PiSigma
"the engineer"
Sorry I don't know. I haven't talked to this uncle of mine for awhile. Also my uncle is semi retired now so only tells me general things/trends no details.
J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
So grainy. Hard to tell if it's PSed or real. So far, no one has called this PSed on Chinese forums yet.
Happy Christmas!!! Thanks and IMO indeed that's real.
Deino
I sort of do. Not as pronounced as the drawing suggested but marked different to a conventional J-10B/C. It sort of tapers upwards as opposed to the sudden step that was implied by the painting.
Quickie
Colonel
Good catch.
It could be a cut out of a real TVC nozzle (from a J-10 prototype?) photoshopped onto an unmodified J-10.
The excitement on Chinese forums is akin to when the J-20 came out. A wonderful Christmas present for China watchers.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Interesting that this is happening at roughly the same time as the J20 getting these engines.
I must say I am rather suspect of the testbed claim, as it would yield little utility to use a single engine fighter as a testbed for new engines for a twin engined plane. The FCS would operate very differently for single engined planes compared to twin engined, and the risks are far greater testing new engines on a single engined plane. Not to mention the timeline doesn’t really work, as the J10 and J20 are getting these engines at the same time.
It would have made more sense for the PLAAF to have provided one of their J11s as an engine test bed if that was necessary, since they already have a Y8 deducted engine test bed iirc.
All in all, the effort and costs involved in integrating this new engine on a J10 just doesn’t work out for a J20 test bed when compared to the utility and timeframes involved.
It very much looks like parallel programmes all kickstarted by the availability of the new engine.
Does anyone who if CAC retained any of the J10A prototypes or pre-serials as factory test birds? If they did, it would have made far more sense to use one of those if this was laying the groundwork for a new single engined 5th gen instead of pulling a brand new J10C and modifiying it.
I must say I am rather suspect of the testbed claim, as it would yield little utility to use a single engine fighter as a testbed for new engines for a twin engined plane. The FCS would operate very differently for single engined planes compared to twin engined, and the risks are far greater testing new engines on a single engined plane. Not to mention the timeline doesn’t really work, as the J10 and J20 are getting these engines at the same time.
It would have made more sense for the PLAAF to have provided one of their J11s as an engine test bed if that was necessary, since they already have a Y8 deducted engine test bed iirc.
All in all, the effort and costs involved in integrating this new engine on a J10 just doesn’t work out for a J20 test bed when compared to the utility and timeframes involved.
It very much looks like parallel programmes all kickstarted by the availability of the new engine.
Does anyone who if CAC retained any of the J10A prototypes or pre-serials as factory test birds? If they did, it would have made far more sense to use one of those if this was laying the groundwork for a new single engined 5th gen instead of pulling a brand new J10C and modifiying it.