Crobat

The bravado has made you even to fantasize and say things i never said .

A mock up by the way has real dimensions, a realistic mock up does not need necesarly being of wood another fantazy of yours, the Russian text never says mock up it uses the word a single seat prototype built resembling the IAI Lavi fitted with a WP-13 engine.
The other account says mock up, in your swaggerring did you think there are many kind of mock ups? some are structural mock ups, built to represent full size structural aspects of an aircraft and these are more important for engineers that the ones you are talking just to show a big real hollow model to the public a mock up reflex a real aircraft and therefore reflex a real arrangement and structure you do not need necesarily fit an engine it is true but you need to fit real data, about a real engine.

You are a complete idiot. Who do you think you’re impressing with the text and the link above?

Huh?

Do you know that what you shown there is made out of PLYWOOD?

How can that be fit with a real engine, huh?

Now i will ask you something more important, do you think it was easy for the Chinese change the WS-10 to fit the AL-31 dimensions? since the WS-10 was built for a different engine bay and it forced the modification of the J-10 engine bay do you think it is cheap, easy and practical modify the WS-10 to fit the AL-31 specifications?

It would mean change entirely the engine design, something that is not easy in fact even inpractical because an engine is far more difficult to design and manufacture than an airframe

It is more likely that they modified the airframe rather than the engine, it is more logic there was a third engine and not the WS-10 because the J-10 airframe can be modified easier than the WS-10 design 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.

As SOC has said it will depend what kind of modification they made, but i rather think the J-10 design of 1993 had a third type of engine niether the WS-10 or Al-31 simply because the WS-10 has been designed with specifications similar to the Al-31 and that is the reason they chose the AL-31 because it probably is the engine that fills the same niche and has similar characteristics to the WS-10

The WS-10A has a thrust capacity of 13,200kg. The WP-13 only has 6600kg. The WS-10A is much much closer to the class of engine to the AL-31F than it is to the WP-13. You don’t even know the airflow requirements and behavior of a _turbofan_ like the AL-31F and a _turbojet_ like the WP-13 differs. Fitting a turbojet into an air tunnel meant for a turbofan risks things like compressor stalls and flameouts.

But then what can we expect from someone who don’t know what the difference between a mockup, demonstrator and a true prototype.

You mentioned about the Spey. China had already received 50 engines at that time with only 4 prototypes of the JH-7 built. That’s what? 42 engines to spare? You don’t even know your freaking math.

I like the fact that you keep twisting your words, changing the date for your WP-13 J-10 prototype from 1995 to 1993.

Well, radars and engines are a lot more sophisticated than the kitchen sink. Exponentially a lot more. And if you have experienced the actual pain of systems integration, there is a lot more than what looks in the eye from the provided official documentation. Things are going to happen, things will happen in the worst of Murphy’s Laws. These things can only be avoided and helped through direct, inside experience from the manufacturer.

Let’s take a simpler example. Let’s design a big modern bank, and we have to give consideration to its information networking which is the heart of the bank. You bet IBM will be there to advice you on tips laying out the plumbing infrastructure where you can put the cables, routers, and various systems.

There is a lot of unforseeable things for example. Look at the ship’s main search radar. How will we design it with the ship to reduce interference from and against other radars, for example, your missile illuminators, your fire control radar, your ECM, your ECCM, etc,. You must have intimate knowledge of each and every component you are putting, and each vendor has to contribute its share of design input and suggestions. But of course, the overall design, decisions, and integration will still fall on the main designers.

To put in a simple way, integration isn’t easy at all, full of unforseeable thing and mishaps, your documentation will never be enough, and you will always need your vendor’s direct help.

China in otherhand have not recieved any russian designing help in either 052 or 052B/C.

Are you sure about that? If the ship has SA-N-12, MA Fregat and Mineral ME radars, the Russians would have to help at least by obligation to the installation and support of these radars and missiles.

Why don’t you asnwer my questions then? Your MiG-23 example does not hold water 7800kg vs. 9700kg is not that far off, compared to 6600kg vs. 12,500kg.

You really don’t know what is the difference between protoype, demonstrator and mockup do you?

You still never answered to me directly what is the difference between MOCKUP, PROTOTYPE and TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATOR. The pattern in your posts show you that you don’t seem to know the difference between all three.

Your Russian account is not plausible, because you failed to address the technical, practical, historical and political points against. You failed to notice that actual Chinese examples, JH-7 and FC-1 for example, don’t attempt to fit WP-13 either. You keep bringing forth examples of engine changes that are all within the same engine class which is faulty analogy because the examples are so different.

Don’t argue about your logic. You never showed any logic at all.

Yes I did notice that before I posted, but why the report only singles out the latter full status PT06 to address the indigenous avionics over another full status PT04 supposed to be in full indigenous avionics? And why the full status PT06 got better flight profile than previous ones including the supposed to be full status PT04? Is the guy who wrote the report tries to suggest us there’re some minor changes in avionics between 04 & 06, or the PT 04’s avionics still not in full? Or he just doesn’t know too much in military stuff and report the event only for the sack he’s the reporter assigned?

My pick is the PT04 is still NOT in full avionics but no objection to other interpretation of this article.
😀

Maybe PT06 has additional avionics or the final form of avionics. From what I know, there is a poster that shows PT04 charted with various avionics including radar. It can be that the poster simply didn’t know much about the stuff.

That fool flogger cannot even tell what is the difference between a mockup and a prototype.

In the mid nineties, not sure if the idea dates well before that, MiG floated proposals and sculptures for a single engined RD-33 based plane. They appear to be baiting for development money but no one took the bait. I also remember Sukhoi floating a proposal for a mini Flanker with a single AL-31F engine.

Once the MiG-21 connection is dumped in favor of the RD-33, Super 7 is off in becoming an all new plane. As I said before, there are limits before you can deal with an old legacy airframe and changing that to meet new engine, new specifications and requirements. In the end, its better to start with a clean sheet.