kwaigonegin
Colonel
I think we all need to pool our resources together, chip in and get all our wall climbers a good DSLR with at least a 300mm lens.
J-20... The New Generation Fighter III
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
Equation
Lieutenant General
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/att...r-iii-121019165578155fa0a66a8_zps77b4c90e.jpg
See the "spikes" on lower portion of this previous picture? I think that's what he meant.
Engineer
Major
That's right, and for that exact reason the claimed benefits of TVC do not apply on J-20. That's because the deficiencies TVC supposedly solve do not really exist on an aircraft with canard configuration.
We are contemplating PLAAF's backup option because China's aircraft engine industry is still immature at the moment. TVC is going to compound the difficulties they face, so it is actually quite unnatural to consider TVC for J-20 at this moment.
Last edited:
I feel kinda bad now... because I'm still not sure I get it. Do you mean the what I had thought to be a crowd/line of "people" in front of the plane? Well, now I see that those things can be seen as a picket fence... But he said "spike" instead of "spikes", that's why I thought of the pitot (as a spike is a long piece of something with a sharp point).
I believe some of them don't lack the equipment. The problem lies in they are not allowed to use real good cameas with 300mm or longer lenses. That we can do nothing to help.
The good pictures that got "leaked" to us, judging by the angles from which they were taken, probably have come mostly from insider photographers.
Points 2 and 4 say canards generate less supersonic drag than tailplanes, not TVC. A comparison between A and B is not a comparison between A and C.
TVC may compound the difficulties, but at the same time we've already seen that the PLA has invested and researched the technology. There is only anticipation for TVC because that's what's been mentioned in whatever leaks and rumours we've been getting, and because we have seen experimental engines that demonstrate the ability. The engine industry may be immature, but that doesn't mean they will necessarily be conservative about their technological developments. If contingency plans are being made for a F119 class engine, they can also be made for an engine with TVC.
Engineer
Major
A claim saying A is better than B does not mean A is better than C. Here, A is the use of TVC, B is traditional configuration without TVC, and C is canard configuration without TVC. This is especially so when C is better than B, preventing induction from being made.
TVC compounds the difficulties, period. Given the engine department is China's main weakness, it is logical to assume China would be conservative in the development of J-20's propulsion. Even when being optimistic by assuming everything goes smoothly, the presence of TVC will still lengthen the J-20 programme by years. That will make PLAAF's anticipated IOC date of 2017 nearly impossible to meet.
Additionally, while China has conducted researches into TVC, the country has not shown commitment by actually putting TVC on a fighter for flight tests. For your argument to hold, I think we need to hear rumor about such flight test having occurred at the very minimum.
The contingency plan to TVC is not have TVC. Having said that, I do not think PLAAF has any intention of installing TVN to begin with. After all, PLAAF has a history of choosing operational reliability over theoretical superiority.
Last edited:
But the claim of C is equal to or better than A cannot be made either, nor is there any accounting for A+C, especially since A is not mutually exclusive from either B or C. It's a nice little rhetorical roundabout that dodges the primary point. Nothing quoted so far has indicated that canards are better than TVC in supersonic flight, nor anything proving vice versa. However, we do know that deflection of aerodynamic surfaces at supersonic flight does increase drag. Until you can demonstrate that canards either incur less drag than TVC or have benefits that mitigate increased drag in supersonic flight, this disagreement isn't going anywhere.
New technology compounds difficulty, period. I'm not disagreeing with you about the potential risks, but that does not mean they won't pursue it. A new engine could lengthen the J-20 programme by years, but that does not mean they won't pursue a new engine.
Nothing is ever conclusive with PLA watching. If we're going on the reliability of rumours, I have not yet heard rumours that they won't install TVC, but I have heard rumours for years that they will. This is simply a dispute about how ambitious China is willing to be. I think they will be a bit more ambitious. You think they won't be. No matter what we say, that won't actually tell us whether the J-20 actually will or will not have TVC.
To say that the contingency plan to TVC is to not have TVC is to say that TVC is part of the main plan
. The (or A) contingency to the WS-15 is to buy Russian engines with TVC. Both what you and I just said are a bit of speculative a red herring.Anyways, if the PLAAF really had no intention to install TVN to begin with, then rumours have been misleading. The PLAAF also has a history of taking on ambitious projects and exploring the feasibility of theoretical superiority if it means strengthening their hand. Like a stealth fighter, for example.
And this summarizes where we are, just because we can do something, and would like to do something, does not imply or demand that we do it. I will state once again that engineer is right on the money, and there is no evidence to contradict his assertion that the TVC is NOT READY, and likely is NOT DESIRED. If it were desired it would be flying on a Flanker in my most humble opinion, as all high perfomrmance aircraft engines are tested and developed on an airframe, in the air, flying in order to duplicate heat cycles and combustion mixtures at various altitudes and airspeeds.
- Status