Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 31 of 37 FirstFirst ... 21272829303132333435 ... LastLast
Results 901 to 930 of 1100

Thread: Chinese air power thread 18

  1. #901
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    144
    You know, about measurements you can't win either way, right? If the aircraft is roughly 20.8 meters, the wing area is roughly 12.8 meters, meaning the wing area drops to 69 square meters, far closer to b767's claim. It's possible I made a mistake in neglecting to include the pylons in the aircraft wingspan. Wing loading them comes out to an F-35-like 413 kg/m^2 fully loaded, and that's with the charitable 15 ton empty weight claim.

  2. #902
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by Inst View Post
    The pro-Chinese posters get triggered when you say anything that suggests that the J-20 is not a purebred air superiority fighter. Suggestions that the J-20 is large implies that it's an interceptor or striker.
    *Or* maybe some people actually care about accuracy for accuracy’s sake since, you know, if you get the facts wrong you end up drawing the wrong conclusions?

  3. #903
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    144
    You know all you're amounting to saying is that you insist that you're right, right? In either case, if you drop the long figures for the J-20, everything falls apart, the aircraft goes to 12.88 wingspan, radome drops to smaller than the F-22. So you either have the large J-20 or a crap J-20. Which do you prefer?

  4. #904
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by Inst View Post
    You know, about measurements you can't win either way, right? If the aircraft is roughly 20.8 meters, the wing area is roughly 12.8 meters, meaning the wing area drops to 69 square meters, far closer to b767's claim. It's possible I made a mistake in neglecting to include the pylons in the aircraft wingspan. Wing loading them comes out to an F-35-like 413 kg/m^2 fully loaded, and that's with the charitable 15 ton empty weight claim.
    I can’t win either way on what, exactly? I don’t have a horse in these stupid country vs country arguments. If the J-20 really only had a 12.8 meter wingspan so be it, but you should probably check the higher resolution images, since the numbers you’re offering don’t fit within the range of estimates the newer picture seems to suggest. I’m personally getting just below 13 meters in wingspan and just over 20.80 meters in length. Also, you’ll want to check your math on wing area. Based on the most recent pictures the leading edge sweep is 49 degrees and the trailing edge is 11 degrees. These angles should be right because the Flanker’s wing sweep in the same picture checks out. That makes the area of the triangle formed by the intersection of the two leading edges over the centerline of the plane 47.12 m^2, and the area of the triangle for the trailing edge 7.96 m^2. If we estimate the wingtip length to be 1.5 meters that makes the rectangular area from one wingtip to the other 19.2 m^2. That adds up to 74.28 m^2.

    That said, I don’t put much cache in the idea that wingloading can tell us much if anything about performance. That false presumption rests on an amateurish grasp of airplane design. Wingloading doesn’t tell us anything that can be used to draw comparisons if you also don’t know the lift and drag coefficient curves of the planes in question. This is like trying to figure out the value of a basketball player based on how many points they score per game without looking at more advanced stats like their player efficiency or real plus minus, and without considering how they actually play on the court.

  5. #905
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    144
    Wing loading with the same aerodynamic formula, all other factors being equal, determines maneuverability.

    In either case, I've crushed the problem. See, the nice thing is that the Su-35 and Su-27 do not have the same listed wingspan. The Su-35's wingspan is listed for being WITH the wingspan pods, while the Su-27's wingspan is listed without mentioning the wingspan pods. Funny thing is, I don't seem to have any information about the Su-35 having extended the Su-27's wingspan. If it has, then I'm mistaken. But if you measure the Su-35's wingspan with and without the pylons, you get what's roughly the listed figure for the Su-35 versus the listed figure for the Su-27.

    That means that if we use the J-16s in the background as a measurement, we measure from wingtip to wingtip, ignoring the pylons. With the high-res image, we get 342 pixels, while the J-20 is about 496 pixels long. This puts us at roughly 21.32 meters, with the wing length being 13.2 +- .1 meters long. The wing area then comes out to 78.6 square meters. So, from the evidence and deduction, what we get is long fighter, not crap fighter. Radome length is now around 1.35 meters, keeping the figures we need.

  6. #906
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    144
    Let's put this another way. The J-20 purportedly, according to some Chinese general cited on SDF, will have the largest radar of any 5th generation fighter. Even with the smaller figures, the J-20 has a larger radar than the F-22. However, once you put in the PAK-FA, the figures get tricky, since with the smaller 12.88 wingspan, you no longer exceed the PAK-FA's radome size (i.e, you're counting on the Russians to suck).

    My issue with you, latenlazy, is that for all your talk of objectivity, you're very much a Chinese aircraft fanboy. You play the aggrieved party, and you're right insofar as the West is often too negative on Chinese aerospace developments, but remember the time you admitted that you didn't understand that Kopp's RCS simulation was a 3-dimensional polar diagram, not a dispersal diagram. China has come a long way since the 80s, but it's behind in many respects and the people on the ground know it. You'd be better off if, for a week, you repeated to yourself in front of your bathroom mirror "CHINA SUCKS CHINA SUCKS CHINA SUCKS". You won't end up joining the Heritage Foundation or getting financed by NED, but it'd do wonders for your objectivity.

    The J-20 has many advantages over existing aircraft in terms of performance; its radar is larger, with the proper engines it will have better high speed performance, but it also has deficits, such as its roughly 10 dBsm stealth inferiority, or that it's not likely to outmaneuver the PAK-FA or F-22 at low speeds. Nor can it run, most importantly; its rear stealth is abysmal (which is actually one of the best arguments against the J-20 as an interceptor); the J-20 is essentially little different than the PLA troops that were chained to their machine guns in Chosun, if they do not win, they die.

  7. #907
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by Inst View Post
    You know all you're amounting to saying is that you insist that you're right, right? In either case, if you drop the long figures for the J-20, everything falls apart, the aircraft goes to 12.88 wingspan, radome drops to smaller than the F-22. So you either have the large J-20 or a crap J-20. Which do you prefer?
    I prefer whatever ends up being *true*. No matter what people wish the dimensions of this plane to be so that they can fit it into their preferred narratives, this is not some imaginary plane we're arguing over. There is an actual right answer out there with real dimensions and performance characteristics.

    Remember, *I* told you years ago that even if the J-20 had a bigger radar that didn't mean its radar would necessarily have superior performance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Inst View Post
    Wing loading with the same aerodynamic formula, all other factors being equal, determines maneuverability.
    I'm sorry, but are we dealing with all factors being equal? No?

    In either case, I've crushed the problem. See, the nice thing is that the Su-35 and Su-27 do not have the same listed wingspan. The Su-35's wingspan is listed for being WITH the wingspan pods, while the Su-27's wingspan is listed without mentioning the wingspan pods. Funny thing is, I don't seem to have any information about the Su-35 having extended the Su-27's wingspan. If it has, then I'm mistaken. But if you measure the Su-35's wingspan with and without the pylons, you get what's roughly the listed figure for the Su-35 versus the listed figure for the Su-27.

    That means that if we use the J-16s in the background as a measurement, we measure from wingtip to wingtip, ignoring the pylons. With the high-res image, we get 342 pixels, while the J-20 is about 496 pixels long. This puts us at roughly 21.32 meters, with the wing length being 13.2 +- .1 meters long. The wing area then comes out to 78.6 square meters. So, from the evidence and deduction, what we get is long fighter, not crap fighter. Radome length is now around 1.35 meters, keeping the figures we need.
    Still not sure how you're getting 21.32 meters. Based on that 496 pixel figure I'm getting a J-16 length of 524 pixels from the same image. (496/524)*21.935 does not make 21.32 meters. That's 20.76 meters.
    Last edited by latenlazy; 14th November 2017 at 14:16.

  8. #908
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by Inst View Post
    Let's put this another way. The J-20 purportedly, according to some Chinese general cited on SDF, will have the largest radar of any 5th generation fighter. Even with the smaller figures, the J-20 has a larger radar than the F-22. However, once you put in the PAK-FA, the figures get tricky, since with the smaller 12.88 wingspan, you no longer exceed the PAK-FA's radome size (i.e, you're counting on the Russians to suck).
    I'm not counting on anything about Russia. I actually have great regard for the Su-57's design, and I have no idea how capable or not its radar is, because I don't presume to know a radar's capability based on something as superficially dilettante as nosecone size.


    My issue with you, latenlazy, is that for all your talk of objectivity, you're very much a Chinese aircraft fanboy. You play the aggrieved party, and you're right insofar as the West is often too negative on Chinese aerospace developments, but remember the time you admitted that you didn't understand that Kopp's RCS simulation was a 3-dimensional polar diagram, not a dispersal diagram. China has come a long way since the 80s, but it's behind in many respects and the people on the ground know it. You'd be better off if, for a week, you repeated to yourself in front of your bathroom mirror "CHINA SUCKS CHINA SUCKS CHINA SUCKS". You won't end up joining the Heritage Foundation or getting financed by NED, but it'd do wonders for your objectivity.
    And my issue with you, Inst, is that you like to pretend you understand more than you actually do. The number of times you have been exposed and embarrassed by actual engineering professionals on your wrongheaded and misinformed grasp of the technical basics that you depend so much on for your sweeping conclusions would have long humbled a more honest and modest ego. You'd be better off repeating to yourself in the mirror "I don't actually know what I'm talking about, I don't actually know what I'm talking about, I don't actually know what I'm talking about". Glad to know I'll never end up in the Heritage Fund though. Putting my partisan disagreements with it aside, they don't actually generate anything of value to either the domain of foreign policy or military analysis. You might have a chance though, with how superficial and hackish your grasp of actual substance is. You would be a great donor pleaser I imagine, though I worry the harm you could do my (our?) country if anyone of importance ever actually listened to anything you had to say. Whatever people on the ground actually know, do yourself and the rest of us a favor and don't pretend that you're as informed as you imagine them to be.

    I don't recall ever having made that mistake about Kopp's simulation, but if I did it would have been a long long time ago. Though, do let me know when you've finally figured out that a simulated RCS spike on the nose is meaningless in a simulator, when the nose is actually radar transparent in real life, as Kopp himself noted. It turns that unlike you I'm capable of acknowledging errors and learning from them. It also seems that, unlike you, I do not resort to desperate character attacks by calling people fanboys when I've committed errors or do not have answers to substantive critiques.
    The J-20 has many advantages over existing aircraft in terms of performance; its radar is larger, with the proper engines it will have better high speed performance, but it also has deficits, such as its roughly 10 dBsm stealth inferiority, or that it's not likely to outmaneuver the PAK-FA or F-22 at low speeds. Nor can it run, most importantly; its rear stealth is abysmal (which is actually one of the best arguments against the J-20 as an interceptor); the J-20 is essentially little different than the PLA troops that were chained to their machine guns in Chosun, if they do not win, they die.
    It is the great virtue of fools that they find confidence in their own blindness and believe the refuse of their own dull minds.
    Last edited by latenlazy; 14th November 2017 at 12:42.

  9. #909
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    144
    Considering that one of my opponents was an avowed racist who chased me around making non-sequitur attacks on me that called into question his sanity, I'd consider his harassment an honor.

    It is the great virtue of fools that they find confidence in their blindness.
    Are we talking about you or about me? I think you're self-describing.

  10. #910
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    65
    can we stop with the Russian bashing and go back to PLAAF news?
    no one cares you were wrong about your estimates.

  11. #911
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by Inst View Post
    Considering that one of my opponents was an avowed racist who chased me around making non-sequitur attacks on me that called into question his sanity, I'd consider his harassment an honor.
    What does that have to do with anything I just said? No matter how inflated your sense of honor is (is that what all this is about, your indignant outrage over violated self importance?), that's not going to make you factually right if you're factually wrong. I don't care what your "opponents" have or have not done to you. I don't even understand why these discussions need to have "opponents". At the end of the day the only real value these discussions have is if they can help us become more informed. Who the *uck cares who's on whose side or about the delusional competition that you seem obsessed over inside your own head? You or me feeling right is worth horse*hit. Get your head out of your *ss. It's not about your *ucking ego. It's about whether we're getting closer to the facts or not. If other people tell you the quality of your arguments aren't great maybe you should try to address that substantively instead of being a pigheaded child about it.

    Are we talking about you or about me? I think you're self-describing.
    Are you actually going to answer my substantive arguments or are you just going to keep proving my point and making a fool of yourself? For example, I asked you what pixel length you got for the Flanker. Are you going to address that or are you going to tapdance while crying victim for a non sequitur argument that you started? (Who the heck told you to butt into my quibble with Hotdog anyways?)
    Last edited by latenlazy; 14th November 2017 at 13:10.

  12. #912
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Near Colombo, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    1,537
    Quote Originally Posted by Inst View Post
    ***
    That means that if we use the J-16s in the background as a measurement, we measure from wingtip to wingtip, ignoring the pylons. With the high-res image, we get 342 pixels, while the J-20 is about 496 pixels long. This puts us at roughly 21.32 meters, with the wing length being 13.2 +- .1 meters long. The wing area then comes out to 78.6 square meters. So, from the evidence and deduction, what we get is long fighter, not crap fighter. Radome length is now around 1.35 meters, keeping the figures we need.
    With the latest hi-res photo I got roughly 20.9 m. I could only rely only on the center most aircrafts since there is more distortion with the others. You can look at the canopies and tails of the other aircrafts. In-fact whatever took that photo seem to be on top-of or close to the front most J-20. In the other J-20s the tails extend almost to or beyond the tail-boom, which cannot be the case since in the production version the tail-boom is the longest point. Tail-boom got progressively longer especially from the 200X demonstrators. Even the 201X prototypes went through changes in the Tail-boom. The J-16 are further away so they may actually appear shorter in this photo than what the actual length is. This is the 1st time I got a J-20 length value under 21m
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Original ccd.jpg 
Views:	75 
Size:	365.5 KB 
ID:	256974   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	J20-J16-Dim-CCD.jpg 
Views:	76 
Size:	271.8 KB 
ID:	256975  
    Last edited by QuantumFX; 14th November 2017 at 13:06.

  13. #913
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    613
    Anyone try to measure from the taxi/runaway yet ?

  14. #914
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    144
    QuantumFX: I think it's possible we've missed something wholly obvious. The funny thing is, we DO have a grid. The bloody blocks on the tarmac constitute roughly a 4x5 grid, but I'm not sure if they're actual meter measurements.

    What I'm trying to avoid is the fact that the J-16 is somewhat of an unknown quantity: the radome could have been modified to accommodate Chinese electronics, while the tailboom could have been modified likewise. Do we have ANY information on the tile sizing of Chinese airstrips? If we do, we can skip the J-16 as a measuring block and just go straight to the tarmac, which gives us clear information, independent of relative sizing.

  15. #915
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by Inst View Post
    In either case, I've crushed the problem. See, the nice thing is that the Su-35 and Su-27 do not have the same listed wingspan. The Su-35's wingspan is listed for being WITH the wingspan pods, while the Su-27's wingspan is listed without mentioning the wingspan pods. Funny thing is, I don't seem to have any information about the Su-35 having extended the Su-27's wingspan. If it has, then I'm mistaken. But if you measure the Su-35's wingspan with and without the pylons, you get what's roughly the listed figure for the Su-35 versus the listed figure for the Su-27.
    *If* this is right then there might be a bit of a lengthwise stretch in the picture, because if we include the pylons while measuring wingspan you can get very close to 21.9 meters long using the wingspan to length ratio to derive length in the picture, and vice versa with using length to derive wingspan, which means if you excluded the pylons deriving the length using wingspan would lead to a longer plane and deriving wingspan from length would lead to a shorter wingspan. However, if there was a stretch in the picture then the wing sweep angles should be off, but in the picture you get 42 degrees pretty cleanly. I think it's more likely that the Su-35's wingspan is just wider, perhaps because its wingtip pylons are much wider, or because they actually stretched the wings a bit.
    Last edited by latenlazy; 14th November 2017 at 14:03.

  16. #916
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,176
    great work from the international members. we got guys from germany, sri lanka, the us, europe, etc providing great analysis on Chinese aviation.

    In contrast to our local chinabots who havent done a shred of anything besides throwing random numbers and bashing our international contributors.

  17. #917
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by Y-20 Bacon View Post
    great work from the international members. we got guys from germany, sri lanka, the us, europe, etc providing great analysis on Chinese aviation.

    In contrast to our local chinabots who havent done a shred of anything besides throwing random numbers and bashing our international contributors.
    And what, exactly, have you contributed?

  18. #918
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,176
    19m guy is triggered

  19. #919
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by Y-20 Bacon View Post
    19m guy is triggered
    Is obsessing on one comment I wrote 6 years ago really the best you can do? Are you so desperate to be right about something that you'll ignore just about everything else for this tiny thing? Good lord, how old are you?

    Be proud of your little 6 year old gotcha if you must. I certainly hope this isn't the only thing you have going for your life though. That'd be...well...sad.
    Last edited by latenlazy; 14th November 2017 at 15:45.

  20. #920
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,528
    the J-20 is essentially little different than the PLA troops that were chained to their machine guns in Chosun,
    This may top statements by some about Russian "quantity over quality heritage" in the Su-57 thread, as the most absurd historical analogy lately on this forum.

    Good grief.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  21. #921
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,947
    Quote Originally Posted by Inst
    Also, another point of interest might be the J-20 radar. Now that we have precise measurements, the radome is about 1.3 meters, implying about 1 meter aperture diameter, or a 30% superiority in size over the F-35.
    There's this article I've been meaning to find of late that reports the J-20 jamming and spoofing older Chinese AESAs. With the large diameter, what this implies is that the J-20, with same generation radars, can suppress the F-35's radar system, nullifying its inferiority in stealth and forcing the latter to rely on EODAS
    In real combat environments with surface clutter, jamming and decoys, all stealth fighters will detect and track each others by IRST and ESM long before they can see each others on radar.


    Quote Originally Posted by Inst
    If the J-20 is flying higher than the F-35, the latter can't utilize its EOTS while the J-20 can, meaning that the latter is now out-sensored by the J-20 and has to rely on its defense systems
    There isn't enough altitude difference between J-20 and F-35 for J-20 to stay out of EOTS field of regard and aircraft cruising near their service ceiling will fly pitch up slightly anyway to generate more lift.

  22. #922
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,214
    length - 21.1 m
    scope of a wing - 13.0 m

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	J20&J-11.jpg 
Views:	65 
Size:	1.03 MB 
ID:	256983

  23. #923
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,127
    The J-20's fuselage length in front of the cockpit is much shorter because the radome is less pointy, it's almost a copy of the F-35 but with a larger radome. The DSI intakes are not designed for very high speed so why design a radome optimized for very high speed?

  24. #924
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Blitzo View Post
    ... the length of J-20 should be from nose to end of tail booms...
    Quote Originally Posted by QuantumFX View Post
    ... The production J-20 is slightly longer than the demonstrators 2001/2002. Longest point is the tail-boom...
    The fact is that during its development Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group J-20 aircraft was undergoing through some redesigning and as such was getting some modifications ...





    ... so it is quite possible that the total length of the first produced aircraft, including the prototypes, measures the distance from the nose to the tips of the tail fins, and on those lately produced aircraft, the one from the nose to the tips of the redesigned tail booms ...

    Please take a look the tail fins' tips and the booms' differences on the following images:

    The first produced aircraft ...



    ... and those lately produced


    From the next two images, it is, I think, visible that on the J-20 prototype, the most protruded points at the rear are the tail fins' tips...


    ... and on those later produced units, its tail booms. Besides, the tail fins´tips were redesigned ...




    Quote Originally Posted by QuantumFX View Post
    new one,
    You made me, QuantumFX, to messure J-20 aircraft, once more, with this nice image ...

    The first thing I have noticed was that neither J-16 nor J-20, those in the middle of the image, are entirely aligned with the runway's centerline ...

    Please click on the image below for the larger view


    that's why I have, in the case of Shenyang Aircraft Corporation J-16 aircraft, rotated the image 1,4° CCW to get auxiliary measuring lines parallel to the aircraft ...

    Please click on the image below for the larger view


    ... but also and the required variables: kL and kWs.



    After that I have rotated the image with the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group J-20 aircraft 0,7° CCW...

    Please click on the image below for the larger view


    and got the next measures: length of 20,88 m / 68 ft 6,0 in and the wingspan of 13,09 m / 42 ft 11,4 in.



    Because of the perspective from which the image was taken it is quite possible that the aircraft are a little bit distorted so I can't be sure at all the measures I got are quite accurate. That in what I am sure is that I am not going to measure J-20 anymore :-) Some Chinese sources quote J-20's length of 20,3 m and wingspanof of 12,88 m. "Well, of course I trust you, but please show me where have you put those auxiliary measuring lines then we can talk" :-)

    Since I like J-20 aircraft, maybe I would measure it once more, but only if someone could guarantee me it will get. AL-31F(N) M3 (изд. 99M3), twin-shaft, TVC, afterburning, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 924,0 mm / 36,4 in; BPR: 0,61:1; engine architecture: 3F–6HPC1HPT–1LPT), OPR: 27,72:1, rated at 150,04 kN / 15.300 kgf / 33.731 lbf on the afterburner or AL-41F-1 (изд. 117), twin-shaft, TVC, afterburning, turbofans (fan diameter: 932,0 mm / 36,7 in; BPR: 0,65:1; engine architecture: 4F–9HPC1HPT–1LPT), rated at 147,10 kN / 15.000 kgf / 33.069 lbf on the afterburner, already tomorrow. That's unlikely, but very likely that Su-57 will get its Saturn "изделие 30" (Type 30) engines sooner than CAC J-20 its SAC WS-15 engines manufactured by Xi'an Aero-Engine Company

    I just wonder how advanced and modern this long-awaited WS-15 engine could be if it's really based on once (20 years ago) unique R79V-300 twin-shaft TVC afterburning turbofan (fan diameter: 1.100 mm / 43,3 in; BPR: 0,81:1; engine architecture: 5F–6HPC1HPT–1LPT), OPR: 22,0:1, rated at 152,00 kN / 15.500 kgf / 34.172 lbf on the afterburner, aimed for Yak-141 VTOL aircraft, as and those later models of the engine, R79M-300, rated at 181,42 kN / 18.500 kgf / 40.786 lb and R179-300, rated at 200,06 kN / 20.400 kgf / 44.974 lb. Just perfect numbers for J-20's engines. The only problem is that Soyuz R179-300 engine was way too large and too heavy for J-20 fighter, the same way as Saturn AL-41F ("изделие 20") was for Sukhoi Su-57

    By nothing more but my humble opinion and those engines of something lower performances, Saturn AL-41F-1S (изд. 117C), twin-shaft, TVC, afterburning, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 36,7 in / 932,0 mm; BPR: 0,65:1; engine architecture: 4F–9HPC1HPT–1LPT), OPR: 23,10:1, each rated at 86,30 kN / 8.800 kgf / 19.401 lbf dry and 142,20 kN / 14.500 kgf / 31.967 lbf with the afterburner and Salyut AL-31F M2 (изд. 99M2/99СМ), twin-shaft, TVC, afterburning turbofan (fan diameter: 924,0 mm / 36,4 in; BPR: 0,61:1; engine architecture: 4F–9HPC1HPT–1LPT), OPR: 26,09:1, rated at 142,20 kN / 14.500 kgf / 31.967 lbf on the afterburner, are still far better and more reliable powerplants than the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation WS-10B or WS-10G/IPE engines which design was based on the CFM56-7 and Saturn AL-31F engines' cores.

    ... yet until about a quarter of a century ago, the trains in China were towed by the steam and a couple of diesel-electric locomotives ... By the end of 2016, China had 22.000 km / 13.670 mi of railtrucks, just those for a high-speed railways (Just amazing infrustructure! I'm not sure anybody but China is capable of doing something like that. U.S. are just at the beginning of the construction of their HSR), but their trains were designed and constructed by the technologies developed by ABB, Alstom, Siemens, Bombardier, Toshiba, Hitachi, Kawasaki and Mitsubishi Electronic. Nowadays, all series of Chinese HSTs, including those latest (CR400AF and CR400BF) are produced in the Chinese factories: CRRC Qingdao Sifang Co., Ltd., CRRC Tangshan RV Co., Ltd., CRRC Changchun RV Co., Ltd. and CRRC Nanjing Puzhen Co., Ltd, by the adopted European and Japanese technology. However, when it comes to the permanent magnet synchronous motors, Chinese are trying to produce such a motors of their own design because no one is willing to sell them such an advanced technology.

    Why have I mentioned all this? Just to show there are a couple of things you just can't get for the money. One of them is modern turbofan engines' technology, and China itself has been struggling a lot for a long time in the designing and producing them, no matter if they were aimed for the propulsion of their latest civil airliners, Comac C919, powered by two CFM LEAP-1C30, twin-shaft, high-bypass, turbofans (fan diameter: 78,0 in / 1.981,2 mm; BPR: 11,0:1; engine architecture: 1F+3LPC–10HPC2HPT–7LPT), OPR: 50,0:1, each rated at 137,14 kN / 13.984 kgf / 30.830 lbf dry and Comac ARJ21-700, powered by two General Electric CF34-10A, twin-shaft, high-bypass turbofans (fan diameter: 53,0 in / 1.346,2 mm; BPR: 5,0:1; engine architecture: 1F+3LPC–9HPC1HPT–4LPT), OPR: 29,0:1, each rated at 78,50 kN / 8.005 kgf / 17.648 lbf dry, or for all those military aircraft.

    Its arrear in the development of the turbofan engines, China has been trying to compensate by skipping some initial steps in the engine development and designing, just turning around and losing time, mostly unsuccessfully, by imitating obtained foreign technologies. Since the 1990s, China has invested heavily in the development of jet engine manufacturing capacity. They encountered the same problems that Russia encountered early in the development of their engines. It is just very difficult to develop the necessary engine design, construction and manufacturing technology, but China had some advantages. First, they know where Russia went wrong so many of these mistakes could have been avoided. Second, China has better access to the Western manufacturing technology. Finally, unlike in the former Soviet Union, China was able to develop its own engine manufacturing capabilities in a market economy, much more efficient than the 70-year-old planned economy of the former Soviet Union...

    Sooner or later China will get rid of Russia's dependence on military and partly of U.S. and European (GE Aviation, P&W, SAFRAN and RR) dependence on civil jet engines, but in the meantime their engines' manufacturers will need further efforts. I do not doubt that in the end they will succeed. They have a vision, they have a goal, they have a resources and they are incredible persistent. A very specific and unique mentality.

    Cooperation with the Ukrainian military industry and supreme factories like SC "Antonov" (ДП "АНТОНОВ"), Ivchenko-Progress ZMKB (ЗМКБ «Прогрес» ім. О.Г.Івченка), PJSC "Motor Sich" (ВАТ "Мотор Січ") and SE GTRPC "Zorya"-"Mashproekt" (ГП НПКГ "Зоря"-"Машпроект") could certainly be of a great help to China, and how much would this cooperation mean for the stumbled Ukrainian factories, after their breakup with Russia, it is not necessary to mention it either…

    Mario
    Last edited by mfranjic; 16th February 2018 at 21:48.
    'Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile' - Albert Einstein

  25. #925
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,083
    @Mario !

    Thanks a lot.
    ...

    He was my North, my South, my East and West,
    My working week and my Sunday rest,
    My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
    I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.

    The stars are not wanted now; put out every one:
    Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun;
    Pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods:
    For nothing now can ever come to any good.
    -------------------------------------------------
    W.H.Auden (1945)

  26. #926
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,224
    is there a downward shot of Mig 1.44...

  27. #927
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    144
    You don't actually need to align the lines; just use the Pythagorean to adjust the lines before you do the calculation. In honesty, the +10 -20 errors I see with the J-16 are remedied when the J-16 is adjusted, so the figures on the J-16 actually match the listed ratio for the Su-27, almost precisely. That implies the J-20 is about 20.85 meters long with a 12.9 wingspan.

    @mfranjic:

    The problem with engines isn't so much the copied design; basic and workable schematics are quite common and easy to steal with espionage. The problem with engines is the metallurgy: designs are built specifically for metallurgical compounds, whose manufacture is extremely difficult to duplicate. That's the Chinese problem, and they claim they recently made breakthroughs in Rhenium alloys. As to whether those are real breakthroughs or pseudo-breakthroughs is another thing.

  28. #928
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Near Colombo, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    1,537
    Quote Originally Posted by mfranjic View Post
    ***
    That is some insane attention to details sir.

    All I can say is,




  29. #929
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,528
    Yeah that is one high effort post.

    +500 to mfranjic
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  30. #930
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    986
    So now that we're more or less done with the length, how about another round of measuring for the weapon bays? I'm getting 4,6 meters by 1,05 meters, with maximum depth of some 0,55 meters (though of course with carriage pylons and the forward third of the bay getting more and more shallow that doesn't mean all of it can really be used for weapons)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES