Chinese UCAV/CCA/flying wing drones (ISR, A2A, A2G) thread

FriedRiceNSpice

FriedRiceNSpice

Major
Totoro said:
While belly WB might be simpler, this is a CCA after all, smaller and with fairly short landing gear. Could be that for logistical and handling purposes a side bay was employed. Enough for lighter loads such as AAMs.
Click to expand...
Perhaps being a single engine design, having side bays achieved a better optimization of available internal volume? I remember reading that in the F-35's case, certain design compromises had to be made to fit in a belly IWB.
 
FriedRiceNSpice

FriedRiceNSpice

Major
Schwerter_ said:
Not to say I agree with the video's views, but 'optimized for transonic' and 'able to reach a decent Mach number' are not mutually exclusive statements. In fact more often than not the maximum mach number is achieved with the intake operating at non-optimal conditions, especially when you look at fighter jets with variable non-adjustable intake designs.
Click to expand...
True for most fighters, but wouldn't a supercruising fighter such as the J-20 spend a significant portion of its time operating at supersonic speeds.
 
Wrought

Wrought

Senior Member
Registered Member
FriedRiceNSpice said:
Perhaps being a single engine design, having side bays achieved a better optimization of available internal volume? I remember reading that in the F-35's case, certain design compromises had to be made to fit in a belly IWB.
Click to expand...
FriedRiceNSpice said:
True for most fighters, but wouldn't a supercruising fighter such as the J-20 spend a significant portion of its time operating at supersonic speeds.
Click to expand...
FriedRiceNSpice said:
Without context and the very adorable accompanying illustration, that statement may easily be misinterpreted (especially considering the primary audience amd subject matter of this forum) LOL

I think "tiny yellow fellow" will be my new nickname for @manqiangrexue !
Click to expand...

You know that you can edit posts and also put multiple replies in the same post, right?
 
Nevermore

Nevermore

Junior Member
Registered Member
Temstar said:
Italian guy's new video on the type B UADF, some of his points:

1. He correctly recognizes it as very important and different in nature to other smaller CCAs from around the world
2. He reckons due to it having a rhomboidal wing without canard or wing tip devices that it's optimized for speed and not agility
3. He misidentifies the engine as WS-15 due to serrated petals, not realizing/forgetting that WS-10C has them too
4. He guesses from DSI intake that the aircraft is optimized at around transonic speed
5. He recognizes they can of course act as CCAs, but their larger size and evidentially capacity for electronics inside means they could also operate in a different mode. He guesses either full autonomous fighter or remote control fighter, he's leaning towards full autonomous fighter.

My opinions are I'm not sure why DSI would indicate optimized for transonic speed given J-20 has DSI intake and can reach Mach 2. I take Xiyazhou's argument that these UADFs can be thought of as a JF-17 sized aircraft fitted with J-10's engine, which should mean excellent thrust to weight ratio. Without the drag from a cockpit these things should be pretty fast as far as top speed go.

I wonder what kind of thrust to weight ratio an aircraft of that size would have if fitted with a WS-15, must be some scary number.
Click to expand...
The DSI inlet, being non-adjustable, can only be optimised for a single cruising speed range. In contrast, conventional inlets feature internal or external adjustability, enabling them to maintain high efficiency across multiple cruising speeds. Therefore, it is not accurate to state that DSI inlets are only suitable for transonic or high subsonic ranges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top