My friend, the truck isn’t the objective reference. In this case the J-10 is.
Oh yeah? to measure the truck due to length of J-10?:cool::p:diablo:
Agreed, but it’s better than trying to use people and helmets, and arbitrary unknown canopy lengths.
Oh yeah? do u have a concept for canopy’s scattering, refraction?:rolleyes::cool:
Have fun emile.
First, I don’t use such low quality foto to measure, last doing such stupid thing was also in measuring by truck, a badly low quality also.
Second, theoretically, the larger the view angle is, the vertical red line on truck at right position should be closer to rear border of window, but you can see totally opposite situation in foto by eye.
Thirdly, two pics, two scal from truck caused very much deviation out of conversion.
Most of fotos taken by 希望之盾 are valueless he branded logo on, but only one.
To the scale measuering, I stand with 佟旭,whose 3 view is precise more than any others. I noticed him by submarine drawing which I put a wrong precondition then lost.
So um… how do you know that J-20’s bay matches EXACTLY the one from the Raptor ? Can’t it be longer, wider, shorter or thinner ?:confused:
And this comparison being …in regard to the J-20 being 23m long ?
The MATCH for the position is not size.
I endeavored to enlarge the F-22 for matching the size of J-20 in foto in terms of the postion of weapon bay, so that the more the size close each other, the more the size of J-20 is closer to F-22’s 18.91meters.
But there is precodition: the F-22’s weapon bay in foto couldn’t overflow from the corresponding postion of J-20.
Somebody clearly did not want to unveiled truth, eago the pic merely shot in sina several hours before it is retreated. But I caught it!
A J-20 with very slight roll angle like this, so I enlarged the F-22 to be as same wide as J-20, we can see the position of F-22’s weapon bay exactly match where weapon bay for J-20.
Obviously, because that slight roll angle remain, the wing span of J-20 should be wider alittle bit than F-22, say 13.7 or 13.8 meters more or less.
Also we can see the F-22’s weapon bay can not cover where the J-20’s weapon bay which seems inset the place between two main door of undercarrage for length, due to an obvious pitch angle being there.
Even with the pitch angle, we can see the J-20 in foto still is not only about 1.2 meters at least longer than F-22 on rear but also about half meter longer on nose, moreover we do not count a reduction by pitch angle in.
In terms of looks, only.
The underside and rear especially looks very similar to the flanker’s portions, imho. And the overall placement of the engines and inlets kind of bulges out, exposed and underneath like the flanker too, but of course with the addition of the internal weapons bay in the pancake area.
All good if you like flankers I suppose, cheers.
:p
More words are needless rubbish
Mentioned seater, I bet there will be a two seater version for PAKFA.
Beautiful.
This view angle showing
not only beautiful, but almost perfect thought for a design of two engine nacelle shouldering a flying wing, far-far greater than any of contempary generation fighter.
Don’t you think that merely is a J-7?
Both are unreal. Second one is a photoshop of an old CG (someone decided to add wingtip missile rails).
Arh yes, you can see what our aircraft fans can do:p
😎
The first pic is unreal.
Are you suggesting that the Tejas is closer to a 5th generation aircraft than the T-50? That’s kinda absurd.
If weapon bay is an essential charactor for 5th gen fighter by your meaning, then I am failed.
Latest aircraft for IAF in Gujarat
FGFA in Gujrat ? Hmm
2014 will be the time in a hurry, Sukhoi 50 will be not a real 5G fighter untill second phrase engine is fitted in.
If India is eager to 5gen fighter, then to modeficate Tajes inlet to CARET with F414 fitted will be a proper path, if you are able to get F414 indeed.
😉
Unlike the Su-27 series, the Su-47 comes back to narrow-set engine nacelle, which cause internal volumn limited by engine and its air-intake through into.
No doubt the thickness of Su-47’s center area is not narrower than Su-27 but occupied by weapon bay either.
The Su-47’s wing area is significantly smaller than Su-27, so, the wing volumn for fuel capacity is suppose to be less.
Cunclusion all above, the 12.7 tons internal fuel is highly suspectable.
to say the least, with 12700kg int-fuel, then we get 17+12.7+7(or8)=36.7(37.7) tons for MTOW, still not reach 39 tons.:p
Su-27, max. take-off – 30500 kg, Al-31F – 2 * 12500 kg
Su-47, max. take-off – 39000 kg, D30F11 – 2 * 15500 kg
😉
Impossible, the Su-47’s weight as below list:
Empty: 17 ton
internal fuel 8-9 ton
internal weapon,
(tandem weapon bay)
4×AA-12
2×AA-11
1 ton
MTOW is 26-27 ton
If there is external load:
2×3000L under inboard pylons
2 or 4× missiles
TOTAL is 6 tons more or less
SUM: 32-33 ton
never reach 39 ton.