J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII

[BoraTas]

Modern consumer touch screen don't recognize my fingers touching the screen 3 time out of 5. Just imagining trying to use a touch screen in a fighter plane while flying in a combat situation look pretty hard to me.

I am not well versed in ergonomics or human-computer interfaces. But I think the use of touch screens necessitates the use of standardized gloves with desired electrical properties. And also some buttons.

The screen's durability, function loss characteristics with damage, temperature and humidity response, reaction to contaminants (including blood), danger posed by broken parts of it, vibration tolerance, should be tested.

In my opinion it is prudent have buttons for critical functions. Both for the pilot to find things without looking and as a backup.

 

[RadDisconnect]

This reminds me of a Chengdu

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

that might have something to do with the resigned nose. The patent is on a new nose cone shape that reduces drag in both subsonic and supersonic regimes. From mach 1.2 to mach 2, a drag reduction of around 10% can be achieved. Although the tip of the new nose design has a greater cross-sectional area that increases initial resistance, a more refined transition/curvature from the tip to the aft results in a net reduction in drag.

Interesting that an overall less sharp nose actually reduces drag. Reminds me of a debate years ago on Key Publishing forums where paralay and Russian fanboys were claiming about the Su-57’s superior top speed because of how sharp the nose is, which frankly is laughable especially in light of actual data here.

About J-20A bort 2051, did the intake shape change at all? The grills are still present on the sides. If the shape remains the same, then it might indicate that the WS-15 airflow requirement is not dramatically different from WS-10. That might potentially also allow it to re-engine J-10 and J-16.

 

[The Observer]

Interesting that an overall less sharp nose actually reduces drag. Reminds me of a debate years ago on Key Publishing forums where paralay and Russian fanboys were claiming about the Su-57’s superior top speed because of how sharp the nose is, which frankly is laughable especially in light of actual data here.

About J-20A bort 2051, did the intake shape change at all? The grills are still present on the sides. If the shape remains the same, then it might indicate that the WS-15 airflow requirement is not dramatically different from WS-10. That might potentially also allow it to re-engine J-10 and J-16.

Intake shape does change, pretty significantly too. The bump is noticeably smaller compared to older J-20s.



Picture from Deino's post

 

[RadDisconnect]

I’m not sure if that image really shows a smaller bump, resolution is bad and lighting isn’t ideal either. From another angle the bump looks to be about the same size.

 

[latenlazy]

Interesting that an overall less sharp nose actually reduces drag. Reminds me of a debate years ago on Key Publishing forums where paralay and Russian fanboys were claiming about the Su-57’s superior top speed because of how sharp the nose is, which frankly is laughable especially in light of actual data here.

About J-20A bort 2051, did the intake shape change at all? The grills are still present on the sides. If the shape remains the same, then it might indicate that the WS-15 airflow requirement is not dramatically different from WS-10. That might potentially also allow it to re-engine J-10 and J-16.

It’s not that surprising tbh. At supersonic speeds most drag comes from shocked flow gradients so designs that can smooth them out tend to do better on drag performance than simply going finer and sharper. Gradual rounded transitions sometimes work better as a shaping approach. There’s a balance somewhere.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Interesting that an overall less sharp nose actually reduces drag. Reminds me of a debate years ago on Key Publishing forums where paralay and Russian fanboys were claiming about the Su-57’s superior top speed because of how sharp the nose is, which frankly is laughable especially in light of actual data here.

About J-20A bort 2051, did the intake shape change at all? The grills are still present on the sides. If the shape remains the same, then it might indicate that the WS-15 airflow requirement is not dramatically different from WS-10. That might potentially also allow it to re-engine J-10 and J-16.

If you can tell how aerodynamics work by eyeball what is the point of having wind tunnels? Same with RCS.

 

[taxiya]

Intake shape does change, pretty significantly too. The bump is noticeably smaller compared to older J-20s.

View attachment 120025

Picture from Deino's post

We should not use these two image to compare. The upper image is taken at 90 degrees perpendicular to the axis of the airframe. The 2051 photo is angles greater than 90, probably 95 degrees, assuming the nose is 0 degrees and tail is 180 degrees, the camera is at 95 degrees to the axis.

This means that the intake is tilted to cover the bump more in photo of 2051, making the bump looks small.

Evidence is the frame of the canopy. In the upper photo, the frame is just a line, in the lower photo it looks like a triangle (off few degrees).


The paint scheme of 2051 is also different from earlier J-20, part of the bump's tip is painted yellow. Eearlier J-20 has the light gray paint over the whole length of the bump except the central ridge. See below, the area of the bump before the red line is now painted yellow. This also gives the impresson of a smaller bump when impage is blurry.


My conclusiong is that:

1. There is no evidence indicating that the shape and geometry of the bump are changed.
2. Paint scheme change in 2051 indicates that the underneath construction is changed eliminating the central ridge.

 

[siegecrossbow]

We should not use these two image to compare. The upper image is taken at 90 degrees perpendicular to the axis of the airframe. The 2051 photo is angles greater than 90, probably 95 degrees, assuming the nose is 0 degrees and tail is 180 degrees, the camera is at 95 degrees to the axis.

This means that the intake is tilted to cover the bump more in photo of 2051, making the bump looks small.

Evidence is the frame of the canopy. In the upper photo, the frame is just a line, in the lower photo it looks like a triangle (off few degrees).
View attachment 120045

The paint scheme of 2051 is also different from earlier J-20, part of the bump's tip is painted yellow. Eearlier J-20 has the light gray paint over the whole length of the bump except the central ridge. See below, the area of the bump before the red line is now painted yellow. This also gives the impresson of a smaller bump when impage is blurry.
View attachment 120046

My conclusiong is that:

1. There is no evidence indicating that the shape and geometry of the bump are changed.
2. Paint scheme change in 2051 indicates that the underneath construction is changed eliminating the central ridge.

Wonder what the central ridge was used for before. Structural support?

 

[taxiya]

Wonder what the central ridge was used for before. Structural support?

Most likely structural support considering the high pressure at its surface.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Probably a J-20(A) prototype with WS-15 engines. Posted by @四川地产界高层-军事画匠 on Weibo.