J-20 - discussion on dimensions/weight

Discussion in 'Air Force' started by latenlazy, Dec 6, 2017.

  1. latenlazy
    Online

    latenlazy Colonel

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,029
    Likes Received:
    3,049
    I didn't see this when I was responding to the rest of Klon's post, so I'll address this one specifically, since it seems to single me out.

    Perhaps, Klon, you should apply that same judgment to yourself. Perhaps the reason you've seemed obsessed with trying to invalidate me without any actual substance is because you refuse to accept what my arguments show. If you have issues with my arguments you might look more credible actually addressing their substance rather than trying to turn our discussion into a character indictment on me. As I've said many times before, you can do whatever you want with my arguments. If you don't want to believe them then don't. If you think if my arguments aren't substantively sound, address where you don't think they're substantively sound. But, if you don't have a substantive reason other than that you just refuse to consider them because you don't like to hear them then be honest about that, instead of pretending to have genuine interest in what I have to say.
     
    #1 latenlazy, Dec 6, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017
  2. latenlazy
    Online

    latenlazy Colonel

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,029
    Likes Received:
    3,049
    No, but they gave a number for weight reductions. Boeing shot their mouths off with a vague qualitative statements. AVIC, if they were shooting their mouths off, would have to be quite a bit more daring if they were going to use actual numbers.

    'twas a pleasure.
     
  3. Tirdent
    Online

    Tirdent Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2017
    Messages:
    251
    Likes Received:
    336
    Compared to unspecified parts which they don't manufacture themselves, and a rather round figure. Not THAT much more specific than saying "RCS is at the same level as an aircraft we don't make over an unspecified range of aspects" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (<- had to use that one once)
     
  4. latenlazy
    Online

    latenlazy Colonel

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,029
    Likes Received:
    3,049
    Hey. That's my emoji. Back off.

    They weren't misrepresenting about the 3D printed bulkheads, which I think makes it a tad less likely that they would misrepresent their weight reduction claims as well. As I said earlier, I think there are reasons to think their motives are a bit different, and as I've said much earlier, the information context isn't exactly the same. (Think we can leave this one at that?)

    I got about 16.8 meters too. Of the measurements I've shared, the main divergence between us is the J-20's frontal area. For fuselage width I used the most recent top view photo we used to estimate length. I won't make a claim for which estimate of fuselage width is more accurate. As I intimated in other posts, I'm actually a bit more antsy over average cross sectional area because the two planes don't taper the same along their lengths.
     
    #4 latenlazy, Dec 6, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017
  5. Air Force Brat
    Offline

    Air Force Brat Brigadier

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    7,787
    Likes Received:
    9,174
    actually its up to you sport, to prove your non-linear reasoning,, and you can't,,, I wouldn't waste my time responding to your 15 tonne all up combat weight, because you yourself stated that you didn't believe it either??

    and of course you have to resort to "personal attacks and flame baiting", SDF Moderators have warned you against such tactics, but you persist!
     
  6. Air Force Brat
    Offline

    Air Force Brat Brigadier

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    7,787
    Likes Received:
    9,174
    you haven't come close to providing a cogent argument that the J-20 isn't 20 tons, which is the general weight range we would expect from a heavy fighter, and nowhere have you provided a convincing argument that it could possibly be 15 tonnes, but you have flame baited, made personal attacks and resorted to name calling... in the end, those who are knowledgeable about material and techniques would expect the J-20 to be in a similar weight range to the F-22, possibly even the SU-57, which could actually be somewhat lighter than the US or Chinese aircraft due to reduced internal volume??
     
  7. manqiangrexue
    Offline

    manqiangrexue Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,602
    Likes Received:
    4,985
    I assume you're selectively illiterate since the last (over 10) pages are riddled with possibilities for why J-20 could be 15 tons and why it could be 20+ tons, which is why most people keep an open mind... except you, cus you just don't like the implications LOL

    No, it's actually not up to me to prove J-20 is 15 tonnes at all because I never said it is. I said it could be because a semi-reliable source said it was. But since you have said it is outright impossible, the onus is on you to prove why no forces in the universe could make it so, and I see nothing convincing, mostly because nobody here has the knowledge to really address all the sciences at the level that it takes to engineer a 5th generation fighter. If he did, he would most likely by working on such a project and be forbidden from discussing it.

    Not only that, you specifically said that there was PROOF that J-20 was 20 tons. So where is the proof that you said you had? You make no mention of it and instead ask me to prove the opposite? tsk tsk tsk Sad. Next time, know what accounts for proof so you don't embarrass yourself again.

    What personal attack? LOL Old? Retired? Pilot? Which one's not you? Or was it "nonsense"? The word that you used?
     
    #7 manqiangrexue, Dec 7, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2017
    jobjed likes this.
  8. jobjed
    Offline

    jobjed Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    Messages:
    1,990
    Likes Received:
    5,178
    For all we know the J-20 may very well be 20 tonnes. I can't prove it's not and you can't prove it is. All we can say is there are indications from an industry source that the J-20 could have achieved 15 tonnes. COULD have achieved. Not "did"... simply "could."

    You adamant insist this industry source be completely and utterly disregarded because of your personal incredulity, which is a fallacious argument. I have doubts as to the veracity of the source myself but, unlike you, I don't have the arrogance to proclaim with so much certainty that this source is false and must be dismissed.

    You're not God, stop pretending you are.

    And don't accuse me of "name calling" when you labelled everyone who disagreed with you a "disney princess", hypocrite.
     
    antiterror13 and manqiangrexue like this.
  9. Quickie
    Offline

    Quickie Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    Messages:
    2,788
    Likes Received:
    1,715
    If I may add as a reference to the discussion, the cross sectional areas of the J-20 vary across its length much more than the F-22, especially after the weapons bay section.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  10. siegecrossbow
    Online

    siegecrossbow Brigadier
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    5,498
    Likes Received:
    7,005
    The narrowing of the cross-section as well as the "furrow" between the engines were implemented to better conform to area rule, which may enhance supersonic performance despite relatively weak engines.
     
    Air Force Brat likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page