What's new

Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

Deino

INT'L MOD
Nov 9, 2014
11,337
18
20,315
Country
Germany
Location
Germany
….

Since moderator said we must post relevant topic, what do you think about the new J-20B twin seat variant? Is 32,000lb WS-10C engine adequate since it's carrying mostly air to air missiles internally? Is F-22 empty weight heavier or J-20 because Wikipedia specifications keep changing differ from my Jane's book info.


Sto again with that BS :crazy::hitwall: … in several of your lasts post you rem,ember others to prove what they say and always refer to me, but you yourself ignore this, refuse to answer and explain. Not only I but several too are still waiting for an explanation and source, why the J-15T should be of an aerodynamic revised shape / form and should have different approach speeds, Still all of your wrong claims - numbers of aircraft built, J-15s for Shandong - are uncommitted!

DSo you can post whatever BS you want but as soon as it does not fit you demand others to prove! In fact this is trolling!

And PS: @gambit is not a foe, he is only a very critical but very knowledgable member.
 

kungfugymnast

FULL MEMBER
Sep 19, 2015
678
-9
346
Country
Malaysia
Location
Malaysia
Sto again with that BS :crazy::hitwall: … in several of your lasts post you rem,ember others to prove what they say and always refer to me, but you yourself ignore this, refuse to answer and explain. Not only I but several too are still waiting for an explanation and source, why the J-15T should be of an aerodynamic revised shape / form and should have different approach speeds, Still all of your wrong claims - numbers of aircraft built, J-15s for Shandong - are uncommitted!

DSo you can post whatever BS you want but as soon as it does not fit you demand others to prove! In fact this is trolling!

And PS: @gambit is not a foe, he is only a very critical but very knowledgable member.

Weren't you trying to ban him the last time he posted just because you disagreed? The way you suppresed him was just like how you tried to get me banned. I told him to stay just like how I told SU-33KUB that was picked on by you too over personal matter. I was gambit's rival but I enjoy debating with him because he sticks to topics which I agreed with him.
 

Deino

INT'L MOD
Nov 9, 2014
11,337
18
20,315
Country
Germany
Location
Germany
Weren't you trying to ban him the last time he posted just because you disagreed? The way you suppresed him was just like how you tried to get me banned. I told him to stay just like how I told SU-33KUB that was picked on by you too over personal matter. I was gambit's rival but I enjoy debating with him because he sticks to topics which I agreed with him.


That‘s a lie again! So take this as a warning … I have no issues with someone having a different opinion, it is always the tone and in your case, You are lying again:

Prove and argue, why you think J-15 production stopped after batch 02 when we know there is already Batch 03 &04? Tell us why you think there are no aircraft for the Shandong when there is a new base at Lingshiu, the CV-17 was always seen with J-15s and all we get as a reply is some stupid BS the J-15T will be different!

NO, prove it or shut up … in fact‘s that trolling and even more stop lying.
 

clibra

FULL MEMBER
Feb 28, 2014
153
1
281
Country
China
Location
China
100225o2wtetla3met0lkz.jpg
 

kungfugymnast

FULL MEMBER
Sep 19, 2015
678
-9
346
Country
Malaysia
Location
Malaysia
That‘s a lie again! So take this as a warning … I have no issues with someone having a different opinion, it is always the tone and in your case, You are lying again:

Prove and argue, why you think J-15 production stopped after batch 02 when we know there is already Batch 03 &04? Tell us why you think there are no aircraft for the Shandong when there is a new base at Lingshiu, the CV-17 was always seen with J-15s and all we get as a reply is some stupid BS the J-15T will be different!

NO, prove it or shut up … in fact‘s that trolling and even more stop lying.

Trace back old post if you haven't removed @gambit post stating F-22 vs J-20 comparison where he mentioned the F-22 superior in terms of flight envelope and avionics. That was when he stopped his post after you condemned him while I told him to stay.

Since you're debating as user with me and in a bet to prove your claim, by ethic you are not fit to give me warning due to conflict of interest. Let other moderator be the judge while other users as jury. You claimed PLAN will purposely build the J-15A for Shandong carrier, why not wait several more months later and let everyone see whether your prediction is right or mine. By the way this is J-20 thread, why did you bring up J-15 and Shandong carrier here instead of J-15 thread?
 

ZeEa5KPul

SENIOR MEMBER
Jul 13, 2017
2,679
-16
7,025
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
I'll be honest, I dreaded ever since the twin-seater was rumoured that it would come out looking ugly as sin. It's not nearly as bad as I thought it would be.

Those new features below the hexagonal vents are interesting. More datalink antennae? That would fit in with the MUMT drone controller role that's speculated for this variant.

I'm also happy that this and the J-XY have finally emerged. I considered them lower-tier developments that hogged the spotlight from what we really want to see: the WS-15.
 

S10

SENIOR MEMBER
Nov 13, 2009
4,945
-15
8,266
Country
China
Location
Canada
"Highly manoeuvrable" said the J20 pilot in the interview, describing the dog fight scene. Again debunked the so called long and large unmanoeuvrable shape of J20, this time by the first hand end-user.
While the model wasn't completely accurate, I knew this years ago from its RC model.

 
Last edited:

applesauce

SENIOR MEMBER
Jun 9, 2009
3,459
2
2,605
Country
China
Location
United States
While the model wasn't completely accurate, I knew this years ago from its RC model.


crappy civilian RC toys have nothing to do with actual jets and indicates nothing about the performance of the actual plane.

you can make any shape fly well with enough power behind it.
 

gambit

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 28, 2009
26,422
139
24,498
Country
United States
Location
United States
The A-12 and B-2 indeed have really poor maneuverability especially the yaw without the fin stabilizers. Since you're the expert, care to clarify since there's no maneuverable aircraft without fin stabilizer in active service so far.
For starter, there is no such thing as 'good' or 'poor'. Only comparators such as 'better' or 'poorer' or 'lesser'. To say 'good' or 'poor' implies absolutes which is not true. Am not being pedantic, just accurate when it comes to technical issues.

Now, what are 'flight controls laws'? It has nothing to do with managing airlines and airliners in the sky.


Am going to simplify this as much as possible.

This is a 'push-pull' rod.


A push-pull rod is a mechanical linkage from the cockpit to the flight controls surfaces, with pneudraulics in-between for heavier aircrafts.

If a push-pull rod have length of 100 cm, for example. That 100 cm is a law. If that push-pull rod have a load rating, that rating is a law. If that push-pull rod have a travel distance, that distance is a law. Because the push-pull rod is a mechanical device, all those laws are non-negotiable.

When the F-16 came on the scene, flight controls laws became much more flexible due to its fly-by-wire FLCS. The limiters are the actual flight controls surfaces themselves and the hydraulics system. The early F-16 flight controls laws writers were electronics engineers because the A/B models were analog computers. The digital FLCS have more software based flight controls laws. Essentially, %99 of the flight controls system's mechanical components became virtual. First, they became capacitors, resistors, and transistors. Then with digital technology, the mechanical components became 1s and 0s. Most flight controls components became virtual and their virtual characteristics are negotiable.

How does this affects flight axes controls? For this, we go to the F-18SH example.


2.2 The Virtual Speedbrake
The next handling demonstration involved involved the speedbrake and some high alpha low speed handling, an area in which many fighters experience problems in maintaining direction and avoiding a departure into uncontrolled flight.​
The first demonstration involved the virtual speedbrake effectiveness and handling in this configuration. The F/A-18A-D, like the F-15 series, employs an upper fuselage hydraulically deployed speedbrake. The Super Hornet has no such device, yet achieves the same effect through what can only be described as digital magic. The speedbrake function is produced by a balanced deployment of opposing flight control surfaces, generating drag without loss of flight control authority or change in aircraft pitch attitude.​
Dave demonstrated the speedbrake function, and I was asked to observe over the shoulder and in the mirrors the raised ailerons, lowered trailing flaps, raised spoilers and splayed out rudders. Deceleration is smooth and there is no observable pitch change.​
At Mach 0.63 Dave invited me to fly another 360 aileron roll, to observe that the aircraft retains considerable control authority despite the fact that the rudders are splayed out, and the ailerons, spoilers and flaps are generating balanced opposing pitching moments. I applied roughly 1/2 stick input and the aircraft very cleanly rolled through 360 degrees at about 90 degrees/sec roll rate. I commented on the lower roll rate and Dave observed that we were significantly slower, he then proceeded to demonstrate the roll again with a full stick input, producing around 180 degrees/sec with a slight overshoot on recovery. The aircraft feels very stable throughout the manoeuvre and there is no observable change in control forces or control input response by the FCS.​
To create a VIRTUAL speedbrake, the SH's flight controls laws were written to deploy all flight controls surfaces in precise rate of movement, degrees of movements, and final positions to slow down the jet and still enable the pilot to maneuver the jet. The absence of a real mechanical speedbrake equals to the absence of several hundred kilos of physical weight, and yet, the FUNCTION of the speedbrake still exists via a combination of displacements by the entire FLCS. The SH's flight controls laws were even written to allow full stick input even when all flight controls surfaces were in virtual speekbrake mode.

Is it possible to remove the yaw axis stabilator and have the other FLCS components works in its place? Not only is it possible but ALREADY DONE: The B-2.

The reason the B-2 is less maneuverable than the F-22 is because of its flying wing design, not because of the absence of the vertical stab.


Northrop found the Model 1 to have remarkable maneuverability and performance with speeds 25% greater than contemporary designs of similar power and capacity.​

When there is the vertical stab, aerodynamics forces acts upon both sides of that structure, keeping physical pressure on that structure and eventually keeping the aircraft stable in the yaw axis. The rudder is a component of the vertical stab on the trailing edge of the stab. The rudder deflects, aerodynamics pressure changes which changes physical pressure which changes the direction of the aircraft.


In the above image, the outer ailerons are splitted to create a virtual yaw axis stab, and the inner surfaces functions as normal pitch/roll axis controls.

For the F-22 with thrust vector controls, the TVC are flight controls laws components.


The initial control law version did not have active thrust vectoring.

Many enhanced capabilities were added to the YF-22 control laws as the prototype program matured and flight test approached. The use of thrust vectoring nozzles to augment the aerodynamic pitch control power of the aircraft was incorporated into the control laws and the high angle of attack control laws were also added to the basic structure.​

For the J-20 with the canards, the canards are flight controls laws components. If the J-20 will be equipped with TVC, the TVC can be written as flight controls laws components or leave as manual options for the pilot like how the Russians done it the Su series.

The advantage for the having the TVC as flight controls laws is that it is less flying burden for the pilot. The POTENTIAL disadvantage is that the laws COULD BE less flexible than what the pilot need, especially in BFM. Personally, I prefer the auto version.

The evolution of the next generation of combat fighters to have no yaw axis structure is inevitable and it is speculated that the US '6th gen' fighter is such. Since low radar observability requires twin canted vertical stabs, the removal of these two major physical structures would add to that 'stealthy' capability, like how the B-2 have it, plus, reduction in weight.

Is it possible for the existing F-22 and J-20 to remove their twin canted vertical stabs and have new flight controls laws to replace the twin canted vertical stabs? Yes, but why? The development time would require both platforms to nearly start from their beginnings because you now have to put both platforms back into wind tunnel testings, modify a few existing jets, test flights, data analyses, and so on. Might as well start anew.
 

kungfugymnast

FULL MEMBER
Sep 19, 2015
678
-9
346
Country
Malaysia
Location
Malaysia
For starter, there is no such thing as 'good' or 'poor'. Only comparators such as 'better' or 'poorer' or 'lesser'. To say 'good' or 'poor' implies absolutes which is not true. Am not being pedantic, just accurate when it comes to technical issues.

Now, what are 'flight controls laws'? It has nothing to do with managing airlines and airliners in the sky.


Am going to simplify this as much as possible.

This is a 'push-pull' rod.


A push-pull rod is a mechanical linkage from the cockpit to the flight controls surfaces, with pneudraulics in-between for heavier aircrafts.

If a push-pull rod have length of 100 cm, for example. That 100 cm is a law. If that push-pull rod have a load rating, that rating is a law. If that push-pull rod have a travel distance, that distance is a law. Because the push-pull rod is a mechanical device, all those laws are non-negotiable.

When the F-16 came on the scene, flight controls laws became much more flexible due to its fly-by-wire FLCS. The limiters are the actual flight controls surfaces themselves and the hydraulics system. The early F-16 flight controls laws writers were electronics engineers because the A/B models were analog computers. The digital FLCS have more software based flight controls laws. Essentially, %99 of the flight controls system's mechanical components became virtual. First, they became capacitors, resistors, and transistors. Then with digital technology, the mechanical components became 1s and 0s. Most flight controls components became virtual and their virtual characteristics are negotiable.

How does this affects flight axes controls? For this, we go to the F-18SH example.


2.2 The Virtual Speedbrake
The next handling demonstration involved involved the speedbrake and some high alpha low speed handling, an area in which many fighters experience problems in maintaining direction and avoiding a departure into uncontrolled flight.​
The first demonstration involved the virtual speedbrake effectiveness and handling in this configuration. The F/A-18A-D, like the F-15 series, employs an upper fuselage hydraulically deployed speedbrake. The Super Hornet has no such device, yet achieves the same effect through what can only be described as digital magic. The speedbrake function is produced by a balanced deployment of opposing flight control surfaces, generating drag without loss of flight control authority or change in aircraft pitch attitude.​
Dave demonstrated the speedbrake function, and I was asked to observe over the shoulder and in the mirrors the raised ailerons, lowered trailing flaps, raised spoilers and splayed out rudders. Deceleration is smooth and there is no observable pitch change.​
At Mach 0.63 Dave invited me to fly another 360 aileron roll, to observe that the aircraft retains considerable control authority despite the fact that the rudders are splayed out, and the ailerons, spoilers and flaps are generating balanced opposing pitching moments. I applied roughly 1/2 stick input and the aircraft very cleanly rolled through 360 degrees at about 90 degrees/sec roll rate. I commented on the lower roll rate and Dave observed that we were significantly slower, he then proceeded to demonstrate the roll again with a full stick input, producing around 180 degrees/sec with a slight overshoot on recovery. The aircraft feels very stable throughout the manoeuvre and there is no observable change in control forces or control input response by the FCS.​
To create a VIRTUAL speedbrake, the SH's flight controls laws were written to deploy all flight controls surfaces in precise rate of movement, degrees of movements, and final positions to slow down the jet and still enable the pilot to maneuver the jet. The absence of a real mechanical speedbrake equals to the absence of several hundred kilos of physical weight, and yet, the FUNCTION of the speedbrake still exists via a combination of displacements by the entire FLCS. The SH's flight controls laws were even written to allow full stick input even when all flight controls surfaces were in virtual speekbrake mode.

Is it possible to remove the yaw axis stabilator and have the other FLCS components works in its place? Not only is it possible but ALREADY DONE: The B-2.

The reason the B-2 is less maneuverable than the F-22 is because of its flying wing design, not because of the absence of the vertical stab.


Northrop found the Model 1 to have remarkable maneuverability and performance with speeds 25% greater than contemporary designs of similar power and capacity.​

When there is the vertical stab, aerodynamics forces acts upon both sides of that structure, keeping physical pressure on that structure and eventually keeping the aircraft stable in the yaw axis. The rudder is a component of the vertical stab on the trailing edge of the stab. The rudder deflects, aerodynamics pressure changes which changes physical pressure which changes the direction of the aircraft.


In the above image, the outer ailerons are splitted to create a virtual yaw axis stab, and the inner surfaces functions as normal pitch/roll axis controls.

For the F-22 with thrust vector controls, the TVC are flight controls laws components.


The initial control law version did not have active thrust vectoring.

Many enhanced capabilities were added to the YF-22 control laws as the prototype program matured and flight test approached. The use of thrust vectoring nozzles to augment the aerodynamic pitch control power of the aircraft was incorporated into the control laws and the high angle of attack control laws were also added to the basic structure.​

For the J-20 with the canards, the canards are flight controls laws components. If the J-20 will be equipped with TVC, the TVC can be written as flight controls laws components or leave as manual options for the pilot like how the Russians done it the Su series.

The advantage for the having the TVC as flight controls laws is that it is less flying burden for the pilot. The POTENTIAL disadvantage is that the laws COULD BE less flexible than what the pilot need, especially in BFM. Personally, I prefer the auto version.

The evolution of the next generation of combat fighters to have no yaw axis structure is inevitable and it is speculated that the US '6th gen' fighter is such. Since low radar observability requires twin canted vertical stabs, the removal of these two major physical structures would add to that 'stealthy' capability, like how the B-2 have it, plus, reduction in weight.

Is it possible for the existing F-22 and J-20 to remove their twin canted vertical stabs and have new flight controls laws to replace the twin canted vertical stabs? Yes, but why? The development time would require both platforms to nearly start from their beginnings because you now have to put both platforms back into wind tunnel testings, modify a few existing jets, test flights, data analyses, and so on. Might as well start anew.

Great info, thanks for the detailed explanation especially on how the F/A-18E/F air brake mechanism works and how the B-2 yaw. The theory on removing the fins for yaw seems really complicated, looking forward to see the real thing, I'll wait for new agile fighter without tail fins to see how it works.
 

FuturePAF

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 17, 2014
7,015
20
8,136
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Has China considered a single engine J-20 variant for the export market, now that Russia is promoting its Su-75 Checkmate design?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom