Quickie
Colonel
I wonder what movable LERX he was talking about. Doesn't seem right to refer to the canard as a movable LERX.
J-20... The New Generation Fighter II
- Thread starter Asymptote
- Start date
- Status
I wonder what movable LERX he was talking about. Doesn't seem right to refer to the canard as a movable LERX.
I think John is saying that the canards could serve, in the case of the J-20, as moving LERX.
Read the paper I gave link to. It talked about independently-moving LERX to help to control the plane under high AoA.
As I pointed out, the paper is an academic paper, not particularly about J-20. However, the only difference between the paper and J-20 are:
1. J-20 does not have moving LERX.
2. J-20 has side intakes. The paper described a design with underbody intake in its last paragraph.
I was saying, although J-20 doesn't have moving LERX, I guess independently-moving canards can have the same function.
Although there hasn't been any photos or video showing J-20's canards moving independently, there are J-10 videos showing J-10 has this ability, so we should not be surprised that if J-20 does the same.
By the way, this paper also described a lot of features for T-50, including
1. Small all-moving vertical stabilizers.
2. Independently-moving LERX (LEVCON). See the pictures.
So, the design of T-50 confirms the conclusion of this paper. One (Chinese or not) should study the content carefully because it has a lot of aerodynamic concepts when were not covered by 3G fighters.
When you use the mindset of 3G fighters to look at J-20, this fighter doesn't make sense at all. I already said I made my own conclusion that there was no way J-20 could fly (the center-of-gravity just didn't make sense to me). I was totally surprised by the test flights, until I came across this paper. It explained everything about J-20 (and even a lot about T-50).
Last edited:
One of the eyewitnesses at Chengdu said he saw the J-20's canards move independently. This was before the first test flight.
So it looks like there isn't enough information to discredit anything on the J-20, but there's enough counter evidence to argue against any criticism thus far?
From what I've gathered in the discussions so far:
-Better over all radar stealth than T-50, inferior to F-22 in all around stealth, or at least from behind. IR stealth possibly comparable due to speculative engine nozzle coating
-Better/similar maneuverability than T-50 or F-22, but for different reasons. F-22 gains from super engines, T-50, good for whatever reason. J-20 good by virtue that the designers at Chengdu know what they're doing well enough to meet their stated goal of super maneuverability in a 5th gen fighter.
-More advanced radar than T-50
-Slightly inferior but still comparable avionics to F-22
-Inferior engines to F-22, but good enough for the J-20 right now. Supercruise either now or soon. TVC definitely coming. Better engines coming (Obviously.)
-Identical AA weapons loadout to F-22?
-Not as big as it looks so there isn't actually more fuel, and with currently inferior engines, it's range can't be that much greater than the F-22, if at all.
Right? Half right? Totally wrong?
From what I've gathered in the discussions so far:
-Better over all radar stealth than T-50, inferior to F-22 in all around stealth, or at least from behind. IR stealth possibly comparable due to speculative engine nozzle coating
-Better/similar maneuverability than T-50 or F-22, but for different reasons. F-22 gains from super engines, T-50, good for whatever reason. J-20 good by virtue that the designers at Chengdu know what they're doing well enough to meet their stated goal of super maneuverability in a 5th gen fighter.
-More advanced radar than T-50
-Slightly inferior but still comparable avionics to F-22
-Inferior engines to F-22, but good enough for the J-20 right now. Supercruise either now or soon. TVC definitely coming. Better engines coming (Obviously.)
-Identical AA weapons loadout to F-22?
-Not as big as it looks so there isn't actually more fuel, and with currently inferior engines, it's range can't be that much greater than the F-22, if at all.
Right? Half right? Totally wrong?
I would caution against lumping what everyone has said together. Not all of us agree on every point after all (though a lot of us do agree that there simply isn't enough information to make even decent guesswork).
Last edited:
At its current configuration I think we can safely say it has inferior rear signature and IR signature control compared to F-22. It's a bit hard to argue for the whole engine nozzle silver colour thing... That could just be the colour of the nozzle...
I think it's premature to look into reasoning for each of the aircraft's respective manouverability. Simply lumping them together and saying they should be quite similar is enough at the moment.
A bit hard to argue for that lol...
Again, very hard to argue for that because we don't even know what avionics J-20 will have and how it stacks.
I prefer the term "non supercruise engine" for J-20 at the moment, because "inferior" implies the J-20 could currently supercruise but has less efficient engines or something like that.
Yep, most likely unless there are two ventral bays or something crazy like that.
I fully disagree here -- yes the J-20 isn't that much longer than F-22 but the tails of the F-22 extend out meters from its fuselage whereas J-20s tails barely extend at all. J-20's volume is larger in a practical sense so there should definitely be more space for... whatever they want to put into that space.
I agree with latenlazy on this one. Depending on who you consult you either get a superfighter capable of vanquishing millions of F-35s (Kopp and Australian Air Power) or on the other end, a subsonic bomber without a radar. My personal view is that the J-20 is, first and foremost, designed to be a fighter for the air dominance role. Despite what some internet military/aviation enthusiasts have been speculating the evidence I've obtained from Chinese literature, military experts (including a test pilot who actually test flew the J-20), and Chinese military fans who actually went to Chengdu and saw the plane first hand serve as my support. I just think that people who have first hand contact with the plane are just better judges than equally, or in some cases, better qualified observers who managed to magically deduce the weight, dimensions, weapons load, etc. just from a few photographs of the plane. Whether it is a match for the F-22 will become obvious in time.
I wasn't very sold on the idea when it was first mentioned, but since the stealth blackhawk tail rotor picture came out with a similar coating, I've been a bit more convinced.
Be very careful about volume and empty space here. It's the cross sectional area along the entire length of the plane that counts. For example, if the F-22 had a taller cross section at the tail than the J-20 it could easily be as volumic or more so despite being shorter. Furthermore, volume itself is not necessarily an indication of available empty space. What if the J-20's skin is thicker? Or what if has more structural components? I think the only thing we can say for certain about the J-20's size right now is its length (but we agree on that one).
Last edited:
I remain very unconvinced that we can determine if anything has VLO coatings simply from the colour and shade of an aircraft.
- Status