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

F-14ATomcat said:
vertical fins do not need the rudder to stabilize all the time, the vertical fins straight up the flow by becoming walls that are most of the time in the symmetric line that cuts the fuselage in two sides longitudinally or what we call fuselage longitudinal axis . for a reason they are called vertical stabilizers and most of the time the rudder is a small part of them.
View attachment 767465
Mirage III for that reason used a fin, not an all moving vertical fin like SR-71 or Su-57 or split rudders like B-2.

J-36 or any flying wing needs to create drag reducing lift to apply a differential force.

We have to face the reality, these tailless aircraft prioritize stealth and are better than 5th generation in stealth terms but in controlability, no they are not as good, most aircraft for a reason have ventral or dorsal fins with rudders, which is only a small part of the vertical fin.
Click to expand...
1745161607520.png
According to the observables-agility matrix in "Impact of Agility Requirements on Configuration Synthesis" of NASA, the agility of tailless configuration 2408 is in the same class as that of the conventional configuration 2402.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Watch videos of birds in flight, their tails often get twisted to near-vertical or turned into an /\ shape as they maneuver
Click to expand...

A lot of manoeuvring in birds and bats is done through wing tip deflection, with the tail being used more often in a role similar to that of flaps (trim and lift control). There are exceptions of course, here you can see the tail being used sometimes to deal with a cross-wind:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJff3J_9jVs


Overall though tails are flat (i.e. oriented like a horizontal stabiliser) and integrated into the trailing edge of the wing. So, they'd be classified as tailless design with some polymorphic abilities.

It is worth noting that long tailed versions of birds, bats, and pterosaurs are all well documented, but they were eventually replaced by tailless lineages.

Not directly comparable to aircraft, but I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a reason for this that also applies to some types of aircraft in the future. Look at the amount of weight the active controls the Boeing Spanloaders would have required in the 1970s, now look at the weight of modern computers and the ability to do things like have distributed airflow sensors... there are a lot of technological limitations against distributed lift designs which are increasingly being overcome.
 
JetBrain said:
According to the observables-agility matrix in "Impact of Agility Requirements on Configuration Synthesis", the agility of tailess configuration 2408 is in the same class as that of the conventional configuration 2402.
Click to expand...

Admittedly though, that also makes it the same class as 2401 and 2403 (if the illustrations are to be believed)!
 
Just as a general reflection on the emergence of the CHADs.

Backs in the day, the 4th generation US F-14, F-15, F-16 (and later F-18) were the first of their kind, the standard setters against which every other 4th gen was measured against (MiG-29, Su-27, Eurocanards, J-10 etc). Then the US F-22 was the first heavy 5th gen against which every other heavy 5th gen is measured against (J-20, Su-57). And the US F-35 was the first medium 5th gen against which J-35, KF-21, KAAN etc. measure against.

But now, with China's unveiling of the 6th generation J-36 and J-50, it is THEM who are benchmarks, the standard setters against which every other emerging 6th gens will measure against. How times have changed.
 
DWG said:
OTOH controls on the wings also have a longer lever, so a drag-rudder near the tip has a considerable multiplier to its effectiveness that a conventional rudder doesn't.
Click to expand...
That's quite configuration dependent. You're also having to deploy those tip drag rudders a lot to counter higher yaw instability than with a "fin" which eats into drag. It very much depends.

According to the observables-agility matrix in "Impact of Agility Requirements on Configuration Synthesis" of NASA, the agility of tailless configuration 2408 is in the same class as that of the conventional configuration 2402.
Click to expand...
It's also important to note that this is with yaw thrust vectoring and additional aerodynamic yaw manoeuvre devices. It also shows just how sensitive the configurations are to some parameters e.g. Thrust/Weight in order to provide both thrust and control power
 
Last edited:
red admiral said:
That's quite configuration dependent. You're also having to deploy those tip drag rudders a lot to counter higher yaw instability than with a "fin" which eats into drag.
Click to expand...
Whereas the vertical fin and rudder (and potentially significant fuselage side area*) are contributing significant parasitic drag at all times.

There's no single perfect solution. There are multiple ways to control pitch, roll and yaw, and which works best for your particular problem may be radically different from someone else's. Look at all the different ways we have of controlling pitch - conventional tail, canards, inline triplane, levcons, etc. No one finds it extraordinary that different designers choose different solutions. Different solutions for yaw control are no different.

* Think of all those WWII era rudder fillets that had to be added when lateral stability proved insufficient, or tails enlarged, entire extra tails added and so on.
 
The aircraft must have a wing and an engine, the rest only hinders flight. In the future, it should be a single whole, a wing that creates not only lift, but also thrust.
At the same time, the planes will be built on the basis of a completely different principle of flight, you know, on which...
 
A tailless dogfights a three surface. The tailless has a significant advantage in power and wingloading. Who wins?

Or to put it another way, what matters more in a dogfight, instantaneous or sustained maneuvering?
 
I'm confused by which bits are meant to show high manoeuvrability from these videos? Look at an airliner air display and it doesn't seem much different... Just more ridiculous clickbait.

At the same point we've no idea whether it's being flown to max performance levels - you'd doubt this to be the case now with a traditional flight test work up.
 
bennyp said:
More worthless Youtube tripe expressly engineered to exploit excitable people.
There would likely be nothing of value lost from a moratorium on Youtube posting.
Click to expand...
I think live feed is important...of cause these "besser wissers" in youtube has to be taken with heavy load of salt.

I doubt is has thrust vectoring...as the drag elevons are for everyone to see. They possibly make it light like a christmas tree on a radar screen.
 
Last edited:
topspeed3 said:
Insanely maneuvreable ?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkWMAGv_1Ug


Maybe an overstatement ?
Click to expand...
This video does not exhibit any type of exceptional maneuverability. Moreover, the airspeed is not that great. What it does show is that the viewers can take what "they want to believe" and apply it to the video. I've seen the British Vulcan perform better, while the boys were having their tea:).
 
djfawcett said:
This video does not exhibit any type of exceptional maneuverability. Moreover, the airspeed is not that great. What it does show is that the viewers can take what "they want to believe" and apply it to the video. I've seen the British Vulcan perform better, while the boys were having their tea:).
Click to expand...
The engine throttle settings can possibly be integrated to drag elevons...making it being able to turn tighter than a Piper Cup...laterally ( Yaw ). My 2 cents on it.
 
Deino said:
Wow! I hope this latest image of the J-36 is legit but usually @琴石2022 on Weibo is quite credible!

View attachment 767686
Click to expand...


poorguy.png
This sacrifice is necessary, you will be remember bro.
↓This guy took this photo

-: Can you reply me? I’m the person the photo you posted.
--: Is that you?
-: Yes, it’s me who took the photo.
--: Opps you may got trouble now
-: I’m going to report this to the police. I didn’t realize it was about sixth gen...I thought it was J20. I’m not very familiar with these things.
 
SspewixzzZ said:
This sacrifice is necessary, you will be remember bro.
↓This guy took this photo

-: Can you reply me? I’m the person the photo you posted.
--: Is that you?
-: Yes, it’s me who took the photo.
--: Opps you may got trouble now
-: I’m going to report this to the police. I didn’t realize it was about sixth gen...I thought it was J20. I’m not very familiar with these things.
Click to expand...
Looking at his records, it was taken around the 17th, it doesn't matter, I personally tend to be fine, some details are still processed. LOL
 
Geo said:
No side bays?
Click to expand...
nope. Not needed, really. USAF's F-35 don't really use anything other than medium range missiles. It's understandable that for the next generation designers concluded that the number of times short range missiles would be beneficial is not worth the effort (added weight, space). Roughly speaking, the belly weapon bays seem of similar size as ones on the J-20. Again, 4 to 6 medium range missiles should be adequate. Given that there are surely to be plenty of combat drones in formation, to provide additional medium range missiles. And that there are likely to be J-36 as well, providing long range missiles to the formation.
 
What are the bays for forward of the main landing gears? I had thought that they are for short range missiles but now I am not so sure? :confused:
 
FighterJock said:
What are the bays for forward of the main landing gears? I had thought that they are for short range missiles but now I am not so sure? :confused:
Click to expand...
I heard from a pretty credible guy on Weibo (人畜无害遥感星) that said that's indeed a SIWB but the Fox-2 is mounted diagonally to reduce the SWIB door length. Think kinda like the Raptor.

If it's a maintenance hatch, SAC's precedent seen on the J-35 was to opt for a taller hatch rather than a thinner one (obviously, it's subjected to change from airframe to airframe) in a similar location. IMHO it's indeed more ergonomic and convenient too than a thin one.
1745413718104.jpeg
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom