J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread

G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
It is quite likely that the WS-19 and WS-15 engines use similar materials and technological solutions. So there will be some commonality to the design effort of both engines. But we have plenty of evidence that the WS-19 was in fact relatively advanced in design a significant time back.

The J-35, as a naval strike aircraft, is also better served with a twin engine solution since this might enable the airplane to return back to the carrier battle group in case of engine out. Something which is impossible with a single engine. This is much less of an issue with land based aircraft since the pilot has much better chances of escaping alive in case of needing to forcibly ditch the aircraft for whatever reason.
 
D

davidau

Senior Member
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
It is quite likely that the WS-19 and WS-15 engines use similar materials and technological solutions. So there will be some commonality to the design effort of both engines. But we have plenty of evidence that the WS-19 was in fact relatively advanced in design a significant time back.

The J-35, as a naval strike aircraft, is also better served with a twin engine solution since this might enable the airplane to return back to the carrier battle group in case of engine out. Something which is impossible with a single engine. This is much less of an issue with land based aircraft since the pilot has much better chances of escaping alive in case of needing to forcibly ditch the aircraft for whatever reason.
Click to expand...
twin engines always have a safety factor in case one fails, even for commercial planes
 
Lethe

Lethe

Captain
Blitzo said:
Uh the primary reason why WS-15 could not be used on J-XY/35 is because the WS-15 and the WS-13/21/19 are on different size and thrust categories, and the fact that J-XY/35 is designed from the outset as a twin engine aircraft with its fuselage and cross section all being sized for two WS-13/21/19 engines.
Everything else apart from those two factors is basically irrelevant.

In fact even the thrust difference isn't that important in terms of being the true reason why it won't work -- one only needs to look at the difference in size, i.e. the difference in engine diameter between the two.

Hypothetically replacing the two WS-13/21/19s with a single WS-15 means you are designing a whole new aircraft -- that is the biggest primary reason why J-XY/35 cannot be powered by a single WS-15.
It's like the idea of a single F135 replacing the two F414 on a Super Hornet -- it just wouldn't work, it would be a brand new aircraft.
Click to expand...

The F-5E powered by 2x J85 was re-engined into the F-5G (F-20) with 1xF404. That is arguably a more radical transformation than proposed here given that F404 weighs 1035kg against 610kg for 2x J85.

Obviously any such redesign would require significant development work, and in any case there is no clear reason to pursue such an evolution. But I think that to say it would be a "whole new aircraft" is a slight exaggeration.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Lethe said:
The F-5E powered by 2x J85 was re-engined into the F-5G (F-20) with 1xF404. That is arguably a more radical transformation than proposed here given that F404 weighs 1035kg against 610kg for 2x J85.

Obviously any such redesign would require significant development work, and in any case there is no clear reason to pursue such an evolution. But I think that to say it would be a "whole new aircraft" is a slight exaggeration.
Click to expand...

No lol, that is far less radical than what was suggested.
It isn't the weight itself which is the big factor but the size that each respective engine solution takes and the impact that a different one would have on the fuselage geometry and cross section.

Simply think about the fuselage cross section effects that replacing two WS-13/19 dimension engines with a single WS-15 dimension engine, and the effects that would have on the entire cross sectional mid and aft (and thus forward) fuselage, and the subsequent impact on weapons bay geometry and air intakes. After all this is a 5th generation fuselage we are talking about, not a 3rd generation one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top