crobatoFrom sopc_dsp allegedly working in the J-10 project,
WS-10A can work in +12G , the body of structure of J-10A can bear +13G . but the FBW system in J-10A would not allow the pilot to go beyond +10G, the +10G is the MAX limit which has been written in the FBW system , but if the customer want to make the MAX limit not to beyond +9G , that is easy to change because the MAX limit is a parameter in the fly control program of the FBW.
crobatoThere may be people and factions in China that are tempted to buy it. Maybe the Ukrainians are offering it dirt cheap prices. Maybe there are serious studies, proposals and offers.
But in the end, I bet you that China ain’t going to buy it.
crobato22deg/sec rate is the F-16’s sustained rate by the way.
As for 10G, that is not sustained, so the J-10 pilot needs only to endure it for an instant. A MiG-29 pilot claimed to have endured up to 12G, if I remember. But remember this is only for an instant.
8G sustained is considered humanly borderline for the body; 9G *sustained* is suicidal. I don’t find 7G sustained to be low, but rather average, normal procedure.
Like I said, nothing new.
The so called “alleged” specs of the J-10 I’ve seen going around are a polyglot of different aircraft.
9750kg = original empty weight of Typhoon, now at 10950kg
4500kg internal fuel = original internal fuel capacity of Typhoon now at 4995kg; also MiG-29M’s fuel capacity.
19277kg MTOW = Same as F-16C
Now you have
30-31d/sec instant turn rate = similar to Gripen and Rafale
22d/sec sustained turn rate = same as F-16A
7G sustained turn rate = same as F-18
crobatoCrob: You should hav ealso put here the other bit of info this guy wrote. I found that the most interesting as he is saying that with the max rate 31d/s, while perfromed under speed of 0.5M, J-10 will lose speed rapidly, and maintain speed if speed over 0.5M. Also interesting is how he claim that with a 22d/s rate, the J-10 can increase its speed while performing the turn.
The 30+d/s rate he is claiming is also quite possible, since delta designs like the M2000, the Gripen, and the Rafale also has claims to these regions.
Based on a delta design, one can make some general assumptions. Deltas tend to have their peak maneuverability regimes at high speeds, the faster they go, the better. This also supports his claim for better supersonic maneuverability. However, they tend to suffer likewise more at lower speeds, so indeed maneuvering lower at mach 0.5, the delta bleeds more speed rapidly than a sweep wing design.
So I think what he says is quite possible and consistent on basics on how we expect deltas to perform.
The accelerating from 22d/s suggests a strong power to weight ratio.
Based on his claims, I computed the J-10’s empty weight might be around under 9,000kg (assuming that its internal fuel load is 4500kg according to some alleged specs). The 9750kg empty weight/4500kg internal fuel spec seen in some websites does not go together, one or the other has to be wrong. The missile weights are 180kg for SD-10, 120kg for PL-8. WS-10A is 13,200kg thrust according to Chinese magazine articles.
To be honest with you, there is nothing new here if one can make careful calculations and assumptions based on the J-10’s design and assumed specs.
crobatoThe MiG-29 and the Mirage 2000 also has claims of 10G for emergency maneuvers. So that’s not impossible. Just remember this is for emergencies. You probably need some special suit that would tighten at high G forces to get more blood into your brain instead of your legs.
crobatoCould someone verify this… I got it from PDF.
give some data about production J-10A :
Maximum Speed: Mach 2.2 (use WS-10A)
Maximum Speed at low altitude : Mach 1.2 (use WS-10A)
Maximum instantaneous G-limits: 10G/-3.0G
Maximum sustained G-limits: 7G/-3.0G
Maximum instantaneous turn rate: > 31 degrees/second
Maximum sustained turn rate: > 22 degrees/second
Rollrate: > 280 deg/sec
TWR(50% fuel, 2 EM A2A missile, 2 IR A2A missile): > 1.1 : 1 (use WS-10A)
Armament: 1*g 23-3 ( 23mm)
No I cannot verify this. There is no way to verify this and the veracity of the poster.
This is an alleged poster in Pakdef and he also typed this.
others infomation (ture) :
J-10A has use KLJ-10 Radar.
production J-10A has use WS-10A.
In 2006 J-10A will use (TVC) WS-10AII .FC-1 ( prototype 04 FC-1 ) will use KLJ-10 Radar .
This seems reasonable that KLJ-3 (Type 1473) have evolved to KLJ-10. All the projects with a -10 suffix ( e.g. SD-10, JL-10A radar, WS-10A) may be involved with the J-10 one way or another.
The one thing that struck me is the last statement on the FC-1. I never posted that info nor have I seen it reflected in any public forum, although I’ve known that the KLJ type radar would be called KLJ-10. KLJ-10 is the radar identified by KANWA going to Protoytpe 04, but that article is not public and only available through subscription. However I’m not sure if KANWA recently published that info in their Hong Kong print publication.
crobatoI think this was already posted in another thread.
crobatoI always feel strongly that the Israelis contributed greatly in the development of Chinese avionics, which literally leapfrogged generations in the nineties.
However, a 3 mfd cockpit with dials underneath is rather a typical and average layout nowadays, and may simply imply an unimaginative conformance to the general trend.
crobatoIt could also be used to develop an indigenous engine. 😀
And why don’t you give a rest, huh? Technical information for maintenance gives you ZERO information as to how you build it, such as creating the metallurgy for hollow and crystal turbine blades. As experience with the Ukrainian DN80 turbine engines shows, the Chinese wasn’t satisfied how the blades were made.
The company that built the WS-10A, Shenyang Liming, also developed the Kunlun engines, which the Chinese proudly acknowledges to be their first created with their own intellectual patents. We have also seen pics of the J-11 fitted with the WS-10A engines, and the pics indicate that the WS-10A has different dimensions than the AL-31F—-the Chinese engines is shorter but has a wider diameter—which amounts to a different design with a different set of air flow calculations.
crobatoCrobato i said Ukraine helped in the WS-10 and ukraine as Belarus are in many ocassions willing to sell russian technology even when Russia does not aprove that
This is at best a theoritical scenario but there is no direct evidence of that. Know how provided by the Ukraine and Belarus on the AL-31F is much more likely to be used for the AL-31F’s maintenance, overhaul and repair, even to the substitution with indigenous parts such as blades and all.
crobatoThe Russians would not help the Chinese on engine techs because it is against the Russian commercial interests which is to sell the engines to the Chinese.
That much is obvious.
crobatoI doubt that it is based on the AL-31F as the Chinese do not have a great opinion about that engine.
It is not as if China does not have a lot of Western turbofans for them to study; the place has more GE turbofans from the civilian jetliners than you can imagine.
crobatoWho told you that story?
The gearbox position is mandated by the aircraft design, not by the pilots. The gearbox on the J-11’s engine is on the top because the plane’s design made it so. The gearbox position being on the bottom is also by design—traditionally, Chinese planes have their gearbox on the bottom, based on the Fishbed and Western models. The F-16s and the Lavi have their gearbox on the bottom.
The 250 hrs for the AL-31FP you are quoting is for the service life of the TVC NOZZLE not the engine which is 1000-1500hrs.
crobatoHere is J-8H (or F ..??) pic….
PS: there seem to be less pics of the J-8H/F than the J-10 Any reasons why?
Maybe because it’s a lower priority project and less flashy. Less likely to be in the public interest, such as fans who scan and capture images and post them in the internet. And less likely to be used for propaganda purposes, given that people are less likely to be “proud” of it than the J-10. Less propaganda or advertisements simply means less pictures and less exposure overall.
Still it is good to see more pictures affirming the type in production.
crobatoLook WS-10 project might have started earlier but after the J-10 AL-31FN project was started, only then did the WS-10A developement start getting some momentum and the crystal blade technologies have also been borrowed from the Russian’s.
Nope.
WS-10A development was geared as a replacement for the J-11 engines, not for the J-10. That means you are wrong saying that the WS-10A has the gearbox on the bottom, when in fact, it has it on the top like the usual AL-31F would. The priority for the WS-10A is for the J-11’s first, then when that is satisfied, to the J-10. There is two reasons for this. First the J-11 has a high political emphasis as the high end fighter. Second, for a new engine it is safer using it on a dual engine design than a single one.
Well the Chinese tried to copy the F-16 engines but did not make too much headway in that venture. Ofcourse I do agree that WS-10A was an attempt to match those engines and to be mated on the LAVI copy that China was developing.
WS-10 matches the performance table of the PW F100, which implies it is trying to mimic it. The original WS-10 has thrust ratings similar to the F-100-220, which is at over 24,000lbs thrust. WS-10A and with the -A suffix, is meant to match the F-100-229, which is at 29,000lbs. The third WS-10 variant is meant to match the GE F110-232 at 32,000lbs. Looking at this, you can see it’s using Western engines as a performance mark. Already it appears that testing for the third WS-10 (WS-10B?) is underway.
Sign In
