The wrinkle in all this is the WS-10 is from Shenyang Liming though, so unless we think CAC modded their own nozzles I’m not sure if the Salut CAC connection is relevant...
J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Hyperwarp
Captain
Shenyang still has to meet CAC/PLAAF requirements for fitting the WS-10 to the J-10 and J-20. So maybe they indeed modded their own nozzled or forced Shenyang use the Salut like implementation. Remember this is not about the TVC system being an exact copy but influnces on the design. China had AVEN technology for nearly 20 years. And it was probably a Shenyang affliated company that did those early tests (though I not sure about this). But now we see a departure from that. Why?
To be honest the Salut implementation seems messy compared to AVEN/PYBBN. Exhaust plume (at least by eyeballing) looks more uniform on the AVEN.
(Jump to 1:57)
I don’t think CAC forced anything with Shenyang Liming. That’s not how these projects usually work. Whatever the particular relationship between CAC and Shenyang Liming on this TVC engine it was most likely colloborative and coordinated. I don’t think we can or should exclude the possibility of Salut’s involvement. I just don’t think, if Salut is involved, that it was primarily between CAC and Salut, since Shenyang Liming is the engine supplier.
Hyperwarp
Captain
Ah! My bad! I get your point now!
Now the question is, why did they go with this particular TVC implementation when China had AVEN 20 years ago? This is still bugging me. In AVEN the exhaust plume looks very fluidic and uniform.
I’ve been thinking about this a bit too, and looking at how each design works, I tentatively think that maybe Salut’s design actually gets better angle deflection, or potentially less thrust loss. It may also provide better control over the convergent-divergent functions of the nozzle at different deflection angles. It seems to me at least that Salut’s design provides a greater range of nozzle geometry. Just an initial suspicion on my part though.
I don't know. See #2410 by Hyperwarp for hypothesis.
We should also be aware that the nozzle's paddles of Izd. 30 and WS-10 on J-10 are different. Izd. 30 has one piece, WS-10 has two pieces. When contracted, the WS-10 paddles have a bulge at the end 1/4, meaning the driving mechanics are different, or even the internal shape of the exhaust at the end is different. So I am not very convinced by the two hypothesis.
@Hyperwarp too
What do you two mean by "different design"? Isn't WS-10's TVC AVEN? So is Idz. 30? And Euro fighter's proposed one and Mig-35?
AVEN is the type that reshape the exhaust paddles to control the direction without moving the base? The only other different design is what is on early Su-57 and other Sukhoi's where the base of the nuzzle rotate to control direction?
Diagram of one (of many) early Chinese design.
Early test item which looks identical to what we see on the J-10 except the saw tooth.
Compare to Idz 30
I have marked the differences of the Chinese and Russian implementation. The differences are big because they affect the shape of the contraction and expansion sections of the nuzzle, therefor flame-flow, therefor performance efficiency. They also affect the force applied on the paddles and needed from the actuators.
My conclusion based on this is that, there is not much meaningful relationship between the two designs except they are all AVENs just like the American and European ones. If there is any relationship, it is as much/less as the relationship between the US design and Russian design. Actually, it would be safer to say American, Russian and European designs are closer to one another, while the Chinese design is further away from them.
Early test item which looks identical to what we see on the J-10 except the saw tooth.
Compare to Idz 30
I have marked the differences of the Chinese and Russian implementation. The differences are big because they affect the shape of the contraction and expansion sections of the nuzzle, therefor flame-flow, therefor performance efficiency. They also affect the force applied on the paddles and needed from the actuators.
My conclusion based on this is that, there is not much meaningful relationship between the two designs except they are all AVENs just like the American and European ones. If there is any relationship, it is as much/less as the relationship between the US design and Russian design. Actually, it would be safer to say American, Russian and European designs are closer to one another, while the Chinese design is further away from them.