I’d like to see how clear it is
The back of both the J-20 (i.e. both the nozzles) and the truck can be seen. What this means is that the picture was taken behind both of them. Since the truck is in front of the airplane, we know that the truck is at a greater angle in relation to the camera than the airplane. Looking at an object at a closer oblique angle will make it seem smaller, meaning that the truck would seem smaller in relation to the airplane than it really is. i.e. your measured J-20 size will be larger (probably only slightly if the picture is taken from a distance away) than it really is. That would mean that, basing on this reasoning alone, your measured J-20 size (20.16 m) can only be smaller (however slightly) than actual. (Of course this works purely on geometry and neglect the camera lens effect which probably can go both ways.)
Regretably, almost all of such measurements based on very low quality photo.
By GE photo you can even get 19 meter more or less.
Comparision of the wing area.
Notice the head line of side weapon bay reaching the position where matching the HQ photo presented.
The fuel fraction of the J-20, coupled with its large finesse ratio, means it is a design built for speed over maneuverability.
That does not mean it cannot maneuvre, but it does mean some sacrifices have been made to what the maneuverability could have been to benefit speed and range.
Hence why I see it as an interceptor/interdictor more than an aircraft bred for dogfighting.
Pushing by the possibly weak powerplant, we have to aim the speed first. The crisis of South China Sea ordered 10 ton class internal fuel to endure a long range for intercepting any invaders, thus, the J-20 like an interceptor more than air dominated fighter.
_______________________F-22______PAK FA______ J-20
Empty Weight____________19.7________19_________20
Internal Fuel ______________8.5________9 _________10
Internal Weapon Load_______2__________2__________2
External Payload ___________8__________9__________6
* ton for service version
You can see the J-20 be close to an interceptor more from weight distribution
JDRADM will be more like multi-role AAM rather than duel range AAM.
Domestic media in China translated DR as Duel Range, I doubted highly for it.
My question for the inventor is what’s the shape of those front door and rear door which cover the chambers? My understanding is you didn’t abolish the compressor although you blamed them as too heavy. We’d better know that no matter how do we design the chambers, the airstream come from compressor still is a high speed air flow, much much higher than any train’s speed, how does your movable door deal with these high speed and pressure stream? I didn’t see any swept angle being there…
Doubtless the J-20 will be capable to load more JDRADMs internally due to its width of weapon bay, if we define the multirole simply means has ability to drop bomb, then it is a multirole fighter.
The term interceptor specifically refers to dedicated interceptors like the F-106, MiG-31, etc. By definition they are highly specialized aircraft. The Flankers, Eagles, and Raptors are air supremacy fighters. Although they are capable of the interceptor role they are not called interceptors.
Now that nomenclature is established, I propose we move on.
I don’t think J-20 is any kind of pure interceptor, due to the volume of interceptors, those were always larger than contemporary fighter, he expressed interceptor heavy class, I saw what did he mean.
You sure the J-20 has multirole capability? Then define what does multirole mean in your way……
Does carrying few bombs or a2g missiles can be multirole?
If we got some kind of software from FBI and CIA.
Thankees. Tbh, the J-20’s nose actually looks a little broader…but hard to tell. Another thought also struck me…We’d also be assuming a lot to think their radome is at the same cross section points on the nose. Tricky tricky…
I don’t care just for fun
Now ones want to ensure what I am not able to understand
:dev2:
Well, that’s what the image says 😛
A radome’s size is dependent on the cross sectional area of the nose. We need a comparison of cross section, not simply nose width. Because neither the F-22 or the J-20 have a circular nose cross section, you can’t simply judge diameter by width, and you’d need to pay attention to their respective geometries to figure out that cross sectional area.
If you don’t believe, you can do it by yourself.
See, I told you, but you didn’t.:diablo:
For honesty, show you original photo:
with slant but full size of main wheel:
with diameter of main wheel was cut by horizon:
J-20:
To the full wheel sized edition:
[IMGhttp://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h276/emile_bucket/J-20_MightyDragon/J…]
To the long focal length:
I enlarged F-22 as big as possible for cutting the size of J-20 down.
The truth can be covered?
1) Did I say they have the same profile?
2) Area is more than just one dimension.
Nobody said that they were same profile
Not only area but length of nose, diameter, and maybe wide
Are you being uncooperative to mask your poor use of language? 😛
What I read from your post is 1) you scaled their pictures to match cockpit, wheelbase, and gear sizes, getting you a result of under 21 meters. 2) To “humour” me you made the J-20 bigger. If your first result gets you a figure in agreement with what my measurements have been saying, then your sense of “humour” must be off.
My language is poor or maybe your understanding is poor?
Let’s see what did you say:
Or…the J-20 just has big wheels. If you compare the landing gear to fuselage height, you will find the F-22’s landing gears are much smaller relative to fuselage height than the J-20’s. Human beings have a bias towards thinking taller objects are bigger, even when all other parameters are the same.
The only meaning could be contained within underlined sentence you expressed was:
because of landing gear was relative small to that fuselage of F-22 in contract with J-20, so made people (me) to think J-20 is much larger than F-22. In this case, means F-22’s fuselage was set as too small, if relative to J-20, ACTUALLY, it is not so small, which is you factually want to say.
I comprehend very well:
If F-22’s fuselage is not small like I scaled, then J-20 will be large relatively.
My comprehension well much more is:
There is nothing to do with my money, if J-20 is significantly smaller than I think. Therefor, I scaled step2, see 4th image.
We come here for making thruth clear, not personal resentment.
I did a lot of work privately, you want canopy matching, gear matching or undercarrage matching, that’s ok, I did it even several weeks ago. Here it is:
I almost thought this is accordant with reality. But after I compare the front view due to this rule, it does go funny, the wingspan of J-20 is much smaller than F-22 even its wide of belly. That is impossible, because the missiles from PLA are suppose to be slightly larger than American AIM-120C5, no matter on wide or on length. How can you mamage six missiles side by side into such small weapon bay even F-22’s be overcrowded.
If you don’t believe, you can do it by yourself.
So, as I said, the main wheel,canopy and front gear of F-22 should be smaller a little than J-20.
Besides, you can see the height of F-22’s LERX shouldn’t be such tall. In many photo, a man’s height can approach the height of F-22’s LERX, whereas this height shouldn’t taller than J-20’s side missile bay according to the recent video presented, the aboveline of that side bay is about 1.8 meters tall. These also match that wide sceen photo presented.
Sorry to jump in on this argument:p
just want to say that IMHO it is the tiny vertical stabilizer makes J-20 looks very large.
If we get a F-22 size and shaped VT on it… it will looks like this;)
When I see sth, I see its ensenble not parts. You saw my comparsion didn’t only relate to one part but almost every part comparable.