J-10 Thread IV

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Reuben Johnson the long time observer of Chinese aviation industry . His take on J10 TVC And one of the better analyst when it come to Chinese aircraft development
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Thrust-vectoring J-10 Stars at Zhuhai
by
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

- November 9, 2018, 3:15 AM

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Aircraft 1034, the J-10 TVC demonstrator, performs extreme-agility maneuvers in the skies over Zhuhai. (photo: Vladimir Karnozov)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
engine that powers all of the PLAAF’s Su-27 and Su-30 aircraft. This latest version seen at Zhuhai is equipped with a Chinese-made Woshan (WS)-10B3 engine that includes the TVC module.

The WS-10 is built by the Shenyang-based Liming Aero-engine Company, and itself is a derivative of the model used to power the Shenyang Aircraft Company’s (SAC) J-11B fighter aircraft, a reverse-engineered copy of the Russian Sukhoi Su-27. The TVC nozzle has reportedly been developed not just for this aircraft, but also as part of the new WS-15 engine program that is supposed to eventually power the PLAAF’s most well-known new-generation aircraft: the Chengdu J-20.

Coincidentally, in 1990 the IAI Lavi aircraft that is such a close analog to the J-10 was used as the baseline performance model for one of the first single-engine, axisymmetric vectoring nozzle design studies performed in the West. The computer-aided model was developed jointly by General Electric Aircraft Engines and IAI as a proposed retrofit for the Lockheed Martin F-16 but was not proceeded with.

Sukhoi eventually decided on TVC as the best solution for the performance requirements of the Su-35 and later deleted the canard foreplanes. Canards are seen by some aircraft designers as a mixed blessing, creating performance enhancements but at the expense of lost energy in any combat maneuvering. TVC is seen as having greater benefits in being able to reduce or deflect an IR signature, as well as offering long-term savings on maintenance.

TVC has been evaluated by several military aircraft engine producers, but not with the goal of producing impressive aerobatic flight display routines. Design teams for the Eurofighter’s EJ200 have analyzed a number of models that prove that TVC allows the pilot to run the engine at lower temperatures and achieve the same level of performance, which enhances the overall service life of the engine—a factor that most modern air forces are keen to focus on.
 

hkbc

Junior Member
There is no actual well defined speed limit for DSIs. The speed limit depends on the specific geometry of the inlet in conjunction with how well the engine performs as total pressure recovery drops.

Just for the pedants here's a revised statement, "as a DSI inlet is essentially fixed, in order to produce appropriate performance across the spectrum of flight regimes expected to be encountered by fighter aircraft, designers of such aircraft have to date chosen to produce DSI designs which yield a maximum speed of circa Mach 2 at altitude"

I am sure if they made a DSI bump that had the geometry of a shock cone adjust the bypass ratio they could make one that will go faster but that just misses the point
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
Just for the pedants here's a revised statement, "as a DSI inlet is essentially fixed, in order to produce appropriate performance across the spectrum of flight regimes expected to be encountered by fighter aircraft, designers of such aircraft have to date chosen to produce DSI designs which yield a maximum speed of circa Mach 2 at altitude"

I am sure if they made a DSI bump that had the geometry of a shock cone adjust the bypass ratio they could make one that will go faster but that just misses the point
Does it miss the point though? What you said about DSIs in this post is very different from what you said about DSIs in the previous post. It changes *why* the J-10C has the listed max mach number that it does.
 

hkbc

Junior Member
Does it miss the point though? What you said about DSIs in this post is very different from what you said about DSIs in the previous post. It changes *why* the J-10C has the listed max mach number that it does.

And a movable inlet like on the J-10A has, allows essentially the same plane to have a higher Mach number but provide none of the advantages of a DSI which is the point! Your statement was there's nothing stopping you having a DSI inlet achieve a higher Mach number than 2 and I agreed with you, There's nothing fundementally stopping you from having a DSI achieve a higher speed, however as a DSI is fixed you would lose efficiency at lower speeds with such a design. Basically there's no such thing as a free lunch and you choose your compromises, take the advantages of a DSI and lose some top speed, which is the point in the original post before your interjection.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
And a movable inlet like on the J-10A has, allows essentially the same plane to have a higher Mach number but provide none of the advantages of a DSI which is the point! Your statement was there's nothing stopping you having a DSI inlet achieve a higher Mach number than 2 and I agreed with you, There's nothing fundementally stopping you from having a DSI achieve a higher speed, however as a DSI is fixed you would lose efficiency at lower speeds with such a design. Basically there's no such thing as a free lunch and you choose your compromises, take the advantages of a DSI and lose some top speed, which is the point in the original post before your interjection.
So why was the J-10A’s max Mach number also listed as 1.8 (from the 2012 Zhuhai show)?

I’m not in disagreement about efficiency loss at lower speeds for optimization at higher speeds, but again we shouldn’t make the mistake of implying that inlet geometry is the only thing that matters here. The inlet’s external geometry, internal geometry, and the engines all work together as one coherent system. There is indeed no such thing as a free lunch, but there *are* more efficient lunches and less efficient lunches, and I’m cautious about asserting what the trade offs must have been on nothing more than an all too simplistic, often repreated, and technically superficial heuristic.
 

by78

General
More high-resolution images...

44890227515_5f4b66624c_o.jpg

45801121711_477b548f0c_h.jpg

45751686172_dacaa39499_h.jpg

45801122031_48a36615a4_h.jpg

45751686622_d7fa2f7e33_h.jpg
 
Top