So about the F-4 phantom, normally the engine ran really smoky, but it was fine on afterburners.
Why? because metallurgy at that point couldn't make compressor blades handle that high temperature, but it could do so for the lining past the turbine blades. Once burners kick in it creates very high temperature combustion that burns off all the smoky residue left over,
The backblast clearly shows a superior fuel used by China, only China can efficiently and effectively use the engines that are developed by Chinese researchers through blood, sweat and tears. The engines clearly has no analogue anywhere in the world. The fact that it is being compared to F-22 should make America proud.
>>28879050 >You are blind if you cannot see the angle of the leading edge matches the F-22's, not the F-35's. that's just a straight up lie. F-22 has a leading angle of 47.5 degrees, the F-35 has 55 degrees and the J-31 has between 51 and 53 degrees depending on your source since it's guess work based on photos because china hasn't officially said what it's angle is. Not only does it not match the F-22, it is nearer to the F-35
>>28879518 Considering the facts that despite it is two engined and x-box hueg the J-20 has a worse thrust to weight ration than an F-4E, F-101B, Su-15T, or a fucking Harrier, I'm truly terrified. Perhaps I'll even piss my pants, but not until the Chinese figure out how to match Soviet/Russian aviation engine tech, much less get within a generation of US engine technology.
>>28879572 Oh, I'm sorry. I was under the understanding that the fucking Chinese publicly debuted it at an AIRSHOW and gave several data sheets on it back in 2014.
As for sources, google the engines and weight of the aircraft. None of it is secret. It's currently powered by WS-10Gs or AL-31Fs (which as a Soviet design has extensive official stats online). Empty and loaded weights are 42,750lbs and 80,001lbs (untested upper limit in Chinese literature).
>>28879795 Sure. Like things you sell for a 20% discount out the door compared to competitors, and then it turns out they have to replace 3 times as often. Things like that are totally not meant to be repaired.
Hard to copycat when the best engines they can get are either Russian engines designed for high speed interceptors that have shitty IR shielding and concealment or whatever the US sold Israel last year since the kikes are happy to sell their shit to China and Russia for enough money.
Give it a year after Israel gets the F-35 and China will magically jump from not being able to make an engine for their 5th gens to having a fleet of them with working stealth and what nots.
Happens every fucking time. This is why the USSR kept up with the Jones on certain things and vice versa.
>>28879795 In Dec 2009, 43 RD-93 engines cost the Chinese 160million. 3.7m per engine, two per plane for MiG-29 at 7.4, three lifetime two engine replacements at a total engine cost of 22.2million, not even including extra labor and parts cost incurred in 9 times the number of total required overhauls.
Conversely, the very most expensive, small batch and recent F-110 variant in the F-16E Block 60/61 in the UAE buy was sold at 5 million apiece (400m, 80 engines). That's 5 million total for the life of the aircraft.
22.2 million against 5 million? It's not even a choice.
Soviet/Russian engines might be simpler than American designs, but they sure as fuck aren't cheaper.
>>28879831 It was the very first production Italian aircraft fresh off the line, you idiot. Of course there were strict limits on external stores (there were none) and minimum allowable fuel levels over the Atlantic.
They hadn't even operations tested the fucking aircraft to confirm there weren't any production problems. It got some basic flight testing and they sent it on to the states to get worked up.
>Russian engines designed specifically to be disposable >American engines designed for reliability and repair >MUH RUSSIAN ENGINES SUCK
No anon. You are a retard. The reason the lifespan is different is that the Russians preferred the logic that you can just tear out the old engine and slap a new one in. This allowed less build quality, cheaper materials and less maintenance per flight hour. Also allowed them to make much cheaper jets overall, hence why the 4th++ gen Russian fighters are literally 1/2th the price of the European and US models.
Both ways of doing it have their own advantages and disadvantages and both styles are prolific across the world.
US requires more basic maintenance. Russian requires more replacement but less man hours per jet in general.
US engines are undoubtedly superior at this point in all theatres but thats more of a collapse of the USSR thing than a US STRONK thing. Russia just didn't have the resources to sink in an engine like the US did.
>>28879849 >hence why the 4th++ gen Russian fighters are literally 1/2th the price of the European and US models. Does that include the extra 5 engines you're going to have to buy? Because according to my math >>28879832 that adds another 17.2 million to the buy cost just in engines, not including the extra 16 overhauls.
>>28879849 >>28879861 To expand, the mean time before overhaul is 1000 hours for the AL-31F in the Su-30MKI. 3000 hours total engine life. That means 6-8 total engines over airframe life.
The F-15E engines, the F-100-PW-229s, by contrast, have a mean time between overhaul of 6,000 cycles (a cycle is about 1-1.5 flight hours, so 6000-9000 hours) which averages out to about 10 years of service life.
As for cost? The AL-31F is still 2/3 the price of a F-100-PW-229, in spite of the fact that 2-4 more are required over the life of the aircraft and it requires overhaul 2 to 3 times as much.
>>28879898 >As for cost? The AL-31F is still 2/3 the price of a F-100-PW-229, in spite of the fact that 2-4 more are required over the life of the aircraft and it requires overhaul 2 to 3 times as much. I'm sorry. Screwed that up and confused MTBO and service life on the AL-31F. It should read:
As for cost? The AL-31F is still 2/3 the price of a F-100-PW-229, in spite of the fact that 2-4 more are required over the life of the aircraft and it requires overhaul 6 to 9 times as much.
Also, the cycles to hours conversion is different for different aircraft. F-15Es, for instance, require more throttle up and throttle down cycles than an F-16C, due to the F-15E having far more thrust on tap and the more frequent need to throttle back in maneuvers. For the F-16, figure closer to the top end of the range, the F-15E somewhere closer to the bottom end of the range.
>>28879909 You got it wrong. The engines which were upgraded from 3000 service hours to 4000 service hours in wide service were the AL-31F 117S engines in the Su-35, on tech developed for the AL-41 engine. It still requires overhaul every 1,000 hours.
The only MiG-29 engines to be uprated for 4,000 service hours are the RD-33MK engines in the domestic only version of the MiG-29M, of which only 32 examples exist. It still also requires overhaul every 1,000 hours, and it's entire service life is less than the time between overhaul for any US competitor. As it represents the latest tech, perhaps we should be comparing it to the F135 in the F-35, which has a targeted service life in the 7,000-10,000 hour range?
>>28879887 >with some being flown after 7000 hours with overhauls Just as there are some F100-PW-229s out there in F-16s with over 30,000 total hours before retirement. What's your point? Anon was using manufacturer ratings, not statistical outliers.
my point is that those engines do not have unusually low service life for their cost, resulting in soviet designs having a "three times the running cost of western designs", as it was suggested here. This is plain bullshit.
>>28880030 It's simple math anon. Read >>28879832 and >>28879898 and tell me why I am wrong to point out that the RD-33 would have cost 17.2 million more over the service life of the aircraft in Polish service compared to the F110-GE option.
>>28880152 If the deck doesn't cool down completely between each takeoff, there's a net heat gain in that spot of the deck. Over time (22+ hours at maximum flight ops tempo), this net heat gain could become hot enough to actually begin to damage/pit melt the deck in that specific spot. It's already got a fix in coatings which promote better heat conductivity, spreading point heat differentials out more (and dissipating them faster as a consequence of more surface area).
But, what am I doing. I can't expect you to actually expend 30 seconds to think about the physics of such a thing. You're just going to shitpost like a moron anyway.
>>28880172 That's not the issue; the F-35's exhaust outright isn't hot enough to melt steel (unless you inserted that steel right into the turbine) - the issue is primarily thermal expansion and (subsequent) contraction, which causes thermal stress, cracks, etc.
>>28880184 >melt steel The decks are not coated in steel, anon. The exhaust is hot enough to damage the coating. Same with the jet blast deflectors on carriers (why the F-35 along among fighter jets actually has multiple afterburner detent settings).
>>28880194 The coating isn't the issue; well okay, there is a bit of a problem with the coating wearing away prematurely is a nuisance, but it gets scraped off and reapplied pretty much every time the ship goes in for maintenance. The main concern (due to it's potential cost impact) is about the steel deck plating and underlying structure.
>>28880211 After a little more research, I see you are correct. I took the concrete spalling references which was the only damage mentioned in some sources to be referring to the deck coatings as well as the actual landing strips.
It also appears the fix is in not only the coatings (and mats for the Osprey), but in a slightly modified nozzle for the F-35, increasing the point heating focal diameter.
>>28880242 Correct; the USMC may also be taking a leaf from the RAF / RN's book and start using SRVL (basically a super short landing instead of entirely vertical) to spread out the heat as well (and increase bring-back payload).
>>28880252 Because steel decks are heavy; the Wasp Class LHD has a 5" thick steel deck, but newer carriers have something like a 3" thick deck for weight minimization. It's easier and cheaper in the long run to just run water piping under VL areas of the deck to prevent the deck structure from heating up as much, like what they do in jet-blast deflectors on supercarriers.
>>28880252 There's not too much insulation material out there that is: >able to withstand 1,700F temps >take the kinetic pounding of flight deck operations (ceramics are pretty much all right out) >cost effective in both material and instillation cost to refit 20+ ships
Remember that you need something strong enough to do combat landings with 60,000lbs+ aircraft on it for 30+ years. It's not a trivial material science or engineering problem.
>>28880317 It's one of those problems that can jump out of nowhere and right up your asshole in evolutionary tech advancement. We've been flying jets, conventional and STOVL off carriers for 50 years, and jet engines are very mature technologies overall. I mean, the F-14, F-15 and F-22 all produce more total thrust so it's not a problem that would immediately leap out as something that needed to be thoroughly analyzed.
Of course, it's the fact that it's a single engine so the heat point is far more focused and also the fact that the exhaust is hotter, as it gets almost 50% more thrust than both the engines in a legacy F-18 out of one single engine.
Sometimes when you're dealing with incremental efficiency/power upratings in proven, mature technology systems unexpected things can jump out and bite you in the ass, even more so that new design things.
If we were building our first carriers brand new as a brand new capability alongside the F-35, it's definitely something that would have been fully analyzed.
>>28880353 The main issue is just that the thrust is directed into the deck; the F-14 and (IIRC) Super Hornet required carriers to upgrade their jet blast deflectors, and the V-22 has been causing similar heat issues from the exhaust of it's turbines, but the F-35B is produces Super Hornet afterburner levels of thrust, directed into the deck and only mitigated by half of it being cold thrust.
It was analysed prior to it going to the Wasp, but it's something that needs to be carefully analysed due to how it differs ship-to-ship (Wasp class to America class to Queen Elizabeth class to Cavour class, etc).
>>28879825 China and Russia both have gotten samples of downed fighter engines from modern builds >>28879840 what this nigga said. Just because you have the shape of the engine, the knowledge of what its made of, and the understanding of how it works, does not mean you can duplicate the space magic that it took to build it. China tried, Russia tried, and they are still flying saturns and mig shit.
They kept it fully fueled the entire trip. Seriously, first transatlantic crossing and you think they're going to be testing the max range? You think they'd take that kind of stupid risk? Why not have tankers everywhere and just have it refuel and top up multiple times?
>confusing what WAS done for safety with what was REQUIRED >F-35 critics constantly confusing heavy restrictions of initial production aircraft in an LRIP program with the actual capabilities of the plane >muh can't fly at night >muh can't fly in rain >etc
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.