J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

Status
Not open for further replies.

Engineer

Major
One potential counter argument to the interceptor hypothesis.

If you look up pictures of interceptor aircrafts you will notice one interesting trait. They all have huge vertical stabilisors to maintain stability during very high velocity flights. If China was willing to trade maneuverability for weight then the obvious choice would be implementing larger vertical stabilizors instead of risking all moving ones.

Interceptor doesn't need fancy vortex generators and relaxed stability. The former shows the aircraft is intended to fly in AoA, and the latter shows the aircraft is meant to be very responsive. Interceptors don't need these kinds of features, and yet we find them on the J-20 indicating this plane is very much an air-superiority fighter.
 
Last edited:

Engineer

Major
Dr. Song's paper also mentions that the small aspect ratio wings could achieve higher maneuverablility performances if coupled with canards and a liftbody design. He even the number of 80% increase in lift. Does the description (aside from the chin intakes) deviate from what we see on the J-20 much? Nope.

Can someone provide a link to it, please? I downloaded it before but lost it before I finished reading.
 

Engineer

Major
To summarize, Dr. Song started out with a wing that has low drag at supersonic speed but performs poorly at subsonic speed/high AoA, and augmented the heck out of it with lift. The first obvious feature is LEX, then comes canards, and finally lift from body. In the end, through the interaction between LEX and canards, he was able to get even more lift by reducing* the wing's aspect-ratio, even though the conventional wisdom is that the larger aspect-ratio the better. The presence of LEX enables the canards to be placed far from the wings yet provide similar lift enhancement as close-couple canards. Canard configuration is also chosen because in the absence of TVC, canards provide total pitch authority at maximum AoA whereas elevators cannot.

*Obviously, the J-20 is an unconvential design, and cannot only be analyzed with classical aerodynamic theories.
 
Last edited:
Hence the need for internal weaponsbay...

Did anyone else notice that the "J-20 is a stealth MIG-25" proponents are the same people who thought that the photos were p.s.ed, the plane was a tech demo with no weapons bay, and most ridiculously - the landing gears couldn't be retracted?

tech demo? and "mig" appearing in the same post ? get my joke?
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Hence the need for internal weaponsbay...

Did anyone else notice that the "J-20 is a stealth MIG-25" proponents are the same people who thought that the photos were p.s.ed, the plane was a tech demo with no weapons bay, and most ridiculously - the landing gears couldn't be retracted?

The thing is I think he meant it including the weapons bay...

Congrats on becoming super moderator too? :O
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
The thing is I think he meant it including the weapons bay...

Congrats on becoming super moderator too? :O

Thnx.

Does anyone know how tight the security is around the Yanliang facility? Once the J-20 goes there for high intensity testing we may not see it again for quite a while.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
That's their problem. Rail on them, not the DoD

Never accused DoD of misreporting J-20.
Though I wonder why they call J-10 and J-11 by F-10 and F-11. By that logic J-20 should = F-20
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top