I don't read Mandarin unfortunately. Nonetheless, apples and oranges comparisons by nominally credible sources which should have known better and that even this "amateur" was able to catch have actually happened before. You may not be able to fathom that, but it is what it is.
"It" said - does that mean the interviewer (you indicated earlier that it was an interview of sorts) said so, or is the Chengdu official quoted verbatim? Is the official named and his function revealed?
All of these are not unusual, I was not pulling them out of thin air (quit projecting your own modus operandi on others). As I indicated, F-22 OEW was widely quoted as ~14t (which is what the public domain developmental target was) until the actual figure was declassified a few years ago. Bare airframe weight without equipment & engines is often the basis for those handy structural materials percentage figures you see for various aircraft.
Again, just because you were not aware of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it's nonsense.
Given the ignorance and attitude that you've displayed toward me in this discussion, forgive me for not taking your word for anything without actual evidence or corroboration from more trustworthy individuals...
Are you Chengdu's professional design team? They have not supplied proof that is in any way accessible to me, so while I would much prefer to hear their input, I'm regrettably stuck with arguing among amateurs - and you certainly haven't provided anything which would change my appraisal either.
So you don't read Chinese and you're getting cheeky about Chinese translations? LOLOL It's not at all an apples to oranges comparison; it compared J-20's 15-16 tons directly to F-22's 19-20 tons. If you read Chinese, you would know this. Where do you even get your translation from if you can't do it yourself? Let me see it and I'll tell you if it's right. We might be having this back and forth because you can't even read a language but insist on what it says?? LOL
"It says" meaning the article reads. It did not quote which Chengdu official the information was derived from. If it did, if it said, "In an interview with Dr. X, material science director, it was disclosed that J-20's weight was controlled to 15-16 tons," then I'd say that's very very solid and this conversation is very very stupid. If that were the case, I would fully believe in the 15-16 ton number unless there was solid evidence that it was not the case. But because the article simply said that its sources in Chengdu said that J-20's weight was controlled to 15-16 tons, I hold some reservations.
Yeah, empty structural weight might not be unusual if it was standing alone, but when compared directly to the weight of an operational F-22, that strongly indicates that we are talking about operational J-20 as well. Bench press, squat, dead lift are all common measures of strength, but they don't compare 1 person's bench press to another person's squat!
Anyway, when it comes to undisclosed aircraft weight, neither or us can prove the other one ignorant. But here, I can. If you dare, make a bet with me. If my translation is accurate, then this is the last post you make on J-20's weight. If my translation is not, then this is the last post that I make. Your confidence in calculating things that cannot be proven is very high; let's see how high it is when applied to something that can be proven. Only take this bet if your confidence is real, but you can leave it if you know you're wrong but just like to keep talking.
Not insisting on anything - just trying to figure out a source which I don't have direct access to by asking questions. As the original source is a jpeg image (so getting even a machine translation is pretty laborious) and given my lack of Mandarin, there's little point for me to translate it myself - I have nothing to show you. If you dropped the aggression and hysteria and actually read what I wrote, you'd realize that I am prodding for info to get an idea what that document is or isn't.
See, that's not an unreasonable way of looking at it, and a fairly constructive answer to what I was trying to find out. Beyond what you're saying here, I merely pointed out that there are in fact a couple more than the one reason to have reservations which you mentioned yourself. And while a quote from a named official would have elevated its credibility (less potential for misinterpretation by the author), the maxim "if it sounds too good to be true it probably is" applies even then.
Believe it or not, people - including sources who know better with absolute certainty - do make horribly blatant apples to oranges comparisons. I can immediately think of several instances involving statements by Lockheed-Martin, Eurofighter and Boeing (frequently by named people) that were misleading - intentionally or not - to a similar degree. With a data point that is such an outlier as this OEW claim it is always a good idea to adopt a healthy dose of skepticism and cross reference for additional perspective with other available information - which is exactly what I did.
I *would* like to see a decent translation of that article, yes. Since an even accurately translated apples to oranges comparison remains misleading and by admission you're in fact not 100% confident in the source yourself, what you're proposing is nonsense. Your linguistic ability has no bearing on the credibility of my calculations whatsoever - that's a non-sequitur of epic proportions.
Since neither of us can conclusively disprove the other on the question of OEW, I'm happy to agree to disagree, but your attempt to link two completely disparate issues here is just laughable.