Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[cirr]

Cooperative Engagement Capacity(CEC)

Is it the 1st manifestation of the so-called network centric war theory?

Cool? Marvalous??

So what?

Consider it done!

And consider it China's new year gift to the US.

 

[Deino]

First of all a Happy new Year 2017 to all ...

but then @Asok, earth to @Asok ????!!! Are You still here ... Contact ??? Come on back to reality ...

....
According to my calculations, if J-20's empty weight is of 22 tons (2 more than F-22, because its body, nose to nozzle, is 10ft or 3m longer), and carries 3 tons of fuel for the testing or demo (25 tons total), assuming dry thrust is 60% of max thrust, it will requires the engine to have > 212kN of maximum thrust, to left the J-20 in an effortless 90 degrees, vertical climb, without the use of afterburner,

WS-15 has already passed 180kN, IMO, and may have already hit 212kN. This is shockingly more powerful than even the most patriotic Chinese, has predicted. But it's really not that surprising, because WS-15 is rumored to be based on the YAK-141's powerful R79-v300 engine, which was rated as 206kN. That was developed in the 1980's by the Soviets.
...

I know we both do not agree with the engine, but it is one thing to assume a Chinese engine is used, another to state a prototype version of the WS-15 is used ... but now to claim this prototype delivers already about 30 kN more thrust than the planned serial version of the WS-15 is so much off that it is beyond any sense of reality.

Therefore again I admire Your persistence to find out the truth even if I'm still sure that all Your calculations based on these small, grainy and much too short video clips are baseless any rational analysis; I would also accept that we still not know what's going on and we must wait .... but please do not tell us this as a "FACT".

Even more an engine in the range of +200kN is simply off all predictions and technical possibilities ...

So please come back to us...

Deino

 

[Brainsucker]

First of all a Happy new Year 2017 to all ...

but then @Asok, earth to @Asok ????!!! Are You still here ... Contact ??? Come on back to reality ...

I know we both do not agree with the engine, but it is one thing to assume a Chinese engine is used, another to state a prototype version of the WS-15 is used ... but now to claim this prototype delivers already about 30 kN more thrust than the planned serial version of the WS-15 is so much off that it is beyond any sense of reality.

Therefore again I admire Your persistence to find out the truth even if I'm still sure that all Your calculations based on these small, grainy and much too short video clips are baseless any rational analysis; I would also accept that we still not know what's going on and we must wait .... but please do not tell us this as a "FACT".

Even more an engine in the range of +200kN is simply off all predictions and technical possibilities ...

So please come back to us...

Deino


View attachment 365008 View attachment 365009

Happy new year too.
Btw, now you know why fantasy and scifi movies sell a lot these day.

 

[Asoka]

First of all a Happy new Year 2017 to all ...

but then @Asok, earth to @Asok ????!!! Are You still here ... Contact ??? Come on back to reality ...


I know we both do not agree with the engine, but it is one thing to assume a Chinese engine is used, another to state a prototype version of the WS-15 is used ... but now to claim this prototype delivers already about 30 kN more thrust than the planned serial version of the WS-15 is so much off that it is beyond any sense of reality.

Therefore again I admire Your persistence to find out the truth even if I'm still sure that all Your calculations based on these small, grainy and much too short video clips are baseless any rational analysis; I would also accept that we still not know what's going on and we must wait .... but please do not tell us this as a "FACT".

Even more an engine in the range of +200kN is simply off all predictions and technical possibilities ...

So please come back to us...

Deino


View attachment 365008 View attachment 365009

Bro, Happy New Year! Best wishes to you and your family.

My calculations are based rudimentary physics. Show me where did i got it wrong, will be most appreciated. We know F-22's empty weight is listed as 19.6 ton, and I used that as reference and added two tons, because J-20's body length, is 3m longer than F-22. I also added 3 tons (or 1/4 of a full tank) of fuel for the demo. That gives us J-20's weight as25 tons.

The goal is find the Dry Thrust to lift that 25 tons of weight vertically, without the lifting forces from the wings, so we could also find the Maximum thrust. Dry thrust is usually 60% of maximum thrust.

In fact, to lift the 20 tons, empty weight of F-22, without fuel, vertically, W/O Afterburner, using Dry Trust only, requires minimum of 99.96 kN of Dry Thrust per engine. And the maximum Thrust of each engine must be at least 166.5kN.

Here is my calculations:
20 tons is 199.28kN. 199.28 / 2 = 99.96 kN of Dry Thrust per engine. And if we take Dry Thrust as 60% of Max Thrust , then we got 166.5kN X 0.60 = 99.9 kN

One way my assumption could be wrong is that, J-20 is actually LIGHTER or SAME weight as F-22, despite its body length is 3m longer.

Can anybody see that possibility? Honestly, I can't.

3 tons of fuel is not a lot for a demo or testing. So I will keep adding this number to the empty weight to get the flying weight.

So if we use F-22's empty weight of 20 tons, plus 3 tons of fuels, 20 + 3 = 23 tons flying weight for J-20, we will still arrive at the max thrust of 190kN. The same rating as F135.

Here is my calculations:

23 tons is 229kN. 229 / 2 = 114 kN of Dry Thrust per engine. And if we again take the Dry Thrust as 60% of Max Thrust , then we got 190kN X 0.60 = 114 tons.

I, honestly, can't believe J-20 is the same weight as F-22. F-22 is already lean, mean and muscular, not fat and overweight as the F-35. And J-20 is the same weight as F-22 despite its body length is 3m longer?

Two tons heavier is far more likely.

Why don't you do the calculations, yourself, if my is way off. @Deino.

"Even more an engine in the range of +200kN is simply off all predictions and technical possibilities ..."

Yes, +200kN was beyond all predictions, but not beyond present technical possibilities. I was shocked too. But please do show us, where it went wrong with my simple, elementary, assumptions and calculations.

News Flash: The F135-PW-100 engine is rated as "43,000 lbf (190 kN) max", not bad for an engine developed in the 1990's.

200kN is high, but its only 5% higher than 190kN, and even 210kN is only 10% higher than F135's max thrust of 190kN. To improve 10%, in 20 years of engine development, is not an impossibility. IMHO.

Fact talks, B.S. walks. I will let the "facts" do the talking.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Happy New 2017!

The F-22's engine F119 HAS evolved to become the F135, which is F-35's engine. If F-22 wasn't cancelled in 2009 and keep developing, it would be using the F135 engine years ago. A newer version of F135 is already developed, called the Variable Cycle Engine (VCE) or Adaptive Engine (AE). It will be used to power the sixth generation fighters.

Yes you are right F-119 is evolved into F-135 but remember bro it is totaly different engine from F-119, if F-22 using F-135 it cant have super-cruise capability because F-135 is a high bypass turbofan, whereas F-119 is low bypass turbofan here is the difference between low bypass and high bypass turbofan:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0033.shtml

 

[Asoka]

Yes you are right F-119 is evolved into F-135 but remember bro it is totaly different engine from F-119, if F-22 using F-135 it cant have super-cruise capability because F-135 is a high bypass turbofan, whereas F-119 is low bypass turbofan here is the difference between low bypass and high bypass turbofan:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0033.shtml

Well, that might be true. The VCE or Adaptive Engine is just around the corner. It is widely expected to power the US 6th generation fighter. There is no reason why F119 can't borrow some of those technology to improve the engine, if F-22 wasn't cancelled in 2009, just 3 years into service.

Thanks for the link. Happy New Year!

 

[Ultima Thule]

Well, that might be true. The VCE or Adaptive Engine is just around the corner. It is widely expected to power the US 6th generation fighter. There is no reason why F119 can't borrow some of those technology to improve the engine, if F-22 wasn't cancelled in 2009, just 3 years into service.

Thanks for the link. Happy New Year!

Might not it is true yes broF-135 heavily based on F-119 but F-119 is basically a turbojet at high altitude at low altitude its a turbofan, i think WS-15 will be a low bypass engine like F-119.
you too brother

 

[Asoka]

Might not it is true yes broF-135 heavily based on F-119 but F-119 is basically a turbojet at high altitude at low altitude its a turbofan, i think WS-15 will be a low bypass engine like F-119.
you too brother

What we know from the long slender shape of J-20 is that it is optimized for Supersonic Speed so it could do Supersonic Cruise for a long time, without the use of Afterburner. J-20's shape is strikingly similar to Mig-25 and the cancelled Chinese J-9 interceptor. Both were designed to fly at Mach 3.0 and 30,000m max. altitude. As we know, F-35 is optimized for ground attack.

 

[Ultima Thule]

What we know from the long slender shape of J-20 is that it is optimized for Supersonic Speed so it could do Supersonic Cruise for a long time, without the use of Afterburner. J-20's shape is strikingly similar to Mig-25 and the cancelled Chinese J-9 interceptor. Both were designed to fly at Mach 3.0 and 30,000m max. altitude. As we know, F-35 is optimized for ground attack.

Delta wings jets are built for speed but less agile, if you put Canard in the front Delta wings its CALLED DELTA CANARD PLATFORM has a extreme agility, Delta Canard platform Examples are:
J-20

EF-2000

J-10

RAFALE

GRIPEN

What is talking about that J-20's shape is strikingly similar to Mig-25 J-20 is more resembles MIG-1.44 than MIG-25 take a look
J-20 and MIG1.44 comparison

 

[SW187]

beautiful

 

[gambit]

J-20's shape is strikingly similar to Mig-25 and the cancelled Chinese J-9 interceptor.

Do you even know the meaning/context of the word 'strikingly' ?

To us 'strikingly' is to say something is extraordinary. If you are going to use the word in a visual comparison between objects, you are saying these objects looks extraordinarily close to each other. Not quite twins, but extraordinarily close to being identical.

The J-20's shape is not close to the MIG-25's.

 

[Asoka]

Delta wings jets are built for speed but less agile, if you put Canard in the front Delta wings its CALLED DELTA CANARD PLATFORM has a extreme agility, Delta Canard platform Examples are:
J-20
View attachment 365199 View attachment 365200 EF-2000
View attachment 365202
J-10
View attachment 365203
RAFALE
View attachment 365212

Wow, those

GRIPEN
View attachment 365204

What is talking about that J-20's shape is strikingly similar to Mig-25 J-20 is more resembles MIG-1.44 than MIG-25 take a look
J-20 and MIG1.44 comparison
View attachment 365211

Wow, those drawings and pictures are brutally beautiful. Thanks for the new year eye candies treat.

"extreme agility" is the right description for the DELTA CANARD PLATFORM.

Do you even know the meaning/context of the word 'strikingly' ?

To us 'strikingly' is to say something is extraordinary. If you are going to use the word in a visual comparison between objects, you are saying these objects looks extraordinarily close to each other. Not quite twins, but extraordinarily close to being identical.

The J-20's shape is not close to the MIG-25's.

I say they are. The length, wingspan, and wing angle sweep. J-9, J-20 and Mig-25 are optimized for Supersonic high speed. Just look at the post, I made one or two pages back.

 

[gambit]

I say they are. The length, wingspan, and wing angle sweep. J-9, J-20 and Mig-25 are optimized for Supersonic high speed. Just look at the post, I made one or two pages back.

And you are wrong. Simple as that.

 

[Ultima Thule]

I say they are. The length, wingspan, and wing angle sweep. J-9, J-20 and Mig-25 are optimized for Supersonic high speed. Just look at the post, I made one or two pages back.

no bro they are not, there no confirmed specification of J-20, Just based on images of J-20 which might be wrong biggest difference is J-9 and MIG-25 not a stealth jets

 

[Asoka]

no bro they are not, there no confirmed specification of J-20, Just based on images of J-20 which might be wrong biggest difference is J-9 and MIG-25 not a stealth jets

I know the details of the aircrafts are very different. I just want to emphasize that they are optimized for high speed. So I expect the top speed of J-20 to approach Mach 3.