What's new

Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

Wrong. We are talking about MAJOR structures.

The wing is a major structure. Flaps and ailerons are subordinates and they are already contributors to the wing's RCS measurement.

I doubt that you came up with that on your own. So wherever forum you got that from, tell him/her he/she is wrong.

Finally, for the J-20, missing are the count for the two ventral fins, which would raise the count to 12. :lol:
I'm the only one here to feed you troll.
My fault.
 
.
"I know You surely will claim that SAC changed the size by simply enlarging the Flanker b y say a factor of 1:1.2, so that in fact the span of the J-16 is 17m wide"

Show me an authoritative statement from the SAC about J-16's wingspan, or show me some calculations did by someone, that J-16's wingspan is 14.7m, the same as the original Su-27.

This is a fair request.

I did not suggested J-16's wingspan is 17m. I have provided a report, which stated it's wingspan around 15.3m

Come on ... it's a stupid request. We know it is a Flanker and span-wise all standard-Flankers are the same, the J-16 which is based on the Su-30MKK is no exception.
In return: Why should it be?

"Honestly, You are such a crazy, stubborn ignorant fan-boy;"

And again You don't get it: If You call one a stupid Indian with a low IQ and condemn him it's different that to reply to an indeed simply stupid theory.

How else would You call anyone who constantly ignores all facts, all posts from reliable sources, reliable posters and even with such issues, where only a small margin of error remains, comes up with an even more crazy idea?

IMO crazy, stubborn, ignorant or fan-boy are still the nicest explanations for such a behavior: Maybe You prefer being called a Troll as given in this explanation?

Number 4 fits quite nicely:

- This troll is ALWAYS right and will battle to the death to prove it. There’s no point in trying to fight her. If she can’t back something up with reality, she’ll make something up, just to show you how wrong you are.

http://www.smosh.com/smosh-pit/articles/18-types-of-internet-trolls

I would take that as an insult. I insulted that pakistani guy once, and you banned for two weeks. While that guy insulted me dozens of time, and called me all kinds of names, and you did NOTHING.

Show some fairness, for god's sake. You know why many people, here, don't respect you and want to get rid of you as Moderator?

This is one of the reason.

If You take a fact as an insult, then it's Your issue, but insulting one - and it was not "pakistani guy once" - a stupid Indian with a low IQ, disqualifying him from posting here it's different.
Therefore Your mentioned reason is not a honorable reason since I'm biased but simply since some here want to read such insults, they like such posts and since I don't accept them they don't like or respect me. But in fact that's their or Your problem.

Deino
 
Last edited:
. .
I'm the only one here to feed you troll.
My fault.
You posted an argument that was technically false and got 'Thanked' multiple times for it. That says all there is to understand about the Chinese on this forum.
 
.
Wrong. We are talking about MAJOR structures.

The wing is a major structure. Flaps and ailerons are subordinates and they are already contributors to the wing's RCS measurement.

I doubt that you came up with that on your own. So wherever forum you got that from, tell him/her he/she is wrong.

Finally, for the J-20, missing are the count for the two ventral fins, which would raise the count to 12. :lol:
You posted an argument that was technically false and got 'Thanked' multiple times for it. That says all there is to understand about the Chinese on this forum.


You judge other argument false simply based your own argument?

Why dont you bring credible citation to support your theory? without citation - how do you expect others to buy your theory?

Longlong show the same 3 control on the wing of F-22 and J-20, so basically the controls at F-22 & J-20 are tie on the wing area.
 
.
Another attempt ... :-) (left my previous try)

J-20A vs J-16 - 3 +++.jpg


... problem is, the J-16 is a bit distorted and the J-20's radome-tip is not exactly visible.
 
.
Assuming that Flanker's wingspan is 14.7m. I used it to find the following. I first resized the picture by 200% so it's easier to work with.

Flanker's Wingspan 14.7m (Assumed) FACT, also given my the designer !
Nose to Nozzle: 20.5m
Overall length: 22.5m (The tail boom sticks past the engine by 2m) WRONG, since the manufactor says 21.93m

J-20's wingspan: 13m (Based on this picture and the estimate that this Flanker's wingspan is 14.7m)
Nose to Nozzle: 20.5m
overall length: 21.5m

Previously, I used the estimate that the J-20's wingspan was 14m, which results in the lengths to be 1m longer as well.
....


Pardon, me again, but for the Flanker's span there's nothing to assume: It is a fact and the same for the length, A Su-30MKK - aka J-16 - is exactly 21.93m given by its designer. Again nothing to argue, nothing to assume ... it's a fact ! So I really don't get it how You try to convince anyone here with Your claims ... these are blatant lies only since You try to save Your theory instead of being a man and admit, "YES, I was wrong".

You are really a mess ...
 
.
If I may add, the J-20 and J-11/16's lifting body may have different heights off the ground, so I don't know if pixel counting will help here.
 
Last edited:
.
If I may add, the J-20 and J-11/16's lifting body may have different heights off the ground, so I don't pixel counting will help here.


But will that really make such a huge difference say by 0.5m?

IMO even if the Flanker has a higher mounted wing this difference should lay within the regular margin of error which should be here about 2-3 pixels aka 8-12 cm.
 
.
Another attempt ... :-) (left my previous try)

View attachment 434605

... problem is, the J-16 is a bit distorted and the J-20's radome-tip is not exactly visible.

F-22 Raptor

Length: 18.90 m
Wingspan: 13.56 m

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f22/f-22-specifications.html

This pretty much confirms that the J-20 has a smaller wingspan than the F-22, despite being the longer and heavier plane. Wing loading is higher, meaning each square foot of wing will be supporting more weight. Wing sweep angle is swept further back.

The J-20 isn't a bomber. The FB-22 is a bomber. You want BIG WINGS to generate that extra lift to get that heavy bombload off the ground.

fb22_header.jpg

FB-22_Top_1.jpg

The J-20 is something else.
 
.
It is beaten by both F-22 and J-20, the only other 5th generation fighters in existence right now.

When the Turkish TF-X comes online towards the latter part of the next decade, it will fall to 4th place.
It is only "beaten" in a sense against F22 at most. One of the reasons for that is F22 was designed as an air superiority fighter while F35 is multirole.

Whether or not J20 or TFX are superior to it remains to be seen. No one can say conclusively that it is beaten against those two.
 
.
"but for the Flanker's span there's nothing to assume: It is a fact and the same for the length, A Su-30MKK - aka J-16 - is exactly 21.93m given by its designer. Again nothing to argue, nothing to assume ... it's a fact !"

Excuse me, what's given on an official website is always correct? They are always facts, if given by an official?
May be that's true in Germany, but in many other countries, that's not necessarily true.

The problem, I have is that in the previous satellite, I have come to conclusion that J-20's wingspan is 14.05m, based on the assumption that J-15's wingspan is 14.7m.


J-15 and J-20 Blownup 10 times copy.png


And you yourself, Mr. Deino has said you got 13.95m from the same picture.
That J-20's wingspan is less than J-20's, I have no doubt. And I accept its around 0.7m smaller. We have pretty good agreement and I believe the differences, we have, could be explained by the margin of error.

And now, we have another picture surfaced, and showing J-20's wingspan to be 13m, assuming the J-16's wingspan to be 14.7m. This makes J-20's wingspan to be 1.7m smaller than the flanker family.

There is a difference of 1.7m-0.7m = 1.0m difference between our previous and current estimates.

This I believe, could not be explained by margin of error. In the previous satellite picture, while the nose and nozzle areas are very blurry, the wingspan sections are not. They are quite clear, thus, making a reasonably accurate estimate, possible.

Now, what could explain the 1.0m difference between our previous and current estimates of J-20's wingspan?

There could be at least two possibilities:

1.) The wingspan of J-16 and J-15's wingspan are not identical the same as 14.7m, so they gave different estimates of J-20's wingspan.

2.) The J-16 and J-15's wingspan are the same as 14.7m, but the wingspan of J-20's LRIP version is 1.0m smaller than the previous non-LRIP version, which I believe is in the first satellite picture.

Having the same wingspan in all versions of the Flanker family does not make any aerodynamic and structural sense.

The early Su-27SK were pure air-superiority fighter, while the later Su-30MK were the multi-role fighters, with greatly strengthen airframe (thus adding more empty weight), to carry a lot more heavy weapons, and allow greater maximum take off weight.

If the wingspan stays the same, the wing loading factor will worsen, making the aircraft less maneuverable.

Indeed, we have seen the F-35's wingspan have increased from 10.7 m for F-35A (airforce) and F-35B (Marine), to 13.1m for F-35C (Navy), the CATOBAR version. And F-35C's airframe and landing gear was greatly strengthen to handle the vigor of aircraft carrier landings, making its empty weight 15.686 tons, versus, F-35A's 13.2 tons.


------------------------------------------------------------


Again, I based my derivation of J-20's nose to nozzle length and overall length on the Wingspan. If that's off by 1m, then the lengths will be off by 1m.

It's important to note, that I used Deino's satellite picture and his assumption that J-15's wingspan to be 14.7m, and I derived the J-20's wingspan as 14.05m and Deino got 13.95m.

What we disagreed is the lengths values I derived using high resolutions pictures of J-20, that are flat against the camera, so the length and width proportion is not distorted.

Mr. Deino strongly disagreed with my length values from several high resolution pictures, and insisted that the blurry satellite picture is good enough and stick to the conclusion that the overall length of J-20 is 20.38m.

This I could not accept.
 
Last edited:
.
Assuming that Flanker's wingspan is 14.7m. I used it to find the following. I first resized the picture by 200% so it's easier to work with.

Flanker's Wingspan 14.7m (Assumed)
Nose to Nozzle: 20.5m
Overall length: 22.5m (The tail boom sticks past the engine by 2m)

J-20's wingspan: 13m (Based on this picture and the estimate that this Flanker's wingspan is 14.7m)
Nose to Nozzle: 20.5m
overall length: 21.5m

Previously, I used the estimate that the J-20's wingspan was 14m, which results in the lengths to be 1m longer as well.


View attachment 434550

"I know You surely will claim that SAC changed the size by simply enlarging the Flanker b y say a factor of 1:1.2, so that in fact the span of the J-16 is 17m wide"

Show me an authoritative statement from the SAC about J-16's wingspan, or show me some calculations did by someone, that J-16's wingspan is 14.7m, the same as the original Su-27.

This is a fair request.

I did not suggested J-16's wingspan is 17m. I have provided a report, which stated it's wingspan around 15.3m

"Honestly, You are such a crazy, stubborn ignorant fan-boy;"

I would take that as an insult. I insulted that pakistani guy once, and you banned for two weeks. While that guy insulted me dozens of time, and called me all kinds of names, and you did NOTHING.

Show some fairness, for god's sake. You know why many people, here, don't respect you and want to get rid of you as Moderator?

This is one of the reason.
I'm almost certain if not certain that the J-20 has a wingspan of around 13 meters ...

Dude, are we sure what plane is behind J-20? And are we sure it's wingspan is 14.7m? From the picture, I know it's wingspan is a lot bigger than J-20. I am doubtful it's wingspan is 14.7m. And I am doubtful it's J-16.

To be absolutely sure, leaving no room for doubt, that this plane's wingspan is 14.7m seems premature to me.

I used Mr. Deino's previous estimate that J-15's wingspan is 14.7m, and from that I estimated J-20's wingspan is 14.05m. And from that I calculated the length of J-20 from Nose to Nozzle is 21.8m and overall length is 22.8mView attachment 434546 .

Using the estimate of J-20's nose to nozzle length of 20.185m, it still leaves J-20's fuselage to be 3.485m longer than F-22.

This was my lower end estimate of their difference.

I had stated before that their nose to nozzle body length difference to be 3.5-4.5m. And then revised the estimate to be 5m, after estimated the J-20's wingspan to be 14.05m and nose to nozzle length of 21.8m.

There are internet references saying J-16's wingspan to be 14.7m. I simply don't know where they got that from, or how they did the calculation. Simply Assume J-16 to be exactly the same dimension in wingspan, as the original Su-27 is one huge assumption.

There is a report saying the wingspan of Su-35 to be 15.3 m (50.2 ft)
http://www.aviatia.net/f-35-lightning-ii-vs-su-35/

The Flankers behind the J-20 might be the new Su-35. From the picture, it seems it's wingspan is substantially wider than J-20. There is little doubt in my mind, that this difference is a lot bigger when J-15's wingspan is compared to J-20, in the previous satellite picture.

View attachment 434547
Your estimation is incorrect ... the J-20 in the picture was at an angle ... so there's no way to measure wingspan like that.
 
.
I'm almost certain if not certain that the J-20 has a wingspan of around 13 meters ...


Your estimation is incorrect ... the J-20 in the picture was at an angle ... so there's no way to measure wingspan like that.

I beg to differ. There is a difference of 1.0m between and the current and previous wingspan estimates, that is way too big to be explained by margin of error.

The angle is so slight, that it makes no difference in wingspan estimation.
 
.
You judge other argument false simply based your own argument?
Yes, because mine is the correct one.

Why dont you bring credible citation to support your theory? without citation - how do you expect others to buy your theory?
I did -- the sphere.

Longlong show the same 3 control on the wing of F-22 and J-20, so basically the controls at F-22 & J-20 are tie on the wing area.
Wing area ? :lol:

That goes to show everyone what a fraud you are about your 'aviation education'.

The rules for designing a radar low observable aircraft are:

- Control of QUANTITY of radiators
- Control of ARRAY of radiators
- Control of MODES of radiation

The J-20 have eight major flight control structures. The F-22 and F-35, each have six.

Therefore, the J-20 is LESS OBEDIENT to the three rules than the F-22 and F-35.

If J-20 is less obedient to the rules, odds are very good that its RCS is higher than the American fighters.

I have cited plenty of sources to support my past arguments about 'stealth', and a few of them were Chinese engineers' sources. So far, no one, not even the PDF Chinese, have proved me wrong.

Homework for you with your alleged 'aviation education': Why are the radomes of the F-22, F-35, and J-20 shaped that way ?

I will give you a hint: It has to do with rules 2 and 3.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom