Shenyang next-gen aircraft (J-XDS?)

[weasel1962]

What can't or shouldn't be used as a "benchmark" is the weapons bay outlines since neither of us (I believe) know the actual size of it. Moreover, if this aircraft is a demonstrator - which I believe it is - then the weapons bay outlines are just for "cosmetic" purposes.

The only size we know for sure on the plane in that latest image is actually the pilot's helmet as they often have the same/similar and well known sizes.

Resuming, you are clearly assuming values for the weapons bay and then you dismiss the only thing for which we know the actual and real size (helmet)

Despite reading the entire post, it still doesn't address nor explain how your numbers will reconcile to the weapons bay length.

[ricnunes]

Despite reading the entire post, it still doesn't address nor explain how your numbers will reconcile to the weapons bay length.

Yes it does but and still, I'll try my best to help you a bit more:

That "J-50" aircraft is probably or likely a demonstrator/experimental aircraft which would serve as a representation and/or research for a future and bigger aircraft. As such, those weapon bays are likely NOT real weapon bays but only a representation of them and therefore, such representation doesn't have the size of actual/real weapon bays because they are again, representations.

Actually, this happened with Have Blue which was a demonstrator/experimental aircraft for the bigger F-117. As you can see below, Have Blue also had a representation of weapon bays but it didn't actually have them (they were only representations):

RESUMING:
- The weapon bays of that "J-50" are likely FAKE.

Clear?

[weasel1962]

so bottom line your contention is that the weapons bay are fake? lol.

[disconnectedradical]

On SPF, someone found a Chinese academic patent on an air intake very much like the J-XDS.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/thread ... ost-834841

However, the numbers aren't that impressive, the total pressure recovery is 0.863 at Mach 1.8, 0.891 at Mach 1.5, and 0.942 at Mach 1.1, so it's better than a pitot intake on an F-16, but not as good as a DSI, the J-10B DSI achieved total pressure recovery of 0.91 at Mach 1.8.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/thread ... ost-365872

Not only that, some pointed out that this J-XDS intake still requires a boundary layer removal bleed system, so there's still a weight penalty compared to a DSI which has no bleed system needed if it's well designed like the F-35. If more pressure recovery at higher Mach numbers needed, and if this J-XDS intake still has a bleed system, then caret intake like on F-22 seems like better alternative, it also has just bleed system while having better recovery of variable ramps at Mach 2+ speeds.

[ricnunes]

so bottom line your contention is that the weapons bay are fake? lol.

I gave you an example of a size that everyone can know and which is no secret, which is the pilot's helmet size. This, unless Chinese pilots have giant heads
I gave you an example that demonstrator or prototype aircraft can really have FAKE (representative, would be a better word) weapons bay outlines.
And so, the bottom line your contention is Chinese sources associated with typical Chinese propaganda? LoL to you.

[milosh]

From: secretprojects.co.uk

From SPF

[ricnunes]

Ran the Image Measurement software (whose link, I shared above) and got the exact same results:
J-16 length --> 21.7 meters
"J-50" length --> 15 meters

So, thanks for the photo milosh

[milosh]

Binkov did analyse of J-50:
https://youtu.be/3gzwUOcUdG0

Again 20m or more, he compared nozzles on F-22 and J-50.

I think problem is he think it has WS-15 engine, so when compare it with F-22 (nozzles as reference) J-50 is noticeable bigger.

But what is it would have engine in class size of WS-13?

We did hear that J-50 is for carriers, and we also know that J-35A is too. I find it strange PLAAN will bother with three different engines on their carriers. J-15 (WS-10), J-35 (WS-13) and J-50 (WS-15).

Some next gen WS-13 size engine would be avaible for J-50 and for J-35, also J-15 probable would be retired when they get enough deck stealths. So logistic wise PLAAN will have much easier job then what USN plan for future, F-35 have F135, F-18 have F414, and from what are hearing F/A-XX wouldn't use engine based on F-135, so three different engines...

Also smaller J-50 is what you want for:
https://www.twz.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... 76-bow.jpg

That way PLAAN will get its "F-35B" without need to bother with STOVL system and compromises it create.

[ricnunes]

Binkov is wrong and it's far from being the first time that he has been wrong.

[milosh]

I got time so I used GIMP and I overlay J16 and J50 from SPF using main wheel as reference, J50 is noticeable smaller, and if J50 is as big as internet is saying it is, wheels will same on J16 and J50.

Btw Ric excellent work.

I have theory why people got in trap of big bird. It is cockpit and long nose, cockpit is quite small, and nose looks quite long and big (to fit aesa radar and EOTS) so it looks long aka big.

[ricnunes]

I got time so I used GIMP and I overlay J16 and J50 from SPF using main wheel as reference, J50 is noticeable smaller, and if J50 is as big as internet is saying it is, wheels will same on J16 and J50.

That's also a good idea which actually, never crossed my mind.

Btw Ric excellent work.

Thanks milosh

I have theory why people got in trap of big bird. It is cockpit and long nose, cockpit is quite small, and nose looks quite long and big (to fit aesa radar and EOTS) so it looks long aka big.

Yes, it's called optical illusion. It's actually very common.
You can see another example of optical illusion by looking at the last photo that weasel1962 posted.

Another example of optical illusion which I believe may be happening in this case regarding the latest "J-50" photo, is that probably some people will try to measure the aircraft's length from blue to the red line when in fact they should be measuring from the green line to the red line:

[milosh]

Yes that could also be problem but this is new photo so I doubt it influenced estimates. I remember photos where half is j16 and half is j50 from top. I think they used nozzles same as binkov did with f22. But know we have nice photo from runway so we can use wheels of helmet as reference.

[ricnunes]

Yes that could also be problem but this is new photo so I doubt it influenced estimates. I remember photos where half is j16 and half is j50 from top. I think they used nozzles same as binkov did with f22. But know we have nice photo from runway so we can use wheels of helmet as reference.

Yes, you're right. Most of those "J-50" size estimates seem to have came before that runway photo was released.

[disconnectedradical]

https://www.twz.com/air/chinas-6th-gene ... -test-base

Satellite photos of the J-50 (J-XDS) at PLAAF test site at Lop Nur released, and the length measures to be about 18 meters and wingspan of about 15 meters.

Clearly not as small as some here have insisted, though not as large (i.e. Flanker size in terms of length) as some estimated either.

[ricnunes]

I definitely do NOT agree with the assessment that J-50 (J-XDS) is 18 meters in length even if it concurs that it's smaller than a Flanker-type.

As a comparison and "calibration", I used the exact same method with similar angled photos using the J-16 and Super Hornet aircraft as reference and in these cases I got the measures correct (with an error smaller than 0.5 meters). It would be strange or even "off of this world" that using the exact same measurement method and with similar angled photos that with the J-50 is suddenly get an error of 3 meters!

As such, I think TWZ (or whoever made the "18 meters in length" calculation) is wrong with their assessment and it wouldn't be the first time that they get their assessments wrong, far from it.