There are indeed rumors, or it is not difficult to conclude that the PLA will develop new medium-range air-to-air missiles for the sixth-gen
Shenyang next gen combat aircraft thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
I suggest to count similar unusable area in J-XDS's bay in the same way as J-20 (any IWB in any aircraft for that matter). The blue area is shallow slope that transits from deeper usable area to the fuselage. It is there to smooth airflow when the doors are open, without it the airflow will be violent, creating intolerable drag and turbulence that could even endanger the aircraft when shooting missiles. Unlike the fuselage shape, design principle of IWB does not change from J-20, so it is unlikely that J-XDS can save that area/volume.
The J-20 indeed follows the F-22 and Su-47 with the same kind of unusable area but the weapons bay on the F-35 and the Su-57 don‘t have such a feature, so I’m not entirely sure about it’s necessity, you can correct me if I’m wrong.
Edit: I lied the su57 never ever even shows its weapons bay.. those Russians. I guess it is necessary then because the F-35 is optimized for subsonic operations.
RD-33 size engine if accurate dimensions.
WS-19 would be nice for performance.
Due perhaps 12 ton afterburner thrust.
For J-XD maybe being 30 ton fighter.
Considering the size of the aircraft, WS-19s are likely to be insufficient.
Nx4eu's drawing is good, but I also think there's no reason to read too much into the "1m" width he depicted for the engine.
1m vs 1.2m on a drawing like that (let alone the photos we have, which all still lack scaling) would be rather difficult to specifically differentiate, but the gross size of the thing is Flanker territory rather than J-35 territory.
Isn't the WS-15 inlet diameter ~1m?
Also as i've stated before, the engine bit is the most wonky in scale.
Also F119 Engine inlet is in fact 1m, why would you automatically assume it be a 12 ton engine and not a 15-16 ton engine? Why would you first assume RD-33 size engine when the aircraft is flanker sized?
Assuming it's similar to F119, yes a 1m inlet diameter is likely.
However the overall engine diameter of F119 is about 1.2m (similar to WS-10, F110, F100, Al-31), and the nozzle width of F119 is a bit wider still at 1.3m due to the 2D TVC nozzle geometry.
I think he would've interpreted your "1m" number as representative of either overall engine diameter or nozzle diameter/width, rather than inlet diameter, given its positioning.
My understanding of the F119 is that the nozzle is about 1m wide but is a little bit flatter in height which creates the rectangular shape. And when I say nozzle I mean the actual exit hole not the whole entire nozzle mechanism.
Also to clarify, I drew first then applied measurements afterwards, I did this to get a rough idea of the weapons bay area. That's actually the only reason I drew the diagrams, I was interested on how large the weapons bay could be. This obviously leads to errors when the less clear areas are poorly drawn. May I remind everyone that my drawings were being referenced from pictures like:
and
And not thew new ones.
Notice how the aircraft are never in level flight, and that the nozzle structure in the second picture is distorted due to viewing angle and lack of visible depth.
No one should be jumping to a logical conclusion that an aircraft that is longer and wider than a J-20 is powered by RD-33 10-12 ton class engines...
Looking at the F119, the nozzle should be the widest point of the engine, and as far as I know it is 1.3m wide. The main body of the engine is about 1.2m in diameter, while the inlet is 1m in diameter.
In any case this is all academic; I certainly am not reading too much into the "1m" number positioned on your drawing, and I just assume you mean an engine with WS-15/WS-10 scale dimensions, but others might read into it differently or too literally.
Indeed, as I said I think your drawings are good and I always appreciate people that take efforts to create their own depictions of things
I am more just cautioning the previous user, yugocrosrb95, to not directly read too much into the specifics of the numbers, especially the smaller numbers.