J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

paintgun

Senior Member
i think someone is having fun ;)

Or, "stress test" is the better word?

And, about the machinery, think it's more like "if you can't make it yourselves, see if you can procure the components abroad"...in this case, nobody would sell to China so they gotta DIY.
Click to expand...

the good bit we can extract from this news, is that the J-20 probably finished wind tunnel tests as early of late 2009, which coincide nicely with the time frame, from the first rumor of finished prototype in 2010, and first flight Dec2010/Jan2011
 
Last edited:
F

flateric

Junior Member
from T-50 science paper regarding methodology of using composites for prospective fighter, Mach 2.35 is a limit beyond which using current composites for aircraft becomes too complicated
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
flateric said:
from T-50 science paper regarding methodology of using composites for prospective fighter, Mach 2.35 is a limit beyond which using current composites for aircraft becomes too complicated
Click to expand...
Knowing how varied and complex composites are makes me question the generalisability of that claim.
 
A

antiterror13

Brigadier
Engineer said:
All J-10s that were crashed used Al-31FN, none used WS-10A. Most of the crashes were caused by lubricant issue from the Al-31FN. This doesn't indicate Al-31FN has better reliability than WS-10A.

J-10A is designed to use Russian engine. So when CAC builds more J-10As, of course they will have to buy more Russian engines. Again, this has nothing to do with reliability.

Production J-11Bs are fitted with WS-10As before J-20 had its first flight. If WS-10A isn't reliable, J-11Bs wouldn't entire serial production.
Click to expand...

oh well, J-11B is twin engine ... so it does make sense to use WS-10A, extremely unlikely both engines fail at the same time ... as you know the pilot should be able (in most cases) to safely land the plane with only one engine functioning. So using WS-10A for J-11B is a genius decision. It proves now WS-10A is reliable and PLAAF is convinced so they use it for J-10B
 
F

flateric

Junior Member
Hendrik_2000 said:
Are you saying you are the source of this news and now you denounce this news?
Click to expand...
show my where I was talking that 'I was source of this news'
my remark was about last part that you've marked bold and about its credibility. China yet has to go long way to achieve what Russia has now. I'm sure that this road will be done one day, but even after 20 years of stagnation we have gap.
Hendrik_2000 said:
For your information the director of this maintenance depot has been given public merit award
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that chief of 5719th Factory deserves it.
How that connected to 'bad reliability' of AL-31?
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
flateric said:
of course they were talking not of using carbon-carbon wing leading edges for tactical fighter (see paper subject again)
Click to expand...

No paper was mentioned in the post I quote (but I'd be more than happy if you link me :D ). Talking about a specific composite material's limits is very different from talking the limits of composites in general.

antiterror13 said:
oh well, J-11B is twin engine ... so it does make sense to use WS-10A, extremely unlikely both engines fail at the same time ... as you know the pilot should be able (in most cases) to safely land the plane with only one engine functioning. So using WS-10A for J-11B is a genius decision. It proves now WS-10A is reliable and PLAAF is convinced so they use it for J-10B
Click to expand...
That...reasoning makes no sense, not the least bit because the rationale for using WS-10s is not connected to whether a J-11B is okay if its engine fails, but whether the engine fails or not...period.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top