ah, you got that on that F-16.net thread ah? 😉

yep, and i was pretty impressed then. Took that figure for granted I admit. Anyone has better source on static margin for the EF?

I doubt you’ll ever get that figure. The easiest way to estimate is to make a J-20 model yourself, doesn’t have to be super accurate as long as the plan form is representative, then put it in a wind tunnel and find the A/C.

As for the GC, you can find a reasonable range between the nose gear and main gear.

Song’s paper on high lift fighter configuration states that “future fighter” would have a longitudinal static margin in the magnitude of (negative) 10% of mean chord. Considering payload variation, a static margin between 15% to -10% is appropriate for modelling.

Guys, I was wondering whether there is any information available on the J-20 regarding its longitudinal static margin expressed in a percentage of the MAC? Thanks

I doubt you’ll ever get that figure. The easiest way to estimate is to make a J-20 model yourself, doesn’t have to be super accurate as long as the plan form is representative, then put it in a wind tunnel and find the A/C.

As for the GC, you can find a reasonable range between the nose gear and main gear.

If it was viable and cost effective to field such a fighter, why hasn’t the UK done so?

Look at all the X planes the US has made, and those were flying examples. Having a full sized mock-up model does not conclusively demonstration the ability to build and field one or else there would be a hell of a lot more 5th gen designs knocking around.

My point was that Europe has the technology capacity necessary to produce a 5th gen fighter aircraft. They have chosen not to because the need of it cannot justify the huge cost. The Replica proves that UK is in possession of LO technology. They certainly knows how to build an agile, supercruising airframe (Typhoon). They certainly knows how to build a highly advanced engine (EJ200) and 5th gen avionics. You’ll be delusional if you think they cannot integrate all of those in a single package.

“The forward section is designed to withstand a birdstrike at high speed and low altitude. ”

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/07/31/215810/flight-test-f-35-simulator-virtual-fighter.html

I’ll have to take that article with a grain of salt. The fact is, the F-35 does have a single piece canopy, it just comes with a reinforcing bow UNDERNEATH the transparency.

You can see the reflection glare continues across that bow, which cannot happen on two-piece canopies.

Well original Su-27 without canards has N-001 which weighed 575 Kilograms, Bars from canard MKI was over 600kg. Canardless Su-35 has Irbis, but I have trouble finding any source that actually specifies how much its weight is less than Bars, if at all. Su-35 with canards was supposed to get N-011M, but no way the hefty Irbis-E antenna (there is more to radar weight than just antenna ofc) weighs less.

In that case I must have mistaken. Apologies. Yet I am still convinced the cancellation of canard has little to do with thrust vectoring. Perhaps it’s structural improvements that leads to significant shift in CG.

Does HMD increase your view angle or informs you about necessary flight informations and for firing the weapons?

Yes, at least the one for F-35 does all of them.

I dig it 😀
There are only so many ways to build a fighter, especially until we switch rudders for thrust.
I see similarities between F-22 & Focke Wulf 190, both got a tail for starters

On another thought, if it is true that the J-20’s canard contributes a significant amount of lift, can we classify J-20 as a bi-plane?