nothing wrong with the British designs, as long as they went into production and became operational. i find the Lightning very beautiful design, very ‘British-ish.”
love the cover pic from the special issue of Farborough Air Show Magazine (100th Anniversary Farborough) because the Lightning is on it.
Do not take me wrong, if you like it it`s okay with me in fact i am not trying to impose my views, if you love the Lighting of course is like food or women is a very subjetive matter and there are many different tastes.
The reason why i personally do not like the Lighting is because i think it looks bizarre, lacks symmetry, looks unusual and it is not a trend setter.
In fact its engine arragement of one engine on top of the other i feel is too complex and limits its design potential
Why? for example the wing-fuselage blending is easier on a side by side twin engine arragement, also two lateral air intakes are easier to fit into a side by side twin engine arragement than into one such as that of the Lighting where one engine is on top of the other.
This is very clear because of i can not recall another jet that has the same twin engine arragement of one engine on top of the other except the Lighting, i feel there is something disadvantageous in such engine arragement that has provoked that all the aircraft makers have not used it for their designs
The cabin bulge also is less aerodynamicaly complex on a side by side engine arragement because simplier fairings bulges can be design.
The Lighting also gas a horrible fuel ventral tank bulge in fact looks like if it was pregnant π , its wings are unusual and have had few followers ever since.
If you look at the MiG-21 and J-8, these aircraft are more aesthetically pleasing aircraft in that sense and have better development potential
The J-8 for example also is a twin engine aircraft with a nose inlet with a shock wave cone but its design has better symmetry due to a smoother integration of all its parts and therefore a less draggy design

On the subject of Brittish jets, what about the Lightening? Wow.
My top 5
BaC Lightening
Lockheed A-12
M-50 Bounder
Draken
Mig-15
Man if you ask me to choose between the Lighting and the MiG-21 i will choose right away the MiG-21, but to tell the truth i found them both ugly, i feel only from that time the Mirage III sticks out as a truly beautiful and well balanced aircraft
I like more the old He-111 than the Lighting, camberra or any other british aircraft except by the Harrier and Tornado ADV, their WWII bombers i think frankly were quit ugly
i would rather think the americans have a really beautiful WWII bomber in the nice looking B-29 than all those aerodynamically draggy bombers seen every where except by a few that were quit smooth in lines

However the GermanAR-234 jet aircraft of WWII are my favorite bombers in all their versions but specially in this one 


Brits have made some of the most atractive airplanes of all time…….Hunter, Sea Hawk, Vulcan, Victor, Spitfire, Lancaster……now……what happened with Typhoon? BOTH of them! The French have made some REALLY elegant jets too!
Sorry i did not mean the British made ugly aircraft, no do not take me wrong, i just said Personally i do not like their designs but if some one likes the british design well is okay the ranking to me is personally i just wanted to know which aircraft every body likes
Personally for example i do not like 1950s aircraft except perhaps by the Mirage III and F-4

I rather think the Americans made more constantly beautiful aircraft than the british
For example personally i do not like british aircraft because they look rather too old fashion and with little innovative aerodynamic trends

The read out for acc. shows ~16,875 seconds, but still a good value!
Sens how did you arrive to that value?
In the chart you can see the acceleration characteristics displayed by the MiG-23ML at 12700 kg of weight, armed with two R-23 air to air missiles and accelerating from 600 km/h to 1100 km/h at different wing settings and altitudes.
For example at 1000 meters of altitude and a wing setting of 45 degrees, it will accelerate from 600 km/h to 1100 km/h in 22 seconds, it will burn 179 kg of fuel to do that feat; also it will fly the distance of 5.5 km to accelerate to 1100 km/h from the initial speed of 600 kmh
We need to notice the R-35 will be at full afterburner
MiG-21 and F-14
I was reading it off babelfish, and while it did not say that the wing is the same it said the leading edge wing surfaces are like the Lavi’s. And yes the Lavi and the J-10 has forward edge slats but so does a lot of other planes like the Mirage 2000 and the F-106 Delta Dart. But the length of the slat differs significantly between the two planes.
Also the first trial J-10 regiment was commissioned in 2003, and the first operational regiment was commissined in 2004, not 2005.
The article has many points but it still is a collage of different internet and magazine articles put together into one inheriting some of the flaws and myths.
And yes, the article did say the first flight was in 1996 which is dead wrong. Likewise, failed to mention 1002.
ΠΠ΅ΡΠ²ΡΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π΅Ρ ΠΎΠΏΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°Π·ΡΠ° ΡΠΎΡΡΠΎΡΠ»ΡΡ Π² ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ½Π΅ 1996 Π³ΠΎΠ΄Π°. ΠΡΠ»ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΡΡΡΠΎΠ΅Π½ΠΎ Π΄Π΅Π²ΡΡΡ ΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΠ½: ΠΏΡΡΡ Π΄Π»Ρ Π»Π΅ΡΠ½ΡΡ ΠΈΡΠΏΡΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΠΉ (N1003-1007), Π΄Π²Π΅ Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π½Π°Π·Π΅ΠΌΠ½ΡΡ ΠΈΡΠΏΡΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΈ Π΄Π²Π΅ ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΉΠ½ΡΠ΅ (N1008-1009). Π Ρ ΠΎΠ΄Π΅ ΠΈΡΠΏΡΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΠ½Π° N1002 Π±ΡΠ»Π° ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ½Π° ΠΈΠ·-Π·Π° ΠΎΡΠΊΠ°Π·Π° ΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΡ ΡΠΏΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΎΠ»Π΅ΡΠΎΠΌ.
Π ΡΠ΅Π²ΡΠ°Π»Π΅ 2003 Π³ΠΎΠ΄Π° Π½Π° Π²ΠΎΠΎΡΡΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π½Π°ΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ ΠΠΠ‘ Π±ΡΠ»Π° ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½Π° ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ²Π°Ρ ΠΏΠ°ΡΡΠΈΡ Π½ΠΎΠ²ΡΡ ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΎΠ»Π΅ΡΠΎΠ², ΡΠΎΡΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Ρ ΠΈΠ· ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈ (N1010-1016) ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ, Π²ΠΎΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ½ΠΎ, Π΄Π΅ΡΡΡΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΉΠ½ΡΡ ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΎΠ»Π΅ΡΠΎΠ² ΡΡΠ°Π½Π΄Π°ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠΈΠ³ΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ. ΠΠ΅ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ· ΡΡΠΈΡ ΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΠ½ ΠΈΡΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΠ·ΡΡΡΡΡ Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π²ΠΎΠΉΡΠΊΠΎΠ²ΡΡ ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎΡΠ½ΡΡ ΠΈΡΠΏΡΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΠΉ Π² ΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²Π΅ Π±ΠΎΠ΅Π²ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΡΠ°Π·Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ, Π° Π΄ΡΡΠ³ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΎΡΡΠ°Π»ΠΈΡΡ Π² ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΡΠ΅ ΠΈΡΠΏΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π΅ΡΠΎΠ² ΠΈ ΠΎΠ±ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΠΠ‘ ΠΠΠΠ, Π³Π΄Π΅ ΠΎΠ½ΠΈ ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠ²ΡΡΡ Π² Π·Π°Π²Π΅ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠ΅ΠΌ ΡΡΠ°ΠΏΠ΅ ΠΈΡΠΏΡΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΠΉ. Π Π΄Π΅ΠΊΠ°Π±ΡΠ΅ 2003 Π³ΠΎΠ΄Π° ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΌΡ ΠΈΡΠΏΡΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΎΠ»Π΅ΡΠ° Π±ΡΠ»ΠΈ Π·Π°Π²Π΅ΡΡΠ΅Π½Ρ. Π Π½Π°ΡΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π΅ Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΡ Π½Π°ΡΠ°ΡΠΎ ΠΏΡΠΎΠΈΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ΄ΡΡΠ²ΠΎ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ²ΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠ°ΡΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΈΠ· 50 J-10A.
Let`s go by parts they do not say the wings are the same, they say the wings were built under a very similar platform, but they mention very well the differences.
In fact it says the first experimental model was first flew in mid 1996, however the first production model was flown in 1998 same as the T-10 and T-10S program differences.
The one flown in 1996 was like the Su-27 experimental version T-10 that had to be improved and first flown in the definitive configuration in 1998. like the T-10S
ΠΠ°ΡΠΈΠ½Π° Π±ΡΠ»Π° ΠΏΠΎΡΡΡΠΎΠ΅Π½Π° Π² 1996 Π³ΠΎΠ΄Ρ, Π½ΠΎ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ²ΡΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π΅Ρ.Π±ΡΠ» ΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠ΅Π½ Π»ΠΈΡΡ Π΄Π²Π° Π³ΠΎΠ΄Π° ΡΠΏΡΡΡΡ Π² 1998
What the Chinese official statement is saying is the definitive J-10 configuration first flight did not take place in 1996 but in 1998 same like the T-10 that flew in 1977 and the T-10S that flew in 1981
Π±ΡΠ» ΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠ΅Π½ this means was improved or perfected
So in few words the 1998 aircraft really was the definitive version and did have its first flight in 1998, the experimental aircraft like the first six T-10s were flown in 1996 though.
ΠΠ°ΡΠΈΠ½Π° Π±ΡΠ»Π° ΠΏΠΎΡΡΡΠΎΠ΅Π½Π° Π² 1996 Π³ΠΎΠ΄Ρ, Π½ΠΎ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ²ΡΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π΅Ρ.Π±ΡΠ» ΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠ΅Π½ Π»ΠΈΡΡ Π΄Π²Π° Π³ΠΎΠ΄Π° ΡΠΏΡΡΡΡ Π² 1998this can be traslate like the first J-10 were built in 1996 but the improved J-10 first flight took place in 1998
This is what the article is saying
In fact check this two articles
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/j-10.htm both have different first flights http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j10.asp
as a result of that J-10 redesign
but however sino defense states the following HISTORY Oct 1986 J-10 project started
1998 Maiden flight successful
1999 Six prototypes produced
There are many holes indeed.
– For example it mentions that the wing surfaces are like the Lavi’s. Nonsense. The leading edge slats of the Lavi extend on the entire wing, but on the J-10 it only extends from the half, much more similar in design to the Gripen. When the slats on the J-10 extend it creates a saw tooth edge in the middile of the wing and changes its front geometry. We all know that mid wing notches, siimilar to what appears in the Grippen, Russian MiG-23MLDs, and F-14s, improve angle of attack performance.
Another is that the Lavi only has elevons, one single control surface in the rear. The J-10 is in an uncommon club of deltas that actually has two control surfaces in the rear of the wing.
– Specs are all copied from Hui Tong’s website. Nothing original. Some of the specs I suspect are wrong, like the empty weight. No way that the J-10 with single engine, shorter length, smaller wing area and composite construction be heavier than the first generation J-8I.
– First flight of J-10 occured in March 23, 1998. That’s official.
– Second prototype crashing is completely false and is an internet myth. The J-10 has no crashes during its prototype stage except for a near mishap on June 2000. The pilot was awarded a medal for rescuing the plane and this was shown in CCTV many years later. There is a photograph of Prototype 1002 fitted with PL-11s and weapons testing occured only from late 2001 and above.
– AL-41 isn’t being proposed for J-10. Only the Salyut invented variants.
– It’s way too obvious that the J-10 has a variable inlet ramp with its obvious advantages and I have mentioned that for years in this forum and others. Of course it’s going to be faster with that inlet. That’s not new or unique information. Furthermore, the J-10 has a lower drag canopy then either the F-16’s or Lavi’s.
– Radar information is wrong. Neither the Zhuk aka Beetle, or the ELM-2032 or 2035 is used on the J-10 although they may have been proposed. Jane’s reported that the name of the Zhuk proposed is Zhemchug aka “Jewel”, which the article also failed to mention. This is basically the Zhuk-ME with lightened electronics. In the final selection, the J-10 uses a home grown radar that is compatible with home grown missiles. No R-73s, R-77s and R-27s whatever. The KLJ-3 or Type 1473 radar developed by NRIET is descended from the KLJ-1 or Type 1471 slotted planar radar which is China’s first operational slotted array radar and is used on the J-8IIs. This radar may have benefited from studying the ELM-2032, 2035, the APG-66, the Thales RDY and the Zhuks.
There are a lot of things the article doesn’t mention. For example, canard delta designs tend to be very unstable—the need for space for canards tend to push wings back further down the fuselage. This means so does the structure supporting making up the wings, plus the fuel and stores attached to the wing. This throws the CG to the rear making the plane unstable and extremely sensitive to directional changes. Ergo you need a big tail stabilizer, which also apparent in the EF2000s, Rafale and Gripen. Somehow I didn’t think that the Lavi’s F-16 derived stabiizer is enough, and the J-10 certainly has a bigger stabilizer than the Lavi.
Furthermore, to reduce the interference drag from the canards to the wing, the wing has to go down further. The Lavi has a concept flaw where the canard is quite close above the wing. The J-10 has greater seperation between canard and wing, and the EF2000 takes the seperation even further by putting the canards on the nose.
Crobato
The Article never mentions the wing is the same, in fact if you read it carefully it mentions the root leading edge is fixed while the outer wing leading edges are moveable:
Π²ΠΎΠ·ΡΠΎΡΠ»Π° ΠΏΠ»ΠΎΡΠ°Π΄Ρ Π΅Π³ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡ Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ). Π’Π°ΠΊΠΈΠΌ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°Π·ΠΎΠΌ, ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ»ΡΡ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠΈΠΉ Π²ΠΈΠ΄ ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΎΠ»Π΅ΡΠ° Π² ΠΏΠ»Π°Π½Π΅, ΠΏΠΎΡΠΊΠΎΠ»ΡΠΊΡ Ρ Β«ΠΠ°Π²ΠΈΒ» ΠΊΡΡΠ»ΠΎ ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π»ΠΎ ΡΡΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΠ΄Π½ΡΡ Π·Π°Π΄Π½ΡΡ ΠΊΡΠΎΠΌΠΊΡ. Π‘ Π΄ΡΡΠ³ΠΎΠΉ ΡΡΠΎΡΠΎΠ½Ρ, ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ²ΠΊΠ° ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π²ΠΈΠΆΠ½ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡ Π½ΠΎΡΡΠ΅ΠΉ ΠΊΡΡΠ»Π° J-10 ΠΎΡΡΠ°Π»Π°ΡΡ ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΆΠ΅, ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΈ Ρ Β«ΠΠ°Π²ΠΈΒ»; ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π΄Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΊΡΠΎΠΌΠΊΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠΎΠ»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΈ ΠΊΡΡΠ»Π° ΠΌΠΎΠ³ΡΡ ΠΎΡΠΊΠ»ΠΎΠ½ΡΡΡΡΡ. ΠΡΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ»ΡΠ΅Ρ ΡΠΎΠ·Π΄Π°Π²Π°ΡΡ ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΡΠ΅ Π²Π°ΡΠΈΠ°Π½ΡΡ ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²ΠΈΠ·Π½Ρ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ»Ρ ΠΊΡΡΠ»Π°, ΡΡΠΎ ΠΎΠΏΡΠΈΠΌΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡΡΠ΅Ρ Π°ΡΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ½Π°ΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΡΡ ΡΡΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΈ ΠΌΠ°Π½Π΅Π²ΡΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΡ Π²ΠΎ Π²ΡΠ΅Ρ Π΄ΠΈΠ°ΠΏΠ°Π·ΠΎΠ½Π°Ρ ΡΠΊΡΠΏΠ»ΡΠ°ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π½ΡΡ ΡΠ΅ΠΆΠΈΠΌΠΎΠ² ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π΅ΡΠ°. Π ΡΠΎ ΠΆΠ΅ Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΡ ΠΊΠΎΡΠ½Π΅Π²Π°Ρ ΡΠ°ΡΡΡ ΠΊΡΡΠ»Π°, ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π²Π΅ΡΠ³Π°ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΡ Π²ΠΎΠ·Π΄Π΅ΠΉΡΡΠ²ΠΈΡ ΡΠΊΠΎΡΠ΅Π½Π½ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΡΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ² ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π²ΠΈΠΆΠ½ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡ Π½ΠΎΡΡΠ΅ΠΉ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π΄Π½Π΅Π³ΠΎ Π³ΠΎΡΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ½ΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΎΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ (ΠΠΠ), ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π΅Ρ ΡΠΈΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π΄Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΊΡΠΎΠΌΠΊΠΈ.
Π ΡΠΎ ΠΆΠ΅ Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΡ ΠΊΠΎΡΠ½Π΅Π²Π°Ρ ΡΠ°ΡΡΡ ΠΊΡΡΠ»Π° means at the same time the wing root and the sentence ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π΅Ρ ΡΠΈΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π΄Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΊΡΠΎΠΌΠΊΠΈ has a fixed leading edge
At no moment they claimed the Wing is the same
Π ΠΎΡΡΠΈΡ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π»Π°Π³Π°Π΅Ρ ΡΡΠ΄ ΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌ, ΡΠ°ΡΡΡ ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΠΈΡΠ°ΠΉ ΡΠΆΠ΅ Π²ΡΠ±ΡΠ°Π» Π΄Π»Ρ ΡΠΊΡΠΏΠ»ΡΠ°ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ Π½Π° Π΄ΡΡΠ³ΠΈΡ ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΎΠ»Π΅ΡΠ°Ρ . Π Π°ΡΡΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠΈΠ²Π°Π΅ΡΡΡ ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ Π ΠΠ‘ ΠΊΠΈΡΠ°ΠΉΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΡΠΎΠΈΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ΄ΡΡΠ²Π° JL-10A, Π½ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ° Π½Π΅ ΡΡΠ½ΠΎ, Π±ΡΠ΄Π΅Ρ Π»ΠΈ Π·Π°ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅Π½Π° Π΅Π΅ ΡΠ°Π·ΡΠ°Π±ΠΎΡΠΊΠ° ΠΊ ΠΌΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΡ ΠΏΡΠΈΠ½ΡΡΠΈΡ Π½Π° Π²ΠΎΠΎΡΡΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΈΡΡΡΠ΅Π±ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»Ρ. ΠΠΎ Π½Π°ΡΠ°Π»Π° Π΅Π³ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΉΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΡΠΎΠΈΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ΄ΡΡΠ²Π° ΠΊΠΈΡΠ°ΠΉΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΠΈΡΡΡ Π΄ΠΎΠ»ΠΆΠ½Ρ ΠΎΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅Π»ΠΈΡΡΡΡ Ρ ΠΠ ΠΠ‘.
Here they said Russia proposed the radar they are not affirming they selected the Russian radar. Π ΠΎΡΡΠΈΡ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π»Π°Π³Π°Π΅Ρ This means in Russian Russia proposes so as you can see they never said it was already chosen
ΠΠ°ΡΠΈΠ½Π° Π±ΡΠ»Π° ΠΏΠΎΡΡΡΠΎΠ΅Π½Π° Π² 1996 Π³ΠΎΠ΄Ρ, Π½ΠΎ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ²ΡΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π΅Ρ Π±ΡΠ» ΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠ΅Π½ Π»ΠΈΡΡ Π΄Π²Π° Π³ΠΎΠ΄Π° ΡΠΏΡΡΡΡ Π² 1998. Π 1999 ΠΏΡΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ Π»Π΅ΡΠ½ΡΡ ΠΈΡΠΏΡΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΠΉ Π±ΡΠ» ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ½ Π²ΡΠΎΡΠΎΠΉ Π»Π΅ΡΠ½ΡΠΉ ΡΠΊΠ·Π΅ΠΌΠΏΠ»ΡΡ, ΠΏΠΈΠ»ΠΎΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ³ΠΈΠ±.
They never said the aircraft had it`s first flight in 1996
ΠΠ°ΡΠΈΠ½Π° Π±ΡΠ»Π° ΠΏΠΎΡΡΡΠΎΠ΅Π½Π° Π² 1996 Π³ΠΎΠ΄Ρ, this means in Russian the machine was built in 1996 at no moment they said the first flight was in 1996 in fact they said the J-10 first flew in 1998
ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ²ΡΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π΅Ρ Π±ΡΠ» ΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠ΅Π½ Π»ΠΈΡΡ Π΄Π²Π° Π³ΠΎΠ΄Π° ΡΠΏΡΡΡΡ Π² 1998.
You don’t need a raked intake to fly at supersonic speeds. Look at the F-16 or the F-4, or even the MiG-23 (how did you miss that one? π ). It’s also claimed that the EF-2000 can supercruise, and it also lacks a raked intake, so you don’t need one for supercruise either.
Of all those aircraft you mention only the F-16 has a fixed geometry inlet and it is not a fighter that goes beyong mach two both the F-4 and MiG-23 go beyond Mach 2.2 thaks to the fact it has variable geometry inlets.
The Eurofighter has excellent agility however to tell you the truth i do not know if it has a variable geometry inlet but i guess i does
Some interesting material but plenty of holes and mistakes. Need extensive working and correction.
I would like to know what mistakes and holes, i mean the article sounds more logic in what respects the air intake that many other sources.
Why does need the J-10 a highly racked air inlet if it is not to fly supersonic?
Another thing that shocked me is that this is the Second Russian article i have read that mentions the Israeli involment and input.
I think since the Russians had direct involment in the J-10 they have good sources of information.
Someone please confirm or correct as required.
ΠΡΠ΅ΠΉΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΊΠ°Ρ ΡΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΡ Π΄ΠΎΠ·Π²ΡΠΊΠΎΠ²Π°Ρ this is subsonic cruising speed it does not mention at any moment supercruise, Π΄ΠΎΠ·Π²ΡΠΊΠΎΠ²Π°Ρ =subsonic
Recently i read a Russian J-10 article where they said its max speed is Mach 2.2, making it it superior to the F-16 and Mirage 2000 in the fact it has a variable geometry inlet ramp, but i wonder why in the vast majority of western articles it`s speed is usually Mach 2 or less?
http://paralay.narod.ru/j10.html
Π’Π΅Ρ Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ Ρ Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ J-10.
Π Π°Π·ΠΌΠ°Ρ ΠΊΡΡΠ»Π° 8.78 ΠΌ
ΠΠ»ΠΈΠ½Π° 14.57 ΠΌ
ΠΡΡΠΎΡΠ° 4.78 ΠΌ
ΠΠ»ΠΎΡΠ°Π΄Ρ ΠΊΡΡΠ»Π° 33.1 ΠΊΠ².ΠΌ
ΠΠ»ΠΎΡΠ°Π΄Ρ ΠΠΠ 5.45 ΠΊΠ².ΠΌ
ΠΠ΅Ρ ΠΌΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΠΌΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΉ 18500 ΠΊΠ³
ΠΠ΅Ρ ΠΏΡΡΡΠΎΠ³ΠΎ 9750 ΠΊΠ³
ΠΠ΅Ρ ΡΠΎΠΏΠ»ΠΈΠ²Π° 4500 ΠΊΠ³
ΠΠ΅Ρ Π½Π°Π³ΡΡΠ·ΠΊΠΈ 4250 ΠΊΠ³
ΠΠ²ΠΈΠ³Π°ΡΠ΅Π»Ρ ΠΠ-31Π€Π
1 * 12500 ΠΊΠ³Ρ
WS-10A Ρ Π£ΠΠ’
1 * 15000 ΠΊΠ³Ρ (?)
ΠΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΠΌΠ°Π»ΡΠ½Π°Ρ ΡΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΡ M 2.2
ΠΡΠ΅ΠΉΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΊΠ°Ρ ΡΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΡ Π΄ΠΎΠ·Π²ΡΠΊΠΎΠ²Π°Ρ
ΠΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΡΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠΊ 18.000 ΠΌ.
Π Π°Π΄ΠΈΡΡ Π΄Π΅ΠΉΡΡΠ²ΠΈΡ 463 – 555 ΠΊΠΌ
ΠΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΠ½ΠΎΡΠ½Π°Ρ 1850 ΠΊΠΌ
ΠΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΠΌΠ°Π»ΡΠ½Π°Ρ ΡΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΡ M 2.2 means max speed Mach 2.2
Schorsch this is the R-35 specifications chart
ΠΠ°ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π½ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠ°ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠ°= parameter designation
ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΡΠΉ ΡΠΎΡΡΠ°ΠΆ=full afterburner
ΠΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΉ ΡΠΎΡΡΠ°ΠΆ=Minimum afterburner
ΠΌΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΠΌΠ°Π»=maximum
Π½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠ½Π°Π»=nominal rating
ΠΊΡΠ΅ΠΉΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΊΠΈΠΉ ΡΠ΅ΠΆΠΈΠΌ=cruise setting
ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΎΡΠ° Π²ΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ=RPM
Π’ΡΠ³Π°=thrust
ΡΠ΄Π΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΉ ΡΠ°ΡΡ ΠΎΠ΄ ΡΠΎΠΏΠ»ΠΈΠ²Π°=specific fuel compsumtion
ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΡΡΠ° Π³Π°Π·ΠΎΠ² ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π΄ ΡΡΡΠ±ΠΈΠ½ΠΎΠΉ =temperature of the gases before the turbine
ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΡΡΠ° Π³Π°Π·ΠΎΠ² Π·Π° ΡΡΡΠ±ΠΈΠ½ΠΎΠΉ=temperature of gases behind the turbine
ΡΡΠ΅ΠΏΠ΅Π½Ρ ΠΏΠΎΠ²ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π΄Π°Π²Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π² ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΎΡΠ΅=air pressure increase rate at the compressor
ΡΠ°ΡΡ ΠΎΠ΄ Π²ΠΎΠ·Π΄ΡΡ Π° =air flow rate
Π’ΡΠΌΠ±Π»Π΅Ρ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΡΠΉ ΡΠΎΡΡΠ°ΠΆ Π² ΠΊΠ°Π±ΠΈΠ½Π΅ ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΎΠ»Π΅ΡΠ° Π²ΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π½= full afterburner switch included in the MiG-23 cockpit instruments panel.
Π’ΡΠΌΠ±Π»Π΅Ρ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΡΠΉ ΡΠΎΡΡΠ°ΠΆ Π² ΠΊΠ°Π±ΠΈΠ½Π΅ ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΎΠ»Π΅ΡΠ° ΠΎΡΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π½= full afterburner switch in the MiG-23 cockpit instruments panel on
Actually .., fairly easy. π
And:
A clean F-18C with F404 -GE-400 at 26.000lbs at 4.000ft needs 11 seconds to accelerate from 360 kts to 550 kts, that is 666 km/h to 1020 km/h. Both speeds indicated airspeed.While the claim that the F-18 is the “draggiest” 4th generation fighter in transonic regime is true. On the other hand, it is quite agile and very versatile. Everything comes with a price-tag.
Schorsch
The MiG-23ML/MLA/P/MLD have the Tumansky R-35-300 engine, in the MiG-23ML manual there is an entire chapter dealing with the R-35 including the air intake operational features, in fact in Page 59 they have all the technical characteristics of the engine.
I will translate it very soon for you just give me some time.
The MiG-23 accelerates from 600km/h to 1000km/h in around 15 seconds, however notice the aircraft carries at least 2000 liters of fuel and two R-23 air to air missiles
I attached the MiG-23ML rate of climb graph, in it you can see the rate of climb at a given speed, altitude and sweep angle; for example at 1000 meters of altitude and at a wing setting of 45 degrees the MiG-23ML has a rate of climb 220 meters per second when its speed is in the vecinity of Mach 0.9, nevertheless as speed increases it will drop the rate of climb and at around 1400km/h its rate of climb is close to 120m/s.
Something different happens at 5km of altitude where the rate of climb remains around 120 m/s-140m/s independently of the the wing setting at speeds beyond Mach 0.9.
At 10km of altitude the reverse happens and beyond speeds of Mach 0.9 the rate of climb improves drastically, in fact at a speed of Mach 2 the rate of climb is 160m/s, it doubles the rate of climb at the speed of Mach 0.9 which is around 70m/s
Let`s notice the MiG-23 is carring two R-23 and weights 12000kg.
With respect accleration
We can see that the MiG-23ML will accelerate from 600km/h to 1100km/h in just 22 secs with its wings set at 45 degrees and at 1 km of altitude.
So both are similar. What is missing in that comparison is, we do not know what F-18 it was and what engines were fitted?
It is an F-18C, the F-18C is the worst of all medium size fourth generation fighters in what respects acceleration according to the books “MiG-29 Fulcrum” by Gordon and “Su-27” by Fomin.
The Graph shows basicly that the MiG-23ML with its wings set up at 45 degrees accelerates from 600km/h to 900km/h in around 15 seconds or 14 seconds check by your self however since it is not very clear it is possible the MiG-23ML takes around 16 seconds to get from 600km/h to 1000km/h but it does not seem 18 seconds
Nice camuflage