China Flanker Thread II

[MiG-29]

Er... you can choose what you want to believe, while others can choose what they wanted to believe, and instead of making this place more heated up, please let things cool abit, okay?

alright, i agree

 

[NikeX]

=Engineer;204529]Surely, USAF wouldn't allow an F-22 sticker on the F-18G if there wasn't a confirm kill.

If you did the proper research on the circumstances of this F18 vs F22 engagement you would understand that after an aircraft was "shot down" it was allowed to regenerate, that is return to the fight, to keep the furball going. This F18 was ruled shotdown but regenerated in a position that the F22 assumed was clear and hence the kill on the F22 was counted. This statement below is from F-16.net:

".....The pilot of the F-22 that was "shot down" had not properly accounted for a "downed" aggressor that had "regenerated" in a favorable position--he had mistakenly believed that this fighter was still out of the game. This aspect of exercises such as Red Flag is not realistic in and of itself, but is a practical way to simulate a greater number of threat aircraft and perhaps other aspects of the "fog of war," in which it can be very easy to lose track of what you're doing or end up dead because of rotten luck. So what should the pilot of the "downed" F-22 learn from this incident that he could apply to real combat? Well, it certainly wouldn't be "Watch out for downed enemy fighters regenerating." Realistically, this was mental practice for managing one's situational awareness under complex, stressful conditions, which will hopefully generally translate to the aspects of real combat that are not easy or possible to accurately simulate in training. At the very least, this is a reminder for F-22 pilots to stay alert and focused, and that's a good thing....."

And it was a similar quirk in the rules that allowed these Eurofighter "victories" over F22 to occur. Next time take the time to do proper research.

 

[dingyibvs]

Maybe because you wanted to pitch the nose of the aircraft up or down?, get real here Jr. the canard is your primary pitch control, and you will be deflecting it to manuever your aircraft, and YES it will increase YOUR radar cross section when you do. Mr Mig makes some valid points, he also indulges in flights of fantasy as do several other members?

Primary pitch control...in a dogfight. With a FBW system, just about any control surface with a horizontal component could be used effectively for mid-flight pitch adjustment. Ask yourself this question, how would flying-wing type of aircrafts, say the B-2 control pitch with, well, by definition just the main wings?

But at least I can see why Mr. Mig is allowed to hang around here now. His mumbo-jumbo got him banned on defencetalk within a couple of weeks, but over here we have many more active members, it's inevitable that some people actually take credence in his nonsense. This isn't meant as an insult to you, Mr. Air Force Brat, as his crap is loaded with jargon and pseudoscience, and many things seem to make sense.

Now, I have an Engineering degree, and I'm in the process of getting my MD in the states, so I have a pretty solid science background and I can see through his BS. He actually reminds me a lot of this schizophrenic patient with severe grandiose delusions. She thinks she's a lawyer and a doctor (and a mayor and whatnot). When she talks to us, we can tell immediately that her medical knowledge is just mostly jargon-laden nonsense, but when we hear her talk about law, we think to ourselves "hey, maybe she really WAS a lawyer before." Then the lawyers talk to her(complicated American laws regarding involuntary psych patients, we have to take her to court to give her meds), and they tell us that her law knowledge is just a bunch of jargon-laden nonsense, but that she might have been a doctor because her medical diatribes actually make some sense.

 

[NikeX]

@plawolf"..As I have been trying to hammer home, your much vaunted integrated TVC concept is no cutting edge concept, it's exactly the same principle as all existing modern FBW with the only different being TVC has been integrated into the FBW just like every other control surface. If anyone else bothered to put TVC on their planes, it would do exactly what the Raptor's TVC would do, and it would just need an upgrade of the existing FBW systems and software to take into account the TVC instead of a brand new design...."

And that integration is the game changer. It is the flight control software that allows the pilot to maneuver in a tactical manner that allows the pilot to focus on the tactics of the air battle and not management of the aircraft.

Other aircraft have pieces of the puzzle but only one airplane to date has the total solution. And it has become the yardstick against which all other 5th generation fighters are measured

 

[NikeX]

Primary pitch control...in a dogfight. With a FBW system, just about any control surface with a horizontal component could be used effectively for mid-flight pitch adjustment. Ask yourself this question, how would flying-wing type of aircrafts, say the B-2 control pitch with, well, by definition just the main wings?

But at least I can see why Mr. Mig is allowed to hang around here now. His mumbo-jumbo got him banned on defencetalk within a couple of weeks, but over here we have many more active members, it's inevitable that some people actually take credence in his nonsense. This isn't meant as an insult to you, Mr. Air Force Brat, as his crap is loaded with jargon and pseudoscience, and many things seem to make sense.

Now, I have an Engineering degree, and I'm in the process of getting my MD in the states, so I have a pretty solid science background and I can see through his BS. He actually reminds me a lot of this schizophrenic patient with severe grandiose delusions. She thinks she's a lawyer and a doctor (and a mayor and whatnot). When she talks to us, we can tell immediately that her medical knowledge is just mostly jargon-laden nonsense, but when we hear her talk about law, we think to ourselves "hey, maybe she really WAS a lawyer before." Then the lawyers talk to her(complicated American laws regarding involuntary psych patients, we have to take her to court to give her meds), and they tell us that her law knowledge is just a bunch of jargon-laden nonsense, but that she might have been a doctor because her medical diatribes actually make some sense.

So far you have said nothing of substance that renders invalid the conclusions advanced by Mig and Airforce. Lets see you use this engineering degree to discuss the pros and cons of canard vs TVC

 

[NikeX]

@plawolf: If you knew even the most basic things about modern air combat, you would realize that firstly, the moves in that Raptor demo is worse than useless in a real dogfight (the American pilot's gleeful comments about just switching to guns and drilling away when they were talking about Indian MKIs pulling similar TVC tricks spring to mind throughout that demo), and that secondly, the Raptor was not demonstrating the agility of it's airframe with that routine - it was demonstrating the amazing TWR of it's engines.

Looks like you missed the part of the video where the Air Force pilot giving the briefing mentions that the Indian pilots were inexperienced in using their TVC system but when they learned a bit more they would be a serious foe to deal with in their MKIs.

Specifically it was in the areas of post stall maneuvering

Don't forget they have canards AND TVC in their Su-30 MKIs. Looks like they have the best of both worlds.

Don't feel bad. When China gets it figured out they will install TVC on the J-20. It is only a matter of time

 

[Quickie]

One benefit obtainable from a control-canard is avoidance of pitch-up. An all-moving canard capable of a significant nose-down deflection will protect against pitch-up. Control canards have poor stealth characteristics, because they present large moving surfaces forward of the wing.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

+


F-22 test pilot Paul Metz:
"-All aircraft experience a loss of control effectiveness at supersonic speeds. To generate the same maneuver supersonically as subsonically, the controls must be deflected further. This, in turn, results in a big increase in supersonic trim drag and a subsequent loss in acceleration and turn performance-"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

can you understand now why Su-35 has now no canards and TVC nozzles to reduce tailplane deflection?

If China has no 117 equivalent the Su-35 can provide an engine for J-11B and J-20

What I was trying to say is, although TVC maybe useful in some cases (I repeat in some cases but not all cases) , the aerodynamics design of the aircraft play a much more important part in determining performance. TVC only gives an incremental improvement in maneouvrebility or turn rates, and it's still a question if TVC would really give an improvement to fighters of canard delta design, like the Typhoon and Rafale, since we still haven't seen any of them in operation with TVC.

I don't have the time to read through so many PDF files. Since you're singing so much praise for TVC, can you provide us the actual numbers (actual official numbers in brochures etc) in the improvement of turn rates, payload range with the addition of TVC for such aircrafts as the F-15, Flankers, F-22 and, for comparison sake, the Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen, too?

 

[tphuang]

This thread is for discussions about flankers in service with PLAAF only. If you want to continue a discussion about TVC, open up another thread.

And as for the entire discussion about China buying Su-35 from Russia, we've spent enough time discussing unsubstantiated rumours. Mig-29, unless it's been confirmed by Chinese side, any posts you put on this old issue will be delete. Other mods, I'm not here all the times, so please delete any more discussions over such unconfirmed rumours.

There is as far as I know no plan by PLAAF to purchase Su-35. Whether or not Su-35 is better than J-11B or how much su-35 is better (if you are Mig-29) is not relevant.

 

[Engineer]

i am not wrong, simply because i have seen graphs of YF-22 with and without TVC nozzles and how it did compare with F-16 and F-15 in roll and pitch rate.

see

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

this proves who is talking just for talking

There has never been questions that TVN provides pitch and roll moments, after all these are what made post-stall maneuvers possible when control surfaces cease to function. However, pitch moment and roll moment, along with their effects to pitch rate and roll rate, do not equate to turn rate. Furthermore, there has not been a YF-22/F-22 that flew with TVN uninstalled, so aircraft that don't utilize TVN are carrying weight penalty for nothing. Examples of proper comparisons would be a standard F-16 vs. the F-16 MATV or standard F-18 vs. F-18 HARV. In both examples, NASA has always emphasized the advantages of post-stall maneuverability, not the marketing gimmicks that you repeat.

I have also seen graphs of turn rate versus lift coefficient and how wing loading and thrust affect it, in fact i have seen equations that prove i am right


You just defend your self but where is the proof?
The effect of wing maximum lift coefficient is inverse to that of wing loading; that is, increasing the maximum lift coefficient acts in the same way as reducing the wing loading. For example, increasing the maximum lift coefficient from 0.7 to 1.4 would shift the curve for a wing loading of 100 pounds per square foot to the exact position as that occupied by the curve for a wing loading of 50 pounds per square foot and a maximum lift coefficient of 0.7. Two other important aircraft physical parameters may also limit turning performance. First, at a given speed and altitude, the aircraft drag increases rapidly with lift coefficient; as a consequence, the available thrust may not be sufficient to balance the drag at some load factors that the wing can sustain. In this case the aircraft loses altitude in the turn, an undesirable situation in combat. As for maximum lift coefficient, the drag rise with increasing lift depends upon the wing design and Mach number, as well as upon the added drag required to trim the aircraft at high lift coefficients. [/B]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This proves nothing regarding your claims on TVN.

Beginning from the 4th generation of fighter aircraft, vortex effects become widely employed to enhance lift. From then on, aircraft performance has less and less correlation with basic rule of thumbs such as wing area or wing loading. The F-22 having lower thrust-to-weight and higher wing loading then the F-15 is a good example.

i challenge you provide a document TVC does not improve turn rate, thrust, range stealth.

You won`t find it

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

There are plenty of papers saying variable swept wing has load of advantages back when variable swept wing was trendy. How did that idea turn out today? Now, I challenge you to provide a document that says TVN has no weight penalty, does not lose thrust as a result of deflecting the nozzles, and deflection of nozzles themselves have no impact on stealth. You won't find it.

 

[Engineer]

In fact all these resposes is just to avoid a reality, at this moment China has not thrust vectoring capable fighters.
Are they willing to design them? of course yes they will.

You can not understand things simple like that F-22 is highly dependant on TVC nozzles.

What you can not understand is simply Eurofighter was armed with HMS and F-22 has not HMS.

And yes HMS are equalizers if you do not have TVC nozzles.

and yes you are wrong, China knows TVC nozzles are enhancers

J-11s or J-20 with TVC nozzles will improve performance a great deal

but good thrust and low drag increases turn rate so eliminate external weapons and you add better turn rates

I will tell you why you gave the responses that you did. The revelation of the J-20 totally exceeded expectation outside of China. The aircraft actually looks stealthy, as opposed to the pseudo-stealthy airframe of the PAKFA. You cannot accept the fact that China is able to produce a better aircraft than Russia, and neither could you claim a major design on that aircraft being influenced by Russia. To make yourself more comfortable, you have to fantasize about the J-20 having the maneuverability of an airliner, and to do so you argue the J-20 cannot dogfight without thrust vectoring nozzles. That is called sour grape mentality.

If TVN is such pure awesomeness as you have portrayed, then air force around the world would flock to equip their aircraft with one. The reality is the opposite, with major air force in US and Europe treating TVN with cold shoulder. This is in contrast to items such as AESA radars, where nations are flocking to equip their fighters with. Given the reactions of actual air force and the words of a random kid on a forum, it is obvious that actions from air force has more authority.