Chinese 6th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[Antonius123]

You're way more stupid than i thought, I'm out of here from your nonsense and crap J-36 has a definitive wing and nose structures, if you're not blind you clearly seen them on various pics and videos lol

Your use of an ad hominem attack by simply calling me "stupid" shows that you have no real argument and have already lost this debate.

You have to be out indeed, as no more rational argument to present.

You’ve provided no valuable points at all—only misconceptions, flawed assumptions, and a complete failure to grasp the subject matter.

 

[Harbyharb]

and you talk crap again name one flying that can able to reach supersonic speed and flying wing or blended wing designs have much larger wing span than their lengths such as B-2 has length of just 69 feet but has a wing span of 170 feet, Does J-36 fits in this criteria? Clearly J-36 has shorter wing span then it length hence it is not come in the flying wing or blended wing categories

Question: in your mind’s eye, does the flankers count as a “blended wing” design?

I get what you are distinguishing between flying wings and tailless designs in general, but from my interpretation, blended wing body includes a lot of tactical jets that

1. Have fuselage participate in the generation of lift
2. Utilize unified cross section cast structural parts/designs that does not distinguish between fuselage and wings

…in which case I would say the J-36 does count as a blended wing body design, along side, say, Raptor, Flanker, Fulcrum, Felon, Fagin, etc.

 

[Antonius123]

and you talk crap again name one flying that can able to reach supersonic speed and flying wing or blended wing designs have much larger wing span than their lengths such as B-2 has length of just 69 feet but has a wing span of 170 feet, Does J-36 fits in this criteria? Clearly J-36 has shorter wing span then it length hence it is not come in the flying wing or blended wing categories

see yourself Mr.

B-2
View attachment 125871


J-36

View attachment 125873

The crap one is another claim of yours that “Flying Wing” must have wing span much larger than length which again has no ground and simply stupid assumption. LOL

You have been reminded numerous time regarding criteria to fit as Flying Wing: tailless + no definitive fuselage + with its crew, payload, fuel, and equipment housed inside the main wing structure; and none of the criteria mention the necessity to have high ratio between wingspan vs length of the plane.

We all are tired to serve your baseless & stupid assumption + repeated ignorance on explanation with facts given + failure to understand the basic concept of flying wing.

 

[Antonius123]

Question: in your mind’s eye, does the flankers count as a “blended wing” design?

I get what you are distinguishing between flying wings and tailless designs in general, but from my interpretation, blended wing body includes a lot of tactical jets that

1. Have fuselage participate in the generation of lift
2. Utilize unified cross section cast structural parts/designs that does not distinguish between fuselage and wings

…in which case I would say the J-36 does count as a blended wing body design, along side, say, Raptor, Flanker, Fulcrum, Felon, Fagin, etc.

According to his criteria: F14 Tomcat or F-111 are flying wing designed, due to high ratio between the “wing span” when the plane span the wing - compared to the length of the body. LOL

 

[Harbyharb]

According to his criteria: F14 Tomcat or F-111 are flying wing designed, due to high ratio between the “wing span” when the plane span the wing - compared to the length of the body. LOL

He is making a distinction between flying wings and tailless designs in general. The CAC sixth gen is not a flying wing, a very specific form of tailless design.

You can say that the CAC sixth gen share characteristics with flying wings, but it isn’t a flying wing, as in aircraft that are entirely designed within a uniform “wing” airfoil structure, not just a blended wing body design, but rather the distinct lack of a “body” so to say.

 

[Antonius123]

He is making a distinction between flying wings and tailless designs in general. The CAC sixth gen is not a flying wing, a very specific form of tailless design.

You can say that the CAC sixth gen share characteristics with flying wings, but it isn’t a flying wing, as in aircraft that are entirely designed within a uniform “wing” airfoil structure, not just a blended wing body design, but rather the distinct lack of a “body” so to say.

All expert + AI says J36 is flying wing.

Check all evidences i post for him in pages behind.

Assumption, misperception from a random netters couldn't refute the fact

 

[Harbyharb]

All expert + AI says J36 is flying wing.

Check all evidences i post for him in pages behind.

Please do not use AI as a credible source.

As for experts I presume there could be some translation errors at play. In the english context, the CAC sixth gen cannot be described as having a “flying wing” design.

Though our resident NGAD shill is mistaken also. A descriptor for the wing shape like double delta isn’t necessarily mutually exclusive with a descriptor for the aircraft’s structure, as it is definitely possible to make a double delta flying wing.

 

[Antonius123]

Please do not use AI as a credible source.

As for experts I presume there could be some translation errors at play. In the english context, the CAC sixth gen cannot be described as having a “flying wing” design.

Though our resident NGAD shill is mistaken also. A descriptor for the wing shape like double delta isn’t necessarily mutually exclusive with a descriptor for the aircraft’s structure, as it is definitely possible to make a double delta flying wing.

I said facts + AI, not only AI.

While AI could also support fact, I bring it as additional to show the objectivity.

Please see the facts / article given in the previous pages, rather than using assumption like him.

 

[FHN]

 

[52051]

No much flight test of J-36 recently, could it be either CAC wait for the second prototype or J-36 were sent to Yanlian, the national flight test agency now, or probably both?

 

[Deino]

Ok guys … this BS & nonsense about flying wing or not MUST end and exactly right now!

Let‘s stick to the topic, agree to disagree but please leave it!

 

[NGAD IS THE BEST]

Question: in your mind’s eye, does the flankers count as a “blended wing” design?

I get what you are distinguishing between flying wings and tailless designs in general, but from my interpretation, blended wing body includes a lot of tactical jets that

1. Have fuselage participate in the generation of lift
2. Utilize unified cross section cast structural parts/designs that does not distinguish between fuselage and wings

…in which case I would say the J-36 does count as a blended wing body design, along side, say, Raptor, Flanker, Fulcrum, Felon, Fagin, etc.

Flankers and J36 is not TRUE blended wing design

 

[Deino]

Since recently too many faked Images of the J-36 were posted and this one looks almost too good to be true I would say, let‘s be sceptical again!

 

[iblini]

Since recently too many faked Images of the J-36 were posted and this one looks almost too good to be true I would say, let‘s be sceptical again!

View attachment 126114

It is true.

 

[Yommie]

Since recently too many faked Images of the J-36 were posted and this one looks almost too good to be true I would say, let‘s be sceptical again!

View attachment 126114

I can see J-36 taking on the role of a modern day P-47. Big, powerful fighter bomber with a long range and a heavy payload.