J-10 Thread IV

[Jingle Bells]

Wouldn't adding the spine increase the aircraft weight and decrease the ability to maneuver? I was reading that some people speculate J-10CY may be more for advertisement to foreign customers, and in the future the Bayi team will fly J-10CY as demo in countries that are looking to buy it.

Which is exactly what confuses me.
Aerobatic units are supposed to display maneuverability, therefore it would be good to have the most maneuverable variant as that. For team that uses F-16, it's the F-16 version without the CFT. For teams using F-18, it's the F-18A/B/C/D version without CFT, not the E/F.
It's a little strange to me that J-10CY would have a spine, which is supposed to make it a little bit less maneuverable. This is a strange choice, unless the spine had only negligible effect.

 

[Deino]

Which is exactly what confuses me.
Aerobatic units are supposed to display maneuverability, therefore it would be good to have the most maneuverable variant as that. For team that uses F-16, it's the F-16 version without the CFT. For teams using F-18, it's the F-18A/B/C/D version without CFT, not the E/F.
It's a little strange to me that J-10CY would have a spine, which is supposed to make it a little bit less maneuverable. This is a strange choice, unless the spine had only negligible effect.

Just to correct one misunderstanding ... this is NOT a CFT aka fuel tank but an increased spine most likely used for avionics on an operational bird and here for whatever - maybe for oil/fluids to create the colourful smoke

 

[Jingle Bells]

Just to correct one misunderstanding ... this is NOT a CFT aka fuel tank but an increased spine most likely used for avionics on an operational bird and here for whatever - maybe for oil/fluids to create the colourful smoke

What I meant was that the spine would make it possible to add CFT, acting like an adaptor. I am not saying that the spine is the CFT. However, I am not entirely convinced that it would be worth adding a spine just to add more avionics for "oil/fluid to create colorful smoke".

 

[Deino]

What I meant was that the spine would make it possible to add CFT, acting like an adaptor. I am not saying that the spine is the CFT. However, I am not entirely convinced that it would be worth adding a spine just to add more avionics for "oil/fluid to create colorful smoke".

No, surely never ever. The spine is just a spine just like the one on the F-16E/F or later Batch F-16C/D and not an adapter. The true CFTs would be mounted on the fuselage.

 

[Jingle Bells]

No, surely never ever. The spine is just a spine just like the one on the F-16E/F or later Batch F-16C/D and not an adapter. The true CFTs would be mounted on the fuselage.

Oh, I see.
So, that means for the J-10C, if they want to add CFT to the airframe, they won't need to add a spine?

 

[Deino]

Oh, I see.
So, that means for the J-10C, if they want to add CFT to the airframe, they won't need to add a spine?

exactly

 

[lcloo]

First I must admit that I am not an engineer, thus below is just a lay man's view and opinion. 2 diagrams are shown below, one is a J10 with-out the spine, and the other with a spine. Note that I am using a J10A diagram because I could not find a J10C diagram.

A J-10 with-out the new spine has a taller vertical stabilizer, consist of A + B.


Below is a J10 with a new spine that has a height same as the "root" of the vertical stabilizer. With this new spine added, the height of the vertical stabilizer is shorter than the J10 with-out the spine. Does this not mean that a "smaller frontal area" of its vertical stabilizer will meet less wind drag? Also the spine is not facing a front wind resistance because it is joined to the back of the cockpit canopy.

May be any member with expertise in aero-dynamics can offer their thoughts?

 

[latenlazy]

Which is exactly what confuses me.
Aerobatic units are supposed to display maneuverability, therefore it would be good to have the most maneuverable variant as that. For team that uses F-16, it's the F-16 version without the CFT. For teams using F-18, it's the F-18A/B/C/D version without CFT, not the E/F.
It's a little strange to me that J-10CY would have a spine, which is supposed to make it a little bit less maneuverable. This is a strange choice, unless the spine had only negligible effect.

Eh. Aerobatics units are never pushing the actual maneuverability envelope of their planes, *especially* in the ways where drag actually matters. What looks pretty in an airshow does not require having maximal energy efficiency or minimal energy loss on a high speed high energy turn.

 

[taxiya]

Does this not mean that a "smaller frontal area" of its vertical stabilizer will meet less wind drag?

Consider the spine being an elongated vertical stabilizer, your section B becomes the spine.

Also the spine is not facing a front wind resistance because it is joined to the back of the cockpit canopy.

Yes you remove section B's front edge hitting the airflow but increase resistance on the side of the spine.

The overall plus/minus is a complicated thing that can not be easily judged by just looking at it.

 

[Andy1974]

This is interesting, an F15 seems to have a lot of turbulence where the J10 has it’s spine. It may be that adding the spine improves aerodynamic performance in some cases.