J-10 Thread IV

[taxiya]

Buy different I mean China ground tested a system similar to the AVEN in NF-16 VISTA. Notice the difference in the petals compared to the Salut and the new WS-10 TVC system. The petals are not split. Former president Jiang Zemin got a chance to play with it when he was president. The nozzle was responding to the joystick movements he was making. There are supposed to be videos of this nozzle but us outsiders can't find it. This nozzle was indeed done by Shenyang. So they clearly had the tech but the new nozzle is a departure from that.

View attachment 46107View attachment 46105 View attachment 46104 View attachment 46106

I see, you meant the difference between the one piece paddle design and the two piece design.

 

[taxiya]

I’ve been thinking about this a bit too, and looking at how each design works, I tentatively think that maybe Salut’s design actually gets better angle deflection, or potentially less thrust loss. It may also provide better control over the convergent-divergent functions of the nozzle at different deflection angles. It seems to me at least that Salut’s design provides a greater range of nozzle geometry. Just an initial suspicion on my part though.

I have heard the opposite that Chinese claim that the design on J-10 has the least thrust loss among all similar designs.

My understanding of it has to do with the bulge. The bulge is caused by the placement of A9 arms further aft. This placement works like moving the supporting point in a seesaw. Moving the arm to one side will lead to less movement at that side and increase the movement on the other end. In the WS-10 design, the aft opening of the expansion section will move less, while the other end of the section at the throat (connecting the contraction section) will move more. That means the gas will begin to change direction earlier, already in the contraction section. While the other designs have the geometry of contraction section almost constant, relying mostly on the expansion section to direct the gas. My interpretation may not get the true point, but it is certain that the two designs are very different in internal geometry and therefor properties of gas dynamics. If the claim is to be trusted, the gain must be based on this design.

Another advantage of the WS-10 design is that the outside movement of the nozzle is less than other designs, but giving the same effective max vectoring angles. This is also big thing as there is much less demand on the aft fuselage. I would imagine that we will not see "violent" movement on the nozzles on J-10 or J-20 when they do the same extreme maneuvers as Su-57 or F-22 do.

 

[latenlazy]

I have heard the opposite that Chinese claim that the design on J-10 has the least thrust loss among all similar designs.

My understanding of it has to do with the bulge. The bulge is caused by the placement of A9 arms further aft. This placement works like moving the supporting point in a seesaw. Moving the arm to one side will lead to less movement at that side and increase the movement on the other end. In the WS-10 design, the aft opening of the expansion section will move less, while the other end of the section at the throat (connecting the contraction section) will move more. That means the gas will begin to change direction earlier, already in the contraction section. While the other designs have the geometry of contraction section almost constant, relying mostly on the expansion section to direct the gas. My interpretation may not get the true point, but it is certain that the two designs are very different in internal geometry and therefor properties of gas dynamics. If the claim is to be trusted, the gain must be based on this design.

Another advantage of the WS-10 design is that the outside movement of the nozzle is less than other designs, but giving the same effective max vectoring angles. This is also big thing as there is much less demand on the aft fuselage. I would imagine that we will not see "violent" movement on the nozzles on J-10 or J-20 when they do the same extreme maneuvers as Su-57 or F-22 do.

I was talking from the standpoint of comparing the Salut design to the AVEN, on the presumption that the design on the WS-10 is more similar to the former than the latter.

 

[taxiya]

I was talking from the standpoint of comparing the Salut design to the AVEN, on the presumption that the design on the WS-10 is more similar to the former than the latter.

Ok, I did not and still not get the difference between Salyut and AVEN. What is it? Am I right to understand your point that, Salyut design has less thrust loss than AVEN? If so, how does the difference works to this end?

 

[latenlazy]

Ok, I did not and still not get the difference between Salyut and AVEN. What is it? Am I right to understand your point that, Salyut design has less thrust loss than AVEN? If so, how does the difference works to this end?

The same way you described earlier for the J-10’s TVC?

 

[taxiya]

The same way you described earlier for the J-10’s TVC?

Ok, so it is the presumption that confused me.

 

[2=GT]

Low level

 

[jobjed]

Low level

Much better resolution here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[defenceman]

Hi can somebody give me some info about j10a upgrading status or PLAAF is ready to upgrade them or
They just concentrating more on j10bs and can those A’s be upgraded to B or C levels
Any learned member any info please much appreciated
Thank you

 

[Dfangsaur]

Hi can somebody give me some info about j10a upgrading status or PLAAF is ready to upgrade them or
They just concentrating more on j10bs and can those A’s be upgraded to B or C levels
Any learned member any info please much appreciated
Thank you

Don't think A's can be upgraded to B or C. Those air intakes are completely different and I'd imagine those are quite impossible to change. B's should be able to upgrade to C though.