PLA next/6th generation fighter thread

[sutton999]

We will see it few weeks before Trump move into office.

 

[Alfa_Particle]

Is anyone entertaining the possibility of the third engine being a RDE or next generation engine of some sort?

RDEs aren't suited for high AoA maneuvers and therefore fighters.

 

[latenlazy]

RDEs aren't suited for high AoA maneuvers and therefore fighters.

They might be if you couple a compressor with them. The RDE is basically a more efficient combustor.

 

[Alfa_Particle]

They might be if you couple a compressor with them. The RDE is basically a more efficient combustor.

Oh yeah I've never considered that. So is a turbofan with a RDE combustor a feasible and/or worthwhile design approach?

 

[latenlazy]

Oh yeah I've never considered that. So is a turbofan with a RDE combustor a feasible and/or worthwhile design approach?

I think it’s at least being looked at by some researchers. For example the idea below, which actually sounds like a more put together proposal than I would have expected wrt where I thought the state of research was tbh.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[AndrewS]

Maybe there is just no place for another traditional fighter jet in 6th gen, since they expect UCAV to be so good in 10 years. That essentially your 6th gen fighter jet is a super maneuverable AWACS

That is how I see it going.

But I would add that there is still a requirement to launch long-range AAMs, which benefit from the added speed of a supersonic launch.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

On that point, it is strange that there are rumors of a 3-engine configuration specifically. If two engines won't provide the kinematics/energy needed to make the target design function, a four-engine configuration would seem more conservative even if they had to design a new engine that wouldn't unnecessarily weigh down the aircraft. Assuming the rumors are true, I'd be very interested in knowing why, specifically, a 3-engine configuration was chosen above other options.

What's the aerodynamics difference between a 4 engine and 3 engine design if the desired TWR doesn't need 4 engines?

3 engines isn't any less balanced than 4. It's 1 less engine to maintain. And it can get air from 2 intakes just fine. So why add a 4th engine if it's not required?

 

[dasCKD]

What's the aerodynamics difference between a 4 engine and 3 engine design if the desired TWR doesn't need 4 engines?

3 engines isn't any less balanced than 4. It's 1 less engine to maintain. And it can get air from 2 intakes just fine. So why add a 4th engine if it's not required?

4 engine planes have many preceding examples in service. 3 engine planes are very rare. Such a large deviation from standard practice should have proper justification. Having 3 engines means that the plane's internals would need to see quite significant reworks to accommodate airflow both to the side 'conventional' engines as well as to the engine in the middle, potentially complicating the plane's internals further and negating whatever maintenance benefit having only 3 engines would provide. If more thrust or more power is required then a 4-engine configuration would be considerably more conservative and reasonable.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

4 engine planes have many preceding examples in service. 3 engine planes are very rare. Such a large deviation from standard practice should have proper justification. Having 3 engines means that the plane's internals would need to see quite significant reworks to accommodate airflow both to the side 'conventional' engines as well as to the engine in the middle, potentially complicating the plane's internals further and negating whatever maintenance benefit having only 3 engines would provide. If more thrust or more power is required then a 4-engine configuration would be considerably more conservative and reasonable.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

3 engine is reliable enough for commercial service. They weren't taken out for 4 engine jets, they were taken out for 2 engine jets when ETOPS was relaxed.

There is nothing unusual about the aerodynamics of a trijet. There's no instability. A centerline jet + 2 side jets has no more torque in event of 1 engine failure than 2 jets side by side.

There's nothing unusual about the intake relative to 4 engines. You need S ducts for LO purposes already so there's no direct line of sight from engine to intake for any jet configuration anyways.

 

[Atomicfrog]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

3 engine is reliable enough for commercial service. They weren't taken out for 4 engine jets, they were taken out for 2 engine jets when ETOPS was relaxed.

There is nothing unusual about the aerodynamics of a trijet. There's no instability. A centerline jet + 2 side jets has no more torque in event of 1 engine failure than 2 jets side by side.

There's nothing unusual about the intake relative to 4 engines. You need S ducts for LO purposes already so there's no direct line of sight from engine to intake for any jet configuration anyways.

That trijet is still a gossip but having 3 engines could also diminish the engine diameter size needed and help streamlining the fuselage.