BO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2759 posts, RR: 20 Reply 3, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2591 times:
looks suspiciously similar to the Raptor. I would not be surprised if they copied some design elements from it, I wonder how??
Otherwise it looks pretty sick and a worthy contender for a next gen fighter.
Expanding my global domination one spotter at a time..
ThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1064 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2590 times:
Quoting BO__einG (Reply 3): looks suspiciously similar to the Raptor. I would not be surprised if they copied some design elements from it, I wonder how??
Otherwise it looks pretty sick and a worthy contender for a next gen fighter.
Not likely. It is more likely that the Chinese simply don't have a sufficiently powerful enough engine to make this a single engined aircraft.
moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2590 times:
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5): Not likely. It is more likely that the Chinese simply don't have a sufficiently powerful enough engine to make this a single engined aircraft.
While a distinct possibility, its more likely that they just didn't have the design requirements that limited the airframe to a single engine - remember that the F-35 started out a STOVL design and became three variants from that (the F-35B begat the A and C variants), with the single engine requirement stemming from the STOVL limitations. Without a STOVL requirement, it makes more sense to have two engines for carrier operations (which this airframe is likely to be orientated toward).
Oroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 788 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (6 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2588 times:
Quoting moo (Reply 6): the F-35 started out a STOVL design
It would probably be a real pain to connect 2 engines to a lift fan transmission. From what I read, Lockheed bought technical info from Russia from the YAK-141 for the lift nozzle. 2 engines would again complicate things. A single engine was pretty much mandatory for the F-35B, thus the remainder of the fleet for commonality. The F-35 also got its hunch back because the F-35B needed the engine to be farther forward to connect to the lift fan transmission to avoid a drive shaft. You remove the Bravo influences on the F-35 it would probably look a lot like the Chinese offering.
EagleBoy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1616 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2588 times:
Quoting moo (Reply 6): remember that the F-35 started out a STOVL design and became three variants from that (the F-35B begat the A and C variants),
Quoting Oroka (Reply 7): The F-35 also got its hunch back because the F-35B needed the engine to be farther forward to connect to the lift fan transmission to avoid a drive shaft. You remove the Bravo influences on the F-35 it would probably look a lot like the Chinese offering.
Ah the problems inherent in designing a 'multi role, multi variant' aircraft.
Point out one new fighter program that was not ridiculously expensive. I can. F/A-18EF, but that wasnt really a new fighter. Every current program has been in the works for better part of 20 years. Based on aircraft development trends, all three programs would be way over budget, behind schedule, and having teething issues. So instead of one troubled program, there will be 3.
Quoting silentbob (Reply 11): Not if the R&D is shared among the programs.
lol, the F-35 is the biggest sharing of R&D ever. 3 programs using as much common resources, hardware, and research as possible.
Sponsor Message: 
From China, joined Aug 2012, 305 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1550 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2759 posts, 
From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, 
From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1616 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 5286 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Aug 2006, 1639 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
