J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

Originally Posted by SteelBird

It's the first time I hear people call the J-20 sexy. In my opinion, J-20 looks unbalance with light head and heavy butt. Further, the body of that beast is a bit too long and too narrow for its length. Finally, the canopy looks odd as it is not streamline as other birds (i.e. F-22) do.

PS. One more point, the covers of the landing gears are too big and near the ground when opening. They look like they would touch the ground any time.

is just esthetics, i like the F-22`s nose and radome, plus its body is nice.

The J-20 it is okay but i like more the J-10S, i feel it is nicer looking, DSI intakes are not the ones i really like, specially that forward swept, i do not like it, that is the reason i do not like the F-35 too much.

But everything is in the eye of the beholder, some will like the J-20 others not, but each aircraft has its own beauty.

I feel J20 looks more alive, more similar to a living animal. It's also more masculine. But I still feel the rear end near the engine was a half ass job by the designer.
F22 on the other hand looks a bit like it's designed early stage computer software, which it was. It's too lego like.

The maker of the J-20 would likely design the aircraft based on performance requirement alone, just like they do for other earlier gen aircrafts. To them, how it'll turn out aesthetically is almost irrelevant. I suspect American aircraft designers work towards making an aircraft that meets both the performance and aesthetics department.

Originally Posted by Quickie

The maker of the J-20 would likely design the aircraft based on performance requirement alone, just like they do for other earlier gen aircrafts. To them, how it'll turn out aesthetically is almost irrelevant. I suspect American aircraft designers work towards making an aircraft that meets both the performance and aesthetics department.

True, somehow almost all NATO weapons (Especially US) always look good. Hard to find any truly ugly ones. On the other hand, I think Su27 is the only good looking weapon that ever came out of USSR.

Originally Posted by Quickie

The maker of the J-20 would likely design the aircraft based on performance requirement alone, just like they do for other earlier gen aircrafts. To them, how it'll turn out aesthetically is almost irrelevant. I suspect American aircraft designers work towards making an aircraft that meets both the performance and aesthetics department.

*cough* F32

Originally Posted by CottageLV

I feel J20 looks more alive, more similar to a living animal. It's also more masculine. But I still feel the rear end near the engine was a half ass job by the designer.
F22 on the other hand looks a bit like it's designed early stage computer software, which it was. It's too lego like.

Considering the J20's intended engines are not even ready yet, what did you expect?

It would be silly to waste time and effort to make the back-end look pretty when the plan has always been to put in new engines and maybe also new nozzles for the initial production model. The current engine solution is a space holder, and that is why it doesn't look polished.

Fact of the matter is, for a first prototype, the J20 is actually remarkably polished and refined as it is.

There are two prototype of the j-20, but I've never seen pics of the 2002

Originally Posted by Quickie

The maker of the J-20 would likely design the aircraft based on performance requirement alone, just like they do for other earlier gen aircrafts. To them, how it'll turn out aesthetically is almost irrelevant. I suspect American aircraft designers work towards making an aircraft that meets both the performance and aesthetics department.

any designer works for functionality, not aesthetics, we humans give the beauty based upon many factors.

The J-20 is beautiful in its own way, i do not think it is ugly, but definitively i like more J-10B, i like more ventral intakes and twin seaters.

T-50 is not ugly but it does not make me feel is very beautiful.

The F-22 is rather conventional but i like its radome is more ogive like, J-20`s is more triangular or conic.

In looks i like more the F-22 than T-50, F-35 or J-20 of these 5th generation fighters.

From 4th generation my favorites are F-16, MiG-29 and F-14, but in reality i like most 4th generations F-15, F-18, Rafale, Lavi and Su-27 i feel they are really beautiful and Gripen, Eurofighter, AMX,LCA, Harrier, Ching Kuo, JH-7A or J-10 are okay but not my favorites, Mirage 2000 and MiG-31 well are okay but they are not my favorite too.

Third generation well MiG-23, AJ-37, A-4, Su-24, F-111 are my favorites.

But if someone asks me what jets i really like i would say MiG-29, Su-24, F-14 and F-16

you're old school, my favorite aircraft is Su-27
J-20 and T-50 will have to wait until they come of age

and yes no engineer design for aesthetics, but as they say if it looks good, it flies good

Originally Posted by paintgun

you're old school, my favorite aircraft is Su-27
J-20 and T-50 will have to wait until they come of age

and yes no engineer design for aesthetics, but as they say if it looks good, it flies good

well i was borned in 1971, when i was a child, the MiG-23 was a very secretive fighter few pictures were available, in 1986 i saw the first pictures of MiG-29 and as a 15 year old boy i was over excited, my first glimpse of a chinese designed jet was a rare picture of a J-8 in the late 1980s.

I watched Topgun many times.

Now is incredible you just get on line and you find videos pictures and J-20 was an internet product, when i was a boy a magazine my brother bought titled Soviet military magazine had few pictures of MiG-23Ms that were like gold for my young mind.

now at 40, well yeah i grew on the Topgun generation, i am of the generation Eurofighter was super modern now Eurofighter loooks obsolete compared to J-20 and MiG-29 a cold war relic and the MiG-23 well as the Me-109 was in 1984 when my brother gave me as a present that magazine

Su-27 / Flanker series are all beautiful aircraft. The Soviet Blackjack bomber is also quite elegant.

Of course, can you really say an aircraft is actually attractive? What I mean is that you build up connotations regarding their attractiveness based on their performance; what you see is a symbol of military might or technological capability, and that symbolic character clouds your perception of their actual aesthetic worth. The YF-32 might have been quite beautiful if you saw in constant aerobatic maneuver.

yes that's one way to define it, it's each person's perception

when i see F-22 doing tight Gs or vertical climb, it's a powerful beast
when i see a Flanker yaws, turns and rolls, i see a graceful plane
J-20 is hmm... enigmatic? dark and mysterious, black paints do work wonders!

@getready, sexy = the same excitement without the lust

@Great China, and you probably never will

May I ask what these "my fighter is nicer than Yours ?" or "I like better ... !" has to do with J-20-news ???

Deino

sorry, i'll keep my comments to news only