J-20 Engine Theory

>>31751395
Makes sense.

File: S-duct.jpg (249KB, 827x650px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 827x650px

>>31751395
S-duct

File: S-duct F-22 model.jpg (220KB, 900x602px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 900x602px

>>31752631
Model of the F-22 for comparisson.

File: S-duct F-22 model 1.jpg (258KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 900x675px

>>31752648

>>31751395
>J-20-engine-mystery solved !?

>Following the latest information, the J-20 uses a special-tailored version of the Salut AL-31 based on the AL-31FM2
In early October a largely unnoticed post from a so called “Big Shrimp” (aka most reliable posters at Chinese forums) reported that “the WS-15 has just finished ground testing, and it is ready to pass the test on the IL-76LL platform. While the current J-20A uses the AL-31FM2, a special customized version of the AL-31, based on a secret joint development between China and Salut”.
Therefore and like I said since so long: similar to the once and long still secret original AL-31FN-contract for the J-10, CAC chose a similar approach for the J-20. And since these are not exact AL-31FN Series 3, they were never mentioned or included in the number of engines reserved for the J-10B and J-10C. For the thrust – if it follows the data mentioned for regular FM2 – about 142kN should be assumed … or roughly the same as the 117S used in the Su-35.

>Following the regular AL-31F/FN-developments, both the 117 and later 117S from Saturn and the AL-31FM1/-2/-3 from Salut were competing for upgraded/modified/developed versions of the original engine for the Su-35 and T50's engine and export upgrades as well … and for their domestic demand Saturn won.

>Even if unconfirmed it now makes perfect sense:

>Since Salut was always CAC's preferred supplier of engines for the J-10A (AL-31FN) and later J-10B/C (AL-31FN Series 3) it was more than a logical decision that this loosing engine became the export-related product and since CAC was already an established customer, a new special tailored version - as just reported - based on the M2 became the J-20's powerplant.

>>31752648
>>31752660

Using a plastic toy as a substitute for an American top secret plane

U so funny Chines

>>31752676
>My point is; how long did it take that the AL-31FN for the J-10 was officially acknowledged ? The first development contract between Salut and CAC concerning the AL-31FN was signed on 31. March 1992, the J-10 had its maiden flight on 23 March 1998 ... so nearly 6 years earlier and J-10A was long in operational service and for everyone with a slightest bit of common sense and understanding was clear that this engine is an AL-31-derivate. However both sides decided to keep the true nature of that engine secret as long as possible.

>And now we are in the nearly same situation: For everyone with a slightest bit of common sense and understanding it is clear that the J-20 uses an AL-31-derivate, but all recent contracts known and officially acknowledged are only related to the J-10B (even the numbers fit quite nicely). IMO history repeated itself and CAC again managed to arrange again a still secret contract for a still secret customised version based on the loosing contender and developed again by its major supplier Salut.
>I know I might be far off with my theory and I know that much is still in the dark but I'm sure that the Sino-Russian military cooperation stands on much more solid ground than most expect, more than most are willing to accept or even more are able to officially confirm.

File: 1472697543265.png (1MB, 1440x1787px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1440x1787px

>>31751395

Real-talk now:

Is the J-20 as good as the F-22? Or better?

File: c4a9a039gw1f8w30a5bx3j22391e3kjl.jpg (334KB, 2709x1803px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 2709x1803px

>>31752694
Better.

GaN AESA, EOTS, EODAS, wing-mounted secondary radars etc.

File: 30408908835_d9a2d2d955_k.jpg (626KB, 2048x1363px) Image search: [Google]

626KB, 2048x1363px

>>31752676
>>31752686
>thrust comparable with the 117S of the Su-35

Considering the J-20 has less drag due to internal bays and is at least one meter shorter (and thus lighter), this would confirm super-cruise capability, even with these russian interim engines.

Nice.

File: Frog Crying Of Laughter 1.jpg (20KB, 257x244px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 257x244px

>>31752712

>>31752758
The F-22 is avionics and weaponry wise obsolete. This is not a secret.

>>31752844
pppphhhhttphaahahahahhahahahahahha

>>31752860
>no AIM-9X
>no sidescanning AESA or IRST even
>no multirole capability (can drop bombs but cant designate target itself)

F-22 is garbage.

File: Frog Crying Of Laughter 4.jpg (44KB, 393x383px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 393x383px

>>31752844

File: 1458435767317.gif (428KB, 500x322px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 500x322px

>>31752727
>Considering the J-20 has less drag due to internal bays and is at least one meter shorter (and thus lighter)
Are you fucking kidding me right now? Even 10 seconds on Google would show you how retarded this reasoning is when considering highly complex aerodynamic engineering.

>>31752880
10 seconds of google gives me:

J-20:
>Thrust/weight: 1.06 (prototype with interim engines)
(interim engines being the earlier estimated standard AL-31F with 122kn)

Su-35:
>Thrust/weight: 1.13 at 50% fuel (0.92 with full internal fuel)
engines are the 117S with 142kn

now, the J-20 is also powered by 142kn engines, which will raise the T/W ratio quite a bit.

File: zAp2LzJ.jpg.png (636KB, 2500x2641px) Image search: [Google]

636KB, 2500x2641px

>>31752631
>>31752648
>>31752660

>>31752866
There it is, you tried so hard to make a good bait post you went fill retard.

Anon, when you cast your bait into the internet sea you need to be more careful, call the F22 the F35 and act like its the same platform, or just claim the F22 was canceled. Be more autistic about your posts, try just a little bit more.

>>31752712
>Better.

Wow, Chinese immigrants are really delusional.

>>31752676
>>31752686

Interesting.

>>31752631
Do S ducts reduce thrust?

>>31753337

No.

>>31752684
Man, don't pretend our superiority is going to last forever. I'm willing to bet Roman publicans dismissed the Goths as naked savages right up until they came over the seven hills.

>>31752866
1 out of 3, better than expected

>>31755153
Is that why the J-20 is being compared to a fighter from the 90's?

>>31752712
>EOTS, EODAS

Actually, based on the no HMD and chinese product cards at conventions, the frontal EO system is most likely a IRST (EO used IR pictures) and the "DAS" is most likely a IR MAW's like the F-22.

>>31752892
>now, the J-20 is also powered by 142kn engines, which will raise the T/W ratio quite a bit.

Actually, its just theory still.

>>31751395
M2 is still in tests for russian service.

Makes zero sense the Chinese would get it first. Somebody from salut would be taken out back and shot.

>>31755153
What's this "we" shit, Hop Sing? You're as American as haggis.

>>31755774
M2 lost to the 117S.

CAC purchased the losing contender. CAC and Salyut have a long and good working relationship.

>>31756105
For the Su-35 production, not the 27, 30 and 34.

>>31752631

For once, a relevant s-duct post that isn't just shit posting the same garbage in every aircraft thread. I'm surprised, /k/.

>>31756268
>>31756268

It actually look like you will see the fanblades at certain angles, ala the F-23.

Much better than the PAK-FA, at any rate.

>>31756331

I'm not disagreeing , I've just seen too many threads get derailed and consumed by the discussion of s-ducts when it's the same shit every time.

>>31752892
The anon was clearly pointing out that raw power or thrust to weight alone are not what defines things like supercruise, conserve cruise speed, or the other things you so blithely suggest.

Aerodynamic shaping and inlet shape, just for two major ones, can limit or aid in huge ways. Saying, "oh, it's got as much thrust to weight as an Su-35, it'll perform exactly the same" is every bit as retarded as expecting two cars of the same weight and engines to perform exactly the same at high speed in spite of different aerodynamic shapes and gearboxes.

>>31751395
>>31752631
>>31752648
>>31752660
>all of these lewd images

Blue board, guys.

>>31752860
>>31752844

It's avionics are obsolete thou, but only when compared to the F-35's.

And it will likely remain that way, since the F-22's system architecture makes upgrades more difficult than on the F-35.

File: f22_cockpit_image.jpg (69KB, 700x680px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 700x680px

>>31752860
>>31752867

Tbqh they are obsolete

>>31757615
Yes, the cockpit screens are outdated.

>>31752844
>I'll fade away and classify myself as obsolete!
>OBSOLETE!