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

[EricChase88]

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."

 

[latenlazy]

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."

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.

 

[sferrin]

*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."

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

 

[FighterJock]

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.

 

[flanker]

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

You reckon F-22 is more advanced than T-50 in terms of aerodynamics?

 

[EricChase88]

*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."

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

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.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."

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

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.

Define "more advanced"

 

[EricChase88]

*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."

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

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.

Define "more advanced"

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.

 

[Sundog]

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."

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.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

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.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

More advanced because T-50 have movable LEVCON instead of simple non-moving sharp corners on F-22.

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? If we add Levcons to an F-22 does it become "more advanced"?

 

[sferrin]

*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."

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

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.

Define "more advanced"

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.

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.

 

[sferrin]

More advanced because T-50 have movable LEVCON instead of simple non-moving sharp corners on F-22.

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? If we add Levcons to an F-22 does it become "more advanced"?

I imagine the LM stealth guys got a chuckle out of the levcons.

 

[EricChase88]

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."

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.

Since MiG 1.44 didn't win, that has to say something.

 

[flateric]

didn't win what? in fact, 1.44 won MFI contest

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

MiG won the MFI competition, but the requirement was cancelled and eventually replaced with a new requirement (PAK FA) many years later.

 

[EricChase88]

Since Russian Air Force wasn't satisfied with MFI and discarded it for PAK-FA says something one way or another.

 

[latenlazy]

*which is similar to (but more advanced than) the direction the USA went with the F-22."

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

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.

Define "more advanced"

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.

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".

 

[flanker]

Given that the back end of the T-50 is basically a Flanker I'd question the "more advanced" notion.

Yes, and F-22's is basically Eagles. Great logic, will read again.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Since Russian Air Force wasn't satisfied with MFI and discarded it for PAK-FA says something one way or another.

???

 

[Radical]

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

 

[flanker]

The top one is just some students work assignment or something similar.

 

[flateric]

No, that's not E-721

 

[Radical]

No, that's not E-721

Is that the name of the Mikoyan submission for PAK-FA?