J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[latenlazy]

This.

It was mentioned in key forum just earlier today as well and I have no idea where this idea of J-20's performance compared to XYZ came from.

All we have from the J-20 pilot's interview after the parade regarding J-20's performance is how well it performs subsonic and supersonic. They mention nothing about its performance relative to J-11 or any other aircraft.

If I'm not wrong, Inst is referring to the interview in this post.

In the interview the pilot said subsonic maneuverability was “不错", which was translated to "not bad", but actually is closer in meaning to "very good" or even "excellent", depending on context and colloquia.

 

[jobjed]

If I'm not wrong, Inst is referring to the interview in this post.

In the interview the pilot said subsonic maneuverability was “不错", which was translated to "not bad", but actually is closer in meaning to "very good" or even "excellent", depending on context and colloquia.

That's Bltizo's point. The pilot said the J-20's subsonic manoeuvrability was pretty good without making reference to any other fighter, neither the J-10 nor J-11.

Hyperwarp interpreted that to mean J-20 subsonic manoeuvrability = J-11 manoeuvrability. For all we know, that's possible but it's also possible the J-20 is better or worse than the J-11. I dislike it when people claim certainty where there is none, and vice versa. In this case, there is complete ambiguity and those claiming otherwise had better show evidence for their claim.

 

[latenlazy]

That's Bltizo's point. The pilot said the J-20's subsonic manoeuvrability was pretty good without making reference to any other fighter, neither the J-10 nor J-11.

Hyperwarp interpreted that to mean J-20 subsonic manoeuvrability = J-11 manoeuvrability. For all we know, that's possible but it's also possible the J-20 is better or worse than the J-11. I dislike it when people claim certainty where there is none, and vice versa. In this case, there is complete ambiguity and those claiming otherwise had better show evidence for their claim.

I know. I’m just adding context because it seems people have walked away with conclusions from the interview that weren’t materially there.

 

[Air Force Brat]

That's Bltizo's point. The pilot said the J-20's subsonic manoeuvrability was pretty good without making reference to any other fighter, neither the J-10 nor J-11.

Hyperwarp interpreted that to mean J-20 subsonic manoeuvrability = J-11 manoeuvrability. For all we know, that's possible but it's also possible the J-20 is better or worse than the J-11. I dislike it when people claim certainty where there is none, and vice versa. In this case, there is complete ambiguity and those claiming otherwise had better show evidence for their claim.

Amen Brother,, not bad is what I say when I mean "Not to Shabby",,, outstanding is what I say when it is so!

 

[latenlazy]

Amen Brother,, not bad is what I say when I mean "Not to Shabby",,, outstanding is what I say when it is so!

The interview was done in Chinese. Interpret the Chinese meaning, not the English one.

 

[taxiya]

Language can not be literally (word to word) translated. Even within the same language, the same word can carry very different meanings depending on regions.

不错 is literally translated to English word for word as Not (不) Wrong (错). It gives the impression that one is saying "Not too shabby, not bad". But it's Chinese (Mandarin) meaning is Good. In North Western Chinese dialect it is expressed as 还可以 which can be literally translated to Also/Still (还) OK (可以), it sounds like "it is ok, it is acceptable". All direct translation reduced its weight to mere average. But the true meaning is way much better.

Put it into cultural context, when Chinese (today, mandarin) say "like", its actual meaning is as westerners saying "love". When Chinese say "very good", we are saying "excellent perfect". One has to raise at least one grade up when translating Chinese expression (into English) of appreciations, and down at least one grade when Chinese expressing negatively. Another example is "不喜欢" being interpreted as dislike (negative), literally dis不like喜欢, but in Chinese it means "not my favorite, not my taste", a very neutral expression.

These are from my life experience gained (lessons learnt) when interacting with Europeans.

 

[latenlazy]

Language can not be literally (word to word) translated. Even within the same language, the same word can carry very different meanings depending on regions.

不错 is literally translated to English word for word as Not (不) Wrong (错). It gives the impression that one is saying "Not too shabby, not bad". But it's Chinese (Mandarin) meaning is Good. In North Western Chinese dialect it is expressed as 还可以 which can be literally translated to Also/Still (还) OK (可以), it sounds like "it is ok, it is acceptable". All direct translation reduced its weight to mere average. But the true meaning is way much better.

Put it into cultural context, when Chinese (today, mandarin) say "like", its actual meaning is as westerners saying "love". When Chinese say "very good", we are saying "excellent perfect". One has to raise at least one grade up when translating Chinese expression (into English) of appreciations, and down at least one grade when Chinese expressing negatively. Another example is "不喜欢" being interpreted as dislike (negative), literally dis不like喜欢, but in Chinese it means "not my favorite, not my taste", a very neutral expression.

These are from my life experience gained (lessons learnt) when interacting with Europeans.

If a restaurant is “不错” that’s a very strong endorsement.

 

[kwaigonegin]

In my dealings with Indian contractors, I've realized that when they say yes, it could possibly be a NO.
There have been countless times when someone says Yes, we can do it but further down the road what they really meant was, maybe yes, maybe no but we'll just say yes cause it's rude to say no.
I'm like WTH man!.

 

[taxiya]

If a restaurant is “不错” that’s a very strong endorsement.

I have experienced the difference even among Chinese dialects. In mandarin, 还means Also, but in Nanjing dialect it can mean Already. Me and my buddy from Beijing was baffled by people from Nanjing for a long time until suddenly one day we realized the difference.

 

[b787]

My overall point is that you cannot rely on a design document to tell you about the characteristics of an aircraft. Over its development process, aspects are changed and flying characteristics may disappoint.

The idea that since the J-20 is supposed to be maneuverable, it is maneuverable is intellectually unsound. The reports we've obtained suggest that the J-20 in actuality is not significantly superior than the J-11 and J-20 is the subsonic domain, but that it outperforms in the supersonic domain. But think about the implications: the F-22 and Su-57 are known for exceptional subsonic agility. If the J-20 is merely above average, it implies that in the subsonic flight domain it's not as agile as the F-22 and Su-57 in that region.

This is not necessarily a bad thing; remember, with future 180kn engines, a 16000 kg empty weight, and an estimated 28500 loaded weight, the J-20 has a fueled T/W of 1.29 and a 60% fuel T/W of 1.55 .

I think I've used this anecdote before, but consider this: a A6M2 in its ideal flying regime can possibly outturn an F-16. But one of the reasons the A6M2 isn't an air superiority fighter of choice is because its flight regime is easily supersede-able; i.e, the F-16 can go faster and stay faster than the A6M2, so even if we ignore air-to-air missiles the A6M2 is what it is, a World War II aircraft.

In the same way, the J-20, if the report of empty weight is credible, can force engagements at higher speeds than what its rivals are comfortable with.

you might like this
Link to J-20 Aerodynamics already in google

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

tell me our opinions i think you are a smart and unbiased guy