i.e.Ohh … again learnt something new ! 😮
But regarding the CH-1 … I always thought this is also known as the WZ-5 (WuZhen-5) and was based on the AQM-34N Firebee. ??!!
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/uav/wz5.asp
Thanks, Deino
sorry, misspelling on my part.
Should be ChangKong-1. “Long Air/Sky” – 1
not ChangHong-1. “Long Rainbow” – 1
two seperate project.
i.e.Just to play Devil’s Advocate- this particular argument tends to be dismissed in the case of the F-22/F-35/stealth/AESA/etc… vs. PAK FA/J-20. Advocates for the latter types seem to weight experience/learning curves lightly. I would agree with you though, that NK has a pretty significant lead in ballistic missile technology, that would likely require assistance from an outside source, to help close the gap.
Yeah you are partially correct.
to get up that 70-80% of the curve for the late commer is much easier, benefit of hind-sight and technology borrowing.
that is without outside proprietary inputs and just to do it on open dissemination alone.
the last 20-30% of the curve takes much more effort.
going up almost asymtotically.
but again alot of people are just looking for that 70% .
i.e.First of all ! THANKs a lot … and second, I’m once again surprised since that’s the first time I’ve heard about this project.
Regarding the name written on the sides … I have to admit, I can’t read Chinese and regarding Your question, I was told that this pictures shows the J-7 and J-8 in Nanjing.
Why do You thnk this to be in Nanchang ??? … was it a project run by Nanchang and do You have more information about it (time. specifications, powerplant, launch aircraft (Y-8 ??) … anything You know)
Thanks again and thanks in advance,
Deino
NanHang =/= NanChang.
NanHang = nanjing aeronautics and astronautics university.
they did the original ChangHong-1 from La-17.
i.e.Any idea, what’s the missile in front ??? :confused:
Thanks in advance,
Deino
It is not a Missile.
it is the ChangKong-2 supoersonic recon UAV. if you blow up the picture big enough you would notice the writing on its side.
never made into serial production.
l guess this was NanHang’s own museum?
i.e.EMALS delivers a peak out put of @60mw but of course is charged over a period of time, any one know what the charge rate is?
60MW is total per or Peak?
assume 2 plane a minute launch rate….
Yikes. cuttin’ it close.
i.e.Actually I think the estimate was 145 billion NOK for 30 years, which translates into ca. 26 billion USD. Also I think it was for 56 planes not 48 but I am not sure. The original plan was 48 but this was later changed to 56.
That’s bit more like it. But still 😮
i.e.Wonder how many Gripens they could have got for that kind of money :rolleyes:
hell I doubt the entire J-10 developemental program cause 24 Billion US$.
granted they were poorly paid and alot of infrastucture (wind tunnels) were in place.
i.e.120 Billion for 48 airplanes for 30 years
a developing country could develope an aircraft industry from scratch for these kinds of money!
i.e.Considering what the Japanese have been doing on a very small budget, JAXA’s FY 2010 budget was $ 2.86 billion, they haven’t conducted as many launches, and thus when they have an issue with a launch, it tends to be a big one. All of the other space capable nations have been through this as well, only during the Cold War, they were launching a lot more and failing a lot more as well.
Just taking the Mu family of solid fueled satellite launchers as a start (and the follow on to the M-V, the Epsilon) and you’re basically there with the launcher. Add a development budget to fit a crash militarized program and I’d hazard to guess they’d be able to get a working system with a good CEP in a very short time.
and on top of it, its H-2 carrier rockets are execellent technologically wise, and their satellite program seems to on a a good footing.
the top end H-2B has a better LEO Lifting capability then the top end Long-March. They actually have the biggest rocket in Asia.
I honestly do not see any technological hurdle for Japan to develope a minimum nuclear weapon with requisit ICBM in 6-12 month if they really tried.
i.e.see my reply in blue
My example was meant to show that stability margins are short and that the FCS can’t make up for CG shifts in the increasing fashion:
That’s exactly right. typically stability margins are analyzed for corner combinations of Wt-CG. (both for alpha effect, CG, and inertia affect)
[inside the window] The FCS is efficient and provides low trim drag AND is able to be used for general drag reduction (camber changes); [little outside] the FCS spends most of his time maintaining the plane in the FCS law windows thus has more trim drag and can’t be used at its full potential.[really out of the window] The FCS can’t make up anything and massive performance is lost (like the SU-27);
That’s also right , there are aircraft that has laws that uses control surface to affect camber change. be it in cruise drag or delay stall /unload in parts of lift surface. artificial wing twist if you will.
And as you see, for the SU-27 it’s all a matter of one threshold fuel quantity due to longitudinal repartition.
I don’t know the particulars of Su-27 that well but,,
yeah shifting fuel tanks on aircraft to manage weight and cg is not that un-common. the problem is availability and reliability of those systems. which is typically much lower than the FCSs. which either you have to switch modes in event of failure or make FCS robust in all extremes. for mil-systems and espeically unmanned the requirements are much lower.
also you have ways to estimate WT-CG independent of Fuel system sensors…which I will not go in today.also for fighters the rapid kinematics would be a consideration in fuel sloshing, which has repucussion in loads+dynamics/ structures/ flight dynamics/ laws etc.
you are pretty good.
p.s.
Are you japanese?
My Condolences and I hope Japan will bounce back. we are all in this together.
fingers crossed those containment vessels holds.
i.e.The above is true with every single MRCA. 😉
What I am saying above is true for every single aircraft project where the customer wants to integrate a new weapon.
wether or not the customer is “vital to American policy in the region” or not.
i.e.The windows is in fact quite narrow because the stability is one issue, drag due to over corrections in another. When your FCS spends most of its time controlling the plane it can’t be used for drag management and performance is vastly degraded; That’s why internal packaging is always a big deal when creating a plane;
As an example, the SU-27 (the first version) has an internal tank fuel system that ,because of internal arrangements,needs to fill the central tanks (1 and 2) first before going to the wing tanks; Thus when the plane has more than 5400Kg of fuel onboard its max G rating falls from 8,5G to 5,5 g’s which in turns severly limits range;
Then you are talking about trim and drag. usually FCS doesn’t actively control your CG configurations. it would just deal with it. fuel management deals with fuel situation to keeping CG in range. and even then typically (I say typically because there are exceptions) FCS wouldn’t have a reliable/ direct way to “know” the CG-Wt at an given moment. (there are ways to estimate and unless your fuel system specifically provides flow-rate data and you system engineer tells you it is reliable enough for your purpose. )
as for trim.
for 1 WT-CG-Flight-Condition combination usually you only have one trim configuration, unless the plane has a specific way to move CGs (fuel-trim tanks) around. or if you have more than one pitch control effector, which is not true for Su-27 in this case.
i.e.1. Its already happening, the Russians are not interested in integrating their weapons to other aircraft and vice versa. This is India’s most trusted ally. They would not even help us integrate R 73 with Tejas. This is perhaps the reason why India chose Derby as the Tejas MRAAM.
2. India already has a diverse weapons mix. R 77 on MIG 29/su 30. Super 530 and in future MICA for the Mirage 2000. Unless you buy the Rafale or MiG 35 you will certainly add another type of AAM to the fleet. Any advantage of common AAM is negated by the price of integrating the R 77 (Indias primary BVR weapon) with any of the Euro/American types.
3. Not Just Israel Japan could integrate their own AAMs as well. India don’t need to be a pet to do it. In fact India will probably seek assurance of integration from all AC manufacturers regarding the same for the MRCA.
4. Well that happens always when money is involved, for example Russians are playing hardball and asking for a lot of money to integrate the Brahmos a Ruso-Indian missile with Su 30 MKI a Russian fighter. Such things will always happen unless one relies on ones own industry.
sounds all good, integrating your own weapons and all. I am going to comment on the technical side.
To do it yourself you still need support/ help from aircraft OEMs (unless you are willing to re-do the entire spectrum of developmental testing/engineering data yourself)
there is no way around it.
example: let’s say the simple task of mounting your own AAMs to wing tips of a future F-16Is.
well first I would imagine you need to stick in wind tunnel and model the config in CFD to support your analysis models so to make sure your AAM’s configuratsion don’t cause an aeroelastic event to rip your wing tips off at some particular flight condition, to even attempt to do the analysis/test you need precise structure models of the aircraft, which LM would have to provide you with in exchange with a huge check… IF they would even entertain the idea.
and that’s just one of many things that needs to be done. before anyone even thinks about bolt that missile onto the tips.
yeah Israel and Japan went through these type of things, either paid up for OEM to do or do it themselves with lots of help from OEMS. there is no way around it.
gurhhh… sounds like a never ending money pit for india.
i.e.Z-19 🙂
I think this officially confirms the existence of this helicopter. Looks good too, like a mini Z-10 and similar to the OH-1, which isn’t a bad thing. Looks like there are four hardpoints, but they probably won’t be able to all hold 4 missiles each like the Z-10. The optics ball can be clearly seen under the nose. I personally prefer that position to the OH-1s roof mounted one. Looks far more flush and gunship-like.
looks good. OH-1s roof mounted optics is not optimal. I would have preferred something like the Kiowas’ mast mounted sight and longbow’s radar.
anyother attack helo is not what PLA army aviation needs. what they need a good dedicated recon helo like Kiowas and leave the attack to WZ-10, or even something heavier.
i.e.You are one 100% correct.:)
Here is what happens if you just pull out instrumentation weight on the fly, it get unstable, meaning the center of gravity shifts.
Read the blue outlined below.
excellent read on the civil Su-27. Thanks! enjoyed enormously.
on the point of CG-shift and stability issue.
Any airplane with an highly augmented flight control system worth its salt would have made sure your system is stable in all weights and CG configrations. sure you have some bobbles, but stability should never be an issue.
and yes I would agree that they would have put trim weights in for the system that is not on board to get the config close to nominal for first flight…. which usually have many protective features turned off.
Sign In
