Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

Hyperwarp said:

Nobody is always wrong. And even though b787's style of posting can at times be annoying it in no way means he is always inaccurate.

Plus, do you now the max speed of the J-10B/C? The mach 2.2 value is for the original J-10 with the variable inlet. Specifications for the J-10B/C including max speed in unknown. The original flanker top speed was Mach 2.35 but the Su-35S despite having far more powerful engines is limited to Mach 2.25. The reason speculated here is the modification made to the inlet to reduce RCS.

Click to expand...

Uh... ok, technically true that nobody is ALWAYS 100% of the times wrong (he said J-20 carries more fuel than J-31 and that was correct), but if someone is wrong 8 times out of 10 on main points, I'd just use "always." Are you saying you agree with his assessment here that in order for J-10 to meet enemy aircraft approaching its defense zone, J-10 must use so many of its hardpoints/so much of its payload on fuel tanks that it can only carry 2-4 missiles? Cus that's the main point here.

Yes, I understand that the mach 2.2 number is for J-10A but it's the best we've got for now to go off of. I believe (not sure) that the reason Su-35 suffered a speed loss is because they employed some sort of internal cover in the intake to diminish the exposed compressor fan's susceptibility to radar. I've not heard of this strategy being used on any other jet and I wouldn't for that reason take it as convention to downgrade the speed limit on other upgraded models (for which the limits are unknown) based on just this precedence. And even so, the loss of speed is not great, only mach 2.35 to mach 2.25.

I'm not even sure why the J-10 is related to the question if China should get the J-31 and Su-35 in a large scale.

manqiangrexue said:

Uh... ok, technically true that nobody is ALWAYS 100% of the times wrong (he said J-20 carries more fuel than J-31 and that was correct), but if someone is wrong 8 times out of 10 on main points, I'd just use "always." Are you saying you agree with his assessment here that in order for J-10 to meet enemy aircraft approaching its defense zone, J-10 must use so many of its hardpoints/so much of its payload on fuel tanks that it can only carry 2-4 missiles? Cus that's the main point here.

Yes, I understand that the mach 2.2 number is for J-10A but it's the best we've got for now to go off of. I believe (not sure) that the reason Su-35 suffered a speed loss is because they employed some sort of internal cover in the intake to diminish the exposed compressor fan's susceptibility to radar. I've not heard of this strategy being used on any other jet and I wouldn't for that reason take it as convention to downgrade the speed limit on other upgraded models (for which the limits are unknown) based on just this precedence. And even so, the loss of speed is not great, only mach 2.35 to mach 2.25.

Click to expand...

If you read the numbers it is obvious why it is so important that the Tomcats (Bs & Ds) can launch from the carrier without the use of the fuel-eating afterburners: An F-14B/D needs some 800 kg of fuel per MINUTE at maximum take-off thrust!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

this illustrates what you can not comprehend anything since you did not even guess why SR-71 and MiG-31 are so heavy. the answer is they carry lots of fuel.

J-10 is no exception, it will deplete its fuel in 2-4 minutes if goes at its max speed, before posting at least read.

J-31 with RD-93 is also limited to a few seconds in regular flights, supersonic speeds are almost never achieved except by aircraft like SR-71 or MiG-31 which carry several dozens tonnes of fuel. or F-22 and Su-35, Typhoon which supercruise.

J-20 is basically not in the league of F-22 despite the Chinese propaganda, and J-31 is even less capable with smaller fuel carriage and old engines

What kind of Chinese propaganda are we talking here?

China is maybe the nations which introduces new systems with the lowerst possible media attention, while even a new cooking pot would get advertised as "gamechanger" in the USA.

Also the mystical power of the F-22 which just plain lacks several common features of modern aircraft but okay.

b787 said:

this illustrates what you can not comprehend anything since you did not even guess why SR-71 and MiG-31 are so heavy. the answer is they carry lots of fuel.

J-10 is no exception, it will deplete its fuel in 2-4 minutes if goes at its max speed, before posting at least read.

J-31 with RD-93 is also limited to a few seconds in regular flights, supersonic speeds are almost never achieved except by aircraft like SR-71 or MiG-31 which carry several dozens tonnes of fuel. or F-22 and Su-35, Typhoon which supercruise.

J-20 is basically not in the league of F-22 despite the Chinese propaganda, and J-31 is even less capable with smaller fuel carriage and old engines

Click to expand...

I'm not sure at all why you posted SR-71 or MiG-31. They are big. They carry lots of fuel. They are no longer in production and they are obsolete designs. MiG-31 is a perfect example of how longer range and heavier payload can lose to smaller, nimbler aircraft with less range. It would have been in your best interest to not bring it up at all but obviously, drunk people don't know what's in their best interest so they just blabber.

3-5 minutes is now 2-4 minutes? Next post, it's 1-2 minutes, and then, you will say J-10 can not fly supersonic at all? LOLOL Look at your evidence! It's garbage, just like I suspected. F-14 is an aircraft that is much larger and more than twice the empty weight of the J-10 and also, it has 2 older engines consuming fuel at once. You need a source for the J-10! Stop posting drunk! LOL

The only "stealth" fighter not in the league of the others is the low budget, Soviet technology, Su-27 run-off, catches fire on the runway, junk hanging off it like a Christmas tree, compressor fan sticking out, behind schedule, reduced numbers, sell to anyone with a buck cus it has no technology worth protecting, car salesman's worst nightmare, no stealth fake "stealth fighter" PAK FA.

Could it be that someone is trying so desperately hard to elevate the importance of internal fuel because a certain stealth flanker is thought to carry huge amounts of it?

High internal fuel volumes can be both a good and a bad thing. Even a flanker flies sluggishly if you catch it with full internal tanks.

Unlike fighters with drop-tanks, a fighter with huge volumes of internal fuel cannot shed the extra weight instantly as you could with drop tanks. They can dump it, but that takes more time and leaves a big contrail behind you, which is not ideal.

Also, it's pretty nonsensical to suggest dash speed doesn't matter. The whole point with dash speed is that it's a dash.

You kick into reheat to get to max speed, loose missiles and can go back to military power. No one with a clue would fight an entire BVR engagement in reheat. What would be the point in that?!

Indeed, everything else being equal, if you have the speed (and therefore range) advantage on the foe, you will even want to actively slow down after loosing missiles to reduce closing speeds. That way, your missile will enter seeker range before the enenmy's, freeing you to do evasives while the enemy needs to keep their nose pointed at you in order to maintain guidence for his missile, making him having to make difficult choices.

manqiangrexue said:

I'm not sure at all why you posted SR-71 or MiG-31. They are big. They carry lots of fuel. They are no longer in production and they are obsolete designs. MiG-31 is a perfect example of how longer range and heavier payload can lose to smaller, nimbler aircraft with less range. It would have been in your best interest to not bring it up at all but obviously, drunk people don't know what's in their best interest so they just blabber.

3-5 minutes is now 2-4 minutes? Next post, it's 1-2 minutes, and then, you will say J-10 can not fly supersonic at all? LOLOL Look at your evidence! It's garbage, just like I suspected. F-14 is an aircraft that is much larger and more than twice the empty weight of the J-10 and also, it has 2 older engines consuming fuel at once. You need a source for the J-10! Stop posting drunk! LOL

The only "stealth" fighter not in the league of the others is the low budget, Soviet technology, Su-27 run-off, catches fire on the runway, junk hanging off it like a Christmas tree, compressor fan sticking out, behind schedule, reduced numbers, sell to anyone with a buck cus it has no technology worth protecting, car salesman's worst nightmare, no stealth fake "stealth fighter" PAK FA.

Click to expand...

It is obvious you do not get what is specific fuel consumption, a Al-31 will use close to 25000 kg an hour, in full afterburner. your are so arrogant and which such lack of humility to admit afterburner is only used seconds in regular flight, why because the Al-31F has a SFC of 1.9 at full afterburner.
Your J-10 will need 22500 kg of fuel per hour at full afterburner, that is around 375 kg a minute! your J-10 will gulp in 3 minutes more than 1000kg of fuel.

Your reasoning is so poor that you think your J-10 will accelerate from 600km/h to 2400km/h in one second, the J-10 will take minutes to do that, meaning that by the time your aircraft has gulp all its fuel and has reduced its range.


MiG-31 has for such 20000kg of fuel so its afterburners allow 20 minutes at Mach 2.35, but your J-10 with 3000kg will fly 2-3 minutes and that is it, your hornet already fired its SAM at shorter distance haha

RD-93 is not different and it flies with 2 engines So J-31 can not supercruise, J-20 can not supercruise either but by being large can carry more fuel like MiG-31, So China gives priority to the J-20, only fanboys like you say it s because its canards

plawolf said:

Could it be that someone is trying so desperately hard to elevate the importance of internal fuel because a certain stealth flanker is thought to carry huge amounts of it?

.

Click to expand...

make your self a favor read and study



when you read that you will see how ignorant you are

I don't know what you guys are arguing about however a F-18 will be empty in full burner in about 8 minutes assuming internal load only.
Of course altitude plays a role, higher better but sea level it will be gone in a jiffy.

It's all theoretical anyway. I don't think anyone has seen a jet flies sea level in full burn from start to finish!
Well for one the pilot will be dead and with him goes a $50 million jet!

kwaigonegin said:

I don't know what you guys are arguing about however a F-18 will be empty in full burner in about 8 minutes assuming internal load only.
Of course altitude plays a role, higher better but sea level it will be gone in a jiffy.

It's all theoretical anyway. I don't think anyone has seen a jet flies sea level in full burn from start to finish!
Well for one the pilot will be dead and with him goes a $50 million jet!

Click to expand...

The point is to see why J-31 has low priority, the Sr-71 carried close to 50 tonnes of fuel, this allowed it to fly a Mach 3.3 for very long time, J-10 carries much much less in internal fuel only, and so is J-31, since J-31 has not supercruising engines, then its ability to fight a F-22 is none, at BVR the Raptor will be the winner and at close combat too F-22 has TVC nozzles, J-20 in the other hand has a larger fuselage with more volume than the F-22, its engines can not supercruise at this moment, but can carry more fuel, this means longer patrol times and longer dashes at supersonic speeds than J-31, so for practical matters the J-20 makes more sense, but J-31 is the aircraft that has better stealth shaping, J-20 has inferior stealth shaping than J-31 but is a larger aircraft and this is a good plus