It is your lack of historical perpsective that is self evident. Did the JH-7 program use WP-13s yes or no? Did the FC-1 program use WP-13s yes or no? Was there any program in the world that used an engine that is half as weak as the intended engine specification. The first generation MiG-23S was intended for 9700kg thrust; don’t compare subsequent second and third generations as an example of the original intended design. That’s like saying future Flanker with AL-31FM2 was the intended design for the original Su-27.

And again, you failed to answer what the difference between PROTOTYPE, DEMONSTRATOR and MOCKUP. You failed again to address the practical, historical, technical and political reasons. Again and again. You just keep clouding the issue with irrelevant data and pictures that continually highlight your supreme ignorance.

Hehehehehe the first MiG-23 used an engine with 7800kg of thrust Crobato you are just swaggering man
bravado and bravado is even boring arguing this way when even you distort even the information i gave you about the Russian engines even when i gave Russian sources :rolleyes: well still you want to pull a Crobato, you also forget Tianamen square

“Expeculating”, eh? Flogger, you still don’t know the difference between a mockup, a prototype, and to add to that, a technology demonstrator.

Fitting a WP-13 would have required too much redesign and too much FBW reprogramming because the engine is designed for an entirely different class of aircraft while the target aircraft is designed for a very different engine. You never addressed this problem and it is clear to everyone else, this makes no sense in the practical, political and engineering sense.

You just don’t want to admit that your Russian article sourced from a Chinese internet speculator. In fact, in the entire history of this forum, you have been quoting from dubious sources aka your MiG-23 combat kills and losses.

Crobato

Relax it is boring your same style of arguing, pretending to be a knowlegeable person when you are not, modifications are common, example the EAP, T-10, Rafale A and even F-22/YF-22 specially in prototypes.

You are also expeculating there is no differecen between you or others here we are just expeculating, no one was at Chengdu in 1993 or were you there in 1993?

Do you have pictures of that mock up of the factory where the first J-10 was built?

At this stage we can not claim something concrete but only what we think is more likely or we think it`s the best explanation.

The Russian account at this stage is as plausibe as any other personally i think it is logic, you do not well prove it with hard evidence and not with your bravado style of arguing swaggering

How about the possibility of modifying WS-10 to bring it in line with Al-31…possible or not? Unless im mistaken, RD-33 was modified per chinese requests to be used in FC-1…was it not? Finally airframe changes are not necessarily linked with engine changes. Just take a look at the difference between FC-1 PT04 and PT03/01, all of which use the same engine.

It is another possibility however you will need acknowledge the WS-10 was also modified and it is not the same engine it was in 1993.

This will imply the WS-10 has been modified extensively only to fit AL-31 requirements.

I feel we are mostly expeculating there are differences in the accounts, mostly if there was a third engine or not.

We are talking that the AL-31 modifed the engine bay and inlet, that is acknowledged by any account, however what is not clear is if the 1993 prototype was powered or fitted with a WP-13 or if it was a J-10 mock up with a WS-10 mock up.

The WP-13 would be a simple interim engine. The Russian acount claims it was not good enough and the Chinese decided to fit the AL-31 with help from the Russians (Lyulka and SIBNIA)

The main reason i feel the WS-10 was not considered in that prototype (mock up) is simply the WS-10 was a paper engine and it would mean that if the Russians would not have helped the First J-10 prototype would had flown in 2003 in a very optimistic pronostic remeber Ukraine also helped in the WS-10 design

Then a J-10 powered by a WP-13 interim engine sounds more logic because the Russian account say one of the reasons the Chinese fitted the AL-31 was the WP-13 prototype was not satisfactory with the Chinese requirements

Let me get this straight. So, according to russian account a J-10 prototype powered by WP-13 flew???

I would say that designing of an air superiority fighter (in 80s) around some American engine or WS-10 is far more plausible than low thrust WP-13. By the time J-10 entered test phase, AL-31 was available. OTOH, assuming Israelis did supply a Lavi to China, its likely they would have done so with the engines hence negating the need for WP-13.

As stated before J-10 was probably originally designed with WS-10 or an American engine in mind. When neither was delivered, chinese decided to use Al-31 which forced them to midify the original J-10 design. China has been working on WS-10 since, and has had enough time to modify the engine to bring it in line with Al-31 specs, which would negate the need for further modifications in J-10 when the time comes.

13 years is a lot of time to make changes to an engine. For example, LCA was envisioned around a Kaveri engine. Now we now first squadron would be delivered with GE engines and enough changes have been made to the airframe during this time. When Kaveri is ready, LCA does not necessarily have to revert to its original design…or does it?

Its funny how you want to claim modifications are minor when is convinient and are difficult when they are not.

The Western engine was out of the reach for the chinese, second they are talking about a prototype not a series aircraft; the EAP for example uses RB-199 directly from the Panavia Tornado, they do that many times simply to accelerate development.

About the aircraft they do not say the aircraft did fly or did not, they say the 1996 aircraft was not satisfactory too, and it was until 1998 that the J-10 as we know it did fly.

What prototype in 1993? There was only a full scale mockup at the time.

PS. Your sentences are becoming less coherent, so please slow down. Please dont consider this an insult, i guess u r simply trying to post too many posts.

If we go back to the Russian account it says the 1993 aircraft (mock up) was almost a Lavi and was powered by a WP-13, the china military aviation claims it was a full scale mock up.

The only thing i asked you is why you will modified two times the J-10, in 1993 it had an engine bay that did not fit an Al-31, later they modified to fit an Al-31 both accounts agree in that.

now if the WS-10 was the original engine it means it was smaller than the AL-31 and once it is ready to power the J-10, it`s size has to be bigger than the 1993 prototype original engine (Mock up) either the WS-10 increased size and was modified or it was not the original engine because who is going to modified the engine bay and later go backwards and reduce one more time in 2006 the engine bay to fit the WS-10 that needs the size engine bay of the Prototype (mock up) of 1993.

the Russian account says the 1993 prototype was fitted with a WP-13/R-13, therefore when they increased the engine bay was to fit the Al-31.

Modifications are not unusual as many want to claim, prototypes are re engine many times, modifications are common.

Of course modifications can be and probably have been made to accomodate such difference. But are u serious? I mean waving such huge difference off with ‘oh no problem…it will be fixed’ type of attitude.

Vikasrehman

see these facts
If you read Chinese military avaition article on the J-10 the confirm they built a prototype on 1993 a full size Mock up according to them
The development of J-10 has not been smooth. A full-scale mock-up was built in 1993. High-speed taxing occurred in 1996. The first prototype was set to fly in 1996, powered by a newly designed WS-10 turbofan based on the CFM56 engine core technology. However the development of this indigenous engine suffered some serious difficulties and thus the rear fuselage and engine intake were forced to be redesigned in order to accommodate an alternative AL-31FN engine imported from Russia.
http://mil.jschina.com.cn/huitong/J-10_J-11_FC-1.htm
However you have to ask your self if the WS-10 was the original engine envisioned it means the current J-10 will return to the 1993 prototype becasue once the WS-10 is ready the 1993 prototype has the right size

The Russian account makes more sense because how you are going to fit an engine modify the engine bay and later once the engine is ready go back to the original size? it makes more sense a prototype (mock up if you want) with a WP-13 modified to take on a AL-31 and later make a WS-10 as close as possible to the Al-31 to get a smooth transition once the WS-10 is ready

That is the reason i feel absurd the Chinese will built a mock up of an engine that even did not exist just to later go back to the original size

Because that would mean the WS-10 was as small engine much smaller than the AL-31 and therefore the Chinese also modified the WS-10 design completly 😉

Each of these have engines that belong to the same thrust/weight and family class. The J-8I for example, uses the WP-7, which is the equivalent to the Tumansky R-11, which is also a MiG-21 engine.

So again, all of your examples have proven empty.

I call upon your B*U*L*L*S*H*I*T once again.

Why would you fit an engine that only has half the thrust and half the airflow of the specified one?

Where is your proof that a WP-13 J-10 prototype exists? Pictures please.

You are truly embarrassing, you believing a fool Russian language article that is copying off from a Chinese internet fan speculator web article who could not have known better.

How foolish of you to measure engine length when in fact, it is the intake diameter of the engine that counts as well as the weight of the engine.

Everyone in this forum thinks you’re a loon in a dreamland, considering how much you have discredited yourself with the MiG-23 combat records and casualties in all.

Who has been proven with empty statements have been you who can not answer what engine was before the AL-31 and forced a redesign of the engine bay in 1993 when even the WS-10 was not even been built and when the WS-10 will fit as well to the J-10 as the AL-31 😀

By the way Crobato

Aircraft engines have at the mostly a 300kg difference in weight, the R-35 for example weights 1775kg, the R-29 weight 1880kg, the R-13 weights 1200kgs, the AL-31 weights 1547kg, the PW F-100 weights 1696 kg, the SNECMA Atar 9 weights 1582kg, the J-79 1759kg it is not tonnes but few hundred kg of differences nothing that you can say it is impossible to adjust.

In fact see there is the same difference betwen the AL-31 with respect the R-29 and the AL-31 with the R-13/WP-13