***
That means that if we use the J-16s in the background as a measurement, we measure from wingtip to wingtip, ignoring the pylons. With the high-res image, we get 342 pixels, while the J-20 is about 496 pixels long. This puts us at roughly 21.32 meters, with the wing length being 13.2 +- .1 meters long. The wing area then comes out to 78.6 square meters. So, from the evidence and deduction, what we get is long fighter, not crap fighter. Radome length is now around 1.35 meters, keeping the figures we need.
With the latest hi-res photo I got roughly 20.9 m. I could only rely only on the center most aircrafts since there is more distortion with the others. You can look at the canopies and tails of the other aircrafts. In-fact whatever took that photo seem to be on top-of or close to the front most J-20. In the other J-20s the tails extend almost to or beyond the tail-boom, which cannot be the case since in the production version the tail-boom is the longest point. Tail-boom got progressively longer especially from the 200X demonstrators. Even the 201X prototypes went through changes in the Tail-boom. The J-16 are further away so they may actually appear shorter in this photo than what the actual length is. This is the 1st time I got a J-20 length value under 21m
1st pic – J-10C now updated with front are rear UV-MAWS.
Rest of the pics – J-20
…
Not that I don’t believe you, but which photo is this? Is it a photo of the aircraft on the ground rather than in the air?
That is one static air-frame that has its bays open.
EDIT:
Bays open:



As far as length estimates go, Deino’s original satellite comparison (I believe this was his work?) really did set the standard for accurately measuring the length, that the new photo corresponds with.
He wasn’t even 30-40cm off, considering the photo Deino had access to showed a 200X prototype, which had shorter tail booms rather than the 201X/production version which has the longer tail boom.
Looking at the new hi-res photo Deino’s 20.35 m estimate for the 200X was off only by +20 cm (+30 cm at most). 
new one,
Something very Freudian about a bunch of guys arguing over length.

We never heard that.
What we heard, from one of the J-20 pilots after the parade, was that J-20’s performance in subsonic speeds was merely “good” and that J-20’s performance at supersonic speeds was “astonishing”.
There was never any mention of J-20’s performance compared to any planes.
Hyperwarp/quantumfx, careful about answering questions with answers that are not true…
My Apologies. Misread that.
***
anyways moving on, now that the su-35 is confirmed, which is the PLAAFs best fighter.. the su-35 or j-20?
In BVR the J-20 blows away everything in the PLAAF. After the J-20, the most advanced EW systems are in the J-10C and J-16, especially the J-10C (which may have an active cancellation system) but even those supported by KJ-2000 AWACS are no match for the J-20 if rumors are to be believed . It seems the 1st thing the J-20 does is, it takes out is the KJ-2000 and then pick the other fighters one by one. Off-course those were initial encounters and the PLAAF is still learning how use and at the same time counter 5th gen fighters using non-5th gen fighters. Again if rumors are to be believed the Su-35 has serious trouble dealing with the J-10B in BVR. So no point even bringing the J-20.
EDIT: Disregard the following statements –
WVR is a completely different story. At subsonic speeds the J-20 is said to be comparable to the J-10 and J-11 but the Su-35 is a completely different monster and especially from the rear those R-73 should not have any problem locking onto the J-20.
Interesting pics and topic.
Is the J-16 an improved incarnation of Su-30MKK/Su-30M2?
The older inferior version should be Su-30MK2.
Yes it is meant to supplement and eventually replace Su-30MKK/MK2.
My take – The production J-20 is slightly longer than the demonstrators 2001/2002. Longest point is the tail-boom. No matter how I slice it I cannot get a value below 21m, but it is less than 21.5m and shorter than the earlier 22 to 23 meter estimates. I know some even claimed it would be around 25m :stupid:.
Really ??? I thought the length is 21.93 without the pitot.
I am having very sh!++y day today. The correct value is 21.94 m without the tube for the Su-27. So using that I get 21.1 to 21.3. There is a margin of error due to the blurring when resizing. 21m is a safe bet.
Nope, … these are 3 J-16.
And by the way it is finally a clearer image available, that now allows a better estimation of the J-20’s dimensions.
So no longer an estimation based on a grainy satellite image.But Iām sure certain members at the PDF and here too will again present us a theory why the J-20 is still about 22-23m long.
Deino
J-16? My bad! Should have known better. The Su-35 has a different camo.
EDIT:
J-16 length would be similar to the Su-30MKK but without the pitot tube. So the length of the J-20 will actually be less than (21.93 – pitot length).
…
3x J-20 and 3x Su-35.
***
[*img]https://russianplanes.net/images/to221000/220488.jpg%5B/img]
What the hell is that?