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

Avimimus said:
That makes a lot of sense - explains why there is a very bright light on one side (makes it easier to figure out the orientation - i.e. that it isn't flying upside down).
Click to expand...

Look closely, both wings have formation lights. The one on the right wing is obscured during the roll.
 
flateric said:
Well. Then ...quite an impressive leap in flight envelope just in few flights.
Click to expand...

I think its third flight had already began making some turns a month or so ago, and this would be its fifth flight. Chances are it's been expanding the flight envelope every flight but we just haven't seen every maneuver.

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarplanePorn/comments/1jdkghq/first_impressions_of_j36s_maneuverability_video
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarplanePorn/comments/1jdkghq/first_impressions_of_j36s_maneuverability_video/
 
siegecrossbow said:
Look closely, both wings have formation lights. The one on the right wing is obscured during the roll.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I mean jeez at this stage there are so many flights of J-36 (and J-XDS as well) that the threshold for actually arguing a video is outright fake or CGI (as opposed to say, an upscaled AI image, which is somewhat common due to the normalization of such software) should be very high.


If one thinks it is odd that there is only one formation light, the idea that the whole video is outright not real seems like a heck of a leap in logic as opposed to say... a formation light happening to be obscured as the aircraft was turning?
 
flateric said:
Well. Then ...quite an impressive leap in flight envelope just in few flights.
Click to expand...

Looking like it. Which makes me wonder if this is a pre-production prototype rather than a demonstrator (and if the basic flight control logic and aerodynamics have already been validated years ago).
 
Has anyone done some CFD on the basic shape to try to estimate the L/D ratios? Of course, without knowing the airfoil shape such information would be very approximate. It'd be quite interesting though.
 
I don't know why anyone is shocked by it's ability to turn sharply. It has large wing and it's flying slowly. I would expect that with such a large wing. It looks just like an F-35C or an F-22 in the pattern to me.
 
Sundog said:
I don't know why anyone is shocked by it's ability to turn sharply. It has large wing and it's flying slowly. I would expect that with such a large wing. It looks just like an F-35C or an F-22 in the pattern to me.
Click to expand...

The other reasons (than seeing it as a bomber with low structural strength - something which these videos don't settle) is a belief that large vertical stabilisers would be needed for high angles-of-attack.

The final reason why people might be surprised is simply that they assume the flight tests would be slower (or that flight tests haven't already been done in secret) and thus would expect them to be taking less risks with the prototypes.
 
Perhaps it is not that the Chinese have progressed too fast, but that some people have been resting on their laurels. In terms of R&D time, it took 13 years for China to leap from J10 (1998) to J20 (2011), and 13 years from J20 (2011) to J36（2024） at this development rate. Don't think that China is still the same China as it was in the last century, and everyone is improving. As for those "Chinese equipment is imitations", this sentence is indeed true in a certain period of history, but now it is 2025...
 
The below images are from TWZ "Conversations", image credit to user "MOSS"

910ce6f8-c8ce-48b2-83eb-27a1ea02015b

b25348a1-4406-4348-9c98-c03cafdd9c36
These are screen captures from a China Plastic Model Expo ..... video is posted here :

 
Last edited:
Avimimus said:
The other reasons (than seeing it as a bomber with low structural strength - something which these videos don't settle) is a belief that large vertical stabilisers would be needed for high angles-of-attack.

The final reason why people might be surprised is simply that they assume the flight tests would be slower (or that flight tests haven't already been done in secret) and thus would expect them to be taking less risks with the prototypes.
Click to expand...
depends in the speed, turning is nothing special, all aircraft can turn there is no magic aerodynamics a tailless is always limited, even thrust vectoring will not fix turn rate beyond 10% of the max turn rate without thrust vectoring, nothing is beyond regular performance, the term 6th generation is part propaganda modern UCAVs can do the same J-36 is doing. they say 6th generation and then people think new laws of physics, no it does not work like that.

The only advantage of a tailless is lower reflecting area,Take your F-22 and delete the vertical fins and you get less RCS signature but performance will be impacted.

Vertical fins are for a reason, add manned aircaft can not go beyond 9Gs, a UCAV can go farther, higher overload.

Manned aircraft in the 6 generation are control aircraft for UCAVs, only that, a tailless delta will still have the same limits other tailless deltas have, there are no new physics, for a Reason Mirage III used a vertical fin and for a reason B-21 does not, but is no magic, all aircraft have compromises and all these 6th generations have them, they are not super machines that break the laws of physics they still have limitations and compromises
 
In addition to the fact that it makes sense to give up some performance in the pursuit of others, I read a paper (2012) on the performance associated with tailless delta wing layouts. In fact, after developing stealth fighters, countries will realize that removing the vertical tail will be more conducive to stealth, and even at the beginning of the development of their first generation stealth fighters, tailless layouts have been discussed. As for the flight performance of the aircraft, we do not know what engine the aircraft uses, nor do we know what its specific flight control is, so we will not draw any results at this time. I'm more curious about what performance this aircraft will overpower the fifth-generation fighter than the flight performance. There are many guesses, but only time will tell the correct answer.
 
F-14ATomcat said:
The only advantage of a tailless is lower reflecting area,Take your F-22 and delete the vertical fins and you get less RCS signature but performance will be impacted.
Click to expand...

That isn't true though, is it?

Getting rid of the vertical tail also means less drag and less requirements for structural strength (as the fuselage doesn't have to take all of the forces on the stabiliser), plus the weight of the stabiliser.

If you can find another way to take-off and land safely in a cross-wind... then there is no reason to have one and a lot of non-stealth related reasons to get rid of it.
 
Strange that birds lack verticals given that nature has yet to develop radar.....
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom