Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are way too late on the action bro... We've seen that a hundred times at least...
Big deal.J-20 Mighty Dragon has canard winglets, but no tailplanes.
Utter garbage. From a radiation generator perspective, the more generators there are on a non-spherical complex body, the greater the odds of detection. This is established fact. Real physics, not Chinese physics.F-22 Raptor has no canards, but it has tailplane winglets.
From a stealth design perspective, there is no effective difference between placing two little winglets (i.e. canards) in front of the main wings or behind them (i.e. tailplanes).
Older does not mean obsolete or inefficient and canards are nothing new.However, from a maneuverability standpoint, the J-20 Mighty Dragon canards provide it with super maneuverability. The F-22 Raptor tailplanes merely provide stability. This is understandable because the F-22 is a much older design.
Does not mean every country can design the same.Aerospace engineers have a better understanding of stealth design today than twenty years ago.
Bunk. It is telling that you consistently demand 'extraordinary proofs' from others but equally consistently refused to provide your own.In conclusion, the J-20 Mighty Dragon is a superior evolutionary design of its chronological F-22 predecessor.
From a stealth design perspective, there is no effective difference between placing two little winglets (i.e. canards) in front of the main wings or behind them (i.e. tailplanes).
However, from a maneuverability standpoint, the J-20 Mighty Dragon canards provide it with super maneuverability. The F-22 Raptor tailplanes merely provide stability. This is understandable because the F-22 is a much older design. Aerospace engineers have a better understanding of stealth design today than twenty years ago.
Here is where these guys totally missed the point: The ANALOG version of the F-16 wildly succeeded was because of the highlighted combination. High thrust-to-weight ratio enabled the F-16's FLCS to create greater displacement of the rear horizontal stabs at greater rate of displacement.The notion that canards are a one and all solution to maneuverability is a myth. Yes canards usually improve an aircraft's AoA, however, with today's advances in fly-by-wire, TVC engines, and high trust-to-weight ratios canards are, dare I say, obsolete or overshadowed. This is one of the reasons the SU-35 did away with canards, that and a reduction in RCS, but from a maneuverability stand-point the SU-35 can do everything that an SU-30 with canards can, if not better.
Original Post By Martian2However, from a maneuverability standpoint, the J-20 Mighty Dragon canards provide it with super maneuverability. The F-22 Raptor tailplanes merely provide stability. This is understandable because the F-22 is a much older design. Aerospace engineers have a better understanding of stealth design today than twenty years ago.
Hold up a sec...Food for Thought:
Just open the old thread of PAK-FA. Many expert from Pakistan and China questioned PAK-FA LREX. Some of the radar/stealth experts even claim that LREX of PAK-FA can contribute 1 m2 to RCS. Now when chinese J20 has cancard, there tone is changed...
We went through this before.
The notion that canards are a one and all solution to maneuverability is a myth. Yes canards usually improve an aircraft's AoA, however, with today's advances in fly-by-wire, TVC engines, and high trust-to-weight ratios canards are, dare I say, obsolete or overshadowed. This is one of the reasons the SU-35 did away with canards, that and a reduction in RCS, but from a maneuverability stand-point the SU-35 can do everything that an SU-30 with canards can, if not better.
What experts? Show me one legit source that Chinese "experts" made such assertions. No, Martian2 doesn't count as one.Food for Thought:
Just open the old thread of PAK-FA. Many expert from Pakistan and China questioned PAK-FA LREX. Some of the radar/stealth experts even claim that LREX of PAK-FA can contribute 1 m2 to RCS. Now when chinese J20 has cancard, there tone is changed...
An insider from CAC had already revealed in the past that the J-20 requirment for AoA alpha was 80 degree without the use of thrust vectoring. That eliminated all conventional designs from the start.
Let us take that at face value. It can begs the questions:An insider from CAC had already revealed in the past that the J-20 requirment for AoA alpha was 80 degree without the use of thrust vectoring. That eliminated all conventional designs from the start.
As far as RCS contributorship goes, aeroelasticity is a factor...Finally, and perhaps most importantly, canard sizing is much more critical than aft tail sizing. By choosing a canard which is somewhat too big or too small the aircraft performance can be severely affected. It is easy to make a very bad canard design.
The dominant aeroelastic form in the canard is flutter and as an active flight control element, this effect increases the RCS contributorship of these flight control elements. Discussions about this effect can be found at 'canardaviation.com'. But as far as unpredictable EM edge diffraction effects goes, fluttering of any structure is detrimental to the overall RCS, especially when there are 'downstream' structures like the fuselage and the main wings to surface propagate and possibly amplify these signals.Aeroelasticity is the science which studies the interactions among inertial, elastic, and aerodynamic forces. It was defined by Arthur Collar in 1947 as "the study of the mutual interaction that takes place within the triangle of the inertial, elastic, and aerodynamic forces acting on structural members exposed to an airstream, and the influence of this study on design." In more simple terms, it is the same set of conditions causing a flag to flutter in a stiff breeze or a reed to tremble in fast-flowing water. Flutter may occur in any fluid medium.
To my knowledge, there is not a single operational fighter plane, without TVC, that can achieve achieve 80+ degree controllable AoA. Even the F-18 HARV with thrust vectoring was roughly in the same ballpark.There is a number of conventional aircraft (no canards and no TVC) that can acheive a 90+ degree A0A, so your statement about conventinal designs needing to be eliminated in order to acheive such an A0A is not true.
Let us take that at face value. It can begs the questions:
- Were there any justifications for that requirement?
- Achieving such AoA does not equate to controllability at such high AoA.
This does not mean that if sometime in the future China is able to produce a durable thrust vectoring engine, achievable AoA and associated controllability is doubled. What this implies is that the J-20 may be 'stuck' with the current engine configuration.