« Last post by DWG on Today at 08:42:39 pm »
I've been staring at the wing-chine junction in the video as it taxis past at the 33s and 40s marks, and particularly at the camera pan along the length at 1:46s. It's not as bad as I first thought, the canard keeps getting in the way and misleading my eye as to the edge of the chine, but it does look like the chine merges into the wing an inch or two above the forward-most part of that fat leading edge, apparently creating an interesting little niche between the two. The airflow and RCS issues around that must be interesting (in the Chinese rather than Persian sense of the word).
The detail finish of the cockpit bow at 2:41 is also interesting, it almost looks like you could hook a fingertip under it at the top of the arch.
Two related observations to the actual in-motion shots. Compare the stability of the 313 with other recent sets of taxi trials (X-2, JC-31, J-20, T-50). There is very little rocking of the aircraft with respect to the undercarriage legs, there's a tiny touch of roll as it rounds that turn, and I think the nose dips fractionally at one point, but it's significantly less than for other aircraft at a supposedly similar stage of development, which I suspect argues for a very light structure that simply doesn't generate the momentum to compress the gears. And related to that, I don't see any movement of any of the flight control surfaces at all. The rudders are mentioned in the Janes article, but the canards don't appear to move either. It's difficult to see detail with black on black, but I'd expect at least some motion if the FCS was active.
Turning to the cockpit, I hope they've found room to squeeze in a second HDD in comparison to the mock-up. Because with no HUD or HMS, and the HDD therefore the primary flight instrumentation, trying to fly the aircraft while simultaneously looking at the imagery from the EO turret, and at any radar imagery, is going to be an interesting juggling task.
I don't think we can reject it outright, but it's clear that what it is, and what it was built up to be, are two very different things.