More group shots.

While I agree generally with your orbat figures, I do not believe “it becomes clear that the J-20 was intended to replace all ageing/obsolete Chinese aircraft (J-7/J-8)”.

J-20 is the upper tier fighter, to be supported by J-11/Su-27/-30 and J-10. The ageing J-7 will be replaced by continued production of J-10, and the J-8 by the J-11. Probably 200-400 J-20 will be sufficient for PLAAF and PLANAF.

J-11 is due to winding down actually. single seater version anyways. not much advantage over J-10 over in term of basic airdefence intercept missions. the MKKs and J-11BS will form the tip of the spear of the strike force.

” Will they ever get the J-20 to land on a carrier – I don’t see why not… “

Chengdu is very ambitious. they want carrier contracts as well. they are working on the detailed technologies.

J-15/rehashed T-10K/Su-33 is seen as a the intial solution by the carrier folks. not meant to go past 2025. if size of carrier is of any indication, sooner or later there will be a new internal compeitition for a new mid-sized 5+gen manned carrier aircraft (may be J-10 replacement as well)
we shall see.

Oh dear, how old are you? Have you seen the comments from the test pilots of the F-22 or Eurofighter or other modern combat aircraft? They all praise the handling characteristics of these birds. Of course it flies well, virtually every modern FBW aircraft does! But some of the claims are simply not realistic (same performance as F-22 for example…). Flies like could also point to the general handling characteristics rather than performance figures! And outrunning what kind of F-16 with what payload…

Of course we don’t know, but that doesn’t make your comparison more valid or fair!

yeah I have seen press-releases where the program pilot after seen the press-release said.:”i said that?”. :rolleyes:

What aircraft will the J-20 replace when it becomes operational?

With the J-10, J-11, JH-7A all fairly new into service, can we assume that the J-20 will be ordered in small numbers for crack fighter regiments? Or will this replace most current forms of fighters?

I guess until we know the function of this aircraft it will be hard to guess!

I think I just answered my own questions…..

Voodoo

IOC 2015

What aircraft will the J-20 replace when it becomes operational?

With the J-10, J-11, JH-7A all fairly new into service, can we assume that the J-20 will be ordered in small numbers for crack fighter regiments? Or will this replace most current forms of fighters?

I guess until we know the function of this aircraft it will be hard to guess!

I think I just answered my own questions…..

Voodoo

IOC 2015,
through the rumour vines this program has all the urges and “political” support to accelerate it.
The engine that was meant for it should mature to a reasonable point by that date also.

remember the J-10 project was not that well supported by PLAAF believe it or not until Mr. Jiang Zeming sat in its cockpit, or the rumor goes.

Ok, there is a long discussion on lifting body judging only the section profile of the fuselage…and overlooking:

– the fact that the fuselage is not a 2D wing section and is subject to complicated boundary layer and vortexes;
– interaction with the primary lifting device (the wing);
– interaction with secondary lifting device (canard, LERX, tail, etc);
– interaction with engine inlet and exhaust;
– interaction with other parasites (landing gear doors, weapons bay doors, etc)

That is to say, without making a representative model and putting it in a wind tunnel, there’s not much we can judge about how lifting-body like a particular fuselage is…

At best we can say, that a flat, integrated fuselage works better at generating body lift. In fact, given enough engine power and proper flight control, any flattish object can fly. An F-15 with its flat body creates more body lift than a MiG-21 (remember that Israeli F-15 landing with the starboard side wing chopped off?!). But that’s it, any discussion beyond this qualitative generalisation is, quite frankly, baseless.

The Flanker and T-50 are known to integrate the fuselage and the wing to achieve wave riding, not because they look like so, but because TsAGI did all those wind tunnel testing and they said so.

F-22 is known to use its forward fuselage and integrated inlet to generate vortex, minimise wet surface area, and minimise radar signal return, not (just) because it looks like so, but because Lookheed and NASA did all those wind tunnel testing and you can even find NASA paper on F-22 high alpha boundary control.

Whether the belly or the back should have more curvature to contribute the most body lift is just a non-question. (Unless, of course, if you are talking about a flying wing, in which case 3D wing data applies to the entire aircraft. But even in that case, trimming the aircraft itself poses a lot more constraint on the wing cambre than just simply coming from the standpoint of generating enough lift.)

that’s excactly right my friend! once again you nailed it.

I actually kinda enjoy reading the argument between i.e. and SGW06, I wanna find out more about lifting bodies as well. Now, the J-20’s body doesn’t appear to be simply a cambered airfoil flipped upside down(that is, reflection across the horizontal axis), as the largest cross section area is shortly before the engines rather than near the nose. It’s more like a reflection across a diagonal axis. So my question is, how would that affect the lift?

Always remember it Lift always have ugly sibling Drag :D.
at 1 G cruise conditions these fighter wings are more than enough for lifting the weight. actually too much. they are really built for generate alot of lift (thus Gs), not for cruise.
one really want is lower drag at smalle cruise AOAs but generate a lot of lift at high AOAs…

oh what the heck.

the following is from NASA Report server:

Title: Tests in the Variable Density Wind Tunnel to Investigate the Effects of Scale and Turbulence on Airfoil Characteristics
Author(s): Stack, John
Abstract: The effect of scale and turbulence on the lift and drag of five airfoils the NACA 0006, the NACA 0021, the Clark Y and the USA 35-A, and the USN PS6, have been investigated in the Variable Density Wind Tunnel of the NACA. Tests were made over a wide scale range for only two different conditions of turbulence.
NASA Center: Langley Research Center
Publication Date: February 1931
Document Source: CASI
Online Source: View PDF File
Document ID: 19930081155
Accession ID: 93R10445
Publication Information: Number of Pages = 44
Report Number: NACA-TN-364
Related Information: NACA Technical Note 364.
Accessibility: Unclassified; No Copyright; Unlimited; Publicly available;
Updated/Added to NTRS: 2010-10-28

link is here:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930081155_1993081155.pdf

In which a large number of classic air foil’s lift curve slopes were experimentally determined…

Now, as we all remembered:
I asked our distinguished aerodynamicists Mr. SGW06:

“ a body which has its lower surface curved and upper surface flat, would generate upwards lift when it’s incidents to the airstream is at 0 degrees? “

in which our distinguished aerodynamicist mr SGW06 answered and I quote:

“Aint that quite obviously?
The combined force should go somewhat upwards and somewhat backwards. ”

which I asked him again to clearify, which he said:
“Exactly, just like the picture indicates”

And of caus there are concept (extremely) lifting-body aircrafts, for instance:

The theory is quite simple here:

Now,

below are the experimental data for Clark Y, which has a curved upper surface. and a quite flat lower surface.

this is basically the same type of body which our distinguished aerodynamicist mr SGW06 has indicated that would generate positive lift at zero alpha (AOA), except that it is flipped upside down. thus one would expect at 0 deg angle of attack, the lift would be downward direction or negative. exactly as Mr. SGW06 would indicate to us.

the attached data are for the Re 160,000 to Re 1.7 Million. for the classic CLARK Y airfoil, from the NACA report.

CLARK Y has a positive camber. i,e.: “curved upside”, “flat lowerside”. i.e. flipped upside down from our distinguished aerodynamicist mr SGW06’s “lift body” example which has a curved lowerside and flat upper side.
one would expect that, if we take our distinguished aerodynamicist mr SGW06’s word to be the empirical truth, then the zero-alpha lift coefficient of the CLARK Y, should be negative.

BUT. some how, our collegues at NACA back in 1931 didn’t think so and experimental determined tht it is not the case! they all had Positive Lift at zero alpha, which means when we flip those foils upside down, i.e. lower side is now curved, and upper side flat, (just like our distinguished aerodynamicist mr SGW06’s precious Lift Bodies ) the Lift would be… oh no… negative.

irrespective of Re.

This is a utmost conspiracy! our distinguished aerodynamicist mr SGW06, I insist that you march down to NASA and tell them that their curved upper surface, flat lower surface objects should and must have negative lift at zero angle of attack, because you said so!

and I will support you 100% in that effort and wish you the best of luck in undo this hedious conspiracy by the NACA/NASA establishment!

wait, there is more!

it seems that ALL cambered (meaning curved upside, flatdownside) air foils has positive lift at zero alpha! Ever last one of them I looked! NACA4412, Tsagi 8%,… what a travesty! this indeed is a vast conspiracy on an un-imaginable scale! even the Russians are in on this!
http://www.worldofkrauss.com/foils/1280
http://www.worldofkrauss.com/foils/1693

I am with you all the way our distinguished aerodynamicist mr SGW06! all the way! They can not get away with this! they can not!

Are you trying to play with words here?

Of cause strictly speaking it depend on the upper half shape and lower half shape and the total area against the intensity pressure generated.

All I did was to put your curve side upside and your flat side down side. and re-frame the question, why get so defensive.

can you indulge me and just answer this basic question again? please?