Page 3 – Key Publishing

franc

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 509 total)

← 1 2 3 4 … 32 33 34 →

Author

Posts
January 12, 2011 at 6:28 am in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 3 #2321873

franc
Participant

I posted HL-10 only to show your statement of this confugration only work at hypersonic is wrong. As I said in previous thread I believe Canard+LERX contribute more lift. However J-20 does have lift body design and I’m not denying that. And there’s obviously more than one way of achiving body lift.

Dear, do you know how did HL-10 take-off?
You threw a rock, it will fly, but a object fly with wing, the principle is totally different. Awake my friend.

As far as I know TW ratio has nothing to do with aerodynamics, you mean L/D right? 😀

I’m pretty sure J-20 has impressive supersonic L/D ratio.
when WS-15 is finally fitted, it will have very impressive supercruise performance.
And as always, I’d say time will tell.

So let time to say, but not you?:p

January 12, 2011 at 6:19 am in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 3 #2321875

franc
Participant

The confidence shown in some of our memebers here is really impressive, especially considering the fact they obviously don’t know anything remote in the area they open their mouth about.

I guess thats why they are so confident, lol.

To Franc:

I give your some other lectures on elemental aerodynamics:

The main benefit of the layout of J-20 is that it creats signficant more lifting touques for fighters at high angle of attack comparing to other aerodynamic layouts, which means the fighter would be extremely agile.

It’s won’t be late, after you show this at air-show.

This is done by scientific research based on massive wind tunnel tests, conducted by the chief scientist and vice programme director of J-20 project, Song Wen-cong and his team (I can show you the academic research paper on this).

Where is the paper now? I do can find translator of Chinese.:)

However, there is a drawback of this layout, which is, at high mach, the air drag of it will be higher than convential layouts.

So if engine is a concern, the fighter would not have been so big and using such a layout with a relative higher air-drag ratio.

what I’m gone is the weight rather than the drag you mentioned, however, you actually want to say weight here rather than drag, I wouldn’t worry the drag the layout Of J-20 brought.:D

Based on Song’s wind-tunnel tests, J-20’s layout creates roughly 50%+ more lifting tonques for fighters at high attack angle comparing to more convential layouts.

Ohh, yeah? I believe you, with LERX followed canards which followed by LERX again, I do believe you.
On the other hand I also found the forebody adead of wing is such long even LONGER than Valkrie, do you know what it will indicate?

J-20’s layout(lifting body canards with blending strakes)>>short-distance coupling canards (J-10, Rafale, JAS-39 and MiG-1.44)> long-distance coupling canards (EF2000)>pure large strake/leading edges(F/A-18E/F, FC-1)>convetional airframe (F-22,F-35,etc).

For weight or for lift?
I deem this is also right for weight:D

Real world performance seems correlates with Song’s finding well:

(1) Among US military’s arsenal, seems the only one can get a F-22 (conventional layout) down is a type of F/A-18(large leading edge/strakes).

(2)USAF’s Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper claimed EF2000 (long-distance coupling canards) is more agile fighter than any of the USAF fighters he had driven.

(3)Rumors suggest, in air-combat, the French Rafale (short-distance coupling canards) beat the EuroFighter 2000 (long-distance coupling canards) easily, even through tech-wise the two supposed to be on pair.

So your designor drawing a/c in terms of this:p

January 12, 2011 at 5:55 am in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 3 #2321879

franc
Participant

How do you explain HL-10 then?
along with other lift bodies at that time, most test were flown in subsonic speed. I don’t see the must here.

That IS why HL-10 merely an experimental aircraft.
With experiment, a complete data is not the essential condition which is also the difference between prototype and ex-model.
The HL-10 does was an lift-body concept, however, its profile is completely different from the J-20.
Now we do have side view foto of J-20, do you are able to draw that curve along the belly of J-20?

If you learnt some aerodynamics, you’d be laughing at what you just said here mate:D
===========================================

NEW PHOTO COMING
This is an impressive angle of the canards

Are you going to bet the TW ratio?:rolleyes:

Mod Edit: Oversized image removed. Feel free to repost at a reduced size.

January 12, 2011 at 4:26 am in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 3 #2321896

franc
Participant

I am not an expert but it seems to me that the design of Chinese Dragon I mean J-20 more advanced and sophisticated than rival Russian T -50, which seems more classic of all fifth-generation fighter jets?!

I’d like to see your reason but stuffless speaking.

So it seems that only Russian canards are unstealthy huh?
Haven’t seen a single comment about those 😉

It is your “seems”, not a fact.:cool:

By lifting body I mean the main body is designed in a shape such that itself is somehow works like a wing and create lifting tonque (e.g. the lower half of the main body of the fighter is more “curved” and the upper half is flatter), a (very strong) lifting-body demonstrator looks somehow like this:

Did you have any knowladge about what you were talking?
The so-called lifting body you describled works at marginal atomsphere must with hypersonic speed.
If you learnt some aerodynamics, you’d better know layout designed like present J-20 due to lacking sufficeint power, not something advanced someone dreaming to.

January 12, 2011 at 2:52 am in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 3 #2322043

franc
Participant

Aren’t canards and stealth thought by certain “experts” to be mutually exclusive?
Hasn’t anybody informed the Chinese of this “fact?”

The Canards followed by LERX also presented on Rafale

Ya, the same “expert” also announced the JSF is “flying PIG”, should this “fact” also need to be informed ?

Your reply seems to be irrelevant.

Just use some simple logics, no weapon bay , how to demo aerodynamics?

The air-effect of weapon bay could be test on subsequent a/c.

Hahaha.. Don’t you know they slip some sour wine before they wink all these rubbish? :rolleyes:

Russia sources are full of BS and sourgrapes. If you can believe their words, Dog can fly too.

First they passes false info of 117S engine on J-20 to Janes and was reported. But now very clear, every single thing on J-20 that fly is domestic. Now they backtrack but still dare to claim China wanted to buy 117S.

Remember Russia media report abt China buying Su-33 and Su-35 few years ago. Guess until now what thing has go thru???

Are you able to make out which one will enter service firestly?:diablo:

That showcases someone’s comprehensive ability, let me re-quote my original (in blue) and highlight the key words to make you understand better

” Everybody got the mouth, what one can do is tight-lips his own mouth and let the work speaks itself, and let other mouths do the talking“

If you want to stay quiet why you came to this forum?:cool:

Mod Edit: Personal insult removed. This J-20 definitely has a center belly weapon bay to house ammunition.

First people doubt Chinese can make a 5th gen in such short time.

When prototype appear, they doubt its the real thing and even claim it just mock up.

Suddenly , it can moves and doing hi speed taxi trial

People claim they doubt this thing can fly and is just gimmick, running around airfield to do publicity stunt.

Then it start to fly and people claim it has no weapon bay.

How many times you want the Chinese to prove you wrong??? :rolleyes:

This forum is rather to be a place where you analysis sth concerning aviation but anounce sth your personal.
I didn’t see anyone doing sth like you blamed.

January 11, 2011 at 3:13 pm in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 3 #2323137

franc
Participant

fotos collect

January 11, 2011 at 6:03 am in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 3 #2323849

franc
Participant

Your name is dragon also?
I am the original dragon!!

January 11, 2011 at 2:18 am in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 3 #2324637

franc
Participant

It’s called Mighty Dragon.

January 10, 2011 at 2:10 am in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 3 #2325839

franc
Participant

I can still post reply over at previous one… better shut it off?

because you posted too many rubbish there:diablo:

January 7, 2011 at 5:41 am in reply to: Chinese J-XX/14/20 p.2 #2330973

franc
Participant

They both also have a pointy nose and wings.

Clearly you got no aerodynamic thought out of your brain

January 7, 2011 at 4:58 am in reply to: Chinese J-XX/14/20 p.2 #2330994

franc
Participant

an interestingly same part:diablo:

January 6, 2011 at 4:17 am in reply to: Chinese J-XX/14/20 p.2 #2332404

franc
Participant

It is kidding me, many times I saw one claimed there is lift body concept designed on J-20 here, What Is so-called Lift-Body Concept? Could one who claimed this point it for me?

This a/c used wing shape just like intercontinental cruise missile used back to 50’s.

January 5, 2011 at 4:53 am in reply to: Chinese J-XX/14/20 p.2 #2333327

franc
Participant

It could be well the case that I missed something important, but did Chinese really claimed the J-XX was designed without SC requirements? All I can derive from pictures so far is the J-20 inlet system will not be good Mach>2 performer as it is not variable one, but features a cost-saving and probably RCS helping solution, a simple boundary layer diverter or “bump” not ideal for the whole mach range though. The DSI inlet is designed for a specified supersonic Mach number (e.g. M1.6) where it performs let say optimal minimizing airflow losses in the duct allowing the J-20 to fly supersonic. But I think the ability flying sustained supersonic or supercruising (e.g. M1.6) comes from engines itself and not from the presence or absence of the DSI in general. Of course, not saying the inlet system doesnt play a role there, but I would not simply assume that the bigger the inlets are then better the supercruise performance is.
When looking at the J-20 intakes it also occured to me that perhaps those
will be more susceptible to stalls during high-angle-of-attack maneuvers when compared to the T-50 intakes due to the fact you mentioned above.

Basically agreed, but what I agreed merely was the so-called “bump” inlet does supersonic no good but press boundary-layer out. Therefor, according to some analysis, this “bump” also can be or we can say has already been redesigned as VG-DSI for various stream flow ratio. No one will be looking forward a nice super-cruise capability to the J-XX.
To me, this J-XX look like an interceptor more than an air-dominant fighter such as PAKFA or F-22, or in other words, a land-to-land cruise missile enlarged with bomb bay in terms of that relatively small wing area those provisional image presented.

January 1, 2011 at 3:45 am in reply to: Chinese J-XX/14/20 p.2 #2335770

franc
Participant

Why I did not see movable inlet yet.
BTW, it is hard to conceive there is no tandem bomb bay if it is over 22 meters long with only 5 meter length of engine.

December 30, 2010 at 7:59 am in reply to: China's upcoming 5th G fighter–J-20 prototype is ready #2337193

franc
Participant

Oh, my god, its 21 pages now, approxi 3 pages per day since this a/c published online.
If our memory works, this a/c we should quite familiar to since its model unclassified several years ago. Why it provoked emotion so much, I wonder.

Have you ever noticed this only an enlarged fuselage of twin engine F-35 with 1.44 wing added, nothing new.

Mixing subsistant thing from others always does piece you created no good especially you made it in simple way.

When you say Rafale inherited Mirage, yes, it is, but only macroprofile, even the type of wing are not simplized took from Mirage, and rest each of them are different. When we say PAKFA is a Raptorski, you may say it rightly, but can you point exactly which part of Su-50 is same with F-22? You want to, but when you want to, each part you want to point contains quite a lot difference.

Now we can see the entire fuselage of J-20 merely is a scaled copy of F-35 and its wing shape is a copy of 1.44, maybe the aerodynemic profile of the wing is innovated by Chinese. However, just as member posted, the testing process of PAKFA also tried canards layout, why Russian do not like canards? Why the canards on J-20 was made as anhedral? Pelvic fin has been seen even, makes it a very interceptor back to last centery.

Oh, its canopy look like F-22, does this means advantage to us?
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 509 total)

← 1 2 3 4 … 32 33 34 →