Shenyang / Chengdu "6th Gen" Aircraft - News and Analysis

thanix01 said:
Huh… using google translate this seems to be from someone master’s thesis. If true, holy hell I feels really inadequate about my master thesis even if it is in different field.

I mean imagine your master thesis being use on major component of next generation of military aircraft…
Click to expand...
If the inlet still requires an internal bleed system, then it’s not really a DSI. The stated total pressure recovery numbers are rather unremarkable. Perhaps distortion management is a higher priority for this design?
 
EmoBirb said:
Simply because you see it and think about the F-111 and Su-34 when you notice the seating arrangement, landing gear and size.

But size and seating arrangement lend themselves to an aircraft that's intended to generate plenty of power, have long range, carry large weapons and also work in a command and control role within the larger kill web (kill chain?) somewhere below genuine AEW&C aircraft but above the unmanned and less capable manned assets it will direct in theater (presumably).
Click to expand...
The physically large bays suggest that A2G is possible. Whether it's a large part of the missions expected is a different discussion.

Funny enough, the F-111's side-by-side seating arrangement was specified by the USN for their fighter version!



lancer21 said:
What appears to be a darkened (AI tampered?) picture of the J-50 (though some suggest this might even be the original as the two released are said to be pictures of the camera display that took the pictures), perhaps some additional details might be made out.
View attachment 786180
Click to expand...
Combined response:
Alfa_Particle said:
I'm thinking 3D TVC via yaw paddles in a flat/2D package.View attachment 786189
Click to expand...
Yes, that jumped out at me, too.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The physically large bays suggest that A2G is possible. Whether it's a large part of the missions expected is a different discussion.
Click to expand...
Indeed, but people were claiming (contrary to claims made by more reputable people) that it's the primary mission. When one may actually have to turn around and consider it could at the very best be a tertiary mission of the aircraft. Coming after air superiority and drone control.

To these people, to which I doubt you belong, I generally reply that just because the F-22 can drop bombs it's not a fighter bomber either. Even something like the F-15E is generally considered a "multirole fighter" or a "strike fighter" on good days.

I was playing at the fact that people sought the illusion of it being a dedicated fighterbomber like the Su-34 or Tornado in an effort to deny the claim of it being the first next generation fighter to fly.
 
Forest Green said:
I thought the gold tint was to reduce reflection of the sun.
Click to expand...
The gold tint is literally a thin sheet of gold used so that the canopy reflects RF energy, rather than letting it pass through and reflect off items in the cockpit. The only reason this aircraft would need it is if they were using it as a signature test bed and they're likely not doing that as it still has the mounting station for the pitot/test tube, etc. It's probably just the flying article to develop/prove out the aerodynamics and stability and control of the aircraft.

The inlet is just another variation on DSI and as noted above, forebody compression has been around since we started flying operational supersonic aircraft in the fifties.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Funny enough, the F-111's side-by-side seating arrangement was specified by the USN for their fighter version!
Click to expand...

I wonder what the F-111 would've been like if its' cockpit had used the normal tandem seat arrangement instead?
 
Sundog said:
The gold tint is literally a thin sheet of gold used so that the canopy reflects RF energy, rather than letting it pass through and reflect off items in the cockpit. The only reason this aircraft would need it is if they were using it as a signature test bed and they're likely not doing that as it still has the mounting station for the pitot/test tube, etc. It's probably just the flying article to develop/prove out the aerodynamics and stability and control of the aircraft.

The inlet is just another variation on DSI and as noted above, forebody compression has been around since we started flying operational supersonic aircraft in the fifties.
Click to expand...
If the aircraft forebody has pre-compressed the incoming flow,why does the flow field digram shows the incoming flow remaining at 1.8M before entering the lip?i believe the flow diagram shows a lot
 
Kommoe said:
If the aircraft forebody has pre-compressed the incoming flow,why does the flow field digram shows the incoming flow remaining at 1.8M before entering the lip?i believe the flow diagram shows a lot
Click to expand...
Because that's how compressible aerodynamics works. The nose cone of any supersonic aircraft compresses the air around it because the air has to pass through a shock wave off of the nose. The angle and shape of the forebody determine the shock structure and it's strength. It's just basic supersonic aerodynamics.
 
thanix01 said:
He does make interesting observation in regard that all moving wingtip on Shenyang aircraft, only deflect upward and never down ward.

I did not noticed that before.
Click to expand...
I'm just an armchair expert, and kudos to the guy's excellent and in depth analysis (I never would've suspected the wingtips work as airbrakes!) , but I do suspect they indeed deflect downward.
Why? At high AoA lateral stability is already ensured by the twin vortices generated by the LEX, despite the vertical tails being in shadow (this is why the Su-27 can cobra without yawoff), and alierons/elevators become ineffective as well, horizontal tails are needed.
I think in this scenario, the wingtip surfaces act as a horizontal tail and provide control authority (though I might be wrong, they are quite smalller and closer to the CoG than a traditional tail would be)
 
had said:
Millennium7’s take on the moving wingtips, lambda wings & pitch break.
View: https://youtu.be/oTUsjtD7HIQ?feature=shared&t=625
Click to expand...

Fascinating!

Please forgive my very superficial understanding, I do not even play an aerodynamicist in community theatre, let alone on TV.

10:31 yaw control

11:30 Pitch break

13:45 'For a fighter, the lambda wing is practically unusable... but what if I am stubborn... we would need an aerodynamic surface that would generate aerodynamic drag and would not be affected by the pitch break - and so it happens that such surfaces do exist and they are the all-moving wingtips.'

He notes the problems of thrust vectoring alone.

16:30 'Allows lateral control and stability.'

More detail follows.

I'm inclined to think that the F-47 has a lambda wing. The canards may help with the pitch control, as perhaps learned with the X-36 and/or anhedral wingtips on the Bird of Prey. Also it might have moving wingtips. And indeed, he asks this question.

Screenshot 2025-09-30 at 11.32.27 PM.png
 
Last edited:
AGS-1787 said:
Where can I see your model? Can it be 3d printed?
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a very good model. A lot of inaccuracies due to the lack of photos to use as reference when I first made it. Also they modified it in that video to look even worse. They changed up the textures to be duller and darker. I liked my hand drawn textures more.
1759612031080.png
 
Sundog said:
The inlet is just another variation on DSI and as noted above, forebody compression has been around since we started flying operational supersonic aircraft in the fifties.
Click to expand...

To give the AI credit where it's due though, it is correct in stating that the intake is not a DSI as we've come to understand and use the term. The conventional notion of a DSI is an external (or mixed, but the DSI part even then is invariably an external conical flow) compression intake, whereas the inward turning type is an internal compression inlet. There are parallels in that they're both based on "inverse-design" methods using streamline-tracing of a parent flow field, but said flow field is radically different between the two.

The statement that the primary advantage of an inward turning intake (due to its internal compression nature) is lower cowl dag is also accurate.
 
I take it that no one has come across L/D calculations for these designs? We should have enough information now to at least get rough estimates.
 
SspewixzzZ said:
This guy is notorious for fabricating information:confused:
Click to expand...
Yeah sorry but i have to call bullshit on your part. There is no way you ‘know’ this guy’s channel by reputation since you probably dont even speak chinese.
 
ar020 said:
Yeah sorry but i have to call bullshit on your part. There is no way you ‘know’ this guy’s channel by reputation since you probably dont even speak chinese.
Click to expand...
No this guy is definitely dubious, I remember I saw his video on the the J-36 and he was hyping up the middle engine as a possible ramjet or something. He also one time suggested the J-XDS AMT was a 360 degree ball joint?? If you watch his videos and actually listen to what he says, he makes tons of questionable claims.
 
ar020 said:
Whatever bro…
Click to expand...

The purpose of these threads and this forum is to share good quality information credible arguments.
That video, and that channel, doesn't provide those elements.

Just because someone has good quality video production and says a lot of words, does not make a video informative or in depth.
 
ar020 said:
Whatever bro…
Click to expand...
Did you actually watch the video or did you let it just play in the background?

He literally circles a CGI image of the J-XDS, that looks nothing like the J-XDS firstly, and tries to pass off the claim that it uses 2d TVC mounted at an angle like the Su-57. How does anyone take this guy seriously? This is low quality slop trying to pass as well researched.
1760233326209.png
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom