Jxx photo revealed? please identify
- Thread starter kanonathena
- Start date
Indianfighter
Junior Member
The triangular wing of the proposed J-XX appears unique. But the lateral bulge due to the intakes is a little large according to me.
Here are the recently released sketches of India's MCA (Medium Combat Aircraft) along with designed specifications : [Courtesy of wikipedia and ADA]
Here are the recently released sketches of India's MCA (Medium Combat Aircraft) along with designed specifications : [Courtesy of wikipedia and ADA]
petty officer1
Junior Member
Don't be so quick to throw such words around. It's not Boeing, it's Northrop and McDonnell Douglas. Your source even says so.
So be sure you know what you're talking about as well before you criticize.
.Canard Vs Conventional Configuration
The debate between a canard vs a conventional configuration has never been fully settled, and is too broad a subject to be thoroughly reviewed here.
You should be aware that even with TVC, however, the canard does have its merits. To understand why this is true, we can compare the Su-30MKI (which has canards) with the MiG-29OVT/MiG-35 configuration (which doesn't).
At post-stall conditions, the vertical tail of both aircraft becomes ineffective -due to the separated wake from the fuselage. This means that the airplane loses yaw authority. On the Su-30MKI, the TVC nozzle exercises pitch authority, but not yaw. To compensate, therefore, the Su-30MKI adds a set of canards, which can be differentially deflected to provide yaw control in the post-stall envelope. The MiG-29OVT, in contrast, exercises both pitch and yaw authority via its TVC nozzles. Both solutions are technically correct, although the developers at Sukhoi have maintained that their approach adds less weight to the airplane.
Again, there are arguments to be made on both sides of the canard / horizontal tail debate. There is no simple answer.
The debate between a canard vs a conventional configuration has never been fully settled, and is too broad a subject to be thoroughly reviewed here.
You should be aware that even with TVC, however, the canard does have its merits. To understand why this is true, we can compare the Su-30MKI (which has canards) with the MiG-29OVT/MiG-35 configuration (which doesn't).
At post-stall conditions, the vertical tail of both aircraft becomes ineffective -due to the separated wake from the fuselage. This means that the airplane loses yaw authority. On the Su-30MKI, the TVC nozzle exercises pitch authority, but not yaw. To compensate, therefore, the Su-30MKI adds a set of canards, which can be differentially deflected to provide yaw control in the post-stall envelope. The MiG-29OVT, in contrast, exercises both pitch and yaw authority via its TVC nozzles. Both solutions are technically correct, although the developers at Sukhoi have maintained that their approach adds less weight to the airplane.
Again, there are arguments to be made on both sides of the canard / horizontal tail debate. There is no simple answer.
Did they actually say that? It does not make any sense.
- There really should not be any weight difference between a pitch only TVC nozzle and a nozzle with both pitch and yaw.
- At post stall conditions, you won't have enough fast airflow for control authority with the canards.
- And even if you do, the ailerons in the main wing would have provided better control authority.
- There really should not be any weight difference between a pitch only TVC nozzle and a nozzle with both pitch and yaw.
- At post stall conditions, you won't have enough fast airflow for control authority with the canards.
- And even if you do, the ailerons in the main wing would have provided better control authority.
Don't be so quick to throw such words around. It's not Boeing, it's Northrop and McDonnell Douglas. Your source even says so.
So be sure you know what you're talking about as well before you criticize.
Boeing owns/merged McDonnell Douglas, beside the J-XX won't come out anyday soon. the WS-10 is probably not going to meet the engine requirement of the J-XX from the PLAAF. Just follow the progress of the WS-15 and you'll know when it is about to come out.
Chengdu J-10
Junior Member
Reply to Challenge.
The proposed J-X with TVC and movable canard isn't that the Chengdu Super 10 project.
The proposed J-X with TVC and movable canard isn't that the Chengdu Super 10 project.
Last edited:
Chengdu J-10
Junior Member
I thought that the initial J-XX aircraft would be powered by the Lyulka AL-41F 176kN engines. The WS-10 engine has 130kN which two of these would be alright to power the J-XX. If you look at the Eurofighter Typhoon they are powered by 2 Eurojet EJ200 with 90kN each making it 180kN compare to 2 WS-10 with 260kN.