Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

Status
Not open for further replies.

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
I GOT THE ORIGINAL SHOTS!
View attachment 134895View attachment 134896View attachment 134897

Undoubtedly the air force J-35 and not the FC-31s. Slim landing gear, hump, EOTS, etc.
By looking at the cloud around the aircraft I believe that the last photo with building on the left side is the original. The first two photos are blown up (scaled up) from the first photo.

I also assume that you assert this is an air force aircraft due to "lack of" catapult bar and "slimmer" landing gear.

I however doubt this conclusion, your photo could be just a J-35.
  1. landing gears extend and become longer after leaving ground. Most part of it that you are seeing is the inner stroke of the hydrolic cylinder which is thin. That gives them "slimmer" impression as in this F-35 photo1728776910517.png
  2. The aircraft is so small in the original photo that a catapult bar is less than a pixel, therefor can not be registered by the camera.
For comparison, the catapult bar is only about 1/3 of the diameter of the actuator. In the original photo, the actuator has blurred with its cover and is barely visible. A bar 1/3 of this size certainly can not be registered by the camera sensor.
1728775757205.png

IMO, there is no photo evidence so far to support existence of a varient other than PLAN.
 
Last edited:

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
By looking at the cloud around the aircraft I believe that the last photo with building on the left side is the original. The first two photos are blown up (scaled up) from the first photo.

I also assume that you assert this is an air force aircraft due to "lack of" catapult bar and "slimmer" landing gear.

I however doubt this conclusion, your photo could be just a J-35.
  1. landing gears extend and become longer after leaving ground. Most part of it that you are seeing is the inner stroke of the hydrolic cylinder which is thin. That gives them "slimmer" impression.
  2. The aircraft is so small in the original photo that a catapult bar is less than a pixel, therefor can not be registered by the camera.
For comparison, the catapult bar is only about 1/3 of the diameter of the actuator. In the original photo, the actuator has blurred with its cover and is barely visible. A bar 1/3 of this size certainly can not be registered by the camera sensor.
View attachment 137217

IMO, there is no photo evidence so far to support existence of a varient other than PLAN.

IMO, if it were those pictures alone then there could be basis for dismissing it, however there were subsequent pictures taken from the bottom which seem confirmatory to me -- i.e.: smaller wing than J-35, while having a chin EO/IRST (which FC-31V2 lacks).

Of course it's technically possible that it is merely FC-31V2 had a chin EO/IRST installed, but in context of the other photo set, I'm tempted to call it a "land based J-35 variant". Whether it's for the PLA in any capacity is another matter.



 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
IMO, if it were those pictures alone then there could be basis for dismissing it, however there were subsequent pictures taken from the bottom which seem confirmatory to me -- i.e.: smaller wing than J-35, while having a chin EO/IRST (which FC-31V2 lacks).

Of course it's technically possible that it is merely FC-31V2 had a chin EO/IRST installed, but in context of the other photo set, I'm tempted to call it a "land based J-35 variant". Whether it's for the PLA in any capacity is another matter.


I am more conservative when taking in new evidences. They (in the two posts) look like FC-31V2 to me especially because they seem to have smaller wings than J-35. They are also taken from different angle and probably different time, so we can not make connections with the other more J-35 look photos. Anyway, that is just how I see it.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I am more conservative when taking in new evidences. They (in the two posts) look like FC-31V2 to me especially because they seem to have smaller wings than J-35. They are also taken from different angle and probably different time, so we can not make connections with the other more J-35 look photos. Anyway, that is just how I see it.

Personally at this stage I'm erring on the side of caution as well and I do not yet consider it "confirmed".

However I do consider it as a "possible" or even slightly on the side of "likely".
 

Alfa_Particle

Junior Member
Registered Member
I am more conservative when taking in new evidences. They (in the two posts) look like FC-31V2 to me especially because they seem to have smaller wings than J-35. They are also taken from different angle and probably different time, so we can not make connections with the other more J-35 look photos. Anyway, that is just how I see it.
If I recall correctly, both the FC-31 and V2 have a twin-wheeled front landing gear. Yet there are multiple photos recently depicting an aircraft with a single wheel front landing gear, noticeably smaller wings, and EOTS/IRST. One of the spotting is a video too.

Screenshot_2024-09-21-10-13-19-62_0b2fce7a16bf2b728d6ffa28c8d60efb.jpgScreenshot_2024-10-13-12-53-36-39_99c04817c0de5652397fc8b56c3b3817.jpgScreenshot_2024-10-13-12-54-07-72_99c04817c0de5652397fc8b56c3b3817.jpg
 

by78

General
Today marks the 12th anniversary of the first flight of FC-31.

54107056809_fa0c8db439_k.jpg
54107057019_ba329f0813_k.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top