J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

Discussion in 'Air Force' started by siegecrossbow, Sep 4, 2017.

  1. Air Force Brat
    Offline

    Air Force Brat Brigadier

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    8,361
    Likes Received:
    9,831
    Maybe true, but this is a gold mine compared to our early days, heck, I don't mind seeing the really good ones come up a second or third time.. for those of us who remember "pining away" wishing for a few good pictures and loving all those "Wall Climbers"... (don't you just hate that the poor wall climbers are somehow the "bad guys", instead of the hero's we all felt them to be??)

    I loved seeing the J-31 at Zhuhai, and while this years J-20 is no doubt the "hero", I really loved that "roll over break" as the demo bird departed the area, I wish we could have seen something of the FC-31??
     
    Yodello, DGBJCLAU and by78 like this.
  2. DGBJCLAU
    Offline

    DGBJCLAU New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2018
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    67
    I simply can't comprehend why people in some Taiwanese social media military enthusiast groups I frequent always say the J-20 is ugly... I mean come on!
     
  3. Biscuits
    Offline

    Biscuits Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    529
    Likes Received:
    750
    Tbh always it looks a bit strange to me from some angles.

    It’s a very aerodynamically unstable aircraft. Those tend to not be very aesthetically pleasing. The real prettiness is in what kind of moves it can do.

    Performance is what matters in the end.
     
    Yodello and Xsizor like this.
  4. PhilFYW
    Offline

    PhilFYW New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2019
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    20
    That's not true. Both F-16 and F-22 are aerodynamically unstable and they look beautiful.

    I mostly fault the low aspect ratio delta wings. It makes the jet look elongated at many angles which is probably why it was wrongly thought to be an interceptor at first.
     
  5. ougoah
    Offline

    ougoah Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,312
    Likes Received:
    1,498
    It's only really side profile that makes J-20 look aesthetically unpleasant (at least to my personal taste). The top, bottom flight views and angled ones actually look awesome. The side profile makes the plane look longer than it should look due to the position and sweep angle of the stabilisers. The plane is already about as long as a flanker and doesn't quite taper down as much as a Su-57 for example. Reason for that is the side intakes which makes the side profile a little more linear like an F-35 and the nozzles aren't like the F-22's tapering TVC petals either. A example of another aesthetically unpleasant fighter (at least from the side) is the YF-23.
     
    DGBJCLAU likes this.
  6. Biscuits
    Offline

    Biscuits Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    529
    Likes Received:
    750
    J-20 is significantly more unstable than either of them, it’s more towards X-28 and Su-47 level than the fairly conventional F-16 and F-22.

    Real Interceptors don’t exist today, since any aircraft able to intercept would also be able to perform other roles. What can be said is that J-20 is designed heavily with A2A in mind, which means it will be intercepting stuff often, and there’s also not many of them, so they will not loiter a lot.

    Doesn’t mean it can’t do SEAD or sling missiles at land targets, just that doing so would not be using the plane to it’s fullest compared to when it is in it’s element.
     
    Yodello likes this.
  7. siegecrossbow
    Online

    siegecrossbow Brigadier
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    5,914
    Likes Received:
    8,092
    Political sentiments aside, the J-20 doesn't have as many curves as the F-22 when viewed from the side and is both long and straight. This doesn't do much for some people aesthetically speaking.
     
    getready likes this.
  8. PhilFYW
    Offline

    PhilFYW New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2019
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    20
    I'm not sure about that. It was said that the F-22 was unstable to around 25% MAC somewhere on F-16.net. I'm not sure if J-20 reached that levels of instability.
     
    DGBJCLAU and siegecrossbow like this.
  9. PhilFYW
    Offline

    PhilFYW New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2019
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    20
    I would like to disagree.
    The J-20 looked okay at side profiles
    [​IMG]
    Image source: Google

    But looked long in some other view directions.

    [​IMG]
    Image source: Google

    I mean in this picture the J-20 give a first impression of length (long coupled canards) and fatness (LERX delta wings).

    It looked better from below though.

    [​IMG]
    Image source: Google

    The fuselage looks more even from the bottom.
     
    Yodello and N00813 like this.
  10. gelgoog
    Offline

    gelgoog Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,128
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    It looks best head-on. Not so good on the sides or the back. It is kind of like a modern day Viggen in that regard.
     
    ougoah likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page