Chinese Air Force (PLAAF) News & Discussions

[Akasa]

Salut just tested Al-31FN Series 3 engines (137kN) for J-10 and mentions a contract with China. Based on the thrust, it's most likely Al-31F M1 with slight modifications (gear box position) so "testing" shouldn't take long. J-10B will probably be equipped with these higher thrust variants.

Makes me wonder, are J-15s equipped with Al-31F or Al-31F M1.

I can't post links right now, just goto Salut's website and it's the 2nd article under news.

J10B will use WS10B while J15 will use WS10A.

I you look, the J-10C has DSI inlets.

Planes with 2 engines can't use DSI.

There are lots of planes with twin engines and DSI: the J-20 and J-31 are two examples.

 

[sweetgrape]

 

[Fsjal]

here are lots of planes with twin engines and DSI: the J-20 and J-31 are two examples.

No.

I mean like an underside DSI. Look at the J-10C. Both engines use the same DSI.

J-20 has 2 side DSI inlets, not 1 DSI used for 2 engines.

Think of it as milk bottles and babies. The J-20 has 2 milk bottles (DSI inlets) for 2 babies (The engines). As for J-10C, it is like 1 milk bottle for 2 babies.

This most likely goes down to aerodynamics. I'm sorry to say, but gambit knows a lot about this particular area.

 

[aliaselin]

J-20 No. 2011 start rolling for the first time today

 

[Nishan_101]

J-20 No. 2011 start rolling for the first time today

Wish to see PAC joined in J-31 as suits more to PAF..

 

[xhw1986]

 

[nomi007]

 

[Nishan_101]

View attachment 14198

Really. I think that the twin engine would be a totally different aircraft.

 

[nomi007]

20003

 

[nomi007]

 

[xhw1986]

 

[帅的一匹]

J16 or J11b?

 

[lcloo]

J16 or J11b?

J-16's front undercarriage has a twin wheel, so this one is J-11BS.

 

[gambit]

There is this photo not sure if real.

http://i1225.photobucket.com/albums/ee393/houshanghai/285_132055_4d6f19edfd117f8.jpg

I you look, the J-10C has DSI inlets.

Planes with 2 engines can't use DSI.

There are lots of planes with twin engines and DSI: the J-20 and J-31 are two examples.

No.

I mean like an underside DSI. Look at the J-10C. Both engines use the same DSI.

J-20 has 2 side DSI inlets, not 1 DSI used for 2 engines.

Think of it as milk bottles and babies. The J-20 has 2 milk bottles (DSI inlets) for 2 babies (The engines). As for J-10C, it is like 1 milk bottle for 2 babies.

This most likely goes down to aerodynamics. I'm sorry to say, but gambit knows a lot about this particular area.

Not likely it is real.

It is not a good idea to have twin engines sharing one intake, DSI-ed or not, especially if we are talking about a supersonic intake design and the J-10C is a Mach capable fighter. Subsonic intake/engine pods are what we see on airliners. A supersonic intake is a matching component to the engine and the exhaust. All three components: intake, engine, and exhaust nozzle, must be optimized, or tuned, together precisely because of supersonic airflow. We need intake length and a mechanism to reduce airflow speed from supersonic to subsonic. For the SR-71, there is a cone. For the F-15 there is a ramp, which gave us that famous retangular shape intake. The J-10C is supposed to be maneuverable and as such, the intake must be properly designed to minimize airflow disruption to the engine, from standing still to cruise, and worst of all, at all angle of attack the aircraft is capable of reaching based upon its airframe and aerodynamics. It is AOA that have the highest potential for airflow disruption.

Intake engineering is its own discrete discipline and this engineer spans his workload across airframe and engine engineering. It is difficult to see how two engines widely separated by the fuselage, each have its own intake tunnel, and yet be adequately served by one intake that seems to be of the same shape and opening size.

Good gut instinct, though...

 

[terranMarine]

Not likely it is real.

It is not a good idea to have twin engines sharing one intake, DSI-ed or not, especially if we are talking about a supersonic intake design and the J-10C is a Mach capable fighter. Subsonic intake/engine pods are what we see on airliners. A supersonic intake is a matching component to the engine and the exhaust. All three components: intake, engine, and exhaust nozzle, must be optimized, or tuned, together precisely because of supersonic airflow. We need intake length and a mechanism to reduce airflow speed from supersonic to subsonic. For the SR-71, there is a cone. For the F-15 there is a ramp, which gave us that famous retangular shape intake. The J-10C is supposed to be maneuverable and as such, the intake must be properly designed to minimize airflow disruption to the engine, from standing still to cruise, and worst of all, at all angle of attack the aircraft is capable of reaching based upon its airframe and aerodynamics. It is AOA that have the highest potential for airflow disruption.

Intake engineering is its own discrete discipline and this engineer spans his workload across airframe and engine engineering. It is difficult to see how two engines widely separated by the fuselage, each have its own intake tunnel, and yet be adequately served by one intake that seems to be of the same shape and opening size.

Good gut instinct, though...

Indeed, if the SR-71 goes supersonic those cones retracts.