J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
I don't think i've seen this posted.
Just a beautiful image.
Caret style intakes are inferior. Wildly inferior it's funny even a 5th gen fighter would apply that design.
F-22 applied caret because the technology for DSI was still at concept stage in the US when the F-22 was designed and in production. The Americans would have applied DSI on F-22 if the technology for DSI was completed before the F-22 design was frozen.
The F-16 technology demonstrator applied a very early static DSI technology which assisted with F-35's DSI development no doubt but China's DSI tech is dynamic. American DSI apparently isn't able to vary airflow while the Chinese ones can. Push through Mach 2 is possible with the variable DSI that is on the J-20.
J-36 played with caret style for speed in prototype 36001 but following prototypes went with DSI intakes. It's a fighter that is designed to fly past Mach 2. There is zero point in using a caret intake if your fighter is designed to fly below Mach 2. Prototype 36001 clearly tests above Mach 2 and it's possible the engineers wanted to test a caret intake and/or the variable DSI for J-36 wasn't ready by 36001 completion.
No manned Chinese fighter since the introduction of JF-17 in late 2000s have used anything other than DSI. It is by far a superior intake for fighters that fly between 0 and Mach 2. For the J-20 they designed a novel DSI that moderates airflow probably using dynamic ventilation method, allowing the intake's optimisation to vary and achieve >Mach 2.
No manned fighter will use the caret intake anyway. The Type A/B UADF applies the caret intake because it's probably designed to go beyond Mach 2 and it's a cheaper and easier way compared to the complex variable DSI that is used on J-20 and probably the 6th gens.
It's unknown what novel intake type the J-50 uses but we know it's got DSI like humps and is not a caret.
Caret is inferior because it is far less stealthy than a DSI.
F-22 applied caret because the technology for DSI was still at concept stage in the US when the F-22 was designed and in production. The Americans would have applied DSI on F-22 if the technology for DSI was completed before the F-22 design was frozen.
The F-16 technology demonstrator applied a very early static DSI technology which assisted with F-35's DSI development no doubt but China's DSI tech is dynamic. American DSI apparently isn't able to vary airflow while the Chinese ones can. Push through Mach 2 is possible with the variable DSI that is on the J-20.
J-36 played with caret style for speed in prototype 36001 but following prototypes went with DSI intakes. It's a fighter that is designed to fly past Mach 2. There is zero point in using a caret intake if your fighter is designed to fly below Mach 2. Prototype 36001 clearly tests above Mach 2 and it's possible the engineers wanted to test a caret intake and/or the variable DSI for J-36 wasn't ready by 36001 completion.
No manned Chinese fighter since the introduction of JF-17 in late 2000s have used anything other than DSI. It is by far a superior intake for fighters that fly between 0 and Mach 2. For the J-20 they designed a novel DSI that moderates airflow probably using dynamic ventilation method, allowing the intake's optimisation to vary and achieve >Mach 2.
No manned fighter will use the caret intake anyway. The Type A/B UADF applies the caret intake because it's probably designed to go beyond Mach 2 and it's a cheaper and easier way compared to the complex variable DSI that is used on J-20 and probably the 6th gens.
It's unknown what novel intake type the J-50 uses but we know it's got DSI like humps and is not a caret.
Caret is inferior because it is far less stealthy than a DSI.