J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI


Status
Not open for further replies.

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Yep, and we will be drip-fed these photos until the next Zhuhai show.
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??
 

Biscuits

Junior Member
Registered Member
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!
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.
 

PhilFYW

New Member
Registered Member
It’s a very aerodynamically unstable aircraft. Those tend to not be very aesthetically pleasing.
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.
 

ougoah

Captain
Registered Member
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.
 

Biscuits

Junior Member
Registered Member
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.
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.
 

siegecrossbow

Brigadier
Staff member
Super Moderator
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!
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.
 

PhilFYW

New Member
Registered Member
It's only really side profile that makes J-20 look aesthetically unpleasant (at least to my personal taste).
I would like to disagree.
The J-20 looked okay at side profiles

Image source: Google

But looked long in some other view directions.


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.


Image source: Google

The fuselage looks more even from the bottom.
 

gelgoog

Senior Member
Registered Member
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top