J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread IV (Closed to posting)

[delft]

If WS-15 is indeed intended from the start to be a substantially higher thrust, supercrusing engine, then it is likely WS-15 would be significantly fatter than the WS-10 or AL-31 to accommodate larger mass flow through the engine. Also advancements in blade design and blade material, as well as practical 3-D flow modeling, should allow WS-15 to make do with fewer stages in both its compressors and its turbines, this should result in a shorter engine with significantly reduced part count compare to either WS-10 or AL-31.

This means engine bay of a plane designed for WS-15 would be able to accommodating WS-10 with room to spare in diameter. And a thrust adaptor could allow WS-10 use the mounting points inside the engine bay, while an insert at the end of the fuselage would allow the engine bay to accommodate a the longer WS-10

But the engine bay of a plane designed for the WS-10 would likely to very tight or too tight in diameter to accept the fatter WS-15. Such a plane would not be able to use WS-15 unless major forged structure members were heavily modified. If this is attempted in production it means very large up front investment in new tooling for new forgings and new jigs. If this is attempted in a test aircraft it means the manufacture of a one off, essentially hand built airframe.

While I accept Eng's point in #2660, I want to remark that the reshaped parts might not be forged but printed. In that case the modification is a lot less expensive.

 

[Deino]

'2011' ... come on !!!

 

[xiabonan]

Another very nice PS image from the same author

 

[by78]

'2011' ... come on !!!

Assuming the photo is authentic and not unduly manipulated, it appears the aircraft was airborne, with the gray background being the sky.

Or, the aircraft was parked on tarmac and photographed against the gray sky, but the photograph was cropped and rotated to achieve the airborne effect.

Such a good tease the PLAAF is.

 

[Deino]

To admit I don't know and even had the same idea but I actually don't think so since we surely would have heard or even seen anything. However it looks definitly not like the F-35's EOTS and my only conclusion was 2011.

Maybe it was - similar as done before every maiden flight - an aborted take-off or only front-landing-gear-up test, what could explain that angle too ....

Deino

 

[by78]

To admit I don't know and even had the same idea but I actually don't think so since we surely would have heard or even seen anything. However it looks definitly not like the F-35's EOTS and my only conclusion was 2011.

Maybe it was - similar as done before every maiden flight - an aborted take-off or only front-landing-gear-up test, what could explain that angle too ....

Deino

Yes, it could have been taken during one of the high speed taxi runs.

Also note the EOTS lacks the 'orange cover' as seen before.

 

[Franklin]

Can the J-20 supercruise with WS-15 engines ?

 

[Hyperwarp]

Can the J-20 supercruise with WS-15 engines ?

If it doesn't then something has gone seriously wrong...

 

[by78]

'2011' ... come on !!!

This photo reveals something new: the J-20 prototype has a functional EOTS!

I had thought that only an 'orange' mockup was installed, and the purpose of this photo may just be to prove it otherwise and nothing more.

It's possible that this photo wasn't 'rotated' after all: the airborne effect could be due to perspective and the photo being cropped.

In any event, I hope we'll find out soon.

 

[davidwangqi]

This poster of this pic said this thing was tested even long before the maiden flight of J20 in 2010.

To admit I don't know and even had the same idea but I actually don't think so since we surely would have heard or even seen anything. However it looks definitly not like the F-35's EOTS and my only conclusion was 2011.

Maybe it was - similar as done before every maiden flight - an aborted take-off or only front-landing-gear-up test, what could explain that angle too ....

Deino