Fine, same result, same method, I get 45.5, by slicing the rafale’s area up into squares and calculating it based on 1/2916 for the pixel-meter ratio.

I’m slightly more accurate, but you’re more right.

The canard area is roughly 2.3-2.4m^2, by the way.

The canards are 6 m^2 on the J-20.

Off paralay, it still gives you 759 ft^2 without canards, or 71 m^2.

Scaled down, it’s 684 ft^2 equiv, or about 20% less wing area than the F-22 for area.

===

Actually, you don’t like the figures, you just redo the damn calculation.

74 m^2, 791.8 sq ft, 15% less or 17% more scaled down.

Compare to the PAK-FA, the aircraft has about 10% less or more wing area compared to the F-22 when scaled down from 20 to 19 meters.

On wing-area, finesse ratio, the J-20’s deficient but not wholly crippled compared to the PAK-FA and F-22. It’s comparable, and hopefully the canards make up for performance losses.

You judged this too early. One told me that 67^2meter for J-20. If this 67 is true, then J-20 will be the first tailless delta wing a/c with smaller wing area in contract with same class normal layout. Most of advantage for tailless delta wing configration will be lost for J-20.

Otherwise, I didn’t see so-called lift-body presented on J-20. The curve appeared at belly of F-22 wasn’t completed at J-20.

67 meter^2?

Look, use the method I linked in my post. You get something around 78 m^2 if you include the canards, which generate lift.

In any case, if you use the figures initially indicated in the 62-65 posts, you cannot get 67 m^2.

So there MUST be a lifting body.

On the other hand, I agree that the J-20 will have less wing area than the F-22. It must use other methods to compensate for its inferior wing loading, and the canards and fully movable tailfins provide it.

===

If you want to trash the J-20, bring up the unfortunate fact that the canards limit the aircraft’s frontal RCS to around .001 m^2, that the WS-15 is vaporware and that the Chinese have always been quite weak when it comes to engine development (see the WS-10 fiasco, which has been in development for more than 20 years, yet still has not reached the AL-31F level of performance), and that the J-20 has a very poor back RCS due to the ventral fins and the intended 3D thrust vectoring. As a dogfighting airframe, however, it must be respectable. Perhaps the engines will turn out to be insufficient and the aircraft won’t be ready, or F-35s will be in the region in numbers 2-3 years before the J-20 begins mass production.

Those are the real limitations of the plane, not that it’s not designed as an air superiority fighter that can go head to head with the F-22 and PAK-FA and either win, draw, or make the defeat bloody.

As far as whether or not it can snipe US support aircraft, such as AWACs and tankers, I don’t doubt that it can and I believe that it was designed to do so. I don’t think that the aircraft cannot perform interceptor roles, but at the same time I don’t think that the aircraft is only designed to perform interception. If it were only optimized for interception, why bother with the canards? Why bother with the fully-movable tailfins? And we can see that the effective wing area is absolutely respectable.

On the other hand, as a carrier killer, the J-20 is limited by its poor internal payload; it’s limited by the size of its internal bays. Beyond that, one of the key issues of the J-20 is its lack of back RCS. If it were designed as a striker, and sacrifices its internal bay capacity for that, how is it supposed to fight and get away when there’s F-22s traveling at afterburner Mach 2.0 in the area, and it has the RCS of a football stadium due to poor rear RCS?

Wikipedia says the F-22 has a wing area of 840 ft^2 oO;. I’ve looked around and found different ways people measure it, so now I’m wondering which way is even correct.

I’ve, hum, redid it on a basis of 20 meters.

77 m^2 -> 832 square feet.

I think the original was based on 19 meters or something around that. I included the body sandwiched by the wing as part of the wing, assuming body lift, and i included the triangle formed by the forward wings as part of the wing as well.

I did the calcs on the F-22, and it turned out that it had abominable wing loading if you didn’t include the body as part of the wing. Using the same methodology for the J-20, I get 832 square feet on 20 meters.

Scaled down to the F-22’s 19 meters, you get 750 square meters with an equivalent size.

This includes the canards, of course.

Actually, my source for the methodology was http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/military-aviation/58838-f-22-wing-area.html

I omitted the wing area between back of the wing, and if I include that in accordance with the method used for the F-22, I get about 80 square meters. Convert it down to 19 meters, and you get 780 square feet. That means the F-22 has about 8% more wing area for its length.