J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII

[Alfa_Particle]

@Alfa_Particle

Regarding the discussion about J-20's supercruise status with WS-10s, as well as the actual thrust and output of WS-10Cs, the threshold of "grapevine" evidence I hold for those claims you described, would be someone like Yankee stating so in relatively clear terms.

No disagreement there, I was thinking of Orca when I said it. One of his posts was about the F-22 and F119, and one of the comments I vividly remember him stating J-20 w/ WS-10C can supercruise at M1.7, slightly worse than the F-22's M1.76.

I think Yankee has said it before…

Same here.

 

[lcloo]

No disagreement there, I was thinking of Orca when I said it. One of his posts was about the F-22 and F119, and one of the comments I vividly remember him stating J-20 w/ WS-10C can supercruise at M1.7, slightly worse than the F-22's M1.76.


Same here.

Just a trivial remark. The difference between M1.7 and M1.76 is only about 44.5 miles per hour. So with more powerful WS-15 engine, J20 should be equal if not faster than F-22 in its supercruise speed.

 

[Blitzo]

I think Yankee has said it before…

Do we have a statement on that?

The specific matter here being:
1. What is WS-10Cs thrust rating
2. What kind of supercruise can J-20 attain with WS-10Cs

No disagreement there, I was thinking of Orca when I said it. One of his posts was about the F-22 and F119, and one of the comments I vividly remember him stating J-20 w/ WS-10C can supercruise at M1.7, slightly worse than the F-22's M1.76.

I think I do recall that statement at the time now that you mention the numbers. I felt it was inconclusive and in terms of rating credibility, for something like supercruise and/or engine output claims, I feel like more definitive individuals like Yankee are necessary to slam it down.
(It's why for example wrt the recent rumours about 6th gen J-XD possibly emerging soon, I only felt it was more credible after Yankee endorsed it as well in definitive manner)

Just a trivial remark. The difference between M1.7 and M1.76 is only about 44.5 miles per hour. So with more powerful WS-15 engine, J20 should be equal if not faster than F-22 in its supercruise speed.

The conversation isn't about comparing J-20 w/ WS-10Cs with F-22, rather it is a conversation about what the actual evidence base of J-20's ability to supercruise with WS-10Cs actually is (as well as what is WS-10Cs thrust rating I suppose).

 

[iBBz]

Do we have a statement on that?

The specific matter here being:
1. What is WS-10Cs thrust rating
2. What kind of supercruise can J-20 attain with WS-10Cs





I think I do recall that statement at the time now that you mention the numbers. I felt it was inconclusive and in terms of rating credibility, for something like supercruise and/or engine output claims, I feel like more definitive individuals like Yankee are necessary to slam it down.
(It's why for example wrt the recent rumours about 6th gen J-XD possibly emerging soon, I only felt it was more credible after Yankee endorsed it as well in definitive manner)




The conversation isn't about comparing J-20 w/ WS-10Cs with F-22, rather it is a conversation about what the actual evidence base of J-20's ability to supercruise with WS-10Cs actually is (as well as what is WS-10Cs thrust rating I suppose).

I think it is very reasonable to assume the J-20 can supercruise with the WS-10C. It religiously conforms to the area rule from the very start of the wing to its very end. It also has its wing so far in the back, even further than the F-22's wing, and it's wing span is even smaller than the F-22, and it's got around 7 degree higher wing sweep than the F-22. If the Su-35 could supercruise in 2007 with the 117S (similar to the AL-31 used on the J-20), I see no reason to doubt the ability of the J-20 with the 10C.



Anyone know what this wavy tape on the canopy is? I've always wondered what it was for.

 

[lcloo]

Anyone know what this wavy tape on the canopy is? I've always wondered what it was for.
View attachment 139742

Explosive cord to break the canopy prior to ejection. Aka Canopy Severance Cord.

 

[Deino]

I think it is very reasonable to assume the J-20 can supercruise with the WS-10C. It religiously conforms to the area rule from the very start of the wing to its very end. It also has its wing so far in the back, even further than the F-22's wing, and it's wing span is even smaller than the F-22, and it's got around 7 degree higher wing sweep than the F-22. If the Su-35 could supercruise in 2007 with the 117S (similar to the AL-31 used on the J-20), I see no reason to doubt the ability of the J-20 with the 10C.



Anyone know what this wavy tape on the canopy is? I've always wondered what it was for.
View attachment 139742

It's a detonation cord for shattering the canopy before ejection

 

[by78]

A few more from Zhuhai.

 

[Blitzo]

I think it is very reasonable to assume the J-20 can supercruise with the WS-10C. It religiously conforms to the area rule from the very start of the wing to its very end. It also has its wing so far in the back, even further than the F-22's wing, and it's wing span is even smaller than the F-22, and it's got around 7 degree higher wing sweep than the F-22. If the Su-35 could supercruise in 2007 with the 117S (similar to the AL-31 used on the J-20), I see no reason to doubt the ability of the J-20 with the 10C.

That's just called eyeballing the aerodynamics, which we can't do without reliably knowing the thrust rating or the aircraft's weight.

We have had rumours of course of those figures, but nothing I consider to be sufficiently concrete that would make me confident enough to argue to a neutral audience that "J-20 can supercruise with WS-10Cs".


The preceding discussion therefore was specifically about the veracity of the rumours we've had for those numbers in the past.

 

[iBBz]

That's just called eyeballing the aerodynamics, which we can't do without reliably knowing the thrust rating or the aircraft's weight.

And we will never be able to know any of these specs any time soon, or possibly ever. PLA watching is an orgy of guestimation and frustration, unless the product is advertised for export in a brochure with a spec sheet.

 

[Blitzo]

And we will never be able to know any of these specs any time soon, or possibly ever. PLA watching is an orgy of guestimation and frustration, unless the product is advertised for export in a brochure with a spec sheet.

On the contrary, we have gotten sensitive confirmations from credible individuals in the grapevine before.

For something as significant as engine performance, and a milestone like super cruise with WS-10s, I do not think we can be comfortable with assuming that capability is present. Instead, we are obliged to treat it with a high threshold.