*New J-10 Thread*
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
- Status
YES, ans as "ChairmanMAOhametI" (from CDF) found the FC-1 and J-10 are from the same picture !!!
... seem to be from the CAC airfield and the J-10 are ready to deliver !
Would be nice to see how recent this picture is ... and esp. to see the serial numbers on the J-10 !!
Deino :china:
I am not so sure about the DSI inlet. If stuff i've been reading upon it and its use on f35 are true, DSI would lower max speed of by a decent margin. And then j10 might find itself with a not so efficient wing which is currently, truth to be told, designed for fairly high speeds. If there was suddenly no need to go oever mach 1.8 it'd be better for j10 to have a lower sweep angle.
let's wait for the upgraded J-10 to come out. But yeah, thinking about the actual performance expectation of J-10, it doesn't make a lot of sense for DSI.
I can't see the Japanese being first with the AESA radar and putting it on a F-2, it's not even there best fighter. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the US already have about a 100 or so operational aircraft with the AESA radar? It would suprise me if this could be true wouldn't the Japanese air force put the AESA in the F-15Js instead of the F-2? I don't know about the naval warship but I'm sure somebody in this forum can help this poster with these two questions much better then I.
Not necessarily. Subsonic performance and maneuverbility is much more important than supersonic speed. If the DSI produces better engine output and response across all RPM ranges, it would compensate for any slight drag penalty. The J-10 has a raised sweep and aspect compared to the Lavi for example, and this suggests the PLAAF still values low speed performance greatly.
The DSI installed experimental F-16 used the weaker PW F-100 engines but the comments about it say the plane felt much more like ti was powered by the more powerful GE F-110 engine.
I don't think comparing it to F-16 is a fair comparison. If we use J-9's specs as basis, J-10 probably inherited some of the specs of having to achieve high speed and having good supersonic flight performance. I'm not saying that plaaf doesn't value low speed performance, but it doesn't ignore high speed performance either. I personally think DSI will be added on future J-10 variant, but we will have to wait for that to come out.
The point remains that DSI doesn't negate supersonic performance if it helps fatten the power curve of the engine in all RPM and altitude ranges.
The one problem I see is how the air compression cone that is created by the DSI will affect the canards. I remembered in one of the forums there was a submitted thesis to one of the Beijing universities exactly on the issue of DSI interference on the canards. There was also some submitted proposals by the author about a twin engined delta canard with the two side inlets that have DSI and the canards right behind them. This is a matter that have to be investigated through simulations and wind tunnel testing.
The one problem I see is how the air compression cone that is created by the DSI will affect the canards. I remembered in one of the forums there was a submitted thesis to one of the Beijing universities exactly on the issue of DSI interference on the canards. There was also some submitted proposals by the author about a twin engined delta canard with the two side inlets that have DSI and the canards right behind them. This is a matter that have to be investigated through simulations and wind tunnel testing.
- Status