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

[gambit]

I posted it again: "On one hand, there is no any relationship between F-15 and Mig-25 because V-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?"

Point made in post 36.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chengdu-j-9.528464/page-3#post-10053641

From what everyone sees, all you guys have to do is make allegations but for me, I have to provide concrete proof.

Why is the J-9 or J-10 more valid the foundation than the MIG 1.44 for the J-20 ? Any concrete proof for that ?

 

[clarkgap]

Point made in post 36.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chengdu-j-9.528464/page-3#post-10053641

From what everyone sees, all you guys have to do is make allegations but for me, I have to provide concrete proof.

Why is the J-9 or J-10 more valid the foundation than the MIG 1.44 for the J-20 ? Any concrete proof for that ?

You need tell me why is the A-5 more valid the foundation than the Mig-25 for F-15, then I can answer your question base on your standard.

 

[gambit]

You need tell me why is the A-5 more valid the foundation than the Mig-25 for F-15, then I can answer your question base on your standard.

You must be joking. It ain't that difficult to find and to think it thru.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25

The appearance of the MiG-25 sparked serious concern in the West and prompted dramatic increases in performance for the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle then under development in the late 1960s.

See that ?

It mean that both fighters were under relatively parallel development, even though the MIG-25 has an earlier first flight. All the MIG did was scared the Americans into IMPROVING the capabilities of the F-15's design parameters. Not about using the -25 as foundation for the -15. The A-5 was already in deployment when the MIG-25 and F-15 were under R/D.

http://www.airvectors.net/ava5.html

North American had considered twin tailfins to meet the height restrictions of a carrier hangar deck, but although such a configuration is common now, it was too bold for the Navy at the time. North American went with a single tall tailfin that folded to one side.

See the highlighted ? The original A-5 design had TWIN VERTICAL STABILATORS.

Here it is...

http://www.cavok.com.br/blog/a-de-ataque-north-american-a-5ra-5-vigilante/

You can argue that all I have are speculations, but then so you are guys. The issue is whose are more valid based upon known facts and reasonably fleshed out.

 

[clarkgap]

You must be joking. It ain't that difficult to find and to think it thru.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25

See that ?

It mean that both fighters were under relatively parallel development, even though the MIG-25 has an earlier first flight. All the MIG did was scared the Americans into IMPROVING the capabilities of the F-15's design parameters. Not about using the -25 as foundation for the -15. The A-5 was already in deployment when the MIG-25 and F-15 were under R/D.

http://www.airvectors.net/ava5.html

See the highlighted ? The original A-5 design had TWIN VERTICAL STABILATORS.

Here it is...

http://www.cavok.com.br/blog/a-de-ataque-north-american-a-5ra-5-vigilante/

You can argue that all I have are speculations, but then so you are guys. The issue is whose are more valid based upon known facts and reasonably fleshed out.

I do not need wikipedia. I know NAA want to test twin vertical stabilators on YA3J-1, and Navy refused it. I know NASA's work on LFAX-8. I know how did USAF change the RFP of the second round CFS of F-X project due to the appear of mig-25. I know NASA's advisements for McDonnell Douglas' design after wind tunnel test. NAA also joint the bidding of F-X project and got the PDP contract 1968. Their design was the real successor of A-5.

You think F-15 is the successor of A-5 just because they looks similar. You also said J-20 is the successor of Mig-1.44 without any evidence. If you want me prove the technology relationship between J-20 and J-9/10, you should teach me your standard about that by describing the technology relationship between A-5 and F-15.

 

[gambit]

You think F-15 is the successor of A-5 just because they looks similar.

Anything look similar to the F-16 before it came out ? And please do not bring on the prototypes.

You also said J-20 is the successor of Mig-1.44 without any evidence.

Never said so. In fact, I consistently said something like 'hinted at' or 'suspicious'.

If you want me prove the technology relationship between J-20 and J-9/10, you should teach me your standard about that by describing the technology relationship between A-5 and F-15.

I never expected you to keep your words. I never expect any of you Chinese to keep your words. We let the readers decide whose speculations are more credible.

 

[clarkgap]

Anything look similar to the F-16 before it came out ? And please do not bring on the prototypes.

Why no prototypes? British Hawker P.1121 really looks similar like F-16. Base on your standard (probably, I do not understand your standard) it hinted at GD referenced it when they design F-16, even though there is no relationship between them. I know GD developed the inlet of Model 404 base on the design of F-8 and A-7.

Hawker P.1121

GD developed the inlet of Model 404

It is not a provocation for you. I just think we need a same standard before we discuss something.

 

[gambit]

Why no prototypes? British Hawker P.1121 really looks similar like F-16. Base on your standard (probably, I do not understand your standard) it hinted at GD referenced it when they design F-16, even though there is no relationship between them. I know GD developed the inlet of Model 404 base on the design of F-8 and A-7.

Your post was: You think F-15 is the successor of A-5 just because they looks similar.

Successor ? No, I said no such.

The A-5 was originally intended for the Navy as a carrier based strike bomber, conventional and nuclear. The F-15 was not its successor. The F-15 was originally designed to be an air superiority fighter. It is the A-5's planform that influences the F-15's and suspect for the MIG-25's.

So who preceded the F-16 that made the F-16 such a successor ? The A-5 was not a prototype. It was a deployed jet with several variants. So if you want to talk about the F-16 in the same origin perspective as the A-5, F-15, and MIG-25, then you cannot use the Hawker as each of those three are deployed platforms with different missions. They are not 'successor' to each other despite similarities in planforms.

Now...If you want to propose that GD possibly may have used some aspects of the Hawker to design the F-16, then you are tacitly in agreement with my argument that Chengdu may have used some aspects of the MIG 1.44 to design the J-20. I never said -- NOT ONCE -- that the J-20 was anyone's successor.

It is not a provocation for you. I just think we need a same standard before we discuss something.

No worries. Dodge all you want. I do not expect you to present ANY argument as to why the J-20's planform ancestor lies more in the J-9/10 than in the MIG 1.44. I already made my suspicion in post 36 pge 3. By the way, I sent Marty's post to some people and they laughed their butts off at Marty's comparison. He disqualified the 1.44 as a possible source for Chengdu but miraculously, his criteria do not apply to the J-9/10.

 

[Brainsucker]

I won't join any side at this argument, although I agree with Martian and other that J-20 has no relation with Mig-1.44. Even if there are similarity, it just because they use delta wing design.

I do not need wikipedia. I know NAA want to test twin vertical stabilators on YA3J-1, and Navy refused it. I know NASA's work on LFAX-8. I know how did USAF change the RFP of the second round CFS of F-X project due to the appear of mig-25. I know NASA's advisements for McDonnell Douglas' design after wind tunnel test. NAA also joint the bidding of F-X project and got the PDP contract 1968. Their design was the real successor of A-5.

You think F-15 is the successor of A-5 just because they looks similar. You also said J-20 is the successor of Mig-1.44 without any evidence. If you want me prove the technology relationship between J-20 and J-9/10, you should teach me your standard about that by describing the technology relationship between A-5 and F-15.

But how do you know about this? Where's your information come from? I ask this for educational purpose. Not to questioning your credibility. Thanks.

No worries. Dodge all you want. I do not expect you to present ANY argument as to why the J-20's planform ancestor lies more in the J-9/10 than in the MIG 1.44. I already made my suspicion in post 36 pge 3. By the way, I sent Marty's post to some people and they laughed their butts off at Marty's comparison. He disqualified the 1.44 as a possible source for Chengdu but miraculously, his criteria do not apply to the J-9/10.

And I can show your posts to some people and they laughed their butts off at your argument. But is that matter? Their behavior won't help me reduce you into an incompetent person. But at the same time, it show my incompetency because I don't have any credibility to defend my own argument in the debate. And that the same as what you do here. Do you still able to present your argument, or decide to tell us that some unknown guys laugh at Martin argument. Which is pointless.

 

[Brainsucker]

View attachment 439002

I think I start to understand why some people argue that J-20 is a copy of Mig-1.44. It's the wings placement. But even with that, it can't proof that J-20 is a copy of Mig-1.44. If you said as "Inspired", all the plane in this world are inspired by the Wright Brother's plane. Aerodynamic is based on physic. it's all depend on the law of physic. You can't suddenly create an aircraft without wing just because you want to force originality.

And even so, they are just similar, not exact similar. Do you think that J-20 Aerodynamic is the same as Mig-1.44? Their placement, their fuselage, their size, and even their wings have different shape. So, if J-20 is the copy of Mig-1.44, then I agree with @clarkgap. to question the originality of F-15 and F-16 design.

But even if J-20 is not the same as Mig-1.44. It is not the same as J-9 either. I can be convinced if they said that J-10 is based on J-9. But J-20? Nope.

 

[leapx]

I think I start to understand why some people argue that J-20 is a copy of Mig-1.44. It's the wings placement. But even with that, it can't proof that J-20 is a copy of Mig-1.44. If you said as "Inspired", all the plane in this world are inspired by the Wright Brother's plane. Aerodynamic is based on physic. it's all depend on the law of physic. You can't suddenly create an aircraft without wing just because you want to force originality.

And even so, they are just similar, not exact similar. Do you think that J-20 Aerodynamic is the same as Mig-1.44? Their placement, their fuselage, their size, and even their wings have different shape. So, if J-20 is the copy of Mig-1.44, then I agree with @clarkgap. to question the originality of F-15 and F-16 design.

But even if J-20 is not the same as Mig-1.44. It is not the same as J-9 either. I can be convinced if they said that J-10 is based on J-9. But J-20? Nope.

J-20 and Mig-1.44 are quite different on aerodynamics. Even the twin vertical tails are quite different. J-20 has all-movable tails while Mig-1.44 has vertical stabilisers. Previously I already posted the difference on wing and canard.
I already made my point.

 

[Martian2]

The J-20 has no relationship to the Mig 1.44.

All mainstream reputable aviation news organizations (Jane's, Global Security, Aviation Week, Flight Global, etc.) DO NOT claim ANY relationship between the Chinese J-20 and Mig 1.44.

All mainstream articles on the J-20 specifically say it is an INDIGENOUS Chinese aircraft.

The Mig 1.44 never left the Soviet Union/Russia. The Chinese never examined it.

There was no joint effort by Russia's Mig and China's Chengdu.

Thus, the claim of the J-20 being derived from the Mig 1.44 is idiotic.
----------

Flat Earther: The Earth is flat.
Gambit: The J-20 is derived from the Mig 1.44.

Me: Show me your proof.

Flat Earther: But...but...but...The Earth is flat!
Gambit: But...but...but..The J-20 is derived from the Mig 1.44!
----------

Read Global Security's article on the Chinese Chengdu J-20. It never mentions the Russian Mig 1.44. You know why? Because they have NOTHING to do with each other.

Global Security informs you of the following FACT: "In August 2008 it was reported that 611 Institute [Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute] was selected to be the main contractor for the development of the fifth-generation stealthy J-20, and that 601 Institute [Shenyang Aircraft Corporation [SAC] was the sub-contractor." (third paragraph)

That is the end of the story. The J-20 is a solely Chinese-designed aircraft.

J-20 Black Eagle [Black Silk?] | (Jianjiji-20 Fighter aircraft 20) / F-20 | Global Security

 

[clarkgap]

Your post was: You think F-15 is the successor of A-5 just because they looks similar.

Successor ? No, I said no such.

The A-5 was originally intended for the Navy as a carrier based strike bomber, conventional and nuclear. The F-15 was not its successor. The F-15 was originally designed to be an air superiority fighter. It is the A-5's planform that influences the F-15's and suspect for the MIG-25's.

So who preceded the F-16 that made the F-16 such a successor ? The A-5 was not a prototype. It was a deployed jet with several variants. So if you want to talk about the F-16 in the same origin perspective as the A-5, F-15, and MIG-25, then you cannot use the Hawker as each of those three are deployed platforms with different missions. They are not 'successor' to each other despite similarities in planforms.

Now...If you want to propose that GD possibly may have used some aspects of the Hawker to design the F-16, then you are tacitly in agreement with my argument that Chengdu may have used some aspects of the MIG 1.44 to design the J-20. I never said -- NOT ONCE -- that the J-20 was anyone's successor.


No worries. Dodge all you want. I do not expect you to present ANY argument as to why the J-20's planform ancestor lies more in the J-9/10 than in the MIG 1.44. I already made my suspicion in post 36 pge 3. By the way, I sent Marty's post to some people and they laughed their butts off at Marty's comparison. He disqualified the 1.44 as a possible source for Chengdu but miraculously, his criteria do not apply to the J-9/10.

I had read your post in #36. I did not reply that because it was just ridiculous. You said:

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 ?

You ignore a long list of jet fighters used tailles delta layout include Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, JAS 39 Gripen, and J-10! I believe everyone can find the obvious common features between J-10 and J-20. J-20 is basically a twin-engine J-10 with low RCS features. They both use the tailless delta-canard wing planform. Why do you think the designers of Chengdu would abandoned their experience on J-10 for a Mig prototype that they did not know anything?

Moreover, you said:

Now...If you want to propose that GD possibly may have used some aspects of the Hawker to design the F-16, then you are tacitly in agreement with my argument that Chengdu may have used some aspects of the MIG 1.44 to design the J-20. I never said -- NOT ONCE -- that the J-20 was anyone's successor.

I also not said F-16 was the successor of Hawker P.1121. I know how USAF adjust their requirement on F-XX project. I just said "British Hawker P.1121 really looks similar like F-16. Base on your standard, it hinted at GD referenced it when they design F-16." Due to I do not agree your stabdard, I think there is no relationship between Hawker P.1121 and F-16.

Of course, the designer of J-20 need precendent.

I won't join any side at this argument, although I agree with Martian and other that J-20 has no relation with Mig-1.44. Even if there are similarity, it just because they use delta wing design.



But how do you know about this? Where's your information come from? I ask this for educational purpose. Not to questioning your credibility. Thanks.



And I can show your posts to some people and they laughed their butts off at your argument. But is that matter? Their behavior won't help me reduce you into an incompetent person. But at the same time, it show my incompetency because I don't have any credibility to defend my own argument in the debate. And that the same as what you do here. Do you still able to present your argument, or decide to tell us that some unknown guys laugh at Martin argument. Which is pointless.

NAAS magzine, AF Website, a dozen of e-book, some Journal and report.

 

[Brainsucker]

J-20 and Mig-1.44 are quite different on aerodynamics. Even the twin vertical tails are quite different. J-20 has all-movable tails while Mig-1.44 has vertical stabilisers. Previously I already posted the difference on wing and canard.
I already made my point.

I'm not blaming you bro. I just use your quote to show the picture of Mig-1.44 and J-20. I agree that both of them have different aerodynamic. I point to people who think that J-20 is a copy of Mig-1.44 just because their wing position are similar.

 

[Beast]

The J-20 has no relationship to the Mig 1.44.

All mainstream reputable aviation news organizations (Jane's, Global Security, Aviation Week, Flight Global, etc.) DO NOT claim ANY relationship between the Chinese J-20 and Mig 1.44.

All mainstream articles on the J-20 specifically say it is an INDIGENOUS Chinese aircraft.

The Mig 1.44 never left the Soviet Union/Russia. The Chinese never examined it.

There was no joint effort by Russia's Mig and China's Chengdu.

Thus, the claim of the J-20 being derived from the Mig 1.44 is idiotic.
----------

Flat Earther: The Earth is flat.
Gambit: The J-20 is derived from the Mig 1.44.

Me: Show me your proof.

Flat Earther: But...but...but...The Earth is flat!
Gambit: But...but...but..The J-20 is derived from the Mig 1.44!
----------

Read Global Security's article on the Chinese Chengdu J-20. It never mentions the Russian Mig 1.44. You know why? Because they have NOTHING to do with each other.

Global Security informs you of the following FACT: "In August 2008 it was reported that 611 Institute [Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute] was selected to be the main contractor for the development of the fifth-generation stealthy J-20, and that 601 Institute [Shenyang Aircraft Corporation [SAC] was the sub-contractor." (third paragraph)

That is the end of the story. The J-20 is a solely Chinese-designed aircraft.

J-20 Black Eagle [Black Silk?] | (Jianjiji-20 Fighter aircraft 20) / F-20 | Global Security

https://www.google.com/amp/s/sputniknews.com/amp/military/20110826166209279/

"MiG denies stealth technology transfer to China for J-20 fighter"

 

[Figaro]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/sputniknews.com/amp/military/20110826166209279/

"MiG denies stealth technology transfer to China for J-20 fighter"

Why would Russia (Mikoyan) transfer "stealth technology" that they don't even have themselves??? Their SU-57 is definitely not stealthy ... and the Migs are even worse.