drunkmunky
Junior Member
oh wow that engine nozzle looks stunning!
J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
I count 14, and no we don’t know if it’s the same nozzle as what will be used on the WS-15.
Hyperwarp
Captain
I too count 14. So IF the WS-15 nozzle's petal count is a multiple of 3, then this one on the J-10 is definitely NOT it. Besides, wouldn't is be more logical to test the WS-15 and its nozzle on the twin engine test aircraft like the J-11?
Pretty sure at this point they would probably just straight test the WS-15 on a J-20. This isn't the early 2000s anymore. I imagine that their testing procedure has probably advanced and their confidence has grown.I too count 14. So IF the WS-15 nozzle's petal count is a multiple of 3, then this one on the J-10 is definitely NOT it. Besides, wouldn't is be more logical to test the WS-15 and its nozzle on the twin engine test aircraft like the J-11?
View attachment 48654
Not sure, I'd like a somewhat better shot of the nozzle.
Why? In diagrams we've seen, it's 15, not 14. That's #1, #2, you don't actually want a stealth nozzle with an even number of petals, because if you have even petals, you'll have petals standing directly opposite from one another; i.e, you're creating corner reflectors. There are obvious advantages to having parallel nozzles, of course, thrust becomes easier to model since the stresses on opposite petals are partially complementary, but when you're designing a stealth nozzle, you want to avoid the corner reflector, hence the axis symmetric nozzle.
Why? In diagrams we've seen, it's 15, not 14. That's #1, #2, you don't actually want a stealth nozzle with an even number of petals, because if you have even petals, you'll have petals standing directly opposite from one another; i.e, you're creating corner reflectors. There are obvious advantages to having parallel nozzles, of course, thrust becomes easier to model since the stresses on opposite petals are partially complementary, but when you're designing a stealth nozzle, you want to avoid the corner reflector, hence the axis symmetric nozzle.
The better way to point this out is, in Hyperwarp's image, is point 8 directly parallel to #1? We can see that the petal marked #1 is at an angle to the horizontal, or if it's not at an angle, then #8 can't be at an angle to the horizontal, and therefore they can't be parallel. If they're not parallel, this can't be a nozzle with an even number of petals.. Hence the nozzle has 15 petals.
Edit: look at the small silver section between point 1 and point 14. Is that part of petal 1 or petal 14, or just a trick of the light? If not, that's petal 15.
Edit: look at the small silver section between point 1 and point 14. Is that part of petal 1 or petal 14, or just a trick of the light? If not, that's petal 15.
Last edited:
They'd still fly it on the Il-76 testbed first, I'd imagine.
Here, look at the relative angle of the line between the tails and the relative angle line formed by the gaps separating petals 4,5 and 11,12.
The lines are roughly 65 and 85 degrees, respectively. This is possible via perspective distortion, but that occurs in wide-angle photography which requires the photographer to get extremely close to the subject. Hence it can't be 14, could be 13 (double-counted somewhere) or 15.
Maybbeee. I’d lean towards that too, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they also skipped that step this time. There’s a trade off between risk mitigation and speed, and the flying testbed stage was probably a lot more necessary for when China had less experience and confidence with modern engines. I’m not saying it will happen that way, just that I wouldn’t be surprised if it did.