it quite would look like this…

I don’t understand what are you saying here, that picture is the one of one studies for the pakfa (I think it was you that posted the graphic), and the configuration is completelly different from the final T-50, unless you are saying the ‘blockers’ will together make a s-duct, placing them on the right places along the straight t-50’s duct.

Either way, that picture does not have any blocker, at least from what i can see.

About the ‘half moon’ looking blockers, according the descpription given, i can only imagine the thing with vertical parallel-inclined blades contained all them into the ‘half-moon’ frame, I may be wrong, of course.

I don’t know from where this thing has this shape, from the front or the side…

Posting on invitation:

By Engine and IR match…

I believe the picture comparisons are wrong, as you can see, the pilot’s helmet differ a lot on it’s dimensions, the T-50 is smaller actually, significantly smaller, wonder if you are doing the same mistake in the 27/J-20 comparison.

Hello emile, are you taking the engine’s installation as point of reference, right?, can you do the same thing for the Su-
/Pakfa? and post it in the pakfa thread? thanks.

Undertsand that you are taking as a reference point something variable (the nozzle), so it could be inaccurate, still I find interesting the comparison.

Asia’s A-400 beater flies

Worst troll ever

Looking forward to you backing this statement up with the numbers and papers that prove your asserations.

Your discussion and argumentation skills are rather weak; reading the thread nobody has claimed that a blocker does not cause disruption, so why you feel the need to attack something that has not been claimed is rather strange and can only lead to the conclusion that you wish to be “right.”
In addition you are attempting to implying that the X32 was not selected simply due to the employment of a blocker instead of an s duct, this may be true but i doubt it, in any case rather than make vague, un-substantiated allegations why not back your thoughts and comments up with some genuine fact?
It is of course possible that you do not and cannot substantiate your comments with factual examples simply due to the lack of facts that support your beliefs.

As far I know, both , the X-32 and the X-35 passed the RCS testing, (from models) for the LO requirements.

Look at the thing.. without tailplanes! and a very smooth surface! (acording with the ‘stealth laws’..ha!) and without a rounded exhaust!.. but seriosly the X-32 failed in the real life requirements… (lift fan)

As a document said, the modern process to achieve a stealthy aircraft is to design the thing for real life requirements with some stealth tweaks, and later leave the aircraft for the specialized engineers to achieve the RCS requirements, modern stealth is not so dependent on shapping, but is mostly left for the guys with their stealth tapes…and stealth plasticine

The fun thing is that despite this plane follows all the ‘stealth rules’ with it ‘great panel finishing’ and the zigzag thingie, even with the frontal shape of the F-22, I don’t see the US forces that worried….not even deploying or trying to deploy a new radar.

Same for the russians, they did not panic with the stealth charade.

At the end is performance, how fast will it go? how much range will achieve, how heavy will be?

This is the important thing, the real life performance and not the fantastic stealthy tales

It IS pretty hard to make toothed doors actually, especially aerodynamically.

Designing a flexible joint on a high steam pressure circuit is more complicated than this…

Early test flights of YF-23 got at least one of the big toothed doors bend or torn then they have to increase the number

This is a matter of tolerances and structure, anyway the F-22 does not have your zigzag fetish as the Yf-22 had

Ok, first I did not want such discussion, but saying the J-20 is a ‘superior design’, or ‘more promising’ than the T-50, knowing the rapid development of the russian machine, and the evolution of the 5th gen concepts is absurd.

I still like the J-20, and if it full operative empty weight is around 16-14 tons , I would consider it a better aircraft than the T-50 or F-22, but right now, for me , the only aircraft that could meet such goal is the T-50

It design is wise, they did not went with the s-duct thingy (as many modern 5th gen designs), nor with a boxy design (as a truly post 90’s design), the whole plane is a wing with 2 engines, without a clear fuselage, and they even found space for a sizeable bomb bay which is perfectly placed, and they even have the hope to stuff 5 different radars in it…

J-20 indeed uses VG DSI

Must agree this is an interesting feature, but i doubt it will be actually diverterless, it will , most likely need bleeding and diverters, because the thing will move, and if it moves , it will need a pressure/flow regulation system, just because the cone has a exotic shape does not mean is diverterless.