An American funded design that didn’t work for either the IAF or the USAF. But you see it in China?
Sounds like you are so desperate to claim the failed Lavi as “successful” because you are a Jew that you’re willing accept conspiracy theories :rolleyes:
Why not claim the EF2000 as well? Oh right, you already claimed the X-31 and every canard-delta in the world as Israeli :rolleyes:
Bearcat, tigershark
here the only desperate is you, you are desperate because you can not prove SIBNIA wrong, you are desperate because you can not prove, Russia did not have engine technology previous to the nene, you can not prove the Lavi was not advanced in 1986. Show me a 1986 J-8II cockpit and prove me it was as modern looking as this Lavi cockpit from 1986.
What canard delta wing aircraft had China in 1986?
here is your advanced Chinese technology of 1986 and that is even newer it is J-8IIM cockpit 😀
In fact buddy the PLAAF are humble enough to acknowledge they need ask to Israel for Technology and were smart enough to get avoid many years of R&D.
Hardware and infrastructure is everything. If you’ve ever been in involved in a business that did any kind of manufacturing you’d understand.
You can design the greatest thing in the world and you would NOT be able to make it unless you’ve designed it with the knowledge of the infrastructure you have.
Are you saying that you need to design something first then spend the next 15 years developing and building the infrastructure to actually make that design?
If design were so important and infrastructure were so much less important then why not design a space-ship and have the machinery to make the spaceship magically appear? Why stop at airplanes?
Simply handing a design of say the Lavi that expects American subsystems and parts made to American specifications to a country like China which have an entire different infrastructure is ludicrous.
Unless you are saying that the Lavi design also includes the blueprints for the hundreds of machine tools, composite curing systems, etc. and China then spent decades building and putting those Lavi-required American infrastructure into place, the Lavi cannot be made in China.
The biggest problem we have with kids on the internet is the idea that everything is virtual and all you need is a “idea.” No, that is not the case in the real world. Parts do not grow miraculously from a paper design.
You cannot retool the massive machinery in the Chinese aviation infrastructure (which actually employs more people than the American one) when you hand them a paper design that requires US parts.
The Lavi could be made in the US or Canada if the design were handed to them. It could not be made in China just with the blue-prints.
The Super-7 formed the project base of the FC-1 project. But the FC-1 officially began in 1999 when Pakistan and China actually signed a co-development pact.
One of the provisions was that the FC-1 would be modular with the engine, avionics, radar, weapon systems and even the flight control system (FBW, partial-FBW, standard) totally decoupled from air frame. That pretty much created a new aircraft that might have kept some of the Super 7 lessons but is no longer anywhere near the original Super 7 design (which was based on leveraging the J-7 parts infrastructure.)
The FC-1 probably share more with the J-10 in its backend infrastructure.
The J-11 required new infrastructure to be put into place. This also exemplifies how idiotic the idea that the J-10 could have been built with just the blueprints from the Lavi (which couldn’t even be made into a production machine in Israel.) The J-11 was a full-technology transfer that was above board and still it ran into problems (though far less than people think.)
As for Russian engines. The JH-7 flies on British technology. But then again, even Russia’s massive industry would not have flown if it were not for British engine-technology.
Was the world excited in 1950 when the first MiG-15 flew with the British Nene? Sure it was. Because the entire Russian aviation industry could be traced to the Nene does that mean we could dismiss the Russians as aircraft producers? Of course not, it would be ludicrous.
Every advancement in human technology is based on previous inventions. It’s a timeline. Fire–> gunpowder –> combustion-engine –> Nene –> Klimov. So what is your point?
Bearcat/tigershark/golden dragon
Soviet engine design had some similarities of what China did, however the Russian engine development in 1944 was far more domestic than China in 1994, the Chinese engine development had a really letargic development, today China can boast the chinese aircraft industry has achieved the capability of design jet engines after almost 50 years of building engines, Russia to the contrary was in the forefront of jet engine development since the early 1930s.
Proof read this:
From “Samoliotostroyenie v SSSR (1917-1945)” [Aircraft Development in the USSR], Vol 2, published by TsAGI in 1994, regretably with the printout of only 1,200 copies:
p426: “In 1938-1939 under the leadership of V.V.Uvarov prototype gas trubine powerplants GTU-3 with the turboshaft layout rated at 1,150hp and intended for the TB-3 aircraft were built. In 1938 A.M.Lyulka who was working in Kharkov aviation institute in a team developing steam turbine for A.N.Tupolev’s heavy bomber, worked out a design of a turbojet RTD-1 with 500kg thrust with one- or two-stage centrifuge compressor driven by a gas turbine. The characteristic feature of that engine was relatively low turbine inlet temperature (650-700 deg C). The implemented design decisions and thermodynamical parametres of the RTD-1 ensured that it could be developed in relatively short time using construction materials fully mastered by that time by the industry. Estimations made by A.M.Lyulka showed that a single-seat fighter powered by the RTD-1 engine could reach the speed of 900km/h….The order adopted by the Defence Committee of the USSR’s Council of People’s Commissars [then the name of the Soviet Government] on 12 July 1940 the necessity to continue the work on the turbojet engine of A.M.Lyulka’s design was stressed with the aim to test the engine on a test rig already in December 1940”.
Naturally, not all went as the Soviet government ordered. The prototype of the engine did not appear before Germany invaded the Soviet Union and captured Kharkov. Like many other design teams and production plants, Lyulka and his engineers joined the exodus to the east. Hating “what if” approach to historical issues, I nevertheless can postulate that if not the war, the Soviets could have developed an airworthy indigenous turbojet design much earlier than it actually happened in 1947, (but still not in early 1950s as somebody in this thread suggested!). I think that captured German turbojets may be considered as some kind of a compensation.
Back to quoting the mentioned source, p435: “In the war years the work on development of A.M.Lyulka’s RTD-1 engine continued…. In 1943 under the leadership of M.I.Gudkov (one of the designers of the known LaGG-3 piston- engined fighter), a variant of the LaGG-3 powered by the RTD-1 engine was being designed. The engine was to be installed in the “step” layout at the bottom of the fuselage with jet exhaust under the tail [Yak-15 look-alike]. The maximum speed of the modified LaGG-3 was estimated at 900km/h”.
And more, p435: “The ultimate result of the work of A.M.Lyulka’s team in the war years … became ground tests of the first Soviet turbojet S-18 with the thrust of 1,030kg which were conducted in March 1945”. To add to that, the first Lyulka’s flying turbojet was the TR-1, a completely indigenous design starting a highly successful series of Lyulka engines. Two TR-1s rated at 1,300kg of thrust powered Sukhoi Su-11 fighter (the first aircraft with this designation and the one resembling, but not copied !! from Me-262) and four – Ilyushin Il-22 bomber, both flew in 1947.
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/JetEngines.html if you are still not convinced see this
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/engines/tr1.html or this http://xplanes.free.fr/lavo/arl-2.html http://engine.aviaport.ru/issues/03/page44.html
In fact the Su-11 (not the Su-9 derivative with delta wing) was powered by a Soviet jet engine, China until 2000 could boast it had jet engine domestic technology with the Kunlun after almost 50 years of building copies of russian engines and their derivatives
By the end of the 1960s China had enough infrastructure to develop and built jet aircraft and by the late 1980s was already developing complex aircraft programs, that it is true however aircraft technology many times has revolutionary leaps that required to China ask for foreign assistance in order to breach the gap, despite China had by 1985 domestically designed aircraft, it had no domestically designed engines and had to rely on derivatives of Russian R-11 and R-13s built in China.
The J-10 is a quit complex aircraft, it is at least a leap of 20 years from the 1960s tech emboddied in the J-8II first flown in 1986 to the J-10 first flown in 1996 and 1998, the Lavi was even ahead of the F-16 and F-18 by at least 10 years, because this aircraft represent an example of the Eurofighter and Gripen generation.
This forced China to rely in the IAI lavy and the AL-31 to breach a 20 years gap of difference in technology in less than 10 years since basicly the J-10 was first flown in the middle of the 1990s decade, around 10 years after the first J-8II was flown.
To Europe it costed more time because if you know from the early AJ-37 Viggen first flight to the Rafale and Gripen it took to Europe almost 20 years and almost 30 if we consider the first flight of the Eurofighter Typhoon in 1994.
I dun think M2000 has canards!
Why are u comparing F-16XL to Lavi and normal F-16 when u should be comparing to Tejas.
It does have canards, in the extric sense of the word, it has canards, it has not moveable foreplanes, but it has canards very small it is true but still these can be called canards
the reason i told you i like more the LCA is because as an F-16 the F-16XL is not my favorite, niether it is as cool as the LCA because i feel it looks better the inlet wing combination the LCA has
As much as the saying goes “Beauty is in the eyes of the Beholder”, I very much believe that most of us would disagree with Tejas being the nicest delta wing aircraft. Its quite a nice looking aircraft, but far from being the nicest.
The F-16XL have more of that claim than Tejas anytime. :diablo:
I do agree beauty is in the eye of the beholder but personaly i prefer the LCA, because the F-16XL wings are not as cool as the IAI Lavi wing set niether as nice as the F-16A/C
To compare F-16XL
IAI Lavi
F-16C
If we talk pure delta’s, I think the Mirage 2000 has the best looks! But if we allow dubbeldeltas, nothing beats the J35 Draken! 🙂
Well the Mirage 2000 indeed is a cool design but it is not a pure delta it has canards, it is more like the Mirage 4000.
i like the LCA because its wing is not a pure delta it is very similar to the AJ-37 Viggen wing
The J-35 is not as cool as the AJ-37 tough.
alteast MIG-23MLD is implying that J-10 is copy of Lavi.
by that logic China should have built Su-27 by itself without resorting to license by merely looking at it for years. if Su-27 license without engine is $2.5B. so how much will be Lavi with unlimited quantity and more advanced design (80s vs 70s) as mention.
It is not me but SIBNIA and The US intelligence services, second they are saying the J-10 is based upon the IAI Lavi, all sources say the J-10 is a more modern aircraft that included modification to the original Lavi airframe layout and aerodynamic configurations.
This is the original configuration for a IAI Lavi twin seat
This is the same concept re-worked by SIBNIA , CHENGDU and the IAI
Israeli engineeres working in the J-10 program
The basic differences are what Chengdu, SIBNIA and the Israelies deemed necesarity to improve the J-10 into a far more capable design in terms of speed
Sign In
