Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[Asoka]

Why is that so difficult to understand ! Don't You want to or do You prefer to ignore the fact??

You take two images of a J-20 and a Flanker, size them roughly by eyeballing to the same nozzle diameter and come to the conclusion that the J-20 is overall longer while on the other side You have a - YES I admit - blurred image of both a Flanker and a J-20 side by side and the J-20 is clearly shorter. How could it be then larger ????

That's impossible.

The satellite images are extremely blurry and very low resolution. The number of pixels of J-15 is 101, and J-20 is 97, which differs by only 4 pixels.

At the ratio of 101 pixels and 21.2m, Every 4.8 pixels equals to 1 meter. Those are extremely tiny numbers.

The margin of errors is clearly much greater than 3 pixels, as stated in the pictures.

The blurriness is much more at the nose and the nozzle area, than at the wingspan area, which is why I accepted the wingspan estimates, but not the length estimate.

The length estimates, based on those extremely blurry and very small satellite pictures, are clearly not reliable.

Anyone, who accepted those length estimates as final, and taken as the GOLD STANDARD, and allow to be challenged, is foolish, IMO.

 

[j20blackdragon]

People are too focused on the length and wingspan measurements while ignoring the obvious thickness, fatness, and girth of the J-20 fuselage.

The J-20 has internal weapons bays. The Su-27 has none.

The J-20 has much longer serpentine intake tunnels that are integrated within the fuselage. The Su-27 intakes are shorter and hanging out the bottom.

The J-20 fuselage cross section (viewed from the front) has a fat trapezoidal shape.

All of these things add weight.

You combine this fat fuselage with small and swept back main wings, and you get a really strange airframe. How do you even expect this thing to fly with underpowered engines?

 

[ozranger]

People are too focused on the length and wingspan measurements while ignoring the obvious thickness, fatness, and girth of the J-20 fuselage.

The J-20 has internal weapons bays. The Su-27 has none.

The J-20 has much longer serpentine intake tunnels that are integrated within the fuselage. The Su-27 intakes are shorter and hanging out the bottom.

The J-20 fuselage cross section (viewed from the front) has a fat trapezoidal shape.
View attachment 426694

View attachment 426695

All of these things add weight.

You combine this fat fuselage with small and swept back main wings, and you get a really strange airframe. How do you even expect this thing to fly with underpowered engines?

The image you made and posted is quite misleading IMHO. The nose of the Flanker, which is about 1 meter in diameter, is visually way too much smaller than the J-20's in the image. Those 2 planes are obviously on 2 different axes and the perspectives are not matching at all.

 

[j20blackdragon]

The image you made and posted is quite misleading IMHO. The nose of the Flanker, which is about 1 meter in diameter, is visually way too much smaller than the J-20's in the image. Those 2 planes are obviously on 2 different axes and the perspectives are not matching at all.

That's because the J-20's nose and entire foward fuselage is massive. Intakes are massive too.

It's like people can't tell the difference between fat and skinny on this forum...

 

[Asoka]

That's because the J-20's nose and entire foward fuselage is massive. Intakes are massive too.

It's like people can't tell the difference between fat and skinny on this forum...

To compare the weight and size of J-20, it's best to use the weight and size of F-22, which is in the same class of 5-Gen. Fighter.

Both J-20 and F-22 are expected to have similarly performance of max. 9G at subsonic speed, and 6.5g at Mach 1.5, and have superior supersonic maneuverability, and expect to last 8,000hr or 30 years.

This is the main reason I think F-22 is weighting at 19.7 tons, because the enormous airframe structural strength required at those incredible performance envelope.

The early su-27, pure dog-fighter, with a weaker frame is expected to last 2,000hr, and the later Su-30's airframe was strengthen to allow 4,000hr, and added air-ground capability, that added several tons of weight.

 

[j20blackdragon]

This is the main reason I think F-22 is weighting at 19.7 tons, because the enormous airframe structural strength required at those incredible performance envelope.

Also the unconventional stealth shaping of the airframe probably increases drag, which requires more structural support.

Which increases weight.

 

[Figaro]

View attachment 426698

The satellite images are extremely blurry and very low resolution. The number of pixels of J-15 is 101, and J-20 is 97, which differs by only 4 pixels.

At the ratio of 101 pixels and 21.2m, Every 4.8 pixels equals to 1 meter. Those are extremely tiny numbers.

The margin of errors is clearly much greater than 3 pixels, as stated in the pictures.

The blurriness is much more at the nose and the nozzle area, than at the wingspan area, which is why I accepted the wingspan estimates, but not the length estimate.
View attachment 426699 View attachment 426700 View attachment 426701 View attachment 426702
The length estimates, based on those extremely blurry and very small satellite pictures, are clearly not reliable.

Anyone, who accepted those length estimates as final, and taken as the GOLD STANDARD, and allow to be challenged, is foolish, IMO.

That is only because you are zooming in too much ... the original satellite composite was good enough for comparison. And yes, there is going to be a slight discrepancy in terms of += 0.2 meters but that's generally good enough. At least @Deino didn't merge two photos together to prove his point, which is what you've done.

The image you made and posted is quite misleading IMHO. The nose of the Flanker, which is about 1 meter in diameter, is visually way too much smaller than the J-20's in the image. Those 2 planes are obviously on 2 different axes and the perspectives are not matching at all.

Because @j20blackdragon does not know what he is talking about. He uses a deliberately misleading diagram to prove an incorrect point. The axes and perspectives are indeed different but he still chooses to treat them as exactly the same ... much to everyone's frustration.

To compare the weight and size of J-20, it's best to use the weight and size of F-22, which is in the same class of 5-Gen. Fighter.

Both J-20 and F-22 are expected to have similarly performance of max. 9G at subsonic speed, and 6.5g at Mach 1.5, and have superior supersonic maneuverability, and expect to last 8,000hr or 30 years.

This is the main reason I think F-22 is weighting at 19.7 tons, because the enormous airframe structural strength required at those incredible performance envelope.

The early su-27, pure dog-fighter, with a weaker frame is expected to last 2,000hr, and the later Su-30's airframe was strengthen to allow 4,000hr, and added air-ground capability, that added several tons of weight.

F-22 statistics are already out there ... I'm not sure why you need to "think" about the F-22's weight. It's been gradually declassified over the last 20 years ...

 

[rcrmj]

Image below overlays a Su-27 over the J-20. I assume they equalized the nozzle size. The J-20 is clearly bigger. Look at the length from nose to nozzles. Look at the thickness and girth of the fuselage.

J-20 is smaller and "shorter" than the flankers```end of this nonsense, there are many things of J-20 that is uncertain, but this one is a fact!

 

[Figaro]

J-20 is smaller and "shorter" than the flankers```end of this nonsense, there are many things of J-20 that is uncertain, but this one is a fact!

Thank you !!!!

 

[rcrmj]

Explain how the overlay is wrong if the author equalized the size and angle of the nozzles. Still no answer?

you have to know the fact that there are many different types of camera lens, like wide-angle lens can stretch things horizontally without affecting the objects' vertical diameter`````ask any professional photographers they will give a picture of one same object with two different sizes```````

`P.S I sometimes to use this technique to shoot a "long-legged" female``and they really like that`

 

[Asoka]

That is only because you are zooming in too much ... the original satellite composite was good enough for comparison. And yes, there is going to be a slight discrepancy in terms of += 0.2 meters but that's generally good enough. At least @Deino didn't merge two photos together to prove his point, which is what you've done.


Because @j20blackdragon does not know what he is talking about. He uses a deliberately misleading diagram to prove an incorrect point. The axes and perspectives are indeed different but he still chooses to treat them as exactly the same ... much to everyone's frustration.


F-22 statistics are already out there ... I'm not sure why you need to "think" about the F-22's weight. It's been gradually declassified over the last 20 years ...

I know Lockeed Martin listed F-22's empty weight as 19.7 tons. I have used this figure repeatedly.

The original satellite pictures shows the length of J-15 is only 101 PIXELS, and J-20 is 97 PIXELS. If you think those resolutions are good enough and no need to seek better measurement, then I don't have anything else to say to you.

Guys, like you, I put on my ignore list. It's a waste of time to talk to you. So, you will not get any reply from me, anymore.

J-20 is smaller and "shorter" than the flankers```end of this nonsense, there are many things of J-20 that is uncertain, but this one is a fact!

"J-20 is smaller and "shorter" than the flankers`"

Not, if you don't include, the 2 meters long tail boom, that sticks out past the nozzle. Nose to nozzle wise, J-20 is longer than the flankers. Those two meters long tail boom, don't add a lot of extra weight, and can't contain a lot of internal fuel.

 

[Figaro]

I know Lockeed Martin listed F-22's empty weight as 19.7 tons. I have used this figure repeatedly.

The original satellite pictures shows the length of J-15 is only 101 PIXELS, and J-20 is 97 PIXELS. If you think those resolutions are good enough and no need to seek better measurement, then I don't have anything else to say to you.

Guys, like you, I put on my ignore list. It's a waste of time to talk to you. So, you will not get any reply from me, anymore.



"J-20 is smaller and "shorter" than the flankers`"

Not, if you don't include, the 2 meters long tail boom, that sticks out past the nozzle. Nose to nozzle wise, J-20 is longer than the flankers. Those two meters long tail boom, don't add a lot of extra weight, and can't contain a lot of internal fuel.

 

[rcrmj]

I know Lockeed Martin listed F-22's empty weight as 19.7 tons. I have used this figure repeatedly.

The original satellite pictures shows the length of J-15 is only 101 PIXELS, and J-20 is 97 PIXELS. If you think those resolutions are good enough and no need to seek better measurement, then I don't have anything else to say to you.

Guys, like you, I put on my ignore list. It's a waste of time to talk to you. So, you will not get any reply from me, anymore.



"J-20 is smaller and "shorter" than the flankers`"

Not, if you don't include, the 2 meters long tail boom, that sticks out past the nozzle. Nose to nozzle wise, J-20 is longer than the flankers. Those two meters long tail boom, don't add a lot of extra weight, and can't contain a lot of internal fuel.

no matter how you "change" the category of this nonsensical and funny "length" contest between J-20 and flankers (be it nozzle or tail or boom or loom!!!)```with all of your "proposed" category, J-20 is "shorter" and "smaller" than any types of Flankers```end of this discussion, you cant twist with the fact```or should I ask you "have you ever seen the blueprints"????

 

[Figaro]

no matter how you "change" the category of this nonsensical and funny "length" contest between J-20 and flankers (be it nozzle or tail or boom or loom!!!)```with all of your "proposed" category, J-20 is "shorter" and "smaller" than any types of Flankers```end of this discussion, you can twist with the fact```or should I ask you "have you ever seen the blueprints"????

He claims that the J-20 is equipped with thrust vectoring and 210kN WS-15s since day 1 and intentionally deceive everyone with AL-31F nozzles

 

[rcrmj]

He claims that the J-20 is equipped with thrust vectoring and 210kN WS-15s since day 1 and intentionally deceive everyone with AL-31F nozzles

most of things I cant say with my upmost confidence, but WS-15 is one thing that I can assure you that it has not finished crutial tests yet````still years needed for them to put it on serving J-20s``````and I also mentioned the shape of the "菊花” ```it could be flat or it could be round```time will tell