while our chinabot friends are feverishly debating over the size of airplanes or non-existant stealth paint
something bad happened. a JH-7 crashed a few hours ago

no word on the pilots. but it would probably be a good time to consider withdrawing these old jets.

Alert 5 has another photo

http://alert5.com/2016/10/22/caught-on-camera-jh-7-crashes-today/#more-58434

its like pakfa and the sducts, it will never be settled.
even the j-10s length is underdispute. tons of fanboys claiming it is the same as the f-16 like your friend above

Mhmm, okay then.

I’m not sure why J-10s length would be under dispute or why either side would be interested in disputing for or against it in the first place, but I suppose anything can happen here.

I’m fairly certain that they are chaff/flare dispensers – zoom in to about 300% on the photo of the J-20 in primer and you can even barely discern the individual tubes.

There may be additional dispensers behind doors on the underside of course, but that doesn’t change the fact that there’s a 90%ish chance Byoin was talking BS when he said I was incorrect.

Yes, well I think your mistake was taking Byoin’s posts with any sort of seriousness to begin with :p

Is that why Russian fanboys are on this thread posting fake images?

Shh… let him have his moment.

But the russians love to stage a lot of their military for the populace. They have Pak-Fa doing all sorts of stuff in the air showing off to the world how great their aircraft is but they don’t video its weapons bay opening? Come on now! That is not the russian way. I’m probably in the majority when i say, if there’s no pics or video it didn’t happen. I don’t know what the big deal is…they are just weapons bay. Just one pic or short vid is all it takes.

I’m more interested in the PAK FA’s side weapons bay — I can imagine how the ventral weapon bays open, but the side weapons bay for the SRAAMs are quite an interesting arrangement, I’m not sure where the hinges are or even the overall shape of the panels.

I’d be more fond of a symmetrical splinter pattern than an asymmetrical one, but I’m glad they went for a subtle grey and black scheme.

I wonder if they are just trialling it out or if this will become the new standard scheme.

Hmm, clearly we see very different things. I see an ugly box with what appears to be a jumble of protrusions coming off it — this impression is at its worst when the dorsal fins are set differently from one another.

Maybe we have different taste; I think the various fins make it look very sci-fi, like a fighter from star wars

My aesthetic judgment is that it looks too long from this angle (no interest in the debate over how long it actually is.)

I agree that those angles are also unflattering.

We’ve got enough — especially recently — to know that from several angles J-20 is an attractive aircraft indeed. :applause:

It’s quite amazing that over five years after its maiden flight we still don’t even have a picture of J-20 actually taken from the air; I’m sure those angles iwll be interesting to see.

I think the bad angles for J-20 are those that emphasise the sheer length of the plane without simultaneously showing the breadth of the wings and canards for balance. And also angles that make the plane look heavy and brutish, lacking in elegance or any sense of motion — this is the category that the head-on angle falls into IMO.

Hmm I think the face on pictures are actually quite good, I like how the canards, tails, and ventral fins are all sort of splayed out like an X wing from the front, or like a fighter from ace combat, and the angular look of the intakes too.

And of course side shots are great, where the smoothness of the plane gets to show itself off:

I think the worst angles of the plane are ones which are angled slightly to one side, where the other side’s air intake is not seen, making the aircraft look somehow distorted, like these:

Unfortunately we don’t have that many good pictures of J-20 truly maneuvring in the air to judge what sort of angles in the air compare :/