PLA next/6th generation fighter thread

[kriss]

Lack of engine is the best reason possible. And I don't see it as something insulting.

Like I said, if they really need more engine, four would be the natural next step. Not only it's more simple and similar to 2 engine design, it's been tried on many other aircrafts, and when finally a more powerful engine is ready, it's easier to change back to 2 engine. Going 3 engine because of lacking engine power doesn't make much sense.

 

[Gloire_bb]

I don’t think so. If a more powerful engine is developed you guys serious think it can go back to a two engine configuration? I don’t think the amount of redesign is possible.

Basically no, should be forever trijet.
It's possible to design another closely related aircraft on the same base, but still it will be a different aircraft.

Frankly I don't see why, 3 isn't illegal somehow.

Like I said, if they really need more engine, four would be the natural next step.

Four will give you more aircraft than you need. Like, if it's really 3, it means that study and optimisation (set of graphs early in research stage of new fighter) brought them to a specific point, which was better served by specific amount of thrust.
Building an even larger plane (outside of any semblance of fighter BFMs - 50t aircraft still can maneuver!) and paying for 4th engine just for aesthetic reasons is weird.

 

[Temstar]

Are there any examples of turbofan/turbojet aircrafts with shared engine intakes (i.e. number of intakes < number of engines)?

Original J-8?

 

[2=GT]

Are there any examples of turbofan/turbojet aircrafts with shared engine intakes (i.e. number of intakes < number of engines)?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Original J-8?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yes. But how would that even work here?

The J-8II is essentially a brand new aircraft compared to the J-8I.

 

[Temstar]

Yes, and how would that even work here?

The J-8II is essentially a brand new aircraft compared to the J-8I.

I think there may be a lot of viable complicated intake arrangements to support 3 engines. It's just since trijet hasn't been experimented much before we're not familiar with them. Remember this?

Instead of chin intake going to a single engine, you could have two side intakes going to side engines + a back mounted intake going to center engine.

I remember Yankee humorously referred to the split exhaust path of the front lift engine as "pants shaped exhaust manifold".

 

[tankphobia]

Whatever amount of celebration that occurs, I'm obviously not going to actively disapprove or criticize during the process.

However before it emerges I am trying to pre-empt things, saying it would be useful for people to think a little bit and calibrate the extent of their celebration and enjoyment accurately.

I still vividly remember the heavy attack helicopter thread and all the hype it built before the unveiling of Z-20 with guns lol.

Aerospace is one domain where the PLA is very conservative in, even with all the high credibility CN social media account posting I'd still want to wait for a picture before casting judgement.

 

[jvodan]

Indeed. Like, how would the aerodynamics even work here??

Even with the inlet and nozzle of the midline 3rd engine somehow blocked/covered up that are streamlined with the surrounding airframe body (in the case of reverting from a 3-weaker-engine configuration to a 2-powerful-engine configuration in the future) - The aerodynamic properties involved are still going to be very much different than having a fully functional engine inlet + operational midline 3rd engine + nozzle.



Are there any examples of turbofan/turbojet aircrafts with shared engine intakes (i.e. number of intakes < number of engines)?

Some 4 engine v bombers duct-ed one inlet on each wing to two engines

 

[Deino]

I actually think it's quite rational

USAF does not have "demonstrators" flying since years? It had maybe 1 or 2 YF or X type of aircraft that flew a couple of years ago. That's a huge difference. At this point, NGAD hasn't even picked a winning design yet. You can look up how long it took from Lockheed being picked as prime contractor for F-35 to when it achieved IOC.

Whereas based on CAC history, once the first "demonstrator" flies, it's about 7 years from joining service. Surely, you must see the difference here. We've both followed Chinese military aviation for about 20 years now.

This is a major moment when it gets revealed. There has been a lot of negative talks on NGAD program recently. You can bet that funding for NGAD will be flowing in once J-XD flies.

Agreed! And deep in my heart I see it exactly the same way ... however to celebrate I would like to wait until I see it indeed on my own!

PS: And yes, these two "YF or X type of aircraft that flew a couple of years ago" are indeed most likely not on par - program-status wise - as this XD-demonstrator, but we do not know what other types the US flew already.

Anyway, most interesting times ahead!

 

[siegecrossbow]

If you are talking about pure demonstrators the CAC has flown them in the early 2020s. More than four scaled demos to determine the optimal approach in fact.