Chengdu J-9 ... Shenyang J-11 to J-13 and other failed projects
- Thread starter ilia
- Start date
Maarkhoor
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2015
- Messages
- 17,051
- Reaction score
- 36
- Country
- Location
Chengdu J-9 (Chinese: 歼-9) was a designation assigned to a Chinese interceptor aircraft that never progressed beyond initial studies. The J-9 project was abandoned in favour of the Shenyang J-8, which was a safer technological bet for the limited Chinese aviation industry of the 1960s and 1970s. The J-9 designation is frequently confused with the much later Chengdu FC-1 fighter which is sometimes informally referred to as J-9 by aviation enthusiasts.
52051
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2016
- Messages
- 2,245
- Reaction score
- -11
- Country
- Location
It is a real project started in 1960 era by CAC, and the design goal of J-9 is double 2.6: mach 2.6 and service ceiling of 26,000 meter.
But the project is eventually abondoned due to tech issues, political and economy conditions at that time in China.
However this particular J-9VI-2 has significant similiarity with CAC's later J-20, it is not hard to see that J-20 have some of the design features found in J-9-VI-2 since both are designed in CAC, and probably by the same designer: now diseased Song Wencong of CAC:
But the project is eventually abondoned due to tech issues, political and economy conditions at that time in China.
However this particular J-9VI-2 has significant similiarity with CAC's later J-20, it is not hard to see that J-20 have some of the design features found in J-9-VI-2 since both are designed in CAC, and probably by the same designer: now diseased Song Wencong of CAC:
Last edited:
siegecrossbow
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2010
- Messages
- 7,414
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
There were several iterations to the J-9 design. The first had twin engines and was supposed to have a top speed of Mach 2.5 and an operational ceiling of 25,000 meters.
Ultima Thule
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 16,725
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
J-20 is not related to this old and crap design
it is loosely based on thisMIG 1.44
with lots of inventions and innovations, if you have some proves that J-20 is a modernized version of J-9 that show it to us, you reported for your baseless arguments without proves
It is public domain knowledge. J-9 is the original design, the same research resulted in J-10, as well as J-20. There were generations of scientists and their papers to show this.
J-9 was CAC's baby, the reason why they were split from Shenyang
J-9 was CAC's baby, the reason why they were split from Shenyang
Ultima Thule
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 16,725
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Provide a prove thaat J-20 is a modernized version of J-9
yes J-10 could be based of J-9/LAVI influence
,but J-20 is a different ball game it is not based on J-9, J-9 was 60-70 eras old/obsolete design, whereas J-20 is totally different design as compare to J-9, you again reported for your bashing without prove
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
J-9 or MIG 1.44 ?
If we go by public information, the J-9 project was cancelled due to severe technical and social disruptions that hindered its development, but high probability it was the Cultural Revolution that placed the most stress on the program.
The argument that the J-20 came from the J-9 is more likely from the reasoning that the J-9 is an indigenous project than from credible technical analysis. All engineering projects, no matter what, from a new tire tread to a new jet fighter, designers and engineers FIRST looks for precedents. If anything, it is to make their work easier little by little. Why design a new airfoil when I can peruse the NASA/NACA database to see if there is anything I immediately use or use with as minimal modifications as possible ?
The 1.44 project is 25 yrs younger than the J-9 project. Further, the Soviets are more renown than the Chinese when it comes to aviation. We may not know the technical details of both projects, but given the history of Soviet/Russia involvement in aviation, it is a reasonably educated guess that the MIG is more technically sophisticated and probably more complete in final design than the J-9.
So if I am going to design a jet fighter based upon my current resources and time pressure, between two precedents, why should I use a project that is 25 yrs older ?
If we go by public information, the J-9 project was cancelled due to severe technical and social disruptions that hindered its development, but high probability it was the Cultural Revolution that placed the most stress on the program.
The argument that the J-20 came from the J-9 is more likely from the reasoning that the J-9 is an indigenous project than from credible technical analysis. All engineering projects, no matter what, from a new tire tread to a new jet fighter, designers and engineers FIRST looks for precedents. If anything, it is to make their work easier little by little. Why design a new airfoil when I can peruse the NASA/NACA database to see if there is anything I immediately use or use with as minimal modifications as possible ?
The 1.44 project is 25 yrs younger than the J-9 project. Further, the Soviets are more renown than the Chinese when it comes to aviation. We may not know the technical details of both projects, but given the history of Soviet/Russia involvement in aviation, it is a reasonably educated guess that the MIG is more technically sophisticated and probably more complete in final design than the J-9.
So if I am going to design a jet fighter based upon my current resources and time pressure, between two precedents, why should I use a project that is 25 yrs older ?
GiantPanda
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2016
- Messages
- 734
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Institutional knowledge (J-9 was in the historical records and notes of the CAC design team) and simple access (no evidence that MiG had ever worked with CAC) weigh far more than baseless internet speculations of the MiG 1.44 connection to the J-20.
Here is a video about the J-9 tradition, including the history why CAC split from SAC, because Song was mistreated and he left SAC to set up CAC and worked on new models of J7 and continued to finish J9 design. J-7 eventually became super-7 which then evolved into JF-17. J-9 overall configuration was modified into J-10.
No I am not saying J-20 technology is based on J-9. I was referring to the aerodynamic shape and confiugration. Song said in an interview, that J-9 shape took more than 10,000 wind tunnel tests.
No I am not saying J-20 technology is based on J-9. I was referring to the aerodynamic shape and confiugration. Song said in an interview, that J-9 shape took more than 10,000 wind tunnel tests.
Last edited:
Deino
INT'L MOD
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2014
- Messages
- 12,780
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
Yes, that's right. If You follow the J-9's history and later the J-10 it is clear.
The error is, CAC split from SAC in order to manufacture the J-7, while SAC was ordered to develop the later J-8 and the J-20 is NEVER EVER based on the J-9.
Pardon, but then the MiG 1.42 is a MiG-25-development. That's plain stupid.
antonius123
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,962
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
J-20 is not related to this old and crap design
MIG 1.44
View attachment 438092
with lots of inventions and innovations, if you have some proves that J-20 is a modernized version of J-9 that show it to us, you reported for your baseless arguments without proves
Why you said it is based on Mig 1.44? because of similarity?
Similar threads
