J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

externallisting

New Member
Registered Member
minime said:
Maybe my method is totally irrelevant or not practical at all for evaluating fighters
But I was hoping for more constructive opinion.
Perhaps you can show me how you do it?
Click to expand...
is this the infamous minnie chan in person?
minime said:
My method of setting up a table and assigning numbers might seem oversimplified but still,
it's valid doing A/B comparisons on certain aspects of performance or sub-system.
It could be contentious but we can have some sort of consensus after the debate.
That's what the forum is for. I don't see how it is against forum rules unless people start cursing or derailing the topic.

I would never dream of insert these numbers and decide who wins or loses in an actual fight because the outcome depends on so many variables.
Rather it gives a general idea of what level of performance each aircraft is at.
Click to expand...
Probably not but we will see whats going on.
manqiangrexue said:
You've confused me with someone else making up numbers. I'm the one saying that we don't know enough about J-20, F-22 or any other 5th gen to be trying to analyze one over the other. I said that in exercise, the Raptor didn't always come out on top in certain envelopes against 4th gens, which is fact. And I certainly wouldn't assume an edge for the Raptor built to counter 4th gen platforms with all rival platforms built to counter it.
Click to expand...
Do you really? everything you say supportive largely revolves around assumption and gung ho type comments.

More broadly, I think overtly nationalistic types such as yourself don't think or build upon particularly encouraging real discussion
 
manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
externallisting said:
Do you really?
Click to expand...
Really what?
externallisting said:
everything you say supportive largely revolves around assumption and gung ho type comments.
Click to expand...
No, everything I said revolves around known exercises and to not be overly speculative on what is not known.
externallisting said:
More broadly, I think overtly nationalistic types such as yourself don't think or build upon particularly encouraging real discussion
Click to expand...
More broadly, I think people like you who drag up a 2 week old discussion that went nowhere and is already resolved with a comment that adds no contribution whatsoever, don't build upon the real discussion.
 
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Besides the destructive force of vortex on the twin vertical stabilizer, it also increase pressure between the stabilizers creating head-up tendency and reducing overall lift when AOA is greater than 15 degrees.

J-20's solutions are:
  1. Reducing the size of stabilizers.
  2. Moving them further outwards.
  3. probably tilting them inwards when in high AOA.
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
taxiya said:
Besides the destructive force of vortex on the twin vertical stabilizer, it also increase pressure between the stabilizers creating head-up tendency and reducing overall lift when AOA is greater than 15 degrees.

J-20's solutions are:
  1. Reducing the size of stabilizers.
  2. Moving them further outwards.
  3. probably tilting them inwards when in high AOA.
Click to expand...
We’ve actually seen the tails deflecting inward when the J-20 does high alpha maneuvers, and differentially too.
 
S

stannislas

Junior Member
Registered Member
siegecrossbow said:
The biggest victim of the vortices might be the F-18. Supposedly it caused excessive stress on vertical slabs so adjustments must be made.

I think that there is a reason that the shape of LERX changed from semi-circular to triangular and it is not purely related to RCS optimization.
Click to expand...
of course, control the vortex damage on the tail was one of the major reason for the introduction of super hornet, in fact what I read was like the fence that on the hornet is only suppose to redirect the vortex that hitting the tail, instead it destroy most the vortex, so lift in high aoa become insufficient...
 
by78

by78

General
A few more (rear and rear quarter views).

52358957539_dffd63fb04_k.jpg
52358880048_7fa92c7b2e_k.jpg
52359064410_44aa3f2758_k.jpg
52358957639_7dc0379730_k.jpg
52358957594_30a2698fd8_k.jpg
 
M

minime

Junior Member
Registered Member
taxiya said:
J-20's solutions are:
  1. Reducing the size of stabilizers.
  2. Moving them further outwards.
  3. probably tilting them inwards when in high AOA.
Click to expand...
IIRC, someone posted something about J-20 stabilizers are able to change rigidity through electric sensitive material to avoid resonance
thus reducing the impact power by 25%.
There is a picture showing how it works too. Sorry, but I can't find it anymore.
If anyone saved it please share it.
 
A

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
Came across this while scrolling through Deino's Twitter:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1570398221238771712

Location: Lintao AB (35.31 N,103.84 E), which is located like halfway between the borders of China-Mongolia and China-Myanmar, i.e. pretty deep inland.

Few pointed out that those bear resemblance to the J-20, but to me, it is plainly obvious that they are having huge differences with how the actual J-20 looks like from the top.

One also pointed out the similarity with the cancelled J-9 and MiG 1.44.

Any idea what these are? Just satellite photography mismatches, or a new fighter/fighter-bomber/UCAV that fell under the radar? Or maybe just decoys or movie props?
 
Deino

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
Came across this while scrolling through Deino's Twitter:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1570398221238771712

Location: Lintao AB (35.31 N,103.84 E), which is located like halfway between the borders of China-Mongolia and China-Myanmar, i.e. pretty deep inland.

Few pointed out that those bear resemblance to the J-20, but to me, it is plainly obvious that they are having huge differences with how the actual J-20 looks like from the top.

One also pointed out the similarity with the cancelled J-9 and MiG 1.44.

Any idea what these are? Just satellite photography mismatches, or a new fighter/fighter-bomber/UCAV that fell under the radar? Or maybe just decoys or movie props?
Click to expand...


Exactly the last line in your post. IMO they can only be either decoys or movie props.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top