Shenyang J-15 aircraft carrier-based aircraft

[gambit]

We must sum up experiences and lessons from it.

This kind of general statement does not mean anything. Of course we must learn from it. To do anything else would be unprofessional.

I see one major contradiction in the article. It is a serious one. No, it has nothing to do with grammar or spelling or anything relating to the English language. The contradiction is PURELY TECHNICAL. Given how much I have posted on this forum about aviation, and there is a strong possibility that the error is from the technical ignorance of the article's author, either the contradiction is from the author, or that there is something at least very odd with the design of the Su-33, which is the source for the J-15.

Let us see if the PDF Chinese can find this contradiction.

Further teaser.

If this contradiction is from the author, then the probability that the mishap came from pilot error increases dramatically, because...

http://www.janes.com/article/62661/china-reveals-cause-of-fatal-april-crash-of-j-15

...Chinese President Xi Jinping mentioned that two pilots had died testing the fighter, but offered no explanation.

I predicted yrs ago on this forum that there would be FATAL mishaps for the PLAN as it begins training for carrier operations. Not so much 'prediction' as it is an educated guess from the American experience.

The Su-33 have had carrier operations with the Soviet/Russian Navy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-15

...Col. Igor Korotchenko of the Defense Ministry stating in early June 2010, "The Chinese J-15 is unlikely to achieve the same performance characteristics of the Russian Su-33 carrier-based fighter,...

If China modified the basic Su-33 systems to create the J-15, what kind ? How extensive ? How specific to what sub-system(s) ? The possibility that there was an intrinsic flaw introduced in those modifications cannot be dismissed, and that it is possible that the flaw(s) may not manifest until under an ideal condition, such as the pilot preparing for a carrier landing.

Landing on an aircraft carrier is not the same as landing on a normal runway. It is different in everything, from pilot training to aircraft systems configuration.

For starter, an aircraft carrier landing is a 'no flare' approach...

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Landing_Flare

...landings on an aircraft carrier in which the aircraft maintains the approach attitude and rate of descent until touchdown. For all intents, there is no flare and the landing gear design must be robust enough to ensure that no damage occurs because of the high rate of descent.

That mean there is no pitch up like a normal runway landing.

With the worst case scenario, China modified the Su-33 to produce the J-15 and introduced an intrinsic flaw that does not manifest itself unless the pilot reconfigure the aircraft for a carrier landing. All this time, the J-15 have been flying as normal. If this worst case scenario is true, this will be a serious set back for the Chinese naval aviation program as the J-15 itself must be forensically investigated to find this flaw. Three dead pilots from the naval aviation training program cannot be casually dismissed.

 

[Providence]

Well you can copy only so much !

 

[The Eagle]

This kind of general statement does not mean anything. Of course we must learn from it. To do anything else would be unprofessional.

I see one major contradiction in the article. It is a serious one. No, it has nothing to do with grammar or spelling or anything relating to the English language. The contradiction is PURELY TECHNICAL. Given how much I have posted on this forum about aviation, and there is a strong possibility that the error is from the technical ignorance of the article's author, either the contradiction is from the author, or that there is something at least very odd with the design of the Su-33, which is the source for the J-15.

Let us see if the PDF Chinese can find this contradiction.

Further teaser.

If this contradiction is from the author, then the probability that the mishap came from pilot error increases dramatically, because...

http://www.janes.com/article/62661/china-reveals-cause-of-fatal-april-crash-of-j-15

I predicted yrs ago on this forum that there would be FATAL mishaps for the PLAN as it begins training for carrier operations. Not so much 'prediction' as it is an educated guess from the American experience.

The Su-33 have had carrier operations with the Soviet/Russian Navy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-15

If China modified the basic Su-33 systems to create the J-15, what kind ? How extensive ? How specific to what sub-system(s) ? The possibility that there was an intrinsic flaw introduced in those modifications cannot be dismissed, and that it is possible that the flaw(s) may not manifest until under an ideal condition, such as the pilot preparing for a carrier landing.

Landing on an aircraft carrier is not the same as landing on a normal runway. It is different in everything, from pilot training to aircraft systems configuration.

For starter, an aircraft carrier landing is a 'no flare' approach...

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Landing_Flare

That mean there is no pitch up like a normal runway landing.

With the worst case scenario, China modified the Su-33 to produce the J-15 and introduced an intrinsic flaw that does not manifest itself unless the pilot reconfigure the aircraft for a carrier landing. All this time, the J-15 have been flying as normal. If this worst case scenario is true, this will be a serious set back for the Chinese naval aviation program as the J-15 itself must be forensically investigated to find this flaw. Three dead pilots from the naval aviation training program cannot be casually dismissed.

Sir, not to get into anti/pro-China discussion but as posters like me can read a lot here so i would like to ask

what about the finding as:

According to Chinese sources, the flight control failure apparently caused the J-15 to pitch up upon touching the ground. When the pushrods failed,

forced engineer to do as:

but imagery from early July indicates that flight testing has begun for a J-15 with a nose-wheel modified to allow catapult assisted take-off but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) operations.

So they are testing the new concept that would counter the threat of last technical crash while addressing the area of lacking.

 

[Akasa]

Sir, not to get into anti/pro-China discussion but as posters like me can read a lot here so i would like to ask

what about the finding as:

According to Chinese sources, the flight control failure apparently caused the J-15 to pitch up upon touching the ground. When the pushrods failed,

forced engineer to do as:

but imagery from early July indicates that flight testing has begun for a J-15 with a nose-wheel modified to allow catapult assisted take-off but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) operations.

So they are testing the new concept that would counter the threat of last technical crash while addressing the area of lacking.

Modifying a fighter for CATOBAR operations has nothing to do with preventing accidents.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Well you can copy only so much !

And you are ranting against China so much just shut up

 

[ebrahym]

Well you can copy only so much !

major
copying needs expertise as well

 

[艹艹艹]

Well you can copy only so much !

Stupid american, ignorant English

 

[gambit]

So where are the PDF Chinese aviation 'experts'. All too often they so eagerly jump on any Western article critical of Chinese military hardware, now...

 

[Beast]

Well you can copy only so much !

Yes yes we copy. We make a supercomputer faster than American can make one.

And you sourgrape can claim its copy from American. I am so happy you are so ignorant

 

[gambit]

Since the PDF Chinese ran away from my challenge, guess it is up to me, as usual, to dissect these articles.

http://www.janes.com/article/62661/china-reveals-cause-of-fatal-april-crash-of-j-15

...J-15 fighter encountered a breakdown with the fly-by-wire flight control system while practising an arrested landing at an unspecified inland base.

According to Chinese sources, the flight control failure apparently caused the J-15 to pitch up upon touching the ground. When the pushrods failed, the pilot, identified as Lieutenant Zhang Chao, ejected and died as a result of an injury on landing, the report added.

The highlighted does not make sense.

Let us take the F-16, the first operational aircraft with a full fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system (FLCS).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon

...eliminating mechanical linkages between the control stick and rudder pedals, and the flight control surfaces.

What this mean is that there is literally NO mechanical anything between the cockpit and the hydraulic actuators that are connected to the flight control surfaces.

The F-16 set the standards on how to design and engineer a FBW-FLCS. Its architecture is the reference for worldwide adoption of the concept, civilian and military.

So what is the janes author, Richard D Fisher Jr., talking about when he wrote this: 'When the pushrods failed...'

What is this 'pushrods' ? Is he talking about the 'push-pull' rod or tube ?

http://navyaviation.tpub.com/14014/css/Flight-Control-Mechanisms-83.htm

In a push-pull tube system, metal push-pull tubes(or rods) are used as a substitute for the cables (fig.4-11). Push-pull tubes get their name from the way theytransmit force.

But the F-16 have no such mechanical linkages in its FBW-FLCS. Neither does the newer Boeing and Airbus airliners. Neither does the French Rafale fighter. Neither does plenty of other late '4th gen' fighter that has FBW-FLCS.

The Su-33 have been flying off Soviet/Russian aircraft carriers for yrs. The J-15 is the Chinese unapproved and unlicensed version of the Su-33.

To use the word 'copy' loosely, did the Chinese fully copied the Su-33's FBW-FLCS into the J-15 ? If the Chinese were unable to copy the Su-33's FBW-FLCS, did they made adaptations that included mechanical linkages in the J-15's FLCS ? If this is true, what else could not the Chinese do in that technology transfer ?

These paragraphs...

This is the first time a Chinese government source has said the J-15 uses fly-by-wire flight control: a system believed only to have been incorporated in the newer SAC J-16 strike fighter and J-11D fighter.

SAC's development of fly-by-wire technology is longstanding, with its experimental J-8ACT fly-by-wire testbed first flown in June 1990.

...laws governing management of this technology are generally embedded in early design models rather than retrospectively during upgrade action, given the fundamental impact on aircraft capability.

...Only adds to the confusion.

It seems to hint that the J-15 uses a different FBW-FLCS than the parent Su-33. The laws that Fisher mentioned are 'flight control laws'.

Example...

http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm

Whether it is 'pushrods' or 'push-pull rods', this is not a trivial matter. If it is true that the Chinese were unable to fully copy the Su-33's FBW-FLCS and made independent in-house adaptations, how extensive were the testings of those modifications ? Flaws do not always manifest themselves consistently. Quite often, they need ideal conditions and with the deaths of three pilots, maybe each time, systems conditions were just right.

This is assuming Fisher was technically competent in the field of aviation and reported the Chinese sources accurately. This would be the worst case scenario. So let us put this aside for now.

Maybe what Fisher meant by 'pushrods' was the hydraulic actuators.

In carrier landings, there is no 'flare' or pitch up maneuver, and yet, the Chinese authority reported...

...the flight control failure apparently caused the J-15 to pitch up upon touching the ground....

Assuming the Chinese fully copied the Su-33's FBW-FLCS into the J-15, this leads to pilot error. So what is that 'flight control failure' that Fisher reported ?

For the Su-33 and J-15, as they are canard-ed platforms, there are two ways to produce a pitch up maneuver. Either by the rear horizontal stabs, or by the canards. How many other J-15 successful carrier landings ? That mean each of those successful landings must be examined to see why there were no pitch up maneuver. If it is technically eliminated, then the focus would be on pilot error. Three pilots dead mean findings from the first two mishaps were not properly studied and remedies not produced.

 

[cnleio]

Since the PDF Chinese ran away from my challenge, guess it is up to me, as usual, to dissect these articles.

http://www.janes.com/article/62661/china-reveals-cause-of-fatal-april-crash-of-j-15

The highlighted does not make sense.

Let us take the F-16, the first operational aircraft with a full fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system (FLCS).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon

What this mean is that there is literally NO mechanical anything between the cockpit and the hydraulic actuators that are connected to the flight control surfaces.

The F-16 set the standards on how to design and engineer a FBW-FLCS. Its architecture is the reference for worldwide adoption of the concept, civilian and military.

So what is the janes author, Richard D Fisher Jr., talking about when he wrote this: 'When the pushrods failed...'

What is this 'pushrods' ? Is he talking about the 'push-pull' rod or tube ?

http://navyaviation.tpub.com/14014/css/Flight-Control-Mechanisms-83.htm

But the F-16 have no such mechanical linkages in its FBW-FLCS. Neither does the newer Boeing and Airbus airliners. Neither does the French Rafale fighter. Neither does plenty of other late '4th gen' fighter that has FBW-FLCS.

The Su-33 have been flying off Soviet/Russian aircraft carriers for yrs. The J-15 is the Chinese unapproved and unlicensed version of the Su-33.

To use the word 'copy' loosely, did the Chinese fully copied the Su-33's FBW-FLCS into the J-15 ? If the Chinese were unable to copy the Su-33's FBW-FLCS, did they made adaptations that included mechanical linkages in the J-15's FLCS ? If this is true, what else could not the Chinese do in that technology transfer ?

These paragraphs...


...Only adds to the confusion.

It seems to hint that the J-15 uses a different FBW-FLCS than the parent Su-33. The laws that Fisher mentioned are 'flight control laws'.

Example...

http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm

Whether it is 'pushrods' or 'push-pull rods', this is not a trivial matter. If it is true that the Chinese were unable to fully copy the Su-33's FBW-FLCS and made independent in-house adaptations, how extensive were the testings of those modifications ? Flaws do not always manifest themselves consistently. Quite often, they need ideal conditions and with the deaths of three pilots, maybe each time, systems conditions were just right.

This is assuming Fisher was technically competent in the field of aviation and reported the Chinese sources accurately. This would be the worst case scenario. So let us put this aside for now.

Maybe what Fisher meant by 'pushrods' was the hydraulic actuators.

In carrier landings, there is no 'flare' or pitch up maneuver, and yet, the Chinese authority reported...


Assuming the Chinese fully copied the Su-33's FBW-FLCS into the J-15, this leads to pilot error. So what is that 'flight control failure' that Fisher reported ?

For the Su-33 and J-15, as they are canard-ed platforms, there are two ways to produce a pitch up maneuver. Either by the rear horizontal stabs, or by the canards. How many other J-15 successful carrier landings ? That mean each of those successful landings must be examined to see why there were no pitch up maneuver. If it is technically eliminated, then the focus would be on pilot error. Three pilots dead mean findings from the first two mishaps were not properly studied and remedies not produced.

The lost of three Chinese pilots is very normal during China learning how to operate A.C and J-15 ... as long as China Navy having A.Cs on the sea, no doubt there will be more casualties as many as U.S Navy had during past half-century, Did American avoid thousand casualties on the A.C deck or in training ? NO.

J-15 is a good fighter for PLAN, better than nothing ... it's China 1st-gen carrier-borne jet fighter, without first there no next, the J-15 keep going.


F-18 with a full fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system (FLCS), is that work ?

 

[cnleio]

 

[onebyone]

The lost of three Chinese pilots is very normal during China learning how to operate A.C and J-15 ... as long as China Navy having A.Cs on the sea, no doubt there will be more casualties as many as U.S Navy had during past half-century, Did American avoid thousand casualties on the A.C deck or in training ? NO.

J-15 is a good fighter for PLAN, better than nothing ... it's China 1st-gen carrier-borne jet fighter, without first there no next, the J-15 keep going.


F-18 with a full fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system (FLCS), is that work ?
View attachment 323051
View attachment 323052
View attachment 323053

Good US number one

 

[jhungary]

Translate, please? What does the CGI at the bottom represent?

You don't read Chinese?? (I thought you were Chinese......)

It said

(We) need to be careful to modify the original design, the Russian Sukhoi Design Bureau first developed Su-27KI in use with Type 1153 Nuclear power Aircraft Carrier in 1971. The Aircraft (Su-27KI) was equipped with landing gear designed to be catapulted off the aircraft carrier, however, due to the fail development of steam catapult, The Type 1153 Aircraft Carrier was cancelled and the Su-27KI development was also terminated in 1978, until today, the Su-27KI concept reborn as J-15T (Eject).

 

[Providence]

You don't read Chinese?? (I thought you were Chinese......)

It said