J-15 carrier fighter thread

[Blitzo]

No. 557 ??!! Do we really have that number ?

I think 554 is confirmed, huitong mentions 557 possibly.

What was the reason for the speedy change, bad WS-10 performance in J-15s?

Maybe, who knows. But seeing as WS-10 was only fit on one, maybe two J-15 prototypes while the rest were Al-31s, suggests to me the navy wasn't intending on having the first batch of J-15s be powered by WS-10s in the first place.

Unfortunately we don't know what about WS-10 at the time may have been the limiting factor — everything from risk of corrosion to spool time has been considered and mentioned before — but we do know WS-10A is good enough for all new land based flankers produced over the last few years, so go figure.

 

[by78]

Another great shot of the moment the tail hook catches the arresting wire...

(2200 x 1101)

 

[kriss]

What's the little orange ring on the cable?

 

[ladioussupp]

I guess the little orange ring is configured to keep the cable separating slightly from the deck so as the hook can catch the cable.

 

[kriss]

No that's the job of a set of curved supporting structure on the deck which you can see in the photo at direct right of the watermark.

 

[Intrepid]

What's the little orange ring on the cable?

The arrestor cable is divided into three parts: left side going below deck, right side going below deck and the always above deck middle section. The little orange ring is a connector between two parts.

 

[Jeff Head]

No. 557 ??!! Do we really have that number ?

I hav never seen a 557. I have seen six prototypes (not including the J-15S which I have never seen with a number on it) numbered 551-556:

Prototype 551



Prototype 552



Prototype 553

 

[Jeff Head]

Prototype 554



Prototype 555



Prototype 556



I also like this pic of 555 and 556 together



...and this pic of the J-15S prototype:

 

[2=GT]

#117 spotted

 

[Jeff Head]

#117 spotted

View attachment 27670

Sorry, from my perspective, I am calling it a PS.

Zoom in on the number an it is clear that the "7" has been PS'd.

Almost like they took a "3" and turned it into a "7"...but PS'd nonetheless.

Here...take a look at it zoomed in and contrasted:



They could have taken a little more time and effort and at least made it look better...like I did with this:



But even that, if analyzed with the right tools would show it was manipulated.