TomcatViPThe wing is thick because it has a supercritical profile.
I know 😉
Report on Thermoplastic wing skin technology. [Link]
Thx Blauer for the link!
Stability (dihedral effect) of high wing configuration is reduced with an anhedral angle in the wing. Same as the Harrier.
yes and the fuselage CG is counter acting your rolling motion. But as, 5th gen fighter hve to hve a deepened fuselage (for internal weapon carriage) the severity of the prob is relaxed versus other design. On the positive factor, Delta wings hve a very good rolling configuration (less span, large elevons) so that the prob is not has critical as comparing, let say, a Cessna 172 (Enforcer) and a… Piper Enforcer 😉
TomcatViPmost likely because Turkey and Korea have limited R&D capabilities and are likely going for less risky/off the shelf approaches.
similar to what China does.
I don’t want to be OT anymore but the Boeing approach is far cheaper and less risky than the LM one for an average similar performance (and being honest, those design are so complex to finalize that the chance to reach your design goals going the high way are far less than if you start from a simpler approach and refine it along the way) . One thing that can be granted from Boeing is that their management team know how to count billions of dollars cents after cents 😉
When I am looking at the Korean and Turkish design such as the ones that are released on the web I see only complexed dev teams that try to looks like the big ones in the industry. Think smart, think and bladibladabla…
TomcatViPIt’s interesting that the T-38’s have dramatically higher service life numbers than F-5 models. No wing stores and less extreme flight really extend out the lives.
That last remark raise an interesring question: shldn’t we add an instructor in the back of every qualified pilot?
TomcatViPthats bull ****, lockheed won with no bays while boeing just needed some modifications on its inlet and wings but had a fully working bay..
Given that Convair/GeneralDynamics/LM hd proven figher integrated bomb bay design in their backpockets and Boeing (at the time) had not, I think it was a wise move from both party to concentrate on what amateurish criticism would target.
But by the way, what is really interesting is that none of the nations develloping 5th gen fighters such as Turkey or Korea hve re-used the Boeing concept. Even if the thick delta top mounted wing would greatly solve many problems inherent to that kind of fighter. Even more than now the full carbon skin problem would be far more easy to solve (or sub-contracted “cheaply” to a Dassault/Boeing and alikes).
TomcatViPThe truth is that globally there are far fewer jets across the board. Governments don’t simply purchase warplanes against a boogieman threat, they weigh the needs with their budget. $20 million upgrades on working airframes that meet their immediate needs for the same timeframes as more costly airframes in the $100 million range make sense only as long as there is no arms race with their neighbors. For the coverage of airspace even a Gripen lease is 50% higher and the running costs three times the rate. The F-5 was meant for low costs and field servicibility, meaning less work at the depot level. Even Gripen, which was similarly designed, takes 60% more of the human factor to maintain.
I’m crossing my fingers that the next training jet in the USAF is built on such modest budgets and can be turned into the next F-5.
That will be a swift move for NG given that they want to compete latter for the 6th gen fighter
TomcatViPAnd by the standards of the day the Horten was a low observable aircraft.
From wiki – with footnotes to links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229#Stealth_technology
I don’t want to be provocative (esprcially with the wiki guys) but a 229 flying at 550mph at 15 m above the chanel would hve been the ultimate stealth… Submarine.
No way those large wings could hve sustain the strain of such high speed low flying.
TomcatViPI will use my non english proficiency so as to be polite. P3 is apiece of garbage. P8 is ok if you buy drones etc and use USN doctrina (bunch of ships that will get buoys etc). ATL2 is no more available. There’s real room for a new type tbh. Will develop if needed.
+1. And there is high power turfoprop engines with modern and efficient design avalaible nowaday again (something that hve plagued the renewall of the fleet years ago).
On the med-size level, the Piago is an interesting concept given that they can fit a big enough missile bay. The pairing of un-manned/manned vehicule on the same platform could be intersting also to gain rapidly (huge nbr of flying hours) experiences on that concept (instead of playing the fool with nearly strategic assets).
TomcatViP@LEG,
You are trying to hard 🙂 I will be a little harsh but your wall of analysis means almost nothing because it depends on myths created on these forums such as J-20’s “huge” size or “small” wing area.
Designer of J-20 states that they aimed for “4S -super cruise, super maneuverability, short take off and stealth ” which has quite a lot weight for my perception than anything written here.
J-20 has been developed for air superiority and not seeing it as such a design is just funny and not smt I can take serious :D.
Fair debating and positive argumentation hve only a stealthy existence on the web sadly.
TomcatViPBoeing recently demonstrated successful use of carbon-composite based cryogenic chambers.
But, aside from that; the point is irrelevant or rather, misguided. With the lift at lower altitudes coming from aerodynamics rather than directly from the engines, the weight sensitivity of the vehicle is reduced – spectacularly.
Oh yeah… we hve eard that before.
The tank are for space launch vehicule. It’s a weight reduction tech in order to get more payload on orbit. It’s not designed for an hypersonic cruiser.
TomcatViPYF23 > PAKFA > F-22 > F-35 > X-31 > J20
End of story
The pakfa is the sexy beast. The 23 look is impaired by its large trapeozidal wing mounted amid fuselage and the lack of LEVCON.
But I do agree that the 20 is the ugliest of the lot.
TomcatViPMeh.
SCRAMjets are yesterdays news.
The SABRE engine is tomorrow’s news.
All those little pictures looks great for the shareholder/investor but the lightweight material that will allow you to carry your H2 and keep it cool on long distance at sub orbital height still does not exist.
I am also amazed each time I see those conical (truncated) eng pods at the tip of each wing. It looks cool and got the klyngon*style but when you know that at the speed the craft is supposed to travel and what amount of drag they will produce, it’s rather mind challenging to see them that close to the CG and that far from the centerline.
But I might hve to update my klingon read?!
What ever, you might be intersted to read about project Sultan (but I might be wrong abt the name – pre A12 project – LM SkW)
TomcatViP100th alrdy?! And LM (and the earth around) is still turning?
Who wld hve believe?
TomcatViPThe SA people are fed up with their corrupt leadership […] .
Corruption is the great Experteen of the early 21st century.
TomcatViPI know it’s not surreal to guess the actual size. That’s why we’ve tried countless pictures to get estimates. The best methods have yielded the 20.5 meter size with a bay door length of 4.5 meters and a usable bay length of at most 4.0 meters. If the data doesn’t fit the claim, then the claim is wrong. In this case, the J-20 isn’t large enough to carry anti ship missiles in its bay. Therefore, the suggestion that it’s for anti carrier mission roles is wrong. (That’s what I was referring to when I said theoretical analysis).
Ok but he didn’t talk about carrier. Pickets ship, AEGIS, tankers, AWACS doesn’t need a huge warhead. As he said, just imagine what can achieve a “simple” Phoenix type missile with some PifPaf tech, KEV etc…
What I am convinced to is that the 20 isn’t a fighter (or an interceptor). It does not means that I do not believe Chineses are not capable of building first class fighters.it’s just that (as it was monstrated above) it will be so much more capable in that other role that I can’t believe otherwise.
If it is, then it means that China know how to build a short sized missile (and as he said if you are relying to solid rockets that’s in the range of the faisable).
TomcatViPExcept…the J-20 isn’t that big. In fact, its weapons bay may not even be able to fit 6 PL-12s. Every method of measurement with a known objective reference points the length of the J-20 to be around 20.5 meters and the weapons bay door around 4.5 meters. Recent pictures of the weapons bay itself give a functional length of around 3.9-4 meters. We’ve done measurements using tow trucks, satellite pics with J-11s, etc. All this theoretical analysis is irrelevant if it’s not based on real facts…
Hey guys I hve been re-engineereing an entire building just trought youtube video anf pics (that were actually resized in Width and height). So stop the BS. It’s not a surreal thing to guess around the actual size of the thing just by studying some pic. End of arguments.
Sign In
