J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)

[Blitzo]

some pretty awesome pics of J-10B with WS-10, from =GT over at CDF

Taxi, and take off

I quite like the second picture -- a shot right after it gets airborne

 

[delft]

Look back nearly half a century. In the 'sixties nearly every combat aircraft designer thought his next baby should have variable sweep wings. Further development eliminated that fashion. This might or might not happen with canards, TVC.

 

[Lion]

So in this case they removed the canards because it increased RCS and drag an amount and they were able to lighten the radar up enough so they were unnecessary. But that write up also states canards increased aerodynamic performance, so obviously they made a decision that suited their own requirements better.

You do realize this write up, while interesting, doesn't support your overall conclusion that TVC+canards are redundant together right?

I think we're done here.

The canard is there just to balance up the plane because of the heavy radar, therefore the so called improve of performance. I don't know how you interpret it? This article support my claim precisely. If there is no heavy radar, the canard will not even exist in the first place.

It is you who need to explain it. Give me an article which support your claim. If not, you just blowing hot air...

One thing I need to add in. Su-34. Canard but no TVC. Don't tell me Russian don't have TVC technology. Can you all see the link? Su-35BM with TVC, no canard.. Su-34 with canard but not TVC..

Su-33 with canard is mainly for carrier ops for improving take off and reduce land speed. So lets not add this in..

All this are concrete fact. Yet someone stubbornly insist his way and even drag J-20 in. J-20 will not have TVC, until I see one install in. Over my dead body, J-20 will not have TVC.

 

[Blitzo]

The canard is there just to balance up the plane because of the heavy radar, therefore the so called improve of performance. I don't know how you interpret it? This article support my claim precisely. If there is no heavy radar, the canard will not even exist in the first place.

It is you who need to explain it. Give me an article which support your claim. If not, you just blowing hot air...

One thing I need to add in. Su-34. Canard but no TVC. Don't tell me Russian don't have TVC technology. Can you all see the link? Su-35BM with TVC, no canard.. Su-34 with canard but not TVC..

Su-33 with canard is mainly for carrier ops for improving take off and reduce land speed. So lets not add this in..

Su-30MKI... canards and TVC. I'm sure we've been here before.

All this are concrete fact. Yet someone stubbornly insist his way and even drag J-20 in. J-20 will not have TVC, until I see one install in. Over my dead body, J-20 will not have TVC.

What is concrete fact, the idea that domestic russian flankers are either without tvc or without canards? Yes that's a fact.

Is it a fact that there is no production aircraft with both canards and TVC? No, Su-30MKI.
Is it fact that because the russians have bought flankers either with tvc or no canards/canards no tvc, that canards and tvc together is redundant? No of course not.

Lion, my unerstanding of aerodynamics are rudimentary but the canard is just another control surface, like the V tail or horizontal tail. The fact few countries have TVC+canard aircraft is due to the lack of proliferation of TVC technology and to a degree, canard configurations as well.

and goodness, over your dead body? You realize all it takes for you to be proven wrong is for a fighter with canards and tvc to be mass produced right (J-20)? The Su-30MKI already proves your claim that "canards+tvc are redundant" (i paraphrase here) is incorrect yet you do not accept it as proof.

 

[Engineer]

And the Russians then decided they could do without canards on the production Su35. There are no plans to put TVC on any of the Eurocanards...

Back on the subject of using the tails as air breaks, well I guess it would make some sense to do that, as the RCS hit will be smaller compared to deploying the full air break.

It could be that what the J20 designers are doing with putting that massive air break on the J20 prototype is similar to what the Russians and Americans did with putting canards and TVC on test planes - to see if actually both were needed or if the design requirements could be met with just one of the two.

I am sure that having both canards and TVC as well as having both an actual air break and being able to use the tails as air breaks all have their own separate advantages, and it would be better to have both as opposed to one or the other. However, all the different features also come with their associated costs, and overall, the platform could be better off if only one of the two is retained.

So the Russians decided they didn't actually need the canard on the Su35, and it could be that with tests, the Chinese decide the J20 doesn't need a dedicated air break when they can use the tails and replace the air break with a big assed fuel tank or more avionics on later prototypes or the production model. The world of design is as much about compromises as it is about inspiration.

When the aircraft can pull 9G with one, then there is little point to retain the other. Extra maneuverability means little if the pilot cannot survive it.

 

[Engineer]

Is it a fact that there is no production aircraft with both canards and TVC? No, Su-30MKI.
Is it fact that because the russians have bought flankers either with tvc or no canards/canards no tvc, that canards and tvc together is redundant? No of course not.

MKI is not a good point of reference. It is designed to make the Indians happy. If India wants their planes to be plated with gold, Sukhoi would gladly do it as long as India provides the money. So, what you see on the MKI does not necessary reflect the designers' understanding of the aircraft.

If MKI's configuration is so superior, then the Russian would have used it as the basis for their own Flanker variant. The fact is, the Russian didn't. Nothing more needs to be said.

 

[latenlazy]

When the aircraft can pull 9G with one, then there is little point to retain the other. Extra maneuverability means little if the pilot cannot survive it.

Depends on whether the air frame can hit 9G in all maneuvers types using just its aerodynamic features. Also depends on what the air frame is capable of at different speed envelope.

 

[Blitzo]

MKI is not a good point of reference. It is designed to make the Indians happy. If India wants their planes to be plated with gold, Sukhoi would gladly do it as long as India provides the money. So, what you see on the MKI does not necessary reflect the designers' understanding of the aircraft.

If MKI's configuration is so superior, then the Russian would have used it as the basis for their own Flanker variant. The fact is, the Russian didn't. Nothing more needs to be said.

Fair enough, but I won't fully agree to the assumption that the indians wanted to add features to their flankers out of vanity.
My point is that lion's statement that an aircraft with canards can not have thrust vectoring engines because they render each other "redundant", is flawed at best.

 

[Martian]

J-10B Vigorous Dragon PT05 with WS-10A engine

(August 7, 2011 pictures)

J-10B with WS-10A engine is refueled.

Pair of J-10Bs

J-10B takes off.

J-10B comes in for landing.

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai for the pictures.]

 

[Blitzo]

^ I believe that is a pair of j-10a's with standard al-31 rather than j-10b's with WS-10