GGTharos Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 Really, Raytheon and Vympel should just give us a couple ;) I'll self-moderate. Back to J-20. Fighter or Bomber? (In the FB-111 sense). Can we keep this thread about J-20? I hope I'm not unreasonable. You ladies have bantered on about these missiles since I've been a member. I'm guessing you've been at it for years. LMAO. :) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
RIPTIDE Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 Really, Raytheon and Vympel should just give us a couple ;) I'll self-moderate. Back to J-20. Fighter or Bomber? (In the FB-111 sense). Long range, Shore to Sea, Naval Interdiction. That's where my green is. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
GGTharos Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 I can see them doing the naval mission, but I can't see them being outright limited to it. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
4c Hajduk Veljko Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 Can we keep this thread about J-20? I hope I'm not unreasonable. You ladies have bantered on about these missiles since I've been a member. I'm guessing you've been at it for years. LMAO. :)Good point. Well, do we have reliable info on which engines are in J-20? Thermaltake Kandalf LCS | Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R | Etasis ET750 (850W Max) | i7-920 OC to 4.0 GHz | Gigabyte HD5850 | OCZ Gold 6GB DDR3 2000 | 2 X 30GB OCZ Vertex SSD in RAID 0 | ASUS VW266H 25.5" | LG Blue Ray 10X burner | TIR 5 | Saitek X-52 Pro | Logitech G930 | Saitek Pro flight rudder pedals | Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit
Pilotasso Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 RVVAE-SD and MD are being designed for Su-35 and T-50 porduction models but not aquired by anyone yet. .
4c Hajduk Veljko Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 RVVAE-SD and MD are being designed for Su-35 and T-50 porduction models but not aquired by anyone yet.This is off topic. Thermaltake Kandalf LCS | Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R | Etasis ET750 (850W Max) | i7-920 OC to 4.0 GHz | Gigabyte HD5850 | OCZ Gold 6GB DDR3 2000 | 2 X 30GB OCZ Vertex SSD in RAID 0 | ASUS VW266H 25.5" | LG Blue Ray 10X burner | TIR 5 | Saitek X-52 Pro | Logitech G930 | Saitek Pro flight rudder pedals | Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit
Antartis Posted July 4, 2011 Author Posted July 4, 2011 From Peter Goon and Carlo Kopp's http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-040711-1.html http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2011-03.html Asus Prime Z-370-A Intel core I7-8700K 3.70Ghz Ram g.skill f4-3200c16d 32gb Evga rtx 2070 Ssd samgung 960 evo m.2 500gb Syria, Nevada, Persian Gulf, Normandy 1944 Combined Arms A-10C, Mirage-2000C, F-16C, FC3 Spitfire LF Mk. IX UH-1H, Gazelle
aaron886 Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 Thanks for ensuring I ignore that "expert" article. Carlo Kopp can shove it.
Antartis Posted October 12, 2011 Author Posted October 12, 2011 (edited) Edited October 12, 2011 by Antartis Asus Prime Z-370-A Intel core I7-8700K 3.70Ghz Ram g.skill f4-3200c16d 32gb Evga rtx 2070 Ssd samgung 960 evo m.2 500gb Syria, Nevada, Persian Gulf, Normandy 1944 Combined Arms A-10C, Mirage-2000C, F-16C, FC3 Spitfire LF Mk. IX UH-1H, Gazelle
Pilotasso Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 I wonder why the chinese chose to place the lift centroid so backwards, behind the CG. .
Vekkinho Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 'Cause of the onboard computers controlling AoA... [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
GGTharos Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Useless analysis that tells you nothing, while pretty much telling you that it tells you nothing - but there's pretty pictures so if you ignore carefully reading the words, you might think it's telling you something! :) From Peter Goon and Carlo Kopp's http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-040711-1.html http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2011-03.html [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
RIPTIDE Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Useless analysis that tells you nothing, while pretty much telling you that it tells you nothing - but there's pretty pictures so if you ignore carefully reading the words, you might think it's telling you something! :) They make desktops. Check out the Orwell quote at the bottom of this one... Oh lawdy. :megalol: http://www.ausairpower.net/Desktops/Air-Power-Australia-Desktop-1920x1080-HH.jpg [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
GGTharos Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 ^^^^ Drwning in an ocean of irony! Loltastic :D [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
aaron886 Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Carlo Kopp has to be the biggest windbag on the internet.
Manawar Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Stolen Technology. Thieves!!! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
mikoyan Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 the western world stole a bunch of stuff from china too so I guess it is payback time baby!
VincentLaw Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 I wonder why the chinese chose to place the lift centroid so backwards, behind the CG. With a canard that big it's probably not. For a standard design, the stabilizer has to be a negative lifting surface to counteract the moment caused by the wing, and the center of lift generally ends up being in the main wing, which is convenient if you want to store fuel or weapons on your wing. With a canard design, The stabilizer needs positive lift to counteract the moment from the wing. The canard also creates downwash, which reduces the effectivenss of the main wing behind it. These two things together mean the center of lift for the entire airplane is well ahead of the center of lift for the main wing. The J-20 is really less unnatural than it may appear. Having the center of gravity too far ahead of the neutral point is more of a low maneuverability problem than a stability problem anyway, so it's definitely not something you would want to do with a fighter, no matter how good your flight control computer is. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Cali Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Stolen Technology. Thieves!!! the western world stole a bunch of stuff from china too so I guess it is payback time baby! Everybody steals from everybody :D i7-4820k @ 3.7, Windows 7 64-bit, 16GB 1866mhz EVGA GTX 970 2GB, 256GB SSD, 500GB WD, TM Warthog, TM Cougar MFD's, Saitek Combat Pedals, TrackIR 5, G15 keyboard, 55" 4K LED
mikoyan Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 With a canard that big it's probably not. For a standard design, the stabilizer has to be a negative lifting surface to counteract the moment caused by the wing, and the center of lift generally ends up being in the main wing, which is convenient if you want to store fuel or weapons on your wing. With a canard design, The stabilizer needs positive lift to counteract the moment from the wing. The canard also creates downwash, which reduces the effectivenss of the main wing behind it. These two things together mean the center of lift for the entire airplane is well ahead of the center of lift for the main wing. The J-20 is really less unnatural than it may appear. Having the center of gravity too far ahead of the neutral point is more of a low maneuverability problem than a stability problem anyway, so it's definitely not something you would want to do with a fighter, no matter how good your flight control computer is. I wonder if the j-20 is going to have good sustained turn rates; since the wing is placed so far in the back.
Impact Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 My gut feeling tells me this plane is a halfbaked potatoe. Does it have thrust vectoring? What about the building materials? Do they allow stealth properties? Some round looks, some edges... It looks like they didnt do proper research. The plane just looks damn big, should it intercept big bombers? Reminds me of Mig31 and F14. Maybe its just that the cockpit looks small. ------=:: I FLY BLEIFREI ::=------
Pilotasso Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 To me its a long range stealth strike aircraft. It makes much more sense given the chinese aspirations, plus it would be far smarter to avoid competing in the AA area where their adversaries are stronger and have a lead. 1 .
Impact Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 To me its a long range stealth strike aircraft. It makes much more sense given the chinese aspirations, plus it would be far smarter to avoid competing in the AA area where their adversaries are stronger and have a lead. If it is a strike craft, what kind of weapons can it employ? and how many? If they have to put them on pylons it would render the stealth capability useless. ------=:: I FLY BLEIFREI ::=------
Recommended Posts