J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)

[King_Comm]

Who told you that? DSI is perfect for supersonic flight. The "S" in DSI stands for Supersonic. The intention of the bump is to force out the boundary layer out of the way at higher speeds.

If you like an intake that is optimized for lower speeds, a smaller but open one would suffice, like those on the JH-7A or the Jaguar.

I am under the impression that DSI can only divert boundary layer air up to the speed of Mach 2, after which the the thickness of the boundary layer will exceed the height of the bump and go into the inlet.

 

[SteelBird]

In the other forum, some people said that certain type of F-16 also have DSI. Is that true? Can anyone post a picture of F-16 with DSI to compare with the J-10 DSI?

According to what I know, F-16 was the first testbed for DSI, though operational F-16 never has one. Here's a link you read about.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[PrOeLiTeZ]

i think people are missing the point that its probably i mobile phone picture or small camera. so you cannot really judge much on it, that much.

 

[crobato]

I am under the impression that DSI can only divert boundary layer air up to the speed of Mach 2, after which the the thickness of the boundary layer will exceed the height of the bump and go into the inlet.

That depends entirely on the design, although there is really no point in taking a fighter past Mach 2 anyway. Most air combat takes place under the sound barrier.

The entire concept of transition from turbojets to turbofans hinges on the premise you don't really need Mach 2 jets anyway; turbojets are more efficient than turbofans at higher speeds.

The higher the bypass ratio of the turbofan, the more efficient it is at lower speeds, and the less efficient it is at high.

 

[crobato]

I do have a question for those who know more about aircraft than I do. Obviously the DSI intake will help reduce RCS, but I notice that there are changes on the tail end as well, beneath the engines. They eliminated the right angle. Do you think this is to reduce RCS as well? Also, if you notice, the tail no longer ends with a right angle at the top. I know they added an ECM package there, but I suppose that could reduce RCS as well? Or am I wrong?

Tail additions probably won't contribute anything with RCS. They're there probably to improve the aircraft stability, after the plane becomes more tail heavy after reducing weight in the front due to the DSI and all. There are other changes in the plane that may have also contributed to a heavier weight in the back (WS-10A?) and to a lighter weight in the front (new radar?)

 

[Deino]

Did You notice (on post 142) that also the innet wing-pylong seems to have a different design ??

Deino

 

[crobato]

Hard to say, not without a close up.

On another topic, I was mentioning that the radar might be canted. This close up doesn't exactly show the radar is canted but it does show the bulkhead behind the radome is canted.

Since this will lead to another question, my answer is that this alone wont' prove that the intended radar is PESA or AESA but what it does mean is leaning towards that direction.

 

[AssassinsMace]

I was curious to check the Strategypage spin and they're reporting it but they mention that the J-10 is a "maintenance nightmare" and even though China has over a hundred, only a few can fly at a time. Sound familar? It's seems they're "confused" with what was just reported about the F-22.

 

[bladerunner]

I was curious to check the Strategypage spin and they're reporting it but they mention that the J-10 is a "maintenance nightmare" and even though China has over a hundred, only a few can fly at a time. Sound familar? It's seems they're "confused" with what was just reported about the F-22.

Can you provide us with more info on what was reported about the F22 please.

 

[mean_bird]

I was curious to check the Strategypage spin and they're reporting it but they mention that the J-10 is a "maintenance nightmare" and even though China has over a hundred, only a few can fly at a time. Sound familar? It's seems they're "confused" with what was just reported about the F-22.

It's a lot less than when it started first.

Can you provide us with more info on what was reported about the F22 please.

Well, there's a saying that : ' Stealth is in the paint, and goes away with the rain".

Ofcourse the above statement is not entirely true, but yes the material used (mostly rumored to be some kind of dielectrics) on the F-22 that gives it its stealth are said to be highly maintenance demanding.