crobatoIt probably has everything to do with the power of its engine. It probably doesn’t have enough excess thrust for any more safety margin with its max load.
That same engine (WP-13FI or FII) can have more powerful versions. They increased the power of the same engine for the J-8II (WP-13AII, WP-13B), not to mention the WP-14, which can bring engine thrust between 7500 to 8000kg. I suspect that the more powerful engines may also cost more, which may not be of interest to the client at hand.
The wing area of the aircraft is also rather small, and there are load and airframe stress life issues. The Fishbed airframe and wing area are not meant to carry high loads.
crobatoso why u include 2 BVR missiles in weight calculation for J-10 when FC-1 has 2 SRAAM from the link and logically it can have 2 SRAAM for 9100KG NTOW weight.
Dont try to assume NTOW from other fighters.
I included it because the figure meant operational weight, not just take off weight. This is rather vague but in Western parlance for F-16Cs, it includes 2 BVRAAMs and 2 SRAAMs. (For F-16A it would indeed be two SRAAMs, but for F-15 it also means carrying four Sparrows.)
The J-10 videos show the aircraft capable of high angles of attack in short take offs and landings. That’s quite indicative of low wing loading.
Now to the specs posted by that idiot Flogger, please note many of his numbers are directly identical to the Lavi’s.
crobatoOnce again, you show no proof that the figures are from MiG OKB.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=53156&highlight=Ye-152
http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww3/s/709/1/0/3
Specifications from OKB MiG
Span: 8,488 m or 27 ft 10,2 inch
overall length: 19 m or 62 ft 4 inch
fuselage length (except cone): 15,45 m or 50 ft 8,3 inch
wing area: 34,02 m² or 366,2 sq fttake-off weight, 12500 kg or 27550 lb
max TOW, 13960 kg or 30770 lb
fuel, 3560 kg or 7845 lb
sweepback, 60°
wing loading 367,4-410,3 kg/m² or 75,3-84,1 lb/sq ft
operating limit load factor, 7.The single engined Ye-152 examples were slightly bigger and a different wing.
Intended weaponsload were two R-4 AAM or K-9 AAMs for the single engined and the possibility for a centre-line ET.
If you insist your 13505 weight figure is correct for an aircraft of that size, then the Russians are technically incompetent because the plane is overweight for its size, especially when the J-8I achieves the same weight for a much larger plane, which begs the question how can you “upcopy” a smaller plane into a bigger one.
So convenient is your sense of “engineering” does it?
Our moderator also has something to say.
Totally different aircraft. The Ye-152 Flipper is more or less the MiG-21s aerodynamic surfaces fitted to a huge, single-engine fuselage. The J-8 (and J-8I, JZ-8 and J-8E) have the MiG-21s wings fitted to a huge, twin-engined fuselage.
The Ye-152A’s fuselage design was obviously still the fat tube ment for the whoa-big R15 engine, but squeezed down at the end to make room for the two small nozzles rather than the sun-sized R15 jetpipe. Structurally, the twin-engined Ye-152A is way different than the twin-engined J-8.
And you continue to contradict yourself with
Взлетный вес, кг 13550 (12720) take of weight 13550 (12720kg)
http://www.avia-mig.ru/mig_e152a.php
http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/mikoy…52/a/e152a.htm
Another fact you forget is the Tu-128 and Su-15 were what the Russians wanted, the Su-15 first flew in 1963 and the Tu-128 in 1961
Which means both fighters were only just starting when China and the SU split. And both of whom are not really considered more advanced than the Ye-152, many of whose features were put into the 3rd generation MiG-21.
Please note up to now, you have not addressed once again, any of my issues and points.
crobatowhen we put examples of M2K/F-16/F-2 ur truly said other countries examples should not be applied to Chinese. I am just giving real example of FC-1 with 2 WVR. and J-10 is always with fuel tanks. what next ?u will say ET also should be part of J-10 NTOW. so J-10 will become even more lighter.
Wrong, the fuel tanks are not included. I am only saying internal fuel capacity plus most common AA layout.
and how can 2 SRAAM+2 BVR equals to 393KG. the likely answer is pylons and amunnition/gun weight. u cannot put 2 BVR missiles in 9100KG NTOW of FC-1. Dont try to challenge official figures
You can consider ammunition weight, but not pylon weight. The FC-1 uses the wing tip rails directly to hold two AAMs there.
M2K external load has been more or less than same from Mirage-2000D to M2K-9. only M2K-9 weighs around 7900KG. similarly is the weight of JAS-39A to JAS-39C. but external load of JAS-39C goes to 5300KG. J-10 as design has very limited potential of turning into Multirole fighter. It will remain single role fighter.
It already has a secondary air to surface role, but not a primary air to surface role, since its already confirmed the plane will carry LGBs. Yes basically _for now_ it is a _primary_ A2A fighter with only a _secondary_ A2G role.
This does not preclude that in the future, you can have a separate dedicated A2G variant, and there you can make new weight calculations to deal with the increased stress. However, the J-11B is already here, and that would make a better A2G platform.
crobatoSorry your figures are wrong. As a matter of fact I got my Ye-152 figures from a post Sens made long ago in this forum and he mentions the figures being taken from MiG OKB.
You are struggling to reconcile the impossibility that you have two aircraft with greatly different dimensions and you are claiming one is a copy of the other? You are a fool, people can see what you are up to. People are already pointing to you that you need to put up authoritative evidence, and up to now, you are incapable of such.
Such is a person living in LALAland.
You are the one contradicting yourself because signing for the MiG-21 deal does not mean you are signing up for the Ye-152, when as a matter of fact, none of the SU’s allies like Warsaw Pact or India ever got it. China only got the blue prints for the MiG-21F in 1962, an aircraft less advanced than the Ye-152, and even incomplete at that. Already at that time the MiG-21F is considered a failure and the SU is going directly to the second generation MiG-21PF, which China never got a single example much less a blue print, although allies like N. Vietnam did and India did. So how the hell can China get the blue prints for the much more advanced Ye-152?
You have not proven that the Ye-152 was a terminated project even in 1962, much less in 1959. And even in 1962, the split is already deep enough, and the SU is just finishing the last of its commitments made to China, and even then the information is incomplete.
You have no concept how the Soviet Union approves or disapproves whatever is given to its allies or not. They have to go through the Russian General Staff, and if MiG OKB furnishes these plans to China without the approval of the General Staff, this action is considered HIGH TREASON.
And the fact that you are pretty stupid because you are claiming that China does not have the technology to make the J-8I, but getting the blueprints for the Ye-152 will not change that. What China needed was engine technology, not the ability to design airframes because they do have that ability, given they designed the Q-5 and the original J-12 fighter, which flew in 1966. And they perfected the WP-7 from the R-11 engine, and that’s not due to the Ye-152 plans since you already alleged there are no engine plans to go with it.
You have no historical proof.
You have no documentable proof.
You have no empirical proof, when you put the two aircraft’s dimensions and numbers side by side.
You continue to allude that similarity is proof enough and that’s the think process of an idiot.
crobatoso u got 13,200KG figure from AFM and u automatically assume that it includes 2 SRAAM+2 BVR missiles?. Apparently Chengdu does not follow Sukhoi of 2 SRAAM+2BVR for Normal Takeoff. so why add 2 BVR missiles to J-10? as people claiming here that people should look at FC-1 for J-10 caculation not F-16/F-2
Because the figure quoted is operational weight, which means the most likely and most common A2A configuration.
Su-27 configuration has 4 BVR missiles, plus 2 SRAAMs.
here is example of FC-1 fighter. cac figure maybe more updated than Catic.
6411KG empty weight+2268fuel+393kg for 2 SRAAM= 9100KG weight there is no mention of BVR missiles in NTOW calculation.
And how can 393kg be equal to 2 SRAAM? PL-5E is only 85kg, PL-8 is 115kg.
From the Lavi link it says F-16 is 3100KG. If F-16 were in 3500KG region. i dont think they would bother to devlope CFT for it. As internal fuel cadd less drag and weight penalties.
A CFT would hold much higher than 400kg of fuel. It would have doubled the fuel capacity.
So do u think J-10 does not need a beef up structure for all high Gs with 3 T which itself add 3000KG with all the drag.
Beefing up a structure does not necessarily mean you have to add a lot of weight into it. The Mirage 2000 did not add that much weight when the structure is beefed up. Two things. The J-10 has a more visible spinal support structure whereas the F-16 doesn’t. To beef up the F-16, you need to beef up the monoque cylinder. If you have a spinal structure (semi-monoque) you don’t have to beef the cylinder that much as opposed to just beefing up the spine. Another thing, the J-10 has longer wing roots than the F-16 due to its delta wings. Same thing with the Mirage 2000. Wing roots are load transfer devices, and the longer they are, the better for the fuselage and wings.
I already got your point as J-10 is speciallized air to air fighter so its weight cannot be compared to multirole fighters like F-2/F-16E. but u cannot ignore some basic logic of internal volume, high performance with 3 ET that people here are claiming. it is not pathetic. I am not going into big canards.
Having elevators also costs more weight. You’re only trading elevators for canards.
crobatoThat is no serious claim, isn’t it? I marked it [B]!
When running out of data to bolster your claim, you start guessing about size or try to undermine the credibility the data of the other side. The discussion here is not about +/- 100 kg, but about more than one ton.
Bolster my claim? Its not just my claim, its AFM’s and the claim of a whole lot of others.
So again it is up to YOU to back your figures with an _official_ level of authority.
The F-16 is smaller than the J-10.
And the F-16 is also thicker than the J-10, as the engine has wider diameter, so you have to wrap more “fuselage” around it.
It did start with 6400 kg EOW, 10070 kg clean with two AAMs and gun loaded, MTOW was 15 tons in the 70s.
No. It started with around 7000kg and quickly went up from there.
Today the same size F-16 is 9300 kg OEW for the single-seater and the double seater even higher, when the MTOW does reach around 23 tons.
By the way despite the gains in electronics and materials. But going into the details about that is behind this scope.
And you failed to consider that this F-16 also has AESA and needs some heavy power producing beef to support that. Not to mention a stronger strike mission requirement.
The Japanese F-2 is going around carrying heavy anti ship missiles. We have not seen that on the J-10.
The scaled up F-2 close to the J-10 from the 90s is over 9,5 tons OEW, with 18,5 tons NTOW and ~22 tons MTOW. (span 11,13 m, length 15,52 m, height 4,96 m and wing 34,84 m²)
The F110 and the AL-31FN do not differ noticeable in weight:thrust ratio of 1:8.
Irrelevant. We are talking of absolute weights here. Without nozzle, the F110 is nearly 2000kg, over 400kg heavier than the AL-31FN.
crobatoFrom where this artibtrary 13,200KG weight comes from?
Air Force Monthly. Issue after the J-10 went public.
here people are claiming that J-10 can do stunts with 3 ET that Flanker cannot do in clean configuration. and ur now claming higher internal fuel capacity than F-16.
F-16’s internal fuel configuration is said to be around 3000 to 3500kg.
so why it should weigh the same as late mode F-16 like 8,500KG. and i am not going into couple hundred Kgs weight that goes into canards and presumably bigger nose than F-16 with bigger radar like MIG-29.
Because an F-16C is intended heavily as a strike jet first. and much of its internal firming up has something to do with that. Also it has its own structural deficiencies that cause earlier models to show cracking, so the F-16C was heavily beefed up. Both GE F110 and PW F100 engines are also heavier than the AL-31F. The J-10 is mean as an air superiority fighter with a secondary ground attack support.
crobatoHow is going to be a very inmature project since the MiG-25 flew in 1964? and the Ye-152A flew in 1959 even before the first Chinese J-7 was recieved
[B]In March 1961, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Soviet Union signed the official agreement of a technology transfer package, which allowed China to build the MiG-21F-13 Fishbed-C) fighter, the Tumansky R-11F-300 turbojet engine, and the K-13 (NATO codename: AA-2 Atoll) air-to-air missile (AAM) locally under license. The production of the MiG-21 was carried out by Shenyang Aircraft Factory (now Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, SAC), while Shenyang Aero Engine Factory (now Shenyang Liming Aero Engine Company) was responsible for the production of the R-11F-300 turbojet engine.
Shenyang received few MiG-21 examples as well as some kits for assembly from the Soviet Union. However, the delivery of the technical documents was not completed due to the rapidly deteriorating relation between Beijing and Moscow. As a result, Shenyang had to build the MiG-21 by reverse-engineeringso Crobato if the Ye-152-1 with R-15-300 engine did fly in 1961 why then the onterim Ye-152A from 1959 was before the soviet Chinese rift;)
You just contradicted yourself. This really means you have no real brain logic.
You just proved to yourself that China only formally obtained a less advanced aircraft in 1962.
Now try to explain how China could have obtained an aircraft more advanced than the MiG-21F in 1959.
Man your assessmet is only a empirical one, the J-8 and Ye-152 were very similar , in weight height and performance
Not in height, length, weight, wingspan. The J-8I is significantly larger in all four dimensions.
Ye-152
Span: 8,488 m or 27 ft 10,2 inch
overall length: 19 m or 62 ft 4 inch
fuselage length (except cone): 15,45 m or 50 ft 8,3 inch
wing area: 34,02 m² or 366,2 sq ft
take-off weight, 12500 kg or 27550 lb
max TOW, 13960 kg or 30770 lb
fuel, 3560 kg or 7845 lb
sweepback, 60°
wing loading 367,4-410,3 kg/m² or 75,3-84,1 lb/sq ft
operating limit load factor, 7.
J-8I
Length 21.52m
Wingspan 9.344m
Height 5.41m
Wing area 42.19 square metres
WEIGHTS
Empty N/A
Normal take-off 13,850kg
Max take-off N/A
Fuel capacity N/A
Max payload 4,500kg
crobatoSorry, but unlike you, I don’t take dishonest tactics like repeating a lie to make it a truth.
Add a few things to the list.
The fact that the Ye-152A was a very immature and incomplete project at the time before China and the SU split.
The fact that the Ye-152A was only concluded and terminated long after the split occured.
And once again, you failed to answer my points directly, especially one point most of all.
PROVE THAT MIG OKB COMMITTED HIGH TREASON.
crobatoLavi has only 2700KG internal fuel capacity withe engine that is 1 meter shorter. so u are just adding One meter to Lavi to get J-10 length?
Mirage-2000 has 3100KG fuel capacity with 7.5tons weight. it all comes to internal volume to support the fuel.
If the J-10 is large, it would have the internal volume to support the fuel right? Look at the pictures and how many times the plane is carrying external tanks. The AFM specs are correct except for the internal fuel part, which is actually copied from the erroneous specs before. 4500kg internal fuel is roughly the same what the J-8II or the Typhoon, both similar in weight, would carry.
I say the J-10 is around 3300 to 3500kg internal fuel capacity. You can simply subtract 13200 operational weight, with 8300kg empty weight. You get 4900kg of all stores. Subtract 2 x 115kg for the two PL-8, 2 x 180kg for the two PL-12. 200kg for the gun ammunition, and 100kg for the pilot. Each hardpoint may have at least 100kg for the pylon, so take out another 400 to 600kg.
crobatoWrong analogy: YF 17 was the ancestor of F 18 and this didn’t stop the f 18 to be 3 tons heavier.
Does not fit the Chinese context of design because they don’t take one single design, then Frankenstein it with so many requirements and specifications. They keep things simple, straightforward, and cheap. If the PLA got the YF-17 it would have stayed almost the same way.
The last J-7G is at 5300kg empty. The original MiG-21F it was based from decades ago is 4900kg empty.
J10 has a better design than Grippen? Because with a heavier engine, the common sense tell us that the J 10 must weight a little more; also a heavier engine requires a heavier structure (remember the F 15 E vs. F 15 C?)
Part of that heavier structure on the F-15E has something to do with the plane also being a strike fighter. We have yet to see any evidence that the J-10 is being used in a similar manner as its primary mission goal.
Is it J-10’s fault that F-16E and F-2 are such overweight designs?
Rather than using Chinese fighters JF-17 and J-8II as the basis of comparison, you pop up overweight fighters like F-2 and F-16E. The F 16E is heavier than the basic F 16 because it can carry 9 tons of weapons an fuel tanks, it has a engine of 145 kn (vs. 125 in J 10), while the F 2 has a larger wing than the basic f 16.
Both fighters are overweight for another reason. That is both have AESA, and while the array itself is not heavy, feeding its enormous power requirements is. You simply cannot go around the fact that generators and transformers are all going to require heavy iron based cores.
Compounding this attribute, both the F-16E and the F-2 also have heavy strike fighter roles, which we again, have not seen the J-10 do so as its primary role. In fact, the PLAAF’s doctrine remains more or less with aircraft specialization than jack of trades. The heavy strike fighter roles are left with the Su-30s and JH-7As.
crobatou cannot put 4500KG internal fuel in Aircraft with 9.7m wingspan, 39sqm wing area and 15.5m lenghth. these specification are clearly wrong.
And you cannot have an aircraft with 44 sqm wing area have wings that look much smaller than the wings of the J-8II at 42 sqm, much less the Typhoon or the Rafale.
crobatoLook at Lavi Figures,
7,031 KG empty weight. 22% weight by composites. 2700KG fuel capacity, 1227KG engine weight. Gripen is 26% weight by composites.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/lavi.html
Composites mean nothing when it comes to real aircraft weight, just a lot of advertising. The Japanese F-2 have more composites than any of these two fighters and its weighing around 9700kg empty.
J-10 looks much larger with heavier engine and will need higher fuel capacity.
And the funnny thing is Lavi cant reach Mach 2 with 50% internal fuel and two python 3s. Engine is proportionally weaker to its size.
and here People are claiming J-10 can reach Mach 2 with 3 external fuel tanks.
LOL. You have no idea that the PW1120 engine only weighs over 200kg lighter than the AL-31F engine.
So really, how can the J-10 look much larger when everyone can see the fuselage is tightly wounded around the AL-31F engine, when the two engines are roughly similar in diameter and the AL-31F is only less than a meter longer.
PW1120
* Type: Afterburning turbofan
* Length: 4,110 mm (13.5 ft)
* Diameter: 1,021 mm (3.35 ft)
* Dry weight: 1,292 kg (2,848 lb)
AL-31F
* Type: Two-shaft afterburning turbofan
* Length: 4990 mm
* Diameter: 905 mm inlet; 1280 mm maximum external
* Dry weight: 1570 kg(Russia standard), 1800 kg(French standard)
crobatoThe J-8II is over 9820 kg empty equipped,
wing gross 42,2 m²
wing span 9,344 m
overall length with probe is 21,59 m
overall height is 5,41 m
each WP13AII is 1201 kg dryThe J-10 is 9730 kg empty equipped,
wing gross 45,5 m² without canards
wing span 11,30 m
length without probe is 16,57 m
overall height is 6 mThe much smaller F-16E is 9300 kg empty equipped.
The smaller but coming close F-2 with a high content of composites is 9527 kg empty equipped.So wishfull thinking aside, the J-10 is well over 9 tons empty equipped. Nothing wrong about that, as long it does fullfill the intended missions.
Of note. Like the F-16 the internal fuel-fraction has suffered and for most missions the ETs are in need.
Wishful thinking my A@@. Why don’t you actually furnish the updated information to show that.
Here are the AFM specs and these were the only set of specs that was released **AFTER** the J-10 became officially public and acknowledged.
Length: 15.50m; Wingspan: 9.7m; Wing area: 39m2; Empty weight: 8,300kg; Maximum take-off weight: 18,000kg; Air-to-air combat weight: 13,200kg; Maximum speed: Mach 2.2 (high-level) or Mach 1.2 (sea-level); Internal fuel: 4,500kg.
Every picture you can see shows the wing area of the J-10 to be much smaller than the J-8II, much claim that the wing area would be BIGGER.
And even what you are quoting are not even the exact “wrong” figures. It is 9750kg, not 9730kg. And it is very low in the mathematical probability scale that you would have a weight that is exactly the same as the original Eurofighter Typhoon prototype. Which makes you wonder where the figure really came from.
Sign In
