SinoDefence Forum

aikea

I got this pic from a "seems like" officical media. The J-10 in the picture has a twin engine. The title read "The over and side view of J-10 twin engine aircraft carrrier version(歼10双发舰载型上视及侧视图)"

Here is the Link(Chinese).

PS. The picture is published on 9th January this year.

BLUEJACKET

If it's being promoted, then probably they some have plans to produce/procure them! That way, the Su-33s won't be needed in large numbers! But I don't see a tailhook on it- maybe it's ommission or they are developing a land-based twin engine variant 1st?

crobato

It's not official media, but its the Chinese edition for a big international aviation magazine. I would have dismissed this as clever fanart if it were not being posted in the Chinese Aviation Now website.

sumdud

PS.

Looks more like a Falcon nosed Typhoon.

__________________

Give us a break. Don't try ranting at SDF.

crobato

Maybe Aviation Now's own concept art.

I don't think the second seat and canopy design to be right. In the J-10S, we actually see the second seat raised to give better visibility for the second officer, ala Su-27UBK. This pic is kind of a regression from that.

You can probably go with a single large vertical stabilizer if you use two RD-93/WS-13 type engines, but if you go into the WS-10A weight range, you're better off with two stabilizers instead to give you the control authority needed.

Jeff Head

The landing gear does not look heavy, or "beefed up" enough to me. Can someone compare that gear to a normal J-10 and see if I am right. If so, then this is not an actual picture of a real design but more of a conept art type thing IMHO.

Chengdu J-10

In a personal perspective it is an artist concept of an initial idea that the PLAAF had as a J-10 carrier version. The design was in its very early stages and was just one of those ideas on the drawing board, design multiply designs. It doesn't seem right for the carrier J-10 to be equipped with either 2 WS-10A/AL-31 using only one vertical fin stabilizer. Strongly agree with Crobato in this area of aspects. Using these kind of engines will require an additional vertical fin stabilizer. Also the aircraft will require to be longer in length as adding an additional engine will require a larger air intake. I know it has been streched horizontally the airlets, but this in engineering point of aspect is not enough for the 2 engines the aircraft will need to be stretched more in order for a longer air inlet to fuel the engine. Im an Engineer so I'm giving this post in an engineering view not a teenager screw around.

maozedong

yes, I saw many diferent type of this style J-10 pic, in magazines, internet, some is not navalazed ,some is navalazed, some are more advance than this one, like some stealthy design....
I think some are fans art. but first twin engine J-10 appearanced in 2004 China ZhuHai air shaw, it is a model displayed by air shaw official.

crobato

Models are subjected to change. Just remember the original J-10 model that appeared with a picture of Li Peng. Nonetheless, the changes are more or less on the details than on the general configuration. Its safe to say, the general direction on the twin engined delta canard would be to have two rear rudders, spaced somewhat by two booms. More on the MiG 1.44 style than the Rafale style with a single tall rudder.

BLUEJACKET

I implied in post #886 why should a navalized J-10 be absolutely twin-engine? The answer I got doesn't satisfy me. Only AV-8B Harrier is entirely STOVL, & F-35) has a CTOL version besides STOVL. IMO, given a higher TWR and TVC engine, the land-based J-10 can be navalized further without much (if any) decrease in performance. Please correct me if I'm wrong- is there anything I've missed?

http://navysite.de/cvn/cvn68_4.htm

Pointblank

You aim for a twin engine design for naval fighters due to the increase safety margins two engines have over one, especially if your engine technology may not be at a level where reliability becomes second nature to engine design. The F-35 is the first conventional naval fighter to use a single engine as the engine technology for the Americans is at a point where the engine is expected to be extremely reliable in service, and has a long engine life.

Jeff Head

Not entirely so.

The F-8 Crusader, the A-4 Skyhawk, and the A-7 Corsair II were all very successful US naval carrier aircraft of the jet age which had only one engine.


F-8 Crusader



A-4 Skyhawk


A-7 Corsair II

A-4 Skyhawks are still in service with the Brazillian Navy off of their carrier, Sao Paulo, the former French Foch. The F-8 served until 1987 with US forces (recon role) and with the French Navy until 2000. The A-7 served in US service until 1993, and with Protugal until 2001. All three of these aircraft took part in Desert Storm in 1991 (the F-8 with France). Pretty amazing carrers for all of them, particularly the A-4 and F-8 which were designed and became operational in the 1950s

Sczepan

indeed, and I'd like to compare A-4 Skyhawks, the chinese L-15 Falcon, the JL-9, - FTC-2000 Mountain Eagle (ShanYing) and the new J-10 by dimensions, wight and powering ....
the A-4 Skyhawks was used by catapult carriers, esp. the ex Argentinian "25 de Mayo"



and the Brazil "Minas Gerais"



and the good ole Melbourne


broken und studied by chinese naval engineers

and I just add to have the simple result:

which design could become the first indegenious chinese carrier
usable as helo-carrier and to train jet-pilots and support amphibious operations -
which plane could be used from these carrier-derivate?

My five cents:
a navalised J-10 will be the secound part,
at first the PLAN will use trainee-aircrafts (I prefer the L-15)

and so we will have a lot of time - lets say at least 10 yrs from now - to discuss about J-10 carrier version revealed in Chinese Military Aviation forum

in this time we will see a lot of fan art and speculations, and small numbers of real background

so shouldn't we add this thread to our "SF - fun" section?

bd popeye

Jeff, That F-8 pic is a photo recon bird. See the little window in the fuselage just lower to the right of the star?

That creates a question..Will there evere be a photo recon version of a J-10? Or does the PLAAF have another aircraft in mind the photo recon role?

__________________
Discover the Chinese and World Military picture threads!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And the Chinese Daily Life Photo thread!!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And don't forget

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"I am what I am.... 'Dat's all what I am"

BLUEJACKET

I didn't bother to research the A-4 Skyhawk, but thanks for pointing it out, Jeff!
The Israeli AF currently uses about 110 of them as trainers.
Having 2 engines impoves safety margin of older type jet aircraft, but it doesn't make them crash proof. We lost an F-14 (this pic. is of another "lucky" one) in the Gulf- it had 1 engine out, but the flight deck waved it off as they weren't ready for it- then it run out of fuel on the other engine and the crew ejected & was lated rescued.
Having more than 1 engine also adds to higher fuel consumption. So, the J-10 can be navalized "as is"-i.e. without extensive redesigning/increasing the # of engines!