Crobato you do not have any picture of the 1995 J-10s do you? all of the nine prototypes, the aircraft built in 1993 do you?

you are just following a childish reasoning you can modify the J-10 is not like you are saying, any aircraft can be modified so all your brilliant reason is so false because how in that case they plan to make a naval twin engine J-10 if they can not modiy the aircraft? any airframe can be modified to make room for a new engine , you are just going in a false reasoning path

See i said childish is it an insult? childish is an expresion of being naive, a brat or capricious but it is not an insult it means do not be stubborn and proud as a kid who is capricious and unreasonable

Exactly what I said: You don’t listed !!!
I said You did not call anyone an idiot by name ….

Which question did You answer ???? NONE !!!!!

Maybe You didn’t read it at all ??? … but here again !

1. Wouldn’t it be more practical, technically more feasible, less time consuming and economically cheaper to build a full-scale mock-up with the dimensions of the anticipated engine, which we all assume to be the WS-10. An engine that surely had it’s very troublesome development but that was based on a modern Western core engine technology (CFM-56 and maybe even the F100 itself and not the AL-31) before the Tiananmen incident to be in the thrust class and of similar dimensions of the AL-31F which powers the Su-27/J-11. ????

2. Additional it seems more logical that the WS-10 was build originally in mind with similar dimensions (and so on) as it would have been – if successful – an ideal replacement for the AL-31F’s in a future indigenous J-11 version (we now call J-11B). Yes or No ??

3. As such and only then – after the initial setbacks of the WS-10 – it would have been more practical, technically more feasible, less time consuming and economically cheaper to reconstruct the J-10’s fuselage as both engines were of similar dimensions ! Yes or No ??

4. Are two airframe re-designs not easier than three ???

5. If there are several possibilities or hypotheses which can not be proven unless Chengdu or AVIC opens its archives; would be the more logical and more practical version the more probable one ???

6. So let’s ask one last question !
Why do You still think that a Russian article – quoting as the only source there were a WP-13 powered mock-up/prototype and already proven as a simple cut and paste translation of a Chinese article written by an aviation enthusiast – is more reliable than another report – esp. at Huitong’s page – that the J-10 was originally intended to be powered by the WS-10 ???

Deino 😡

quote me the post number i said that because you have changed it, i said something different

I think nothing changed !! I had the hope if You ask him a simple question, often only to be answered with YES or NO would make it easier for him !

It could led the discussion on track again ….

Nothing !!! All his usual behavior, no concrete answers, just some bubbeling around composed with opening a new playground on a very different corner o the debate added with the childish hehehehes … 😡

As we all know, its senseless, useless to discuss with him. The moderators should close this tread as the only thing once again proven is not the question “Is China sacrificing quality for quantity???” but the fact “never to argue with an idiot !!!”

Deino

Deino

you can suggest what ever but before you call people idiot learn to win arguments, you can gang against me, none of you prove anything mister crobato and his myths, Deino with hypocritical statements who prove nothing and the rest simply unable to prove anything only thing you prove you only can ask for people to be banned however niether you or crobato could prove anything beyond your ultranationalistic views the only thing you can say is ban the guy who has embarrased us and close the topic because we even ganging against him we could not say a coherent theory specially about your Mock ups poor of you no metal mock ups eh?

I am glad alone i can beat a bunch of seudo-experts who distort chinese aviation history with their jingoism 😀

Winners do not ask for banning people winners prove people wrong with evidence and are gentlemen

You never answered the question directly do you? You never think that changing an engine with a different diameter would result in changing the dimensions and design of the air tunnel itself. When the F-14 changed to the GE F110, there where modifications throughout the entire duct. Simiply said, what works for the TF30 does not work for the F110. You failed to account that the ramps and inlets are also designed for one particular engine and these too have to change when you have a different engine. A variable inlet and ramp is designed to account for that particular engine which has to operate in a variety of speeds, altitudes, and RPM states. They are very highly tuned devices, and you have to change their design and behavior when you have a different engine because the operating range and conditions becomes a different set of bananas.

And these are still engines within the same class. Not like 6600kg vs. 12,500kg.

You keep bringing up the MiG-23 as an example when it’s already shown its a fallacy. The first generation and the second generation of MiG-23s feature a newly designed rear end. Can you explain to me why the AL-31F will not fit on the first generation of MiG-23s with 9700kg thrust engines? Huh?

You seem to think that you can take the same tunnel, put a different engine on it, and use the variable ramp to compensate for the airflow differences? You really are a fool.

And where is your empirical proof that the WP-13 J-10 prototype exists? Huh? After all these years, can’t find one?

Crobato

Inlets, engines have some degree of adaptability and tolerance; modifications can be done that is what you can not understand

The first MiG-23 with Variable geometry had a turbojet of 7800kg of thrust and the latest MiG-23BN or MiG-27 can accept a Al-31 turbofan of 12,500kg, the MiG-23 proves you you are wrong becasue if the MiG-23 can be fitted with turbojets and Turbofans and these are from 7800kg of thrust to 13000kg of thrust, this proves you your theory is simply a fallacy.

remember the Russians say they modified the engine bay and the J-10 airframe in few words you live in a world where things can not be done but the real world proves it, it can be done

SUPERSONIC INLETS

An inlet for a supersonic aircraft, on the other hand, has a relatively sharp lip. The inlet lip is sharpened to minimize the performance losses from shock waves that occur during supersonic flight. For a supersonic aircraft, the inlet must slow the flow down to subsonic speeds before the air reaches the compressor. Some supersonic inlets, like the one at the upper right, use a central cone to shock the flow down to subsonic speeds. Other inlets, like the one shown at the lower left, use flat hinged plates to generate the compression shocks, with the resulting inlet geometry having a rectangular cross section. This variable geometry inlet is used on the F-14 and F-15 fighter aircraft. More exotic inlet shapes are used on some aircraft for a variety of reasons. The inlets of the Mach 3+ SR-71 aircraft are specially designed to allow cruising flight at high speed. The inlets of the SR-71 actually produce thrust during flight.

INLET EFFICIENCY

An inlet must operate efficiently over the entire flight envelope of the aircraft. At very low aircraft speeds, or when just sitting on the runway, free stream air is pulled into the engine by the compressor. In England, inlets are called intakes, which is a more accurate description of their function at low aircraft speeds. At high speeds, a good inlet will allow the aircraft to maneuver to high angles of attack and sideslip without disrupting flow to the compressor. Because the inlet is so important to overall aircraft operation, it is usually designed and tested by the airframe company, not the engine manufacturer. But because inlet operation is so important to engine performance, all engine manufacturers also employ inlet aerodynamicists. The amount of disruption of the flow is characterized by a numerical inlet distortion index. Different airframers use different indices, but all of the indices are based on ratios of the local variation of pressure to the average pressure at the compressor face.

The ratio of the average total pressure at the compressor face to the free stream total pressure is called the total pressure recovery. Pressure recovery is another inlet performance index; the higher the value, the better the inlet. For hypersonic inlets the value of pressure recovery is very low and nearly constant because of shock losses, so hypersonic inlets are normally characterized by their kinetic energy efficiency. If the airflow demanded by the engine is much less than the airflow that can be captured by the inlet, then the difference in airflow is spilled around the inlet. The airflow mis-match can produce spillage drag on the aircraft.

sourcehttp://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/inlet.html

Even if you do an aluminium mockup, why don’t you elaborate for us O Great One, where you put a real engine huh?

The more you post, the more you make the entire forum laugh.

hehehehehe look who is talking Crobato the myth maker, no metal mock ups hehehehehehe bravado bravado no metal mock ups 😀 what other myth are you going to create?

[QUOTE=Deino]Hi; after about four pages without any comment but with a lot of fun reading the still ongoing discussion I think I have to give up my promise and step in once again ! :diablo:

But let me follow Your own statements … I hope I can sum them up together correctly !

Your hypothesis is (following that Russian article and the many sources You always quote) that:

1. There was a WP-13 equipped mock-up or prototype !

2. It was more practical, technically more feasible, less time consuming and economically cheaper to built a full-scale mock up with an dated engine, that has – to be careful to say – very different dimensions at least in centre of gravity for the final aircraft, weight, thrust even if the originally foreseen powerplant was under development (= WS-10) and two similar dimensioned engines (= AL-31F and WS-9) already available !

3. After that interim engine proved unsatisfying the fuselage was redesigned and fitted with a second engine, which was rejected too and needed a third redesign to the now current engine; the AL-31FN, which needed a lengthy redesign, construction and certification for the only single-engined fighter to be equipped with.

4. … which means that it is “more likely that they modified the airframe rather than the engine, it is more logic there was a third engine …” as the WS-10 is still planned to be the final engine.

5. All the necessary redesign, wind-tunnel testing, manufacturing, testing and certification before flight test were accomplished in just three years (unsatisfying mock-up in 1993, prototype in 1996 with the second engine You mention and then the final AL-31FN) !

I hope I didn’t miss anything ! 🙁

But let me just – as You say correctly – try to “develop” a second hypothesis and tell some them as questions:

1. Wouldn’t it be more practical, technically more feasible, less time consuming and economically cheaper to build a full-scale mock-up with the dimensions of the anticipated engine, which we all assume to be the WS-10. An engine that surely had it’s very troublesome development but that was based on a modern Western core engine technology (CFM-56 and maybe even the F100 itself and not the AL-31) before the Tiananmen incident to be in the thrust class and of similar dimensions of the AL-31F which powers the Su-27/J-11.

2. Additional it seems more logical that the WS-10 was build originally in mind with similar dimensions (and so on) as it would have been – if successful – an ideal replacement for the AL-31F’s in a future indigenous J-11 version (we now call J-11B).

3. As such and only then – after the initial setbacks of the WS-10 – it would have been more practical, technically more feasible, less time consuming and economically cheaper to reconstruct the J-10’s fuselage as both engines were of similar dimensions !

4. Are two airframe re-designs not easier than three ???

5. If there are several possibilities or hypotheses which can not be proven unless Chengdu or AVIC opens its archives; would be the more logical and more practical version the more probable one ???

By the way how does a wooden Harrier-mock up proves that a mock-up doesn’t necessarily has to be made of wood ?

But finally to Your questions !

YES; as the WS-10 was under development with much more similar characteristics than the WP-13.

Why ????? If it is that easy as You describes with several examples to change an entire airframe, why should it be harder to change an engine under development ??

Why … I suggest this is pure nonsense ! 😀

…. and I do not think they would modify the WS-10 design just to fit it into the J-10, the airframe is the aircraft element that will suffer the most of modifications rather than the engine, that is the reason they say they modified the J-10 airframe and not the WS-10.

I think that is a contradiction: Why then changing the one element that suffers the most of modifications ????

Exactly; I can only agree with what SOC said as it just proves my theory: “simply because the WS-10 has been designed with specifications similar to the Al-31” … but if we follow Your argumentation we don’t use the easier way, we take the long and hard way and redesign everything only to fit an unsuited and dated engine !???!

So let’s ask one last question !
Why do You still think that a Russian article – quoting as the only source there were a WP-13 powered mock-up/prototype and already proven as a simple cut and paste translation of a Chinese article written by an aviation enthusiast – is more reliable than another report – esp. at Huitong’s page – that the J-10 was originally intended to be powered by the WS-10 ???

Only because it’s written in that Russian article is surely not an argument; the Bible says that earth was created in seven days (to be correct: in six! :diablo: ) and that’s not necessarily a prove in terms of nature science !

And please don’t start now another side-discussion because I made a mistake in grammar, writing or punctuation !

Cheers, Deino :confused:

Deino you got several part wrong

First the Russian account claims there this

A-prototype built at the end of 1993 with a R-13/WP-13 single seat aircraft and resembled the IA Lavi a great deal
China asked Russia to hel in the program the AL-31 was fitted to the J-10 and it was redesigned

There is going to be a WS-10 equipped version in the near future.

Now China military aviation in the J-10 article claims

Mock up built in 1993, no WS-10 available, no western engine available, China asks Russia to help, J-10 modified to accept the Al-31, in the future WS-10 will fit the J-10 as initially envisioned

Now let`s go the WS-9 is an Spey, England at no moment accepted the Chinese conditions for licensed production in China, China always faced the possibility of running out of engines, the WS-10 also was complex for the Chiense at the time.

The AL-31 was the engine that was took but this also requiered Russian help, in fact China asked for license production in China to Russia, the Russians denied the license only agreed in supply the engines.

There are several aspects you are not considering, first the CG problem as you claimed, it is not as difficult as you are claimimg, the Rafale was redesigned and reduced in size, the EAP is quit different to the Eurofighter 2000, aircraft have twin seat versions, they are built with not too much trouble

Also you are thinking the J-10A has the same dimensions than the J-10 powered by the WP-13 even the same weight, you are thinking it will have the same specifications, look simple the YF-22 and the F22 both aircraft are different a great deal.

Building an engine is the most difficult part of an aircraft and usually the airframe will have the most of the chances because engines are qit complex, it is not economical, practical and easy modified the WS-10 to fit the Al-31 dimensions, it is more likely the WS-10 and the AL-31 are similar in specifications and the Al-31 was chosen because it is the closest thing to an WS-10

If the WP-13 was chosen is becuase was the best engine available and they know it well, i do not know the J-10 prototype of 1993 real dimensions and general specification so any thing relating thrust to weight ratio is highly speculative

Ah by the way you think there are not metal mock ups read this

Among the Indian exhibitors, HAL’s sheer size earned it pride of place. Defence organisations such as the DRDO were not far behind. HAL, which has embarked on the development of an Intermediate Jet Trainer, the HJT-36, had a full-scale, all-metal, mock-up of the HJT-36 on display. HAL hopes the aircraft will replace the Kiran (HJT-16) trainers that have been in use with the IAF for nearly 30 years. The IAF plans to phase out the 200-odd Kirans by 2004. HAL has pegged the overall project cost at Rs.200 crores and expects the prototype to roll out 39 months after it gets the go-ahead. The plane should enter service two years thereafter.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1601/16010670.htm

HAL Light Combat Aircraft Mockup

The Light Combat aircraft program has been the pride of India’s Aviation industry ever since the LCA had its first flight in January 2001. The Light Combat Aircraft is the product of the Aeronautical Development Authority , also known as the ADA. The aircraft had been in development ever since the mid eighties, and in the early nineties, the wooden and metal mockup of the LCA was rolled out for an airshow. Subsequently two Technology-Demonstrators were built with one of them doing its flight last year and finishing about twelve test flights in all.

http://warbirdsofindia.com/wbblrhal07.html

I am only a fighter enthusiast with no backgorund in aeronautics/engineering etc. Yet even i could tell u that a J-10 class fighter meant for air superiority is going to suck (and suck bad) with WP-13. If so, i just dont know whey those chinese experts did such a stupid thing.

It would not be such as stupid thing if they just meant an interim engine, while the WS-10 was ready and if the engine allowed them to fly the aircraft to test other systems, like the EAP, Berkut and many other programs that did not fit the first prototypes with series engines but off the shelf.