J-10 Thread IV

[stannislas]

Extremely strange that they’d use a batch 7 J-10C (iirc the change to WS-10 started at least somewhere during batch 6) equipped with AL-31, a new hud, and a radically different spine just to make a version allegedly dedicated to the aerobatics team (at least that’s the theory circulating around with this new pic, and the smoke generator pod on the pylon as well as the may-be smoke exhaust under the tail boom that Deino noticed seem to support the theory)

I think you may read too much over this particular 710, CAC engineers may just happened need to test the new spine or new hud and this 710 just simplely free to use at that moment...

this is a rather common practice in the engineering field, at the matter of fact, the recent F-22 test photo suggested the two test birds are the last production frame and one of the ealierest productions

 

[Chavez]

Conformal fuel tank in the future?

 

[plawolf]

Extremely strange that they’d use a batch 7 J-10C (iirc the change to WS-10 started at least somewhere during batch 6) equipped with AL-31, a new hud, and a radically different spine just to make a version allegedly dedicated to the aerobatics team (at least that’s the theory circulating around with this new pic, and the smoke generator pod on the pylon as well as the may-be smoke exhaust under the tail boom that Deino noticed seem to support the theory)

Sorry but that sounds like total BS.

The avionics spine would do nothing but reduce the agility of the J10, so why would they add such a feature to a dedicated aerobatics plane?

It’s even more absurd when you consider how recently the Aug 1st team converted to their current J10As.

If you were to say they were developing a new aerobatics model J10 based on the TVC J10B testbed, I might think it at least feasible. This suggestion makes zero sense.

 

[stannislas]

the only one thing i don't understand is that, since CAC has already introduce the new spine which will greatly alter the aerodynamic of J-10, why they not consider to add a pair of wingtip pylon to further increase the load capacity.

because think about it, the load capacity recieve the most criticism of J-10, and the new spine no matter if it's extra EW equipments or even fuel tanks will relief one or two pylons, why not release another two pylons by adding two wingtip pylons

 

[Gloire_bb]

the only one thing i don't understand is that, since CAC has already introduce the new spine which will greatly alter the aerodynamic of J-10, why they not consider to add a pair of wingtip pylon to further increase the load capacity.

It's very hard to imagine it wasn't considered.

 

[no_name]

The spine makes it look a bit more western for some reason. Like a cold war era fighter.

 

[Schwerter_]

Sorry but that sounds like total BS.

The avionics spine would do nothing but reduce the agility of the J10, so why would they add such a feature to a dedicated aerobatics plane?

It’s even more absurd when you consider how recently the Aug 1st team converted to their current J10As.

If you were to say they were developing a new aerobatics model J10 based on the TVC J10B testbed, I might think it at least feasible. This suggestion makes zero sense.

I have no idea mate, but in the photo it has 2 smoke generators under the wings and some sort of new pipe system under the tail boom that looks suspiciously like a smoke generator. Neither of these should be on a standard combat aircraft let alone a prototype. Trust me I’m as confused as you with this

 

[Schwerter_]

the only one thing i don't understand is that, since CAC has already introduce the new spine which will greatly alter the aerodynamic of J-10, why they not consider to add a pair of wingtip pylon to further increase the load capacity.

because think about it, the load capacity recieve the most criticism of J-10, and the new spine no matter if it's extra EW equipments or even fuel tanks will relief one or two pylons, why not release another two pylons by adding two wingtip pylons

I don’t think the wingtip pylons will do much in the way of solving the loadout problem that J10 has. Add a pair of wingtip pylons to the J10 and it can carry two more PL-10, but the pl-15 capability will still be 2 (4 if you use twin pylons), and the J-10 doesn’t really need 2 extra wvraam, at least not as much as it needs pylons that can carry bvraam or anti-ground munitions.

Also I don’t think the F-16’s way of carrying aim-120 on wingtips is replicable. iirc it’s done initially to reduce wing vibration and the weight at the wingtips apparently affects the structural life of the wings. Not a great idea all in all.

 

[AndrewS]

Shilao estimates the operating cost (per sortie I assume) of a twin engines aircraft to be three times that of a single engine aircraft equipped with the same engine.

That doesn't actually make sense.

At most, you would expect a twin-engine fighter to be < 2x that of a single-engine fighter equivalent.

 

[Mohsin77]

At most, you would expect a twin-engine fighter to be < 2x that of a single-engine fighter equivalent.