Shenyang FC-31 demonstrators / J-35 naval fighter / J-35A land-based version

The high FPR is going to help (if indeed they can achieve it...), but that modest a temperature at combustor outlet in combination with such a high OPR is not a recipe for supercruise, no. And therein lies a crucial difference to the EJ270 concept.
 
Trident said:
The high FPR is going to help (if indeed they can achieve it...), but that modest a temperature at combustor outlet in combination with such a high OPR is not a recipe for supercruise, no. And therein lies a crucial difference to the EJ270 concept.
Click to expand...
EJ270? Had heard of an EJ230 but not that one.
 
Sferrin said:
EJ270? Had heard of an EJ230 but not that one.
Click to expand...

It was another proposed evolution. At the end of the day, people should stop using this 2+ decades old nomenclature. These concepts were early growth proposals that never turned into reality and while I can't say it with absolute certainity, I doubt that possible future iterations of the EJ200 would be named that way. An MKsomething addition is more likely, as it has been the case in the past.
 
Trident said:
The high FPR is going to help (if indeed they can achieve it...), but that modest a temperature at combustor outlet in combination with such a high OPR is not a recipe for supercruise, no. And therein lies a crucial difference to the EJ270 concept.
Click to expand...
Well it seems those were the preliminary specifications of the engine in 2011. The paper stated a design goal of the engine to have a TIT of 1950-2100K with a specific thrust of 120-130daN/kg/s.
 
I’ve seen that table before, thanks for the translation (instead of trying to determine the parameters by guessing based on format and units !!)

The FPR of 5:1 is definitely in the direction of high specific thrust, but the thrust levels are only about 1k lbf higher than a F100-220 with a FPR of 3:1 and only slightly higher airflow.

A FPR of 5:1 with a 0.5 bypass ratio takes a lot of core power. The HPC pressure ratio of 7 for an OPR of 35 might be enough to deliver that power, but the resulting high HPC discharge temp with the 1850K TIT doesn’t leave that much room for combustor heat addition, which implies a low theta-break temperature and reduced performance at elevated inlet temperatures.

The component efficiencies are also not impressive at 88% Fan and 86% HPC, with both turbines at 90%. You would like to see all of those efficiencies 3-5% higher.

It looks like they are trying to beat F414 and EJ200 performance in a slightly larger engine, even though both of those engines have lower FPR and OPR.

One interesting technical tidbit is the augmentor pressure recovery dropping from 98% to 92% when the AB is lit. There is a total pressure loss when heat is added into a constant pressure flow, called Rayleigh loss. This is a a small pressure loss at the entrance to the exhaust nozzle, but this is one of the first times I’ve seen it documented.
 
F119Doctor said:
It looks like they are trying to beat F414 and EJ200 performance in a slightly larger engine, even though both of those engines have lower FPR and OPR.
Click to expand...
I don't believe the WS-19 is that much larger than either of those, to be honest. Or at least not that much larger than the F414. After all, it's got to have a similar form factor as the RD-33/93 which actually has a smaller inlet diameter than the F414 and around the same as the EJ200. The RD-33 is only "larger" cause of the obnoxiously-sized mixed-flow afterburner. The WS-19 should actually be very close in dimensions to the F414/EJ200.

Either way, these are all 15 year old information. With how the WS-15 got overhauled mid-2018 because of breakthroughs on their side that only happened late 2010s, it's likely that the real WS-19 went quite a bit beyond the initial preliminary specs.
 
When I said larger, I was referring to the airflow of 100 kg/sec, vs the 75-77 kg/sec fo the F414 and EJ200.

The comparison with the F100-220 which has a rated airflow of approx 104 Kg/sec (228 lbs/sec) with 14.5 lbf Mil and 23.4 lbf AB thrust with a FPR of 3-3.2:1 (3.0 EPR measured in front of the sprayrings and flameholder)
 
F119Doctor said:
I’ve seen that table before, thanks for the translation (instead of trying to determine the parameters by guessing based on format and units !!)

The FPR of 5:1 is definitely in the direction of high specific thrust, but the thrust levels are only about 1k lbf higher than a F100-220 with a FPR of 3:1 and only slightly higher airflow.

A FPR of 5:1 with a 0.5 bypass ratio takes a lot of core power. The HPC pressure ratio of 7 for an OPR of 35 might be enough to deliver that power, but the resulting high HPC discharge temp with the 1850K TIT doesn’t leave that much room for combustor heat addition, which implies a low theta-break temperature and reduced performance at elevated inlet temperatures.

The component efficiencies are also not impressive at 88% Fan and 86% HPC, with both turbines at 90%. You would like to see all of those efficiencies 3-5% higher.

It looks like they are trying to beat F414 and EJ200 performance in a slightly larger engine, even though both of those engines have lower FPR and OPR.

One interesting technical tidbit is the augmentor pressure recovery dropping from 98% to 92% when the AB is lit. There is a total pressure loss when heat is added into a constant pressure flow, called Rayleigh loss. This is a a small pressure loss at the entrance to the exhaust nozzle, but this is one of the first times I’ve seen it documented.
Click to expand...
So is this more or less a sea level optimized engine? Since its airflow is claimed to be so high at 100 kg/s it seems to imply an augmented airflow over F414/EJ200. It doesn't seem to have the air intakes of the front fan diameter for this much airflow. Even if they boosted the front fan stages electrically it seems to defy the laws of physics.
 
MadRat said:
So is this more or less a sea level optimized engine? Since its airflow is claimed to be so high at 100 kg/s it seems to imply an augmented airflow over F414/EJ200. It doesn't seem to have the air intakes of the front fan diameter for this much airflow. Even if they boosted the front fan stages electrically it seems to defy the laws of physics.
Click to expand...
Back in Alpha_Particle’s post with the translated performance table, he did indicate that this was a 2011 study for a notional WS-19. It is possible that the real WS-19 was scaled down to match the J-35 airframe performance needs. 100 kg/sec may have been just a nice round number in the middle of the performance range.

If the real WS-19 indeed has this FPR / OPR design, it would appear to be optimized for middle of the envelope to low supersonic speeds where inlet temperatures are low, and not low altitude or high supersonic conditions with inlet temps 20C and higher.
 
F119Doctor said:
Back in Alpha_Particle’s post with the translated performance table, he did indicate that this was a 2011 study for a notional WS-19. It is possible that the real WS-19 was scaled down to match the J-35 airframe performance needs. 100 kg/sec may have been just a nice round number in the middle of the performance range.

If the real WS-19 indeed has this FPR / OPR design, it would appear to be optimized for middle of the envelope to low supersonic speeds where inlet temperatures are low, and not low altitude or high supersonic conditions with inlet temps 20C and higher.
Click to expand...
Seems like these claims of this type of performance would be more likely found in an old airliner versus a jet fighter.
 
Tomboy said:
Is this official?
Click to expand...
Hard to pin down the exact source, most of what is said online about this picture said its from a catalogue provided at the Singapore airshow. Guess you should be taking the information with a grain of salt, but it's not like these figures are surprising. It's what we've been suspecting for awhile.
 
Happy New Year with Chinese Charakters.
Interesting, three J-35 are visible on deck: two with folded wings and one in what appears to be a new camo-scheme.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6837.jpeg
    IMG_6837.jpeg
    650.3 KB · Views: 693
  • IMG_6838.jpeg
    IMG_6838.jpeg
    246.8 KB · Views: 774
Last edited by a moderator:
topspeed3 said:
How is it comparison with F-35 ?
Click to expand...
It's not exactly correct to compare it with F-35. For starters, it's much larger, almost as large as Su-57, so it is probably better described as a cutprice F-22 rather than F-35.

I still don't understand, though, if it should be viewed as a fighter or attack aircraft. Seems too slow for a fighter, but it could work rather well pairing with Flankers.
 
Last edited:
Martes said:
It's not exactly correct to compare it with F-35. For starters, it's much larger, almost as large as Su-57, so it is probably better described as a cutprice F-22 rather than F-35.

I still don't understand, though, if it should be viewed as a fighter or attack aircraft. Seems too slow for a fighter, but it could work rather well pairing with Flankers.
Click to expand...
Multirole without clear focus. Also not unlike su-57.
 
Interesting, this new paint job makes the J35 look more like a shark.

In addition, in a recent official video, some things were hung on the wings of the J35 fighter jet
 

Attachments

  • 1773774830100.png
    1773774830100.png
    86.1 KB · Views: 490
Last edited by a moderator:
Jumping into this thread halfway but has J-35 been confirmed to be able to carry ASCM missile internally for stealthy maritime strike (JSM-equivalent) otherwise i personally find it weird that it would have to loose its stealth for surface warfare as part of a carrier air wing
 
ew33 said:
Jumping into this thread halfway but has J-35 been confirmed to be able to carry ASCM missile internally for stealthy maritime strike (JSM-equivalent) otherwise i personally find it weird that it would have to loose its stealth for surface warfare as part of a carrier air wing
Click to expand...
I think this showcase of the FC-31 load out capacity is the best we have. I don’t know which munition exactly “medium range supersonic air to surface missile” refers too though.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0503.jpeg
    IMG_0503.jpeg
    62.1 KB · Views: 200
Last edited by a moderator:
Looks like a CM-400 but those are too big to fit four side-by-side internally.
 

Attachments

  • JF-17-CM-400AKG-01.jpg
    JF-17-CM-400AKG-01.jpg
    9.8 KB · Views: 196
  • Mig-29-cm400.jpg
    Mig-29-cm400.jpg
    50.1 KB · Views: 201
Last edited by a moderator:

Attachments

  • IMG_0505.jpeg
    IMG_0505.jpeg
    46.6 KB · Views: 205
Last edited by a moderator:
ew33 said:
Jumping into this thread halfway but has J-35 been confirmed to be able to carry ASCM missile internally for stealthy maritime strike (JSM-equivalent)
Click to expand...
No similar missile has been unveiled yet.

ew33 said:
otherwise i personally find it weird that it would have to loose its stealth for surface warfare as part of a carrier air wing
Click to expand...
It can serve as a reconnaissance platform with greater survivability within the anti-ship kill chain. The PLAN warships possesses hypersonic missiles with ranges from 1,000 to 2,000 kilometers; if used properly, these missiles are no less powerful than the JSM.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom