China Flanker Thread II

[NikeX]

@plawolf: If you knew even the most basic things about modern air combat, you would realize that firstly, the moves in that Raptor demo is worse than useless in a real dogfight (the American pilot's gleeful comments about just switching to guns and drilling away when they were talking about Indian MKIs pulling similar TVC tricks spring to mind throughout that demo), and that secondly, the Raptor was not demonstrating the agility of it's airframe with that routine - it was demonstrating the amazing TWR of it's engines.

Looks like you missed the part of the video where the Air Force pilot giving the briefing mentions that the Indian pilots were inexperienced in using their TVC system but when they learned a bit more they would be a serious foe to deal with in their MKIs.

Specifically it was in the areas of post stall maneuvering

Don't forget they have canards AND TVC in their Su-30 MKIs. Looks like they have the best of both worlds.

Don't feel bad. When China gets it figured out they will install TVC on the J-20. It is only a matter of time

[Quickie]

One benefit obtainable from a control-canard is avoidance of pitch-up. An all-moving canard capable of a significant nose-down deflection will protect against pitch-up. Control canards have poor stealth characteristics, because they present large moving surfaces forward of the wing.http://faculty.dwc.edu/sadraey/Chapt...l%20Design.pdf
+


F-22 test pilot Paul Metz:
"-All aircraft experience a loss of control effectiveness at supersonic speeds. To generate the same maneuver supersonically as subsonically, the controls must be deflected further. This, in turn, results in a big increase in supersonic trim drag and a subsequent loss in acceleration and turn performance-"

JUST HOW GOOD IS THE F-22 RAPTOR? Carlo Kopp interviews F-22 Chief Test Pilot, Paul Metz

can you understand now why Su-35 has now no canards and TVC nozzles to reduce tailplane deflection?

If China has no 117 equivalent the Su-35 can provide an engine for J-11B and J-20

What I was trying to say is, although TVC maybe useful in some cases (I repeat in some cases but not all cases) , the aerodynamics design of the aircraft play a much more important part in determining performance. TVC only gives an incremental improvement in maneouvrebility or turn rates, and it's still a question if TVC would really give an improvement to fighters of canard delta design, like the Typhoon and Rafale, since we still haven't seen any of them in operation with TVC.

I don't have the time to read through so many PDF files. Since you're singing so much praise for TVC, can you provide us the actual numbers (actual official numbers in brochures etc) in the improvement of turn rates, payload range with the addition of TVC for such aircrafts as the F-15, Flankers, F-22 and, for comparison sake, the Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen, too?

[tphuang]

This thread is for discussions about flankers in service with PLAAF only. If you want to continue a discussion about TVC, open up another thread.

And as for the entire discussion about China buying Su-35 from Russia, we've spent enough time discussing unsubstantiated rumours. Mig-29, unless it's been confirmed by Chinese side, any posts you put on this old issue will be delete. Other mods, I'm not here all the times, so please delete any more discussions over such unconfirmed rumours.

There is as far as I know no plan by PLAAF to purchase Su-35. Whether or not Su-35 is better than J-11B or how much su-35 is better (if you are Mig-29) is not relevant.

[Engineer]

i am not wrong, simply because i have seen graphs of YF-22 with and without TVC nozzles and how it did compare with F-16 and F-15 in roll and pitch rate.

see http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubF.../TR-015-03.pdfhttp://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Ma...AlphaNotes.pdfhttp://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flig...-FTM108/c6.pdf

this proves who is talking just for talking

There has never been questions that TVN provides pitch and roll moments, after all these are what made post-stall maneuvers possible when control surfaces cease to function. However, pitch moment and roll moment, along with their effects to pitch rate and roll rate, do not equate to turn rate. Furthermore, there has not been a YF-22/F-22 that flew with TVN uninstalled, so aircraft that don't utilize TVN are carrying weight penalty for nothing. Examples of proper comparisons would be a standard F-16 vs. the F-16 MATV or standard F-18 vs. F-18 HARV. In both examples, NASA has always emphasized the advantages of post-stall maneuverability, not the marketing gimmicks that you repeat.

I have also seen graphs of turn rate versus lift coefficient and how wing loading and thrust affect it, in fact i have seen equations that prove i am right


You just defend your self but where is the proof?
The effect of wing maximum lift coefficient is inverse to that of wing loading; that is, increasing the maximum lift coefficient acts in the same way as reducing the wing loading. For example, increasing the maximum lift coefficient from 0.7 to 1.4 would shift the curve for a wing loading of 100 pounds per square foot to the exact position as that occupied by the curve for a wing loading of 50 pounds per square foot and a maximum lift coefficient of 0.7. Two other important aircraft physical parameters may also limit turning performance. First, at a given speed and altitude, the aircraft drag increases rapidly with lift coefficient; as a consequence, the available thrust may not be sufficient to balance the drag at some load factors that the wing can sustain. In this case the aircraft loses altitude in the turn, an undesirable situation in combat. As for maximum lift coefficient, the drag rise with increasing lift depends upon the wing design and Mach number, as well as upon the added drag required to trim the aircraft at high lift coefficients. [/B]ch11-6

This proves nothing regarding your claims on TVN.

Beginning from the 4th generation of fighter aircraft, vortex effects become widely employed to enhance lift. From then on, aircraft performance has less and less correlation with basic rule of thumbs such as wing area or wing loading. The F-22 having lower thrust-to-weight and higher wing loading then the F-15 is a good example.

i challenge you provide a document TVC does not improve turn rate, thrust, range stealth.

You won`t find it

This says otherwise.

There are plenty of papers saying variable swept wing has load of advantages back when variable swept wing was trendy. How did that idea turn out today? Now, I challenge you to provide a document that says TVN has no weight penalty, does not lose thrust as a result of deflecting the nozzles, and deflection of nozzles themselves have no impact on stealth. You won't find it.

[Engineer]

In fact all these resposes is just to avoid a reality, at this moment China has not thrust vectoring capable fighters.
Are they willing to design them? of course yes they will.

You can not understand things simple like that F-22 is highly dependant on TVC nozzles.

What you can not understand is simply Eurofighter was armed with HMS and F-22 has not HMS.

And yes HMS are equalizers if you do not have TVC nozzles.

and yes you are wrong, China knows TVC nozzles are enhancers

J-11s or J-20 with TVC nozzles will improve performance a great deal

but good thrust and low drag increases turn rate so eliminate external weapons and you add better turn rates

I will tell you why you gave the responses that you did. The revelation of the J-20 totally exceeded expectation outside of China. The aircraft actually looks stealthy, as opposed to the pseudo-stealthy airframe of the PAKFA. You cannot accept the fact that China is able to produce a better aircraft than Russia, and neither could you claim a major design on that aircraft being influenced by Russia. To make yourself more comfortable, you have to fantasize about the J-20 having the maneuverability of an airliner, and to do so you argue the J-20 cannot dogfight without thrust vectoring nozzles. That is called sour grape mentality.

If TVN is such pure awesomeness as you have portrayed, then air force around the world would flock to equip their aircraft with one. The reality is the opposite, with major air force in US and Europe treating TVN with cold shoulder. This is in contrast to items such as AESA radars, where nations are flocking to equip their fighters with. Given the reactions of actual air force and the words of a random kid on a forum, it is obvious that actions from air force has more authority.

[Engineer]

Sorry tphuang, I didn't see your post before replying.

[escobar]

PLAN Su-30 MK2 in real combat training

[hardware]

1_20120925-1348575056_51967.jpg
picture of J-15,notice image number 3,one can notice the silhouette in the radar cone,it do not resemble slotted antenna,likely either a AESA or PESA antenna.

[kroko]

1_20120925-1348575056_51967.jpg
picture of J-15,notice image number 3,one can notice the silhouette in the radar cone,it do not resemble slotted antenna,likely either a AESA or PESA antenna.

Im not an expert in this matter but i dont see any diference betwen them.

[mack8]

Umm...cones are not light transparent. It's just the way the sunlight is reflected off the cone.

[escobar]

PLANAF J-11BH

[escobar]

[Deino]

85. Brigade Su-30MKK

http://top81.jschina.com.cn/top81bbs...3289_71380.jpg

¶¦Ê¢Ì¸±ø ¶¦Ê¢ÂÛ̳

Deino

[Equation]

85. Brigade Su-30MKK

http://top81.jschina.com.cn/top81bbs...3289_71380.jpg

¶¦Ê¢Ì¸±ø ¶¦Ê¢ÂÛ̳

Deino

Hey Deino, could you post it in jpg. file pic because I click on the site and it's not there? Thanks.

[A.Man]

A CCTV Porgram: The Chinese Air Power Is Above Japan & Korea, but behind the United States

http://news.cntv.cn/china/20121010/107009.shtml