No problem at all, just 1 pixel up and I will edit this reply a while later
I am back
Here you go, I made it hyaline 50% for your ensuring its position:
or shall we contineously move up one pixel more like the alternative one below?
Really Excellent?
Then do you think the green line was set along with the engine profile on the Su-27 in image by me, fairly enough or to be skewing?
Notice each lines in those images was set as single pixel.
Except you recognize, we move on……or shall we pause to check sth in detail?
The question isn’t whether it’s bigger or not, it’s how much bigger it is.
I was primarily interested in finding hq high resolution pictures of the J-20, Su-27, and J-10 to scale them based on nacelle size. Having a Su-27-J-10 comparison will provide some validity to the comparison, because if they don’t match up to the expected sizes we know there are errors to that method.
Here is a challenge
The left one is original photo, the right part was set red line on nozzle profile, if you recognize:
1) the diameter of outstretched nozzle on J-20 JUST is same as what on Su-27, then please move to 2)
2) the red line just match the nozzle profile exactly without bias.
then we move to next step to be continue.
Um…the engine nacelles aren’t the same size in that picture…
Everything else is irrelevant, since they are not features the J-20 and Su-27 would share.
That’s what I get for guesstimating with an iphone. On the other hand, just reducing the weapons bay estimate down to 3.2 meters would yield a result of 20.4 meters. Higher resolution pics are probably desired in this case.
Although there is oblique angle, but the gap leaving from AIM-9’s head is almost same as its wingspan ~ 279mm and the gap being tail not counted. Remember there is fire brake at tail.
And you can also call this below engine match with LQ photo, but main wheel of J-20 seems to be smaller.
Why? Because the engine fairings of the J-20 are massive compared to the Su-27 in the comparison pic where you made them look the same size? I’m curious to see what results you get when you rescale that picture to match engine fairings, since that is the One feature we know probably share the same dimensions. Afterall you tried to use the same argument for the J-10 comparison.
For the engine match, the J-20 could be 22 meters long as well as 21 meters, and I anounced that could be 1 meters deviation there, that is why I set the 21 meters as the lowest limit due to conservative side.
What was done by me as you could see, always based on not only one aspect but also other presumption.
In the LQ photo below, you can see not only engine nacelle match but also main wheel match and canopy match.
Therefor, something you denied, not to my methodology but LQ photo.
Instead of making assumptions about weapons bays (if we use the 3.3 meter sidebay assumption it comes to less than 20 meters) we finally have a valid feature comparison (and what happened to hq pictures? That was a rather low resolution picture used on the weapons bay scaling). Why aren’t you using it? Surely there is no absence of high quality profile images of the J-20 now?
Come to less than 20 meters?
Are you able to do math?
In the photo there clearly show 9.75 to 4.07 for the length of J-20 and 7.07 to 6.18 for the length of side weapon bay.
So (9.75-4.07)/(7.07-6.18)×3.3meter=?
An AIM-9X is 3.02m long, to leave 10-20cm from missile on head and tail, the side weapon bay for F-22 won’t shorter than 3.3meter. This can be proved by photo below.
The main weapon bay is around 4 meters long, you can easily make out how long at least the side weapon bay will be.
Here is J-20 weapon bay on side for your calculation
Here we presume the J-20 use AIM-9X as well, or you can insist PLA’s integrative capability could be greater than US so that the side weapon bay on J-20 will be significantly shorter than F-22’s.
There’s nothing logical about saying a result is wrong because “it doesn’t look right”. That intuitive assumption without objective reasoning can get things wrongs. On the other hand, we can say something about whether a method is right or wrong, though you would still have to provide reasons.
Does that “J10B vs J20” provide any objective aspect or just looks like wrong or right?
Here is an objective part:
See the yellow line is the position where nozzle to be convergence.
To drag the J-10 down to see the nozzle from J-10B is too thick to be true
yes you may say that nozzle is being outstretched, so I cut the nozzle to complete it
Now you can see, it is still too large for the J-20.
This is the objective way to measure object objectively.
Sign In
