We can see the poor finishing on the PAK FA. You can't with the J 20. We have seen many closeups already and what you imply does not exist in reality. If you do find the gaps we can clearly see on the PAK FA on the J 20 feel free to post a picture and point it out.
And what constitutes a poor finish? No RAM, no primer? So when the F-22 and F-35 made their test slights with no RAM or primer was that also a poor finish? I think not; and there is no close ups of the J-20 only distant shots from a zoom lens. And why is that so? Clearly some photographs were taken from the airfield but none show any true close-up's. On the other hand we have photograph of the pak-fa from just feet away. And do realize the J-20 has black paint/RAM, clearly much of the details are obscured.
And what gaps do you speak of? the only 'gaps' the pak-fa has is the weapons bays, landing gear bays, retractable fuel probe....if you consider that gaps that the J-20 also has gaps. And if you are referring to the intake/fuselage space than you should refrain for the following reasons:
1. The F-22 has the same feature.
2. You are way out of your league and understanding on the subject.
3. Geometrically there is zero indication that rcs would increase since the 'gap' recedes in a slop manner, where it exits to the lower fuselage.
Get me a picture and circle the lack of intersecting points in the J 20 and the intersecting points in all other stealth fighters.
Those intersecting points or sawtooth-like patterns are seen on all 'stealth' aircraft. The most prominent being the B-2 and the least prominent being the J-20 with the F-35 not far behind but still better.
Here is an illustration of those points:
The pak-fa:
As you can see there are many edges or sawtooth-like areas all over the wings, the biggest and most difficult to spot is where the horizontal stabilizer meets the main wing. If you are having trouble seeing it ignore the horizontal stabilizer and focus on the main wing. As you can see the wings are very irregular compared to average aircraft. The B-2, F-22, pak-fa, YF-23...ect do not have all of those unusual sawtooth like patterns because it looks cool, they are there for a purpose.
As for the intake if it is adjustable it will not be any worse than say the F 22 as it also has adjustable intakes.
Where do the F-22's intakes adjust? If we assume this to be true the J-20's intakes are DSI, the F-22's are not. And based of recent talk and animation the DSI will move, there will be much more difficulty for J-20 designers to achieve the same rcs for a adjustable DSI as apposed to a fixed one because of gaps, moving parts ect.
And if its not perfectly flush then the RCS increases. There is no evidence of this but once again you like to argue with lack of evidence don't you. Lets argue with observable arguments shall we.
Your are calling me a liar? I always try to provide sources.
Here is your evidence:
http://www.afa.org/Mitchell/Reports/MS_RadarGame_0910.pdf
As one Lockheed F‑117 engineer put it, We couldnt allow even the tiniest imperfection in the fit of the landing gear door, for example, that could triple the airplanes RCS if it wasnt precisely flush with the body.
A landing gear door, a weapons bay, or an adjustable DSI are all in the same category--they are all moving/retractable parts. Weapons bays and landing gear doors are fairly simple, an adjustable DSI is not, so as the engineer puts it the tiniest imperfection or a panel that was not flush can cause an aircraft's RCS to triple.
So you admit that the J 20 is further along then the T 50 as it already has RAM applied. And don't start with the fanboy calling. I've seen enough of your posts to know that you're quite a fanboy yourself.
You have a strange logic, since when does having RAM constitute as being further along? There are two flying prototypes of the pak-fa as well as some static models and a number of other prototypes on under construction. The flying prototypes are only for aerodynamics, later prototypes will integrate weapons and avionics, they will also be 'LO' platforms.
All the different pak-fa prototypes accelerate the testing process. If you want to believe the J-20 is 'further along' that is totally fine with me. You can think whatever you wish, but you must understand the pak-fa has made dozens of test flight and it flew a year before the J-20, and shortly there will be a third flying prototype.
And yes we have seen many high resolution close ups of the J 20.
No we have not, all are from far away using a zoom lens. There are two or three decent photograph but none are as close as pak-fa pictures, nor do they have the same resolution. And there is probably good reason for it.
So find the picture with the weld mark or this is unsubstantiated BS. But thats not a surprise is it?
Here it is, there appears to be a weld mark or some sort of obvious imperfection behind the test probe which is located on the tip of the nose.
http://i.imgur.com/76n4M.jpg
You may need to click on the actual picture to
enlarge it.
Some other things that stand out:
The airbrake is not plush.
Rivets/bolts are seen on the vertical stabilizer.
And antennas are visible.
How ironic, same things that the J-20 fanboys criticized and crucified the pak-fa for are now also seen on the J-20. Minus the weld marks and large air-brake gap. Talk about two faced and bias. I bet some people feel like slashing their wrists....
I've seen this photograph long ago but i never said anything about it because i'm not like the J-20 fanboys that rudely shout out the top of their longs when they see something that they think is poor 'quality' in the pak-fa. Manners, sensibility, and fairness, these things lack in the J-20 fanboys.
1. It is a prototype but on the next prototype a year later little has changed besides changes to sensors. The basic airframe has not changed.
Thank you, but you are not as clever as you think. It was well know that the second prototypes would be identical to the first, even I mentioned this before.
You don't have RAM ready for application on the PAK FA, therefore its naked even on its second prototype. Poor excuse, but go ahead and tell me your excuse for the poor build quality.
Know what you are talking about, the second prototype is an aerodynamics model. It will likely not receive any RAM. And please do realize RAM has been around for decades, the SU-35 and TU-160 have certain parts that are covered in it. Sukhoi can shoot the pak-fa with a coat of RAM if it wishes but it would not make sense since the aircraft is fitted with test probes that would make any RAM counter productive.
