Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

Alfa_Particle

Alfa_Particle

Junior Member
Registered Member
Blitzo said:
Nice chart.
A few pieces of feedback in terms of chart format/readability:
- swap the blue and the green dots around (i.e.: blue for carrier based, green for land based)
- change the background to something black or grey so it's easier on the eyes (my one should've done so as well but it was quite and dirty on microsoft paint
- a few too many boxes (related to below in terms of content/aircraft)

... in terms of the actual content:
- I think there are too many "potential variants" listed that are unconfirmed, which probably don't deserve to be acknowledged as having equal status to confirmed airframes and variants, while there are also some which I think are redundant.

- Some boxes/variant which I think should be deleted include: FC-31V2 prototype 03, FC-31 (export), J-35 painted prototypes, J-35 (production version), and J-31 (land based). To explain why:
  • "FC-31V2 prototype 03" is the same as "FC-31V2". Which is to say, prototype 31003 is not the "third" prototype of FC-31V2, rather it is the "third prototype" of the FC-31 tech demos which began with FC-31V1 serial 31001, followed by FC-31V1 serial 31002 (never witnessed, likely to be a static testbed), and then FC-31V2 serial 31003. Thus, "FC-31V2 prototype 03" is redundant
  • we don't know if there is actually a "FC-31 export" that has been developed or is being developed
  • we don't know if there is actually a "J-31 (land based)" that has been developed or is being developed
  • I don't think we need separate boxes for "J-35 painted prototypes" and "J-35 production versions". J-35/XY prototypes are EMD/preproduction prototypes intended to be prototypes of a representative production model in the same way J-20 201X prototypes were.
- I think those above boxes/variants can be deleted, and are better off integrated into the existing boxes for FC-31V2 and J-35/XY instead. Alternatively, having various speculated/proposed variants on the side as bullet points without having dedicated boxes to acknowledge them could work. Having too many boxes gives the false impression of individual variants which is how most of these charts and diagrams end up getting read.


Or, overall:
View attachment 127931
Click to expand...
Will do!
 
Deino

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Alfa_Particle said:
Based on Rick Joe's chart, I made an updated one and here's the speculated relationship between the so-called J-31 and FC-31:
View attachment 127930
Just a draft. Feedbacks welcome.
Click to expand...


I hope you don't mind a few notes and comments from my side (in fact my own opinion) additionally to @Blitzo's comments:

  • IMO the claim it was privately founded is more a cover story than a fact. I'm pretty sure it was always aimed for the PLA and as such more a low-priority project until development of the J-20 was done. If I'm not mistaken, we must remember we saw it first as scale-down model (then called
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    ) by the 601 Institute in September 2011 on an event aimed for UAV-models landing on a simulated carrier deck!
  • As explained "FC-31V2 prototype 03" IS "FC-31V2" ... and IMO this is the reason for so much confusion also for such stupid claims, there are three FC-31 and later 31003 as a J-31.
  • Therefore we know prototype 31003 as FC-31V2 but in fact it is the "third prototype" of the FC-31 demonstrators since FC-31 (better known as V1) was number 31001, followed by another FC-31 (V1) maybe serialled 31002 (but IMO it never got a number) and rarely witnessed most likely as a static testbed), and then FC-31 (V2) number 31003.
Here's the "second" V1:

FC-31V1 2x part.JPGFC-31V1 strange.JPG


As such i tried a bit and s here's my revised one based on your map:

FC-31 to J-35 and more development - Alpha_Particle + AR.jpg
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Deino said:
I hope you don't mind a few notes and comments from my side (in fact my own opinion) additionally to @Blitzo's comments:

  • IMO the claim it was privately founded is more a cover story than a fact. I'm pretty sure it was always aimed for the PLA and as such more a low-priority project until development of the J-20 was done. If I'm not mistaken, we must remember we saw it first as scale-down model (then called
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    ) by the 601 Institute in September 2011 on an event aimed for UAV-models landing on a simulated carrier deck!
Click to expand...

I think "internally developed" might be a better way of describing it rather than "privately developed/founded".

Ultimately IMO the difference between "internally developed" and "developed for PLA" is best differentiated by whether a project was intended for PLA service from the outset at a project's initiation, and to the best of our knowledge the "FC-31 family" only was intended for PLA service once it was selected as the basis for J-XY/35 as the PLAN's carrier based 5th gen.
 
G

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
Deino said:
IMO the claim it was privately founded is more a cover story than a fact. I'm pretty sure it was always aimed for the PLA and as such more a low-priority project until development of the J-20 was done. If I'm not mistaken, we must remember we saw it first as scale-down model (then called F-60) by the 601 Institute in September 2011 on an event aimed for UAV-models landing on a simulated carrier deck!
Click to expand...
Why is this surprising exactly? Even in the Soviet Union airplane designers and makers often made prototypes without directives from the central government.

Try reading about the development of the La-5 during WW2 for example.

The Chinese economy if anything is a lot more decentralized than the Soviet one ever was. The Chinese local governments fund companies by themselves without direct input from the central government. And airplane makers have their own limited discretionary budgets which they can use for projects like this. Shenyang likely decided after losing the competition to make the J-20 that they needed to keep their skills up to date. Otherwise they would be risking their own long term viability as an independent aircraft company with its own design bureau. You only need to look at what happened to MiG in Russia to see what could likely happen to them. Get put under the same umbrella as Chengdu.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top