J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hmmwv

Junior Member
I have been bothered by the drag chute from day one. Not only the mechanism adds dead weight to the aircraft, it already has a dedicated air brake, also both the canards and tail can be actuated to act as air brakes.
 
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Engineer said:
The Su-27 being a more maneuverable aircraft than the MiG-21 is also a lot bigger, yet you don't call the Su-27 a striker. Size has little correlation with maneuverability. Those authors just say what they want to believe.
Click to expand...

While we are on the subject of size, a comparison between the J-20 and the J-15 based on satellite images indicated that the J-20 was at least a meter shorter than the J-15, which is slightly over 21 meters.
 
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Engineer said:
The Su-27 being a more maneuverable aircraft than the MiG-21 is also a lot bigger, yet you don't call the Su-27 a striker. Size has little correlation with maneuverability. Those authors just say what they want to believe.
Click to expand...

While we are on the subject of size, a comparison between the J-20 and the J-15 based on satellite images indicated that the J-20 was at least a meter shorter than the J-15, which is slightly over 21 meters.
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
siegecrossbow said:
While we are on the subject of size, a comparison between the J-20 and the J-15 based on satellite images indicated that the J-20 was at least a meter shorter than the J-15, which is slightly over 21 meters.
Click to expand...
I thought we were done with the subject of size :p. The best methods we've employed all come down to a length of 19.5-20.5 meters. Everyone else can dispute that if they want, but no one has offered a better set of measurements. Some have gone to silly extents to try to prove the J-20 is a behemoth like using canopy or wheel base comparisons.
 
Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
hmmwv said:
I have been bothered by the drag chute from day one. Not only the mechanism adds dead weight to the aircraft, it already has a dedicated air brake, also both the canards and tail can be actuated to act as air brakes.
Click to expand...

As I stated earlier, the drag chute has more surface area, hence it provides a lot of bang for the buck. It also save on tires and brakes, and moves the load factor back to the relatively robust rear fuselage, and gets it off of gear legs and wings that support them. That it is archaic, isn't a problem for the pilot or the engineer, also a chute and packing aren't that heavy, they don't have to be designed to take repeated stresses, they are cheap, and they only have to work once.
 
Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
latenlazy said:
I thought we were done with the subject of size :p. The best methods we've employed all come down to a length of 19.5-20.5 meters. Everyone else can dispute that if they want, but no one has offered a better set of measurements. Some have gone to silly extents to try to prove the J-20 is a behemoth like using canopy or wheel base comparisons.
Click to expand...

I didn't mention size, I just asked what people thought of editor Tirpaks observations about the role of the F-60, as an A2A aircraft with possible Naval applications, as opposed to his comments about the J-20, I know what the J-20s proposed role is, having read Dr. Songs excellent paper. As the editor of Air Force Magazine, editor Tirpak is well studied in all aspects of not only design, but functionality. I honestly have to state that he has more credibility than most posters, who often allow their loyalties and emotions to make some absurd commentary, that ignore the laws of physics and in particular the laws of aerodynamics, I was hoping for some acknowledgement that he may be onto something, affirming many of my own observations?
 
D

delft

Brigadier
Quickie said:
It's also a fact the longer moment of arm of the canards of the J-20 balances out the increase in inertia (Remember here that the comparatively longer J-20 is also thinner so its mass stays about the same and the increase in moment of inertia is due mainly to increase in length). Of course other factors also have to be taken into account, like air resistance and the fact that the J-20 can also use its ruddervators for pitch control and this in combination with the canards can increase the pitch force. In any case, the pitch rate and roll rate of an aircraft has no direct relation to its turn rate, something which I think some of the members here, who I believe has studied aerodynamics (delft, engineer, i.e.), will agree with me.
Click to expand...
As a matter of fact there are horribly complex connections between all the degrees of freedom of an aircraft and they became very troublesome in the 1930's when aircraft got flaps, retractable undercarriages &c. and got faster ( think DC-3, Spitfire ). You want to make the aircraft easily controllable at ever speed and in every configuration. That soon needed power assisted controls and by now need very sophisticated computer control between the pilot and the control surfaces.
 
M

mwanamwale

New Member
When an aircraft has larger control surfaces does that not help it manuver better, so by the J20 being large it is more manuverable and has a higher max TO weight limit which means it can carry more or larger weopons
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top