J-10 carrier version revealed

[aikea]

I got this pic from a "seems like" officical media. The J-10 in the picture has a twin engine. The title read "The over and side view of J-10 twin engine aircraft carrrier version(歼10双发舰载型上视及侧视图)"

Here is the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

PS. The picture is published on 9th January this year.

 

[BLUEJACKET]

If it's being promoted, then probably they some have plans to produce/procure them! That way, the Su-33s won't be needed in large numbers! But I don't see a tailhook on it- maybe it's ommission or they are developing a land-based twin engine variant 1st?

 

[crobato]

It's not official media, but its the Chinese edition for a big international aviation magazine. I would have dismissed this as clever fanart if it were not being posted in the Chinese Aviation Now website.

 

[sumdud]

PS.

Looks more like a Falcon nosed Typhoon.

 

[crobato]

Maybe Aviation Now's own concept art.

I don't think the second seat and canopy design to be right. In the J-10S, we actually see the second seat raised to give better visibility for the second officer, ala Su-27UBK. This pic is kind of a regression from that.

You can probably go with a single large vertical stabilizer if you use two RD-93/WS-13 type engines, but if you go into the WS-10A weight range, you're better off with two stabilizers instead to give you the control authority needed.

 

[Jeff Head]

[qimg]http://www.aviationnow.com.cn/images/Hot/2007-01/U1220P27T1D425657F3DT20070109093416.jpg[/qimg]

I got this pic from a "seems like" officical media. The J-10 in the picture has a twin engine. The title read "The over and side view of J-10 twin engine aircraft carrrier version(歼10双发舰载型上视及侧视图)"

Here is the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

PS. The picture is published on 9th January this year.

The landing gear does not look heavy, or "beefed up" enough to me. Can someone compare that gear to a normal J-10 and see if I am right. If so, then this is not an actual picture of a real design but more of a conept art type thing IMHO.

 

[Chengdu J-10]

In a personal perspective it is an artist concept of an initial idea that the PLAAF had as a J-10 carrier version. The design was in its very early stages and was just one of those ideas on the drawing board, design multiply designs. It doesn't seem right for the carrier J-10 to be equipped with either 2 WS-10A/AL-31 using only one vertical fin stabilizer. Strongly agree with Crobato in this area of aspects. Using these kind of engines will require an additional vertical fin stabilizer. Also the aircraft will require to be longer in length as adding an additional engine will require a larger air intake. I know it has been streched horizontally the airlets, but this in engineering point of aspect is not enough for the 2 engines the aircraft will need to be stretched more in order for a longer air inlet to fuel the engine. Im an Engineer so I'm giving this post in an engineering view not a teenager screw around.

 

[maozedong]

yes, I saw many diferent type of this style J-10 pic, in magazines, internet, some is not navalazed ,some is navalazed, some are more advance than this one, like some stealthy design....
I think some are fans art. but first twin engine J-10 appearanced in 2004 China ZhuHai air shaw, it is a model displayed by air shaw official.

 

[crobato]

Models are subjected to change. Just remember the original J-10 model that appeared with a picture of Li Peng. Nonetheless, the changes are more or less on the details than on the general configuration. Its safe to say, the general direction on the twin engined delta canard would be to have two rear rudders, spaced somewhat by two booms. More on the MiG 1.44 style than the Rafale style with a single tall rudder.

 

[BLUEJACKET]

I implied in post #886 why should a navalized J-10 be absolutely twin-engine? The answer I got doesn't satisfy me. Only AV-8B Harrier is entirely STOVL, & F-35) has a CTOL version besides STOVL. IMO, given a higher TWR and TVC engine, the land-based J-10 can be navalized further without much (if any) decrease in performance. Please correct me if I'm wrong- is there anything I've missed?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!