SAC FC-31 Stealth Fighter: News & Discussions

[tanlixiang28776]

Manqiang you seem to be a pretty reasonable guy. Don't get dragged down to his level and post personal attacks.

 

[manqiangrexue]

No no, tanlixiang, this is the only way to deal with people like that. Don't answer his bs. There's no need for any of us to challenge Engineer's statement. I don't know who that is and I never saw the statement. Not all Vietnamese are like him? Dam right! Most of them are proud enough to carry their own flag. But every time he says something, it's, "your Chinese boys said this" or "Chinese physics that" so it's Viet logic from now on. And every time he mentions a post another Chinese person makes to me and asks me about it, I'm gonna tell him to eat Chinese dung like his Viet brother Ho Chi Minh said. That's how you deal with people like that.

 

[tanlixiang28776]

LOL. Thats actually pretty funny. Two wrongs don't make a right but it sure provides some good humor.

 

[gambit]

Pretty sure Mig 29 challenged it. In fact he's challenged pretty much everything in the Airforce section. And Guess what hes not banned like you are.

He was banned. Several times.

I can make assumptions because my assumptions are based on common sense. "You change for the better, not for the worse." That's not a stretch at all. When Korean makes an assumption, it's based on what he thinks he knows better than the guys who made the plane. "Make it flatter to make it more maneuverable and stealthier" he said. LOL. This is literally the 3rd time I had to tell you this. Also, I never claimed to know a lot about aircraft but you just threw it in there like I did. If you just don't remember things that happened a few hours ago, you need to remedy your Viet memory and Viet logic with some Viet pills.

And when you are challenged with arguments based upon technical facts, have the decency to admit that you may be wrong. Bottom line is when you make an assumption -- and you have the right to do so in the interest of a discussion -- you are making a judgment call. It may be wrong or it may be correct. But if you do call upon that right and broadcast your judgment for public consumption, respect the fact that others have equal right to rebut, then be man enough to admit when you are wrong.

 

[gambit]

F-16.net enforces better arguments than both, we should stop talking about other forums though.

I know a lot of those guys over there from my active duty days. Many of them are retired and I still talk with them in person.

Its fine to be challenged. Its not fine to be challenged by someone that tries to do so with paper thin credentials and take them as absolute fact.

But it fine to have no experience at all and make claims based upon ignorance.

Yeah...We know how that works...

 

[gambit]

People are allowed to make assumptions and their opinions.

However that is with the full admission it is an opinion.

It does not matter if the poster presented his argument as an 'assumption' or an 'opinion'. As long as he presented himself for public consumption, he is wide open to challenge. And it has been proven over and over that when a Chinese is challenged on the technical front, all the Chinese get their panties in a collective bunch.

You however pull up credentials no one can verify and state your opinions as fact.

See the difference?

Ultimately, it is the contents that matter. I do not challenge you on your identity or however you want to present yourself here. I do not present my military experience as a barrier to discussion and told people to shut up. If anything, my military experience was solicited, not voluntarily submitted by me, when others asked. It was an Indonesian suck-up to China who tried to use his made up aviation 'background' and 'study' to shut down the Indians. I have done no such thing.

I consistently provided key words for others to do their own research to verify what I said is true. That is far more than ALL the Chinese members here have done in the interests of technical exploration of the things we are interested in.

 

[manqiangrexue]

No, forget Gambit's credentials. A truck driver isn't a truck designer. You flew airplanes for 20 years? OK, if we ever need to land a jet, I'll trust your knowledge. Designing a jet that's at least one generation ahead of anything you flew? Out of your jurisdiction. Don't even try to pretend you know. It's like walking up to a hospital and asking to become a surgeon because you told them you've dissected dead cats before. It's just not enough.

You don't think my assumptions are solid? Let's go.

1. J-31 is different from the F-35 from the side view (fact). If they changed it, I assume Shenyang improved it. Otherwise, they would keep the original F-35 configuration. People don't change things to make them worse.

2. J-31 looks like a mash up of the F-22 and F-35 (maybe kinda subjective but I think so). So it seems logical to start with the stolen F-35 plans and generously use parts of the F-22 design to alleviate any short-comings found in the F-35 frame.

Those are my 2 assumptions. I am not 100% certain that they are right but I think they are very reasonable calls. Challenge them with logic if you want but know that at this point it's not possible to prove me wrong because we don't have any info on the jet's performance or development. The best case scenario for you is to come up with a competing theory but given the modesty of my predictions and the earliness of the situation, and despite your desperation to do so, there is no way to prove me wrong at this time.

 

[Esc8781]

No, forget Gambit's credentials. A truck driver isn't a truck designer. You flew airplanes for 20 years? OK, if we ever need to land a jet, I'll trust your knowledge. Designing a jet that a generation ahead of anything you flew? Out of your jurisdiction. You don't think my assumptions are solid? Let's go.

1. J-31 is different from the F-35 from the side view (fact). If they changed it, I assume Shenyang improved it. Otherwise, they would keep the original F-35 configuration. People don't change things to make them worse.

2. J-31 looks like a mash up of the F-22 and F-35 (maybe kinda subjective but I think so). So it seems logical to start with the stolen F-35 plans and generously use parts of the F-22 design to alleviate any weaknesses found in the F-35 frame.

Those are my 2 assumptions. I am not 100% certain that they are right but I think they are very reasonable calls. Challenge them with logic if you want but know that at this point it's not possible to prove me wrong because we don't have any info on the jet's performance or development. The best case scenario for you is to come up with a competing theory but given the modesty of my predictions and the earliness of the situation, despite your desperation to do so, there is no way to prove me wrong at this time.

Still far from the pre production level though , let's see what they change on the next prototype.

 

[Vitchilo]

It seems nice and all but does it have the engines needed for it to be potent?? That's the main problem with Chinese warplanes. Engines. Especially when you need to do supercruise for lots of time...

Get good or excellent at building good engines with good reliability and you will have a force to recon with. Until then, not to much.

 

[manqiangrexue]

It seems nice and all but does it have the engines needed for it to be potent?? That's the main problem with Chinese warplanes. Engines. Especially when you need to do supercruise for lots of time...

Get good or excellent at building good engines with good reliability and you will have a force to recon with. Until then, not to much.

A valid point. Because of the nature of engines, it is very difficult to tell where the Chinese are in terms of developing the WS-13 and WS-15. Everything could be falling apart or they could have satisfactory prototypes ready to install once the air-frames are past the testing phase (since they might not wanna install test engines on a test frame). Don't think anyone other than a real insider could get you that info, and for the engine's power in kN, gonna be impossible to know for sure maybe until the Chinese publicize the info. Best wishes to the uber nerds smart enough to lose sleep working on that thing

 

[gambit]

You don't think my assumptions are solid? Let's go.

1. J-31 is different from the F-35 from the side view (fact). If they changed it, I assume Shenyang improved it. Otherwise, they would keep the original F-35 configuration. People don't change things to make them worse.

2. J-31 looks like a mash up of the F-22 and F-35 (maybe kinda subjective but I think so). So it seems logical to start with the stolen F-35 plans and generously use parts of the F-22 design to alleviate any short-comings found in the F-35 frame.

The highlighted is where you are wrong. It is both an assumption and a hope. It is a reasonable assumption because no one want to degrade an existing design. It is a hope because you do not know what entails in designing an aircraft.

The heart of ANY aircraft is not the pilot, who is the brain, but propulsion.

For example...

In a pusher prop job, prop wash produces a twisting force around the fuselage and eventually on the left side of the vertical stab, the pilot must produce a counter yaw with the rudder pedals to maintain straight heading. This effect does not exist with a jet engine aircraft, therefore we have a much greater latitude in designing our fuselage.

Pusher configuration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When a propeller is mounted in front of the tail changes in engine power alter the airflow over the tail and can give strong pitch or yaw changes.

What this mean is that even if you copied exactly down to the rivet locations of an existing aircraft but you do not have the comparable propulsion, your copy will not fly, or it will fly like sh1t. Even worse so if you try to 'hybridize' two different designs into one that you hope that you improve.

Propulsion make or break an aircraft design. Very often propulsion actually determined how an aircraft will turn out despite the initial 'request for proposal' (RFP) that contains the original desired specs.

If you do not know what is an RFP, here is a sample...

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

3. Design Requirements

3.1 General

The aircraft must meet the appropriate FAR part requirements for airworthiness.
The aircraft must be designed for a crew of two pilots (220 lbs each).
There are no minimum speed or ceiling requirements for the aircraft.
Maximum takeoff and landing distances for a land-based aircraft are 1000 feet on an unimproved field.
The aircraft must have a ferry range of 1800 Nmi (no fuel reserves).

3.2 Mission

The aircraft should be designed as a short-haul delivery aircraft. For the design mission, it must carry four passengers with luggage (220 lbs/passenger) and have a cargo capacity of 2800 lbs and 240 cubic feet (5’´ 6’´ 8’). The design mission consists of

Takeoff on a tropical day (sea level, 90 degrees F) at design takeoff weight.
Cruise 75 Nmi.
Land under tropical-day conditions.
Takeoff at design takeoff weight.
Cruise 75 Nmi
Land under tropical-day conditions.
Perform three round trips per day without refueling.
FAR fuel reserves.

To go back to the truck versus sports car analogy, if Italy can either manufacture only truck tires or import only truck tires, Lamborghini would be a truck designer/manufacturer.

Land based engines are not as weight critical as sea based engines. The latter should be designed with fuel economy more in mind than the former because fuel access at sea can be limited. Reasonable, ain't it? That give engines designed for land based fighters much more latitudes in specs, which in turn will affect airframe designs. This fact is lost on the F-35's critics because it is designed to be multi-service in much more diverse environments.

Appearances can be deceiving. On the one hand, it is unreasonable to base one's assumptions of an airframe based upon only appearance, but on the other hand, when there is a breakthrough in technology as in the F-16's fly-by-wire FLCS, the responses of that flight controls technology enabled us to break free of the airframe design constraints back at that time. When I joined the USAF back in 1983, fly-by-wire FLCS is a novelty in the F-16 but if form follows function, anyone from aircraft designer to a mechanic who looked at the F-16 immediately recognized its form as the result of a radical functioning FLCS. Every designer knew of pitch instability as the key to exceptional maneuverability but no one dared design an airframe around it because no pilot or hydro-mechanical FLCS, even computer assisted ones, could handle it. Until General Dynamics proved it could be done. Since then, every fighter is FBW-FLCS.

So what this mean is that IF you have any common sense like you claimed to have, you would have realized that it is absurd to simply look at an aircraft that looks similar to an existing design and declare that the new version is better.

Those are my 2 assumptions. I am not 100% certain that they are right but I think they are very reasonable calls. Challenge them with logic if you want but know that at this point it's not possible to prove me wrong because we don't have any info on the jet's performance or development. The best case scenario for you is to come up with a competing theory but given the modesty of my predictions and the earliness of the situation, and despite your desperation to do so, there is no way to prove me wrong at this time.

So what this mean is that you can make any claims you want and the burden of disprove is upon the skeptic. That is not how logical debates works. The burden of proof ALWAYS rests upon the claimant. And if you are willing to say you could be wrong, then be man enough to admit when your assumptions/claims are doubtful or concede the point when outright debunked.

You are not interested in logical debates. Not one of the Chinese members here do. All of you are grossly defensive and sensitive about your lack of relevant experience and therefore often resorted to personal attacks when your claims are challenged.

 

[krash]

So mods your just going to let another thread turn into "the juvenile quarrels between China and Gambit"? Or are you going to throw some warnings and bans around?

 

[mil-avia]

J-31 stealth fighter aircraft bottom view :

Related link 1 and link 2.

 

[mil-avia]

J-31 stealth fighter aircraft weapon bays :

Related link 1 and link 2.

 

[killerx]

the engine in the right looks bit bent to the ground is it TVC or both engines in different throttle position