Sorry I just read your inclusion of sea level. In that case, it's not surprising. Thought you were saying max speed is Mach 1.2 or so.
J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Sorry I just read your inclusion of sea level. In that case, it's not surprising. Thought you were saying max speed is Mach 1.2 or so.
1.2 at sea level is pretty good, actually.
The report was from official channels and the test pilot was one of the best ever in China so the validity should not be questioned. What's interesting is he said the test flight speed was achieved in a dive down, with his jet almost self-dismantled (but did not). Sounds like the test was specifically to achieve the speed. So I assume this has to be low altitude. Is 1400 km/hr too slow even in those situations? How come there is no discussion here.
There's no discussion because we don't know what at altitude he's talking about.
Unfortunately he did not say specifics.
"Dive from 12,000 meter altitude, at a rate of decline 120 meter/s ..... ... until he achieved 1453 km/hr speed" ... ... "at that speed if he eject he will hit the tail and die so there is no turning back"
This is why sharing the original source is important. The "record" refers to an incident in 2003, and as I understand it when the article says a record was set, it means the record at the time of the incident, not today.
Edit: So I just finished reading the whole thing, and feel like I should probably adjust my earlier comment. 1453 km/hr seems to be the target speed they were going for during the test (contrary to my earlier comment that record shouldn't just be for the time of the incident), but it sounds like he hit it at a very low altitude during a dive, because he discusses going past the point where he could eject. I imagine, however, plane's structural integrity in that test isn't representative of what would happen with today's production planes, because the structural failures certainly seemed unexpected. I'd also wager that the top speed he hit is supposed to be without afterburners, since it was done with a dive. Can't say that conclusively with just the information in the testimonial though.
Last edited:
Quickie
Colonel
The target speed in this case is limited by the altitude of the aircraft at the start of the dive (which must also take into account the max G that the aircraft can handle in the pull up) just so the aircraft will level up at a safe altitude from the ground. So, it was never about the max speed capability of the aircraft to begin with.
Last edited:
Quickie
Colonel
Just to expand a bit more.
The test was more a test of structural integrity of the aircraft in withstanding the g-force during the dive and pulling up, than just max speed.
In a level flight for example, the aircraft have to handle only the aerodynamic forces of the air stream and less of the G-forces during, say, a tight turn and therefore can attain a higher speed than during a dive and pull up, assuming enough engine power.
The test was more a test of structural integrity of the aircraft in withstanding the g-force during the dive and pulling up, than just max speed.
In a level flight for example, the aircraft have to handle only the aerodynamic forces of the air stream and less of the G-forces during, say, a tight turn and therefore can attain a higher speed than during a dive and pull up, assuming enough engine power.
I think you're probably right, but the article describes the intent as hitting the plane's *speed* limit, and that a record was set there. There are a lot of potential conditions around what "speed limit" may refer to here, but that's what the straight shot description that was used.