Jxx photo revealed? please identify

Big-E

Big-E

Bug Driver
VIP Professional
kyanges said:
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. ;) .
Click to expand...

It is pretty obvious it is the YF-23. The markings are even in the same place.

bw2.jpg
 
Last edited:
P

p2prada

Just Hatched
Registered Member
this is in reply to the MCA post

the pictures are not right.......the MCA has no tail

can u post the links for the ADA picture
 
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Chengdu J-10 said:
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.
Click to expand...

EJ200 is much smaller than WS-10. But I personally expect WS-10 to have at least 150 kN thrust by the time J-XX comes out and quite possibly in the 170kN range. 10 years is a lot of time for WS-10 to improve its T/W ratio.
 
Chengdu J-10

Chengdu J-10

Junior Member
Air intakes isn't an underbelly so its on the side. So this would eliminate a possible prototype of a new J-10? Though it is a single fin, single engine aircraft. Im still stuck on what it is
 
U

unknauthr

Junior Member
crobato said:
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.
Click to expand...

  • A TVC with both pitch and yaw authority requires an additional set of actuators. This adds both weight, and complexity (read "reliability problems" and "maintenance cost").

  • The US experimented extensively with using a canard for augmenting post-stall yaw performance under the joint US/German X-31 program. This experience directly influenced the design of the Eurofighter Typhoon (which at one time was seriously contemplating a TVC option).

  • You do not want to use the ailerons in this fashion - they already have their hands full in post-stall flight. Most aircraft will experience roll-reversal under these conditions. The flight control system will need all the roll authority it can get to keep the airplane flyable.

  • Lockheed Martin originally envisioned a canard design for their Joint Strike Fighter (now F-35 Lightning II) entry. The canard design did have advantages in close range air combat. However, since the primary role of the Joint Strike Fighter was the Strike mission, these advantages were outweighed by other concerns.

In practical usage, you want to enter and exit post-stall conditions as quickly as possible to avoid sacrificing too much air speed. The objective is to obtain a positive weapon lock and release the missile before an adversary has time to react.

For an air force that emphasizes beyond visual range (BVR) strategies, such as the US, this entire close-quarters fighter regime is of secondary importance. This was why this capability has not seen more widespread application in the West. Not all share the Americans' heavy reliance on BVR capabilities, however.

By the way: I met the late Dr Samoylovitch - chief designer behind the original Su-27 program - over a decade ago. I can assure you that Sukhoi evaluated a variety of options before adopting a canard for the Su-30MKI/Su-35 configuration. It took the MiG developers another decade to get there.
 
crobato

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
* Won't canards add their own actuators and therefore cost?

The thing is, this is an existing plane that is being modified to have canards, when the original design wasn't. This is not like the J-10 or X-31 or Typhoon which is built to have canards in the first place. [Please note the Super 10 variant of the J-10 adds 3D TVC to the J-10 canard layout, making it like an X-31.]

Every plane has stress lines running from the edge of the radome all the way to the mount of the engine. In order to have room to mount canards, you have to break those lines. This results in losing structural integrity, and you have to beef other parts in order to compensate, adding weight.

* You have to compare the weight of adding additional actuators on the nozzle vs. actuators for the canard + weight of the canard itself + structural modifications in the airframe. You will see A is going to be less than B.

* It is Sukhoi itself, now, that has reviewed in hindsight, that canards are redundant. Future considerations for TVC equipped fighters no longer have canards. Back when the MKI and the Su-37 was being designed, they didn't have a TVC 3D nozzle. Now they do.

I would likely to believe that the Su-33Ks China is considering to buy may also have TVC, with the engine core being Salut's AL-31FM1 and the nozzle via Klimov, a twin version of the engine proposed/sold to China for the J-10s. So you have a plane with both canards and TVC. But I do think the super maneuverability that results is more of bonus, the main intention for adding TVC to the plane is to assist the takeoff. Su-33UB has been installed with TVC nozzles and the Salut engine.
 
Chengdu J-10

Chengdu J-10

Junior Member
crobato said:
* Won't canards add their own actuators and therefore cost?

The thing is, this is an existing plane that is being modified to have canards, when the original design wasn't. This is not like the J-10 or X-31 or Typhoon which is built to have canards in the first place. [Please note the Super 10 variant of the J-10 adds 3D TVC to the J-10 canard layout, making it like an X-31.]

Every plane has stress lines running from the edge of the radome all the way to the mount of the engine. In order to have room to mount canards, you have to break those lines. This results in losing structural integrity, and you have to beef other parts in order to compensate, adding weight.

* You have to compare the weight of adding additional actuators on the nozzle vs. actuators for the canard + weight of the canard itself + structural modifications in the airframe. You will see A is going to be less than B.

* It is Sukhoi itself, now, that has reviewed in hindsight, that canards are redundant. Future considerations for TVC equipped fighters no longer have canards. Back when the MKI and the Su-37 was being designed, they didn't have a TVC 3D nozzle. Now they do.

I would likely to believe that the Su-33Ks China is considering to buy may also have TVC, with the engine core being Salut's AL-31FM1 and the nozzle via Klimov, a twin version of the engine proposed/sold to China for the J-10s. So you have a plane with both canards and TVC. But I do think the super maneuverability that results is more of bonus, the main intention for adding TVC to the plane is to assist the takeoff. Su-33UB has been installed with TVC nozzles and the Salut engine.
Click to expand...
I thought the Su-33 being sold to China are equipped with TVC engines.
 
U

unknauthr

Junior Member
Center of Gravity and Tip-Back Angle

crobato said:
* You have to compare the weight of adding additional actuators on the nozzle vs. actuators for the canard + weight of the canard itself + structural modifications in the airframe. You will see A is going to be less than B.
Click to expand...

It's a little more complicated than that. Adding weight to the nozzle will shift the overall CG of the airplane. Note that the maximum-aft CG location will be fixed by the rear landing gear location. Shifting the CG too far back will result in an airplane that will over-rotate on take-off and landing.

Any airplane that was not designed for this extra TVC nozzle weight (like the Su-27) will have to compensate - usually with balast (dead weight). The developers at Sukhoi concluded that adding a canard was a more effective route. They not only added balast (the canard and its actuators), but got some real use out of them. Overall, it was a lighter-weight approach than that taken by MiG (which had to make a variety of other changes to shift weight).

The other headache with a full-axis TVC system is the added complexity of the fly-by-wire software. The MiG-29OVT was the result of nearly a decade-and-a-half of development work, just to establish a flightworthy demonstrator design. Sukhoi was able to add TVC to their aircraft in a third of that time.

For an existing design, adding TVC is no small undertaking. For an all-new design, on the other hand, the available options are far more diverse. The debate between the canard and conventional tail option will therefore go back to first principals: What do you plan to do with the weapon system?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top