The J-20 SUCCESSFULLY conducts first flight!!

[Donatello]

Just a few months ago we were discussing how Russia is ahead in stealth plane tech.......


I guess China is just showing the world what it is capable of. Of course further testing will take time, but the money they are pouring in means a lot of the problems can be solved. By the size of the plane it doesn't look like a close combat fighter like F-22 rather a strike plane.

But it seems to be a tech demonstrator........also i read that the chase plane was J-10S......what are the details on this "S" version....

 

[scuthan]

Just a few months ago we were discussing how Russia is ahead in stealth plane tech.......


I guess China is just showing the world what it is capable of. Of course further testing will take time, but the money they are pouring in means a lot of the problems can be solved. By the size of the plane it doesn't look like a close combat fighter like F-22 rather a strike plane.

But it seems to be a tech demonstrator........also i read that the chase plane was J-10S......what are the details on this "S" version....

"S" for "Shuang" means "double" in Chinese (twin seat)
you can get the details on huitong's website (google "huitong"&"top81")

 

[cera]

 

[Speeder 2]

Honestly I kinda of wish that J-REX D) were larger. It wouldn't be "murderous" enough to me if it proves otherwise, since we all know that larger means more weapons and /or fuel thus more advantages over F-35/ F-22/ Pak Fa ( given it seems to have less prob with supercruise now if WA-15 is likely to be delivered as per promise).

Questions here are:

1/ what's its wing area, etc? so that some freaks, oh sorry, I mean Learned Men, could calculate some high mach top speed indication it could reach ( if WS-15 is delivered as such)

2/ according to its belly, about how many weapons it could carry vis-á-vis F-22 / F-35? Alternatively, with equal weapon loads (if it has far larger belly than F-22/35), what extra fuel thus miles it could cover than the latter two.

These 2 answers / perspectives could also help us see clearer what's the true intention of the designer. I am sicken tried of so called "strategic bomber" that some keep referring it to be.

 

[siegecrossbow]

I guess China is just showing the world what it is capable of. Of course further testing will take time, but the money they are pouring in means a lot of the problems can be solved. By the size of the plane it doesn't look like a close combat fighter like F-22 rather a strike plane.

Personally I don't see why there is this obsession with the J-20 being a strike plane.

Take a closer look at the bomb bay area, you can tell that the landing gears are in the way. If side intakes like those employed on the F-22 were employed I don't think you can fit anti-ship missiles and what not into that space.

 

[cera]

Wait, the "first" flight is fake, here are some prove...

 

[Martian2]

I guess China is just showing the world what it is capable of. Of course further testing will take time, but the money they are pouring in means a lot of the problems can be solved. By the size of the plane it doesn't look like a close combat fighter like F-22 rather a strike plane.

I do not agree with this claim. Others have noted that a large fighter with bigger wings will have more lift. It is not clear that a larger fighter will be less maneuverable than a smaller fighter.

Is an eagle necessarily less maneuverable than a falcon? The eagle is larger, but it also has a larger wingspan.

In an earlier post, I mentioned that the J-20 is only about 0.7 meter longer than the YF-23 Black Widow. The YF-23 was designed to be an air-superiority fighter. Similarly, it is reasonable to believe that the J-20 was designed for the same purpose as the YF-23.

 

[WAQAS119]

Had I missed the show?????
Something was disturbing me while I was sleeping so I just woke up late at 2 am and when I started my PC I was like

Congrats China

 

[gambit]

The left rudder thing - it´s basically so typical anits' behaviour - trying to pick a bone from an egg , to be frank, cuz the plane had zero speed and the pilot could be engaging all sorts of testing movements of the body parts without a formal enganment of in flight computer which, IMO, could be activitated automatically once the plane´speed is up such as in take off run, or being manually swtiched to a sort of Flight Control Mode.

Your argument is based upon ignorance and I do not use the word 'ignorance' in an insulting manner. It is the truth.

In a fly-by-wire flight control system, the FLCS computer cannot be switched on/off at will. The FLCS computer sits between the pilot and the rest of the aircraft. Prior to fbw, flight control laws are governed by hard mechanical connections. With fbw, we have to write those laws. We can write them via electronic engineering as in the analog F-16A/B generation. Later we wrote them in software in the C/D digital generation and this standard continues to this day.

You may not like my argument about a potential software bug, which is properly called a 'Byzantine' failure in the avionics industry, but here is a tragic example of such a 'bug'...

Nagoya A300 Accident Report

While the aircraft was making an ILS approach to Runway 34 of Nagoya Airport, under manual control by the F/O, the F/O inadvertently activated the GO lever, which changed the FD (Flight Director) to GO AROUND mode and caused a thrust increase. This made the aircraft deviate above its normal glide path.

The APs were subsequently engaged, with GO AROUND mode still engaged. Under these conditions the F/O continued pushing the control wheel in accordance with the CAP's instructions. As a result of this, the THS (Horizontal Stabilizer) moved to its full nose-up position and caused an abnormal out-of-trim situation.

The crew continued approach, unaware of the abnormal situation. The AOA increased the Alpha Floor function was activated and the pitch angle increased.

It is considered that, at this time, the CAP (who had now taken the controls), judged that landing would be difficult and opted for go-around. The aircraft began to climb steeply with a high pitch angle attitude. The CAP and the F/O did not carry out an effective recovery operation, and the aircraft stalled and crashed.

The Airbus A300 is a fly-by-wire FLCS system. The accident above is an example of where the FLCS was unable to cope with a conflict in modes of operations. The avionics industry call this an 'incompetence' fault. The word 'incompetence' is not meant for the aircrew for certainly they are well trained and experienced. The word 'incompetence' is meant to attribute to the inability of the FLCS to cope with the conflict created by the accidental activation of the 'go around' lever.

...the F/O inadvertently activated the GO lever, which changed the FD (Flight Director) to GO AROUND mode and caused a thrust increase. This made the aircraft deviate above its normal glide path.

The proposed changed was to have the lever redesigned to remove this potentiality. Coping with conflicting modes that could be demanded by the pilot versus the current environment is something that the flight controls laws must be able to either resolve or alert the pilot to the conflict. The sophistication of these laws depends on the education and experience of their designers.

You may not like these facts I presented but the cheap personal attacks you boys threw up at me in response to a legitimate query reveals more about you than it is about me.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Wait, the "first" flight is fake, here are some prove...

Lol that is ironic considering most PS are supposed to fake something, not prove that something is fake.

 

[Martian2]

Give me a break. You're the only person on ALL six forums, which I frequent, that has claimed a software problem. Total malarkey.

Show me a single published article from Aviation Week, Jane's Defence, or any reputable publication regarding an alleged software problem.

The J-20 successfully flew for 18 minutes and landed. Your software problem is anti-China sentiment and misinformation. Give it a rest.

 

[AerospaceEngineer]

I am an aerospace engineer and I wish I worked in this project.

Chinese pride.

 

[gambit]

Give me a break. You're the only person on ALL six forums that I frequent that has claimed a software problem. Total malarkey.

Show me a single published article from Aviation Week, Jane's Defence, or any reputable publication regarding an alleged software problem.

Wrong...I said 'suspected'. By the way, Aviation Week never suspected the presented problem in the A300's software until too late.

 

[gambit]

I do not agree with this claim. Others have noted that a large fighter with bigger wings will have more lift. It is not clear that a larger fighter will be less maneuverable than a smaller fighter.

Is an eagle necessarily less maneuverable than a falcon? The eagle is larger, but it also has a larger wingspan.

In an earlier post, I mentioned that the J-20 is only about 0.7 meter longer than the YF-23 Black Widow. The YF-23 was designed to be an air-superiority fighter. Similarly, it is reasonable to believe that the J-20 was designed for the same purpose as the YF-23.

Yes it is. Have you been reading our resident former F-15 pilot forum member regarding what he said about going up against the F-16? Of course not. He has experience and therefore that make his opinions invalid...

 

[Martian2]

Wrong...I said 'suspected'. By the way, Aviation Week never suspected the presented problem in the A300's software until too late.

I give up. You're just going to keep claiming "suspected this," "alleged that," and other nonsense. It is still standard FUD practice. You're trying to create Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt; a very nasty tactic.