crobatoI do agree but remember the J-10 as the Su-27 has ventral inlets,γin fact all the jets you have mentioned have ventral inlets and their forebodies help them at high AoA.
Any way the Russians when they developed the SU-27 were not thinking in stealth but in agility and good high AoA flying characteristics
I’m just saying its a weird argument, considering the MiG 1.44.
crobato.Of course, what it counts is the the position of the stabs relative to the aircraft body, not to the nozzles,but I want to point the difference between the two arrangements. Nevertheless, you got the idea– the F 22 stabs are pushed back.
BTW, it is not only the lever effect you mentioned that counts. The “pushed-back” stabs act better at high AoAs because they are not obstructed by the wings.
Would that matter in high AoA? For a conventional layout, it’s also better to have a longer wingspan, and move the wings further back to the aft weight—the engines being the greatest mass of weight—in the aircraft, regardless of the airflow effects to the elevators, which won’t be that much because first, its all slow, and second, its happening on an angle.
crobatoSupposedly yes, at least with PT01 (retrofitted), PT03, 04 and 06. And supposedly it should either be the KLJ-6F or KLJ-10. Actually I don’t really know whats behind the designations.
Which chinese forum mentioned that? Was it speculative discussion?
The other Chinese firm that has made fighter radars before is Leihua institute, which is also located in Chengdu. A lot of the earlier radar developments, including the J-7E, and the current one on the JH-7A is from this firm. Lately they showed a Ku band capable radar called the SY-80 whose size suggested it would be fitted on the J-7G, or at least competiting for the same contract as NRIET’s KLJ-6E.
My impression with Leihua’s work based on the JH-7A’s JL-10A product, was they’re not as capable as NRIET air to air, but that’s probably because they have invested some more attention on air to ground functionality. This includes support for FLIR/LT, optical channels for TV weapons, antiship missile support.
So that would be very interesting if they can confirm whats the new radar type and who is making it.
crobatoWow! What a beautiful airplane!
I’m now reminded as to why the MiG-29 is my favorite Russian fighter.
No, I thought its the MiG-23!
crobatoAnother thing the Russians point out is the fact the Su-27 has inlets that allow unobstructed supply of air to the AL-31, in this regard, the Russians point out the F-22 with its S shaped duct is not exactly the best air inlet.
That is a kind of a strange argument you know. Anything with an underslung intake has an S shaped duct (Typhoon, F-16, J-10). And not the least, the MiG 1.44.
The problem of an “unobstructed supply of air” is that at higher speeds, you would end up developing a very powerful compresssion wave against the front of the compressor blades, and that can result in the compressor blades cracking. But isn’t that what some of the complaints on the AL-31F engine turns out to be? Which strangely enough didn’t seem to manifest on when said engine is on the J-10’s S duct.
So you end up countering the compression build up by using variable ramps and baffles within the duct, which is generally just creating a mechanical S path yourself.
Another problem of being unobstructed is that front wise, the engine blades become a radar reflector.
crobatotake a look to the position of the stabs on a Flanker and on a Raptor.
That’s the same with F 18 vs F 16. Although the Viper has a better over-all aero design, the stabs do not extend over the end of the engine nozzles. OTOH the Hornet has the same stabs pushed back. The result: a much better dynamics in vertical plan (AoA, pitch rate)
What?
By the same token the MiG-29 should even have better AoA than the Su-27 as its stabs are go even more backward than the Su-27. Check the MiG-35 introduction thread right here for the pics of the plane for convenience.
Likewise, there are old fighters that got stabs pushed way back, even way more further back than an F-16 if you view it from the relationship with the engine nozzle, though they don’t really seem to have a good AoA performance at all. An example is the MiG-21 and the F-4 Phantom.
Pushing the tail back is intended to give greater authority on the stabs by extending the length of the arm between the elevators and the center of the aircraft. The relationship between the elevators and the engine nozzles should not be as important as the elevators towards the central point of the plane. For that matter, for the F-16 or the Su-27, one can say its the engine nozzle that is pushed back.
crobatoMy personal guess is that it’s quite simply what it seems to be on the surface – a gray coloured radome. IIRC Western experience has shown that anything black and glossy will be much easier to spot visually during a dogfight. I believe that’s why the RAF is painting its non-combattant trainers (Hawks, Tucanos) glossy black while the Tornados are receiving new gray radomes.
Would be interesting to see if the new grey radome plus the new pitot, becomes the next standard for the PLAAF. Would the next batch of J-10 produced be using this? Will the J-11B switch to a grey radome before serial production?
crobatoThe gray nose color indicates a radar in place?
Radar has been around since PT03, or the second flying prototype. First flying prototype had the radar retrofitted. PT 01 originally flew with a metal nose that was painted with black enamel with no static devices. The next three planes flew with a radome that had more of a carbon black finish with static stripes, indicating a true radome.
crobatoCompare the red line with the original picture and you’ll notice that the photo was in fact doctored.
Certainly not the plane itself. There appears to be a box that looks like it had been deleted. Its too small to be another aircraft, but its about the same length and dimensions as the foreground supply vehicle—actually a refrigeration unit, probably cooling the innards of the aircraft. Which is an indication that the plane may already have flown, or just flew shortly before this picture was taken.
As the deleted area is about the size of a vehicle, it may have been one that could be carrying VIPs.
crobatothats what we’ve been trying to say… but someday I think I’ll get myself a lens that blurs a few inched around central objects anyways… π
Try actually working with a telephoto lens. If you don’t know I will teach you how.
crobatoSensor on top of the wing may just be a beacon light.
crobatoThis is from Pshamin confirming the change of the nose pitot.
“Pilot head in the latest JF-17 has been replaced by a Rotary Multifunctional Probe. This new probe was produced by Chinese Department of Comprehensive Planning Department, China Aero Products Division, and Department of airborne equipment and technology development and in consultation with French company Thales.
The new probe replaces the traditional fuselage pitot head to measure the the angle of attack. The new generation of sensors will now detect both the atmospheric data and aircraft’s angle of attack. This will make it very easy for the pilot to follow and understand the data reflected by a MFD. It is a major step forward in acquiring the latest technologies and their integration in our JF-17.
Source: Pshamim at http://www.pakdef.info“
crobatoI have been doing photography for the last 20 years as a serious hobby, if you want to know. Cameras I have worked with among others, Nikon F-2 (no light meter prism), F3HP, F-4S, FM-2, pretty manual stuff with AIS lenses (manually focusing fixed) though I am also using AF lenses, starting with 17mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm. Among telephotos I have worked with 135mm all the way to 300mm. My favorite film of all time is Kodachrome, you know, the one you send out to Kodak in special mailers and they mail back the slides for you. And I collect some old cameras which you can shoot using a light meter or a spot meter. Still have a Zeiss Ikonta with bellows and using medium format, a 1933 Leica III, a 1962 Canon P rangefinder, a 1953 Voightlander Prominent, Pentax Honeywell H2 (pre Spotmatic) and a Mamiya Twin Lens reflex C330f. Tell me when you can shoot a camera without a single electronic aid other than a light meter.
So don’t give me bull that I don’t know what is lens blur or not.
The said photo is not from agency, it was certainly taken without permission of those in it. A professional press agency won’t produce crap like this. This is completely amateur stuff that was shot off from some fence near the Chengdu factory, a reason why there are bushes off the background. That makes it a telephoto which means a narrow depth of field. Just check the sides and corners of the picture, and you can see the same blurrish effect, not to mention signs of lens distortion, suggesting this is a cheap zoom lens typical of a point and shoot camera. And its the same friggin tarmac as shown in this far more official picture of another FC-1 prototype.
http://military.china.com/zh_cn/top01/11053250/20070207/images/13927721_2007020711011833751300.jpg
crobatoOpen a history book sometime. When Desert Storm began, Iraq had one of the most comprehensive, modern integrated air defenses in the world. The only place in the world more heavily defended from air attack than Baghdad might have been Moscow. Overnight, the entire system was utterly and completely destroyed.
Really? You’re talking about an air defense that is regularly penetrated by an opposing air force like Iran’s whose officer corp has been badly mauled by its malevolent fundamentalist parent government, and desperately short of trained men and spares. In fact with impunity; Iranian F-4s were bombing Baghdad with such regular time and precision that they’re in synch when the Ayatalloh Khomeini was making his threats against Saddam Hussein in TV broadcasts.
Hardly modern and hardly integrated (the French components cannot talk to the Russian components and vice versa) for an air defense I would say.
crobatoForget about the lense explanation, it’s obviously PS’d. NOT the FC-1, that’s genuine, but something in the background has been erased (almost all the upper left part of the picture is re-done).
Look at the nozzle, it’s sharp; if it had been a lense effect it would have been blured too, like the tail…
Sorry but that is lens blur, I can see and do that all the time with my classic film based photography. And it looks exactly like lens blur. The nozzle is sharp because the nozzle is within the lens depth of field. A subtle blur like this isn’t easy to recreate with photoshop, as well as as other lens anomalies such as purple fringing.
Sign In
