Way too low resolution to make that claim, you can't see the rest of the control surfaces moving and they don't need much travel.
It's like the F-22, most of the engine is below the "beltline"
Actually, the wing tip is inducing a rolling moment in that position (aircraft attitude). It is fairly obvious given the 60 to 70 deg bank angle. If we could see the other tip, I wouldn't be surprised it is exactly the opposite. If both tip are identical a pitching moment could be expected. And it one tip is rotated and the other neutral a yawing moment could be induced.
Yes they're mixed in, my point was it still needs the rest of the control surfaces to counteract the pitch down they create.
Scott, what are referring to as the "beltline"? I suspect it is a waterline, but which one? - i.e. - through the centroid???
Although this reply is a bit late, this image is a photoshopped creation by a notorious anti-China figure on Chinese internet platforms. He even goes so far as to fabricate academic papers to denigrate China's military technology...
It's the line of the chine and the wings. F-22 has engines below the wings, YF-23 has the engines above. Flankers have engines roughly centered on the wing line.
His Weibo has been awfully quiet of late…
I think the subtle bulge in the first third of the airframe might be a canopy. But the detail is lacking to make a definitive call.
Are winglets looked down as much as canards for aviation stealth enthusiasts?
It's hard to say, after all, the debate around canards is still ongoing. The aircraft designers know they need to create a fighter jet that meets the requirements, so my thought is that even if canards and small wings do have some impact (not discussing whether this impact is real for now), it is still within an acceptable range.
Thanks Scott. I have been in this business over 40 years and never heard the term. I have always used "chine waterline" to describe what you describe as the "beltline".
A sufficiently-large canard (think Viggen-or-larger, not Gripen or Typhoon) would reduce the amount of deflection necessary...
Any asymmetric control surface movement is going to result in a mix of pitch/roll/yaw. Even if they're both moving in the same direction, if the deflection isn't identical you're going to get multiple axes involved.
Looks like a kookaburra.
Also, triangular intakes. Has anyone got any idea what kind of intakes they are using here, DSI intakes have lips that sweep forward and also no bump here neither does it have any splitter plates.
Why? It seems fine. The actuator and most of the gap is blocked by the variable leading edge slats.
The wingtips that are constantly changing their angles will reflect the radar signals.
That's true for any control surfaces on any aircraft with a relaxed stability design anyways.
It still has wing control surfaces - the wingtips could lock in place where high stealth is needed.
As I see it, both Shenyang's and Chengdu's have exactly 2 edge alignment angles. J-50 have some shorter edges though, especially at the wingtips, that might be detectable by radars with comparable wavelength, even if the wingtips are locked. And i think they definitely will be locked at cruising speeds.
