Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

It seems that we're talking about somewhat different things; we're not necessarily in disagreement here.

I was talking more about regular people, amateurs, military/defense affairs fans and enthusiasts who have keen interest in Chinese military/defense matters but are not necessarily professionals or don't know the language. In that case, relying on Google translator or other software as you suggested, is simply not sufficient.

On the other hand, if you're in the intelligence business or some kind of China analysts, you can invest a lot of resources and time into deciphering the messages and "codes." No doubt about it. But I believe the best way is still learning the language, in this case Chinese. I made the same point under a separate post regarding China's transparency in defense/military matters - in short, China is a lot more transparent than people perceive it to be, particularly when you understand Chinese.

MiG-29 said:

Man, math can be used to break codes, there is nothing special about Chinese, Japanese codes were broken in WWII thanks to math and other technologies in 2012 the computing ability makes that easier, plus chinese is a widely spoken language, so there are enough people in the west who speak Chinese to break codes.

And for experience i read japanese, so i know ideograms "Kanjies" are usualy forgoten unless you have a dictionary at hand, but computers do not forget, so a computer these days can be used to break codes and memorize all the written kangies.

All languages can be spoken in code.

Click to expand...

weig2000 said:

It seems that we're talking about somewhat different things; we're not necessarily in disagreement here.

I was talking more about regular people, amateurs, military/defense affairs fans and enthusiasts who have keen interest in Chinese military/defense matters but are not necessarily professionals or don't know the language. In that case, relying on Google translator or other software as you suggested, is simply not sufficient.

On the other hand, if you're in the intelligence business or some kind of China analysts, you can invest a lot of resources and time into deciphering the messages and "codes." No doubt about it. But I believe the best way is still learning the language, in this case Chinese. I made the same point under a separate post regarding China's transparency in defense/military matters - in short, China is a lot more transparent than people perceive it to be, particularly when you understand Chinese.

Click to expand...

i will tell you my experience, i am a western person, as a western person, i know how to speak some japanese and how to write it, so my experience with Chinese characters (ideograms) is only through Japanese.
I know both are different languages and the usage of the ideograms is different in both languages , however i can read some Chinese characters just by default because japanese still has many kangies with its original chinese meaning.
In terms of translation, google translator won`t be enough to talk or write, however in chinese as well a Japanese sites you have different translators which give sometimes a more accurate translation.

Knowing the language will help it is true, but i can tell you software is enough to have at least 90% of the text and knowing the language only helps if you want to make any official translation.

Why western observers mistraslate things about J-31? simple many reports take gossips as well as pictures written in forums as facts.

What type of engine does J-31 have? probably Russian websites will say RD-33, other western might say WS-13, i mean to be honest many reporters just say what is being said on forums because there is no official source most of the time

MiG-29 said:

Man, math can be used to break codes, there is nothing special about Chinese, Japanese codes were broken in WWII thanks to math and other technologies in 2012 the computing ability makes that easier, plus chinese is a widely spoken language, so there are enough people in the west who speak Chinese to break codes.

And for experience i read japanese, so i know ideograms "Kanjies" are usualy forgoten unless you have a dictionary at hand, but computers do not forget, so a computer these days can be used to break codes and memorize all the written kangies.

All languages can be spoken in code.

[video=youtube;9hAzmh6XSr8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hAzmh6XSr8[/video]

[video=youtube;JF48sl15OCg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF48sl15OCg[/video]

Click to expand...

I think you completely missed the poster's point.

Instantaneous G force is meaningless, any airplpanes can pull a high G for short period of time. If you're crazy enough, even B52 can pull 15G-20G. It's the sustained G force that makes a difference.

When talking about g-forces and agility, we can't not mention F1 cars. F1 car telemetries recorded up to 70Gs before in a crash, but that's not a real controlled maneuver, like the dive of Mig25 mentioned above. Red Bull F1's feat at turn 8 at the Turkish GP was a good example. They made record by going full throttle around turn 8, sustaining 5G's for about 7 seconds.

G-force is indeed highly reflective of a plane's agility performance, but only if it is controlled and sustained for a while.

mack8 said:

Pulling 9.9G is not an indicative of it's agility imo. Either by accident or pulling the stick very hard alot of (combat) aircraft can exceed their designed G limit , but that's not an indicative of their true agility. It's said somewhere a MiG-25 pulled 11G during some last ditch maneuver , but we can't call MiG-25 agile right ?

Click to expand...

Actually mack it is, the ability to MAINTAIN a G loading is a function of lift produced by the wing, the ability to pull gs is also limited by the strength of the structure of the airframe. The F-35 is able to attain and maintain a 9g turn, likely much better than you or I, also the reason that physiologically the Raptor has trouble, as its max rated steady state turn is 9.5 gs, as long as there is gas in the tank, and you can hang in there. When General Norton Schwartz states the Raptor will maintain a 6g turn at 50,000 ft and rhetorically asks? What other airplane can do that?, hes stating for the record that NO OTHER AIRPLANE, foreign or domestic will do that. The Raptor is brutal to fly to its limits, and yes Raptor drivers are super men or women, they must be in excellent physical condition to hang in there with the F-22! All fighter aircraft can exceed their design g limit under certain loads and circumstances, and they are all designed to exceed that by 1.5 without breaking, after that, you're on your own?

Your Mig 25 is not agile, and its not particularly strong, it is fast, but if you push the burners to full, you are basically destroying that engine. It is a very poor fighter aircraft for those reasons but it is fast and it has a lot of altitude potential. The Mig 21, 29, and 35, as well as the Su-27s, 30s and 35s are all outstanding fighter aircraft, and the Flankers are particularly agile and strong airframes.

In closing the J-31 will be a fine A2A platform and will exceed the expectations of the Fanboys by virtue of its lineage, and its planform is a very agile platform to start with, no matter what the Fanboys will imagine. If it receives the engine upgrades that are anticipated it will likely be as agile as the J-10, but that is IMHO. There are several engineers on our forum, there are even a few pilots, though I believe most of us are civilians. Of course the J-31s future depends upon whether or not it makes it through the technology demonstrator phase and into production, but it seems to be off to an auspicious start?

Air Force Brat said:

Actually mack it is, the ability to MAINTAIN a G loading is a function of lift produced by the wing, the ability to pull gs is also limited by the strength of the structure of the airframe. The F-35 is able to attain and maintain a 9g turn, likely much better than you or I, also the reason that physiologically the Raptor has trouble, as its max rated steady state turn is 9.5 gs, as long as there is gas in the tank, and you can hang in there. When General Norton Schwartz states the Raptor will maintain a 6g turn at 50,000 ft and rhetorically asks? What other airplane can do that?, hes stating for the record that NO OTHER AIRPLANE, foreign or domestic will do that. The Raptor is brutal to fly to its limits, and yes Raptor drivers are super men or women, they must be in excellent physical condition to hang in there with the F-22! All fighter aircraft can exceed their design g limit under certain loads and circumstances, and they are all designed to exceed that by 1.5 without breaking, after that, you're on your own?


In closing the J-31 will be a fine A2A platform and will exceed the expectations of the Fanboys by virtue of its lineage, and its planform is a very agile platform to start with, no matter what the Fanboys will imagine. If it receives the engine upgrades that are anticipated it will likely be as agile as the J-10, but that is IMHO. There are several engineers on our forum, there are even a few pilots, though I believe most of us are civilians. Of course the J-31s future depends upon whether or not it makes it through the technology demonstrator phase and into production, but it seems to be off to an auspicious start?

Click to expand...

Air force brat


Stealth also increases cross section therefore increasing drag
See a F-22 related patent by Boeing









however F-22 has a set of several weapons bays to reduce drag, the Russians also gave to PAKFA another arrangement to reduce drag

see directly from PAKFA patent


The invention relates to heavier-than-air aircraft and is intended for use primarily in highly maneuverable multi-mode aircraft operating at both subsonic and supersonic speeds. The aim of the invention is to provide the necessary durability and rigidity of the frame of the airframe with only a negligible increase in the mass thereof and the inclusion of large cutouts in the lower part of the fuselage for cargo compartments. At the same time, the technical result of redistributing the stresses in the load-bearing members of the aircraft airframe which are caused by external loads is achieved as a result of the judicious arrangement of the load-bearing members of the frame of the airframe. The structural layout of the fuselage includes transverse and longitudinal load-bearing members in the form of fuselage bulkheads (17-25) and longitudinal walls (26-29), respectively. A set of longitudinal walls (26-29) passes through the entire middle part (3) and rear part (5) of the fuselage. The centre section (12) is arranged in the plane of the maximum structural heights of the wing (section D-D) and is formed by the bulkheads (17-25). Large longitudinal cutouts are provided in the lower part of the fuselage for the cargo compartments (10, 14). The structural layout of the cutouts includes the longitudinal walls (26), connected to the bulkheads of the centre section (12).



Rafale for example can keep with F-22 in agility if very lightly loaded, however once loaded the jet will reduce turn ability.

F-22 is not so agile if you make it carry external weapons and you fit it with conventional nozzles you will see F-22 will struggle with F-15.


F-22 has good aerodynamics however the balance and compromise it has is no external weapons stores and TVC nozzles, same is J-31, it is boxy and has a small wing, in fact 4th generation fighters are probably as agile as 5th generation however they carry weapons externally.


I do not think J-31 is superagile, but i guess is competitive to an F-16 but i doubt it has the agility of Rafale.

F-35 also is not as agile as Rafale, but stealth and HMS are the main defence of F-35 and J-31s

Hey MiG-29 !!!

Please not again looooooong post about structure, RCS, systems or something else which could surely be done in the aerodynamics tread if it is NOT specificly related to the J-31 !

PLEASE.

Deino

They repainted the model at Zhuhai.

escobar said:

Click to expand...

The actual J-31 looks much better than the model of it. Does Shenyang always have such beautiful blue sky?

Quite curious that the J-31 seems to always has the helix like condensation trails at the wing tips.