Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[kungfugymnast]

1 J-20 is worth 6 J-10 the way 1 Type 45 destroyer is worth 6 Type 42 destroyers.

What's with the guy's grudge on you for this comparison? Do you have any information on J-20A WS-10C engine? From articles you read so far on WS-10C, do you think the thrust is at 32,000lb same as Su-35BM or 35,000lb?

In comparison of empty/max to weights from Wikipedia:
J-20 - 42,750lb / 81,600lb
WS-10C thrust same as AL-41F or tweaked to 35,000lb?

Su-57 - 39,683lb / 77,162lb
AL-41F Thrust 20,900lb dry, 33,100lb aft
Izdeliye 24,300lb dry, 39,700lb aft

F-22A - 43,340lb / 83,500lb
Thrust 26,000lb dry, 35,000lb aft

F-35A - 29,300lb / 70,000lb
Thrust 28,000lb dry, 43,000lb aft

 

[LKJ86]

Via @空军新闻 from Weixin

 

[White and Green with M/S]

What's with the guy's grudge on you for this comparison? Do you have any information on J-20A WS-10C engine? From articles you read so far on WS-10C, do you think the thrust is at 32,000lb same as Su-35BM or 35,000lb?

In comparison of empty/max to weights from Wikipedia:
J-20 - 42,750lb / 81,600lb
WS-10C thrust same as AL-41F or tweaked to 35,000lb?

Su-57 - 39,683lb / 77,162lb
AL-41F Thrust 20,900lb dry, 33,100lb aft
Izdeliye 24,300lb dry, 39,700lb aft

F-22A - 43,340lb / 83,500lb
Thrust 26,000lb dry, 35,000lb aft

F-35A - 29,300lb / 70,000lb
Thrust 28,000lb dry, 43,000lb aft

F-22 engine specifications is still classified, 35,000 is just best guestimate by defense web sites and military experts

 

[onebyone]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1356551478358536192

 

[Deino]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1356551478358536192

And the sad part of this great image is ... I'm getting old since I tweeted the image already on 17. December!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1356555318138986496

 

[siegecrossbow]

From what I've heard they already completed construction at Wuhu. The planes at Quzhou might've moved back.

 

[kungfugymnast]

F-22 engine specifications is still classified, 35,000 is just best guestimate by defense web sites and military experts

F-22 maximum speed and thrust are classifieds but the fuel consumption in lbs per second is not. In US fighters inventory and Russian fighters up to Su-27/30 and Mig-29, the F-22 is most fuel thirsty on military dry thrust burning close to 20lb per second, more than F-14A+ & earlier F-15C on afterburner but slightly less than Su-27 on afterburner. Used to remember the fighters fuel consumption but forgot most of them now. The maximum thrust is around 35000-36000lb, already met the ATF requirements and fuel consumption over 30lb per second. It could tweak to over 40,000lb but there's no point of doing so unless USAF intended to use F-22 to carry heavy air to ground payload. The endurance of F-22 staying in the air is not long, tuning it more fuel thirsty will end up even shorter.

J-20B with WS-15 engines, if it had 40,000lb thrust each will definitely consume more fuel in lb per second compared to 35,000lb of thrust. That is more thrust than Mig-25/31 & SR-71.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

F-22 maximum speed and thrust are classifieds but the fuel consumption in lbs per second is not. In US fighters inventory and Russian fighters up to Su-27/30 and Mig-29, the F-22 is most fuel thirsty on military dry thrust burning close to 20lb per second, more than F-14A+ & earlier F-15C on afterburner but slightly less than Su-27 on afterburner. Used to remember the fighters fuel consumption but forgot most of them now. The maximum thrust is around 35000-36000lb, already met the ATF requirements and fuel consumption over 30lb per second. It could tweak to over 40,000lb but there's no point of doing so unless USAF intended to use F-22 to carry heavy air to ground payload. The endurance of F-22 staying in the air is not long, tuning it more fuel thirsty will end up even shorter.

J-20B with WS-15 engines, if it had 40,000lb thrust each will definitely consume more fuel in lb per second compared to 35,000lb of thrust. That is more thrust than Mig-25/31 & SR-71.

And how/when do you get 20lb per second quotes please share the source, rest is your nonsense with no base and spreading your false assumptions and conspiracy theories

 

[Deino]

F-22 maximum speed and thrust are classifieds but the fuel consumption in lbs per second is not. In US fighters inventory and Russian fighters up to Su-27/30 and Mig-29, the F-22 is most fuel thirsty on military dry thrust burning close to 20lb per second, more than F-14A+ & earlier F-15C on afterburner but slightly less than Su-27 on afterburner. Used to remember the fighters fuel consumption but forgot most of them now. The maximum thrust is around 35000-36000lb, already met the ATF requirements and fuel consumption over 30lb per second. It could tweak to over 40,000lb but there's no point of doing so unless USAF intended to use F-22 to carry heavy air to ground payload. The endurance of F-22 staying in the air is not long, tuning it more fuel thirsty will end up even shorter.

J-20B with WS-15 engines, if it had 40,000lb thrust each will definitely consume more fuel in lb per second compared to 35,000lb of thrust. That is more thrust than Mig-25/31 & SR-71.

Can you please stop with such BS? ... estimating Thrust ratio on estimated fuel consumption and then coming to the conclusion the "J-20B with WS-15 engines" would have "...more thrust than Mig-25/31 & SR-71" is nothing but nonsense.

Stop this!

 

[kungfugymnast]

And how/when do you get 20lb per second quotes please share the source, rest is your nonsense with no base and spreading your false assumptions and conspiracy theories

From US military encyclopedia ofcourse. Maybe you guys don't pay to view US military encyclopedia that contains detailed information. I doubt you have ever read Jane's, Maris encyclopedia that contain detailed specifications of every aircraft variant they could have. Your reading from free online google search write-up are more likely false compared to Jane's, Maris, McGraw Hill, Salamander's authorized military journals that took information directly from military & manufacturer.

As per fuel efficiency, F/A-18 is more fuel efficient than F-15C (old & new), F-14 but because of poor aerodynamic plus smaller fuel tank, the F/A-18 can't fly far. Su-27 consumes more fuel than US teen series fighters but due to its aerodynamic designed for speed and large internal fuel tank allows it to fly far with longer combat radius but endurance wise to stay in the air is shorter. If you don't know this means you never read technical specifications of aircrafts. F-22 high engine thrust comes at price of burning more fuel. USAF maintenance crew could tell you this if you're close to them, no big deal no matter how refine the fuel feed system.

Deino would try to say this irrelevant but this is common sense and related to J-20A/B unless Deino wanted to say J-20 doesn't use jet fuel. You want higher output, more fuel being injected for combustion. The technology that allows an engine to generate higher thrust limit allows the engine to take higher heat without causing damage to compressors. WS-15 superior to WS-10C because it could withstand faster spools and heat to support 35,000lb, 40,000lb or higher. If you & Deino so smart with access to almost everything, why not you guys get the actual fuel consumption of J-11 and post here the lbs per second? If J-11 classified then post F-16, Su-27 or Su-30 then. I can hint you F-16C is around 6-9 lbs per second dry, can you answer precisely the lb per second?

 

[Deino]

...

Deino would try to say this irrelevant but this is common sense and related to J-20A/B unless Deino wanted to say J-20 doesn't use jet fuel. You want higher output, more fuel being injected for combustion. The technology that allows an engine to generate higher thrust limit allows the engine to take higher heat without causing damage to compressors. WS-15 superior to WS-10C because it could withstand faster spools and heat to support 35,000lb, 40,000lb or higher. If you & Deino so smart with access to almost everything, why not you guys get the actual fuel consumption of J-11 and post here the lbs per second? If J-11 classified then post F-16, Su-27 or Su-30 then. I can hint you F-16C is around 6-9 lbs per second dry, can you answer precisely the lb per second?

I'm really not sure what the f... ! It this some side-effect of COVID but only since I don't know the fuel actual consumption of a J-11, does not mean I'm not allowed to criticise. I'm not the one who's claiming to know everything but estimating some sort of fuel consumption for the WS-10 and assuming the WS-15 has a higher consumption only to deduct it must have a higher thrust than the SR-71 is ridiculous.

Stop this off topic stuff, nothing you post is based on facts but all on speculation to again speculate even further and then claim this double speculative result as a fact!

 

[kungfugymnast]

I'm really not sure what the f... ! It this some side-effect of COVID but only since I don't know the fuel actual consumption of a J-11, does not mean I'm not allowed to criticise. I'm not the one who's claiming to know everything but estimating some sort of fuel consumption for the WS-10 and assuming the WS-15 has a higher consumption only to deduct it must have a higher thrust than the SR-71 is ridiculous.

Stop this off topic stuff, nothing you post is based on facts but all on speculation to again speculate even further and then claim this double speculative result as a fact!

Praising J-20B with WS-15 having higher thrust than SR-71 engines is called assumption to you? Where did you get the idea that WS-15 consume more fuel than SR-71? Think you have problem reading & interpreting.

SR-71 is serious fuel guzzler due to having turbojet and no fighter with turbofan would be that thirsty. Turbojet vs turbofan in fuel efficiency, turbofan is far more fuel saving if the thrust is similar or slightly higher. Time for aviation engineering tutorial for you.

1) Turbojet draws any air and burn therefore it could generate higher thrust but poor fuel efficiency & poor combustion resulting in poorer payload capability. There's lots more black smoke too due to inefficient combustion. That's why turbojet powered fighter can't carry heavy payload compared to turbofan.

2) Turbofan draws and gathers dense air O2 before sending into combustion creating more power per bang allowing it to carry more payload and less smoke.

WS-10B if its technology taken from US & Russia with China able to perfect the technology would consume less fuel than AL-31 engines being more refined. WS-10C probably had improved compressors to withstand higher heat and generate higher thrust, either similar to Su-35 at 32,000lb or having 35,000lb if China done better, that is already around F-22 level looking at both having similar empty weight. In aviation, the higher lbs per second fuel consumption doesn't matter if its fuel tank is large enough. Besides when up in the air at cruising, they'll lower throttle to 70% to preserve fuel. They don't stay at 100% military thrust or afterburner all the time.

 

[LKJ86]

PSed

Via @四川地产界高层-军事画家 from Weibo

 

[kungfugymnast]

PSed
View attachment 714032View attachment 714033
Via @四川地产界高层-军事画家 from Weibo

It looks fake to me as there's no grove for the swing canard, also it's not practical for moving canard that serves as elevator. It can't pitch well with canard swept back. Whoever edited this photo is hoping for navalized J-20 instead of J-35?

 

[siegecrossbow]

It looks fake to me as there's no grove for the swing canard, also it's not practical for moving canard that serves as elevator. It can't pitch well with canard swept back. Whoever edited this photo is hoping for navalized J-20 instead of J-35?

He already stated that it is p.s.ed