Yes, you are quite right of course, and models are used by everyone to validate and investigate flight characteristics, just wanted a little clarification. Thank you AFB
J-20... The New Generation Fighter III
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
Yes, you are quite right of course, and models are used by everyone to validate and investigate flight characteristics, just wanted a little clarification. Thank you AFB
Yes the theory is good, but the model itself is actually a modified F-22 airframe that they built and perfected before for the sake of saving design time. This was mentioned in another of their videos.
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
Models are always representative as long as the lifting airfoils are the same in area and shape.
What does it mean?
That you can have a canard on a fighter that generates more or even less lift than a tailplane and you can have a wing with LERXs that generates more lift than the canard wing configuration if the lift coeffiients are different due to different wing areas, thrust to weight ratio, wing loading and airfoils shapes.
Since the F-22, T-50 or J-20 have different wings shapes just saying what fighter is better is a very hard guess, the real factor is total lift generation.
this can be guessed by wing loading and thrust to weight, however this is a bit missleading since there is a bit of fuselage lift and added lift by canards and LEX.
To put it in context the Mirage 2000 can beat the F-16 and Viggen in lift generation, and the LCA won`t be inferior to a jet like F-15 or Gripen with its very low wing loading.
So these models only exemplify what advantages you get under some circumstances and conditions as long as the lifting areas have same shape and area.
For the J-20 to surpass the F-22 will need higher thrust to weight ratio and lower wing loading or lower drag and lower lift bleeding, this means higher lift and lower drag while turning.
In few words configurations are compromised, the real important thing is max lift and lower drag having a canard does not give any superiority if the max lift generation is still lower than the one generated by even a tailess design like Mirage 2000
Last edited:
Quickie
Colonel
Low wing loading does not automatically equate to higher maneuovrebility or turn rates. The LCA probably has a comparable wing loading (and maybe even better lift/drag ratio because of its tailless delta design) than the Gripen and even lower wing loading than the F-15 but the LCA is still less maneuovreble than the other 2 fighters.
Last edited:
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
lower wing loading does indeed relates to agility, but wing loading adds a bit higher lift thanks to airfoil design and if it has LEX or canards
To exemplify easily is the Mirage 2000 Versus F-16 or viggen.
The Mirage has Lower thrust to weight ratio than the F-16 and no canards unlike the Viggen.
The Mirage can easily get instantaneous turn rates higher than both the F-16 and Viggen
A wing with LEX can reduce its size and the canard allow for a highly swept wing achieve higher lift.
Now if you know the Mirage 2000 can outfly the F-16 you will know the F-15 is even an easier pray for the Mirage 2000, but because the Mirage 2000 has lower thrust to weight ratio when it turns bleeds lift quicker than the F-16, with lower thrust it won`t ragain its lift so the F-16 has better sustained turn rate just thanks to higher thrust to weight ratio.
To put it in simple words a tailess like the Mirage 2000 or LCA fight other jets in even terms IF they had lower wing loading otherwise they will be in big disadvantage, however tailess can be smaller thus Mirage 2000 and LCA are pretty small .
If you see the J-10, Gripen or F-16 have higher wing loading than the LCA.
What are the advantages of the canard? it allows for higher wing loading since the canards increase lift on the main wing
Now to put it in context, J-20 because it has canards it does not translate automatically in higher agility if the wing loading is not lower than the F-22`s and if it has lower thrust to weight ratio than the F-22.
If you see the F-16 has a very small wing compared to the Mirage 2000 and same is the J-10, the J-10 has a smaller wing than the Mirage 2000 but these wings are smaller with higher wing loadings but both lerxes and canards increase lift.
That is the real reason for canards or LERXes to reduce wing size.
So you can build a tailess more stealthy as as agile as the F-22 or even more agile than F-22 if you add a big wing, TVC nozzles with 3D nozzles, have you seen the latest Boeing concepts for a 6th generation fighter, they are tailess they lack canards and are tailess and have just compound wing with no vertical tail
The tailess F-16XL was even more agile than the F-16 because it had bigger wing and lower wing loading
[video=youtube;6DOrx5hYIMw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DOrx5hYIMw[/video]
[video=youtube;ecM1-ISNeHE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecM1-ISNeHE[/video]
Two additional capabilities of the F-16XL contribute to survivability. First is improved instantaneous maneuver ability coupled with greatly expanded flight operating limits (with bombs), and second is reduced radar signature resulting from the configuration shaping.
This the F-16XL can do. Harry Hillaker says it can attain five Gs in 0.8 seconds, on the way to nine Gs in just a bit more time. That’s half the time required for the F-16A, which in turn is less than half the time required for the F-4. The speed loss to achieve five Gs is likewise half that of the F-16A.
All of these apparent miracles seem to violate the laws of aerodynamics by achieving greater range, payload, maneuverability, and survivability. Instead, they are achieved by inspired design, much wind-tunnel testing of shapes, exploitation of advanced technologies, and freedom from the normal contract constraints.
Last edited:
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
I think this is new.
- Status