China Flanker Thread II

[i.e.]

Btw,
since the J-8-2 days its vertical fins are composite. that's 80s.
same tradition continued with J-10 etc.
and
fyi by spec J-15 is actually aimed to achieve a lower field length/higher TOW than the original.
it achieved its designed field performance, by 1) uprated WS-10 and 2) weight saving via structures.



so to say china isn't as advanced as Russia or India in aircraft structure or material science is more of a statement on commentator's lack of knowledge.

 

[i.e.]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Having demonstrated the mechanics of the concept in extensive benchtests, the engine consortium is trying to secure funds to fly its thrust vectoring nozzle (TVN) on a flight demonstrator. This, it believes, would provide data to back up its claims that TVN could reduce fuel burn on a typical Typhoon mission by up to 5%, as well as increase available thrust in supercruise by up to 7% and take-off thrust by 2%.

Phoon can claim all that because they know they can do it.

on another airplane its a different story.


actually MKI's flight control computer and TV management is actually not as advanced. by the way its AOA Limiter and TVC was described in various lit and anecdotal evidence.

you can have all the TVC in the world but no software to help you take advantage of it ( and no India is not good at flight control software...despite its prowess in contract software engineering cheap labor)
= still no benefits.

 

[paintgun]

i read somewhere that MKI cockpit allows pilot to engage/disengage TVC manually, this probably means the TVC is not fully integrated into the FCS, unlike the newer SU-35, MKI is quite dated, but boy the SU-35 sure can dance in MAKS 2011

to sum it up drunky, the improvements on Chinese flankers are on its avionics and structures, as the original Flankers offered to China was a very early variant

 

[drunkmunky]

I did some reading on wiki (limited resource) on the SU-30MKK and MK2.

Nothing available for the Chinese homemade variant.
Wish there was more info...

 

[In4ser]

Well Wikipedia is not necessarily a reliable source, besides you can always update it yourself. There is a trove of information here and on other military forums like CDF.

 

[HKSDU]

I was educated that the F-22 utilizing TVC is capable of going past Mach without afterburners. This allows for increased fuel savings, and increased operational area.

I really don't think that the Chinese Flanker is the as advanced as you all think with respect to the airframe. Is there evidence regarding the advancement of composites in china?

What you just said is thought TVC is capable of going past speed without afterburners. Doesn't make any sense.

TVC has nothing to do about what speeds it can achieve before and after burners. TVC just directs the flow of the turbofan.

And Mach itself is not a speed, you can't just say Mach speed. Cause Mach speed could be anything. <1 or 10<. An airliner can go Mach but in subsonic level.

TVC has little or negligible effect on fuel consumption and operational area. Operation area depends on efficiency of engines, aerodynamic efficiency of the structure, material surface friction, payload carried, cruising speed or engagement speed, altitude, fuel type.

 

[SinoSoldier]

errr then what about J-10s, they're lighter fighters does that mean they should have TVC?
I think you're grasping at straws here a bit, I liked plawolf's reasoning better :/



Well I think his argument was a flawed one, but he's only talking about chinese heavy fighters not foreign.

The J-10 does not need thrust vectoring. Its rumored 50% composites, raised canard design, ventral fins, and thrust is likely to give it an advantage over other 4.5 generation fighters. TVC helps post stall agility and according to PAF pilots the J-10B already excels at that.

It is possible J-11B will get TVC in the future, but however, until the money gets going and the production line expands, that is very slim.

 

[SinoSoldier]

the current Su-35S has increased RAM and composite content, plus 117s engines, current Su-30MKI have higher composite content than the original Su-27SK China purchased, so while China has made progresses, so Russia or India, so to say the J-11 is the lightest Flanker is not acurate, the Su-35S is indeed the most advanced Flanker variant followed by Su-30MKI and Su-37 in performance and agility.

TVC is not for post stall only it saves you fuel and add range plus increases turn and roll rates.

Chinese Flankers are probably close to the Su-35 with canards the original Su-35/T-10M in overall capability but with a more modern radar and perhaps Su-33 performance

The Su-30MKI has more composites than the original J-11 airframe, yes, but that is already heavier. With composites added to the J-11B airframe, the J-11B will definitely be lighter.

Su-30MKI has two 123 kN engine and loaded weight of 24900 kg. J-11B has two 132 kN engine and loaded weight of 23226 kg. The J-11B would definitely possess a higher thrust to weight ratio. I don't know why you are saying the Su-30MKI would possess an advantage in agility and performance. Canards help it in very low speed maneuverability but the thrust to weight ratio is more important.

And what do you mean by Su-33 performance?

 

[Engineer]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Having demonstrated the mechanics of the concept in extensive benchtests, the engine consortium is trying to secure funds to fly its thrust vectoring nozzle (TVN) on a flight demonstrator. This, it believes, would provide data to back up its claims that TVN could reduce fuel burn on a typical Typhoon mission by up to 5%, as well as increase available thrust in supercruise by up to 7% and take-off thrust by 2%.

So, just another unsubstantiated claim based on another unsubstantiated claim.

 

[MiG-29]

The Su-30MKI has more composites than the original J-11 airframe, yes, but that is already heavier. With composites added to the J-11B airframe, the J-11B will definitely be lighter.

Su-30MKI has two 123 kN engine and loaded weight of 24900 kg. J-11B has two 132 kN engine and loaded weight of 23226 kg. The J-11B would definitely possess a higher thrust to weight ratio. I don't know why you are saying the Su-30MKI would possess an advantage in agility and performance. Canards help it in very low speed maneuverability but the thrust to weight ratio is more important.

And what do you mean by Su-33 performance?

Thrust vectoring increases roll and turn rates, so even if the J-11 has higher TWR, the Su-30MKI has an increase in turn and roll rates even having lower TWR.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Now Thrust only is good for sustained turn rate, instantaneous turn rates are lift based and can only be increased by thrust vectoring or higher lift.

Lower wing loading or bigger wing can increase lift, Su-30MKI has canards, so the Su-30MKI lowered wing loading.

Add post stall and you get better agility
now i can confirm the Su-30MKI numbers but the J-11 numbers where can you can confirm them?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!