Chengdu J-10 "Vigorous Dragon" fighter

[overscan (PaulMM)]

There's lots of in-flight footage here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8869512750983413810

 

[Mike Pryce]

Thanks for that. I also found some useful pics and info at:

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news095.htm

one of which (http://www.aeronautics.ru/img/img006/j-10_033.jpg) shows the canards trimming down. However, these aircraft appear to be 'low and slow' with high AoA, so it is hard to see what the 'cruise' config is. The video from your link is a bit unclear with shadows and graininess etc, and in AAR the aircraft is also at increased AoA, which may need different trim settings.

Note that the Eurofighter, Gripen, Lavi and Rafale pics on the aeronautics.ru page linked to above show all the aircraft higher, and possibly faster, all with canards trimming the nose down.

 

[Deino]

Ohhhh ... I would very very, very sceptical about these data esp. in comparison with the other Euro-delta-canards !

Just an example: for the length he quotes still the original length for the Lavi 14.57 m, which is pure nonsens .... and even if others say the J-10 is even larger than the Typhoon ... my suggestion would be this more or less crude attempt with the twin-seater .... and my result would be a length of 16,42 m !!

Cheers, Deino

PS: the dimensions in the picture are from the original A-4 print !

 

[Tam]

One thing that puzzles me about the J-10 is just how unstable it is. The wing looks too far aft to have much destabilising effect, so presumably the canard is used to move the centre of lift forward. This probably means that the aircraft is only slightly unstable, or neutrally so, meaning its supersonic BVR performance will suffer in comparison to, say, Typhoon. On the latter the wing centre of lift is forward of the CG, with the canard trimming nose down in subsonic flight but allowing greater agility supersonically with the centre of pressure moved aft.

Any pics of the J-10 in cruising flight where canard position can be seen? Take-off /landing/AAR shots mean the canard is moving for control so its 'steady state' trim position is hard to determine.

You don't really need a extreme or high destabilizing effect. Once you hit a certain margin, the FBW cannot cope up and the plane is simply unflyable. Slightly should do it for most circumstances.

How will supersonic BVR performance suffer by the way, with slight instability? Its better to be more stable in supersonic BVR in order to have a more stable flight and launching platform, than a plane that tends to be more "jiggly" at speed. Stability helps in high speed, not the other way around.

I'm not too hot of the Typhoon's canard position. Putting it where it is, moves the weight to the canards and actuators away from the center of the plane to the nose. Putting more weight on the nose affects maneuverbility. Not only that, all that stuff can get in the way of the avionics, and it won't be as easy to position both the canard wake and the vortices aer they flow over the main wing. If you look at the jet in the front, there is not much seperation of the plane of the canards with the plane of the main wing, where as you see significant seperation of the canard plane and the main wing plane with the J-10, Lavi and Rafale. Putting the two canard and main planes close, means greater potential for the canard to interfere with the air flow to the main wing.

 

[Tam]

One thing, when you're got a babelfished chinese article, a few search words and replace can help a lot in making the article more understandable.

find and replace words like

annihilated -> Jian or Fighter

teachers -> division

stereotype -> prototype

facsimilie -> flight control system

Soviet Union -> Su (as in Sukhoi)

 

[Deino]

:

 

[Mike Pryce]

As a plane goes supersonic the centre of lift shifts aft, making it less unstable/more stable (depending on it where it starts from). This makes it harder to turn, and therefore avoid/evade a return BVR shot. That is why the Typhoon is very unstable subsonically, so that it is only a bit stable at M1.8 and can turn better than an aircraft that has become highly stable by that point. Although I agree Typhoon's canards are not ideal, and close coupled ones offer benefits, moving them forward also removes some problems too. Aircraft design is all about such compromises.

I did not mean that the aeronautics.ru data was what I found useful, rather the points about canard surfaces made there.

 

[Sentinel Chicken]

I'm wondering if perhaps the J-10 is more a strike fighter than an air superiority fighter with that role going to the Flankers. I'm presuming that increased stability at high speeds would be ideal for a strike platform?

 

[Tam]

Moving the canards to the front, and as a result, adding all that weight in the nose, adds to the stability of the aircraft. At the same time, without canards in the main fuselage, the CG of the aircraft can move forward, also increasing stability.

By nature, an active canard-delta aircraft forces the main wing and therefore the CG to be placed backward in order to make room to install the canards and actuator systems. That makes them quite unstable to begin with. In flight, because the wings are located relatively backward, so is the center of lift.

The Typhoon is a paradox to me, in first glance, its layout suggests it is trying to increase stability rather than decrease it. I think the reason why the canards are on the nose is to maximize on the pitch. On the nose, it probably requires less effort and authority to achieve the same degree of pitch compared if the canards are behind the canopy.

 

[Tam]

I'm wondering if perhaps the J-10 is more a strike fighter than an air superiority fighter with that role going to the Flankers. I'm presuming that increased stability at high speeds would be ideal for a strike platform?

Quite the opposite actually. Better to use the smaller, more nimble fighters in larger numbers to mix it up with the opposing air force and let the bigger planes carrying the bigger ground punch to get through.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I'm not sure how unstable the J-10 is, its hard to tell just by looking at it. However, canard location is governed by several factors. Closely mounted by the wing like Rafale can give favourable interactions between wing and canard increasing lift etc. Forward location like on Typhoon gives a long moment arm and consequently greater control forces, especially for supersonic agility. J-10 location seems kind of a half way compromise?

 

[Tam]

I guess it is kind of a compromise. Compared to the Lavi, the distance between the J-10's canard and main wing is longer.

Also, as a striker, fixed intakes are usually preferable, faster air velocities through the tunnel at lower speeds without hinderences from ramps. The J-10's selection of a variable intake over the Lavi's fixed intake suggest a plane more interested in getting supersonic performance than just subsonic acceleration. This is further reinforced by the J-10's lower, and hence, less drag, canopies compared to the bulbous forms used the F-16 and the Lavi.

A test pilot's blog suggest (without mentioning the plane by name) that the J-10 may have hit a low altitude speed record for a Chinese made or owned plane.

These are all clues to suggest that high speed performance was mandated in the J-10's design, and the plane isn't a specialized striker as Internet reports suggest, but an air superiority fighter with supersonic interception and secondary ground roles. One has to consider that the PLAAF still keeps hundreds of J-8IIs, which is a very focused minded supersonic interceptor albeit with secondary ground roles, and still builds new ones each year (cheap BVR interceptor I guess). So they still consider this role important, and the J-10 has to eventually replace them.

A plane that is actually a low altitude striker for the PLAAF is the JH-7A. Note the fixed intakes and the high wing, which allows more space for external stores.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Nice J-10B pic gives glimpse of rear cockpit. Looks the same as the one shown at Zhuhai in a video as far as I can tell.

 

[Tam]

The newest set of specs and figures published by AFM in their article about the J-10's official coming out.

Span: 9.7m
Length: 15.5m
Wing area: 39 sq metres
Powerplant: one 123kN
Weight empty: 8300kg
Max TO weight: 18000kg
Weight A-to-A cbt: 13200kg
Max Speed at high level: Mach 2.2
Max Speed at S/L: Mach 1.2
Load factor: +9/-3G
Internal fuel: 4500kg
Hardpoints: 11
Missile load MRAAM: 4?
Missile load SRAAM: 4?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

More interesting pics

 

[Deino]

... two more !!

A line-up of several prototypes and "maybe" the no. 02 static test airframe !

Deino ;D

 

[Matej]

Another one (99% digitaly modified, but nice).

 

[Deino]

Ohhhh ... what a beauty !!!

Besides that, it seems that the Twin-sticker is now called J-10S - something like a Chinese designation for "Twinseater" ... !

Deino

 

[Sentinel Chicken]

Anyone have any pictures that detail the gun installation?

 

[Deino]

... maybe this one !

 

[Sentinel Chicken]

Thanks, Andreas! Got your email with the pictures as well....they will be very useful with one of our current projects!

 

[Tam]

Not J-10 radars in particular. The JL-10A now fitted on this JH-7A was once a candidate. This is a great picture of any radar installation, especially when you can see the labels close enough. On the KLJ-7, we are still wondering if this is one is for the J-10 or the JF-17.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Lots of pictures floating about now, but this one really grabbed me.

 

[Tam]

J-10 RC model doing a lot of stunts, including high AoA and post stall maneuvers. One of the post stall cork screw maneuvers shown is an exact copy of a clip from CCTV of a real J-10 doing the same thing.

J-10 model

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tNz09UdLCg

CFTC clip of post stall maneuvers. Watch the J-10 near the end.

http://www.youtube.com/v/7UBc4cEZtuY

The J-10 model with the TVC engine was the rage in the Joe Nall RC plane meet. Apparently it was brought in from Germany. Deino, would you know anyone who participated in this?

 

[Deino]

Hmmm ??? I'm not exactly sure, but I know a member in the German FlugzeugForum who asked my about some detailed pictures, drawings and so on on the J-10 ... now I think about one year later - he sent me the first pictures: If they are the same the model needed several changes in comparison to the original but it's built in 1:6 scale and 2,75m long.

http://www.elster-modellbau.de/Ralph/DSCN5377.JPG

http://www.elster-modellbau.de/Ralph/DSCN5362.JPG


Regarding the real J-10 video ... I'm not sure if this tumbling-around "J-10" is actually a real J-10. On the beginning of the video there was a very short sequence showing a J-10 (3:26 time remaining) - I would say a model - of a J-10 hanging on a parachute after spin-tests ... I think in the video it looks like a sequence showing the spin-recovery tests verformed by a model ... which ended on the parachute, and the recoved aircraft in flight is the first prototype and not the same test made by the "model" just before the parachute was released ... only then on the end (0:05 remaining) the video shows a real J-10: The first picture I've ever seen of the white 01 in the air !

Deino

 

[Tam]

The models you showed from your acquiantaces seriously look like the plane in the Joe Nalls meet. I kind of estimated the size of the RC plane to be around 6 feet. Is anyone of them named Ralf Losemann by any chance?

Update.

I did check on your pictures closely, where there are two guys holding their J-10s together. The guy on the left has the same blue shirt as the guy who controlled the plane in the Joe Nalls meet. If you look closely underneath the canopies, the planes have the names of their makers. The one on the left appears to have the name of Ralf Losemann, at leat the R and the L is clearly visible.

Its confirmed you have something indirectly to do with this!

 

[Deino]

...Its confirmed you have something indirectly to do with this!

Yup .... but more directly related to me is this one !!

http://www.fliegerrevue.de/fr_heft.asp?PG=147&AID=%2018436

... and the biggest help were once again JP's colour artworks !!

 

[Tam]

Congratulations in the publishing of your article. Too bad I can't read German to appreciate it.

 

[Deino]

Congratulations in the publishing of your article. Too bad I can't read German to appreciate it.

Thanks for Yor kind words 1 An longer translated version will hopefully be published within the next three months ... !

 

[Mike Pryce]

Great article! I started to blunder through the original with my poor German skills, but also cheated with Google:

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fliegerrevue.de%2Ffr_heft.asp%3FPG%3D147%26AID%3D%252018436&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

which can help others too.

 

[Deino]

Great article! I started to blunder through the original with my poor German skills, but also cheated with Google:

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fliegerrevue.de%2Ffr_heft.asp%3FPG%3D147%26AID%3D%252018436&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

which can help others too.

Thanks a lot for Your kind words ... here's another pre-view of "more-to-come" from our allmost famous "secret-projects"-artist ! ;D

 

[Deino]

... posted at CDF by Xinhui a white J-10 prototype 03 and the exhaust doesn't look like an AL-31FN one !!! ????

 

[Sentinel Chicken]

Thanks a lot for Your kind words ... here's another pre-view of "more-to-come" from our allmost famous "secret-projects"-artist ! ;D

Thanks for posting that, Andreas. I probably know more about the details of the J-10 now than I thought was ever possible! Now when I look at various builds of the Trumpeter kit, I spot all those little variations that weren't covered in it.

The level of detail Andreas has asked for in my illustrations and the technical accuracy will please just the most die-hard of techno-wonks. We went down the locations and types of aerials on the various developmental variants and even camouflage patterns!

Can't wait to see the Flieger Revue article, even though I can't understand a lick of German. Or the later English articles that will have an additional seven J-10 profiles. I'm working on a print that features several of the J-10s together and the print samples I've had done so far have come out very nicely so I'm sure these will look fine in print.

 

[Deino]

Thanks a lot for Your kind words ... here's another pre-view of "more-to-come" from our allmost famous "secret-projects"-artist ! ;D

Thanks for posting that, Andreas. I probably know more about the details of the J-10 now than I thought was ever possible! Now when I look at various builds of the Trumpeter kit, I spot all those little variations that weren't covered in it.

The level of detail Andreas has asked for in my illustrations and the technical accuracy will please just the most die-hard of techno-wonks. We went down the locations and types of aerials on the various developmental variants and even camouflage patterns!

Can't wait to see the Flieger Revue article, even though I can't understand a lick of German. Or the later English articles that will have an additional seven J-10 profiles. I'm working on a print that features several of the J-10s together and the print samples I've had done so far have come out very nicely so I'm sure these will look fine in print.

Hi J.P. ...
Huu I thought You should already received Your issues ... maybe once again the German POST !

Therefore it should be allowed to post this page as we both were "involved" in this project.


Just a short question ! Did You get the last mail with the information on each individual aircraft You requested !??

Anyway... thanks a lot, Deino

 

[Sentinel Chicken]

Yes I did, Andreas- thank you! There was some very useful information and some good ideas worth incorporating into future art work!

 

[Tam]

Beautiful piece of work I got to say. I am very impressed with the quality. Is there more pics that was published?

If some adjustments need to made, the holes behind the parachute boom seems larger on the production variant, most likely because a MAWS is sitting there. The struts above the intake is larger on the production planes and canted inward, where it looks more deliberate designed, while the struts on the prototype look like cheap makeshift bands. Save it for next time.

 

[Deino]

Beautiful piece of work I got to say. I am very impressed with the quality. Is there more pics that was published?

sadly no more pics, as the complete article was only 5 pages long with 4 pages text + pictures and this single profile page !!

But more will come .... :

 

[Deino]

just posted by =GT at the CDF !!!

So - IMO - it looks as our old friend 01 became 001 and finally 1001 !!!

Cheers, Deino

 

[Deino]

Something new to draw for JP ?! ;D

... maybe a new J-10-version finally with a grey nose without a probe like the FC-1 serials or a PS !???

 

[Deino]

... I missed that this picture has been at least twisted or flipped ... mirrored or what-ever ... here, this one should be correct !