J-20... The New Generation Fighter III
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, I thought I had heard there were two, but I only see one flying, thanks paint gun. Yes challenge every body has to sell their airplanes in a market based economy, but that makes it all the more fun for us. Quickie, what Mig is saying is that all of our airplanes are compromises and yes engineers and test pilots tweak here and tweak there, but the Mig is right. We have all tried most of the configurations with computer modeling, and it is very accurate on the best programs at the top levels, you can bend tweak stretch any kind of control surface or even wings that warp and change shape, the boys in 1903 came up with that. It is funny to look back on the JXX thread about 05 an read that the J-20 would not be a rear mounted delta and would not have canards.
Quickie
Colonel
They can't possibly have covered every possible aircraft configurations already. If they've everything figured out, they wouldn't have so much problem with the F-35 and the prototype testings would not take a decade or so .
Computer simulations only aid in the design of a new aircraft. The more tedious work are in the wind-tunnel testing and years of prototype flight testing. Out of the so many possibilities, there're only so many configurations that would be budgeted to go through with the design and prototype testing phases, with the successfull ones going on to production and service.
Last edited:
Engineer
Major
When CAC was found, it was in the middle of no where. A city is now built up around the flight test center.
Last edited:
OT
In my own student time I was disappointed by the fact that non-classical aircraft configurations were hardly referred to rather than systematically investigated. A student's time is rather cheap. Use them now to look at such configurations, in computer simulations, in scale models for testing in wind tunnels or in flying models. Make the models using 3d printed molds to make fiber reinforced plastic panels. Use 3 d photography to establish the precise shape of the resulting models. This would all be at a reasonable cost. In testing all this the students can show they have understood the several important aspects and produce valid results.
In my own student time I was disappointed by the fact that non-classical aircraft configurations were hardly referred to rather than systematically investigated. A student's time is rather cheap. Use them now to look at such configurations, in computer simulations, in scale models for testing in wind tunnels or in flying models. Make the models using 3d printed molds to make fiber reinforced plastic panels. Use 3 d photography to establish the precise shape of the resulting models. This would all be at a reasonable cost. In testing all this the students can show they have understood the several important aspects and produce valid results.
New photo taken on the 12th. You can see a guy carrying the intake covers.
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
The americans have studied all these configurations thoughrouly, when they studied canting, wing position, all moving agaist conventional tail, they studied different angles sizes, positions etc etc.....
Second the US and Europe share technology and have a long tradition of aeronuatic design, this is supported by the fact NATO has common programs Eurofighter, Gripen, X-31, F-35 etc, etc...and NATO has very large military budget, add to that research done in third countries.
F-35 had aerodynamic concep with canards, canted V tails, SR-71 had inward canted canted tails, F-117 had inward canted v tails in the haveblue prototype and outward canted v tails on the production model.
So in few words if F-35 has no canards but tailplanes, is single engined and not twin engined or has conventional vertical and not all moving tail, it does not mean lockheed does not understand J-20 aerodynamics, it simply means F-35 has different design parameters to J-20
F-35 has troubles not because of aerodynamics but because of design contradictions, like F-111, it has compromised in a way some features are not well suited to different missions
Last edited:
Aerodynamic designs are more than the sum of its parts.
The engineer is right, theres nothing like pretty airplanes to draw a crowd, on the 40th anniversary of Nixon's visit to China, lots of peoples perceptions have changed. Nothing could illustrate that any better than the design and development of the J-20. She is an engineering triumph and a very clever piece of manufacturing and she showcases what we can do when we work together. In a cultural exchange there are many benefits and a few things that make us uncomfortable, as the J-20 illustrates the laws of aerodynamics are the same for everybody, we must respect those laws to be succesfull. The old hillbilly saying is "there is more than one way to skin a cat!", slang for getting the job done. I really enjoy our forum, and I have learned an awfull lot, and have had a conversation with bright men, young and old of many different nations. These are conversations that really can't be had with your wife, or even most of our children, I don't like to be "wrong", but I do like to learn, I feel like a lot of us are kindred spirits, a respectfull forum such as this promotes understanding on a lot of different levels. I really appreciate the openess and sharing here on the J-20 thread, maybe someday we can all gather together in person around one of these pretty airplanes and admire it in person.
- Status