UK论坛上资深俄国友人拿T-50狂踩土鳖丝代（内附评论）， ...

PAK-FA vs. J-20, From KeyPub (PAK-FA 对决 丝带)
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=105427&page=17
译文+独立评论：
   在我看来 ，任何飞机都或多或少地吸取了其它飞机的优点。
   LEVCON（意指T50的水平小前翼）同样如此。它用低压的涡流来给主翼增升，同时却不产生任何对主翼的下洗和上洗作用，因为它就是主翼的一部分。所以它不会像通常的鸭翼那样产生拖后作用并减小升力。
   LERX(指的是固定式涡流发生器如边条)是固定板，所以它们只能提供很有限的涡流发生能力，比起可动式鸭翼和LEVCON来，毫无优势（这可能是在吹捧T-50的同时，想顺便BS下大部分的三代机及美国的F-22、F-35等类似设计）。
   俄罗斯早就在S-37和MiG-1.44上尝试过鸭式技术，但是发现这将增大主翼的阻力，减弱主翼的升力。（鸭子降低升力，这可真是奇谈怪论）。美国人知道鸭翼设计很难适应低可探测的要求，因为鸭翼需要特定的形状。（老美就因为形状设计难搞放弃鸭子，也太耸了吧）。中国人看起来吸取了常规布局和LEVCON的优点，但是鸭翼破坏了与发动机舱的平行，还可能破坏了与主翼后掠角的平行关系。（这个毛子还是有点狠的，要知道平行是隐身飞机最基本的原则，但是这个毛子怎么知道我们的鸭子就一定是由反射雷达波的材料构成的呢？它可以是复合材料，它的转轴也可以是复合材料…..这正应了那句话：你看到的东西都是你想看到的….）
   同样，我看到的最新图片显示主翼是三角翼，并且其后缘是90 度的。这个90度角可不是低探测性的特性，它降低了隐身能力。（毛子那只眼看到的？据现有图片分析，主翼后缘有一个前掠角）在隐身飞机上，主翼和尾翼的后缘及前缘角度都是一样的。. 对于鸭式布局来说也一样。

   但是这就限制了鸭式和常规布局飞机的几何外形、非对称空气动力学特性以及飞机设计时的自由度。中国人看起来降低了对主翼和鸭翼平行的要求，而侧重于满足空气动力学性能，以及发动机舱（指的是对发动机叶片的遮蔽，想起自家T-50的这个设计心虚了吧）和主机体的隐身特性。
   腹鳍和垂尾必定是平行的设计（应该指前缘及后缘），与F-22及T-50的设计类似。中国人使用了类似于美国人在F-22上所用的S型进气道来构造内弹舱。这种弹舱设计本身并不差，但是它不像在我们T-50上面，弹舱还可以提供升力。（又拿T-50踩下J-20又顺便踩下F-22，PS: 怀疑T-50那种单薄的中央弹舱能不能放下好几根牙签？SU-27这一刻灵魂附体）
  为什么中国人使用鸭翼呢？（又心虚了…）现在告诉你们吧… 鸭翼作为前抬式布局，增加了战机的升力响应特性，这将导致一个很高的瞬间盘旋率。（无视了超机动能力…中国的设计师有这么傻吗？就为这个放弃了隐形、减升增阻，这位毛哥可真够Q的）但是，鸭翼主要是用于短距起降飞机以及提升三角翼飞机的性能。（才刚说了个优点，又要踩了，难道J-20不是三角翼吗？）。鸭翼在高于主翼的位置会有更好的特性，但同时却会对主翼有下洗和冲击作用鸭翼产生的气流冲击会向后传导，至垂尾，从而会影响尾部隐定性。（这个有可能，但可以通过合理的布局将影响降至最小，风洞实验不是白做的，这个真不需要俄国友人担心。）
   J-20看起来稳定性不及PAKFA，因为它需要腹鳍。显而易见，垂尾的设计并不太成功，因为它依然需要腹鳍。T-50不需要这个，因而就减少了一个反射面。
   腹鳍设计可能有遮挡尾喷管的意图，但这增加了暴露的雷达反射面。（在这怎么不说菊花的隐身特性了，看来中毛是同病相怜，呵呵）
   高潮来临-----
   至此， 我可以对你说（有点心虚…）T-50是一个非常有创意的设计，尽管有些人（不是有些，是很多 。。。）认为它看上去相当平庸，但事实上，在空气动力学上（怎么不提隐身…）它是远比J-20和F-22更为革命性的设计。

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
---------------------------------------------至此，对毛人的清高与孤傲算是有个初步的了解了，想起了当年那个土豆烧牛肉的笑话……. 希望我们的J-20有机会能在南亚的上空射火鸡……


原文
PAK-FA vs. J-20, From KeyPub.
-
http://forum.keypublishing.com/s ... =105427&page=17

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 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 seem to sacrifice both advantages of tailplanes and LEVCONs but the canard breaks planform alignment with the engine nacelle and probably with the maing 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 .
.

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 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 is more revolutionary than both J-20 and F-22 in terms of aerodynamics."

PAK-FA vs. J-20, From KeyPub (PAK-FA 对决 丝带)
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=105427&page=17
译文+独立评论：
   在我看来 ，任何飞机都或多或少地吸取了其它飞机的优点。
   LEVCON（意指T50的水平小前翼）同样如此。它用低压的涡流来给主翼增升，同时却不产生任何对主翼的下洗和上洗作用，因为它就是主翼的一部分。所以它不会像通常的鸭翼那样产生拖后作用并减小升力。
   LERX(指的是固定式涡流发生器如边条)是固定板，所以它们只能提供很有限的涡流发生能力，比起可动式鸭翼和LEVCON来，毫无优势（这可能是在吹捧T-50的同时，想顺便BS下大部分的三代机及美国的F-22、F-35等类似设计）。
   俄罗斯早就在S-37和MiG-1.44上尝试过鸭式技术，但是发现这将增大主翼的阻力，减弱主翼的升力。（鸭子降低升力，这可真是奇谈怪论）。美国人知道鸭翼设计很难适应低可探测的要求，因为鸭翼需要特定的形状。（老美就因为形状设计难搞放弃鸭子，也太耸了吧）。中国人看起来吸取了常规布局和LEVCON的优点，但是鸭翼破坏了与发动机舱的平行，还可能破坏了与主翼后掠角的平行关系。（这个毛子还是有点狠的，要知道平行是隐身飞机最基本的原则，但是这个毛子怎么知道我们的鸭子就一定是由反射雷达波的材料构成的呢？它可以是复合材料，它的转轴也可以是复合材料…..这正应了那句话：你看到的东西都是你想看到的….）
   同样，我看到的最新图片显示主翼是三角翼，并且其后缘是90 度的。这个90度角可不是低探测性的特性，它降低了隐身能力。（毛子那只眼看到的？据现有图片分析，主翼后缘有一个前掠角）在隐身飞机上，主翼和尾翼的后缘及前缘角度都是一样的。. 对于鸭式布局来说也一样。

   但是这就限制了鸭式和常规布局飞机的几何外形、非对称空气动力学特性以及飞机设计时的自由度。中国人看起来降低了对主翼和鸭翼平行的要求，而侧重于满足空气动力学性能，以及发动机舱（指的是对发动机叶片的遮蔽，想起自家T-50的这个设计心虚了吧）和主机体的隐身特性。
   腹鳍和垂尾必定是平行的设计（应该指前缘及后缘），与F-22及T-50的设计类似。中国人使用了类似于美国人在F-22上所用的S型进气道来构造内弹舱。这种弹舱设计本身并不差，但是它不像在我们T-50上面，弹舱还可以提供升力。（又拿T-50踩下J-20又顺便踩下F-22，PS: 怀疑T-50那种单薄的中央弹舱能不能放下好几根牙签？SU-27这一刻灵魂附体）
  为什么中国人使用鸭翼呢？（又心虚了…）现在告诉你们吧… 鸭翼作为前抬式布局，增加了战机的升力响应特性，这将导致一个很高的瞬间盘旋率。（无视了超机动能力…中国的设计师有这么傻吗？就为这个放弃了隐形、减升增阻，这位毛哥可真够Q的）但是，鸭翼主要是用于短距起降飞机以及提升三角翼飞机的性能。（才刚说了个优点，又要踩了，难道J-20不是三角翼吗？）。鸭翼在高于主翼的位置会有更好的特性，但同时却会对主翼有下洗和冲击作用鸭翼产生的气流冲击会向后传导，至垂尾，从而会影响尾部隐定性。（这个有可能，但可以通过合理的布局将影响降至最小，风洞实验不是白做的，这个真不需要俄国友人担心。）
   J-20看起来稳定性不及PAKFA，因为它需要腹鳍。显而易见，垂尾的设计并不太成功，因为它依然需要腹鳍。T-50不需要这个，因而就减少了一个反射面。
   腹鳍设计可能有遮挡尾喷管的意图，但这增加了暴露的雷达反射面。（在这怎么不说菊花的隐身特性了，看来中毛是同病相怜，呵呵）
   高潮来临-----
   至此， 我可以对你说（有点心虚…）T-50是一个非常有创意的设计，尽管有些人（不是有些，是很多 。。。）认为它看上去相当平庸，但事实上，在空气动力学上（怎么不提隐身…）它是远比J-20和F-22更为革命性的设计。

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
---------------------------------------------至此，对毛人的清高与孤傲算是有个初步的了解了，想起了当年那个土豆烧牛肉的笑话……. 希望我们的J-20有机会能在南亚的上空射火鸡……


原文
PAK-FA vs. J-20, From KeyPub.
-
http://forum.keypublishing.com/s ... =105427&page=17

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 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 seem to sacrifice both advantages of tailplanes and LEVCONs but the canard breaks planform alignment with the engine nacelle and probably with the maing 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 .
.

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 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 is more revolutionary than both J-20 and F-22 in terms of aerodynamics."