J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)

[thunderchief]

So 12700 kgf for regular fn variant plus 1000 kgf for series 3 would amount to 13700 or 134 kn (134350 n to be more exact)

Something like that .

Just curious wouldn't that increase the weight of the engine, therefore more fuel use?

Increased thrust always means increased fuel use, but I don't know did they increase weight of the engine (most likely not much, otherwise China would not buy it ) .

 

[dingyibvs]

Just curious wouldn't that increase the weight of the engine, therefore more fuel use?

Don't know about the weight, but keep in mind that engines don't just propel themselves, they propel the whole plane, so a 5% increase in thrust would only be offset by 5% increase of TOTAL weight, which would be 500+ kg. It's unlikely that any weight change for the engine would come anywhere close to that.

 

[Franklin]

If its true that the new engines gives 5% more thrust and we already know that the J-10B is a much lighter airframe then J-10A. With more use of composite materials, fewer moving parts and a smaller airframe as a whole then the increase in T/W ratio of the J-10B over the J-10A could be quite significant.

 

[plawolf]

If its true that the new engines gives 5% more thrust and we already know that the J-10B is a much lighter airframe then J-10A. With more use of composite materials, fewer moving parts and a smaller airframe as a whole then the increase in T/W ratio of the J-10B over the J-10A could be quite significant.

Smaller airframe? Really?

As for the rest, you have to remember some weight might have been added as well, principly in the AESA radar, the IRST, and maybe in other avionics changes made internally. Thus the overall effect is unclear at this point.

 

[Solaris]

I thought J-10B's were using the domestic WS-10A. Does this indicate lack of trust in this engine, or inadequate production (I assume they are also going into J-11B/15/16?), or both?

 

[manqiangrexue]

Smaller airframe? Really?

As for the rest, you have to remember some weight might have been added as well, principly in the AESA radar, the IRST, and maybe in other avionics changes made internally. Thus the overall effect is unclear at this point.

I think J-10B's airframe was actually elongated by several inches (possibly nearly a foot) to accommodate improved avionics. It is, however, worthy to note that going from J-11A-J-11B, the airframe was lightened by composites but avionics added weight and the total difference came out to 700kg less weight on the J-11B. So I'm predicting from that, a drop in weight, but much less drastic, probably half or less the weight reduction going to J-10B from A (due to overall weight/ size differences between J-10 and J-11).

 

[dingyibvs]

Smaller airframe? Really?

As for the rest, you have to remember some weight might have been added as well, principly in the AESA radar, the IRST, and maybe in other avionics changes made internally. Thus the overall effect is unclear at this point.

I can't imagine a semiconductor based radar to be heavier than a mechanical radar.

 

[Equation]

Smaller airframe? Really?

He probably meant thickness of the frame.

 

[plawolf]

I can't imagine a semiconductor based radar to be heavier than a mechanical radar.

AESA radars are typically significantly heavier than PD radars on account of the much thicker radar array as well as the back end processing and cooling systems.

 

[Aeronaut]

Welcome to SDF Aeronaut. Glad to see you here.

Thank you. Would like to know your other username at the home forum