"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.
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.
(left my previous try)
