New J-10 thread II

[tphuang]

I previously posted data on the J-10's alleged features, but after watching that video of the J-10 taking off and IMMEDIATELY going for a climb, I think my data is wrong, but then I am no aerospace engineer, just a fan of military stuff. That fast climbing J-10 may show that the J-10 has a weight-to-thrust ratio that is greater than previously expected, or the J-10 in that video carried minimal internal fuel to perform that routine, or the J-10 in the video was an early J-10 with minimal weight, or the J-10 in the video was a modified version with decreased weight and increased engine power.

This is my best guess of the J-10's features (don't slam me if I seem way off):

Empty Weight: 14,000-lb to 18,000-lb
(The J-10 may be using lots of advanced materials from advanced metal alloys and nonmetallic composites to decrease its radar signature, heat signature, and weight plus increase its durability.)

Wing Area: 350 sq-ft to 500 sq-ft

Maximum Military Thrust (Russian Engine vs Chinese Engine): 17,860-lb vs 16,500-lb
Maximum Afterburner Thrust (RE vs CE): 27,557-lb vs 24,000 lb
Engine's Highest Thrust-to-Weight Ratio (RE vs CE): 7.5:1 vs 9:1


TPHuang, you seem to be the most knowledgeable here about the J-10. Can you give us what you think are the J-10's features? How would you compare the J-10's WS10A engine to the Super Hornet's General Electric F414?


If I can't use blue font, then I offer precocious apologies to the moderators.

we will have to wait for these numbers to come out. Crobato has been following J-10 for longer, so I will defer to his analysis on this.

As for J-10 weight, people keep on using F-16C as a guidance, but it's not. J-10 is designed for A2A right now, meaning that it's structure might not be built to handle carrying AShM and ground attack missile. As I always said, use JF-17 and J-8II as a guidance for J-10's weight.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

As for J-10 weight, people keep on using F-16C as a guidance, but it's not. J-10 is designed for A2A right now, meaning that it's structure might not be built to handle carrying AShM and ground attack missile. As I always said, use JF-17 and J-8II as a guidance for J-10's weight.

But the F-16C is in between the JF-17 and J-8II in empty weight!!

 

[tphuang]

But the F-16C is in between the JF-17 and J-8II in empty weight!!

block 50/52 is pretty close to j-8II. J-10 is much closer to the JF-17 side.

 

[duskylim]

Which is cheating. If the J-10 does the same thing I would accuse it of cheating as well. There is nothing 'vertical' about that sort of take off.

That being said, I would agree it is an impressive climb out.

Yes it is. And like the Russian journalist noted (and the videos reveal) there was very little movement of canards and elevators during takeoff, nor did the pilot seem to use the afterburner.

All this points to a definite potential for carrier operations, don't you think?

 

[Munir]

If you have only moving parts at the end of your main wings (delta a la mirage 2000) then you have to move a lot more then if you have canards (a la j10)...

Take off is impressive if you are a lot faster up then a F15. And if you can follow that with a steaper climb... That is much more impressive then taking som time to get speed and then go vertical (a la F22).

 

[dlhh]

Hi Guys,

Just found a picture of the latest J-10 without the six beams on the air intake. Apparently the beams were seriously comprising the RCS of the J-10.

How real is this photograph?

 

[Deino]

Hi Guys,

Just found a picture of the latest J-10 without the six beams on the air intake. Apparently the beams were seriously comprising the RCS of the J-10.

How real is this photograph?

Actually ... I don't know !

I think I've seen this picture and another one see below about 1 or 3/4 year ago at CDF and my first impression was that it looked too much like a PSed Fake.

To say these beams were gone ... I think the picture is too small to say for sure as they could have been removed quite easy.
On the other side the comouflage reminds me very much to the pre-serials with a change in colour made via Photoshop too esp. as this is one of the earlier birds with the 2-part-front gear doors.

Otherwise it could be a modified pre-serial to test the new intake configuration.

Deino

 

[PrOeLiTeZ]

Hi Guys,

Just found a picture of the latest J-10 without the six beams on the air intake. Apparently the beams were seriously comprising the RCS of the J-10.

How real is this photograph?

you mean the strutts that divert and break up the airflow. i dont see how the strutts can comprise or increase the RCS. maybe minor on the front but from top, bottom and rear it doesnt. rcs is the surface area of the fighter, construction materials that alter the rcs. and maybe its me but the turbofan looks different to the ones usually seen.

 

[Quickie]

It seems like the struts were removed and the air intake is now lying much closer to the fuselage. So,it wasn't just an easy photoshop job of removing the struts but one with much more effort. This version of the J-10 looks prettier and, if it's really photoshoped, they must have reasons to have a more separated air intake requiring the struts to be added.

 

[Deino]

It seems like the struts were removed and the air intake is now lying much closer to the fuselage. So,it wasn't just an easy photoshop job of removing the struts but one with much more effort. This version of the J-10 looks prettier and, if it's really photoshoped, they must have reasons to have a more separated air intake requiring the struts to be added.

To be honest ... this picture is too small to say for sure the intake is lying much closer to the fuselage.
IMO it's just one of the pre-serials doctored with PS, esp. as its definitly an early machine.

Deino