J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[manqiangrexue]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

longer Fuselage longer S inlet ducts, longer fuselage wider space between intake lips and jet nozzle pipes therefore you can store more fuel easily

Yeah, so J-20 has more fuel. So what? More fuel gets an air-superiority fighter greater range and greater ability to choose the time and location of the fight. F-22 has more fuel capacity than F-15, Typhoon, Rafale, etc...; that makes it an interceptor compared to them? LOL

 

[b787]

I translated something from a Chinese source (J-20 empty weight 15 tonne range), or I simply refuted the broken logic of people like you who claim to know things that you cannot possibly know.

And don't forget: what do you think about the original scientific paper written on J-20's aerodynamics?Ignore it? Pretend it doesn't exist? Keep spewing Google aerodynamics as if it's convincing anybody? LOL

do you think it weighs 15 tonnes wow you are great, i will give an advise, there are more aerodynamic papers, many many many many, and you can get a good picture of J-20 if you know or read them, by the way aircraft do not have 20 or 40 pieces and they are not made of the same thing, sometimes it goes to million of piece, 3D manufacturing will not reduce the weight to 15 tonnes, of course in your fantasies they do, give you a clue why do not you see how much Airbus saves with 3D manufactoring for a whole aircraft, if F-22 weights almost 20 tonnes empty weight, J-20 at the most will be 18 tonne just for the size, but continue thinking it weights 11 tonnes empty weight i guess you dream it is lighter than F-35


By the way my children are not illegitimate, i have divorced, all were born while i was married with each respective wife

 

[b787]

Yeah, so J-20 has more fuel. So what? More fuel gets an air-superiority fighter greater range and greater ability to choose the time and location of the fight. F-22 has more fuel capacity than Typhoon, Rafale, etc...; that makes it an interceptor compared to them? LOL

J-20`s fuel is as light as cotton candy i guess it will weigh fully loaded let me see, 15 tonnes empty weight, fueled 20 tonnes i see J-20 has better TWR than a 22 tonnes Flanker it should be greaaaaaaat

 

[manqiangrexue]

do you think it weighs 15 tonnes wow you are great, i will give an advise, there are more aerodynamic papers, many many many many, and you can get a good picture of J-20 if you know or read them, by the way aircraft do not have 20 or 40 pieces and they are not made of the same thing, sometimes it goes to million of piece, 3D manufacturing will not reduce the weight to 15 tonnes, of course in your fantasies they do, give you a clue why do not you see how much Airbus saves with 3D manufactoring for a whole aircraft, if F-22 weights almost 20 tonnes empty weight, J-20 at the most will be 18 tonne just for the size, but continue thinking it weights 11 tonnes empty weight i guess you dream it is lighter than F-35


By the way my children are not illegitimate, i have divorced, all were born while i was married with each respective wife

The report said 15 tonne range so possible up to 16 tonnes. I find them much more believable than your mentally-made-up figures. But I did notice that now, you say 18 tonnes when before you thought it was some amount (2 tones?) heavier than F-22 LOL. Your prediction numbers are unstable like your relationships haha

There are other papers on aerodynamics but I will pick the one written by the design team of J-20 on the J-20 as a most reliable source on the J-20. The only way you would disagree with that is if you didn't like what it said and thus you felt compelled to find something else, something that could be interpreted to say what you want to hear.

Also, interesting that you cut out the paragraph with my challenge to you to find any unverified claim that I wrote about the J-20, supporting that I am some sort of cheer-leader. I'll take that as a signature B787 not-accepted+didn't-happen LOL

J-20`s fuel is as light as cotton candy i guess it will weigh fully loaded let me see, 15 tonnes empty weight, fueled 20 tonnes i see J-20 has better TWR than a 22 tonnes Flanker it should be greaaaaaaat

More room for fuel does not mean it's mandatory to carry more fuel. If the fight is close, it could go with less fuel for better TWR. If the fight is far, it could load up and burn the fuel weight off by flying to the fight. More room is just more options.

And on the note of your made-up numbers, I just want to make sure that you know there is an option to give no numbers when no information is known. Waiting for information is an option. It seems to me like you think that this forum is like a math test for you where you must make some number to answer each question before the time is up even though you have no idea what the answer should be.

 

[b787]

The report said 15 tonne range so possible up to 16 tonnes..

New Data Shows That 3D Printed Components Could Cut Aircraft Weight By 7 Percent
The weight of accumulated parts is a critical factor in the aerospace industry’s efforts to build sleeker, lighter and more efficient planes. Shaving every available gram from the equation means manufacturers can save their airline customers fuel and help them cut back on carbon emissions.


Eric Masanet

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, now says it’s been confirmed that using 3D printed metal parts can reduce the weight of an aircraft – by up to 7% – and those are breakthrough numbers.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

of course fantasies will make you think it weighs around 1 tonnes and will surpass anything

and you call me fanboy

 

[manqiangrexue]

of course fantasies will make you think it weighs around 1 tonnes and will surpass anything

and you call me fanboy

LOLOL What is this? This an American paper on what American 3D printing could do for the overall weight of passenger airplanes (which have many other parts like entertainment systems, kitchens, first class bar, bathrooms, seats, etc... that are huge weight contributors unaffected by 3D-printing). We are talking about a Chinese-designed military aircraft based on Chinese 3D techniques, which can reduce 40% of the the weight of titanium bulkheads used on certain parts of the frame (source previously provided by Kurotoga), AND on top of that, 3D-printing was only one of several known weight-saving measures implemented on J-20. And finally, if you read your paper, the 7% figure it derived was based off "metal parts." It doesn't even state the savings specifically from titanium, which is the metal in question on the J-20. Your paper is sadly irrelevant.

You so desperately don't want to believe that J-20 can weigh 15-16 tonnes that you are attempting to argue against a secondary source to AVIC, the manufacturers of J-20, by finding any paper written anywhere by anyone about any type of aircraft that can be vaguely interpreted in any way to counter the information that you don't want to believe. Here's the deal:

I gave 15-16 tonne figure for J-20 not from some deluded mental calculation of mine, but because I got it from a report on the words of AVIC and that is the closest and most reliable source he have to date on the weight of the J-20. On top of that, I did acknowledge the chance that the report was wrong, though at this time, it seems to be the most reliable source we have. Haha I can imagine if there was a Russian report saying Su-57 was 14 tonnes, you'd defend it to the death as a reliable figure LOL.

Anyway, I said J-20 weighs 15-16 tonnes (with a source), which you translated into 15 tonnes, then 11 tonnes, now 1 tonne? I see you are moving the goal-post a lot because you find your argument increasingly difficult to defend... tsk tsk.

Now your fantasy of Su-57 being a 6th gen fighter... LOLOL

 

[ougoah]

And you're in the pretend-to-know-and-ask-stupid-irrelevant-questions club. You've got dual membership, with the Su-57-is-a-6th-gen-fighter club complete with your vodka-doused pompoms LOL

I actually challenge you to look through all of my posts to find any where I make a claim of how wonderful the J-20 is, because I didn't. Either I translated something from a Chinese source (J-20 empty weight 15 tonne range), or I simply refuted the broken logic of people like you who claim to know things that you cannot possibly know.

And don't forget: what do you think about the original scientific paper written on J-20's aerodynamics?Ignore it? Pretend it doesn't exist? Keep spewing Google aerodynamics as if it's convincing anybody? LOL

PS. Get ready to transition this conversation to your past failed relationships and/or your many illegitimate children again.

Calls everyone who doesn't agree with him a fanboy and spouts Russian propaganda about their military stuff. This is despite all of us who are more politically "pro China" being very fair and none of us have ever claimed J-20 is incredible etc.

Everyone knows Russian military equipment is exaggerated and no where even close to what they claim. Every single time they've been used or tested, they've failed to live up to even substandard expectations. So to balance this out, B787 feels compelled to become a louder mouthpiece to promote Russian stuff and denigrate Chinese stuff at every opportunity. Let them all believe this nonsense and the nonsense about J-20 being a pure interceptor or striker. It makes zero difference to reality.

The wing areas shaded included areas of the fuselage but I'd bet J-20's fuselage can contribute to more lift that the flanker's. Even if we don't count the fuselage area, the wing area is still greater than flankers. This was obvious enough without the grid lines (appreciated) but some people just can't do basic numbers I guess. On top of this, smaller wing means less RCS, ceteris paribus. Pretty much all new and proposed stealth fighters have TINY wings. This is no coincidence. F-22 was designed in the 90s. Su-57 is just 20 years late to the F-22 game. Designs for VLO wings have likely moved on since then. Although the LEVCONs on Su-57 are very neat and certainly adds to its performance.

 

[Inst]

J-20's manoeuvrability and the aircraft's intended role have been resolved for years already, because the original aerodynamicist published a paper on the J-20.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The die-hard haters have no answer other than pathetic excuses serve to sustain their hope that J-20 is a F-111 sized bomber.

Do you understand how asinine your claim is? By the same logic, since Lockheed aerodynamicists wrote internal papers on how the F-35 is supposed to get 5G sustained at altitude, the F-35 is a supermaneuverable fighter that can turn circles within any other aircraft. There is a wide difference between an aircraft design document and an actually-implemented aircraft.

 

[latenlazy]

Do you understand how asinine your claim is? By the same logic, since Lockheed aerodynamicists wrote internal papers on how the F-35 is supposed to get 5G sustained at altitude, the F-35 is a supermaneuverable fighter that can turn circles within any other aircraft. There is a wide difference between an aircraft design document and an actually-implemented aircraft.

Did they talk about supermanueverability as an objective in those papers?

 

[Inst]

Is that a relevant criticism of my argument? The F-35's original specs indicated that it should be capable of 5G sustained turn at altitude and speed. As it turns out, the aircraft was overweight and the requirements postulated by the Pentagon were downgraded to 4.2 G, if memory serves.

What we know right now is that the J-20 was intended to be supermaneuverable without resorting to TVC or having high thrust engines, and we already know that there's one disappointment: the aircraft is supposed to be able to supercruise with engines as is, but rumors as they come claim that the aircraft needs upgraded engines to supercruise.