Page 57 – Key Publishing

i.e.

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 841 through 855 (of 1,076 total)

← 1 2 3 … 56 57 58 … 70 71 72 →

Author

Posts
January 12, 2011 at 4:16 am in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 3 #2321902

i.e.
Participant

To reduce RCS in non combat situation? 😀
hmmm very unlikely

IRST might be very useful for future UCAV development though, instead of installing expensive and heavy radar

put some good ESMs on UAVs with datalink and flood the area. with a system like DAS on JSF but more oriented towards self-defence.
plus high offbore a-a IR missiles with a bigger boost section to match the sensor range.

whoever comes and you will have to kill, to kill you have been seen, to be seen and you will die .

in this day and age emitters will die.

January 12, 2011 at 3:52 am in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 3 #2321910

i.e.
Participant

May be they designed a pop up version:diablo:

what’s the point of that?

anyways with the advances in semi-conductors in couple of years detection range on IRST may really be useful at long range. :dev2:

January 12, 2011 at 3:48 am in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 3 #2321917

i.e.
Participant

wonder what are those stuff?

upper nose seems very clean
\

donno those in the rear are engine related vents.

I thought I saw a bump on top of the nose. may be an covered up mount for IRST to be added later?

January 12, 2011 at 3:36 am in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 3 #2321924

i.e.
Participant

I think pitch control using VT would cause too much drag…
IMO in this pic J-20 was doing landing approach, and VT were acting as air brake

where you most need it is prob low speed.
also remember those local flow on top of the fueslage is does not necessarily align with velocity vector or the fueslage center line.

who has a close shot of top of nose near the cockpit?

January 12, 2011 at 3:23 am in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 3 #2321931

i.e.
Participant

I think it might be able to use elevons only to perform pitch trim in cruise, While the canards can be fixed in a optimised trim angle for that speed, to reduce forward RCS.
I believe the shiny petals were there for IR reduction purposes.
Would those chevrons help mixing cold air by draging vortices?

or work with VT also.
FCS and RCS works in unisome is an open secret.

chevrons do help noise (and IR) by mixing hot/cold air.

also look at the cooling vent in the side nose, F-22 style. right above its single side air data probe.
this think is meant for a big (AESA) radar.
…

any one seen any optical for MAWS/IRIST or any di-electric fairing yet?

come on people we need eyes!

January 12, 2011 at 3:02 am in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 3 #2322036

i.e.
Participant

Don’t want to get into a J-20 vs whatever fighter fight, but it definitely is one hell of a fighter:

I think I see side weapon bays with tooth.

January 12, 2011 at 2:58 am in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 3 #2322040

i.e.
Participant

Also, on this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlLGk6GiDuA

you should be able to see the preflight surface checks performed by the pilot on J-20 yesterday before it took off.

watch when the pitch checks were performed.

for pitch checks, elevarons and the canard moved in unisom .

also, notice how extreme the articulation on those engine petals were. and on the edge there were chevrons.
a new way to manage IR and noise may be?

January 12, 2011 at 2:45 am in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 3 #2322049

i.e.
Participant

J-20 has a flat ventral body. So you have made a mistake in basic logical operation, deductive reasoning.

But you have made a mistake in premises too. Using space reentry vehicle body design example, assuming that’s lifting body design fitted for fighter jets.

So it could be said that using two mistakes, first in logic, second in physics, you’ve probably came to the right conclusion.

There will be some lift from the fuselage but not straight forward additions like Lift from Wing + lift from body = total lift. more like Lift from Wing + lift from body << total lift

in the case of fighters like J-20 usually you put your entire fighter VT and all into your wing tunnel and cfd this would give you complete wing+body total lift/drag/pitching moment characteristics.

now before this there will be configurations study where aerodynamicist would do experimental studies to see what the best configuration would be to attain your over all goal to satisfy some requirement. from that you narrow down to your final configurations.

In song’s paper his conclusion on lifting body is that the energetic vortices from LERX combine that from forebody would actually generate alot lift on rear portion of the fuselage. but a pan-cake like lifting body (i.e. a wide chorded short span wing if you will) is difficult to physically align with the canard configuration and have good internal volume for stores and all.

Here is why I think the ventral fins are staying: they actually help to generate some lift by acting on the flap rear part pf fuselage like end-plates. think of it as channel flow between engines flanker style, but with out the wide mounted engines. and as the high energy regions on the rear bottom fuselage goes, they should also get more effective directional stability coming out from those fins… thus can shrink the requirement for those already smallish all moving VT.

anyways, just as a reminder, drag is just as important as lift. and as an old expert might say: the best lift/drag is still a wing. :rolleyes:

January 11, 2011 at 7:05 pm in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 3 #2322586

i.e.
Participant

first with the J10 (no one sees it, and all of a sudden the net is flooded with evidence for not one or two, but regiments of the bird!). I wonder if one last surprise is still in store for spotters. Give ’em a few months, and we might see a regiment or two or three.

USS.

love you enthusiasim
but,
I highly doubt it.

back in late 90s early 00s, J-10’s pictures were floating around internet like ghosts. and plane spotters in china routinely spots it in test then in squadron service. no one (in the west) believed it and it didn’t gather as much attention. this one just happened to catch the attention of everyone.

…
now that being said.
I believe alot of its critical subsystems which gives most of its capability, may be more mature than the mainstream here in west generally believe.
They have been working on this and putting together simulation facilities, from component to integrated ground test facilities etc, for YEARS. and the amount of technical papers coming out from the periferals (academia research with project ties) are stunning in breadth if not in depth.
They know what F22 and 35 has, and generally if they can help it they will try atleast to have that capability.

the progress seems to come in big surprises. but I believe it is more due to the dilapitated and ill-informed nature of western observers and due to their way of progressing a project (remember their manned space program, 1 launch every year or more, but 3rd launch they are already doing EVAs) , than some devious plan to aim for maximum shock and surprise.

January 11, 2011 at 6:24 pm in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 3 #2322715

i.e.
Participant

bill sweetman commented that this thing looks like have high wing loading.

” Relative to Typhoon or Rafale, the wing appears more highly loaded and more sharply swept, favoring speed rather than ultimate agility. “
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aada92122-076e-4e2f-894c-ccec75133760&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

😎 I told you so that people can fall for this. :p

with closed coupled canard/lerx, the “looks” can be deceptive. 😉

They will go for both speed and manueverbility, that was always the goal.

If they really went for speed over manueverbility, the canards would come off and a compound delta would come in its place.

that was one of the original proposals actually.
But, Mr. Song said “I can do both”. so wola that’s what you see today.

January 11, 2011 at 6:18 pm in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 3 #2322724

i.e.
Participant

In some of the pictures, the rudders seem to be displaced ‘inwards’…I wonder why. Dual function as speedbrake?

yes,
and generate extra nose up pitching moment.

January 11, 2011 at 6:17 pm in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 3 #2322730

i.e.
Participant

J-12 was not produced
J-12 was powered by a chinese version of the Tumansky RD-9 engine

this J-20 could be the first Chinese fighter where the entire design, from radar to engine, is original.

well, just to make your argument easier.

one would argue that WS-10 benefited from LM-2500. which shares a similar core to GE’s F-110.

🙂 see, I don’t have to argue with you, because there is no point really.

January 11, 2011 at 6:09 pm in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 3 #2322742

i.e.
Participant

relax mr. talon, we know you are very proud of a fighter that could quite possibly be, the first 100% pure Chinese fighter.

un.
not true.

google J-12.

…

and if all else fails one would argue that all these iron and bauxite ores china buys part of it went into this thing. so. it’s not 100% chinese made.

January 11, 2011 at 6:02 pm in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 3 #2322842

i.e.
Participant

Hey,
arguing over bays again. oh boy, :rolleyes:
come on.

sensor suits. any one has the close ups on nose, any obvious signs of a AESA? cooling vents?

see any obviouse antennas for RWR, or MAWS housing yet?

January 11, 2011 at 8:25 am in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 3 #2323690

i.e.
Participant

this is first clip:
landing.
cut and past this into your browser.

http://www.56.com/flashApp/56.10.12.03.c.swf?vid=57752755&ref=
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 841 through 855 (of 1,076 total)

← 1 2 3 … 56 57 58 … 70 71 72 →