Chinese Trainer Aircraft (JL-8, JL-9, JL-10 (L-15), etc.)

Re: JL-15 and other trainers

Nice ... IMO the (first ?? ) serial JL-9G ... and exactly the same bird as spotted on the Xiaolong II image !

(however I miss the tail hook ?)

Re: JL-15 and other trainers

Did not notice how much the wing planform changed between the JL-9 and JL-9G !

Re: JL-15 and other trainers

Deino said:

Did not notice how much the wing planform changed between the JL-9 and JL-9G !

Click to expand...

This aircraft could end up being the new F-5E for Third World Air Forces and 2nd tier fighter force. The Chinese continue to squeeze every ounce of potential from this design.

Love the wing design!

Re: JL-15 and other trainers

This is a repost from the JF-17 thread but I think it would be appropriate to post here too:

Here is a question to ponder: If the useful load of a JF-17 and L-15 are comparable (around 3000kg) and the L-15 is a lighter aircraft (9,500 kg vs. 12,383 kg), ferry ranges being comparable, the L-15 is estimated at 10,000 fight hours and the Jf-17 is estimated at 5000 fight hours. Additionally the L-15 can emulate 4.5 generation aircraft in maneuverability and the thrust to weight ratio is higher (due to the light weight and comparable thrust) and mostly the price is less; why wouldn’t one select a single seat version of the L-15 over the JF-17?

It also goes without saying that the aircraft would have the appropriate avionics and ECM instrumentation comparable to the FC-1. With that in mind the aircraft is more of a 4+ generation aircraft that the FC-1. Yes it is small, but then so is the Gripen (smaller than the Mig-21) and the Gripen is a very capable aircraft.

Given similar or better avionics, more maneuverable and more flight hours. Why not consider it. Granted the useful load to range many be less. However are you really going to hang stuff on the aircraft like a Christmas tree or use it in a specific strike or intercept roll?

Please see technical data and picture below:






Specifications (JF-17 Block 1)
Data from Pakistan Aeronautical Complex
General characteristics
· Crew: 1
· Length: 14.93 m (49 ft)
· Wingspan: 9.45 m (31 ft, including 2 wingtip missiles)
· Height: 4.72 m (15 ft 6 in)
· Wing area: 24.4 m² (263 ft²)
· Empty weight: 6,586 kg (14,520 lb)
· Loaded weight: 9,100 kg (20,062 lb)
· Useful load: 3000 kg (6600 lb)
· Max. takeoff weight: 12,383 kg (27,300 lb)
· Powerplant: 1 × Klimov RD-93
· Dry thrust: 49.4 kN[16] / 51.2 kN (11,106 lbf / 11,510 lbf)
· Thrust with afterburner: 84.5 kN (19,000 lbf)
· G-limit: +8 g / -3 g
· Internal Fuel Capacity: 2,300 kg (5,130 lb)
Performance
· Maximum speed: Mach 1.6
· Combat radius: 1,352 km (840 mi)
· Ferry range: 3,482 km(1,880 NM)
· Service ceiling: 16,920 m (55,500 ft)
· Thrust/weight: 0.95


Specifications For L-15
Data from Military-Today L-15
General characteristics
· Crew: 2
· Length: 40.256 feet (12.27 m)
· Wingspan: 31.1 feet (9.48 m)
· Height: 15.78 feet (4.81 m)
· Empty weight: 9,920 lb (4,500 kg)
· Loaded weight: 14,300 lb (6,500 kg)
· Max. takeoff weight: 20,900 lb (9,500 kg)
· Powerplant: 2 × Ivchenko Progress AI-222K-25 for AJT condition, Ivchenko Progress AI-222K-25F afterburning turbofans
· Dry thrust: two engines at 24.7 kN (5,552.78 lbf) (total of 11,140lbf)
· Thrust with afterburner: two engines at 4200 kgf / 41.2 kN (9,262.13 lbf) (total of 18,524 lbf)
Performance
· Maximum speed: Mach 1.4 (924.1 mph)
· Combat radius: Over 550+ km (More than 340+ miles)
· Ferry range: 3,100 km(1926 miles)
· Service ceiling: 52500 feet (16,000 m)
· Rate of climb: >39370 ft/min (afterburning) (>200 m/s)
· Thrust/weight: greater than 1 to 1

Re: JL-15 and other trainers

Deino said:

Did not notice how much the wing planform changed between the JL-9 and JL-9G !

Click to expand...

Beside the DSI inlet (which everybody knows and do not need to mention), wingtips are different.

Re: JL-15 and other trainers

SteelBird said:

Beside the DSI inlet (which everybody knows and do not need to mention), wingtips are different.

Click to expand...

Not only ... seems as if the wing has a completely new geometry with the LERX now reaching nearly to the tip of the intake (at least much for further), the wingtips You mentioned and even more the point where the angle of the leading edge changes is completely different.

Re: JL-15 and other trainers

Miragedriver said:

Here is a question to ponder: If the useful load of a JF-17 and L-15 are comparable (around 3000kg) and the L-15 is a lighter aircraft (9,500 kg vs. 12,383 kg), ferry ranges being comparable, the L-15 is estimated at 10,000 fight hours and the Jf-17 is estimated at 5000 fight hours. Additionally the L-15 can emulate 4.5 generation aircraft in maneuverability and the thrust to weight ratio is higher (due to the light weight and comparable thrust) and mostly the price is less; why wouldn’t one select a single seat version of the L-15 over the JF-17?

Click to expand...

Ivchenko-Progress AI-222 are new and unproven engines . Theoretically , two of them should be about equal to RD-93 , but those are paper specifications and RD-93 is well known and tested engine . Also , L-15 currently has no provision for radar and has less space for additional avionics and fuel (therefore less range) .

Overall , I don't say something could not be done to turn L-15 in real light fighter , but for now it is just a trainer and light attack aircraft .

Re: JL-15 and other trainers

Miragedriver said:

Specifications (JF-17 Block 1)
· Combat radius: 1,352 km (840 mi)
· Ferry range: 3,482 km(1,880 NM)


Specifications For L-15
· Combat radius: Over 550+ km (More than 340+ miles)
· Ferry range: 3,100 km(1926 miles)

Click to expand...

This is what we call creative presentation of figures - likely the JF-17 had the same configuration with drop tanks when carrying out both the combat radius and ferry range tests, whereas the L-15 has a full load combat radius test and a full fuel ferry range test. In reality the L-15 probably has significantly inferior range-payload.

Re: JL-15 and other trainers

Deino said:

Did not notice how much the wing planform changed between the JL-9 and JL-9G !

Click to expand...

Yes, lets see now.

The PLAAF JL-9 has a broader wing planform, the forward portion of the double-delta more closely resembling that of the MiG-21/J-7's original delta and its 57' sweep and squared-off delta tips. Of course, the wing looks broader due to the retention of the original sweep angle.

The wing of the PLANAF JL-9 is slimmer, due to the sharper sweep angle (looks like it actually has a curved leading edge), and has rounded off tips tapering towards the rear.

PLANAF JL-9 also has the leading edge slats and DSI intakes, giving her a much slimmer profile at that section.

Deletion of the underfins and the taller tailfin are distinctive too.

Clearly the PLAAF model was designed to retain as much of older JJ-7 as possible and was built with economy in mind, whereas the PLANAF bird has all the improvements from the J-7E's and G's installed.

All this makes me wonder, if after inheriting the J-7 and all the production and technology from CAC, Guizhou may STILL have ambitions to produce her for export?

Re: JL-15 and other trainers

duskylim said:

All this makes me wonder, if after inheriting the J-7 and all the production and technology from CAC, Guizhou may STILL have ambitions to produce her for export?

Click to expand...

Seems logical with all the MiG-21s out there and the multitude of upgrade packages available for them, which can provide the aircraft with a limited BVR capacity, why not purchase some the single seat JL-9G. It has a larger area for radar and would have a commonality of parts with current MiG-21 fleets and is more maneuverable than the MiG-21.

It’s a great way for China to keep the production line open, not only for new aircraft, but also for parts.