New Photos of China's Stealth Fighters Have Emerged

a reply to: BigDave-AR

Well I think I am getting that part down, but how can a single engine airframe have a 2D vectoring thrust? I love jets but am not savvy on the subject. Can someone explain how that is possible? And also please try to make in terms such as you just did.

Think of a jet-ski or even a hose pipe...one outlet but depending on where you point the outlet the thrust will be in the opposite direction. The nozzle on the engine can be shaped to point up or down in 2D or in any direction in 3D...within the limits of the nozzle.

I always thought canards were detrimental to Stealth..

Clearly, most things about the J-20 are speculation.

However, most sources agree that the engines are the weak point. Given that engines are a level of technology unto themselves, my question is how long it will take China to catch up with the technology that exists in the developed world and the likes of Rolls Royce and Pratt & Whitney? You can steal the blueprints, but actually manufacturing the parts is a complexity with high performance jet engines.

Apart from engines, how advanced are the Chinese with the sensors - from what I have read the J-20's radar is "very similar" to the AN/APG-77 of the F22. How close to reality is that?

My mother drove a yugo the same color in the early 80's

India all ready made it public that they could track the J20 from ground and air. Apparently its no where near stealth. And also apparently they cant get super cruise to work with the new engine design. This makes me wonder why people here seem impressed when the J20 turned out to be more like an f16.

Back in the day the USA said the U2 was "invisible" to radar but Russia tracked them the moment they took off from the Uk.Apparently...

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: BigDave-AR

Well I think I am getting that part down, but how can a single engine airframe have a 2D vectoring thrust? I love jets but am not savvy on the subject. Can someone explain how that is possible? And also please try to make in terms such as you just did.

Well with a single TV engine you will have actuated directors for the the thrust that will in most cases just be for vertical control authority if you have a nozzle that can direct in both the vertical and horizontal it’s 3D vectored. Think of it like 3 dimensions your Y axis would be amount of thrust, 2 dimensions would get either X or Z axis, and if you can control all three plains it’s 3 dimensions. So you can’t just consider a non vectored engine a 1D.

Being from a family of machinists that analogy set the 2D vs 3D Vectoring straight for me anyway.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Osirisvset

Canards allow you to push the maneuverability much harder, without stalling the aircraft. I once read something that said that with canards, you CAN'T stall.

With fixed canards you will usually want a setup where they produce some lift and stall before the main wing. So the aircraft won't allow you to stall. With all moving canards on fighter aircraft it is up to the flight control system.

As an expat resident of China I find the coloration being yellow to be hilarious!!

Yellow in China is a very common slang term for pornography as in "yellow movie".

Nice looking plane though.

originally posted by: SpartanStoic
As an expat resident of China I find the coloration being yellow to be hilarious!!

Yellow in China is a very common slang term for pornography as in "yellow movie".

Nice looking plane though.

Gives a whole ‘nother perspective on “yellow fever” lol.

originally posted by: SpartanStoic
As an expat resident of China I find the coloration being yellow to be hilarious!!

Yellow in China is a very common slang term for pornography as in "yellow movie".

Nice looking plane though.

Aircraft aluminum is painted yellow at the manufacturer. It's the coating.

This is not the final paint scheme.

a reply to: Tempter

It's odd because the air-frame is so long yet they put these actuating canards on the front.

Not sure what is odd? Can you expand?

a true multi-vector nozzle design,

Or you can mount a 2D nozzle out of plane to achieve some degree of easy 3D variation. Like this.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Osirisvset

Canards allow you to push the maneuverability much harder, without stalling the aircraft. I once read something that said that with canards, you CAN'T stall.

Eh. Really depends on the configuration and what's going on between the two. If you stall the main wing before the canard, you're in deep snip. Similar to tail-blanking, but worse because instead of just losing pitch authority and a bit of lift to the rear which can lead to deep-stalls, you lose your main source of lift and you get a violent pitch-up from the canard still generating lift which drags you farther from recovery. Nasty.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Tempter

It's odd because the air-frame is so long yet they put these actuating canards on the front.

Not sure what is odd? Can you expand?

a true multi-vector nozzle design,

Or you can mount a 2D nozzle out of plane to achieve some degree of easy 3D variation. Like this.

Yeah but the again you’re just overcomplicated thrust control that would have less authority than having twin jets and vertical thrust vectoring and then using power differential to each engine to give you some ghetto 3D vectoring. Although both cases it’s just a bandaid fix IMO. I may be one of the few that thinks LM did right on the F-22 just having twin vertical plane thrust vectored engines but I think having a full range of 3D vectoring isn’t as critical especially seeing as the planes is already G limited so getting some sideways thrust vectoring even if he helped it’s turn authority a small amount the added cost and complexity would begin to eat into the advantages in a hurry.

a reply to: BigDave-AR


Less authority, but in three planes. It's a tradeoff. I think the truly 3D circular nozzles are fantastic achievements, but there are a lot of negatives with any vectoring.

I'm not sure any vectoring is necessary in a new design. It's a lot of weight, money, and down time for something that doesn't get used much.

a reply to: Zaphod58

looking at the canards no matter how level you get them there looks like allot of places radar can do it's thing.

its looking pretty smooth on the other hand, but shape can only get you so far and then material science takes over.

they more than likely have been working on stealth coatings/sub-structures the moment they got their hands on some of that nighthawk.

But as far as i know and that is not very far things have some ALONG way since Bosnia

a reply to: Allaroundyou

The X-32 was going to have 2-D thrust vectoring on a single engine using an F-22 style nozzle.

a reply to: Barnalby

That is because the aerospace conglomerate is held back by a host of technical hurdles, parts-supply issues and a shortage of top-flight workers, so much so that producing such a cutting-edge aircraft is a remarkable logistical and engineering feat in itself under the current circumstances.

State broadcaster China Central Television once revealed in a feature program about the J-20 that some fuselage parts made of alloy materials could only be molded in a way reminiscent of the making of delicate handicrafts.

www.atimes.com...

Reports are that 18 J-20s have been delivered so far this year and 6 last year, so I have some...questions? about the aboe report. However, it's not impossible.

Back in the old day the major manufacturing companies did all the training and head hunted talent.Now its different after the worldwide shortage of aircraft engineers.When I was doing my trade (aircraft sheetmetal) the aircraft cleaners were on a higher wage than us.Its all about the final dollar these days.