Chengdu next gen combat aircraft (?J-36) thread

[lcloo]

Maybe there are internal ducts from the two side intakes to the central engine. The ducts will be open when the pressure in the middle duct gets too low?

I was going to write the same...

Harrier jump jet has a unique exhaust air ducting from engine to it's wing tips for stability, similarly internal ducting from from the 2 air inlets to the top engine diverting some air to supplement the top air inlet is logical.

 

[MC530]

Of course it won't be likely to happen, so I just mean imaging some stupid things, don't take my words too serious. But as long as CAC keeps some high maneuverability on J36, it will never be boring——I think you can understand that.

Of course, the latest fighter jet that looks like something from a science fiction movie is boring as an old lady passing by over the airport?
It makes me feel like taxpayers are paying more than they should be paying.
Forgot to tell you, my favorite air battle was probably in the 1930s, and BZ tactics and strategic bombing ruined everything.
The recent performance of the J36 should be more than it should be. The fast rolling of such a wide fuselage still exceeds my expectations.
And we haven’t seen the huge action tubes on the tail react yet, and there are no changes to the TVC. We look forward to showing us the latest aerodynamic research results of the J36 at some point.

 

[iBBz]

Maybe there are internal ducts from the two side intakes to the central engine. The ducts will be open when the pressure in the middle duct gets too low?

Well if you're going to do that, then why not just remove the third DSI and enlarge the caret ones and call it a day? This configuration will never make sense to me until we get a solid explanation by an academic involved in the project.

Bleeds to manage the pressure inside the inlet is one of many common standard solutions to these sorts of problems. This is one of those things where the available solutions are all well known enough that the default assumption should be "they know what they're doing". I'd argue if this design wasn't meant to do higher alpha maneuvers they would have just stuck with top inlets for all the engines. They went through the trouble for a reason.

One could also make the argument that they would have gotten rid of the DSI if they wanted maneuverability. It goes both ways. Also what common solutions exist for a configuration that was never attempted before? There is nothing common about this configuration. It is literally the first one. Engine stalls are actually the common thing here, especially with sharp leading edge military intakes.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Maybe there are internal ducts from the two side intakes to the central engine. The ducts will be open when the pressure in the middle duct gets too low?

Bleeds to manage the pressure inside the inlet is one of many common standard solutions to these sorts of problems. This is one of those things where the available solutions are all well known enough that the default assumption should be "they know what they're doing". I'd argue if this design wasn't meant to do higher alpha maneuvers they would have just stuck with top inlets for all the engines. They went through the trouble for a reason.

Harrier jump jet has a unique exhaust air ducting from engine to it's wing tips for stability, similarly internal ducting from from the 2 air inlets to the top engine diverting some air to sup

Perhaps this contribute to the choice of caret intakes for the outer two engines versus the DSI intake for the middle engine?

 

[siegecrossbow]

Unless you are flying at very high AOA for a very long time I don’t see how getting air bypassed from the two side intakes is going to be a big problem. MIG-29 has intake blockers to prevent gravel from damaging turbines during takeoffs from rough airstrips and it is able to fly while taking in air from slits basically.

 

[AndrewJ]

Have to admit. One major advantage of above intake is to make IWB much deeper.

Meanwhile, if you have to add 3rd engine to ensure TWR, no more choice other than above intake. Otherwise, only using below 2 inlets to import air to 3rd engine under most situations, will lower other 2 engines' thrust. It's not a good design.

Forms follow requirements. However, recent test flights tell us J-36 still maintains significant level of maneuverability. So it's time to find out how it works. These are the real next gen tech.

I roughly remember Guancha Trios once said the above inlet will use some kind of fan to import more air at certain situations.

The recent performance of the J36 should be more than it should be. The fast rolling of such a wide fuselage still exceeds my expectations.
And we haven’t seen the huge action tubes on the tail react yet, and there are no changes to the TVC. We look forward to showing us the latest aerodynamic research results of the J36 at some point.

I also feel strange about this. Seems almost no surface movement when fast rolling? How's that possible?

来自 bilibili 的新视频。歼-36 似乎隐藏了起落架。

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

View attachment 148812

不，那个视频太模糊了！......这看起来更像是齿轮或齿轮本身的反射，而不是平面。

View attachment 148822

 

[cdj20]

After seen an image on bilibili (1st image, I think it is not fake), I checked posted images which can also found in this thread (image 2-4, you need to really zoom in to check the details), and I believe that J36 has leading edge flaps that use same flexible skin hinge as the other contol surfaces. If it is real then it might shows the top inlet and the aircraft itself can work in a higher angle of attack than we expected? View attachment 148898View attachment 148899View attachment 148900the 4th image shows the thiny slots when the leading edge flaps is retractedView attachment 148901

This picture is enhanced by AI too much so that the edge is not symmetric. Therefore, no useful conclusions can be drawn from it.

 

[THX 1138]

View attachment 148907

This picture is enhanced by AI too much so that the edge is not symmetric. Therefore, no useful conclusions can be drawn from it.

I think the asymmetry might just be an optical illusion. Some of the gaps between adjacent surfaces have been obscured. It's possible AI had a role in obscuring the gaps. But it's also possible the gaps were obscured because the control surfaces were not perfectly flat with each other when the photo was taken.

You can see on the photo below what it's supposed to look like.

 

[Mearex]

How else do you control yaw?

TVC, which hopefully this thing has

 

[Mearex]

The argument that it is a bomber all boils down to the fact that it is much larger and heavier than current 5th or 4th gen aircraft. This does not take into account the fact that F-35 is in the same ballpark weight wise as a F-15C, and an F-15C is in the same ballpark weight wise as a B-17. Yet no one called those bombers. The cope to diss CHAD as a bomber is getting old at this point.

you are acting as if a bomber is somehow "lesser" of an aircraft which I have never seen anyone imply