Shenyang / Chengdu "6th Gen" Aircraft - News and Analysis

Another image of the "2nd" J-36 and as it seems for the first time its number is readable: :oops: ... but it too looks like 36011!!

So, let‘s summarise since I‘m confused:
- we have a chart image of the first prototype clearly with no. 36011
- we have several images of a 2nd aircraft and the amount of changes suggest it is a different aircraft
- now we have a „clearer“ image of the same one suggesting it is likely also no. 36011 (@huitong)

Why? Just to confuse us there are two nos. 36011? Or was the first 36011 heavily modified to be now the second 36011 (IMO unlikely)

Any other theories & explanations?

J-36 36022 maybe but looks like 36011 again - 20251122.jpeg J-36 36022 maybe but looks like 36011 again - 20251122 part.jpg J-36 36022 maybe but looks like 36011 again - 20251122 part 2.png
 
Deino said:
Another image of the "2nd" J-36 and as it seems for the first time its number is readable: :oops: ... but it too looks like 36011!!

So, let‘s summarise since I‘m confused:
- we have a chart image of the first prototype clearly with no. 36011
- we have several images of a 2nd aircraft and the amount of changes suggest it is a different aircraft
- now we have a „clearer“ image of the same one suggesting it is likely also no. 36011 (@huitong)

Why? Just to confuse us there are two nos. 36011? Or was the first 36011 heavily modified to be now the second 36011 (IMO unlikely)

Any other theories & explanations?

View attachment 792607View attachment 792608View attachment 792609
Click to expand...
Why do you think it’s not plausible that the J-36 prototype from the onset was designed with modularity and hot swappability in mind? Especially in the prototype testing stages, being able to switch out different parts for fast flight testing would be an incredible design achievement by chengdu.

IMO the changes are not major enough to warrant a completely new airframe. I often see people of the opinion that the new undercarriage design would need a completely internal reshuffling. I don't believe that is true, simply if the landing bay was initially already designed to been able to incorporate both the set of tandem and bicycle configurations, the gear bays would not need to be reconstructed. Secondly the engine nozzles are the easiest one to point out, from the very original pictures we can see lines near the rear which are now obvious to be the joint between the nozzle and the fuselage. Lastly I don't see why it isn't possible to swap out the supersonic intake configuration
 
Last edited:
Nx4eu said:
Why do you think it’s not plausible that the J-36 prototype from the onset was designed with modularity and hot swappability in mind? Especially in the prototype testing stages, being able to switch out different parts for fast flight testing would be an incredible design achievement by chengdu.

IMO the changes are not major enough to warrant a completely new airframe. I often see people of the opinion that the new undercarriage design would need a completely internal reshuffling. I don't believe that is true, simply if the landing bay was initially already designed to been able to incorporate both the set of tandem and bicycle configurations, the gear bays would not need to be reconstructed. Secondly the engine nozzles are the easiest one to point out, from the very original pictures we can see lines near the rear which are now obvious to be the joint between the nozzle and the fuselage. Lastly I don't see why it isn't possible to swap out the supersonic intake configuration
Click to expand...
It can't be the same airframe because the original airframe thousands of kilometers away in Xinjiang under going flight test when this was spotted.
 
Tomboy said:
It can't be the same airframe because the original airframe thousands of kilometers away in Xinjiang under going flight test when this was spotted.
Click to expand...
And you don't think it's possible that the J-36 flew 2000km? I need some exact dates of when this aircraft was spotted, and when the spotting in xinjiang was.

Edit: Actually I just measured the distance and it's 1600km, less than a 2 hour flight at a low cruise speed.
 
Last edited:
Nx4eu said:
And you don't think it's possible that the J-36 flew 2000km? I need some exact dates of when this aircraft was spotted, and when the spotting in xinjiang was.

Edit: Actually I just measured the distance and it's 1600km, less than a 2 hour flight at a low cruise speed.
Click to expand...
Because you don't put untested modifications on a untested prototype and fly it 1600km.
 
Tomboy said:
Because you don't put untested modifications on a untested prototype and fly it 1600km.
Click to expand...
That's not at all what I'm saying. Im saying the original J-36 could have flew to Lop Nur, with the bicycle gears, carets and troughs, did some secret flight testing. Then flew back to chengdu, where it was later modified with new pre-prepared modifications, which could be quickly swapped in. Then started new low altitude trial tests in chengdu.

Is this timeline not possible, and why?

TWZ Satellite imagery first saw J-36 at lop nur in late august. We don't know how long it's been at that secret test air base. Could it have not soon thereafter flew back to Chengdu, for new modifications? Footage of the modifications were spotted back at Chengdu in late October. Give or take a 2 month window of we have no idea what was going on.
 
Last edited:
Nx4eu said:
That's not at all what I'm saying. Im saying the original J-36 could have flew to Lop Nur, with the bicycle gears, carets and troughs, did some secret flight testing. Then flew back to chengdu, where it was later modified with new pre-prepared modifications, which could be quickly swapped in. Then started new low altitude trial tests in chengdu.

Is this timeline not possible, and why?

TWZ Satellite imagery first saw J-36 at lop nur in late august. We don't know how long it's been at that secret test air base. Could it have not soon thereafter flew back to Chengdu, for new modifications? Footage of the modifications were spotted back at Chengdu in late October. Give or take a 2 month window of we have no idea what was going on.
Click to expand...

I think at this stage the easiest explanation is that this aircraft's serial is probably not 36011, but we should await better pictures instead.

While it's not impossible for it to be the first prototype but with key bits modified, it also somewhat goes against usual practice and also is different to what some people in the grapevine had suggested in prior months about expecting a second prototype.


In other words, I think the threshold for seriously entertaining the idea that it is a "modified first prototype" should be fairly high.
 
Deino said:
Another image of the "2nd" J-36 and as it seems for the first time its number is readable: :oops: ... but it too looks like 36011!!

So, let‘s summarise since I‘m confused:
- we have a chart image of the first prototype clearly with no. 36011
- we have several images of a 2nd aircraft and the amount of changes suggest it is a different aircraft
- now we have a „clearer“ image of the same one suggesting it is likely also no. 36011 (@huitong)

Why? Just to confuse us there are two nos. 36011? Or was the first 36011 heavily modified to be now the second 36011 (IMO unlikely)

Any other theories & explanations?

View attachment 792607View attachment 792608View attachment 792609
Click to expand...
i thought it is a 34011
 
Nx4eu said:
Why do you think it’s not plausible that the J-36 prototype from the onset was designed with modularity and hot swappability in mind?
Click to expand...

Including structural features like the landing gear, and including the air intake design?

If that is the case... well... I'll be humbled.
 
If I had to think about why id imagine that the tiperons have that deflection is to match so kind of LD coefficient equal to what could be for a conventionally configured aircraft flap system. Maybe the greater deflection hits that sweet spot to push the CLmax to a desired value.
 
Tomboy said:
Is it possible for control surfaces to lock during cruise and rely on TVC purely for trimming and occasional yaw management?
Click to expand...
I believe it's physically possible. It'd require some seriously fancy flight-control computer laws, however.

I mean, with multiple engines you can get the equivalent of aileron rolls via differential TVC, and trim and yaw by adjusting all the same direction.
 
In cruise one needs a lot less control authority than during takeoff or landing. It should be feasible for pitch and roll - I'm less certain about yaw.

That said, one only really needs two axis control for flight and yaw is the least important of the three axis (mainly used for dealing with cross-winds and things like adverse yaw from aileron deflection)... and is most crucial during take-off and landing - so one could theoretically just bank the aircraft into any crosswind (using pitch and roll control).

So it should be possible even with 2d thrust vectoring (assuming the nozzles can move independently (RCS and crew fatigue considerations aside).
 
Hydroman said:
I'm sure the tip surfaces may be mach number scheduled, with more authority at lower speeds. In regards to LO, I'm sure the surfaces could be locked-out at all flight speeds, potentially.
Click to expand...

Yes, if it didn't, I suspect that structural failure could easily occur (regarding full deflection at high speed). In the old days you could rely partly on pilots not having the muscle strength at high speed...
 
Deino said:
Based on the latest info, this particular image is again a fake, but from all we know there are at least three revised prototypes already and yesterday I heard a rumour, the altogether fifth J-36 flew on Weekend.
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of the third revision, what does it look like.
 
New look at the underside of the J-XDS/SAC 6th gen (although some detail has been lost due to AI enhancement!).

Via ACuriousPLAFan/SDF:

Looks like someone got a few pretty close shots of the J-XDS/50's bottom and rear. Posted by @数性体 on Weibo.

Though, I would like to caution of any possible AI-enhancements in these photos.
Click to expand...
007aAPuagy1idr138ena2j30zo0ebq3s.jpg 007aAPuagy1idr2oi12obj30zu0qedh0.jpg
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom