Chengdu J-9 ... Shenyang J-11 to J-13 and other failed projects

[leapx]

I can tell you that J-20 based on MIG-1.44 with lots of innovations and improvements, Just like J-10 was based on LAVI/EF-2000 with lots of innovations and improvements

only biased and stupid would think they are connected.

I already made my point

 

[Ultima Thule]

only biased and stupid would think they are connected.

I already made my point

Remember the JF-17 design it was based canceled Soviet design of project-33, so it may be based MIG-1.44 i don't telling that J-20 is the. exact copycat design of MIG-1.44 but use design principles from the MIG-1.44, now think logically and use the commonsense bro

 

[Martian2]

There is no relationship between the Chinese J-20 and the Mig 1.44.

The J-20 design resembles the J-10. Basically, the J-20 is a stealthy J-10. The J-10 is based on the J-9.

The J-9 predates the Mig 1.44. If you want to argue copying, the Mig 1.44 (1980s-2000) is a copy of China's J-9 (1965-1980).

There was only one prototype built of the Mig 1.44 and as far as I know, it never left the Soviet Union. China never examined the Mig 1.44.

There was also no relationship between China's Chengdu and Russia's Mig company.

Chengdu developed the original J-9, J-10, and J-20.

You can argue that the J-20 has design principles based on American stealth fighters. For example, the DSI showed up first on an American F-16 experimental jet and the F-35. China chose to incorporate its own DSI feature into the J-20 and J-31.

However, it is ridiculous to claim the J-20 is based on the Mig 1.44. There is zero evidence for such a claim. You might as well claim the J-20 is based on the Eurofighter, because they both have canards and delta wings. Baseless speculation is a waste of everybody's time.

There is no relationship between China's J-20 and the Eurofighter. Similarly, there is no relationship between China's J-20 and the Mig 1.44.
----------

Let's go over the key concepts.

1. China's Chengdu J-20 obeys continuous curvature. This deflects radar waves away from the J-20. The Mig 1.44 does not obey continuous curvature design.

2. China's Chengdu J-20 follows planform alignment. This minimizes the angles of radar reflection. The Mig 1.44 does not follow planform alignment.

3. China's Chengdu J-20 has serpentine ducts (or S-ducts). This minimizes radar reflection from the turbofan engine blades. The Mig 1.44 does not have S-ducts.

4. China's Chengdu J-20 has one underside internal bay and two side weapon bays. This minimizes radar reflections from weapons. The Mig 1.44 has no internal bays and its exposed weapons reflect radar waves.

5. China's Chengdu J-20 underside follows stealth facet design. Radar waves are bounced away like a mirror. The Mig 1.44 has lumps on its underside and it is not mirror smooth like the J-20.

6. China's Chengdu J-20 is covered with a stealth coating, including the engine pods. The Mig 1.44 has no stealth coating. The Russian Pak-Fa also has no stealth coating over its engine pods. The Russians have not solved the heat dissipation problem when a stealth coating envelops the metal engine pods.

7. China's Chengdu J-20 has advanced glass displays. The Mig 1.44 used old CRT screens.

8. China's Chengdu J-20 has DSI intakes for smooth supersonic flight. The Mig 1.44 needs mechanical ramps.

9. China's Chengdu J-20 has an AESA radar. The Mig 1.44 has an old mechanical radar.

10. China's Chengdu J-20 has EOTS. The Mig 1.44 has no such sensors. The Pak Fa also lacks an EOTS.

11. China's Chengdu J-20 has EODAS. The Mig 1.44 has no such sensors. The Pak Fa also lacks an EODAS.

12. China's Chengdu J-20 has canards horizontally aligned with its wings to minimize the surface area exposed to oncoming radar. The Mig 1.44 has its canards and wings at different elevations, which maximizes radar reflection.

13. China's Chengdu J-20 has angled vertical stabilizers to deflect radar away from an emitting source approaching from the side of the aircraft. The Mig 1.44 has non-stealthy vertical stabilizers to maximize the radar return to an oncoming aircraft from the side.

Angled vertical stabilizers have different fluid dynamic characteristics than non-stealthy vertical stabilizers.

14. China's Chengdu J-20 is designed to supercruise. The Mig 1.44 was never designed for supercruise.

15. China's Chengdu J-20 has air intakes on the side of its fuselage. The Mig 1.44 has air intakes below its fuselage.

In conclusion, only someone that is completely ignorant would claim the Chinese Chengdu J-20 and the Mig 1.44 are similar. Aside from being delta-wing fighters, there is no similarity between the J-20 and the Mig 1.44.
----------

If you understand stealth design, it is easy to see the vast differences between the stealthy Chinese Chengdu J-20 and the non-stealthy Russian Mig 1.44

----------

Compare the non-stealthy Russian Mig 1.44 to China's J-20 stealth fighter and you'll quickly notice they are completely different. The only commonalities are canards and delta wings. Everything else is different.

 

[52051]

Mig 1.44 is as much as related to J-20 as Mig-25 is related to F-22

 

[antonius123]

Thanks leapx and martian2 ...


Waiting comment from gambit, the (aviation) expert wannabe ... and mr. out of league .. about J-20 that he claimed to have strong relationship with 1.44

 

[gambit]

There is no relationship between the Chinese J-20 and the Mig 1.44.

That is hilarious. The MIG 1.44 project was never intended to be low radar observable, so it is wrong to compare the J-20 and the 1.44 based upon those 'stealth' features. But then why use the 1.44 ? Why are those comparison points applicable only against the 1.44 but not the J-9 and the J-10 ? Like the 1.44, none of them were designed with 'stealth' in mind.

So if I were to use your ( silly ) method of comparing jets to declare their origins...

- The F-15 Silent Eagle did not came from the F-15.

- The T-38, F-5, and F-20 are not related. The T-38 is dual cockpit. The F-20 is single engine. The F-5 is single cockpit and twin engine. Ergo, the jets are completely discrete from conception. Also, the Iranian Saeqeh cannot be based on the F-5 since the Saeqeh has twin canted vertical stabs and the F-5 has single vertical stab.

- The F-18 Hornet has no design influence on the F-18 Super Hornet.

Walk into the engineering depts of those companies with the above arguments and they would laugh so hard they would bust hernias.

I understand you Chinese hate Indians, so just for fun, I am going to quote professor Ajoy Kumar Kundu...

"Finally, I recommend that aircraft designers have some flying experience, which is most helpful in understanding the flying qualities of aircraft they are trying to design.

I suggest even more: hands-on experience under the supervision of a flight instructor. A driver with a good knowledge of the design features has more appreciation for the automobile."

Probably...None of you even turned a wrench on a car. A bicycle ? Maybe. But something complex like a car ? Doubtful. And here you guys be, talking about military aircrafts as if you have yrs of experience enough to write a book about it.

The phrase 'fit for the purpose' engineering is appropriate here. Basically, CONCURRENT to design is the research for precedents. See who did what before you and adopt what they did to fit your intention.

Why, despite all the advances in technology, do the airliners from Boeing and Airbus have identical layout, essentially, a cylinder aerodynamically supported by blades ? Not 'almost' identical, but really is identical. Because that design 'fit for the purpose' in more ways than most people realize. What happened to the flyign wing ? Aerodynamically speaking, it is easier to address pitch stability -- passive and active -- than it is in a flying wing design. To transport cargo, human and else, stay with what is known and proven. So just on the aerodynamic front, the flying wing is -- for now -- discarded as a viable candidate for commercial air transport. Then take in other issues like manufacturing resources or familiarity with the current technology base, the design of a cylinder aerodynamically supported by multiple wings makes eminent sense. The design 'fit for the purpose'.

Likewise with the J-20. When Chengdu sought to push Chinese military aviation to the fore, they searched for precedents to 'fit for the purpose'.

Here is how the process works...

The above flow is applicable for anything, but we can stay with aviation for now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_Aircraft_Industry_Group

If we look at the history of Chengdu's product lines, we can see that the company is at best mediocre in military aviation. Nothing that could be considered 'ground breaking'.

So why in the world would Chengdu start with zero in the J-20's design loops ? Even if you have unlimited money, why would you make your life more and more difficult by NOT using precedents ? Do the Chinese prefers to do everything the hard way ?

Does it matter that the 737 has two engines and the A380 has four ? No, it does not take away from the obvious fact that both aircrafts shares identical design layout. How much more money would it take if Boeing and Airbus did not use prior designs and exploit previous experience ?

There is a difference between 'aircraft' and 'airplane'.

The dirigible is an 'aircraft' but not an 'airplane'. Do you guys know why ? That was a rhetorical question to make fun of you guys' technical ignorance. We already know the answer: No, you guys do not.

The lift method of the dirigible is lighter than air gas.

The lift method of the airplane is the PLANE, hence the word 'airplane' or 'aeroplane'. The shapes of this plane is where we have diverse wing shapes, from the straight wings of the glider to the swept wings of the 737 to the delta wing of the Concorde. All wings are planes -- lifting planes.

What is an 'airfoil' or 'aerofoil' ? It is the 2D cross sectional geometric shape of the wing. So even if two wings of the same shape and dimensions have different airfoils, that do not make them different from the fact that both are the same lifting mechanism. Both are planes.

To quote professor Kundu -- and to spite you guys -- again...

"Previous designs have a strong influence on future designs – real-life experience has no substitute and is dependable. It is therefore important that past information be properly synthesized by studying statistical trends and examining all aspects of any influencing parameters in shaping a new aircraft...

Many types of aircraft are in production serving different sector requirements – the civil and military missions differ substantially. It is important to classify aircraft categories in order to identify strong trends existing within each class.

Existing patterns of correlation (through regression analysis) within a class of aircraft indicate what may be expected from a new design."

Note the highlighted.

Chengdu DID NOT start the J-20 from zero. Can they ? Yes, but it would be the height of foolishness to do so.

For example...As we examine the J-20 wing design...

Of all the wing planforms available, why did Chengdu used the delta instead of rectangular or trapezoidal ? Because the world's best fighter aircrafts uses variations of the delta for its known advantages. That ruled out civil aviation as source for Chengdu's R/D plan, correct ?

How many of the world's best fighters uses tailless delta layout ? Did the SR-71 factored ? Not likely. That leave influences like the HAL Tejas, F-16XL, or Vulcan ( bomber ). And perhaps the MIG 1.44 ?

That the world was surprised by the J-20 allegedly a 'fifth-gen' fighter is definite proof that because of its mediocre history, Chengdu had to insert precedents into those process loops. Even though the J-20 have some differences from the 1.44, such as the reshaping and relocation of the intakes for the purpose of low radar observability, or that the airfoil of the J-20's delta wing is different than that of the 1.44's, there is no denying the overall physical commonalities between the J-20 and the 1.44. Saved a lot of development time and money.

In the West, aspiring aviation engineers are taught to look for precedents as much as possible, even to the point where the idea is printed into textbooks. You are saying Chengdu did not look for precedents in designing the J-20 ? What happened to the idea that 'we stand on the shoulders of giants' in order to innovate, invent, and produce anything ?

You have no problems boasting how copying and reverse engineering made China into the technological powerhouse she is today, from the cellphone to the supercomputer. But when it comes to the J-20...???

The final product that is the J-20 hints at what was inserted into its R/D development process loops: The MIG 1.44.

 

[Martian2]

That is hilarious. The MIG 1.44 project was never intended to be low radar observable, so it is wrong to compare the J-20 and the 1.44 based upon those 'stealth' features. But then why use the 1.44 ? Why are those comparison points applicable only against the 1.44 but not the J-9 and the J-10 ? Like the 1.44, none of them were designed with 'stealth' in mind.

So if I were to use your ( silly ) method of comparing jets to declare their origins...

- The F-15 Silent Eagle did not came from the F-15.

- The T-38, F-5, and F-20 are not related. The T-38 is dual cockpit. The F-20 is single engine. The F-5 is single cockpit and twin engine. Ergo, the jets are completely discrete from conception. Also, the Iranian Saeqeh cannot be based on the F-5 since the Saeqeh has twin canted vertical stabs and the F-5 has single vertical stab.

- The F-18 Hornet has no design influence on the F-18 Super Hornet.

Walk into the engineering depts of those companies with the above arguments and they would laugh so hard they would bust hernias.

I understand you Chinese hate Indians, so just for fun, I am going to quote professor Ajoy Kumar Kundu...

"Finally, I recommend that aircraft designers have some flying experience, which is most helpful in understanding the flying qualities of aircraft they are trying to design.

I suggest even more: hands-on experience under the supervision of a flight instructor. A driver with a good knowledge of the design features has more appreciation for the automobile."

Probably...None of you even turned a wrench on a car. A bicycle ? Maybe. But something complex like a car ? Doubtful. And here you guys be, talking about military aircrafts as if you have yrs of experience enough to write a book about it.

The phrase 'fit for the purpose' engineering is appropriate here. Basically, CONCURRENT to design is the research for precedents. See who did what before you and adopt what they did to fit your intention.

Why, despite all the advances in technology, do the airliners from Boeing and Airbus have identical layout, essentially, a cylinder aerodynamically supported by blades ? Not 'almost' identical, but really is identical. Because that design 'fit for the purpose' in more ways than most people realize. What happened to the flyign wing ? Aerodynamically speaking, it is easier to address pitch stability -- passive and active -- than it is in a flying wing design. To transport cargo, human and else, stay with what is known and proven. So just on the aerodynamic front, the flying wing is -- for now -- discarded as a viable candidate for commercial air transport. Then take in other issues like manufacturing resources or familiarity with the current technology base, the design of a cylinder aerodynamically supported by multiple wings makes eminent sense. The design 'fit for the purpose'.

Likewise with the J-20. When Chengdu sought to push Chinese military aviation to the fore, they searched for precedents to 'fit for the purpose'.

Here is how the process works...

The above flow is applicable for anything, but we can stay with aviation for now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_Aircraft_Industry_Group

If we look at the history of Chengdu's product lines, we can see that the company is at best mediocre in military aviation. Nothing that could be considered 'ground breaking'.

So why in the world would Chengdu start with zero in the J-20's design loops ? Even if you have unlimited money, why would you make your life more and more difficult by NOT using precedents ? Do the Chinese prefers to do everything the hard way ?

Does it matter that the 737 has two engines and the A380 has four ? No, it does not take away from the obvious fact that both aircrafts shares identical design layout. How much more money would it take if Boeing and Airbus did not use prior designs and exploit previous experience ?

There is a difference between 'aircraft' and 'airplane'.

The dirigible is an 'aircraft' but not an 'airplane'. Do you guys know why ? That was a rhetorical question to make fun of you guys' technical ignorance. We already know the answer: No, you guys do not.

The lift method of the dirigible is lighter than air gas.

The lift method of the airplane is the PLANE, hence the word 'airplane' or 'aeroplane'. The shapes of this plane is where we have diverse wing shapes, from the straight wings of the glider to the swept wings of the 737 to the delta wing of the Concorde. All wings are planes -- lifting planes.

What is an 'airfoil' or 'aerofoil' ? It is the 2D cross sectional geometric shape of the wing. So even if two wings of the same shape and dimensions have different airfoils, that do not make them different from the fact that both are the same lifting mechanism. Both are planes.

To quote professor Kundu -- and to spite you guys -- again...

"Previous designs have a strong influence on future designs – real-life experience has no substitute and is dependable. It is therefore important that past information be properly synthesized by studying statistical trends and examining all aspects of any influencing parameters in shaping a new aircraft...

Many types of aircraft are in production serving different sector requirements – the civil and military missions differ substantially. It is important to classify aircraft categories in order to identify strong trends existing within each class.

Existing patterns of correlation (through regression analysis) within a class of aircraft indicate what may be expected from a new design."

Note the highlighted.

Chengdu DID NOT start the J-20 from zero. Can they ? Yes, but it would be the height of foolishness to do so.

For example...As we examine the J-20 wing design...

Of all the wing planforms available, why did Chengdu used the delta instead of rectangular or trapezoidal ? Because the world's best fighter aircrafts uses variations of the delta for its known advantages. That ruled out civil aviation as source for Chengdu's R/D plan, correct ?

How many of the world's best fighters uses tailless delta layout ? Did the SR-71 factored ? Not likely. That leave influences like the HAL Tejas, F-16XL, or Vulcan ( bomber ). And perhaps the MIG 1.44 ?

That the world was surprised by the J-20 allegedly a 'fifth-gen' fighter is definite proof that because of its mediocre history, Chengdu had to insert precedents into those process loops. Even though the J-20 have some differences from the 1.44, such as the reshaping and relocation of the intakes for the purpose of low radar observability, or that the airfoil of the J-20's delta wing is different than that of the 1.44's, there is no denying the overall physical commonalities between the J-20 and the 1.44. Saved a lot of development time and money.

In the West, aspiring aviation engineers are taught to look for precedents as much as possible, even to the point where the idea is printed into textbooks. You are saying Chengdu did not look for precedents in designing the J-20 ? What happened to the idea that 'we stand on the shoulders of giants' in order to innovate, invent, and produce anything ?

You have no problems boasting how copying and reverse engineering made China into the technological powerhouse she is today, from the cellphone to the supercomputer. But when it comes to the J-20...???

The final product that is the J-20 hints at what was inserted into its R/D development process loops: The MIG 1.44.

Where is your proof that Russia supplied the Mig 1.44 plane and design to China? You offered ZERO proof.

A claim without corroborating evidence is just an empty claim. I'm talking about you (Gambit).

If someone wants to claim the Moon is made of cheese (without any corroborating evidence), we would ignore such nonsense.

Similarly, your nonsense wastes everyone's time and I'm going to ignore it.

 

[gambit]

Where is your proof that Russia supplied the Mig 1.44 plane and design to China? You offered ZERO proof.

A claim without corroborating evidence is just an empty claim. I'm talking about you (Gambit).

If someone wants to claim the Moon is made of cheese (without any corroborating evidence), we would ignore such nonsense.

Similarly, your nonsense wastes everyone's time and I'm going to ignore it.

We can be certain that neither Boeing nor Airbus supplied each other technical assistance.

 

[Martian2]

We can be certain that neither Boeing nor Airbus supplied each other technical assistance.

So, you have zero proof to back up your claim.

You want to divert to a discussion about Boeing and Airbus. Yet, I saw no reputable citations to back up your claim that the J-20 is based on the Mig 1.44.

Nothing from Jane's. Nothing from Aviation Week. Nothing from Russian sources.

You've got zilch. Your claim that China's J-20 is based on the Mig 1.44 is complete BS. You have ZERO proof.

 

[gambit]

So, you have zero proof to back up your claim.

Nothing from Jane's. Nothing from Aviation Week. Nothing from Russian sources.

You've got zilch. Your claim that China's J-20 is based on the Mig 1.44 is complete BS. You have ZERO proof.

Then where are the evidences -- let alone proof -- that the J-20 came from Chengdu's own product lines ?

We can go back and forth about 'proofs' all day long and it would get nowhere. In the end, it is less about proof than it is about credible analyses and inferences. Chengdu is not going to come out and say the J-20 came from the J-9 or 10. They know better.

 

[Martian2]

Then where are the evidences -- let alone proof -- that the J-20 came from Chengdu's own product lines ?

We can go back and forth about 'proofs' all day long and it would get nowhere. In the end, it is less about proof than it is about credible analyses and inferences. Chengdu is not going to come out and say the J-20 came from the J-9 or 10. They know better.

Wow. You're a complete moron. I have to prove that the Chinese Chengdu J-20, which has been seen flying in Chinese airspace is made by China?

Why is it necessary to prove that a Chinese jet, made in China, tested in China, came from China? It's common sense.

However, I will humor you and give you a citation from Jane's. A Chinese plane funded by the Chinese government and seen flying in Chinese airspace. It's Chinese.

Now, prove your claim that the Chinese J-20 is based on a Russian Mig 1.44 when there is no known relationship between the two planes. You made the extraordinary claim. Now, provide convincing evidence to back up your extraordinary claim.
----------

Chengdu J-20 has 'entered service', claims Chinese media | Jane's

 

[clarkgap]

That is hilarious. The MIG 1.44 project was never intended to be low radar observable, so it is wrong to compare the J-20 and the 1.44 based upon those 'stealth' features. But then why use the 1.44 ? Why are those comparison points applicable only against the 1.44 but not the J-9 and the J-10 ? Like the 1.44, none of them were designed with 'stealth' in mind.

So if I were to use your ( silly ) method of comparing jets to declare their origins...

- The F-15 Silent Eagle did not came from the F-15.

- The T-38, F-5, and F-20 are not related. The T-38 is dual cockpit. The F-20 is single engine. The F-5 is single cockpit and twin engine. Ergo, the jets are completely discrete from conception. Also, the Iranian Saeqeh cannot be based on the F-5 since the Saeqeh has twin canted vertical stabs and the F-5 has single vertical stab.

- The F-18 Hornet has no design influence on the F-18 Super Hornet.

Walk into the engineering depts of those companies with the above arguments and they would laugh so hard they would bust hernias.

I understand you Chinese hate Indians, so just for fun, I am going to quote professor Ajoy Kumar Kundu...

"Finally, I recommend that aircraft designers have some flying experience, which is most helpful in understanding the flying qualities of aircraft they are trying to design.

I suggest even more: hands-on experience under the supervision of a flight instructor. A driver with a good knowledge of the design features has more appreciation for the automobile."

Probably...None of you even turned a wrench on a car. A bicycle ? Maybe. But something complex like a car ? Doubtful. And here you guys be, talking about military aircrafts as if you have yrs of experience enough to write a book about it.

The phrase 'fit for the purpose' engineering is appropriate here. Basically, CONCURRENT to design is the research for precedents. See who did what before you and adopt what they did to fit your intention.

Why, despite all the advances in technology, do the airliners from Boeing and Airbus have identical layout, essentially, a cylinder aerodynamically supported by blades ? Not 'almost' identical, but really is identical. Because that design 'fit for the purpose' in more ways than most people realize. What happened to the flyign wing ? Aerodynamically speaking, it is easier to address pitch stability -- passive and active -- than it is in a flying wing design. To transport cargo, human and else, stay with what is known and proven. So just on the aerodynamic front, the flying wing is -- for now -- discarded as a viable candidate for commercial air transport. Then take in other issues like manufacturing resources or familiarity with the current technology base, the design of a cylinder aerodynamically supported by multiple wings makes eminent sense. The design 'fit for the purpose'.

Likewise with the J-20. When Chengdu sought to push Chinese military aviation to the fore, they searched for precedents to 'fit for the purpose'.

Here is how the process works...

The above flow is applicable for anything, but we can stay with aviation for now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_Aircraft_Industry_Group

If we look at the history of Chengdu's product lines, we can see that the company is at best mediocre in military aviation. Nothing that could be considered 'ground breaking'.

So why in the world would Chengdu start with zero in the J-20's design loops ? Even if you have unlimited money, why would you make your life more and more difficult by NOT using precedents ? Do the Chinese prefers to do everything the hard way ?

Does it matter that the 737 has two engines and the A380 has four ? No, it does not take away from the obvious fact that both aircrafts shares identical design layout. How much more money would it take if Boeing and Airbus did not use prior designs and exploit previous experience ?

There is a difference between 'aircraft' and 'airplane'.

The dirigible is an 'aircraft' but not an 'airplane'. Do you guys know why ? That was a rhetorical question to make fun of you guys' technical ignorance. We already know the answer: No, you guys do not.

The lift method of the dirigible is lighter than air gas.

The lift method of the airplane is the PLANE, hence the word 'airplane' or 'aeroplane'. The shapes of this plane is where we have diverse wing shapes, from the straight wings of the glider to the swept wings of the 737 to the delta wing of the Concorde. All wings are planes -- lifting planes.

What is an 'airfoil' or 'aerofoil' ? It is the 2D cross sectional geometric shape of the wing. So even if two wings of the same shape and dimensions have different airfoils, that do not make them different from the fact that both are the same lifting mechanism. Both are planes.

To quote professor Kundu -- and to spite you guys -- again...

"Previous designs have a strong influence on future designs – real-life experience has no substitute and is dependable. It is therefore important that past information be properly synthesized by studying statistical trends and examining all aspects of any influencing parameters in shaping a new aircraft...

Many types of aircraft are in production serving different sector requirements – the civil and military missions differ substantially. It is important to classify aircraft categories in order to identify strong trends existing within each class.

Existing patterns of correlation (through regression analysis) within a class of aircraft indicate what may be expected from a new design."

Note the highlighted.

Chengdu DID NOT start the J-20 from zero. Can they ? Yes, but it would be the height of foolishness to do so.

For example...As we examine the J-20 wing design...

Of all the wing planforms available, why did Chengdu used the delta instead of rectangular or trapezoidal ? Because the world's best fighter aircrafts uses variations of the delta for its known advantages. That ruled out civil aviation as source for Chengdu's R/D plan, correct ?

How many of the world's best fighters uses tailless delta layout ? Did the SR-71 factored ? Not likely. That leave influences like the HAL Tejas, F-16XL, or Vulcan ( bomber ). And perhaps the MIG 1.44 ?

That the world was surprised by the J-20 allegedly a 'fifth-gen' fighter is definite proof that because of its mediocre history, Chengdu had to insert precedents into those process loops. Even though the J-20 have some differences from the 1.44, such as the reshaping and relocation of the intakes for the purpose of low radar observability, or that the airfoil of the J-20's delta wing is different than that of the 1.44's, there is no denying the overall physical commonalities between the J-20 and the 1.44. Saved a lot of development time and money.

In the West, aspiring aviation engineers are taught to look for precedents as much as possible, even to the point where the idea is printed into textbooks. You are saying Chengdu did not look for precedents in designing the J-20 ? What happened to the idea that 'we stand on the shoulders of giants' in order to innovate, invent, and produce anything ?

You have no problems boasting how copying and reverse engineering made China into the technological powerhouse she is today, from the cellphone to the supercomputer. But when it comes to the J-20...???

The final product that is the J-20 hints at what was inserted into its R/D development process loops: The MIG 1.44.

Of course, you can say there are some relationship between J-20 and Mig-1.44. But double standard is terrible. You should admit the relationship between F-15 and Mig-25 if you want me to accept your theory.

 

[Figaro]

Of course, you can say there are some relationship between J-20 and Mig-1.44. But double standard is terrible. You should admit the relationship between F-15 and Mig-25 if you want me to accept your theory.

Under his same logic, the F-35 is a copy of the Yak 141

 

[gambit]

Of course, you can say there are some relationship between J-20 and Mig-1.44. But double standard is terrible. You should admit the relationship between F-15 and Mig-25 if you want me to accept your theory.

There are no double standard. I said a long time ago -- long before you got in this board -- that the F-15 and MIG-25 came from the North American A-5.

Wow. You're a complete moron. I have to prove that the Chinese Chengdu J-20, which has been seen flying in Chinese airspace is made by China?

YOU are the moron. I asked no such thing.

All I did was presented KNOWN engineering practices that expects designers and engineers to search for precedents.

Going by YOUR silly method of comparing jets to determine their origins, do you agree that...

- The F-15 Silent Eagle did not came from the F-15.

- The T-38, F-5, and F-20 are not related. The T-38 is dual cockpit. The F-20 is single engine. The F-5 is single cockpit and twin engine. Ergo, the jets are completely discrete from conception. Also, the Iranian Saeqeh cannot be based on the F-5 since the Saeqeh has twin canted vertical stabs and the F-5 has single vertical stab.

- The F-18 Hornet has no design influence on the F-18 Super Hornet.

If you agree, then we can conclude that in your mind, the J-20 started with zero inputs. Deal ?

 

[clarkgap]

There are no double standard. I said a long time ago -- long before you got in this board -- that the F-15 and MIG-25 came from the North American A-5.


YOU are the moron. I asked no such thing.

All I did was presented KNOWN engineering practices that expects designers and engineers to search for precedents.

Going by YOUR silly method of comparing jets to determine their origins, do you agree that...

- The F-15 Silent Eagle did not came from the F-15.

- The T-38, F-5, and F-20 are not related. The T-38 is dual cockpit. The F-20 is single engine. The F-5 is single cockpit and twin engine. Ergo, the jets are completely discrete from conception. Also, the Iranian Saeqeh cannot be based on the F-5 since the Saeqeh has twin canted vertical stabs and the F-5 has single vertical stab.

- The F-18 Hornet has no design influence on the F-18 Super Hornet.

If you agree, then we can conclude that in your mind, the J-20 started with zero inputs. Deal ?

I posted it again: "On one hand, there is no any relationship between F-15 and Mig-25 because A-5 is earlier. On the other hand, there are some relationship between J-20 and Mig-1.44 even though J-9/10 is earlier. Is this your point?"