22 it is around 16 meters, the long fuselage requires a small wing to reduce drag specially since its wing is further aft than comparab;le aircraft like Gripen, J-10 or Rafale however your obsession that is a dogfighter is a dogfighter blinds you, with good engines it might have good sustained turn rates and good weapons and sighting systems will be like F-35

You are the one who's going "blah blah blah". I asked you to show me a simple number. Yet, you gave me multiple posts of looong looong paragraphs after paragraphs.

Let's skip all the blahs. I'm asking one thing: a number. Show it!

 

[vesicles]

Any sane person would choose the easiest path to answering any question.

Thus, I have no doubt that you have tried to measure the wings of the J-20 and those of the Flankers when you first thought about the issue.

Yet, you don't want to show your measurements. That means your measurements are actually against your assertion.

 

[b787]

Yano what isn't blah blah blah? Measurements. Numbers. Where are they? Oh you don't want to provide them? Then take your own advice and stop blah blah blahing.

relax mister LEX do not count, they do not generate lift, they are not part of the reference wing hahaha

 

[latenlazy]

relax mister LEX do not count, they do not generate lift, they are not part of the reference wing hahaha

The *whole* body of the plane generates lift smartypants. That doesn't make the whole body of the plane the reference wing area.

 

[b787]

You are the one who's going "blah blah blah". I asked you to show me a simple number. Yet, you gave me multiple posts of looong looong paragraphs after paragraphs.

Let's skip all the blahs. I'm asking one thing: a number. Show it!

numbers haha what about the picture, no no no, it is small around 10 meters, no, no, no it is wrong the Su-27 has not longer wing span and root chord, no no the numbers haha are you blind? pictures do not tell you any thing? i know you need numbers because your eyes can not believe what you see a huge aircraft of 21 meters with smaller wing span than a Su-27 and a small wing, i need numbers they might show me it has a huge wings my eyes lie to me it is small yes 18 meters and weights 11 tonnes at empty weight without TVC nozzles will out turn Su-57 and F-22 damm these westerners always subestimating China, yes when your eyes can not believe your numbers are the only hope

 

[RadDisconnect]

numbers haha what about the picture, no no no, it is small around 10 meters, no, no, no it is wrong the Su-27 has not longer wing span and root chord, no no the numbers haha are you blind? pictures do not tell you any thing? i know you need numbers because your eyes can not believe what you see a huge aircraft of 21 meters with smaller wing span than a Su-27 and a small wing, i need numbers they might show me it has a huge wings my eyes lie to me it is small yes 18 meters and weights 11 tonnes at empty weight without TVC nozzles will out turn Su-57 and F-22 damm these westerners always subestimating China, yes when your eyes can not believe your numbers are the only hope

You are technically incompetent and don't even know it.

 

[ougoah]

I think our point is so what the wings are small. Is it easy to design and build larger wings like F-16, Flanker, etc etc yes of course. That's the easy part in fact. CAC and SAC have done it in the past. Why so will they choose to go with what they have. Clearly they're much smarter than you are and are actual engineers. So logic demands you to stop showing off as if you know better. You don't. Smaller wings are also on newest American stealth fighter, japanese flying concept, and probably will be applied on future 5th gens.

Can the rest of you try to ignore this guy please? It's beyond obvious at this point that he's here to troll and will not respond to your questions and comments directly. Let him soapbox all he wants just stop replying.

 

[ougoah]

You are technically incompetent and don't even know it.

What can you expect from a likely paid troll they found off the streets. The closest he gets to actual technical competence is assembling models and reading about basic aerodynamic terms on the internet. Probably hasn't even made his way through a highschool math textbook in his life. It's been shown in the Su-57 thread he can't add or doesn't want to face facts of small Su-57 main bay. He thinks something like 5m wide objects can fit into 3m space. Where's the point in asking for numbers?

 

[vesicles]

numbers haha what about the picture, no no no, it is small around 10 meters, no, no, no it is wrong the Su-27 has not longer wing span and root chord, no no the numbers haha are you blind? pictures do not tell you any thing? i know you need numbers because your eyes can not believe what you see a huge aircraft of 21 meters with smaller wing span than a Su-27 and a small wing, i need numbers they might show me it has a huge wings my eyes lie to me it is small yes 18 meters and weights 11 tonnes at empty weight without TVC nozzles will out turn Su-57 and F-22 damm these westerners always subestimating China, yes when your eyes can not believe your numbers are the only hope

Com'on, what is your problem? I asked for a number. Show it!

Is this how you shop? The cashier goes "that'll be a dollar." And you go "blah blah blah blah blah blah" for 10 minutes. The cashier goes "where is that dollar that you owe me?" "Give me my money and get out!"

 

[latenlazy]

You are technically incompetent and don't even know it.

Pffttt who needs math when you have the magic of overeager eyeballs and motivated reasoning. So long as he's not working as an engineer anywhere so he's not a public hazard, I suppose.

I think our point is so what the wings are small. Is it easy to design and build larger wings like F-16, Flanker, etc etc yes of course. That's the easy part in fact. CAC and SAC have done it in the past. Why so will they choose to go with what they have. Clearly they're much smarter than you are and are actual engineers. So logic demands you to stop showing off as if you know better. You don't. Smaller wings are also on newest American stealth fighter, japanese flying concept, and probably will be applied on future 5th gens. Can the rest of you just ignore this guy please? It's beyond obvious at this point that he's here to troll and will not respond to your questions and comments directly. Let him soapbox all he wants just stop replying.

Sometimes you have to expose a fraud thoroughly before you can leave them be.