J-20 Inlet Discussion

Discussion in 'Air Force' started by Inst, Oct 12, 2019.

  1. Inst
    Offline

    Inst Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,356
    Likes Received:
    662
    I don't see the point..I drew this out because it had the LERX shown in 2011 and later models, whereas other diagrams tend to have round LERX as on the 2001.

    But even if you go by photographs, you still end up with an inlet only length in the 7-8 meter range.

    ===

    I think the overall point of this thread is to explore what the inlet means and how it applies to the J-20's operating characteristics.

    Check out this NASA page:

    https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/inlet.html

    Here, the difference between a supersonic and a subsonic inlet is defined. In a supersonic inlet, you want more length so you have more space to bleed out the boundary layer and dissipate shockwaves. For subsonics, on the other hand, you want as short an inlet as is practical for the reasons given above.

    ===

    The long J-20 inlet is suggesting one or both of two things: first, the J-20 can supercruise if its inlet can keep the AL-31 / WS-10 working at high efficiency. You only need about 50 kN thrust per engine to break the Mach barrier,at altitude, and the Al-31 / WS-10 should have around 75kN base thrust. But that's a sea-level rating, not a rating at altitude,

    Second, the long inlet design is an optimization for high-speed fighting, not low-speed fighting. The longer your intake is, the more your engines are going to have to suck, and until your suck has been overwhelmed by speed-dependent blow, you're at a disadvantage.

    You know what other aircraft has long intakes?

    [​IMG].

    The point being, regarding the MiG-31, is that its inlets are designed to maintain usable airflow to its engines at high speed, i.e, it draws in a lot of air.to work as altitude, and is long enough to absorb multiple supersonic shock waves. The J-20's inlets are somewhat smaller, but it has a similar length to that of the MiG-31, with the latter having around 14 meters of length
     
    viva zhao likes this.
  2. Deino
    Offline

    Deino Lieutenant General
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    Messages:
    10,296
    Likes Received:
    26,773
    Now I understand ... you are only back on track to prove, the J-20 is an interceptor!
     
  3. secretprojects
    Offline

    secretprojects New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    44
    This is some kind of 'cargo cult' method of aerodynamics. Correlation does not equal causation. Very odd.
     
  4. secretprojects
    Offline

    secretprojects New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    44
    Intake length varies as a tradeoff between many factors including weight and complexity, engine stability requirements, and stealth. Longer intakes help conceal engine compressor faces with s-ducts.

    Supercruise is a function of available thrust versus drag.
     
  5. Inst
    Offline

    Inst Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,356
    Likes Received:
    662
    I'll respond to Deino at the same time I respond to you.

    My original interest was in seeing whether the J-20 could still supercruise, even though the Al-31 can't supercruise on the Su-27. So I'm focusing on the differences; the Su-27 has a short inlet, while the J-20 has a long inlet.

    As for the interceptor claims; I'm sure most people are aware that I don't like characterizing the J-20 as an "air superiority fighter" and would prefer fighter-interceptor due to its leaked characteristics of "good subsonic maneuverability, excellent supersonic maneuverability". This has gotten very histrionic as posters on this board get very insulted when people claim that the J-20 isn't an air superiority fighter in the same mode as the F-22 or Su-57.

    People here know what I think, as well as what others think, so to diffuse the situation, I'll also point out that the Rafale and Eurofighter have relatively long intakes for their size.

    Simply having long intakes does not make for an interceptor, as the former two show, but they do seem to correlate to good high-speed performance, as the Eurocanards are supercruise capable, the F-22 is supercruise capable, the MiG-31 is known for its high cruising speeds (but not supercruise, as it requires afterburners).
     
  6. Inst
    Offline

    Inst Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,356
    Likes Received:
    662
    But available thrust is also a function of inlet design; i.e, we can go back to the F-14, which was reengined mid-life to much higher thrust, yet its max speed didn't change as the inlets were never modified. The main changes were in maneuverability and acceleration due to the increase in thrust.
     
  7. ougoah
    Offline

    ougoah Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,796
    Likes Received:
    2,038
    I reckon we give the supercruise speculations a well deserved rest. Unless one member can prove they really know what they're talking about, it's pointless to say an intake length of x distance allows for/ does not allow supercruise. I'm certain it's not quite as simple as that even if patterns can be observed. This stuff is barely in conjecture territory. If someone comes up with meaningful observations, please share but so far there's an absolute absence of quality speculation when it comes to J-20 supercruise.
     
  8. latenlazy
    Offline

    latenlazy Colonel

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,314
    Likes Received:
    3,518
    Pardon my French, but bullshit can’t substitute for physics.
     
  9. Inst
    Offline

    Inst Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,356
    Likes Received:
    662
    We know that the J-20 was designed to be able to supercruise with inferior engines. Since available thrust at a given altitude is a function of both the engines and the inlets, and the J-20 is currently trapped with the WS-10 / Al-31, it stands to reason that if Chengdu wanted to give the J-20 supercruise, it would resort to screwing with the inlet duct to increase available power.

    From the drag calculations we've seen, the J-20, if its Al-31 or WS-10 were to operate at sea-level dry thrust at altitude, it could easily hit Mach 1.6. But it won't, because the Al-31 / WS-10 end up being oxygen-starved and there's not even enough dry thrust to break the Mach barrier.

    Since Chengdu can't fix the engines (that's SAC's job), it can still try to give the engines as much support as possible via the inlet.

    You can't possibly deny that the J-20 has one of the longest inlets of any fighter in existence, matched or surpassed mainly by the MiG-31. That's an interesting feature that people haven't touched upon recently, although it'd probably come up in discussions of the J-20's stealth (S-duct).
     
  10. secretprojects
    Offline

    secretprojects New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    44
    Actual real relevant factors for supercruise can be found in http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/ConfigAeroSupersonicNotes.pdf

    The article by Song Wencong on J-20 configuration includes several relevant factors.

    Supersonic drag is largely wave drag. The key to minimizing wave drag is minimal frontal area (cross section), excellent area ruling and a high fineness ratio. J-20 has a higher fineness ratio than any of its rivals.

    Delta wings are a good choice for low supersonic drag.

    Inlet length is not a good indicator of supercruise. Just ask Boeing... 2707 SST....
    2707-200-085-1600x915.jpg
     
Loading...

Share This Page