Your description is far too simplistic in some respects and plain wrong in others. It’s not just about slowing down the airflow to subsonic using ramps and other devices.
The objective of the highly efficient intake is to create uniform and high pressure recovery flow into the engine face. The PAK-FA’s engine duct is certainly not straight (see patent), and incorporates super & subsonic flow diffusers incorporated into the design. Because the duct is relatively short and varies in cross-sectional area, it will be susceptible to large separated flows, this problem is mitigated by the Gaussian bump/vortices generator type wedge in the inner-intake wall (called the ‘fixed wedge brake’ in the patent), which serves a similar function to the DSI. Combined with the ‘trough’ in the intake mouth, they minimise vortices, wake and boundary layer ingestion by the inlet- especially emanating from external transonic flow of the aerodynamic structure.
Bear in mind one of the most important performance factors in the intake design is to address engine face distortion (represented by the non-uniformity of the flow into the engine face), to simply place a grid in front of the compressor would play havoc with total pressure recovery, distortions to the flow stream (remember the engines are canted) and mass flow.
In fact, the only ‘grid’ they’ll be placing in front of the compressor is a virtual one for calculating two-equation turbulence models probably composed of around 300,000 grid points. The one in the patent is only for reference and certainly not indicative of the actual design.
Engines do not need air streams beyond Mach 0.6, and if you look the cutaway is easy to see the engine is very close to the grid
Your assertion it won`t have a grid well is not what the patent says, plus PAKFA has a diverter making a gap between the intake cowl lip and the forebody, so no it does not work as a DSI.
you also can see the ramps are basically as those on Su-27 and the S ducts are not as those on F-22 or J-20, therefore the need for RAM and a grid
Man, that would be like trying to learn Navier Stokes from you:
…Man, I think I’ll pass on that one (don’t get me wrong).
i do not understand you, could you please be more specific? i do not see a real reason a grid will affect a subsonic air stream aerodynamically.
the supersonic shock already has slowed down the air stream after the VG ramps have been deployed so the air stream won`t be supersonic and the engine won`t choke and the F-117 engines do not choke.
this is said to be the grid
So where are the photos of the aircraft they intercepted? All I see are Chinese aircraft.
The Chinese are saying they sent their Su-30MKKs to intercept Japan`s F-15Js near the Senkaku
January 31, New Year’s Day, 9:35, Su-30MKK2 Air Force fighter jets scrambled into the East China Sea to deal with foreign military air defense identification zone
Never mind … the main differences for a J-16 are:
– a twin-tire front gear
– an off-set positioned IRST-dome
– the same taller tails like the Su-30MKK has but not with these squared fins. (In fact this is the most difficult to spot difference. If You look at a a side image of both aircrfat – esp. the first one in #799 – then there is a fixed part between the fin’s base and the rudder (yellow), which is part of the rudder on the J-16 and Su-30MKK)Hope that helps a bit.
Deino
thanks, no problem i believe you.
Su-30MKK
Sadly not, these are standard J-11BS – the J-16 has the larger rudder similar to the Su-30MKK.
Deino
is this J-16 or J-11B?
it is said it is a J-16
these are Su-30MKK
i do not know where is the difference
Most likely due to additional safety margin of a proven design for shipborne operations?
very likely it is the reason since these pictures show J-16 with Ws-10s
As a Russian, no thanks, about unification.
For China, what it really matters is tech transfers, by legal or illegal ways, they do not care, Su-33s using both ways, but Russia and Ukraine want unification call it Euro-Asian Union, AKA new USSR 21st century
Kamov designed Project 941. Kamov never claimed to have designed Z10. Kamov provided a basic aerodynamics design, experimentally confirmed that it is viable. That’s basically the function TsAGI played in many Soviet aerospace programs. We don’t even know how detailed was Kamov’s design. Kamov had nothing to do with Z10’s dynamic elements. Chinese firms took that basic aerodynamic design, made numerous changes, developed subsystems, integrated everything. Project 941 can be said to be a starting point for the aerodynamic design of Z10, nothing more.
The statement Kamov designed Z10 certainly can’t be justified.
The Chinese do design, no one denies that, they are capable engineers, like any nation, but also do copy, like any nation, Russia is behind many of their projects, not because they can not do it, it is simple matters of industrial cooperation; it is simply part of globalization
you should be repped a jillion times for this.
very interestingso L-15 is based on and developed with Yakovlev assistance
Z-10 based on and developed with Kamov assistance..
whats next.. J-20 and MiG?
read source
Sign In
