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

KJL-10B said:
Tip: Its mobile wing tip section should be parallel to the plane itself.There are public papers that can support this point(Careful observation of the wing tip in the photo can also reveal).I hope it will be helpful for your drawing. : )View attachment 766475
Click to expand...
These two figures have nothing to do with the mobile wing tip. Ref. [113] provides the figures showing how the wing moves. This model is actually constructed for the study of continuous variable camber.
1744716239789.png
 
I hate AI enhanced images with a passion Deino it is the same with PhotoShopped images as well why bother with them, why not wait until the official photos get released instead.
 
From the little that can be seen the canopy looks kinda Flankeresque so to say (even if it's low drag, elongated and LO as most hints so far were pointing to), so i wonder if the J-50 is a two-seater?
 
Last edited:
It'll be interesting to see estimates of the view angle over the nose... If it is carrier based - will it need to be primarily instrument based for landing?

I could see using automated recovery now, with IFR and using the ventral sensor turret as a fallback if the automated system goes down... _but_ I'd still want to have some capacity to look over the nose.

The nose looks quite flat so the view might not actually be that bad... but it'll be interesting to see the numbers as we get more pictures of the canopy.
 
Whether or not the view is comprimised by the nose Avimimus is something that we will just have to wait and see, but from the current image it certainly looks like a long nose. Would SAC modify the new fighter if they found that to be the case?
 
FighterJock said:
Whether or not the view is comprimised by the nose Avimimus is something that we will just have to wait and see, but from the current image it certainly looks like a long nose. Would SAC modify the new fighter if they found that to be the case?
Click to expand...

I think it is sufficiently foreseeable (pardon the pun) that we can assume they felt any tradeoffs were worth it.

But yes, we'll just have to wait and see.

P.S. To bad 'Cyrano' doesn't begin with an F, as it'd make a good NATO reporting name.
 
More seriously, the long nose suggests synthetic vision or Augmented vision for the landing (like Boom demonstrator has today).
 
JetBrain said:
These two figures have nothing to do with the mobile wing tip. Ref. [113] provides the figures showing how the wing moves. This model is actually constructed for the study of continuous variable camber.
View attachment 766895
Click to expand...
The discrepancy between the simplified beam frame model used in the experiment and the actual aircraft is normal. What requires correction in the real vehicle is the attention to the cross-sectional angle when designing the maneuverable wingtip, a fact substantiated by multiple academic papers and empirical photographic evidence.
 
When it comes to these two, J-50 is perhaps slightly easier to parse than J-36. Overall the proportions and dimensioning of stealthy aircraft (not just Chinese) is veering into directions that are - to me, at least - somewhat unexpected if not outright awkward. Wondering whether this is the result of generative AI tools or such.
 
UpForce said:
When it comes to these two, J-50 is perhaps slightly easier to parse than J-36. Overall the proportions and dimensioning of stealthy aircraft (not just Chinese) is veering into directions that are - to me, at least - somewhat unexpected if not outright awkward. Wondering whether this is the result of generative AI tools or such.
Click to expand...

Certainly more computing power to allow modelling radar returns, CFD and extensive FCS simulation etc.

However, part of it might simply be that the F-35 is a 1990s design and the F-22 is a 1980s design... even assuming these aircraft were designed five years ago, there is still a quarter century between the American 5th generation and these new designs (i.e. the span of time between WWI and WWII or between WWII and Vietnam)... so it might just be surprising because the amount of time between generations is getting larger and therefore the technological advancements in each generation are more extensive and varied.
 
Avimimus said:
I think it is sufficiently foreseeable (pardon the pun) that we can assume they felt any tradeoffs were worth it.

But yes, we'll just have to wait and see.

P.S. To bad 'Cyrano' doesn't begin with an F, as it'd make a good NATO reporting name.
Click to expand...
The second starts with an F and alludes to the long nose, but it's a bit of a mouthful:

The Chinese translation for "aardvark" is 土豚 (tǔtún) or 非洲食蚁兽 (fēi zhōu shí yǐ shòu).
Explanation:
  • 土豚 (tǔtún)
    is a direct translation of the South African word meaning "earth pig," reflecting the aardvark's burrowing habits and pig-like appearance.

  • 非洲食蚁兽 (fēi zhōu shí yǐ shòu)
    translates to "African ant-eater," a more descriptive term based on the aardvark's diet and origin
 
Rhinocrates said:
The second starts with an F and alludes to the long nose, but it's a bit of a mouthful:

The Chinese translation for "aardvark" is 土豚 (tǔtún) or 非洲食蚁兽 (fēi zhōu shí yǐ shòu).
Explanation:
  • 土豚 (tǔtún)
    is a direct translation of the South African word meaning "earth pig," reflecting the aardvark's burrowing habits and pig-like appearance.

  • 非洲食蚁兽 (fēi zhōu shí yǐ shòu)
    translates to "African ant-eater," a more descriptive term based on the aardvark's diet and origin
Click to expand...
"Fay-joe" would likely work for a NATO name.
 
To me it still looks like being tampered with, look at the wonky wheel. This was probably done to hide the true outline of the weapon bays which would be clearly visible otherwise (i recall back in the day the same happened when the very first J-20 underside pics appeared).
 
Nx4eu said:
the probably original picture without the noise reduction
View attachment 767044
Click to expand...
Aircraft that are tailless have a huge problem they are the more susceptible to supersonic center of lift movement, add that wing tips are structurally weaker than the root wing so that wing tip control i doubt is for high speed due to high flutter wing deformation and frequencies, lambda wings will bring a bigger wing area but its center of lift of the wing will be moved aft, compared to a trapezoidal wing.

The intake seems to have no bump nor boundary layer diverter too.

It seems stealth is the main purpose on that design but in general terms YF-23 had less stealth in mind but more handling compromises.

a Canard wing aircraft will have lower susceptibility to supersonic center of lift movement and higher pitch control response, it seems this time the Chinese went more for stealth and the Americans more for higher maneuverability and lower supersonic drag.
 
Last edited:
F-14ATomcat said:
Aircraft that are tailless have a huge problem they are the more susceptible to supersonic center of lift movement, add that wing tips are structurally weaker than the root wing so that wing tip control i doubt is for high speed, lambda wings will bring a bigger wing area but its center of lift wing will be moved aft, compared to a trapezoidal wing.

The intake seems to have no bump nor boundary layer diverter too.

It seems stealth is the main purpose on that design but in general terms YF-23 had less stealth in mind but more handling compromises.

a Canard wing aircraft will have lower susceptibility to supersonic center of lift movement and higher pitch control response, it seems this time went more for stealth and the Americans more for higher maneuverability and lower supersonic drag.
Click to expand...
It's hard to see from this angle but I believe there is a DSI bump that is just blended insanely well, and well the low quality and shadows don't help. 1744887180136.png
 
Nx4eu said:
It's hard to see from this angle but I believe there is a DSI bump that is just blended insanely well, and well the low quality and shadows don't help. View attachment 767051
Click to expand...
lower bump is also lower speed, usually the bump size and height means the intake design mach.

In my personal opinion they went for lower speed, less control at high speed but much higher stealth, to be honest it is like a manned UCAV that will fly a bit faster, but not a dog fighter but perhaps lower drag with less controlability at low supersonic speeds

well that is my opinion
 
On the proportioning of the SAC J-50, J-XDS or however it is supposed to be called, I'm reminded of the evolution from YF-22 to F-22. Interesting to see whether it will yet change. Lots of control surfaces.
 
Nothing fundamental will change. As in all previous Chinese designs of the past 2 generations, we can see an aircraft essentially corresponding to the first series.
The same in the case of the J-36.
Demonstrators are lying around in the yards of SAC and CAC.
 
Geo said:
Nothing fundamental will change. As in all previous Chinese designs of the past 2 generations, we can see an aircraft essentially corresponding to the first series.
The same in the case of the J-36.
Demonstrators are lying around in the yards of SAC and CAC.
Click to expand...
Recently one of the reliable sources stated that the flight testing are gathering alot of data and will result in changes, many of which typical enthusiasts will find surprising or even won't like.
 
donnage99 said:
Recently one of the reliable sources stated that the flight testing are gathering alot of data and will result in changes, many of which typical enthusiasts will find surprising or even won't like.
Click to expand...

Empennage? That is what you are implying, right? I can't think of anything else that would be surprising or unlikeable.
 
@Deino : I think someone has a lot of fun with westerners that have bias with new airframe.

Well at least they have 2 different models flying (one with white underbelly, the other, used more often, dark grey).

Also notice the extraordinary size of those white (non-regulatory) blinking lights.

Hummm :rolleyes: :oops:
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom