Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

Status
Not open for further replies.
usaf0314

usaf0314

Junior Member
mady said:
what a smoke

and this one got much worse
150457f3hh6xw89d3d4zzc.jpg.thumb.jpg
Click to expand...

thats appears to be a mig-29
 
D

delft

Brigadier
Air Force Brat said:
Actually carbon fiber composites are very strong as long as the resins and carbon fiber maintain their integrity. They usually stress fracture from an impact or poor bonding of attach hardware, the reason that many strutures are built around and bonded to the attachement hardware. But whereas steel or aluminum bend and deform, carbon may fail catastrophically, as those stress fractures hide in the many many laminations, and radiate outward from the initial fail, where as with aluminum you may begin to see the stress fractures as they are usually all the way through a given piece of material. All structures will fail catastrophically if you overload them beyond their design limits and they safety margin, which is normally 150% of design load? Engineer, Jeff Head, TUP, usaf0314 will be able to be much more specific.
Click to expand...
You would include optical glass fibers or, as the length is limited, optical plastic fibers in the structure.of a part. Use LED's to see how many of the optical fibers are broken to determine when the time has come to replace the part.
 
A

a1a2a3a4a5a6a

New Member
Registered Member
gambit said:
Why is it insufficient? What you called 'stealth-shaping' is more correctly termed as 'radar cross section' (RCS) control methods and it is based upon a foundation of radar detection knowledge.
Click to expand...

Actually it is called Physical Theory of Diffraction. Calculating the RCS is only one application. There is nothing wrong to also call it stealth-shaping either. This is just a forum discussion.

gambit said:
My point is that Chinese engineers faces the same obstacles as US engineers, except the US have a considerable lead time in dealing with unavoidable problems, as in how to minimize their contributions to final RCS.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

gambit said:
And that is why I have never posited a hard figure, unlike many have. I do not have a hangar size EM anechoic chamber. Do you ? However, one does not need such a testing facility to know that a corner reflector is an immediate 'killer' to a design, or that containment of the quantity of radiation generators is important to a radar low observable design. Let me put it this way: Which is the greater RCS contributor, a flat plate in front or in rear, if the threat radar is from the front? I am not saying that the J-20's canards are that 'killer'...
Click to expand...

But the question wasn't whether a corner reflector is a killer, but how is the canard config compared to the tail config in terms of RCS? Let's say if RAM coating were to provide attenuation at about -20 db, then 2 bounces would become about -40 db and so forth. How can one even tell which config has a lower RCS, until all these contributions are summed? Merely mentioning corner reflectors here doesn't address the question of how much, as specific to each config and hence, no quantitative comparison canbe made.

gambit said:
The J-20's canards may or not may not show as distinct spikes but their signals that become reflected signals off the fuselage and the wings contributed to the fuselage's and wings' contributorships.
Click to expand...

Yes. But the tail config also has reflected signals contributed to the tail etc. Until all these contributions are summed as specific to each config, how can one even tell which config has a lower RCS?

Can we talk about the J-20 here too? I thought the subject is restricted.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
Air Force Brat said:
I specifically stated enemy aircraft, if you will note, there have been friendly fire incidents even in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I stand by my statement, this was an accident, there have been many more since we began operating unmanned drone aircraft to make airstrikes and there will likely be more? A tragedy of the Nth magnitude, but an accident none the less. The Israeli's go to bed everynight with their finger on the trigger, are they jumpy? not as jumpy as I would be.

Good point nevertheless, and point taken. AFB
Click to expand...
OT
If it was an accident the Israelies would have explained how it happened. But I still call it friendly fire.
 
P

Player99

Junior Member
Re: CCTV 4 discussed J-31

weig2000 said:
Very interesting CCTV 4 program "Focus Today," aired yesterday. The host and two guests from PLA had discussed several subjects, a lot of them about J-31 and its prospect as a carrier aircraft. One of the guest, Rear Admiral Yin Zuo has talked about J-31 extensively, among other things.

Here is the video:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

It sure sounds interesting, but I was too late to see it. It no longer is there.
 
escobar

escobar

Brigadier
Re: CCTV 4 discussed J-31

weig2000 said:
Additonally, Mr. Yin commented, in separate topic, that PLAN has much more powerful missiles than the Russian/Indian Brahmos. Not sure whether he refers to the rumored YJ-12 or the ASBM, DF-31D.
Click to expand...

you mean DF-21D ASBM?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top