Thanks for your caution, without my own PC, many spelling mistakes made in last post, which has been corrected.
I didn’t see that russ picture, delete so quickly after putting them online means there is sth wrong (in) there.
Don’t you feel stupid or to be fool to ask sth was not correct?

Now it is my turn, the bump becomes shock cone just like Mirage used by your comprehansion, that’s ok, I can also stand with your purpose for the bump designed so perfectly that would be an advanced shock cone.
The problem for you is your geometry awareness.
Do you have ability to aware neither shock cone on Mirage or bump on J-20 must generate a profile of shock wave which appeared as a semi-conical surface?
If this concious you don’t have, you can not go further one more step.
I presume you do.
Then have you ability to make out the cross section of Mirage’s inlet is a semi-circle? that match the profile of shock wave exactly.
Aslo have you ability to see the shape of J-20’s inlet? Maybe you have a different retina from me, so in your eyes, the cross sectin of the inelt of J-20 is a semi-circle either.
What I worried about is not close to the truth but the guy I talk with who have different physiology. How can I deal with what I named is circle, the other call it square.
Perhaps we can make sth in common. “a square lid does not match a circular cup” do you accept this or you have different sense from me?

if you can understand all of words above, you will ask how F-35 do, and unless understand how the shock guide by bump to match the profile of inlet on F-35, you won’t understand why the lip of inlet on J-20 must be movable or becomes rubbish.

Sounds like some sorts of irony……
I will elaborate in my paper relating to PAKFA.
I am still waiting, waiting to the 601 Snow Owl released.
Here is a litttle clue for you:
Either CARET inlet or DSI made by waverider theory, we all know this, but then illness presented.
Some fools persisted DSI was a three dimensions waverider inlet, whereas CARET merely a two dimensions. The wedge-shapes formed by an intersection angle to be a complete three dimension structure was ignoranced by clear seeing. This is a cognizing level out of someone I mensioned before.
The development of DSI we have seen tody formed by three steps:
First, primarily to suck the boundray layer by tinny aperture through a slope.
2nd, tending to swept the boundray layer by shockwave.
Third, pressing or precisely extruding the boundray layer by a reversed slope.
A key here not simply is a slope or what’s kind of profile of the slope although it seems is the slope completed this dialectics, but shockwave…….
This is a magnificent view but fallen by subject. The subject to this skyscraper not is for shockwave but boundray layer, conversely, CARET inlet designed for shockwave using directly.
In a short term, yes, DSI looks like a tech recent more, as if so to be superior, bt in a long term, CARET inlet win a potentiality.
you can see the CARET inlet on F-22 actually is a movable inlet not fixed, however the CARET inlet on PAKFA is a VG one…… Need I say more?

Nothing showing but your careless. Photo of Deflecting upwrds has already been released for a long time.
Also,
nothing secret, if you had no blind faith for J-20’s DSI, you would already see the advantage of PAKFA’s intake naturally.
Fool needs translation, I don’t.

The Soaring Dragon (翔龙) with superior joint wing is clearly advanced very much than Globle Eagle on aerodynamics.
More exciting than when I saw Mighty Dragon!

For everything, the fewer intermedaiary, the closer to the truth, which is general knowledge.

Yes, the angle of truck turned larger in above one, but the distance between rear window border and vertical red line is contrarily bigger in below one. Even such low quality, this unusual phenomenon can been easily seen, what a tolerance it will go. Therefor I insisted the pixel measuring must in exactly same photo.

(X/Y)/(Z/Y)=(X/Z). If you know the ratio of the J-10 to the truck, and the ratio of the J-20 to the truck, you can find the ratio of the J-20 to the J-10. Simple math, but if you don’t believe in evolution doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist :P.

1. The length data of J-10 was never released officially or say I didn’t recieved. What I can do is trust wiki.
2. let’s assumed data from wiki is right, then lacking of data connected to that truck.
3. Even if you get the data about the truck, the blockage ahead of ours is the quality of those two view PSed in one photo piece.
4. Ignorant the different quality, you can see the vertical red line was set at wrong position from the rear window border, so the question which one is right that can be adopted remained.
5. If you outragouly pick the data from one of truck, then the different inclined angles are being there.
6. Throw out all of those above, the distance between truck and aircraft in each view are different, still misleading you to a incorrect direction.
Insummary, the error caused by varient way from those above can be tremandously huge which can not be tolerant.

What if you can quarantee the tolerance? calculate it here publically, here is a publishing forum.:D

Uh. No? Why do you? (I have no idea why that is relevant to trying to assume same canopy length of another plane to measure the J-20 :confused:)

This is not a problem concerning theory but experience. I have regretably no ability to teach what is hot and cold to who have to no feeling. 🙁