SAC FC-31 Stealth Fighter: News & Discussions

[gambit]

While we're on the subject of the F-16, I might as well point out that the trailing edges of the F-16's main wings and horizontal stabilizers are perpendicular to the direction of flight. That fact alone should make it absolutely inferior to the J-20.

The laugh is on YOU for believing in 'Chinese physics'. The issue is not only orientation of the edge, but ALSO on the diffracted signal behavior.

Since you provided such an excellent example, I will poach it for my own use...

Look at the port wing and the arrow on it.

Do you believe that is the EXACT and ONLY way a surface wave will behave?

 

[giant panda]

airliners

CADDER's CGI

 

[j20blackdragon]

Both the leading and trailing edges of the J-20's canards are swept at an angle.

In fact, the trailing edge of the canard has the same angular alignment as the trailing edge of the opposite main wing, so obviously the designers put some thought into this.

Air Power Australia has pointed this fact out since day one:

Planform alignment of the J-XX/J-20 shows exact angular alignment between canard and delta leading edges, and exact crossed (starboard to port, port to starboard) angular edge alignment between canard and delta trailing edges. Leading edge sweep is ~43°, clearly intended for efficient supersonic flight.

Chengdu J-XX [J-20] Stealth Fighter Prototype / A Preliminary Assessment

Want to know why leading and trailing edges are swept the way they are? Check out these two diagrams.

Want an example of how not to design a stealth aircraft? Check out the trailing edges of practically everything on the F-16.

 

[gambit]

Both the leading and trailing edges of the J-20's canards are swept at an angle.

In fact, the trailing edge of the canard has the same angular alignment as the trailing edge of the opposite main wing, so obviously the designers put some thought into this.

Air Power Australia has pointed this fact out since day one:

Yes, for supersonic flight.

Want to know why leading and trailing edges are swept the way they are? Check out these two diagrams.

I educated this forum about this long before you got here. You brought on nothing new.

Want an example of how not to design a stealth aircraft? Check out the trailing edges of practically everything on the F-16.

The F-16 is from the 1970s. It took China decades to build an aircraft may be at best comparable to it. The F-16 is still the standard to beat if anyone want to get into the 'stealth' regime.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Once again, the trailing edge of the canard has the same angular alignment as the trailing edge of the opposite main wing.

There's nothing wrong with the J-20's planform alignment.

I highlighted the trailing edges of the J-20 on MSPaint in less than a minute.

 

[Akasa]

The F-16 is from the 1970s. It took China decades to build an aircraft may be at best comparable to it. The F-16 is still the standard to beat if anyone want to get into the 'stealth' regime.

The F-16 was never meant to be a LO design. When the PLAAF fielded their upgraded J-8Ms, which were somewhat comparable to early variants of the F-16 in terms of radar and climb, it was clear that their main concern regarding American aircraft was their maneuverability and high speed performance. The trend is still clear with the current J-10A. J-20 and J-31, and perhaps J-11B, J-15, and J-16, to some extent, are the first aircraft that were specifically designed not to necessarily defeat and dominate, but rather to exploit and hinder the F-22, F-35, and F/A-18E/F.

 

[gambit]

Once again, the trailing edge of the canard has the same angular alignment as the trailing edge of the opposite main wing.

There's nothing wrong with the J-20's planform alignment.

You really are not a very smart person.

The edge diffraction signals from starboard canard do not impact the port wing. And the edge diffraction signals from the port canard do not impact the starboard wing.

Once again...This is about your understanding of RCS control, the basics of which I explained to this forum many times since 2009...

Base upon the image which YOU provided, do YOU believe that port wing's arrow indicate the EXACT and ONLY behavior of surface wave?

I highlighted the trailing edges of the J-20 on MSPaint in less than a minute.

Good for you. When it comes to Photochop warriors, the US yield to China.

The F-16 was never meant to be a LO design.

Am shocked...!!!

When the PLAAF fielded their upgraded J-8Ms, which were somewhat comparable to early variants of the F-16 in terms of radar and climb, it was clear that their main concern regarding American aircraft was their maneuverability and high speed performance. The trend is still clear with the current J-10A. J-20 and J-31, and perhaps J-11B, J-15, and J-16, to some extent, are the first aircraft that were specifically designed not to necessarily defeat and dominate, but rather to exploit and hinder the F-22, F-35, and F/A-18E/F.

See this...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/jf-17-...irole-fighter-thread-4-a-662.html#post4106054

A four-ship flight of trained USAF Viper pilots will make 'lap cheong' out of 8 PLAAF pilots. Easily.

 

[j20blackdragon]

The edge diffraction signals from starboard canard do not impact the port wing. And the edge diffraction signals from the port canard do not impact the starboard wing.

I simply highlighted the angular alignment of the trailing edges.

Nowhere did I draw diffraction signals.

Perhaps you can draw them and demonstrate why the J-20 is as bad as you say it is.

While you're at it do it for the F-22 as well.

I would love to see that.

I'll even provide you with a picture of the F-22 with trailing edges highlighted.

Just for fun, I'm throwing in the B-2 as well with trailing edges highlighted.

Come on gambit, time for you to explain why the J-20's canards are so bad.

 

[feilong]

come on j20blackdragon give the old guy a break, he cannot answer your question or his book cannot tell him anything. He will said you based on too much chinese physic. Lol.

 

[Ming]

come on j20blackdragon give the old guy a break, he cannot answer your question or his book cannot tell him anything. He will said you based on too much chinese physic. Lol.

J20blackdragon is embarrassing gambit and gambit is resorting to personal attacks, which is typical when the dude has run out of ideas he diverts attention. He claims to be some tech guy from the USAF and he still doesn't understand the basics of an aircraft .
I guess they teach 'American physics' where its impossible for American aircraft to get shot down. Too bad in real battle a bunch of Serbians with low cost anti-aircraft weapons shot down America's best 'stealth' aircraft (F-117).
Gambit is too humiliated to admit J20blackdragon is spot on.

 

[Ultima Thule]

J20blackdragon is embarrassing gambit and gambit is resorting to personal attacks, which is typical when the dude has run out of ideas he diverts attention. He claims to be some tech guy from the USAF and he still doesn't understand the basics of an aircraft .
I guess they teach 'American physics' where its impossible for American aircraft to get shot down. Too bad in real battle a bunch of Serbians with low cost anti-aircraft weapons shot down America's best 'stealth' aircraft (F-117).
Gambit is too humiliated to admit J20blackdragon is spot on.

no fighter plane is perfect J-20 and f-22 have their own pros and cons but i like j-31 more than j-20 because j-20 has canard and canard gives extra RCS with main wing to enemy radar

 

[j20blackdragon]

because j-20 has canard and canard gives extra RCS with main wing to enemy radar

But can you give an explanation as to why this is?

Or is your assertion based on faith?

 

[gambit]

I simply highlighted the angular alignment of the trailing edges.

Nowhere did I draw diffraction signals.

Perhaps you can draw them and demonstrate why the J-20 is as bad as you say it is.

While you're at it do it for the F-22 as well.

I would love to see that.

Then what is the purpose of those drawings? Planform alignment is about diffraction signals controls. Fool.

Come on gambit, time for you to explain why the J-20's canards are so bad.

If you cannot even understand your own drawing, how can you figure out why the J-20's canards are not good for RCS control?

But can you give an explanation as to why this is?

Or is your assertion based on faith?

No, it is based upon real physics, not 'Chinese physics'.

In RCS control, one method is to minimize the total quantity and size of major radiation structures. The J-20 have eight flight control structures. The F-22 have six. Therefore, real physics will say that the body with the higher quantity of radiators will radiate more.

 

[Zabaniyah]

If you cannot even understand your own drawing, how can you figure out why the J-20's canards are not good for RCS control?

I think RCS control on canard aircraft be achieved through specially designed software. The Typhoon does use it.

Don't know about J-20's software on the issue.

 

[gambit]

I think RCS control on canard aircraft be achieved through specially designed software. The Typhoon does use it.

Don't know about J-20's software on the issue.

I know what you are thinking of. But that is not the case. I explained the basic principles of SPECTRA a long time ago.