My question is for Gambit. I want to know the J20 is having euro canards which are mainly for menuverability in close quarter combat. But these guys are using Euro canards on a stealth fighter which is at a disvantage w.r.t RCS reduction. Can u explain my point.
If you are asking why did the Chinese designers installed a structure that is questionable regarding RCS upon a design that is supposed to match the '5th gen' label, the answer is what many have speculated: Lack of a good engine that have thrust redirection.
In avionics, any time there is a method to change an aircraft's attitude -- nose up/down -- the mechanisms and structures from that method made up what is called a 'flight control effector'...
IEEE Xplore - Abstract Page
In this paper the development and implementation of an integrated retrofit reconfigurable flight control design for control effector damage compensation is presented.
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20000057292&qs=N=4294966788+4294920523+4294576438
Recent discoveries in material science and fluidics have been used to create a variety of novel effector devices that offer great potential to enable new approaches to aerospace vehicle flight control.
CiteSeerX — Flight Control with Distributed Effectors
Abstract
Recent developments in actuator technology have resulted in small, simple devices capable of affecting the flow field over flight vehicles sufficiently to generate control forces. One of the devices which has been under investigation is the Miniature-Trailing Edge Effector (MiTE), which consists of a small, 1-5 % chord, moveable surface mounted at the wing trailing edge.
The NASA F-15 ACTIVE have 9 control effectors, which includes its thrust vectoring (redirection) engines. The aircraft was used in exploring many areas of flight control theories, including canards because a design is:
- Without the engine as a control effector.
- With the engine as a a control effector.
- With both.
As far as I know, the project was highly successful but did not involve any radar related data.
Did the ACTIVE data made it into designing the F-22's FLCS? Yes and it would be foolish to think anything else.
Personally, I think the J-20 is the first of the three options above because China does not have a capable engine to start, let alone one that can be incorporated into an airframe that have the exhausts as a control effector. You should understand that the engine core of the F135 (F-35) is the F119 (F-22). So that mean the thrust redirection device is more a member of the airframe than of the engine.
So is it possible that someday option 3 will be possible for the J-20? Yes. But does it mean the J-20 will be more maneuverable than the F-22? No one can say 'Yes' because there are many issues involved that are not yet discussed.
Ok. I agree! Happy? I'm happy if you're content with your last word.
By the way, I respect you a lot. I always take the time out to read your posts, as they are highly informative. Obviously, you know what you're talking about!
It's just that, I like China trying. What's wrong with that? Anyhow.....
The Chinese can post as many pictures as they want. But when they start making claims that practically defied the laws of physics --
REAL physics -- then those of us who have relevant experience are obligated to challenge those claims.
So my question is fair. If the praise is that the J-20 is an 'amazing' design, then what is so 'amazing' about it?
