Official Chengdu J-20 Discussion Thread

[MiG-23MLD]

Yeah some people are saying the first flight will be happening very soon (like a day or two/a week, kind of soon). Of course I can't really back up this statement but all the chatter suggests a flight around the new year.




Fair enough I suppose, though you'll be in a long wait for China to confirm the J-20's existence. They only declassified the J-10 like a year or two after it acheived IOC.



Some pictures are excellent while some are very cr*ppy. Pictures are all over Sinodefence forum, china defence forum and the key aviation forums -- go take a look at all of them.

Here's a few to start you off:
http://cnair.top81.cn/fighter/J-20a.jpg
http://cnair.top81.cn/fighter/J-20.jpg
http://img.fyjs.cn/Mon_1012/27_103597_d3e405fe9d25ca1.jpg



No offence, but if you're waiting for Russian confirmation of the J-20... well they're the last people you should go to for PLA related news. Let's leave it at that.

And as for the F-22 and Berkut similarities -- the canopy and nose resemble the F-22 (but the pitot probe is in a position more like the F-35 prototypes), and the J-20's tails are canted way back and are all moving which are more similar to the F-117's. There have been pictures taken from so many angles now I'd say it's impossible for anyone to PS elements from all those aircraft into such a convincing, real picture over and over again in so many angles and environments and light shades.



Yeah, edge alignment I know -- but unless we get a clear picture of the plane from the top or bottom it's far too early to be commenting about how well the alignment goes for stealth.



Yeah but the rest of it seems alright. Besides PAK FA has round nozzles too, and these engines aren't the final WS-15 either (though by the sounds of things they'll be going for a conventionally shaped, 3D TVC nozzle for WS-15 so the current rear end may look similar to the final thing).



(Forgive me if I sound frustrated)

Technology demonstrator?? Like what, the YF-22 or YF-23? Or may Su-47 and Mig 1.44? They wouldn't be putting that fancy paint scheme and inviting all the heads of state, previosu company bosses and such to come over if it were just that. And all the chatter points to this being a prototype, and nothing being mentioned of it a tech demonstrator.

This is the J-20 prototype as much as... the current PAK FA prototypes are prototypes. Phew.

The whole CG/photoshop idea (in terms of if the pictures are real) is reasonable considering how many cruddy photoshops we've seen over the years. But with all these angles and environment's we're getting the plane from.... well no person would go to such lengths.

Do you remember when the J-10B pictures first came out almost two years ago? Everyone was screaming that it was a photoshop (and me too, initially). People pointed out inconsistencies in colour, blurriness and what not but now it's accepted fact.

Let me clarify a few bits.

I grew up in the 1980s and i still remember when the first reports of the Su-27 and MiG-29 appeared.
When you have a real prototype, NATO usually gives a denomination to the fighter, the first pictures taken from a satellite of the Su-27 and MiG-29 are an example.
this later becomes the typical way to support and justify defence spending, like we need new or better fighters, if the J-20 is a real aircraft you will hear soon NATO, Japan, Taiwan and even Russia considering it a threat like the MiG-29 and Su-27 were in their time, It was the same with the MiG-25, MiG-23, MiG-21 and any other fighter.

Up to now i have no see a comment from the USAF or Sukhoi for example.
Now you have clear pictures of the planewatchers but blur pictures of the prototype why? why that difference?.

I do not know if you are familiar with even the most simple animation programs but basicly you can make 3D modelling and render it real besides it is not hard that is the way they make moviesI do not know if you know about lighting in 3D programs but basicly you can create things that your reagular photoshop does not do.


I never said the J-20 is not real, i simply said to you the current news i have read do not report the sighting as 100% confirmed.
The americans Russians and Europeans have satellites and can take pictures of the J-20 and have a more objective report.
My whole point was that we need an independent report from a credible source like one of the USAF or PLAAF to make it believeable if not it can be another fake even a mock up which does not prove a thing.
The Chinese are not going to test a super secret plane in front of plane watchers and satellites and later censor the pictures on the Internet it is simply illogic.
Specially in plane daylight the F-117 only flew at night so the Russian/Soviet satellites could not take any picture of it.

tell me why the planewatchers have pictures of themselves clear but the J-20 looks blur?

 

[lizs]

I never said the J-20 is not real, i simply said to you the current news i have read do not report the sighting as 100% confirmed. The americans Russians and Europeans have satellites and can take pictures of the J-20 and have a more objective report.
My whole point was that we need an independent report from a credible source like one of the USAF or PLAAF to make it believeable if not it can be another fake even a mock up which does not prove a thing.The Chinese are not going to test a super secret plane in front of plane watchers and satellites and later censor the pictures on the Internet it is simply illogic.
Specially in plane daylight the F-117 only flew at night so the Russian/Soviet satellites could not take any picture of it.

tell me why the planewatchers have pictures of themselves clear but the J-20 looks blur?

These pictures are not fake as most will accept, though some small details are hidden or blurred intentionally by the photographers.

Some smart people may check the local weather of Chengdu. It's mostly cloudy and foggy days during winter there. So many optical spy satellites may miss this event.

Independent report? J-10's existence was never recognized officially until 8+ yrs after its maiden flight. Cops are patrolling around the airport so external photographing is risky. It's rumored that 6 Canadian citizens camouflaged under worker's uniform were arrested for spying in CAC in recent days. However, J-20 is not the highest classified project of PLAAF. Remote observation without photographing is tacitly approved to the public.

 

[MiG-23MLD]

These pictures are not fake as most will accept, though some small details are hidden or blurred intentionally by the photographers.

Some smart people may check the local weather of Chengdu. It's mostly cloudy and foggy days during winter there. So many optical spy satellites may miss this event.

Independent report? J-10's existence was never recognized officially until 8+ yrs after its maiden flight. Cops are patrolling around the airport so external photographing is risky. It's rumored that 6 Canadian citizens camouflaged under worker's uniform were arrested for spying in CAC in recent days. However, J-20 is not the highest classified project of PLAAF. Remote observation without photographing is tacitly approved to the public.

I will only tell you this the aircraft most be real but those pictures if real then are leaked intentionally, but probably you are right it seems the aircratf it is real, any way is just propaganda by the Chinese, .
Any way the jet looks impressive and up to a degree quit modern but still i see a few feature that reflect compromises between stealth and aerodynamcs the canards are canted because aerodynamics but it lost some stealth there and probably RAM will play an important part of their construction, the inlet also with the type of inle it has won`t allow it to fly at very fast speeds without variable geometry inlets, DSI inlets are for bellow Mach 2 aircraft, specially without variable inlet ramps, this limits both the F-35 and JF-17 to speed below Mach 2,
The only possible location for the ramp is on the roof of the inlet, the F-35 has the external part of the inlet for shock wave creation and on the T-50 and F-22 the boundary separation wall of the inlet also creates a shock wave.
It probably can not operate above Mach Mach 2.2 since the lack of variable geometry inlet will limit the speed the engine can operate.

The closeness of the engines means its vector thrust will be less efficient than the one of the T-50 and its canards reducing stealth are less effective than the LEVCONs on the T-50.
So far i can say the looks might be less stealthy than the F-22 and less agile than the T-50.
So far i can tell you the aircraft even impressive does not have anything new, the T-50 with LEVCONs is more impressive in aerodynamics and the F-22 far more stealthy.
The LEVCON on the T-50 does not affect planforming and still increases lift as a canard does, and the integral layout of the T-50 adds lift and bolume, this shows the Chinese did not develope something away from the F-22 layout with a rhombus cross section at the engine weapons bay nacelle section.

If the T-50 modifies the nozzles it will be a more advanced weapons system despite the J-20 looks more modern,
If the wing is a delta, then i can say it has poor rear stealth, delta wings are not for stealth aircraft, lambda type wings are okay but not pure deltas creating a 90 degrees angle or near 90 degrees.
The J-20 might be an aircraft in the class of the F-35.
But the aircraft looks cool in that i can say it is a nice looking aircraft specially the inlets are quit cool

 

[Blitzo]

I will only tell you this the aircraft most be real but those pictures if real then are leaked intentionally, but probably you are right it seems the aircratf it is real, any way is just propaganda by the Chinese, .

How is it propaganda if it's been barely mentioned in the media?

Any way the jet looks impressive and up to a degree quit modern but still i see a few feature that reflect compromises between stealth and aerodynamcs the canards are canted because aerodynamics but it lost some stealth there and probably RAM will play an important part of their construction, the inlet also with the type of inle it has won`t allow it to fly at very fast speeds without variable geometry inlets, DSI inlets are for bellow Mach 2 aircraft, specially without variable inlet ramps, this limits both the F-35 and JF-17 to speed below Mach 2,
The only possible location for the ramp is on the roof of the inlet, the F-35 has the external part of the inlet for shock wave creation and on the T-50 and F-22 the boundary separation wall of the inlet also creates a shock wave.
It probably can not operate above Mach Mach 2.2 since the lack of variable geometry inlet will limit the speed the engine can operate.

Yes I think most aircraft with fixed inlets (i.e.: all 5th gen fighter aircraft) can't exceed Mach 2.

The closeness of the engines means its vector thrust will be less efficient than the one of the T-50 and its canards reducing stealth are less effective than the LEVCONs on the T-50.

Canards would be less stealthy but LEVCONs, I think I rightly assume, will be less effective in manouevering.
The closeness of the engines is more like the F-22 than PAK FA, but PAK FA has the massive centerline weapons bay which allows for such a great distance between engines.

So far i can say the looks might be less stealthy than the F-22 and less agile than the T-50.

Or rather, I like to see it as more agile than the F-22 and more stealthy than the T-50. All the same thing really

But totally, I doubt this plane would be as stealthy as the F-22 but should be better than T-50 and F-35.

So far i can tell you the aircraft even impressive does not have anything new, the T-50 with LEVCONs is more impressive in aerodynamics and the F-22 far more stealthy.
The LEVCON on the T-50 does not affect planforming and still increases lift as a canard does, and the integral layout of the T-50 adds lift and bolume, this shows the Chinese did not develope something away from the F-22 layout with a rhombus cross section at the engine weapons bay nacelle section.

What do you mean "with a rhombus cross section at the engine weapons bay nacelle section"?

If the T-50 modifies the nozzles it will be a more advanced weapons system despite the J-20 looks more modern,
If the wing is a delta, then i can say it has poor rear stealth, delta wings are not for stealth aircraft, lambda type wings are okay but not pure deltas creating a 90 degrees angle or near 90 degrees.
The J-20 might be an aircraft in the class of the F-35.
But the aircraft looks cool in that i can say it is a nice looking aircraft specially the inlets are quit cool

I think we should wait for a photo from the top or bottom to determine whether it's a delta or not.

In terms of stealth it may be in the class of the F-35 but in terms of weapons capacity and range it's definitely one of the big hitters.

 

[Feanor]

Or rather, I like to see it as more agile than the F-22 and more stealthy than the T-50. All the same thing really

But totally, I doubt this plane would be as stealthy as the F-22 but should be better than T-50 and F-35..

See it's stuff like this that makes me question the sanity of this thread.

We have no idea what radar is has, what the comms gear, datalinks, engines (!!!) on it are... we have no idea what next-gen missiles it will carry, but yet here we are already trying to do comparative analysis out of a handful of blurry pictures.

Personally I seriously doubt that this fighter will be anywhere near the F-35 or F-22 in terms of avionics, or radar. Especially if it's IOC is by ~2015/17. The technological basis isn't there, for several generations of AESA radars, advanced electric-optical systems, etc.

Engine wise, same issue. I suspect it will be a few years (at least until the Su-35S contract has the engines it needs) before the 117S will be available for export as an engine (as opposed to, as part of the Su-35S aircraft), so it's currently flying with either Al-31F, WS-10A, or a prototype engine derived from those two.

Rather then trying to read things from a few early pre-production shots of a non-flying prototype, why not try to at least look at the level of the Chinese aero-space industry more broadly? It would at least give us better indicators of the realm of possibilities.

 

[Blitzo]

See it's stuff like this that makes me question the sanity of this thread.

We have no idea what radar is has, what the comms gear, datalinks, engines (!!!) on it are... we have no idea what next-gen missiles it will carry, but yet here we are already trying to do comparative analysis out of a handful of blurry pictures.

Fair enough, but the problem then arises that we can't do any comparative analysis of any Chinese planes because they din't give the specs out.

(And I was kind of just making a broad statement from all the chatter I've heard, it was Mig that was doing most of the analysis)

Rather then trying to read things from a few early pre-production shots of a non-flying prototype, why not try to at least look at the level of the Chinese aero-space industry more broadly? It would at least give us better indicators of the realm of possibilities.

Again the problem is that the industry is so unpredictable -- did anyone really expect that this plane would be coming out so early? Myself, I thought it would've needed another two years at least. Also, this plane is obviously a stealthy platform, but we've not seen any tech demonstrators in the industry where they could've built up the knowledge from -- it just sort of came out of the blue.


@ Mig, on the delta wing/edge alignment issue:





From hhg at CDF

 

[Feanor]

Fair enough, but the problem then arises that we can't do any comparative analysis of any Chinese planes because they din't give the specs out.

(And I was kind of just making a broad statement from all the chatter I've heard, it was Mig that was doing most of the analysis)

Sure, but we know a lot more about a production aircraft then about a secretive prototype.

Again the problem is that the industry is so unpredictable -- did anyone really expect that this plane would be coming out so early? Myself, I thought it would've needed another two years at least. Also, this plane is obviously a stealthy platform, but we've not seen any tech demonstrators in the industry where they could've built up the knowledge from -- it just sort of came out of the blue.

Which makes me question the level of said capability that they could have achieved. The PAK-FA certainly didn't come out of nowhere. It was based on 2 flying tech demos, and multiple previous projects. It also comes out of a country with a long standing tradition and history of producing fighter jets. Yet we still question its capabilities, the avionics, the radar, what level of RCS reduction could practically be achieved, etc.

I would caution from jumping with excitement at the J-XX for similar reasons (if anything to an ever greater extent).

 

[MiG-23MLD]

How is it propaganda if it's been barely mentioned in the media?



Yes I think most aircraft with fixed inlets (i.e.: all 5th gen fighter aircraft) can't exceed Mach 2.



Canards would be less stealthy but LEVCONs, I think I rightly assume, will be less effective in manouevering.
The closeness of the engines is more like the F-22 than PAK FA, but PAK FA has the massive centerline weapons bay which allows for such a great distance between engines.



Or rather, I like to see it as more agile than the F-22 and more stealthy than the T-50. All the same thing really

But totally, I doubt this plane would be as stealthy as the F-22 but should be better than T-50 and F-35.



What do you mean "with a rhombus cross section at the engine weapons bay nacelle section"?



I think we should wait for a photo from the top or bottom to determine whether it's a delta or not.

In terms of stealth it may be in the class of the F-35 but in terms of weapons capacity and range it's definitely one of the big hitters.

In my opinion any aircraft sacrifies a few advantages for the sake of others.
The LEVCON does the same work of a canard it reenergizes the main wing with low preassure vortices and it does not create any downwash or up wash over the wing since it is part of the wing it self.
So it does not produce the drag a canard does over the main wing niether it will kill the wing lift as the canard does.
LERX are fixed strakes so they have more limited vortex creation qualities unlike a moveable canard, with the LEVCON that disadvanatge disappear.

The Russian knew the S-37 and MiG-1.44 had canards but this adds drag and kills lift on the main wing .

The americans knew canards are harder to adapt to LO needs because canards demand some specific shapes and aspect ratios.

The Chinese on the J-20 seem to have sacrificed both advantages of tailplanes and LEVCONs but the canard breaks planform alignment with the engine nacelle and probably with the main wing`s angle of swept.

Also the latest pictures i have seen showed a delta wing which it self has a 90 degree trailing edge angle, this 90 degree angle is not a LO feature and reduces the effectiveness of stealth..

The Chinese seem to have disregarded the wing-canard planform alignment in favor of aerodynamics and only have concentrated on the engine nacelles and main forebody stealth features which in fact are the largest radar signature of a fighter frontal view

The ventral and dorsal fins do have a planform alignment and have an angle similar to the ones seen on the F-22 and T-50 canted fins .
The Chinese took a a similar approach to the americans in order to creates bays by creating a Rhombus cross section in the engine nacelles similar to the one seen on the F-22.
It self is not a bad quality but this approach does not generate lift as the one seen on the T-50.

Why the Chinese used canards? well canards since are forelifting surfaces increase the pitch up response of a fighter and this allows for high instantaneous turn rates.
But canards are mostly used for STOL characteristics and improve delta wing aircraft..

canards however work better above wing horizontal level and reduce downwash and buffeting problems when canted upwards.
Buffeting by canards can affect the lateral stability by inducing buffeting on the vertical fins.
The J-20 seems to have less stability than the PAKFA since it needs ventral fins, this shows easily the reduction of the main dorsal fin was uneffective since still needs ventral fins, T-50 does not need ventral fins thus reducing another reflecting surface..

The Ventral fin might shield the nozzles on the J-20 but increases its exposed radar area.
So far i can say to you the T-50 is a very well thought design, despite some think it looks rather conventional, in reality it is more revolutionary than both J-20 and F-22 in terms of aerodynamics.

 

[Blitzo]

InThe Chinese on the J-20 seem to have sacrificed both advantages of tailplanes and LEVCONs but the canard breaks planform alignment with the engine nacelle and probably with the main wing`s angle of swept.

Let's say the plane looks like this from the top:
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/5050/j20edgealignment1.jpg

Would the canard there break alignment with the main wings?

Also the latest pictures i have seen showed a delta wing which it self has a 90 degree trailing edge angle, this 90 degree angle is not a LO feature and reduces the effectiveness of stealth..

That is if the delta wing has a 90 degree trailing edge angle. From my pictures they seem to show that it is swept.

The ventral and dorsal fins do have a planform alignment and have an angle similar to the ones seen on the F-22 and T-50 canted fins .

Why the Chinese used canards? well canards since are forelifting surfaces increase the pitch up response of a fighter and this allows for high instantaneous turn rates.
But canards are mostly used for STOL characteristics and improve delta wing aircraft..

I think one of the 4S qualities which the PLAAF wanted was "short take off and landing," with super manouverability, stealth and supercruise.
.

Buffeting by canards can affect the lateral stability by inducing buffeting on the vertical fins.
The J-20 seems to have less stability than the PAKFA since it needs ventral fins, this shows easily the reduction of the main dorsal fin was uneffective since still needs ventral fins, T-50 does not need ventral fins thus reducing another reflecting surface..

The Ventral fin might shield the nozzles on the J-20 but increases its exposed radar area.
So far i can say to you the T-50 is a very well thought design, despite some think it looks rather conventional, in reality it is more revolutionary than both J-20 and F-22 in terms of aerodynamics.

Actually the ventral fins are supposedly just "training wheels" which will be removed in the final production version.

 

[MiG-23MLD]

How is it propaganda if it's been barely mentioned in the media?



Yes I think most aircraft with fixed inlets (i.e.: all 5th gen fighter aircraft) can't exceed Mach 2.



Canards would be less stealthy but LEVCONs, I think I rightly assume, will be less effective in manouevering.
The closeness of the engines is more like the F-22 than PAK FA, but PAK FA has the massive centerline weapons bay which allows for such a great distance between engines.



Or rather, I like to see it as more agile than the F-22 and more stealthy than the T-50. All the same thing really

But totally, I doubt this plane would be as stealthy as the F-22 but should be better than T-50 and F-35.



What do you mean "with a rhombus cross section at the engine weapons bay nacelle section"?



I think we should wait for a photo from the top or bottom to determine whether it's a delta or not.

In terms of stealth it may be in the class of the F-35 but in terms of weapons capacity and range it's definitely one of the big hitters.

In my opinion any aircraft sacrifies a few advantages for the sake of others.
The LEVCON does the same work of a canard it reenergizes the main wing with low preassure vortices and it does not create any downwash or up wash over the wing since it is part of the wing it self.
So it does not produce the drag a canard does over the main wing niether it will kill the lift the canard does.
LERX are fixed strakes so they have more limited vortex creation qualities unlike a moveable canard, with the LEVCON that disadvantage disappear.

The Russian knew the S-37 and MiG-1.44 had canards but this adds drag and kills lift on the main wing .

The americans knew canards are harder to adapt to LO needs because canards demand some specific shapes and aspect ratios.

The Chinese seem to sacrifice both advantages of tailplanes and LEVCONs but the canard breaks planform alignment with the engine nacelle and probably with the main wing`s angle of swept.

Also the latest pictures i have seen showed a delta wing which it self has a 90 degree trailing edge angle, this 90 degree angle is not a LO feature and reduces the effectiveness of stealth.
On stealth aircraft the trailing edge angle of swept of both wing and tailplane is the same and the leading edge angle of swept is the same in both wing and tailplane.
Same is with a canard it will have the same angle of swept of the main wing`s at its trailing edge and the same angle of swept of the wing`s at its leading edge .
. http://www.aviationexplorer.com/Russian%20Sukhoi%20T-50%20PAK%20FA%20Stealth%20Fighter/T-50_YF-23_F-22_F-35_Air_Force_Aircraft_Comparison.jpg

This limits the wing canard and tailplane geometry and unpairs aerodynamic efficiency and freedom when designing the aircraft.

The Chinese seem to have disregarded the wing-canard planform alignment in favor of aerodynamics and only have concentrated on the engine nacelles and main forebody stealth features..

The ventral and dorsal fins do have a planform alignment and have an angle similar to the ones seen on the F-22 and T-50 .
The Chinese took a a similar approach to the americans in order to creates bays by creating a Rhombus cross section in the engine nacelles similar to the one seen on the F-22.
It self is not a bad quality but this approach does not generate lift as the one seen on the T-50.

Why the Chinese used canards? well canards since are forelifting surfaces increase the pitch up response of a fighter and this allows for high instantaneous turn rates.
But canards are mostly used for STOL characteristics and improve delta winged aircraft..

canards however work better above wing horizontal level and reduce downwash and buffeting problems when canted upwards.
Buffeting by canards can affect the lateral stability by inducing buffeting on the vertical fins.
The J-20 seems to have less stability than the PAKFA since it needs ventral fins, this shows easily the reduction of the main dorsal fin was uneffective since still needs ventral fins, T-50 does not need ventral fins thus reducing another reflecting surface..

The Ventral fin might shield the nozzles on the J-20 but increases its exposed radar area.
So far i can say to you the T-50 is a very well thought design, despite some think it looks rather conventional. in reality is more revolutionary than both J-20 and F-22 in terms of aerodynamics.

 

[Haavarla]

Buffeting by canards can affect the lateral stability by inducing buffeting on the vertical fins.
The J-20 seems to have less stability than the PAKFA since it needs ventral fins, this shows easily the reduction of the main dorsal fin was uneffective since still needs ventral fins, T-50 does not need ventral fins thus reducing another reflectin surface..

The Ventral fin might shield the nozzles on the J-20 but increases its exposed radar area.
So far i can say to you the T-50 is a very well thought design, despite some thing it looks ratehr conventional. in reality is more revolutionary than both J-20 and F-22 in terms of aerodynamics.

This should not come as a surprise to anyone, given the aviation history of Sukhoi.
In term of aerodynamic designs, its one of Sukhoi strong cards..

 

[Blitzo]

@ Mig-23, you double posted. See my reply on the previous page.

 

[MiG-23MLD]

@ Mig-23, you double posted. See my reply on the previous page.

By Rombhus i meant an shape that has no 90 degrees angle a six sided shape has angles with less than 90 degrees angles, if you look at the walls of the engine nacelles of both the J-20 and F-22 both have walls with less than 90 degrees with respect the wing and the inlets on the T-50 and F-22 are rombhus these also have less than 90 degrees angles thus reducing the return to the original radar source.
I understand you point i was just trying to say the T-50 is a really wel thought design, the J-20 looks more modern because it has canards and for many people mixing canards and stealth might seem the most modern feature to be displayed by a fighter, but in reality the Su-27 and T-50 were really well thought designs because they are close to a flying wing by reducing the fuselage and blending it with the wing, increasing internal volume this internal volume can be used to house fuel or weapons bays without affecting the aerodynamics of the aircraft.
I think the J-20 is an impressive machine and really cool aircraft in fact i like it, but on an analisys i still favour the T-50 as a more impresive machine in terms of blending agility with stealth.

 

[MiG-23MLD]

This should not come as a surprise to anyone, given the aviation history of Sukhoi.
In term of aerodynamic designs, its one of Sukhoi strong cards..

The russians did an excellent job on the T-50 and the indians on the LCA naval variant did the same

 

[Blitzo]

By Rombhus i meant an shape that has no 90 degrees angle a six sided shape has angles with less than 90 degrees angles, if you look at the walls of the engine nacelles of both the J-20 and F-22 both have walls with less than 90 degrees with respect the wing and the inlets on the T-50 and F-22 are rombhus these also have less than 90 degrees angles thus reducing the return to the original radar source.

I was more wondering what you thought about the trailing edge, and edge alignment of the J-20 plan view I posted, but ok.

I understand you point i was just trying to say the T-50 is a really wel thought design, the J-20 looks more modern because it has canards and for many people mixing canards and stealth might seem the most modern feature to be displayed by a fighter, but in reality the Su-27 and T-50 were really well thought designs because they are close to a flying wing by reducing the fuselage and blending it with the wing, increasing internal volume this internal volume can be used to house fuel or weapons bays without affecting the aerodynamics of the aircraft.
I think the J-20 is an impressive machine and really cool aircraft in fact i like it, but on an analisys i still favour the T-50 as a more impresive machine in terms of blending agility with stealth.

The T-50 does have a good aerodynamic lay out, espicially in terms of the wide engine placement and the "pancake" in the middle for weapons and the blending of the fuselage. The movable LEX are also innovative and the general layout continues the legacy of the flanker's design.
I just don't like how the T-50's engines are sort of in a "pod" with the inlet directly in front of it, like the flanker (which, I believe was one of the largest contributors to RCS). It could be corrected with S ducts or radar blockers of course.

I think people just think the T-50 doesn't look as modern because from many angles it looks identical to the F-22. But I suppose those two are as different as the Flanker was to the eagle.
I personally prefer the J-20 because of its (current) "cleaner" look than the PAK FA and how it's control surface layout is a bit different.

-----------------

Also, just for funsies, here's a checklist which Martian from SDF posted:

Time to grade J-20 Firefang against F-22 benchmarks

J-20 Firefang stealth fighter

Full glass cockpit? Check.

High-tech glass digital display? Check.

Diamond-shaped nose to deflect radar away from transmitter? Check.

Diamond-shaped wings to ameliorate radar detection? Check.

Angled fuselage to deflect radar away from transmitter? Check.

Internal weapons bay? Check (almost indubitably; otherwise just stay with J-10).

RAM (i.e. radar absorption material/coating)? Check (looks like it's coated already).

J-20 prototype manufactured ahead of schedule? Check. Most of us thought it was at least a few years away.

Flat nozzles for engines? Not yet. Chinese engine technology needs a few more years to catch up.

Saw-toothed edges? Can't tell. Forthcoming high-resolution pictures will answer this question.

Sleek and beautiful? Check.

Of course there are a few important things missing like datalinks, AESA, and passive sensors but from what we can see the current thing doesn't fare up too badly.

 

[Blitzo]

<Insert big grin here>

 

[gf0012-aust]

So far i can say to you the T-50 is a very well thought design, despite some think it looks rather conventional. in reality is more revolutionary than both J-20 and F-22 in terms of aerodynamics.

as someone who's spent over 30 years working on various military and weapons projects, including aviation, including complex materials science based projects, and including a stint in the US working with a bloke regarded as the father of hypersonics - I am more than interested in what you see as revolutionary vis a vis the F-22.

as someone who's also seen russian kit up close on a red hat basis (not just on the internet) I am more than a little curious.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Also, just for funsies, here's a checklist which Martian from SDF posted:

Time to grade J-20 Firefang against F-22 benchmarks

J-20 Firefang stealth fighter

Full glass cockpit? Check.

High-tech glass digital display? Check.

Diamond-shaped nose to deflect radar away from transmitter? Check.

Diamond-shaped wings to ameliorate radar detection? Check.

Angled fuselage to deflect radar away from transmitter? Check.

Internal weapons bay? Check (almost indubitably; otherwise just stay with J-10).

RAM (i.e. radar absorption material/coating)? Check (looks like it's coated already).

J-20 prototype manufactured ahead of schedule? Check. Most of us thought it was at least a few years away.

Flat nozzles for engines? Not yet. Chinese engine technology needs a few more years to catch up.

Saw-toothed edges? Can't tell. Forthcoming high-resolution pictures will answer this question.

Sleek and beautiful? Check.


Of course there are a few important things missing like datalinks, AESA, and passive sensors but from what we can see the current thing doesn't fare up too badly.

I hope that is meant in jest, because if its meant to be a real life checklist on what constitutes advanced aircraft and platform development gates, then its incredibly and conveniently simplistic.

The bits I have hilighted are comedic, so I can but assume that said poster has NO engineering insights and ability....

 

[Blitzo]

Tee hee:

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/6710/j207.jpg
http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/4673/j206.jpg
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/2903/j205.jpg
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/8232/j204.jpg
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/6250/j203.jpg

(Does anyone know how I can embed images on here without needing attachments?)

 

[dingyibvs]

Tee hee:

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/6710/j207.jpg
http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/4673/j206.jpg
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/2903/j205.jpg
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/8232/j204.jpg
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/6250/j203.jpg

(Does anyone know how I can embed images on here without needing attachments?)

Let me give this a try...

EDIT: Nope didn't work.