J-31 aims at F-35 market

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1367
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post08 Jan 2019, 10:34

Agree.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3450
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post09 Jan 2019, 15:13

tphuang wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
popcorn wrote:China reportedly making modest progress in jet engine field.

https://m-scmp-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v ... 20%251%24s


That doesn't exactly insipre confidence in their engine technology. So they are at the same level Soviets were almost 40 years ago and USA was almost 50 years ago? It will take some time before WS-15 will become operational. J-31 still uses RD-93s and WS-13 is not much better. Decent engines, but nowhere near F-135 or F-119 class. Even EJ200, M88 and F414 are clearly more advanced engines.

If China can have a reliable production of engine with comparable performance to F-414 right now, it would be jumping in joy.


Forgive me on this but isn't the F-414 an uprated F-404? With 18,000lbs of thrust? Or is the 414 what powers the SH, and has 22,000lbs of thrust? Always marveled at how small a motor that was, and how much power they got out of it!
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4484
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post09 Jan 2019, 15:59

mixelflick wrote:
Forgive me on this but isn't the F-414 an uprated F-404? With 18,000lbs of thrust? Or is the 414 what powers the SH, and has 22,000lbs of thrust? Always marveled at how small a motor that was, and how much power they got out of it!

The F404-GE-400 powered the old Hornets with ~16,000lb rated thrust. The F404-GE-402 was the uprated Hornet motor with ~18,000lb rated thrust. The F414-GE-400 is the Super Hornet motor "rated" at 22,000lb thrust, but the manual indicates 20,500lb un installed at sea level.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5416
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post09 Jan 2019, 16:06

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
Forgive me on this but isn't the F-414 an uprated F-404? With 18,000lbs of thrust? Or is the 414 what powers the SH, and has 22,000lbs of thrust? Always marveled at how small a motor that was, and how much power they got out of it!

The F404-GE-400 powered the old Hornets with ~16,000lb rated thrust. The F404-GE-402 was the uprated Hornet motor with ~18,000lb rated thrust. The F414-GE-400 is the Super Hornet motor "rated" at 22,000lb thrust, but the manual indicates 20,500lb un installed at sea level.


Also the same engine GE has proposed bumping to 26,500lbs since the early 00s. It boggles the mind the thought of a Super Hornet being pushed around with as much power as TWO F-105s. :shock:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4484
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post09 Jan 2019, 16:38

That would be a massive boost to the excess thrust available in much of the envelope. You would see a drastic increase in acceleration rates and loaded envelope expansion (which is currently rather dismal).
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1222
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post09 Jan 2019, 17:50

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:That would be a massive boost to the excess thrust available in much of the envelope. You would see a drastic increase in acceleration rates and loaded envelope expansion (which is currently rather dismal).


Design engineers and customers are always trying to balance capability and performance trade-offs. In the case of US applications, this is a luxury since the engine performance is beginning to exceed most requirements. Chinese are still struggling to reach capabilities.

For aircraft like the SH, eye watering acceleration is achievable, but the aerodynamic design limits will not increase top speed etc. capabilities now available. There is a trade-off in bumping acceleration in this environment, specifically fuel consumption (ie. range etc.)

The old Plymouth Baracuda with the hemi engine and hi ratio rear end could turn the quarter mile in an instant, and then topped out at about 90ish mph. The sister designed Dodge Challenger with lower ratio rear end could reach higher top ends with a smaller 340 block engine, but wouldn't do much on the drag track. The difference is the Baracuda sucked gas like high power vacuum. If you didn't need the acceleration. It was a high price to pay for "power."

Jet fighters are like this as well. What are the requirements? Acceleration? Range? Operating costs? In US designs like the SH (and F-35) we have the luxury of asking such questions. The Chinese ... not so much.

MHO,
BP
Previous

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests