New Chinese AEWC for carriers, the JZY-01
- Thread starter LandShark
- Start date
lcloo
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2010
- Messages
- 3,981
- Reaction score
- 14
- Country
- Location
An observation from CD poster, bascially it said this is a basic test aircraft using old Y-7 airframe and not intended for carrier landing and take-off since front landing gear, tyres, nose cone etc have not yet modified.
And I suspected the airframe is not even strenghtend to with-stand the huge impact on landing.
Thus it is a technology demostrator rather than the real proto-type. We still have to wait for photo of actual proto-type, hopefully on Varyag's deck.
posted on CJDBY by
摄友约克
1、机身采用的旧机体，前舱门封死，取消部分舷窗，此部分的机身内空间用途估计为电子设备舱；
2、机头部分未做修型，运七原型驾驶舱高度就不太够，维持原设计，意味着当飞机大迎角飞行着舰时，飞行员的向下视野将变得极其恶劣；
3、前起落架基本采用了原设计，轮胎和轮毂也是原型运输机的，这种轮胎不是舰载机通常采用的高压轮胎，而是运输机用的低压胎；
4、主起落架是全新设计，轮胎和轮毂形状与美海军舰载军机的相似，估计是采用了与之相同或类似的刹车系统和高压轮胎；
5、发动机舱外型独特，尚无法判断是何种型的发动机，但可以肯定的是该发动机体积远大于原型机，估计功率有了相当的提高；
6、螺旋桨延用了高新9系列的成熟产品，推进效率比原型机高很多；
7、机翼前缘颜色是独特的海军灰，可能是安装了新的前缘襟翼，但无法判断机翼后缘是否也做了相应的改进，以提高升力系数，降低着舰速度；
8、未观察到机翼折叠缝，也无法判断是否安装该装置，更无法判断是采取E2的向后折叠还是雅克44的向上折叠方式；
9、后机身保留了舱门，但舰载机在舰上停机时，常常会处于“机尾见水”的状态，此时人员登机时，会较有不便，且危险性大；
10、后机身大改，取消了货舱门，有可能增加了护尾撑，但着舰钩是否安装，则无法看出；
11、垂尾采用了与E2类似的四垂尾方式，但不同的是四片垂尾均安装了方向舵，而E2的内侧两片没有方向舵的，此举原因是为了弥补舵效不足，还是为了更主动的控制飞行，暂时无法判断。
综上所述，我不认为这架验证机就是最终上舰的定型设计方案，而是用来进行一些舰载机实验用的！因为运七机身和起落架上一些不适合舰载的设计硬伤并未改进，且对于上舰比较关键的机翼襟翼构型、着舰钩等部件，并未曝光，这些部件将直接决定此机能否上舰。期待着更多照片亮相！
And I suspected the airframe is not even strenghtend to with-stand the huge impact on landing.
Thus it is a technology demostrator rather than the real proto-type. We still have to wait for photo of actual proto-type, hopefully on Varyag's deck.
posted on CJDBY by
摄友约克
1、机身采用的旧机体，前舱门封死，取消部分舷窗，此部分的机身内空间用途估计为电子设备舱；
2、机头部分未做修型，运七原型驾驶舱高度就不太够，维持原设计，意味着当飞机大迎角飞行着舰时，飞行员的向下视野将变得极其恶劣；
3、前起落架基本采用了原设计，轮胎和轮毂也是原型运输机的，这种轮胎不是舰载机通常采用的高压轮胎，而是运输机用的低压胎；
4、主起落架是全新设计，轮胎和轮毂形状与美海军舰载军机的相似，估计是采用了与之相同或类似的刹车系统和高压轮胎；
5、发动机舱外型独特，尚无法判断是何种型的发动机，但可以肯定的是该发动机体积远大于原型机，估计功率有了相当的提高；
6、螺旋桨延用了高新9系列的成熟产品，推进效率比原型机高很多；
7、机翼前缘颜色是独特的海军灰，可能是安装了新的前缘襟翼，但无法判断机翼后缘是否也做了相应的改进，以提高升力系数，降低着舰速度；
8、未观察到机翼折叠缝，也无法判断是否安装该装置，更无法判断是采取E2的向后折叠还是雅克44的向上折叠方式；
9、后机身保留了舱门，但舰载机在舰上停机时，常常会处于“机尾见水”的状态，此时人员登机时，会较有不便，且危险性大；
10、后机身大改，取消了货舱门，有可能增加了护尾撑，但着舰钩是否安装，则无法看出；
11、垂尾采用了与E2类似的四垂尾方式，但不同的是四片垂尾均安装了方向舵，而E2的内侧两片没有方向舵的，此举原因是为了弥补舵效不足，还是为了更主动的控制飞行，暂时无法判断。
综上所述，我不认为这架验证机就是最终上舰的定型设计方案，而是用来进行一些舰载机实验用的！因为运七机身和起落架上一些不适合舰载的设计硬伤并未改进，且对于上舰比较关键的机翼襟翼构型、着舰钩等部件，并未曝光，这些部件将直接决定此机能否上舰。期待着更多照片亮相！
Abingdonboy
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 29,597
- Reaction score
- 46
- Country
- Location
How does this the PLAN expect to operate these? In a STOBAR or CATOBAR configuration?
Imitation is an art as well..the fundamentals should be clear enough to understand and reengineer..if that was the case then India could have atleast reengineered some of the things..you inhouse reinengineering or engineering capability is not even matched with the China
conworldus
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,971
- Reaction score
- 0
How many times will Indian posters show the LCA. I have seen that plane quite earlier, perhaps 30 years or more.
Genesis
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2013
- Messages
- 4,599
- Reaction score
- 24
- Country
- Location
The key right now is to build it, not anything else.
Chinese military industry compare to the US is at teenage. Strong, but not yet strong enough to test a grown man.
Could China reinvent the wheel? Probably, but why do that? Our industry is weaker to begin with and you want us to go through the same process the US did?
Even at the same speed the us researched we will still be forever behind.
Sure we cheat here and there, but that is all to the ultimate goal of passing US and achieve dominance.
The example here I like to use is Roman Abramovich, he sold STOLEN gas to people and smuggled quite openly. Today he is not remembered for those early indiscretions, but for his billions of dollars, largest yacht, Chelsea football club and a host of other things.
People have a short memory when you are successful, but a long one if you suck.
Chinese military industry compare to the US is at teenage. Strong, but not yet strong enough to test a grown man.
Could China reinvent the wheel? Probably, but why do that? Our industry is weaker to begin with and you want us to go through the same process the US did?
Even at the same speed the us researched we will still be forever behind.
Sure we cheat here and there, but that is all to the ultimate goal of passing US and achieve dominance.
The example here I like to use is Roman Abramovich, he sold STOLEN gas to people and smuggled quite openly. Today he is not remembered for those early indiscretions, but for his billions of dollars, largest yacht, Chelsea football club and a host of other things.
People have a short memory when you are successful, but a long one if you suck.
