Objective tools are less prone to bias than human judgment, but in the end there’s a reason why we explain the methodology, so that we can see where the potential sources of error are. In any case, just because it “looks funny” doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

Funny here means illogicality, maybe rude?

I am not going to evade your method.
In terms of your method, the J-20”s length will be (5.1-3.65)/(5.1-4.85)×16.43≈19.85
See the photo below:

Not even 19.85, even 20 meters, I dreamed everything to be simple, we could get helmet match, canopy match, main wheel match, front gear match and radoms match. Sounds too good to be true, but we got a F-22 copy, if we can get copy, nothing shall be care, see below:

Is that enough? what a large F-22 and what a small J-20. Ok I have no problem deal with such large F-22 and small J-20, BUT when I discussed weapon bay with someone, I found something funny if J-20 to be such small due to wheel and canopy match.
According to the photo below:

you can see even that main wheel of F-22 still be a little bit smaller than J-20, the J-20’s belly is already narrower than F-22. which means if we matched canopy, main wheel, front gear etc from side view, we have to deal with a much small J-20 from front view, you can see the yellow line set as same width of radome between F-22 and J-20, but the belly of F-22 is wider than J-20(see right side of inlet). The wing span of J-20 also narrower than F-22 around 1 meter.
If you insist this is true, then query is how can you manage 6 missiles into J-20’s belly even F-22’s being overcrowded

Look at photo above, even same width with belly, the J-20 still is longer than F-22 one and half meter even the pitch angle are not be counted.

One want to say methodology, here is a methodology I teach for free.

Because you say so?

No, because someone deemed LQ photos were better than HQ photos.
I am not denying sometimes tortoise run faster than rabbit.
You have right to say LQ are better than HQ:diablo:

Fine, same result, same method, I get 45.5, by slicing the rafale’s area up into squares and calculating it based on 1/2916 for the pixel-meter ratio.

I’m slightly more accurate, but you’re more right.

The canard area is roughly 2.3-2.4m^2, by the way.

The canards are 6 m^2 on the J-20.

Off paralay, it still gives you 759 ft^2 without canards, or 71 m^2.

Scaled down, it’s 684 ft^2 equiv, or about 20% less wing area than the F-22 for area.

===

Actually, you don’t like the figures, you just redo the damn calculation.

74 m^2, 791.8 sq ft, 15% less or 17% more scaled down.

Compare to the PAK-FA, the aircraft has about 10% less or more wing area compared to the F-22 when scaled down from 20 to 19 meters.

On wing-area, finesse ratio, the J-20’s deficient but not wholly crippled compared to the PAK-FA and F-22. It’s comparable, and hopefully the canards make up for performance losses.

Paralay’s size was calculated due to assuming the canopy of J-20 and F-22 as same profile and same size. I have already proved that was wrong.

Canards are typically included in wing area calculation for canard-aircraft, because they provide lift. For the same reason, canards are included in Eurofighter and Rafale wing area calculations.

The point of the fully-movable tailfins is that by being larger control surfaces they add additional maneuverability.

The picture including scale, calculate it by yourself, you will find whether the wing area contains canards

67 meter^2?

Look, use the method I linked in my post. You get something around 78 m^2 if you include the canards, which generate lift.

In any case, if you use the figures initially indicated in the 62-65 posts, you cannot get 67 m^2.

So there MUST be a lifting body.

On the other hand, I agree that the J-20 will have less wing area than the F-22. It must use other methods to compensate for its inferior wing loading, and the canards and fully movable tailfins provide it.

Did I lose sth? generally, the canards will not be contained in calculation of wing area, therefor you also agreed less wing area than F-22, then 67m^2 must be true for you.

And this is the first time I saw tail fin are capable to compensate lacking wing area, why doesn’t the ventral fin be said 😀

He eyeballed it based on wheel size. Simples. :rolleyes:

Thanks, I did not realize that the body of the J-20 was that wide.. assuming the F-22 and J-20 cockpit are the same size.

In fact, I have no problem to deal with 20 meters long or less, my eyes not for something possible but something impossible. My measurement not only rely on wheels but also canopy, engine nacelle, weapon bay and proper width of fuselage.
We have seen with same size of wheel, the height of F-22’s canopy would be same height as J-20, that 67m^2 with 12 little more meters for wing span made width of fuselage especially to the bellay significantly narrower than F-22.
Someone want to encapsulate everything into 20 meters. Yes sometimes they did it successfully, but only for some parts, maybe they can throw the rest of J-20 away.

Well, go ahead. Seems like you’re not following the discussion. The picture is in the previous page.

There is no such HQ photos with truck in each previous page for sure, maybe only clear for you, but not be measurable for a high standard. The photo I used not be lower than 1200×800, this is buttomline for me.