Some simple minds can only comprehend the world in simple ways. Introduce any nuance and complexity, the mind responds aggressively in its dismissal of new information. It is a pretty common human defense mechanism ingrained to spare us from having to think. After all, thinking is a truly difficult process that even the best of us often cannot be bothered with. Terrifyingly, this characteristic has clearly been exploited by those with power and those who seek power throughout all our histories. How many eventually question and leave their religion/mind cult? Exactly. You'll never convince those that believe J-10 = Lavi otherwise. Because like religion, racial/cultural bias is roughly as emotional a topic for most people.
J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Model of aircraft in 1982 made by CAC.
Since I am hesitant to outright believe those images were taken in 1982, is there a way to prove the date? Who took the photos? Where? What publication released them? Anything that'd help prove the actual date of the photo, especially one with the guy holding the model.
That models might not be necessarily indicative of any real plans when it comes to weapons configuration. Simple models often aren't meant for that.
Now, if we DO take the model's accuracy for granted - there are several interesting details. One, the intake seems to be of the last design. Meaning, the ramp intake of the J-10A. We do know that the static full scale model from early 1990s featured a F-16/Lavi style intake. And we do know that some of the very first intake ideas, seen on the small models (from the 1980s?), featured a high supersonic cone intake.
That's a bit strange in itself, though. That the requirements shifted from a above mach 2 intake, to barely mach 2 intake to again on the final plane, a ramp intake indicative of speeds of above mach 2. (and with J10B we again saw a fixed intake, probably due to relaxed requirement of up to mach 2)
The missiles on the intake suggest ample enough clearance behind the missile for the landing gear doors. Also, note the position and layout of the underwing pylons. There's a lot of clearance between the innermost pylons and the centerline. Plus the tanks are positioned as outermost pylons, while AAMs are on innermost pylons. All that, with the under intake missiles, leads me to believe that particular configuration had landing gear retract perpendicular to the centerline, and not longitudinally as on J10 we have today. Perpendicular would be what we see on the Eurofighter, MiG-21, Mirages, etc.
I assume he's the chief designer of the plane. But my question still stands.You don't know who that "guy" is??
Edit: i just checked the photos. He resembles Song Wencong.
Actually, looking at photos of mr. Song, he was visibly younger when photographed with earlier configuration variants of J10 models (such as one with F16 style intake). The way he has aged in this photo is much closer to his age when he was photographed around final configuration models that we saw enter active service. So I'd say the photo is likely from early 2000s, or the the earliest late 1990s.
The Lavi has substantial similarities to the J-10, but there's a few key differences.
-Weight
The Lavi is an ultra-light weight fighter more comparable to the JF-17. The J-10, on the other hand, uses a single heavyweight engine, putting it in a weight class between the F-16 and Rafale.
-Swept wings
The Lavi has rear-swept wings coupled with a canard, while the J-10 has a relatively standard delta wing,.
-Internal wing anhedral
The J-10 has a feature the Lavi doesn't, which is to say. the J-10's inner wings have an anhedral bent. This is purportedly good for enhancing roll rates. The Lavi doesn't.
The Lavi and J-10 are, to be sure, close relatives (ventral-straked canard delta), and it is believed that the Israelis helped on the J-10's FCS, but there's sufficient difference that we can't simply conclude the J-10 is a Lavi clone.
-Weight
The Lavi is an ultra-light weight fighter more comparable to the JF-17. The J-10, on the other hand, uses a single heavyweight engine, putting it in a weight class between the F-16 and Rafale.
-Swept wings
The Lavi has rear-swept wings coupled with a canard, while the J-10 has a relatively standard delta wing,.
-Internal wing anhedral
The J-10 has a feature the Lavi doesn't, which is to say. the J-10's inner wings have an anhedral bent. This is purportedly good for enhancing roll rates. The Lavi doesn't.
The Lavi and J-10 are, to be sure, close relatives (ventral-straked canard delta), and it is believed that the Israelis helped on the J-10's FCS, but there's sufficient difference that we can't simply conclude the J-10 is a Lavi clone.
Indeed. And as a full-time computer engineer and part-time component architect, even I can see quite differences in fluid mechanics will already make the whole design, and idea behind, of an airplane totally disparate. And so I will say: it's me puzzled why so many people insist to say J10 is a clone of Lavi, with so mountain evidence it's NOT.
-- there is people here quote Popular Mechanics as source of this claim. I can only say it's the other way around - it reveal how that magazine can have (quite) mistakes. Check w/ some true mechanic practitioners and you will know.
you don’t get it. People say J10 is a Lavi clone to prove Chinese aren’t capable of designing anything on their own. They have to copy from someonr
The Chinese have a reputation for cloning products and technologies.
More differences between the Lavi and J-10:
-Canard placement.
The J-10 has a mid-positioned canard, as opposed to the ultra-close coupled canard of the Lavi, the close-coupled canard of the Rafale, and the long arm canard of the Eurofighter.
-Intended role
The J-10 is intended for light air superiority, and is somewhat hobbled as an anti-surface platform. The Lavi, on the other hand, was designed as a strike fighter that would emphasize air-to-ground missions but hold its own in air-to-air.
Generally speaking, it's untrue that the Chinese had no input from the Lavi project on the J-10. But it's also untrue that the J-10 is a straight Lavi knock-off; there's roughly an equal number of similarities (canard delta layout with lerx, tail design) and differences between the planes (all the other stuff I've listed).
I don't see it as being different than the J-20; there's lots of features on the J-20 that look like they were copied off someone else (stealth shaping, chines, DSI, lerx canard lerx delta formula), as well as stuff that's unique (anhedral-dihedral canard layout, railed sidebays) but when you put everything together it's a unique fighter.
In the Chinese case, the only thing that we can strictly call copies in Chinese fighter aviation would be the F-7, which is a MiG-21 derivative, and the J-11/J-15/J-16 line, which are Flanker clones and independent developments of the airframe.