J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
usaf0314 said:
Is it at all possible that J-20's prototype could be like the F-22 prototype? notice how F-22's shape are different between the finished production version and the prototype, the finished product looks much more refined.

come to think of it, the J20 kind of looks like the F-22 prototype in the nose area, anyone else think the airframe will have slight changes when the service model is reveled?
Click to expand...
Most airframes experience slight changes during the testing phase, or even after production has started.
 
Quickie

Quickie

Colonel
plawolf said:
Maybe, but doing that will mean you have limited yaw control, which is not ideal during landing. It is interesting but we have never seen the J20 deploy it's actual air breaks during landings. You would think that they would just deploy that if they needed to slow her down instead of messing about with the tails.
Click to expand...

The canted tails turned inward will also provide additional lift (and pitch moment), besides of some amount of breaking force. Deploying the airbrake on the other hand provide no additional lift but the braking action will certainly be much greater. The control of the canted tails are a bit complicated in that they act both as a rudder as well as a elevator.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Martian said:
Stop whining about my posts.

If you don't like them, don't read them. You complained about my post on the F-35 stealth assessment. You repeatedly complained about my use of the widely-accepted terminology "Shi Lang." And now, you're complaining about my captions.

You make many offhand and casual comments and I haven't made a single complaint. Do you hear me complaining: "Hey Bltizo, you're going off-topic again! Can you stop that? Thanks."

When Popeye or one of the moderators inform me that I am in violation of forum rules, I will comply. If you keep this up, I will put you on ignore. You post in your style and I post in mine. Live and let live. Stop whining like a five-year-old after every one of my posts. You're annoying.

I have made the exact same posts on five other forums and no one has complained. In the year and a half that I have been posting, I have never received even a warning from a moderator on Pakistani Defence, AsiaWind, SinoDefence, New Century China, Indian Defence, Pakistan Defence, and Chinese Defence.

Give it a rest.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you feel that way, and I certainly didn't mean to offend you, your captions or your naming of the carrier. Certainly I was never insinuating you were posting anything in a manner not consistent with the rules -- wrt the F-35 and shi lang debacle, that was me raising a point about the accuracy of content in your posts. Wrt J-20 captions, that was slightly more offhand but also I wondered about some of it (like the $100 million plane line etc).
But if you did complain about me going off topic or going too offhand then I'd at least consider what I might've written wrong.

And on that note, I'll try to refrain from "complaining" about your posts, and I'm letting the shi lang name slide now as well. But I'm not "complaining" to troll, it's because I do have issues with items in your posts.

I hope we can remain on good terms, if you want to discuss further PM me.
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Quickie said:
The canted tails turned inward will also provide additional lift (and pitch moment), besides of some amount of breaking force. Deploying the airbrake on the other hand provide no additional lift but the braking action will certainly be much greater. The control of the canted tails are a bit complicated in that they act both as a rudder as well as a elevator.
Click to expand...

I actually wrote more on the subject, but managed to post it in the J10 thread as I was reading that as well and got the two mixed up. Let that be a lesson to everyone not to post when its late and you clearly should have gone to bed some time ago.

plawolf said:
And the Russians then decided they could do without canards on the production Su35. There are no plans to put TVC on any of the Eurocanards...

Back on the subject of using the tails as air breaks, well I guess it would make some sense to do that, as the RCS hit will be smaller compared to deploying the full air break.

It could be that what the J20 designers are doing with putting that massive air break on the J20 prototype is similar to what the Russians and Americans did with putting canards and TVC on test planes - to see if actually both were needed or if the design requirements could be met with just one of the two.

I am sure that having both canards and TVC as well as having both an actual air break and being able to use the tails as air breaks all have their own separate advantages, and it would be better to have both as opposed to one or the other. However, all the different features also come with their associated costs, and overall, the platform could be better off if only one of the two is retained.

So the Russians decided they didn't actually need the canard on the Su35, and it could be that with tests, the Chinese decide the J20 doesn't need a dedicated air break when they can use the tails and replace the air break with a big assed fuel tank or more avionics on later prototypes or the production model. The world of design is as much about compromises as it is about inspiration.
Click to expand...
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
usaf0314 said:
Is it at all possible that J-20's prototype could be like the F-22 prototype? notice how F-22's shape are different between the finished production version and the prototype, the finished product looks much more refined.

come to think of it, the J20 kind of looks like the F-22 prototype in the nose area, anyone else think the airframe will have slight changes when the service model is reveled?
Click to expand...

Are you talking about YF-22 compared to F-22? Because I'm not sure the current J-20 prototype will have such massive changes to the production model (I think it's a bit ahead of the YF-22 at this point), but all aircraft will feature physical changes from prototype to production, as latenlazy said.

And yeah J-20 does have a similar nose to F-22, but I think it has elements of YF-23 too.
 
P

paintgun

Senior Member
Bltizo said:
And yeah J-20 does have a similar nose to F-22, but I think it has elements of YF-23 too.
Click to expand...

J-20 probably has almost nothing in common about aerodynamics config with the YF-23
the nose, chining and cockpit is different, wing, stabs different, podded engine different, and it's canard delta to begin with

PAK-FA has some resemblance, but the Russians didn't have the balls to go funky all the way like YF-23, there is just something otherwordly about the plane

wrt to the readiness of the prototype, i'd like to treat it like a LSP, though just but a mere handful being built (or maybe Chengdu hid and tested some of them elsewhere :eek:)
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
paintgun said:
J-20 probably has almost nothing in common about aerodynamics config with the YF-23
the nose, chining and cockpit is different, wing, stabs different, podded engine
Click to expand...

Well I was only talking about the nose, that it had features of F-22 and YF-23. The "underside" is sort of flat like the YF-23 rather than fully angled like the F-22.

J-20_2001f.jpg

3898674907_61e3805cca.jpg

000-FA-22A-Nose-S.jpg


Also, one could say the v tails of J-20 are also all moving like YF-23, which is a similarity -- but that wasn't part of my original statement :p
 
P

paintgun

Senior Member
YF-23 nose employs design from the B-2, and they're both NG

this YF-23 talk is OT, let's not risk the wrath of popeye :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top