PLAAF Thread 15

[Trident]

They are not comparable.

Basically true, but not a problem if handled correctly. Aircraft are transported in a comparable position all the time (a partially dismantled Su-27 in a An-22 and several complete PC-21s in An-124s come to mind immediately), and major sub-assemblies are shipped by road and rail regularly (the A380 and 737 programmes provide good examples). How do you think the F-35 airframe in the photo posted earlier got to its port of departure in the US?

http://russianplanes.net/images/to61000/060594-640.jpg

http://i47.servimg.com/u/f47/11/27/60/24/image010.jpg

http://i47.servimg.com/u/f47/11/27/60/24/image013.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8158/7...c3d882d0_z.jpg

http://users.skynet.be/spotterfreak/...ansport_02.jpg

http://images3.jetphotos.net/img/1/4...1163682184.jpg

The 9g loads aren't concentrated at a certain point on the underside of the engine nacelle, for example, which is where the load is being borne here by placing it at an angle, and supported at one point. That's not a load bearing point, or axis.

We have no idea where and how the aircraft is supported, but the examples provided above show that it can be done - I'll give the Chinese engineers the benefit of the doubt on that one, it's hardly an unprecedented challenge. Granted, the trestle does look weird though!

Pinko, do you read anything posted here before? Check out post #700.

Two caveats:

- What iteration of the assembly process does that image depict: pre- or post-SWAT? There were major changes to the assembly procedure IIRC.

- There is no indication of HOW the wing skins are joined - it may be a method which is not easily disassembled such as bonding, so it would effectively become a single piece.

I don't think your picture is even of an F-35, or any part of it.

It almost certainly is, I remember seeing the photo (or one almost exactly like it) before in connection with the F-35 and was trying to find it myself.

In summary, I think this thing is at least a representative mock-up, possibly a real airframe or test article. In any case, even if it was a mock-up it would obviously be detailed and realistic enough to be worth concealing, so either way we are almost certainly looking at the revelation of a real project.

[Jō Asakura]

It's 2012, every tom, dick and harry's in the 5G game (at least conceptually) the only difference is that the PRC has more than enough $ to turn engineering concepts into reality- this has been observed with a whole host of other programs.

China's assembling a medium class stealth fighter- I don't see what the big surprise is, or why it's so hard to swallow (for some at least).

'J-21' is probably going to look very similar to the AMCA, or vice versa, but there is a cautionary note in that such break-neck speed development may be susceptible to the pitfalls of 'trying to run before you can walk' as happened with their bullet train. Anyways, good luck to them.

[foxmulder]

'J-21' is probably going to look very similar to the AMCA, or vice versa, but there is a cautionary note in that such break-neck speed development may be susceptible to the pitfalls of 'trying to run before you can walk' as happened with their bullet train. Anyways, good luck to them.

OT: I guess you are referring the high speed train accident. Points about high speed trains in China:
1) The accident was not on a new line designed for 350km/h+ speeds. It was only an upgraded line.
2) Following decisions about high speed trains had a lot to do with politics/corruption rather than technology and its implementation.
3) My personal view is China cannot find a better place to spend its money on high speed rail or generally infrastructure with its huge population.
4) I think speed decrease that is decided following the accident (from 350km/h to 300km/h) will eventually be reversed.
5) Development is still continuing and I expect the new test train, so called crh500, to break speed records like its predecessors.

[Kapedani]

How did you come to conclusion that all weight is supported on ONE point. I see fuselage placed on a rig specifically designed for transport What is that orange thingy, you think?

The orange lift does not seem designed to do that, to me. I can only see 2 beams running underneath the aircraft, one by the center of the aircraft, and one by the rear engine compartment. These are horizontal beams, supporting an load that is not. There doesn't seem to be any reason for this, or any way of doing this without some other form of support...which can't be seen here.

But also, no reason to load it at an angle.

Basically true, but not a problem if handled correctly. Aircraft are transported in a comparable position all the time (a partially dismantled Su-27 in a An-22 and several complete PC-21s in An-124s come to mind immediately), and major sub-assemblies are shipped by road and rail regularly (the A380 and 737 programmes provide good examples). How do you think the F-35 airframe in the photo posted earlier got to its port of departure in the US?

Absolutely, IF supported correctly. Trust me, I see 737 and other airplane parts being transported on a regular bases. And there's a reason they are transported at an angle (such as when it is loaded into another aircraft). In this case, there's no reason, other than perhaps the lift it is sitting on, wasn't big enough.

Which leads me to believe that since the method of transport is pretty "poor" and "ad-hoc"...this may not be a real airframe.

We have no idea where and how the aircraft is supported, but the examples provided above show that it can be done - I'll give the Chinese engineers the benefit of the doubt on that one

It can be done, but that doesn't seem the way to do it to me, or any reason to do it that way. And we can see, somewhat, how it is supported. I can only see horizontal supports, resting directly on the aircraft's surface, and at points which are certainly not load-bearing.

Two caveats:

- What iteration of the assembly process does that image depict: pre- or post-SWAT? There were major changes to the assembly procedure IIRC.

- There is no indication of HOW the wing skins are joined - it may be a method which is not easily disassembled such as bonding, so it would effectively become a single piece.

I never claimed it was "easy" or even possible to disassemble the wing. I was just pointing out that it is not a "one piece" solution (Pinko originally said it was "forged" together, by which I think he meant that the bulkheads and wing spars were 1 piece...obviously not possible. Then he said the skin was 1 piece, but that is also not true)

It almost certainly is, I remember seeing the photo (or one almost exactly like it) before in connection with the F-35 and was trying to find it myself.

Looks like X-32 wing to me.

[Trident]

The orange lift does not seem designed to do that, to me. I can only see 2 beams running underneath the aircraft, one by the center of the aircraft, and one by the rear engine compartment. These are horizontal beams, supporting an load that is not. There doesn't seem to be any reason for this, or any way of doing this without some other form of support...which can't be seen here.

As I said, I fully agree that the structure looks strange but even I have to concede that the available photos give nowhere near enough insight to judge at which points the airframe is supported.

In this case, there's no reason, other than perhaps the lift it is sitting on, wasn't big enough.

Why not? We have no idea of the minimum width of the roads along the route.

It can be done, but that doesn't seem the way to do it to me, or any reason to do it that way.

True, it is unusual, which caused me to dismiss it before more images became available to confirm that it was not a PS hoax. Now that we've established that it is in fact a real object, all indications are that it is at least an engineering mock-up, however. As pointed out above, it's not hard to think of reasons to do it that way, if shipping it in parts is not practical for whatever reason.

Then he said the skin was 1 piece, but that is also not true

I wouldn't count on that.

Looks like X-32 wing to me.

Leading edge sweep angle looks way too low to me and I don't think the X-32 had such a pronounced spine that far aft. This is a bit beside the point anyway, the key issue is that single piece upper surface panels have been used before on aircraft comparable in size to our Chinese mystery airframe.

[Kapedani]

I wouldn't count on that.

Hmm. I could be wrong, as there appear to be 2 different wings, at different points in the F-35's existence. It seems the first prototype did indeed have a 1 piece upper wing skin, but it doesn't seem to be so for the later aircraft.

http://customcarbidetools.com/wp-con...35-figure7.jpg
http://customcarbidetools.com/wp-con...2/wingskin.jpg
http://customcarbidetools.com/wp-con...le-figure2.jpg
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/up...nuf_photo4.jpg

Not sure if those are "tops" or "bottoms". I know this is a bottom: http://aerospace.engin.umich.edu/dep...erwingskin.gif The other ones above seem to be a bit different, so maybe they are the tops.

I could be wrong. But given that large sections of the upper mid-wing surface are "cut outs" to accommodate various openings, that is a lot of wasted material if it is 1 piece. Plus those "cut outs" on the mid-wing have a different color primer (or is it finish they have on), indicating a different material and/or completion at another location. http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/g...x?itemid=29428

But the only indication that it is "one piece" is from a grainy video capture of the first prototype, not from subsequent aircraft.

As pointed out above, it's not hard to think of reasons to do it that way, if shipping it in parts is not practical for whatever reason.

There can be reasons to ship it at an angle, but I still don't think you can do it on that surface. The problem is that the aircraft is actually resting on the horizontal beam.

PS: Actually, I'm certain those are tops, if you compare the first picture with the second. Def. the upper wing surface. Now this means that you def. cannot remove the wings, because the central bulkheads do extend beyond the point of where the upper skin surface ends.

PPS: Yep, issue resolved. 100% upper skins are not "1 piece". Look at the description on this transportation equipment: http://i47.tinypic.com/bhda28.jpg

[Kapedani]

Hmm, this does not seem right. The Audi A6 has a wheelbase ~2.8m, not 3. My measurement says ~12m, not 15m.

[totoro]

I must concur. The truck seems to be mercedes actros 3332 which has 3.9 meter wheelbase from first axle to the second axle. That ends up at best 12,5 meters of length for the whatever it is on the truck.

(also, that does seem as a6 audi, 2010 model, with 2,84 m wheelbase) difference of half a meter can be atributed to the position of the car which is in front of the truck and general errors in measurements.

[Kapedani]

Yes, I was looking at the truck right now, and the only way this plane could be 15m long, is if the truck had a wheelbase of 5.7m, which the 6-wheel version does not have, only the 8-wheel version. We're def. looking at 12-12.5m here, which may make this a 1-seat L-15.

[visitant]

Hmm, this does not seem right. The Audi A6 has a wheelbase ~2.8m, not 3. My measurement says ~12m, not 15m.

Audi A6 sold in China is actually A6L, the wheelbase for 2010 model is 2945mm (2011 model is 3012mm).

[totoro]

I made the measurement from two more images, one view similar viewpoint to this one, where plane ended up again 12,5 meters long (and where it had wingspan of 9,5 meters; i used the trucks cabin width for that, which is known)

But then i also used the truck's wheelbase as a reference on the top down image, where the truck is in that city's intersection. There i got 15 meters of length and as much as 12 meters of wingspan. Weird...

[visitant]

Yes, I was looking at the truck right now, and the only way this plane could be 15m long, is if the truck had a wheelbase of 5.7m, which the 6-wheel version does not have, only the 8-wheel version. We're def. looking at 12-12.5m here, which may make this a 1-seat L-15.

L-15 is a Hongdu trainer, this one is transported form SAC to 623 institute, whatever it is, it must be a SAC product.

[totoro]

I give up. I just used 2945 wheelbase (it doesnt seem to be 2011 model or later, headlights are older looking) and tried to take into account the perspective and car's position and got 17 meter length. ?!? And in the same freakin picture i get under 13 meters when using truck's wheelbase.

I think i will just wait and see... This may surprise us yet, who knows what is underneath.

[Pinko]

Hmm, this does not seem right. The Audi A6 has a wheelbase ~2.8m, not 3. My measurement says ~12m, not 15m.

The Chinese gov agencies only procure " made in China". Vehicles. The pictured car model is Audi A6L to be exact. The wheel base of Audi A6L is 3.01m instead of 2.8m cited by u.

Audi A6L introduction:

http://www.ideamarketers.com/?car_dv...icleid=3178576

[Kapedani]

Even at 3m, the airplane is ~12m. I used 3m for my measurements, in fact, because of the different Audi A6 wheelbases. To be 15m long, it would have to be 5 wheelbases long, and it is only 4.

But, the truck gives it away. The plane is about 2.6 wheelbases long, which would require a wheelbase of 5.7m for the truck...which is not available on the 6-wheel version.

We can't tell exactly which sub-model of the truck it is, but to be 12m long the wheelbase of the truck would have to be 4.6m long, which fits in perfectly with several 6-wheel chases of that MB model.

But then i also used the truck's wheelbase as a reference on the top down image, where the truck is in that city's intersection. There i got 15 meters of length and as much as 12 meters of wingspan. Weird...

The top-down image is much harder to compare, wheres this one is pretty straight forward.

[Pinko]

The truck ( actros 3344 locally assembled) dimensions:

[Pinko]

Even at 3m, the airplane is ~12m. I used 3m for my measurements, in fact, because of the different Audi A6 wheelbases. To be 15m long, it would have to be 5 wheelbases long, and it is only 4.

But, the truck gives it away. The plane is about 2.6 wheelbases long, which would require a wheelbase of 5.7m for the truck...which is not available on the 6-wheel version.

We can't tell exactly which sub-model of the truck it is, but to be 12m long the wheelbase of the truck would have to be 4.6m long, which fits in perfectly with several 6-wheel chases of that MB model.



The top-down image is much harder to compare, wheres this one is pretty straight forward.

You can't just simply use how many A6 wheelbases long to judge the aircraft length, because the Audi is closer to the viewer and the aircraft is not parallel to the Audi, and actual in a angle " away" from the Audi, which make it appears even shorter. Without normalizing those affecting factors, it's hard to tell.

[Kapedani]

I can't see your dimensions (internet filter at my location blocks it for some reason), but keep in mind that the 3344 chases has several wheelbase lengths, ranging from 3.6m to 4.2m+. We don't know which sub model it is, exactly, but it's certainly not ~5.7m.

You can't just simply use how many A6 wheelbases long to judge the aircraft length, because the Audi is closer to the viewer and the aircraft is not parallel to the Audi, and actual in a angle " away" from the Audi, which make it appears even shorter. Without normalizing those affecting factors, it's hard to tell.

a) That's why I used the truck
b) The distance isn't so great as to complicate things that much.

[totoro]

i think the truck model in the image has wheelbase of 3900mm, not 3600 like Pinko's drawing says. that still doesnt make the plane come even close to 15 meters.

[Kapedani]

No, there's no way its 3.6m, but as I said knowing that it is a 3344 (and it may not be, actually), doesn't tell us the wheelbase because there are sub-models with different wheelbases. But, there's no 6-wheel chassis with that will give you 15m, or close to it.

[Italy]

The truck ( actros 3344 locally assembled) dimensions:

that's not the same truck in the picture. take a look at it again.

[waja2000]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS9GSVGO7yo

Watch SAC F-60 Convoy video taken by road people.
F-60 show in 0:52sec , the have to close camera lens few time by hand due to police car order them "don't take photo“

[Kapedani]

That is some really well done Kabuki Theater.

On the other hand, it seems the support structure is a lot better than I had thought. I take what I said before, back. But, it still seems needlessly complicated simply to achieve an angled support. A simple A-frame would not have worked?

[Italy]

That is some really well done Kabuki Theater.

On the other hand, it seems the support structure is a lot better than I had thought. I take what I said before, back. But, it still seems needlessly complicated simply to achieve an angled support. A simple A-frame would not have worked?

most other aircraft by road transport is not done through angled support

[Kapedani]

most other aircraft by road transport is not done through angled support

Sure. But even if you were going to, for whatever reason (and I cant think of any)...that contraption it's sitting on seems needlessly complicated. You can make a simple A-frame to position it at whatever angle you want.

But it is clear now that this is a propaganda trip, whatever the object may be. I don't think the Chinese bureaucrats get that the more they try to dramatize things, the sillier it looks to everyone else.

[Freehand]

A nice close-up of China's ELINT Y-8 derivative

[wilhelm]

Sure. But even if you were going to, for whatever reason (and I cant think of any)...that contraption it's sitting on seems needlessly complicated. You can make a simple A-frame to position it at whatever angle you want.

But it is clear now that this is a propaganda trip, whatever the object may be. I don't think the Chinese bureaucrats get that the more they try to dramatize things, the sillier it looks to everyone else.

So you think this is pure propaganda, and not a real aircraft at all?

[flateric]

most other aircraft by road transport is not done through angled support

all depends on road clearances you have

[QuantumFX]

2 x J-10A with dual-rack pylons :

[raptor2019]

The original diagram with: the -2000 AWACS air marshals Wang Zhangqin Wang Xiongchun.

-2000 early-warning aircraft of the air marshals f independent research and development is called “disappointing machine”, since 2009 the National Day parade “domineering” appearance, it has always been of great concern at home and abroad. People are not only concerned about its technical and tactical performance, from time to time carries compared with the similar early warning aircraft of the United States, Japan, India and Israel, but also concerned about its position in the People’s Air Force, the role of sporadic reports from time to time through the media, it speculate on the practical effect of their service since.

In fact, the “Liberation Army Daily, March 10, 2010, a short message on the offensive and defensive operations in the sea air marshals -2000 rate fighters drill far, a number of foreign media and research institutions as the” People’s Liberation Army the combat capability and greatly improved the evidence repeated references from one side shows the actual efficacy.

Early warning and detection from the ground “to” Air “