- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 16,454
- Reaction score
- 19,154
The Chinese hacked the F-35's subcontractors. Surely they got a hold of the magical -70 dBsm rivets?If they're below the surface the effect is probably minimal.I find it interesting that rivets are plainly visible around the fuselage/canopy area. That cannot help with its LO RCS.Partial cockpit shot. Looks like all displays are off though.
Another one ...
View attachment 665366
I find it interesting that rivets are plainly visible around the fuselage/canopy area. That cannot help with its LO RCS.
I find it interesting that rivets are plainly visible around the fuselage/canopy area. That cannot help with its LO RCS.
Well, this implies other (more particularly, US) aircraft commonly considered to be stealthy would be substantially different in this regard. I can't say I'm able to discern such a difference, calling into question the assumption on which the hypothesis is premised. This kind of elementary sanity check would save a lot of back and forth.
No such thing.The Chinese hacked the F-35's subcontractors. Surely they got a hold of the magical -70 dBsm rivets?If they're below the surface the effect is probably minimal.I find it interesting that rivets are plainly visible around the fuselage/canopy area. That cannot help with its LO RCS.Partial cockpit shot. Looks like all displays are off though.
Another one ...
View attachment 665366
Does anyone know the function of the “fingers” hanging down from upper half of the inner primary nozzle? I see them retracted into the segments across the bottom of the nozzle, not sure if they are free floating and are just hanging down by gravity.Closeup WS-10 from Zhuhai 2021
Hardly; as others have mentioned, American stealth fighters in operation can be seen with exposed fastener heads as well. This includes the F-35. I would imagine that in war time, some kind of expedient conductive cover would be placed over them.I find it interesting that rivets are plainly visible around the fuselage/canopy area. That cannot help with its LO RCS.
Yeah so the lines about the J-20's DSI screwing it for high-speed are probably right; the Chinese kept on screwing with the DSI to provide high-speed, and their earlier experience with the J-10's DSI and the JF-17's DSI probably helped, but they're still limited to (an unclassified?) Mach 2, so it seems.Finally, some basic specs for J-20.
Length: 21.2m
Span: 13.01m
Height: 4.69m
Max Speed: Mach 2.0
I don't see any TVC in the picture personally?
The info panel was below the 1:5 J-20 scale model in the big hall. What's odd about this?Yeah so the lines about the J-20's DSI screwing it for high-speed are probably right; the Chinese kept on screwing with the DSI to provide high-speed, and their earlier experience with the J-10's DSI and the JF-17's DSI probably helped, but they're still limited to (an unclassified?) Mach 2, so it seems.Finally, some basic specs for J-20.
Length: 21.2m
Span: 13.01m
Height: 4.69m
Max Speed: Mach 2.0
I don't see any TVC in the picture personally?
As for TVC, look at the nozzles closely. They're not parallel. It's completely weird.
===
I'm also not sure about the provenance of the specs; the title on the bottom is 模型比例, which lists 5:1. 模型比例 -> scale model, although that's implying 4.24 meters length for the scale model, which I don't think would be attractive to hobbyists.
So almost 70 feet. Hopefully it finally puts to rest the notion that the J-20 isn't much larger than the F-22.Finally, some basic specs for J-20.
Length: 21.2m
Span: 13.01m
Height: 4.69m
Max Speed: Mach 2.0
I don't see any TVC in the picture personally?
I just didn't get provenance, but Henri Kahnemann reported it on the 28th:The info panel was below the 1:5 J-20 scale model in the big hall. What's odd about this?Yeah so the lines about the J-20's DSI screwing it for high-speed are probably right; the Chinese kept on screwing with the DSI to provide high-speed, and their earlier experience with the J-10's DSI and the JF-17's DSI probably helped, but they're still limited to (an unclassified?) Mach 2, so it seems.Finally, some basic specs for J-20.
Length: 21.2m
Span: 13.01m
Height: 4.69m
Max Speed: Mach 2.0
I don't see any TVC in the picture personally?
As for TVC, look at the nozzles closely. They're not parallel. It's completely weird.
===
I'm also not sure about the provenance of the specs; the title on the bottom is 模型比例, which lists 5:1. 模型比例 -> scale model, although that's implying 4.24 meters length for the scale model, which I don't think would be attractive to hobbyists.
Also don't see an issue with Mach 2.0.
And span is 1m less. Nobody ever said it wasn't longer. Its about 11.5% longer and 7% less span.So almost 70 feet. Hopefully it finally puts to rest the notion that the J-20 isn't much larger than the F-22.Finally, some basic specs for J-20.
Length: 21.2m
Span: 13.01m
Height: 4.69m
Max Speed: Mach 2.0
I don't see any TVC in the picture personally?
So almost 70 feet. Hopefully it finally puts to rest the notion that the J-20 isn't much larger than the F-22.Finally, some basic specs for J-20.
Length: 21.2m
Span: 13.01m
Height: 4.69m
Max Speed: Mach 2.0
I don't see any TVC in the picture personally?
You have to be careful as engine thrust line usually has an offset angle. So the thrust line may be several degrees down and also toed out from the centreline. Establishing the angle of the fuselage is complicated by local curvature, camera angle etc.
There may be something there but you need more rigorous analysis.
This is interesting.View attachment 665510
Mach 2.0 is bad for the same reason the F-35 being limited to Mach 1.6 is bad; if you have to run, you have to run, and being too slow to run away means you lose the airframe.
The length of the aircraft causes distrustso, looks like it's 21.2x13.01? @paralay And I'm off by 32 cm on length and 6 cm on wingspan. 76-77 meters wing area?
Your drawing proportions aren't correct, its longer than you show, but dimensions still seem a bit off. Will try to quantify.The length of the aircraft causes distrustso, looks like it's 21.2x13.01? @paralay And I'm off by 32 cm on length and 6 cm on wingspan. 76-77 meters wing area?
the wing area is 73 m2 the area of the front horizontal tail is 2 x 3 m2
total area 73 m2 + 6 m2 = 79 m2
Who says they want to demonstrate the full capabilities of the aircraft? When the Gripen entered service in SA those first few public displays where also rather mundane... While I also doubt the J-20 has the thrust it needs/will have once WS-15 comes online, I wouldn't conclude much about it's maneuvering capabilities based off it's Zhuhai performance. What we saw there could have been flown by a Mirage F1 and I guarantee the J-20 has a better T-W ratio and better turning capabilities with FBW than a Mirage... The Chinese are holding back - by how much we will have to wait and see.It's probably sluggish. I have no doubts that China would otherwise have demonstrated it doing aggressive aerobatics like they marvelously did with that J-10.
However the minimal wing, forward large canard and elongated fuselage with internal weapons bays could make it a proper ride when it comes to acceleration once a proper engine is ultimately fitted as compared to other similar designs.
It's probably sluggish. I have no doubts that China would otherwise have demonstrated it doing aggressive aerobatics like they marvelously did with that J-10.
However the minimal wing, forward large canard and elongated fuselage with internal weapons bays could make it a proper ride when it comes to acceleration once a proper engine is ultimately fitted as compared to other similar designs.