If you look closely, there appears to be an exhaust module at the tail of the first prototype. It's possible that this module is simply absent during this flight test, as oppose to a whole change with the nozzles.
Chengdu next gen combat aircraft (?J-36)
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Exactly, my theory posted pages back would have benefit from these visual aids. It is that right most blue circle and red rectangle that highlight the module that I think they've taken off to perform who knows what tests on the 2D TVC engines. Possibly also a part of the process for evaluating this module and its design.
If one lines up where the engine section begins to cause a tapering of the fuselage, it lines up in both prototypes, suggesting there is no change in the position of those 3 engines wrt the rest of the aircraft.
Last edited:
While plausible, I think that "module" is not so much a modular attachment that can be removed or added, but rather just a reflection of the major component as part of the prior exhaust design, and what we see on the current prototype is a different design.
In particular, the tailstings and nozzles of prototype 2 look like a revised wholesale exhaust configuration rather than just having a section "removed"
While this is indeed possible, prototype 2 then is not showing the intended form of the design. The intended form will have this section simplified with alignment and reduction in number of edges. Hence there will be a similar "module" as on prototype 1's whether it is identical to prototype 1's or a different design remains to be seen but this is the "naked" version and certainly not the intended design which sacrifices a fair bit of radar stealth at least if not also infrared.
I do not think that is a safe assumption to make at this stage (regarding the bolded part).
Since ULO stealth appears to be emphasised for the J-36, and this includes all aspect stealth, there is no reason why they would have a superior stealth design for one prototype and going back a step wrt final design. Unless of course that part was deemed impossible to incorporate after testing.
I'm leaning towards redesign of that removed section since the prototype 2's equivalent section at least to me appears to be less stealthy. Maybe the difference is in the performance but we'll see.
As I've written in previous posts, this all depends on what their requirements for rear aspect signature reduction are versus their requirements for say, maneuverability/aerodynamic control (which 2D TVC enhances).
At best we can say "either configuration could be viable on the final production airframe" but I would certainly not be confident to say that the configuration on the first airframe is superior or preferred by PLA needs.
Besides, it's not like the current exhaust configuration is non-stealthy; instead it is better to say that it is likely somewhat less stealthy than the exhaust configuration on the first prototype (but the extent of that difference is not known).
Yes the nitty gritty performance details and evaluation assessment and criteria are driving here and there's no way to know what they will go with. Of course, it will be down to those details.
Sure, we don't know and eyeballing this isn't necessarily accurate. Aesthetically though and yeah this is subjective, it appears to be less good looking aircraft with this change. Overall performance wise? they want the best for the balance between performance and cost so their decision is obviously going to net a better end product.
There's something so alien about this shape. It's ... perfect.
It looks more futuristic and exotic than anything including flying wings with the rectangular geometries. Flying wings and the canted wing aircraft like the GJ-x look and feel very um human? This just looks downright otherworldly, faster and more aerodynamic than those flying wing glorified gliders. The overall shape and alignment feels "ruined" with the modification.
Last edited:
It sounds like you accept that the configuration on prototype 2 could be a viable configuration no less invalid than that on prototype 1.
Everything else you wrote is just aesthetic preference, which while I understand that is a driver for liking something, should really be disregarded.
Of course it is the potential configuration and yes it is no less valid than that configuration of prototype 1 since they know better and they know all the finer details. They also want to produce the best configuration. So on judgement of overall performance, whatever is produced is the best they can produce for the total spectrum of costs.
My aesthetic preference is also driven by my understanding of radar stealth. It is an incomplete picture but it's not all pure subjective aesthetics. This is after all a piece of technology. Pure Dionysian "beauty" isn't in the equation.
My assumption here is that prototype 2 is actually testing TVC. Whereas prototype 1 didn't feature TVC capability. We will see a final design that is driven by the evaluation of the performance of prototype 2's specific TVC mechanism. Prototype 1 doesn't appear to be TVC capable to be honest since we know prototype 1's engine nozzle section begins pretty much exactly where prototype 2's engine nozzle section begins. So by that I mean the section that is right before the nozzle. The only difference is the section to its rear. Prototype 1's has a much longer module which is unlikely to be a TVC since that module (from beginning of engine nozzle section to end) appears to be at least 2.3m long. TVC petals a la F-22's is approx 1.7m in total.
Anyway all the photos of both prototytpes are way too grainy and amateur to make any accurate speculation on.