crobatoCan’t use the WP-13 for a prototype, silly. The engine has too narrow a diameter, and its even more narrower than the RD-33 used on the FC-1. Lavi, F-16, MiG-21, and the J-10 no doubt are all monoque structures where the airframe is literally a skin wound around the engine. This kind of design can only tolerate an engine conversion where the other engine must have very similar size parameters. but not when the dimensions are as drastic as the WP-13 which is a slim turbojet vs. the AL-31FN, which is a much fatter bypass turbofan.
crobatoOnce again there is no crashes, since 1002 had been fully accounted for. Its only photo showed the plane doing PL-11 testing, and weapons testing didn’t occur after 2001.
crobatoThere is always need for them to lie one way or another. That’s because the Chinese are their customers and they have an interest on that business. Suffice to say the Russian track record is not good, and there are a lot of things they dont’ tell as well, e.g. actual numbers of the stuff they ship.
crobatoArea ruled fuselage – like the Lavi, unlike the Typhoon, Rafale or Gripen
China was using area rule on the J-8s too. So that does not count.
crobatoThe Russians are also very good liars, they have a track record on it. A Chinese report there is no actual crashes on the J-10 at all, other than Internet myth. There was a near crash in June 2000, the episode of which was actually displayed in China’s national television, as the pilot was commended for saving the aircraft. While the J-10 was never mentioned in name, it was the plane shown in TV.
crobatoRussian sources do claim for example the fly by wire system that equips the J-10 is designed in China and this provoked the lost of one prototype, however the Chinese engineers succeed in the design of the Fly by wire system.
So by 1998 the first prototype as we know it was basicly flown, the J-10A was flown in 2000 though
Here is the contradiction. Why are the Israelis helping then if the Chinese made up their own FBW. The FBW is the key element for this type of aircraft to fly because active delta canardsa very unstable aircraft, more than an F-16’s. If the Chinese had accessed FBW from Pak F-16s, or FBW for Su-27s, they would have gotten only an analog system. But where did they get a fully digital, quadruplex two channel fly by wire system?
With so many changes in the J-10 design, the Lavi’s original design was a failure. But the Israelis may have passed on knowledge on other things, mainly electronics and avionics. From 1995 on, China was suddenly knowing how to make digitial FBW, GPS navigation, digital HUD displays and MFDs, slotted planar arrays with multiple target TWS, laser guidance, and even helmet sighting system. There was an immense qualitative leap in their technology circa 1990, and when the first Zhuhai show opened in 1998 that was displaying all that stuff.
crobatoI could give a variety of reasons why the J-10 clearly draws more heavily on Israel’s Lavi experience, than on the Typhoon, Rafale or Gripen.
- Chin inlet – like the Lavi and Typhoon, but unlike the Rafale or Gripen
- Single engine – like the Lavi and Gripen, but unlike the Rafale or Typhoon
- Area ruled fuselage – like the Lavi, unlike the Typhoon, Rafale or Gripen
I don’t have to assume, however: According to Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft, there was a period of time during the 1990s when Russian visitors to the Chengdu aircraft factory reported seeing signs all over the facility, posted in Hebrew. Israel engineers clearly played a significant role in the J-10’s development.
This does NOT make the J-10 a Lavi clone. The J-10 is significantly larger, and was sized to meet China’s requirements rather than Israel’s. The relationship between the two airplanes, however, is real.
Most of the Israelis were gone or kicked out by the mid nineties. Mainly what they were doing in effect, failed. That’s why the Russians came in, albeit with European help.
One of the problems of the Israelis, and the Lavi, is their inexperience with the design in general. Just slapping canards or strakes on an existing fighter doesn’t cut it like they did on the Mirage to produce a Kfir or the F-16 with the Lavi.
Chinese documents pertain to problems with interference drag caused by the canards as the interference hits the body and the upper wings. The problem of the Lavi is the canards are too close to the upper wings which exacerberates that effect and the fuselage is too shallow to prevent the interference from one side to cross over the other. Unlike the F-16, the interference starts higher in relation to the fuselage. One of the reasons why one of the Chinese upstart firms proposed a delta canard called CY-1 which uses fences along side of the body. The problem of the interference drag was probably big enough a problem to cause the Chinese to hesitate on another canard-delta venture.
The only way they solved this problem is by turning to entirely new fuselage that was carefully designed to flow and counter the problems of canard nterference drag. Another problem of the Lavi is the tail stabilizer looks straight out of the F-16’s and which would have been too small to an aircraft that has much CG to the rear and is facing intereference drag along the fuselage.
Here is where the Europeans knicked the problem by adding a huge tail stabilizer. The J-10’s tail stabilizer is also huge in relation to the aircraft.
Note how different the J-10B from the two seater Lavi. The canopy of the J-10B is actually inspired from the Su-27UKB, where the rear pilot seats higher than the front pilot. Note the spine. That’s an aerodynamic device that fences and prevents the interference drag produced by one canard to spill to the other side of the plane, enhancing stabillity.
One plane that draws remarkably close to the J-10, single engined and all, is the X-31 project. Single engined, squared intakes with big tail stabiliziers. Furthermore the plane has a mid crank on the wing which the J-10 has but the Lavi doesn’t. Here is the clincher—the X-31 was also experimenting with a 3D TVC nozzle combined with a delta canard design. Guess what? The J-10s are receiving 3D TVC engines from Salyut. That pioneering work with TVCs, high AoA with delta canards didn’t come from the Israelis, they came from the Germans, and as if you didn’t know, German designed engines are powering Chinese tanks and subs.
If you look at the planform of the Lavi, the J-10, the Gripen, the Rafale and the Typhoon, note again, the J-10’s sweep and aspect ratios are more closer to the European types than the Lavi, which has lower sweep and aspects. The shape of the canards is closer to the Europeans, way the J-10 positions its leading edge slat is much closer to the Gripen’s.
crobatoSure they do. And you’d end up with a “J-10” that was a Rafale or Typhoon clone instead. But Israel was the one who helped them so you end up with the Lavi clone.
Look again, it somehow looks more like Typhoon clone in some angles. There are quite design elements in the J-10 that are not in the Lavi but are in the Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon that are in the J-10.
crobatoOf course that is optimistic but Sukhoi and Lyulka stated in Moscow in 2003 during MAKS 2003 that Chengdu wanted to build 1200-1500 J-10s in a time period of 10 years
Yes I heard that before, but that’s second hand anecdoting. I’m sure Lyulka wants to sell the engines for all those J-10s so there’s a motive in saying that too.
Given that J-11s, J-8Fs, JH-7As, etc,. are being built, and you still have to add the FC-1, the PLAAF’s current divisional and regimental structure cannot support 1500 J-10s unless you start making a lot of brand new regiments.
The reason why China makes different types is because one factory can’t produce one item enough. Maybe SAC can make 25-30 J-11s a year, CAC mades 50 J-10s a year, XAC makes 24 JH-7As a year and on. So they had to spread it out, keep each factory employed but don’t let one design get manufactured on another factory because they wanted to keep the intellectual property the domain of the factory that designed it. Thus SAC won’t be producing J-10s as neither CAC will be producing J-11s. Why do you think SAC and CAC have competiting J-XX designs for the next generation?
The problem is that observers think that China’s aviation companies are communistic monolithic entities when they’re not, they’re highly competitive capitalistic entities on their own, each wanting their share of the pie.
crobato1500 J-10s will take a long time to build, especially when I see around 2 to 3 aircraft per month being the rate and that’s optimistic. That’s going to stretch CAC’s facilities because I don’t see any of these companies big enough to do over 60 planes a year.
crobatoIf there had been no Lavi there would be no J-10. Deal with it.
Quite wrong. There will still be a J-10 no matter what. It’s prime inspiration is the F-16, and the Israelis are far from the best ones with the experience on delta canards. The Russians, the Europeans, all of whom have their connections to China one way or another, have much better experience in delta canard design.
crobatoIf they’re so frickin’ brilliant why don’t 95% of the world’s computers run on Chinese software and processors? Where’s the dealer where I can purchase a Chinese car (assuming anybody would want one)? Where’s the Chinese competitor to Boeing? What was the last world class item the Chinese DESIGNED? Any third world country can MAKE something if someone shows them how. The last CPU I bought that it mattered where it was made was made in COSTA RICA for God’s sake. I doubt they’ll be conquering the world anytime soon.
That’s only a matter of time now. Chinese designed CPUs are manufacturing at 90nm level, though performance is still modest at 1Ghz. This kind of CPUs are the ones you could expect for embedded or portable applications.
Chinese cars have indeed begun export to the US thanks to Malcolm Bricklin. Right now just about every car in China is made, in China. Chinese car parts are now exported all over the world and as well as CKDs.
A Taiwanese conglomerate, Nanya, which has strong links with the mainland government (call it a buddy relationship) and the Kuomintang, is the number one producer of plastics and composites in the world.
Haier is now the world’s largest maker of dishwaters and gunning now on other areas like air conditioners.
China-Taiwan almost has 100% of motherboard production as well as graphic card production. If you check Silicon Valley, it’s a damn near China town. Many silicon companies like nVidia, ATI, SiS, VIA are founded by Chinese and make their products in China and Taiwan. Other companies like Asus, Gigabyte, MSI, Abit also span what the industry calls the “Triangle” between Taiwan, Chinese emirates at Silicon Valley and China.
I remembered once someone said China overtaking Japan in foreign surplus would not take anytime soon. That time quickly came and went.
crobatoLavi has many design faults that if the Israelis were advising the Chinese, they were advising to _avoid_ these features.
Nose too small. Radar limited. Solution. Make bigger nose. The radar on the J-10 is bigger than the Lavi’s or F-16’s and puts right in the MiG-29’s class.
Fixed intake is always a compromise. Solution. Use variable Intake.
The F-16 copy tail is not adequete for stabilizing for an unstable plane. Solution. Use a bigger tail.
Bubble canopy creates excess drag. Solution. Use a more streamlined canopy.
Canards causes intereference drag over the wings. Solution. Lengthen the distance between canards and the wings.
The J-10 has other features too, the Lavi didn’t. Two control surfaces on the wing vs. one. Putting the leading edge slat midway instead of the whole length of the wing creates a breaktooth in the wing that stabilizes the planes at higher angles of attack. You know which plane uses this too? The Gripen.
If you look closely at the J-10, you see details that you don’t see with other delta canards. Neat gloved rest for the canards for example, positioned exactly so the turning joints won’t be exposed to frontal radar.
See the back of the J-10. It’s curved outward like the MiG-29 Fullback, not inward like the F-16C. Purpose? You can only guess its both avionics and fuel. Look at the remarkably large bladders at the wing roots. You can easily see the fuel caps as dots near the wing roots. This thing must hold a lot of fuel for its size.
Regardless to what degree the Israelis, Chinese and the Russians work on this, the whole product is extremely well thought of in the details and execution and far more ambitious than the Lavi. The more you study it, the more new details appear.
crobatoIf the minimal wage is 60 cents of US dollar a day and they pay you 60% increase i feel still salaries are quit low, a french can expect a minimun wage of 1500 Euros a month how many Euros can exepct a Chinese a month?
A well trained engineer in France can make at least 4000 euros a month
In many places, they’re getting well over a thousand bucks for skilled factory labor. These kids don’t spend on rent because they still sleep in their parent’s house. Get it from someone who actually does business there.
crobatoHey guys,
I’ve always been astonished by China’s ability to produce several new aircraft at the same time and get them into service relatively quickly, such as the JH-7. Z-9, J-7E and J-8III. Although these aircraft were not entering service all at the same time they are all currently being produced along side each other and entered service within months of each other (or within 24 months of each other at least). All this while building the J-11, working on the Z-10, L-15 (correct designation???) new jet trainer, and the Q-5D improved Fantan and of course the J-10…I mean Crikey, that’s a lot of aircraft to be working on or producing at one time!!!
So what’s the catch??? Are the letting the quality end slip or has China got an unbelievable mass production capability????Before anyone say’s it…I know a lot of these aircraft are being produced by different companies for different branches of the military but it’s still a lot of work!!!
Their improvement in electronics is the part most surprising. They moved from parabolic and cassegrain designs to slotted planars and even electronic scanning and active arrays in just a matter of years. They made major headway on works on seekers, C31, datalinks, ECM and ECCM.
I don’t look at the J-10, or the FC-1 or J-11 as the pivotal planes. I see the KJ-2000, the KJ-200 and various early warning, electronic warfare, C31, battlefield surveillance as the real surprises. In 2000 the Phalcon was rejected by the US, in 2001, the Chinese were in talks of leasing an A-50. In 2004, what the, they got 3 faced phase array on an IL-76 flying! In a matter of months, they also got their Erieye look alike. Then a plethora of various Y-8 variants bristling with antenna.
In the last 10 years, there is a supernova explosion in Chinese electronics capability that lets them do this. The Chinese electronics supernova spreads in all directions, from the street to the military, and its expressed in so many different ways from some of the powerful routers in the world to handle the world’s biggest internet block, to the ultra sleet electronics appliances in the stores with names like TCL, to pretty ladies in the street hawking the latest locally designed Haier or China Mobile 3G cellphones.
The quality of the late build planes and ships are quite surprising. They are better than expected, and I’m not going to say more without going into more sensitive areas.
China can manufacture different types is because their industry is still highly segregated and capitalistic competitive. The Chengdu Air Craft company competes with the Shenyang Air Craft company. The former makes J-7Gs, J-10s and FC-1s, the latter the J-11s and J-8Fs. Xian Aircraft Company competes by making JH-7As and the latest H-6s, Harbin Aircraft Company makes the Z-9s. Nanchang Aircraft Company makes the Q-5s, and Hongdu makes the L-16, while another company Zhuizhou makes the FTC-2000. Each company is trying to offer their products in an attempt to stay competitive and seek relevance. Let’s not forget to mention they all compete for various component manufacturing for Airbus and Boeing, and doing more and more alliances like with Embraer.
The situation is similar to the United States in the 60’s where you got a lot of different air craft companies. 20 to 30 years later, these companies either go belly up or get absorved. Today, the US now only has two aircraft companies, Grumman, Northrop, and General Dynamics have closed their aviation divisions.
Sign In
