J-20 / F-22 / T-50 : Key Publishing Forum Style Topic

E

EricChase88

I really should change my personal text
This is what a aircraft engineer said about J-20. This is regarding J-20 body lift and vortex generation.

"The J-20 is like an aircraft that has built on 1980s research which led to the EFA/Rafale/MiG1.44; but with a key difference. The engine intakes of these 3 are not alongside the fuselage. That resulting wider fuselage will not work so well with the fore-body arrangement that does work on Eurofighter/Rafale.

Did it work on MiG 1.44 which is a bit bigger than Eurofighter/Rafale? Well, the Russians went a different direction with PAK-FA* - I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from that.


*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."
 
EricChase88 said:
This is what a aircraft engineer said about J-20. This is regarding J-20 body lift and vortex generation.

"The J-20 is like an aircraft that has built on 1980s research which led to the EFA/Rafale/MiG1.44; but with a key difference. The engine intakes of these 3 are not alongside the fuselage. That resulting wider fuselage will not work so well with the fore-body arrangement that does work on Eurofighter/Rafale.

Did it work on MiG 1.44 which is a bit bigger than Eurofighter/Rafale? Well, the Russians went a different direction with PAK-FA* - I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from that.
*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."
Click to expand...
I was the one who solicited the question from Amiga. My impression was that he left open the possibility that for whatever reason the approach works for the J-20, or that the approach simply fulfills whatever China needs from the design.
 
EricChase88 said:
*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."
Click to expand...

Did the aero engineer actually say this or did you just tack that opinion on yourself?
 
How many active duty squadrons would the J-20 serve in PLAAF service once fully operational and what current planes would the J-20 replace. P.S this has been annoying me for some time.
 
sferrin said:
EricChase88 said:
*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."
Click to expand...

Did the aero engineer actually say this or did you just tack that opinion on yourself?
Click to expand...

Its what he actually said. I don't see why you think T-50 is not more advanced than F-22. Both are more advanced than J-20.
 
EricChase88 said:
sferrin said:
EricChase88 said:
*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."
Click to expand...

Did the aero engineer actually say this or did you just tack that opinion on yourself?
Click to expand...

Its what he actually said. I don't see why you think T-50 is not more advanced than F-22. Both are more advanced than J-20.
Click to expand...

Define "more advanced"
 
TaiidanTomcat said:
EricChase88 said:
sferrin said:
EricChase88 said:
*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."
Click to expand...

Did the aero engineer actually say this or did you just tack that opinion on yourself?
Click to expand...

Its what he actually said. I don't see why you think T-50 is not more advanced than F-22. Both are more advanced than J-20.
Click to expand...

Define "more advanced"
Click to expand...

I will quote him again.

"The J-20 is like an aircraft that has built on 1980s research which led to the EFA/Rafale/MiG1.44; but with a key difference. The engine intakes of these 3 are not alongside the fuselage. That resulting wider fuselage will not work so well with the fore-body arrangement that does work on Eurofighter/Rafale.

Did it work on MiG 1.44 which is a bit bigger than Eurofighter/Rafale? Well, the Russians went a different direction with PAK-FA* - I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from that.
*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."

More advanced because T-50 have movable LEVCON instead of simple non-moving sharp corners on F-22. Both are better than J-20.
 
EricChase88 said:
Did it work on MiG 1.44 which is a bit bigger than Eurofighter/Rafale? Well, the Russians went a different direction with PAK-FA* - I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from that.
*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."
Click to expand...

That's something of a non-sequiter, since it assumes the mission of the MiG 1.44 and the PAK-FA are the same. We can't know the reasons for the differences between the configurations without knowing;
1) The mission profiles for each aircraft.
2) MiG's submission for the PAK-FA.
It is possible for two design bureau's to have completely different design responses to the same mission profile, depending on how each team weighs the importance of different segments of the mission and due to the state of "in-house" technology they are familiar with wrt their designs.
 
EricChase, Is this more Keypublishing forum conjecture parroted here with no evidence to support the hearsay? Is there any chance you can keep that garbage there, and let us be free of it here? I'm not a fan of the cross pollution. If I wanted to see keypubs conjecture and opinion, I will register on keypubs.
 
EricChase88 said:
More advanced because T-50 have movable LEVCON instead of simple non-moving sharp corners on F-22.
Click to expand...

So the T-50 is "more advanced" because it has additional moving surfaces that may or may not make it as good or better than the F-22? this is more advanced? IF the F-22 is capable of equal or better performance, doesn't that make levcons additional complexity to catch up? :eek: If we add Levcons to an F-22 does it become "more advanced"?
 
EricChase88 said:
TaiidanTomcat said:
EricChase88 said:
sferrin said:
EricChase88 said:
*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."
Click to expand...

Did the aero engineer actually say this or did you just tack that opinion on yourself?
Click to expand...

Its what he actually said. I don't see why you think T-50 is not more advanced than F-22. Both are more advanced than J-20.
Click to expand...

Define "more advanced"
Click to expand...

I will quote him again.

"The J-20 is like an aircraft that has built on 1980s research which led to the EFA/Rafale/MiG1.44; but with a key difference. The engine intakes of these 3 are not alongside the fuselage. That resulting wider fuselage will not work so well with the fore-body arrangement that does work on Eurofighter/Rafale.

Did it work on MiG 1.44 which is a bit bigger than Eurofighter/Rafale? Well, the Russians went a different direction with PAK-FA* - I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from that.
*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."

More advanced because T-50 have movable LEVCON instead of simple non-moving sharp corners on F-22. Both are better than J-20.
Click to expand...

Different doesn't necessarily imply more advanced. Given that the back end of the T-50 is basically a Flanker I'd question the "more advanced" notion.
 
TaiidanTomcat said:
EricChase88 said:
More advanced because T-50 have movable LEVCON instead of simple non-moving sharp corners on F-22.
Click to expand...

So the T-50 is "more advanced" because it has additional moving surfaces that may or may not make it as good or better than the F-22? this is more advanced? IF the F-22 is capable of equal or better performance, doesn't that make levcons additional complexity to catch up? :eek: If we add Levcons to an F-22 does it become "more advanced"?
Click to expand...

I imagine the LM stealth guys got a chuckle out of the levcons.
 
Sundog said:
EricChase88 said:
Did it work on MiG 1.44 which is a bit bigger than Eurofighter/Rafale? Well, the Russians went a different direction with PAK-FA* - I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from that.
*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."
Click to expand...

That's something of a non-sequiter, since it assumes the mission of the MiG 1.44 and the PAK-FA are the same. We can't know the reasons for the differences between the configurations without knowing;
1) The mission profiles for each aircraft.
2) MiG's submission for the PAK-FA.
It is possible for two design bureau's to have completely different design responses to the same mission profile, depending on how each team weighs the importance of different segments of the mission and due to the state of "in-house" technology they are familiar with wrt their designs.
Click to expand...

Since MiG 1.44 didn't win, that has to say something.
 
EricChase88 said:
TaiidanTomcat said:
EricChase88 said:
sferrin said:
EricChase88 said:
*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."
Click to expand...

Did the aero engineer actually say this or did you just tack that opinion on yourself?
Click to expand...

Its what he actually said. I don't see why you think T-50 is not more advanced than F-22. Both are more advanced than J-20.
Click to expand...

Define "more advanced"
Click to expand...

I will quote him again.

"The J-20 is like an aircraft that has built on 1980s research which led to the EFA/Rafale/MiG1.44; but with a key difference. The engine intakes of these 3 are not alongside the fuselage. That resulting wider fuselage will not work so well with the fore-body arrangement that does work on Eurofighter/Rafale.

Did it work on MiG 1.44 which is a bit bigger than Eurofighter/Rafale? Well, the Russians went a different direction with PAK-FA* - I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from that.
*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."

More advanced because T-50 have movable LEVCON instead of simple non-moving sharp corners on F-22. Both are better than J-20.
Click to expand...
Careful. Amiga was talking purely in terms of aerodynamic design, specifically in terms of body lift generation mechanisms and possibly in terms of vortex generation and control. He makes no claim about performance. That's why he caveated his reply with "this is purely a discussion about aerodynamics".
 
According to Paralay, this is Mikoyan's submission for the PAK-FA program. Not sure if it's authentic, so maybe flateric can pitch in. In any case, it doesn't appear to share much with either the MiG 1.44 or T-50.

http://paralay.net/pakfamig.html
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom