J-20... The New Generation Fighter II

Re: Saw-toothed doors don't matter if engine compressor blades are exposed

airsuperiority said:

or few the plane away at night?

Click to expand...

Assuming there're actually two J-20 prototypes, it's possible the prototype with the black nozzle undertook the first flight during the night when security have made sure nobody else is around. That would mean the J-20 prototype with the silver nozzle was given the task of performing the second flight in full view of spectators.

Re: Ranking engine stealth for Russian T-50, F-18 E/F, French Rafale, and China's J-2

Martian said:

Roughly 90% of the French Rafale's engine compressor blades are hidden from view. This is the reason that the French Rafale receives a 1 m2 RCS when it's "clean" and not carrying any external weapons. This assessment is determined by the reputable GlobalSecurity.

Click to expand...

Well, Rafale's RCS in clean config is more closer to 0.1 m² than 1 m² considering the fact that Mirage 2000 has a RCS of approx 2m² and Rafale requirement is to have a signature of about 1/20th of Mirage 2000's RCS.

If you assume that there are two J-20 prototypes, I guarantee you that you're up to 99% wrong. Why? I doubt it from the very beginning when I saw one J-20s with black and white nozzles; however, you never see them together, right? and they have the same number; 2001. Believe me it makes no sense to make two prototypes just for testing different engines.

It seems odd to me to test an aircraft prototype over a city with millions of inhabitants and even more doing that at night.
Transporting the assembled aircraft is impossible. It is too large for rail or air transport. So can it be disassembled and assembled again somewhere in the Gobi desert? I wouldn't design an aircraft of this shape to make this possible. But a specially designed test specimen made from fiber reinforced plastic and with the right weight and stiffness distribution might have been made. It would be divided in parts small enough to be transported by rail. With this specimen the factors important for that first test flight might have been investigated. If this has been done the aircraft we saw fly in Chengdu was indeed the making the first test flight of the first flying prototype.

SteelBird said:

If you assume that there are two J-20 prototypes, I guarantee you that you're up to 99% wrong. Why? I doubt it from the very beginning when I saw one J-20s with black and white nozzles; however, you never see them together, right? and they have the same number; 2001. Believe me it makes no sense to make two prototypes just for testing different engines.

Click to expand...

I'm only assuming a certain scenario, and not making a stand on something. So, no question of right or wrong for making the assumption.

Believe me it makes no sense to make two prototypes just for testing different engines.

Click to expand...

Just that the two prototypes (if there're really two) would most propably have different timelines with the intended engine just in time to be ready for the second prototype. I gather a few of the people here do believe there're more than one prototype.

As for having 2 prototypes with the same number, my speculation is this. Had one of the prototypes crashed, the official stand will be the spokeperson have no knowledge of it but there will always be a prototype with the number 2001 to show, as if no prototype had ever crashed.

I got a question, why is it the J-20 looks kinda shiny for a stealth fighter? It has the same reflectance/colour of the paint as the WZ-10.






If you compare the "reflectance" of J-20 to F-22 below, you can see J-20 is a lot 'shinier' (reflective) than F-22, especially the aft wing part where specular reflection is most apparent, which could mean it is with a lot of metal based paint, or it is steel based airframe.




Personally, I think J-20 prototype is a J-10 variant CAC/PLAAF experimenting with current tech available - its probably not made with advanced composite material, but incorporated stealth shapings. Only a year ago, it was reveal they were experimenting with the J-10B incorporating the DSI inlet; the J-20 could be the rumored twin engines J-10 variant "Super-10" with stealth shaping.


J-10B



"Super 10"



J-20



Its probable CAC are just experimenting with airframes, it almost seems evolutionary that PLAAF will come to this design concept (twin engines - inevitable; canard - carry on the design lineage of J-10). Looking back for the past decade, it does look pretty remarkable for the advances in China's defense aviation industries.

SteelBird said:

If you assume that there are two J-20 prototypes, I guarantee you that you're up to 99% wrong. Why? I doubt it from the very beginning when I saw one J-20s with black and white nozzles; however, you never see them together, right? and they have the same number; 2001. Believe me it makes no sense to make two prototypes just for testing different engines.

Click to expand...

Or is it too farfetched for you to imagine that one of 2001 underwent countless tests on airframes and different engines in Gobi Desert, while the other 2001 made by the exact specifications showed off the previous test results in front of worldwide cameras in Chengdu months/year later ?

Asymptote said:

I got a question, why is it the J-20 looks kinda shiny for a stealth fighter? It has the same reflectance/colour of the paint as the WZ-10.

Click to expand...

Your eyesights seem very talented. Can you pls tell me your take on what kind of steel T-50 is made of underneath?

delft said:

It seems odd to me to test an aircraft prototype over a city with millions of inhabitants and even more doing that at night.

Click to expand...

If somthing is odd / against common sense, maybe there is a possibility that it didn't happen at all?

delft said:

Transporting the assembled aircraft is impossible. It is too large for rail or air transport. So can it be disassembled and assembled again somewhere in the Gobi desert? I wouldn't design an aircraft of this shape to make this possible. But a specially designed test specimen made from fiber reinforced plastic and with the right weight and stiffness distribution might have been made. It would be divided in parts small enough to be transported by rail. With this specimen the factors important for that first test flight might have been investigated. If this has been done the aircraft we saw fly in Chengdu was indeed the making the first test flight of the first flying prototype.

Click to expand...

Whereas it may be impossible to transport dissembled spareparts and reassemble them thereafter in other places (or maybe not), it seems pretty staightforwardly comprehensible to my simple mind, at least in theory, to make 2 identical prototypes in different geographic locations to avoid hassle of transport, as one might just need a standard phoneline, a fax machine and/or a functional post/email service to do that I pressume?

Speeder said:

Your eyesights seem very talented. Can you pls tell me your take on what kind of steel T-50 is made of underneath?

Click to expand...

I am guessing titanium composite