J-20... The New Generation Fighter II

Discussion in 'Air Force' started by Asymptote, Jan 10, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MiG-29
    Offline

    MiG-29 Banned Idiot

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,682
    Likes Received:
    1
    Man do not go just to statement just to win an argument, both aircraft the F-35 and J-20 have the same continous curvature and diamond shaped cross section to reduce radar signature is that okay? well the area exposed by the J-20 is larger, it reflects more electromagnetic waves than the F-35 therefore its radar signature will be larger on equal RAM coating, if the F-35 has inferior coating might be equal.

    Now to answer your question yes the B-2 does reflect more radar waves than the MiG-21, the difference is the MiG-21 sends them back straight to the radar while the B-2 sends the radar waves away from the radar, so what a radar operator sees is 90% of the original radar pulse on a MiG-21 and just 0.1% of the B-2
     
  2. Engineer
    Offline

    Engineer Major

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,202
    Likes Received:
    1,397
    Your conclusion is completely disconnected with your premesis... if we can call them premesis. All you did was posting a bunch of pictures of fighters with canards, which does not allow you to draw any conclusion with regards to the role of J-20.

    However, we know that J-20 is a fighter because of the "J" in its designation. If the plane were a strike aircraft, it would have been started with "Q". If the plane were a fighter-bomber, it would have started with "JH". If the plane were a bomber, it would have started with "H". Attempts at arguing that it is a bomber/striker simply shows one has completely disconnected with reality.
     
  3. Bltizo
    Offline

    Bltizo Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,542
    Likes Received:
    16,402
    ^ People can also argue it's an interceptor like the J-8II :p
     
  4. Engineer
    Offline

    Engineer Major

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,202
    Likes Received:
    1,397
    Pay attention that the equation contains the drag coefficient, so drag is not soley determined by wing area. We also do not know how the J-20 and F-22's wings compare to one another.

    What a poor attempt at trying to deceive people. Fuselage area is not the same as wing area, is it? So in the end, you still have no proof that J-20 will have higher drag whatsoever.
     
  5. siegecrossbow
    Offline

    siegecrossbow Brigadier
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    6,154
    Likes Received:
    8,814
    Not if it can't go above Mach 2 :D :D :D.
     
  6. MiG-29
    Offline

    MiG-29 Banned Idiot

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,682
    Likes Received:
    1
    Drag means air friction or opposition when they say area times means is because it is a direct factor in the equation, it is not dividing, any surface (area) while moving through the air experiments friction, or in other words air drag, independently if it is a wing or nacelle the equation applies to any surface
     
  7. Engineer
    Offline

    Engineer Major

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,202
    Likes Received:
    1,397
    As I have pointed out earlier, on an aircraft with traditional configuration, the wings generate downwash which pushes on the tail and kills some of the lift. All designs have some advantages and disadvantages, but cherry picking difficulties of canards configuration and ignoring similar problems in traditional configuration doesn't give your "J-20 sucks" thesis any support.

    It also still doesn't lend any support for your idea that J-20 is positively stable in the longitudinal axis. I thought I'd mention this incase you conviently forgot about it.
     
  8. Engineer
    Offline

    Engineer Major

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,202
    Likes Received:
    1,397
    No. Giving the dictionary definition of drag does not remove the influence of drag coefficient. You are cherry picking the wing area parameter out of the equation and try to portrait it as the sole determinator of drag. You are also trying to portrait fuselage area as wing area when the equation specifies that area is the referenced wing area. Your argument is invalid as a result.
     
  9. MiG-29
    Offline

    MiG-29 Banned Idiot

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,682
    Likes Received:
    1
    Now compare the J-20 to the Rafale
    [​IMG]
    The first think it will strike you is the wing of the Rafale is positioned further forward from the engine nozzles and the main landing gear is farther back from the wing root and leading edge.
    This shows easily tha all Eurocanards are unstable longitudinaly and the J-20 is closer to the Viggen in configuration

    the Rafale also has LERXes but its canards are closer to the wing and above it, this means their vortices re-energize better the wing (if you disagree you can read technical documentation about canards and see all fighters J-10, Gripen Eurofighter, Rafale, MiG1.44 have the same configuration)
    [​IMG]

    the conclusion is the J-20 is more a striker than a fighter and only with advanced avionics and missiles will be able to fight, this is not to minimize or belittle it, it is a tornado adv type fighter with modern stealth

    in this picture you can see the vortex formation on the Rafale and you can see its LERXes and inlet forebody do create Vortices increasing AoA handling
    [​IMG]

    however this proves the Rafale has higher levels of relaxed stability and has a better canard position

    question for you where is better to put a canard see these three aircraft and tell me where is the canard better positioned?
    On the MiG-8 the Canard is bellow wing level
    [​IMG]
    On the Su-33 is at almost at the same level of the wing with a little dihedral though

    [​IMG]
    On the J-10 is above wing level
    [​IMG]

    Now answer and tell me which design has a delta wing and canard more of a fighter the J-10 or the J-20, the Rafale or the J-20?
     
    #2699 MiG-29, May 27, 2011
    Last edited: May 28, 2011
  10. Engineer
    Offline

    Engineer Major

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,202
    Likes Received:
    1,397
    On aircraft such as the Eurofighter where canards move in sync, you would be correct. However, you are incorrect when you generalize this to argue that canards only provide pitch control. Canards can move independently and provide roll control just as tail planes can. Canards that move independently can also provided limited yaw control, due the ability to control strength of vortices generated by the canards.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page