Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

Hyperwarp said:

Off-course I remember those. Lets leave out SAC proposals. According to the
rumor/conspiracy theory (by me ), those were the more mature CAC concepts with available tech, requiring canards and tail. Tailless design was something earlier that was dropped long before those.



I totally understand the skepticism. Unfortunately, who said it and where I do not recall. This was around or before CAC was selected in 2008. At least 10-years ago I would say. That was the 1st person who showed me a sketch of a possible JXX concept that turned out to be fairly close. Didn't think much of it back then. But thinking about it now makes sense to me that CAC initial aimed very high but due to limitations the realistic design came to fruition.

Click to expand...

Hmm.

No offence, but the fact that this rumour never gained any traction, and the fact that we have not heard any other rumours or indications about a tailless CAC concept from any other sources that have traditionally been quite credible, combined with this picture below leaked at the beginning of this year, of a display in the year 2000 showing the CAC proposal and the SAC proposal in a rather complete manner, makes me feel like the rumour you heard was not a rumour like "credible-percolating-through-layers-from-legitimate-source", but rather a rumour like "made-up-by-a-random-guy-on-the-internet".

At the very least, you must admit that the evidence supporting the idea that there was ever once a tailless CAC concept, should be considered very, very thin, yes?

Bltizo said:

***

At the very least, you must admit that the evidence supporting the idea that there was ever once a tailless CAC concept, should be considered very, very thin, yes?

Click to expand...

Strictly speaking empirical evidence wise, then I would say non-existent.

Hyperwarp said:

Strictly speaking empirical evidence wise, then I would say non-existent.

Click to expand...

I mean, the original design study for the J-20 talked about the benefits and challenges of going tailless, but it also said they submitted a tailed design for the tender.

Basically, tailless makes no sense except as a design goal, since it's unworkable, especially for an unstable aircraft, unless you have working TVC. I would much appreciate any substantiation of the tailless claim, of course.

Inst said:

Basically, tailless makes no sense except as a design goal, since it's unworkable, especially for an unstable aircraft, unless you have working TVC. I would much appreciate any substantiation of the tailless claim, of course.

Click to expand...

No, you can still use use wing mounted differential drag devices like spoilers, split flaps or split ailerons to achieve active directional control in a tailless unstable aircraft.

noticed in Twitter:





FC31V2 spotted in flight test recently, photos by 牧是家

Inst said:

Basically, tailless makes no sense except as a design goal, since it's unworkable, especially for an unstable aircraft, unless you have working TVC. I would much appreciate any substantiation of the tailless claim, of course.

Click to expand...

No, tailless aircraft works perfectly today. From B2 to X-47, neuron and Lijian UAVs. Non of them has TVC, and all of them are unstable.

I guess your statement is ONLY referring aircraft that goes supersonic, right? If so, you are partially right because nobody has made it work, but partially wrong because it is still technically doable. TVC is not necessarily the first choice for a tailless supersonic aircraft though. It is all about how fast the controlling forces (surfaces or TVC) can change the aircraft's momentum. TVC in today's shape may not be as responsive as controlling surfaces.

Jura said:

noticed in Twitter:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

FC31V2 spotted in flight test recently, photos by 牧是家

Click to expand...

I still think FC-31 has a great future even if it is purely for export (looks like that is the more likely case now), as long as its performance is true 5th gen, price will not be the deciding factor. FC-31 export market exists due to the lack of competition.

Prepare to take some verbal abuse from F-35 owners, FC-31 serves as a poor man's 5th gen jet. It is enough of deterrence even to US Navy. The attacker will think twice, because the first engagement between 5th jets is highly unpredictable. The likes of Qatar/Iran are perfect to be the first buyer.

kurutoga said:

I still think FC-31 has a great future even if it is purely for export (looks like that is the more likely case now), as long as its performance is true 5th gen, price will not be the deciding factor. FC-31 export market exists due to the lack of competition.

Prepare to take some verbal abuse from F-35 owners, FC-31 serves as a poor man's 5th gen jet. It is enough of deterrence even to US Navy. The attacker will think twice, because the first engagement between 5th jets is highly unpredictable. The likes of Qatar/Iran are perfect to be the first buyer.

Click to expand...

The FC-31 may or may not be exported?? that remains to be seen, but I wouldn't write off Chinas need for a smaller 5 Gen,, these things take lots of time to "jell", the F-31 seems put together, but like the J-20 needs upgrade power plants.

Air Force Brat said:

The FC-31 may or may not be exported??

Click to expand...

No I mean if PLAN or PLAAF do not purchase FC-31 then it must find customers overseas. Most people consider that is the worst case scenario for FC-31, but I still consider it has a good future as a pure export project like JF-17. Especially given everyone else encountered difficulties.

Yes I absolutely agree these things take a long time (just think how F-16 was initially), possibly that is the reason why FC-31 development is slow to see what happens to the new engine, or wait to see how Japan does it. We can't use China's development mentality on other countries, most other countries do not have the urgency.