What's new

Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

Yes, because mine is the correct one.

Prove it!

I did -- the sphere.

LOLs. You build your own BS theory based on this sphere, and you dont have any citation that say the same with your theory about flight control.

What a joke Ngakak nangis.gif

Wing area ? :lol:

That goes to show everyone what a fraud you are about your 'aviation education'.

The rules for designing a radar low observable aircraft are:

- Control of QUANTITY of radiators
- Control of ARRAY of radiators
- Control of MODES of radiation

The J-20 have eight major flight control structures. The F-22 and F-35, each have six.

Therefore, the J-20 is LESS OBEDIENT to the three rules than the F-22 and F-35.

If J-20 is less obedient to the rules, odds are very good that its RCS is higher than the American fighters.

I have cited plenty of sources to support my past arguments about 'stealth', and a few of them were Chinese engineers' sources. So far, no one, not even the PDF Chinese, have proved me wrong.

Homework for you with your alleged 'aviation education': Why are the radomes of the F-22, F-35, and J-20 shaped that way ?

I will give you a hint: It has to do with rules 2 and 3.

LOLs.

Again you judge based on your groundless & BS theory. Just give me 1 citation that saying the same proven theory, not your missunderstanding/missenterpretation of a theory.

Also there are many other factors contribution for RCS besides the above you mention, such as inlet, fan blade, RAM coating, etc that you ignore.
 
.
Prove it!



LOLs. You build your own BS theory based on this sphere, and you dont have any citation that say the same with your theory about flight control.

What a joke View attachment 434669



LOLs.

Again you judge based on your groundless & BS theory. Just give me 1 citation that saying the same proven theory, not your missunderstanding/missenterpretation of a theory.

Also there are many other factors contribution for RCS besides the above you mention, such as inlet, fan blade, RAM coating, etc that you ignore.


However, to show the readers I am willing to be fair, I will show what you guys know about 'stealth'. The question: 'Why are the radomes of the F-22, F-35, and J-20 shaped that way ?'

The three rules for designing a radar low observable aircraft are:

- Control of QUANTITY of radiators
- Control of ARRAY of radiators
- Control of MODES of radiation

The previous hint is that rules 2 and 3 are major factors in shaping the radomes of these jets.

Here is the second and FINAL hint: The 10-lambda rule.

radar_creeping_wave_yan-xu.jpg


If I go any further, I might as well give the answer.

Note the names of the authors. They are not Anglo-Americans. Am not sure but I think the names 'might' be Chinese and I think Shanghai is a city in mainland China. :lol:

As for 'citations', what about it ? When steel was invented, there were no citations on how to mix iron and carbon. Whoever invented the formula on how to make steel did it on his own.

There are no citations on how to shape a radome with respect to 'stealth'. Either you have the education on the foundation of radar detection principles or you do not. And since we know YOU do not, you ended up making nonsensical posts in trying to cover up your ignorance.
 
. . .
Your post is the reason why no one calls upon you and the PDF Chinese for explanations on aviation in general and 'stealth' in particular. Simply put -- you are ignorant. It is YOU who are the joke.

However, to show the readers I am willing to be fair, I will give you and the PDF Chinese one last chance to show what you guys know about 'stealth'. The question: 'Why are the radomes of the F-22, F-35, and J-20 shaped that way ?'

The three rules for designing a radar low observable aircraft are:

- Control of QUANTITY of radiators
- Control of ARRAY of radiators
- Control of MODES of radiation

The previous hint is that rules 2 and 3 are major factors in shaping the radomes of these jets.

Here is the second and FINAL hint: The 10-lambda rule.

radar_creeping_wave_yan-xu.jpg


If I go any further, I might as well give the answer.

Note the names of the authors. They are not Anglo-Americans. Am not sure but I think the names 'might' be Chinese and I think Shanghai is a city in mainland China. :lol:

As for 'citations', what about it ? When steel was invented, there were no citations on how to mix iron and carbon. Whoever invented the formula on how to make steel did it on his own.

The point here is that YOU and the PDF Chinese lack the technical FOUNDATION of aviation in general and of radar detection in particular. There are no citations on how to shape a radome with respect to 'stealth'. Either you have the education on the foundation of radar detection principles or you do not. And since we know YOU do not, you ended up making nonsensical posts in trying to cover up your ignorance.


Totally wrong!
LO is not simply about handling "creeping wave", you obviously misunderstood the citation, evidence of your low qualification and fraud :lol:

Furthermore, It doesn't explain about the supposed number of control flight on the wing.
Your pathetic theory is also fall short in explaining the RAM contribution factor.
 
Last edited:
.
Yes, because mine is the correct one.


I did -- the sphere.


Wing area ? :lol:

That goes to show everyone what a fraud you are about your 'aviation education'.

The rules for designing a radar low observable aircraft are:

- Control of QUANTITY of radiators
- Control of ARRAY of radiators
- Control of MODES of radiation

The J-20 have eight major flight control structures. The F-22 and F-35, each have six.

Therefore, the J-20 is LESS OBEDIENT to the three rules than the F-22 and F-35.

If J-20 is less obedient to the rules, odds are very good that its RCS is higher than the American fighters.

I have cited plenty of sources to support my past arguments about 'stealth', and a few of them were Chinese engineers' sources. So far, no one, not even the PDF Chinese, have proved me wrong.

Homework for you with your alleged 'aviation education': Why are the radomes of the F-22, F-35, and J-20 shaped that way ?

I will give you a hint: It has to do with rules 2 and 3.

Features of radomes with low RCS.
1. Approximate rhombus shape cross-section. The junction between two curve surface make a special angle in ordor to aviod the radar waves are reflected in incident direction.
2. Band-pass FFS radome. The structure inside the radome can be approximarely a corner reflector. And FFS structure has good electromagnetic wave permeability for our radar frequency, and totally reflect waves of other frequency.
3. There are a lot of high frequency component (metal component) inside the radomes. Coating electromagnetic wave absorbing material on these component in order to reduce the RCS. This method can also provide a better working environment for our radar.
4. Remove the pitot tube from the radome to aviod the tip diffraction.
 
.
As I have said earlier, despite almost all internet sources saying all flanker family has the wingspan of exactly 14.7m, I strongly suspected that this is not true.

It simply makes no aerodynamic and structural sense.

The early pure air-superiority Su-27sk's empty weight is 15 tons and maximum take off weight is 30 tons, while the multi-role fighter Su-30's empty weight is 17.5 tons, and maximum take off weight is 34-35 tons. Adding several tons more structural weight and loading weight, without increase the wingspan, will make the wing loading factor worsen, thus making the aircraft much less maneuverable.

Here is more evidence showing the Wingspan of J-16 are J-15 are not identical at 14.7m.

Align J-20 Together.png


In the above picture, the common element between the old satellite picture and the new picture is the J-20. I used the J-20s as reference, and aligned the J-16 and J-15 together, results the J-16’s wingspan to 15.7m, not 14.7m. J-15 was assumed to be 14.7m.

On the other hand, if we assume both J-16 and J-15's wingspan to be exactly 14.7m, then there will be a 1.0m difference between the J-20's in the two pictures.

J-16 and J-15 aligned.png


Here is a picture that clearly shows the Wingspan of J-16 to be 15.7m (1.7m wider than J-20), and J-15's wingspan to be 14.7m (0.7m wider than J-20), when the J-20, which the common element, in both pictures, are used as reference object.

Side by side Comparisons.png


So, I standby my earlier conclusion that the wingspan of J-20 is 14.0m, and nose to nozzle length of 21.7m, and overall length of 22.7m, that I was able to derived from high resolution pictures was correct.

This dimension puts J-20 squarely in the same class as the F-111 aircraft. When J-20 first debuted in 2011, many observers, immediately, has stated that J-20 is a large and heavy fighter as big as F-111, I think they are correct.

F-111 General Characteristics:
  • Length: 73 ft 6 in (22.4 m)
  • Wingspan:
    • Spread: 63 ft (19.2 m)
    • Swept: 32 ft (9.75 m)
  • Height: 17.13 ft (5.22 m)
  • Wing area:
    • Spread: 657.4 sq ft (61.07 m²)
    • Swept: 525 sq ft (48.77 m²)
  • Empty weight: 47,200 lb (21,400 kg)
  • Loaded weight: 82,800 lb (37,600 kg)
  • Max. takeoff weight: 100,000 lb (45,300 kg)
  • 4b41047f9e2f070894dd7862ee24b899a801f214 copy.jpg
Notice that F-111 empty weight is 21.4 tons and Max. take off weight is 45.3 tons. I have estimated J-20's empty weight to be 22+ tons, using the 19.7 tons empty weight of F-22 as reference. And I have estimated that J-20 is 5.0m (30%) longer than F-22 from nose to nozzle.

F-22's Max. take off weight is listed as 38 tons, and F-111 is 45.3 tons. F-22 could carry 8.2 tons internal fuel and two external tanks of 2 tons each.

J-20's internal fuel is estimated to be at least 12 tons, about the same as the Su-35. J-20 is 5m longer than F-22. This extra 5m fuselage length could be used to store internal fuels.

I think J-20 has more room to store more than 12 tons of fuel. J-20 is known to be able to carry 4 extra external tanks of 2 tons, each.

J-20 has demonstrated that it has astounding maneuverability, in the same class, as the awesome F-22 raptor. It could do a 180 degree u-turn in 3-4 seconds. And both F-22 and J-22 have demonstrated that they could perform sustained vertical climbing using dry or military power, alone.

With stealthy low observability, very long range, very low drag airframe, very tough airframe, TVC, (Plus Canards and full moving vertical tails for J-20) and very powerful engines (175kn for F-22, +210kn for J-20) I predict both F-22 and J-20, not only could supercruise at March 1.8, they could easily reach above March 3, and cruise there with afterburner turned on.

Further, I predict, they could easily perform the role of Air Dominance Machine, Long range/High Speed Interceptor, and Stealthy Penetrator/Striker, equally well.

While, many aspect of J-20 is still high classified, like it's engine performance and internal constructions, but there are many many publicly available informations on F-22.

The Chief Designer of J-20, Yang Wei, is said to have collected several meters high of informations on F-22, before his team designed the J-20. They have studied F-22, extensively.

The aim of J-20's design team is to come up with Machine, that could match and even beat F-22, in all aspects.

It's very fun to read about F-22, with this mind. What F-22 could do, J-20 is probably not far behind.

We could gain a lot of knowledge about J-20 by reading F-22.


 
Last edited:
.
I think You should go over to SAC and Sukhoi and tell them that they are all stupid, they made a severe error and YOU - only YOU the GENIOUS himself - analysed the situation ... They were all wrong.

Or is there indeed a secret we did not notice all the years? SAC and Sukhoi changed the span for each Flanker version only to fool us??

Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg


Did it ever come into Your mind - like I already said so often - that these images are often distorted, so that You cannot make conclusions in all dimensions? You can probably compare length with length and span with span if they are side by side but they are not exactly taken in all directions. That makes it so difficult ... esp. in Your desperate attempt using air-to-air images and taking the engine diameter as reference.


Anyway ... if at least it's fun to You, go and play.
Deino
 
.
"I think You should go over to SAC and Sukhoi and tell them that they are all stupid, they made a severe error and YOU - only YOU the GENIOUS himself - analysed the situation ... They were all wrong."

No, they are not wrong. They did it right, Mr. Deino. They know what they are doing, better than you and me. It's just the publicly available information on the wingspan is wrong.

One way to verify this is to get someone, who is going to a Russia or China airshow, in the future, to ask the Guards' permission to measure the wingspan of the flankers.

Again ... these images are often distorted ... that's why Your theory of a +22m-monster similar to the F-111 is wrong again.
I really don't know what to say anymore .. go out at all forums You can find, they were all discussing, measuring and calculating the J-20's dimensions but none comes to Your BS.

All - really ALL reliable ones - come to the same conclusion.
 
.
Asoka, can you just stop it, you single-handed turn this J-20 thread into a eyesore, it is now beyond riduculus.

J-16 has the same dimension as Su-27/30, you have give SAC way too much credits for their capability, if they were capable of change the dimension of Su-27 they will brag it all over the place and fix the structure problem of original Su-27 design long before.

Yes, according to the joking chief designer Sun Cong of SAC, directly from his own mouth: "change the original (Su-27) design must be very very very caution", this just summarize his capablity well.
 
.
Your post is the reason why no one calls upon you and the PDF Chinese for explanations on aviation in general and 'stealth' in particular. Simply put -- you are ignorant. It is YOU who are the joke.

However, to show the readers I am willing to be fair, I will give you and the PDF Chinese one last chance to show what you guys know about 'stealth'. The question: 'Why are the radomes of the F-22, F-35, and J-20 shaped that way ?'

The three rules for designing a radar low observable aircraft are:

- Control of QUANTITY of radiators
- Control of ARRAY of radiators
- Control of MODES of radiation

The previous hint is that rules 2 and 3 are major factors in shaping the radomes of these jets.

Here is the second and FINAL hint: The 10-lambda rule.

radar_creeping_wave_yan-xu.jpg


If I go any further, I might as well give the answer.

Note the names of the authors. They are not Anglo-Americans. Am not sure but I think the names 'might' be Chinese and I think Shanghai is a city in mainland China. :lol:

As for 'citations', what about it ? When steel was invented, there were no citations on how to mix iron and carbon. Whoever invented the formula on how to make steel did it on his own.

The point here is that YOU and the PDF Chinese lack the technical FOUNDATION of aviation in general and of radar detection in particular. There are no citations on how to shape a radome with respect to 'stealth'. Either you have the education on the foundation of radar detection principles or you do not. And since we know YOU do not, you ended up making nonsensical posts in trying to cover up your ignorance.

If you are design aircraft or did research stuff like you claimed, then you would have already know citing paper without actually data means shit in today's engineering design.

Rules/laws/principles can only bring you so far, especially considering the fact many of these "rules" are merely EMPIRICAL at best, and usually lack rigorous proof.

Today's engineering are so complicate with conflicting goals binding together such that the output design is almost ALWAYS comparised, such that simulation and prototyping tests are a must to adjust all the parameters.

Thats why citing several simple design principle where even an self-proclaimed internet expert such as you can understand means little.

Meanwhile, some inconvient fact is some third-party studies carried out by crude numerical simulation by Kopp suggesting that J-20 has better RCS than the latest US F-35 mode, and only slight larger comparing to F-22 (mainly due to F-22's rare end has better RCS design comparing to J-20 batch A).
 
.
J-16 is based on Su-30. I am saying the Su-30's wingspan is 15.7m, not 14.7m. I didn't give SAC way too much credits for their capability. They didn't change the dimension of Su-30 or J-16, nor they have changed dimension of Su-27 or J-15, which is based on Su-33, which is based on the early Su-27SK.

The Russian have changed the wingspan of Su-30, and Su-34 to from 14.7m to 15.7m, but the public is knowing about it. I am the first one to point this out.

Why can't they? It's their aircraft. They designed and built it. They will do what's best.


Again ! You are such an idiot ! ... and please report that to all moderators here in order that they all see what an idiot Your are. You are spreading so much BS, brain-farts ... it's indeed incredible, unbelievable.

Assuming You are "the first one to point this out"! :hitwall::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::hitwall:

Again You are using a small, grainy image of two planes flying not at the same level - aka the Su-34 since it takes fuel is much more below the Il-78 and as such closer to the camera - and instead of coming alone to this simple conclusion You deduct that You are so brilliant and found out what none else found out before !

All I can say: You are a TROLL, the worst troll I ever noticed and that MUST end since You are derailing all regular discussion with Your stupidity.

Deino

I'm getting 14.6m using software.

View attachment 434827

The problem is: He is an idiot, a troll ! I can only say it that clear.

He will deny whatever You show and present him as calculation since his estimations made by eyeballing are anyway better. He is the only one who found out that Sukhoi secretly changed the span of the Flankers ... only since it fits his theory.

Again: He would sell his son at e-may only if it would help proving his theory.
Otherwise if he's not a troll, it must be a pathological issue.

Deino

I know some won't like it but due to purely intentionally posting BS, false claims, always arguing against common sense and established facts, repeatedly twisting words, spreading lies and misquoting others I made a final decision.

@Asoka: You can go and open Your own thread in a Kindergarten section or in whatever other forum to spread Your lies and stupidity but as a moderator I finally decided it's enough.


Deino
 
.
Asoka, can you just stop it, you single-handed turn this J-20 thread into a eyesore, it is now beyond riduculus.

J-16 has the same dimension as Su-27/30, you have give SAC way too much credits for their capability, if they were capable of change the dimension of Su-27 they will brag it all over the place and fix the structure problem of original Su-27 design long before.

Yes, according to the joking chief designer Sun Cong of SAC, directly from his own mouth: "change the original (Su-27) design must be very very very caution", this just summarize his capablity well.

You're the one who told everybody that there were 4 J-20 production lines currently from Sina! And you also claimed that the number of J-20's would surpass the F-22 within a couple years. Instead, you should correct yourself instead of criticizing @Asoka ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
. .
You're the one who told everybody that there were 4 J-20 production lines currently from Sina! And you also claimed that the number of J-20's would surpass the F-22 within a couple years. Instead, you should correct yourself instead of criticizing @Asoka ...

As well as source from CCTV and Ming Paper.

Actually there is no source from China to claim J-20 has anything but 4 production line (to be precious: 3 and 1 is under construction), only sources to prove the alternative.

Now you can see the difference: I have sources to back my claim up, whilst you and asoka have no source to back you up but just wishful thinkings.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom