I think the Mig-29's greatest weakness was its range. Looking back at it I think Lin Hu made a brilliant choice recommending the Su-27.
Why didn't China buy the MiG-29?
- Thread starter chicket9
- Start date
plawolf
Lieutenant General
With the pictures of the WS10A powered J10A, I don't think it will be too long before the J11B and J10A/B are all operating with the same engine again, so the economies in logistics and procurement still stands.
You mean B right?
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Yes J10B, sorry, slip of the figure. But considering there does not appear to be any external differences of the rear fuselage of the J10A and J10B, and more importantly, between AL31FN powered J10Bs and WS10A powered ones, I am confident that it would not be an issue in retro-fitting existing J10As with WS10A engines once the AL31's flying hours have been exhausted and WS10A production ramps up enough.
Miragedriver
Brigadier
Out of curiosity how do you see the WS10A comparing to the AL31FN. I don’t want to spread disinformation, so what I'm saying is just from what I have read in different publications. I have read that the WS10A has slightly less power than the AL321FN. Should that be of concern to the thrust to weight ration and overall performance of the J-10B? Or is that a reasonable reduction in power for using a national engine?
Miragedriver
Brigadier
Thank you. Could you please provide me with a link to that review? I would really like to read it.
Miragedriver
Brigadier
Would you please be so kind as to name those weaknesses you see in the Mig-29. I am aware of the shorter operational radius, the large aircraft maintenance requirements even though it is a smaller aircraft and the RD33 engines. I am curious to know more.
Thanks
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I have read quite a few different numbers quoted for thrust, and it is hard to say for sure which are correct. On some figures it is less than the AL31FN, other sources have it as more. But if there is a difference, it will not make a massive difference either way.
The WS10A is supposed to have a much higher MTBO and overall service life, which is not all that surprising since we know that the Chinese managed to greatly increase in the life of their Russian made AL31s (the guy who made the breakthrough got a high profile prize for it).
The issue with the WS10 was the spool up time, which was a lot slower and so the plane was not as responsive. But with the WS10A entering frontline service, I would imagine that that issue has been resolved.
As much as some people like to make the WS10A seem like a AL31, the fact of the matter is the Chinese were aiming for a much higher standard when they were designing the WS10A. I would really like to see some reliable figures for MTBO and service life figures for the WS10A, but it would not surprise me at all if they were approaching western standards for turbofan engines.
CottageLV
Banned Idiot
It's easy to understand, China had decent but limited amount of resources, and had to decide between Mig 29 or Su 27. So they picked the much more powerful Su-27, therefore no more money left for mig 29. Plus, China is a huge country with unimaginable engineering potential. They always buy weapons for R&D as the number one priority. Since SU-27 is much more advanced and Mig-29 being just a spin-off of SU-27, so why buy the worse one.
Mig-29 is not a rip off of Su-27.
They where parallel efforts executed about the same time by the respective design bureaus.
TsaGI worked with all the Design Bureaus to work the initial PD stage to identify the best aerodynamic and structural layout. They worked with the same ideas. mig didn't copy of sukhoi.
btw Mig-29 was a frontal fighter designed to contest battle front air-superiority vs both the heavy (F-15) and light (F-16) of teen series. so it was sized to do work. and it was a myth that it was short legged either, compare to its contemporaries like F-18a/b. Its not a bad fighter, its got bad mouthed because it didn't do too hot when its obsolete versions were flown by weak air forces in situations where the odds were completely against it.
think about it, when it was first introduced, it has better low speed maneuverability than F-16/15; Faster than F-18a/, able to fire SARH BVR, which F-16 versions at the time didn't have the ability to do; able to use off-bore sight helmet cued dog fight missiles, which non-of-Nato fighter had the ability at the time to do. able to take off in ridiculously bad fwd fields; no fancy FBW and still by large a traditional hydraulic flight controls.
pretty good i say.
Su-27 was perculiar in that it was aimed to satisfy both the air-defense arm long range interceptor requirement and for an air-superiority fighter able to contest theater superiority.