J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)

[latenlazy]

Man you are just speculating, if the J-10B tries to go Mach 2.3, it will damage its engines plus will spend more fuel, in fact a detail, the Mirage 2000 has lower thrust to weight ratio than the F-16 but it achieves Mach 2.2, the F-16 in the other hand having higher thrust to weight ratio achieves Mach 2.

MiG-25 achieves Mach 2.8 having lower thrust to weight ratio than F-16, but the MiG-25 has better inlets.

the F-14 is the same, it will go to Mach 2.34 having lower thrust to weight ratio.

So you can not expect the J-10B will achive Mach 2.3 because it will reduce its thrust more than an F-14 and will generate more engine stalls and purges.



The problem is not only the reduced thrust but the damage you inflict into the engines, no F-16 pilot can achieve Mach 2.34 because it will damage the F-100s, the F-15 can go Mach 2.5 because the variable geometry intake protects the engines and can use more the total thrust it can generate.


Variable geometry intakes in fact all intakes have improvements but definitively DSI achieves its best near Mach 1.2 and Mach 1.7 is the design limit for the intake.

Mixed compression is used on Sukhoi T-4 but it also pays in drag and has variable geometry to reflect the shocks generated.

Um. Did you not read what I said? This isn't about some unknowable speed of the J-10B. It's about what conclusions you can draw about a plane with a DSI (which is, to the point, not much).

 

[MiG-29]

you don't need to pass these useless hints.

F-16 Uses forebody compression and its clean config MMo is Mach 2. although rarely exercised.

just let you know F-16's intake is a pitot intake. J-10's initial intake design was very much modeled after F-16's with a boudray layer seperator lip extended forward little bit more to deal with forebody distortions.

enough is enough, I really don't think you know what you are talking about.

things are more complicated than what you made them out to be.

ooooooooooooh you stunned me, fuselage compression is not unique to the F-16, the 1950s F-11 used fuselage compression besides Mirage 4000 and Mirage 2000, hint hint you are not the only one who can say riddles

 

[latenlazy]

ooooooooooooh you stunned me, fuselage compression is not unique to the F-16, the 1950s F-11 used besides Mirage 4000 and Mirage 2000, hint hint you are not the only one who can say riddles

...I don't think you understood his point.

 

[MiG-29]

Um. Did you not read what I said? This isn't about some unknowable speed of the J-10B. It's about what conclusions you can draw about a plane with a DSI (which is, to the point, not much).

did you read what i said? everything is about the engine in the first place, intakes are designed to provide airflow that allows safe and reliable operation, lower pressure recovery means less reliability and more damages inflicted plus the possibility of flameouts that will stop the engine from working.

 

[latenlazy]

did you read what i said? everything is about the engine in the first place, intakes are designed to provided airflow that allows safe and reliable operation, lower pressure recovery means less reliability and more damages inflicted plus the possibility of flameouts that will stop the engine from working.

I did read what you said, and not only did you not say anything insightful, but you didn't even address the points of criticism. No one is disputing you on the importance of pressure recovery or what role inlets have or how the engine works. We're pointing out your conclusions about any plane with DSI being unable to operate at certain speed envelopes is unfounded because it's an oversimplification.

Every time you reply it's like you have this imaginary notion that I'm arguing the J-10B must be a mach 3 super-fighter unparalleled in the universe because it has a DSI inlet, when what I'm actually saying is the use of a bump inlet says nothing about what pressure recovery we should expect the plane to have. It's not as simple as saying "OH IT HAS A BUMP IT MUST BE OPTIMIZED FOR MACH 1.7".

Or I'm just wasting my time because you simply can't read.

 

[MiG-29]

I did read what you said, and not only did you not say anything insightful, but you didn't even address the points of criticism. No one is disputing you on the importance of pressure recovery or what role inlets have or how the engine works. We're pointing out your conclusions about any plane with DSI being unable to operate at certain speed envelopes is unfounded because it's an oversimplification.

Every time you reply it's like you have this imaginary notion that I'm arguing the J-10B must be a mach 3 super-fighter unparalleled in the universe because it has a DSI inlet, when what I'm actually saying is the use of a bump inlet says nothing about what pressure recovery we should expect the plane to have. It's not as simple as saying "OH IT HAS A BUMP IT MUST BE OPTIMIZED FOR MACH 1.7".

Or I'm just wasting my time because you simply can't read.

intakes have limits, do you think because the F-11 super tiger had fuselage compression was able to reach Mach 2.5?

intakes have limits, that is the reason the have different types depending on the speed planned, the DSI on J-10B is good for lower price, cheaper stealth and maintainance with satisfactory performance, however there are design limits, if you will fly Mach 3 on cruise flight a cone shock will be okay, but if you want a more maneuvrable fighter the 2D ramps of F-15 or F-14 are better, you see it on the MiG-25/31.

 

[latenlazy]

intakes have limits, do you think because the F-11 super tiger had fuselage compression was able to reach Mach 2.5?

Did I say they didn't? Did I say you only have to rely on fuselage compression?

Read what I said, not what you imagine I said.

intakes have limits, that is the reason the have different types depending on the speed planned, the DSI on J-10B is good for lower price, cheaper stealth and maintainance with satisfactory performance, however there are design limits, if you will fly Mach 3 on cruise flight a cone shock will be okay, but if you want a more maneuvrable fighter the 2D ramps of F-15 or F-14 are better, you see it on the MiG-25/31.

1) Yes, there are design limits, but you have shown nothing that demonstrates you can't design a bump optimized for speed envelopes beyond mach 2, and you have shown nothing that shows the J-10B itself isn't optimized for mach 2, except by pointing at the bump while ignoring other potential compression factors.
2)...do you not know what sarcasm is?

 

[i.e.]

ooooooooooooh you stunned me, fuselage compression is not unique to the F-16, the 1950s F-11 used fuselage compression besides Mirage 4000 and Mirage 2000, hint hint you are not the only one who can say riddles

Don't get snarky.

I mentioned fueslage compression because it is one of the things (that amongst many) that you neglected to mention with your insistence that only a variable geometry intake can go mach 2.

it;s not trivial either in case of f-16.

and...

I really want to see how you look at F-22 with its fixed geometry caret intake...
or even the YF-23.

another "slow" design perhaps.

come on, I am waiting to see whatelse you gonna pull out...

 

[plawolf]

Who is more foolish? The fool or the people who try to reason with him?

 

[latenlazy]

Who is more foolish? The fool or the people who try to reason with him?

Equal parts fool. But better just a fool than completely unintelligible