DeinoMaybe interesting to read …. and even if I don’t agree with all quite a nice read !
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2252
Cheers, Deino 😀
DeinoAgreement May Be Signed Before Year’s End on Joint Development of New Training Airplane Based on Yak-152
The signing of documents with China at the end of the year is possible for the joint development of a new primary training airplane based on the Yak-152, a source in the defense industrial complex reported to Interfax-AVN.
“Negotiations are advancing rather successfully, and one may expect that we will come to definite understandings on the creation of the new training airplane at the end of the year,” the agency source said.
According to him, China is very interested in an airplane of the Yak-152 type. It is planned to use it mainly for training airmen of the Chinese air force, and also civilian pilots.
Source: 26.09.06, Interfax
And a provisorial tree-side from Huitong’s page !!
Deinoquote me the post number i said that because you have changed it, i said something different
Once again to change the topic instead of answering the questions !!
These were my questions I would like to be answered by YOU !!!
DeinoDeino
I never used the word “Idiot” prove it and quote me
Exactly what I said: You don’t listed !!!
I said You did not call anyone an idiot by name ….
but by the way You are discussing ! … that childish “hehehehehe” I found something, “hehehehehe” !
I answered your questions and i said we are all of us speculating
Which question did You answer ???? NONE !!!!!
Maybe You didn’t read it at all ??? … but here again !
1. Wouldn’t it be more practical, technically more feasible, less time consuming and economically cheaper to build a full-scale mock-up with the dimensions of the anticipated engine, which we all assume to be the WS-10. An engine that surely had it’s very troublesome development but that was based on a modern Western core engine technology (CFM-56 and maybe even the F100 itself and not the AL-31) before the Tiananmen incident to be in the thrust class and of similar dimensions of the AL-31F which powers the Su-27/J-11. ????
2. Additional it seems more logical that the WS-10 was build originally in mind with similar dimensions (and so on) as it would have been – if successful – an ideal replacement for the AL-31F’s in a future indigenous J-11 version (we now call J-11B). Yes or No ??
3. As such and only then – after the initial setbacks of the WS-10 – it would have been more practical, technically more feasible, less time consuming and economically cheaper to reconstruct the J-10’s fuselage as both engines were of similar dimensions ! Yes or No ??
4. Are two airframe re-designs not easier than three ???
5. If there are several possibilities or hypotheses which can not be proven unless Chengdu or AVIC opens its archives; would be the more logical and more practical version the more probable one ???
6. So let’s ask one last question !
Why do You still think that a Russian article – quoting as the only source there were a WP-13 powered mock-up/prototype and already proven as a simple cut and paste translation of a Chinese article written by an aviation enthusiast – is more reliable than another report – esp. at Huitong’s page – that the J-10 was originally intended to be powered by the WS-10 ???
Deino 😡
DeinoOnce again ! You never answer to a question, Your are just babbeling around until You find anything You like and then once again the same !
And can You prove anything You tell us here ??? NO !!!! I think therefore we can say both sides here in this tread formulate only hypotheses … but if there are two which are contradicting themselves, which one is the more probable ???
The one that is baked with argument or the one based on a very obscure Russian site ?
Besides, You were the one, who started flaming and telling others here an idiot – maybe not by name – but the way You are discussing ! … that childish “hehehehehe” I found something, hehehehehe” !
I will report this tread to a moderator with the request to close that tread !
Have a nice weekend, Deino 😡
DeinoI think nothing changed !! I had the hope if You ask him a simple question, often only to be answered with YES or NO would make it easier for him !
It could led the discussion on track again ….
Nothing !!! All his usual behavior, no concrete answers, just some bubbeling around composed with opening a new playground on a very different corner o the debate added with the childish hehehehes … 😡
As we all know, its senseless, useless to discuss with him. The moderators should close this tread as the only thing once again proven is not the question “Is China sacrificing quality for quantity???” but the fact “never to argue with an idiot !!!”
Deino
DeinoHi; after about four pages without any comment but with a lot of fun reading the still ongoing discussion I think I have to give up my promise and step in once again ! :diablo:
But let me follow Your own statements … I hope I can sum them up together correctly !
Your hypothesis is (following that Russian article and the many sources You always quote) that:
1. There was a WP-13 equipped mock-up or prototype !
2. It was more practical, technically more feasible, less time consuming and economically cheaper to built a full-scale mock up with an dated engine, that has – to be careful to say – very different dimensions at least in centre of gravity for the final aircraft, weight, thrust even if the originally foreseen powerplant was under development (= WS-10) and two similar dimensioned engines (= AL-31F and WS-9) already available !
3. After that interim engine proved unsatisfying the fuselage was redesigned and fitted with a second engine, which was rejected too and needed a third redesign to the now current engine; the AL-31FN, which needed a lengthy redesign, construction and certification for the only single-engined fighter to be equipped with.
4. … which means that it is “more likely that they modified the airframe rather than the engine, it is more logic there was a third engine …” as the WS-10 is still planned to be the final engine.
5. All the necessary redesign, wind-tunnel testing, manufacturing, testing and certification before flight test were accomplished in just three years (unsatisfying mock-up in 1993, prototype in 1996 with the second engine You mention and then the final AL-31FN) !
I hope I didn’t miss anything ! 🙁
But let me just – as You say correctly – try to “develop” a second hypothesis and tell some them as questions:
1. Wouldn’t it be more practical, technically more feasible, less time consuming and economically cheaper to build a full-scale mock-up with the dimensions of the anticipated engine, which we all assume to be the WS-10. An engine that surely had it’s very troublesome development but that was based on a modern Western core engine technology (CFM-56 and maybe even the F100 itself and not the AL-31) before the Tiananmen incident to be in the thrust class and of similar dimensions of the AL-31F which powers the Su-27/J-11.
2. Additional it seems more logical that the WS-10 was build originally in mind with similar dimensions (and so on) as it would have been – if successful – an ideal replacement for the AL-31F’s in a future indigenous J-11 version (we now call J-11B).
3. As such and only then – after the initial setbacks of the WS-10 – it would have been more practical, technically more feasible, less time consuming and economically cheaper to reconstruct the J-10’s fuselage as both engines were of similar dimensions !
4. Are two airframe re-designs not easier than three ???
5. If there are several possibilities or hypotheses which can not be proven unless Chengdu or AVIC opens its archives; would be the more logical and more practical version the more probable one ???
By the way how does a wooden Harrier-mock up proves that a mock-up doesn’t necessarily has to be made of wood ?
But finally to Your questions !
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?[/B] 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?
YES; as the WS-10 was under development with much more similar characteristics than the WP-13.
It would mean change entirely the engine design, something that is not easy in fact even impractical because an engine is far more difficult to design and manufacture than an airframe.
Why ????? If it is that easy as You describes with several examples to change an entire airframe, why should it be harder to change an engine under development ??
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 ….
Why … I suggest this is pure nonsense ! 😀
[QUOTE=MiG-23MLD] …. 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.
I think that is a contradiction: Why then changing the one element that suffers the most of modifications ????
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 neither 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
Exactly; I can only agree with what SOC said as it just proves my theory: “simply because the WS-10 has been designed with specifications similar to the Al-31” … but if we follow Your argumentation we don’t use the easier way, we take the long and hard way and redesign everything only to fit an unsuited and dated engine !???!
So let’s ask one last question !
Why do You still think that a Russian article – quoting as the only source there were a WP-13 powered mock-up/prototype and already proven as a simple cut and paste translation of a Chinese article written by an aviation enthusiast – is more reliable than another report – esp. at Huitong’s page – that the J-10 was originally intended to be powered by the WS-10 ???
Only because it’s written in that Russian article is surely not an argument; the Bible says that earth was created in seven days (to be correct: in six! :diablo: ) and that’s not necessarily a prove in terms of nature science !
And please don’t start now another side-discussion because I made a mistake in grammar, writing or punctuation !
Cheers, Deino :confused:
DeinoMost likely all the “F-16 lites” going around tend to have one commonality, mainly the “F-16ness”. There isn’t that many ways you can design an F-16 style planform with twin side intakes. Also note the so called MiG Project 33 connection to the FC-1. So which one is really connected to the FC-1? That would also make the IAR-95 look quite similarly to the MiG Project 33, where in fact, their similarities are more coincidental than anything, mainly because similar functionalities do tend to force similar looks.
The FC-1’s basic look is far more likely to owe more to Grumman’s proposed Super 7 design (which looks like a single seater FTC-2000).
Hmmm ??? … maybe it was just a silly idea as – for my opinion – the similarities are bigger than between that Lavi and the J-10 as some here still insist !
Besides that I was once again thinking about that possible “clean sheet” design and I think with the short time of cooperation between CAC and Grumman there was no time left for a new design.
• Chengdu J-7CP studies
• Signing of “Peace Pearl” cooperation in 1986
• January 1987 study contract with Grumman for an update based around the F-7M Airguard + Western avionics and engine as the Sabre II
• Sabre II becomes Super-7 in November 1988 after a complete redesign
• June 1989 Tiananmen and finally the end of the Sino-US-cooperation
Another point regarding the MiG Project 33 and the Russian part of the development: Do You know anything about a rumoured MiG Project 41, that is said to be a project from 1984/85 much more similar to the Gripen and now FC-1 ???
Cheers, Deino :confused:
DeinoJust posted at the CDF …
Agreement May Be Signed Before Year’s End on Joint Development of New Training Airplane Based on Yak-152
The signing of documents with China at the end of the year is possible for the joint development of a new primary training airplane based on the Yak-152, a source in the defense industrial complex reported to Interfax-AVN.
“Negotiations are advancing rather successfully, and one may expect that we will come to definite understandings on the creation of the new training airplane at the end of the year,” the agency source said.
According to him, China is very interested in an airplane of the Yak-152 type. It is planned to use it mainly for training airmen of the Chinese air force, and also civilian pilots.
Source: 26.09.06, Interfax
Regarding the assistance with the L-15 seems to be a logical step !
DeinoIf there was older turbojets under considedration, was the RR Spey (WS-9) involved with this plane? I recall reading something about some earlier chinese efforts to design a fighter around spey engines but never heard a mention of Super-7 with spey. The engine is pretty much similar size than the more modern turbofans…
Hmmmm … I remember a similar report but that seems more like one of the typical rumours of the late 1980’s – early 1990’s in the West or one of the considerations for the Shenyang J-13 which finally failed because of the lack of an suitable engine. After the WS-9 the WS-6 and later a domestic version of the MiG-23’s R-29 as the WS-15 (PS has to be a mistake as the R-29 is a turbojet –> WP-15 :confused: )
For the Super-7 I can’t think of a WS-9/Spey-powered “version” as this engines has quite different dimensions to the original WP-7/WP-13 but I remember that the Romanian IAR-95 was “build” around a Spey and at other sources a WS-9 … which means that there may have been a Chinese “connection” ! :confused: … quite funny it looks very similar to the final FC-1 !!
Any idea ???
DeinoThe information that I have is limited. However, this was clearly not intended to be a MiG-23 based airplane.
However, it was never made clear as to which development house (Chengdu? Shenyang? Xian?) would be involved. Nor were details provided concerning size and weight (although it appears to have been intended as a single-engine fighter).
From the details that I have seen, this was apparently another one of the many “concept” aircraft that was never funded beyond the paper airplane stage.
That seems to be sure as the MiG-23 was much too dated at that time.
But if there ever was such a “paper project” it would be one that is still secret as all others are known untill the Shenyang J-13, which development was finally canceled in 1981. Otherwise it could be a further development of a Grumman-initiated design of a lightweight fighter concept of the mid-to-late-1980s regarding Grumman’s efforts with the J-7/J-8-upgrades. :confused:
Ohhhh … what would I give for a glimpse into the archives of Shenyang, Chengdu, … ! :diablo:
Cheers, Deino
DeinoJust found at CDF posted by Xinhui … “PLANAF 5th Independent Regiment (Bomber)” with H-6M.
Deino 😀
DeinoJust made for that topic !!!!! … finally “she’s” out !!!!
http://www.anigrand.com/AA2066_Lavi.htm
Deino :diablo:
Deinomy my my, look what we’ve got here … 😮
Nice, bu the first one is olde, very old … maybe older than the one I posted and the second is a photosoped montge of a 44.FD- bird with the gear errased …
Deino
DeinoDon’t know it this pic has been posted before … for me it was new (even if an old picture) !
Deino 😉
Sign In
