J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
But is this true? I remember that rumour popped up when the 2001 demonstrator flew in 2011, but I never read any conclusive proof.
Let’s say, I will not be surprised if it’s true. They both subsidiaries of AVIC, and CAC was SAC southwest division for significant period of time. So they are not like Boeing to Lockheed or Sukhoi to Mikoyan, SAC and CAC has a much closer relationship.
Also there is people like YangWei from CAC is in manager role at AVIC, who has control/influence over SAC design decisions, so it’s possible that there are similar personals during J-20 design that make this happened.
So it’s possible, and won’t make me surprise if it happened, but no, I don’t have concrete evidence beside some words suggested by some “informed sources” over the years…
How could this be true. Just look at the tail of J-31, they changed it in the second prototype.Do they know what they were doing, especially if they designed the J-20 tail? Not saying that design can't be changed but I was disgusted.
So you are saying, since sac once did full maneuverable tail they can’t do other tails?
Have you realize that vertical tails have another function to keep the aircraft horizontal stable, for j-20 to have the full maneuverable tail, it has to add a ventral fin to compensate, whereas fc-31 doesn’t have that.
Plus, this is a major design choice of overall aerodynamic in a whole, if SAC’s work is only in the rear areas of j-20, than it has no say in if j-20 should have a fully maneuverable tail + ventral fin at all, not even to the general shape of the tail and fin, but only detail up designs.
also have you ever think about if a carrier base aircraft should have ventral fins or not? if it can’t have that, than of course it’s had for fc-31 to have the fully maneuverable tails
That's exactly why I was disgusted! major design change between first prototype and second prototype...
Oh man then you'll have quite some disgust-ing to do, it is not at all uncommon for a first prototype or a concept-proving aircraft (which I personally see the V1.0 as) to have quite different designs as the final product. The two prototypes of YF-23 have different rear fusalage designs (IIRC one was a direct continuation of the initial design when the USAF asked for reverse thrust, and the other was not); YF-22's tail plane design was different than the final product, T-10 and T-10M are basically two different beasts, F-35 got quite a bit stouter when compared to the X-35, the list just goes on and on and on. To list a few more domestic examples: JF-17's first prototype had different intakes than the final product and J-20's lerx design changed during the prototyping phase
Also, aerodynamic changes can happen for a number of reasons, such as changes in requirements (whether from the military or within the design institution) or problems discovered in flight tests. Sure it can point toward the design team doing a bad job on the first version, but it can also point at a lot of other things so I don't see why one should feel "Disgusted" with a design change. Unless you are suggesting that once an aircraft desoign is built as prototype it should be set in stone and not changed no matter what the test results say, and designers should ignore any further ideas on how to improve its performance, I suggest that you reevaluate your views on this matter.
Are you blind?
I specifically said:" Not saying that design can't be changed".
I was disgusted especially because of the claim that 601 worked on the tail of J-20. My ass.
So much for your enlightening!
I do believe that 601 is working on a design. Whether 611 is working on another one, I don't know, but seems unlikely to me.
By zero credibility I mean the claim that it'll fly by the end of the year. We'll see.
This is exactly the "drama in brain" mentioned a page earlier.