Gap? What gap? Perhaps not to me???

Why not!
they did modified their 93 design into that ugly triplane for the J-20 competition.
they can morph it back and give it a nicer name, wola! con more chinese tax payer’s money with their endless paper designs . 😀
….

We are Chinese, I see, I see you have the common feeling uncomfortable with SAC.
As you know, I always have some different view from others.
Now I have a feeling, I feel there may be a profound meaning on this temporary called J-16.
It is could be misunderstanding for that 093′ layout. As we can see that ’93 layout was just like MiG I.44, ok, you can say they can do nothing but copy others, but you would fall in a very difficulty to design in detail with lacking high-solution photo of I.44 even to do CFD.
Quite understand for me why they elected triple-plane for competing with Mighty Dragon, as you might also make out what I called discrepancy between canards and DSI, since they admitted CARET is the future, which Boeing adopted as a layout for NGF’s inlet, leaving them few options but to design sth F-22 alike with additional foreplane.
Stop at here I am not Emile.

As a sign leaked the triple plane now is becoming F-35’s wing alike, causing me be aware of what they may be wanting is a ship-based jet.
The worries for the 中秋 is too big to run on deck, whereas with high-thrust powerplant, a tri-plane designed smaller considerably would be at low probability, therefor, the canard removed, the swept angle for its leading age changed to be smaller is increasingly reasonable. This reason is not only for the size but also for the take-off on aerodynamic analysis.

One day , we will possibly see a twin-engined F-35 with CARET inlet and a brand “made in China”.:diablo:

Ahh yeah? then don’t tell me, go and tell those Chinese who think that F-22 is such an aircraft: uncatchable, unbeatable and unmatchable.
I told them that air-intake F-22 aplied is curved so toughly that banned F-22 from speed beyond M2. I also told them that stealth or OL determined by attribution of material first not the angle formed go first. But who are gonna believe a Chinese in China?
Yellow hair, blue eyes, white skin can be god in China. Anything close to westen alike will be worshiped as God.
If you ask anyone who I can directly point out must be a Chinese, why J-20 is really superior, he will nothing express but tell you the J-20 is more similar to F-22, because anything that F-22 applied was already defined as the most advanced uncatchably in this world.

emile,

i am the last one to knock anybody for trying to speak my language. You are not really making sense, which is odd, because you have made perfect sense in the past.

I don’t even know what your first paragraph means.

I think you are genuinely interested (ing) but maybe use less words or something and smile?:)

perfect sense? for what? not English, not even aviation, because it’s not my major.

I know that will be hard to understand, if I expressed so indirectly. Sorry no more time to write thousands words, especially, with English.

repeat three milestones:
1) to absorb (this word sounds like for liquid to me whereas the ‘suck’ for gas ) boundary layer by tiny holes which be fractional on a sloped surface.
2) the boundary layer be blown or say swept by shockwave which generated by a structure waverider alike.
3) making the slope to be a profile by waverider theory which can be used to extrude the boundary layer out of surface.

My English is too poor to understand, yes, then abort, there is nothing important. :p

People who like you don’t.
Then, which means you have no sense and no idea about either aviation or English.
I am a good teacher, but not like who can teach light to a blinder.

What if that inlet becomes an internal-compression inlet due to its possibly movable lip?
Could that be advanced than CARET that fundamentally is an external-compression inlet?

Good question, may I ask you a question which can be a foundation, where did you get that opinion to think a CARET inlet must be an external-compression inlet?

You mean this?
A smooth F-15?

No envy, my appology, but they were not asking sth but begging some award I feel.
I was not saying someone’s low IQ, if I have lower IQ than others (maybe realy I am), but I believe hard woking would compensate it on most degree.
Translation is not key here, the problem is that post then delete is sth like lure to me, maybe not to others.
Of course you are Russian so you have already got it and read it, but u can see Russain is not the Language so porpular here, Russain stuff poster has no responsibility to translate but after one tends to ask translate, the stuff has been deleted, this cause me laugh at.
The poster is not an hornor guy! You have no feeling that I have.

Canards are for nice pitching moment control at high AOA and for those nice coupled effects on the main wing and the big nice vorticies they generate. and trim drag… etc etc.

Yes, but conditionally and relatively.

Ventral Fins are Both High Mach and Low Speed (high AOA) Directional Stability,
Since J-20 can’t do a paddle walk (I think) and its undersized full moving rudder is clearly gets shielded in high AOAs.

Gerenally right, but what is paddle walk?

either way they have to put in more control surface, (either a bigger rudder or ventral fins) so they went for ventral fins, whats the big deal? I like them, and I think they are a sensible solution to the problem. for the given gain in stability they prob evaluated all options and ventral fins is the lesser of evils. (fin area)

The only way that those ventral fins would be gone in some future date would be that, during flight test, they discovered that the aerodynamic predictions from wind tunnel and cfds are over predicting the problem, and they can get away with not having the fins. then they would have to accept a schedule hit to redesign to get those fins off. and re-do some flight tests.
cost $$$ regardless for future performance gains.

It is unlikely that ventral fin will be removed and impossible to “not having” the dorsal fin.

i.e.: you are not mediocre here, you might already know that canard or not is irrelevant to stealth. Many members, most of them are Chinese, keep the mistake as truth, persisting RCS determined by shape and shape and shape, blah blah blah… … Actually, the word here is rather to be “configuration”.
Yes, a higher swpt angle could means a small RCS, but there must be precondition go ahead of this swept angle, which is what’s kind of metiral.
It is attribute determined RCS much more than what’s shape you make it.