WS-13 variant with serrated nozzles. We have seen this engine flying on the FC-31 prototype for a while now.
J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
What is the difference? I think it is like 2001 and 2002 of J-20. So I guess it is 3rd overall.
Is the hull design geometry of this aircraft considerably better than the J-20, being the result of considerable iterative learning since the days when the J-20 was developed?
Reason I ask is it lacks the canards and ventral fins of the J-20.
Reason I ask is it lacks the canards and ventral fins of the J-20.
how can you even compare two different aero configuration? the j20 featuring leveled canard+fairing+delta+moveable rear wings are insane setup demanding crazy flight control to stabilize the bird. whereas all others opted for the conventional swept wing that's more easy to handle not because it's better....
Wasn't the conventional wisdom behind the J-20 using canards was *because* the PRC aerospace industry's understanding of advanced flight stability systems wasn't yet deep enough to enable a canard-less/ventral-less design?
In terms of "insane setup"-yes mechanically it has more outward components, but simply having lots of visible control surfaces is not necessarily a sign of underlying design sophistication. Else flying wings would be considered to be primitive aerospace technology.
Nope, this isn’t really about whether the Chinese aviation industry is advanced enough for certain configurations. J-20 got its aerodynamic design because it is the one that best fits its requirements, just as the J-35’s aerodynamic design is best suited for its own role. Comparing the level of advance-ness by eyeballing the two airframes and counting the wing surfaces just isn’t going to give you a true and useful result.
To elaborate a bit based on my own limited knowledge, the J-20 is required to have a rather exceedingly large range, good maneuverability especially in supersonic ranges, good LO characteristics. It’s intended for combat environments that have relatively few sensors (AKA above oceans and such) and is geared more toward hunting down high-value targets than anything else in particular. The end result is a large airframe to hold enough fuel & weapon bays, canard-delta configuration with relaxed stability to reduce drag especially during the supersonic phase (where the aerodynamic center will shift aft) and all-moving tails to reduce the wetted area, weight and to have a larger moving surface to control yaw, possibly for advantages at higher mach numbers. The ventral fins are there because the all-moving tails are rather small for the J-20’s size and to provide yaw stability especially when at an higher aoa, when the tail-planes risk being blocked by the fuselage and wings. So as I said it isn’t about them being limited in ability and “have to have so many aero surfaces”, it’s about this configuration performing best in what the jet’s supposed to do.
Last edited:
Sidebay for TY-90.
P.S. I am just joking. Probably it is used for maintenance purpose? Not exactly sure.
There are many kinematic benefits to introducing a second surface to an aircraft. Otherwise, you ran into the problem of changing wing camber during pitching. The J-20 has canards because they improve its kinematics. Canards are destabilizing design features themselves. You can be sure that the J-20 doesn't have them for stability.
Maintenance hatch most likely, I remember the fc-31 ver 1.0 having a (albeit with different design) hatch at roughly the same place.
Ventral strakes are needed because the all moving vertical slabs are too small to maintain lateral stability at high AOA. J-35/FC-31 don't use all moving slabs, so no need for strakes.
Also, flight control for canards are a lot more complicated than those for conventional aircraft assuming same degree of relaxed stability.