Shenyang next gen combat aircraft thread

[siegecrossbow]

You mean like structural support along the long axis? This must be what it's for I guess, but why resort to this solution when the J-20 and J-35 did not have to? Perhaps 2/2 the (presumed) larger size of the "J-50". IDK

He meant to maintain stability at high AOA.

J-35 has large vertical slabs.

J-20 had smaller all moving slabs and had to compensate with ventral strakes.

Su-57 has a tunnel as well.

 

[SanWenYu]

You mean like structural support along the long axis? This must be what it's for I guess, but why resort to this solution when the J-20 and J-35 did not have to? Perhaps 2/2 the (presumed) larger size of the "J-50". IDK

Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant an aerodynamic stabilizer on the yaw axis. They were comparing the crease to the ventral walls of the Su-27 engines.

 

[Kich]

Still early days.

What may end up flying for PLAAF/PLAN might look a little bit different from this prototype and might not have the crease at the belly.

 

[Temstar]

Isn't the central groove of Flankers and Su-57 part of their "中央升力体" design and has to be fairly wide (wide enough that you can fit weapon hardpoints) for that specific body lift effect to work? It doesn't seem comparable to the SAC prototype given its groove is much narrower.

 

[SanWenYu]

Isn't the central groove of Flankers and Su-57 part of their "中央升力体" design and has to be fairly wide (wide enough that you can fit weapon hardpoints) for that specific body lift effect to work? It doesn't seem comparable to the SAC prototype given its groove is much narrower.

My guess is that the vertical surfaces, or the equivalent portions, of the grooves can confine the air flows. It was probably the depth that matters more than the width, though the groove in this SAC prototype is rather shallow, too.