Somebody send curious George an audio track of that song, "I like big Butts", we're with ya George, I still drink USAF Koolaid, its blue and its the best.
J-20... The New Generation Fighter III
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
Some high def photos by Lanpang to commemorate the first flight anniversary:
Quickie
Colonel
You're going overboard with your generalization. You might as well say the U.S. have done research into all future aircrafts that'll come into existence because they're all going to have wings and all the usual control surfaces which they've done research in the 1960s, and that would mean the F-35, T-50 and even the F-22 aerodynamics was fully researched long before they decided to build them. The Xb-70 had an all moving vertical stabilizers/rudders, you can't simply say it has the same or similar functions as that of the ruddervators of the YF-23 (or the J-20 but here too, the direction and degree of the cants are different from the YF-23), for example.
Last edited:
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
look i know you are not aware of all the aerodynamics studies that the americans have made
this paper is from 1991 but include studies done in the 1980s
Vertical tail surfaces placed outboard on the wings gave
good lateral-directional stability due, to favorable interference with
wing vortices, but could cause aero-elastic problems.
All-moveable twin vertical tails provided a
substantial increase in yaw control over conventional rudders and
thus extended roll coordination capability to higher angles of attack
However, the adverse roll generated by all-moveable vertical tails
could present a potential problem, depending on the level of roll
acceleration required and the roll control available from other
surfaces.
And the evidence is the Americans flew Sr-71s A-12s, XB-70, YF-23s and F-117 long before J-20, france did similar research with Rafale.
they have studied all the J-20 aerodynamic solutions, done them before but sometimes have applied different solutions
Last edited:
Mig I had seen excerpts from the AGARD study, and of course you point out that was 20 years ago. The J-20 thread continues to make us think, and to examine once again the advanced aerodynamic forces and flight control surfaces. What is not always apparent is that with cad/cam and computer modeling, you can change control surfaces, angles, or surface area and have a reasonable chance at arriving at a logical and practical conclusion without actually making structural changes, although as the AGARD study states the results are sometimes much different in the real world. Engineer was attempting to get the canard differential deflection through my head the other day, I was having a very difficult time wrapping my mind around all the forces and the force vectors, and this kind of helped jell what he was saying to me. That at high angles of attack a constant downward deflection of the canards maintains stability and prevents over pitching the aircraft and facilitates unloading the nose to accellerate away, when you wish to reduce angle of attack. Thank you both for your patience with a slow but willing student.
Seige, thanks for posting those photos from Lanpang, guys are there two flying airframes or just one?
Because that's where CAC is located, it used to be the outskirt of Chengdu, sparsely populated, but in recent years the city has grown around the compound. They only want to test it there because it's close to the manufacturing plant and it's easy to resolve technical problems. The only other bases capable of handling the test flight is CFTE and Dinxing Air Base. CFTE is in populated area too so only Dinxing left, but it's way too far from any aircraft manufacturing infrastructure therefore not suitable to test a brand new prototype.
we have evidence for only one, the 2001
there is however possibility that there are more
Quickie
Colonel
That's what I said. The U.S. (and also other countries) have done many aerodynmics studies on various shapes and control surfaces, but that doesn't mean all the hard work has been done and all aircraft designers are currently just having an easy time designing whatever new aircrafts they want.
And your point is? You do realize the J-20 is significantly very different from these aircrafts? Its stealth shaping alone would necessitate a very different aerodynamics solution as opposed to that which they came up with for these other aircrafts.
By your oversimplified logic, they have also studied all the Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, Flankers, T-50, F-35 etc aerodynamics and all the designers of these aircraft are just using old solutions without much effort of their own.
Last edited:
- Status