Shenyang FC-31 demonstrators / J-35 naval fighter / J-31 land-based version

snne said:
It's pretty subjective but this is my favorite looking 5th gen among all the in service jets and demonstrators that have been designed so far (besides the YF-23/F-23). It's like the F-35 but not so "fat", instead it's more "elegant".
Click to expand...
Dunno, looks like tadpole to me because of that.
Big big head.
 
zjz said:
I wonder if there is a S/TOVL version in parallel development .....
Click to expand...


Forget it ... never ever! How do you want to fit not only one but even more so two lift fans with/for two engines in that one? ;)
 
A STOVL fighter based on the J-35 would be unworkable, weight gain due to the two lift fans would only be the start of the problems for such a fighter.
 
zjz said:
I wonder if there is a S/TOVL version in parallel development .....
Click to expand...

Unlikely, any SVTOL version will means fundamental change in design.. like you cannot use current J-31/35 layout for SVTOL, those lift fans will cut through weapon bays. Wings have to accommodate pipes for the small diver thrusters like F-35B's.
 
snne said:
I feel like @paralay is secretly cooking something...


It's pretty subjective but this is my favorite looking 5th gen among all the in service jets and demonstrators that have been designed so far (besides the YF-23/F-23). It's like the F-35 but not so "fat", instead it's more "elegant".

It is also pretty interesting that, although there are some design (like the DSI or canted wing/stab edges for ex.) and size differences, Kaan and J-35 will end up looking pretty much alike from a distance due to a mixture of "F-35 and F-22-ish" design choices.

Also, although the IWB is not exactly the same as that of J-20 (as it's been speculated to be), it's pretty much close at least in terms of surface area so this enables commonality of carriable payload. Which is big for a bird of this size (KF-21/F-35/AMCA class).
Click to expand...

Yep it looks like a sleeker, slimmer F-35 not encumbered by the lift-fan - or the hole in place of it.
 
siegecrossbow said:
These photos are several years old. Apparently some geniuses are trying to force PLAN to display the planes at Zhuhai by demonstrating that they already have high def photos of multiple prototypes so there is no need for secrecy. Weird logic. Hopefully they don’t get invited for tea.
Click to expand...
That sounds closer to suggestive at best rather than forceing anything, beacuse really, there's aren't any consequences these guy could enforce on don't they? Either way, weird logic for sure.
 
Deino said:
Forget it ... never ever! How do you want to fit not only one but even more so two lift fans with/for two engines in that one? ;)
Click to expand...
FighterJock said:
A STOVL fighter based on the J-35 would be unworkable, weight gain due to the two lift fans would only be the start of the problems for such a fighter.
Click to expand...
Theoretically they could make it work if they somehow solve the gas-driven lift fan issues MDD/NG/BAE faced during JAST. If they could, they could configure it as single lift plus double lift and cruise with a single big GDLF fed from both engines.

Obviously, a more logical choice if they do want a STOVL fighter would be to develop a bespoke design, but at least there are candidate solutions that could make a double engined STOVL fighter possible.
 
There is a vicious rumor that real J-35 have performed touch and go on either the Liaoning or Shandong but details are scarce.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
Theoretically they could make it work if they somehow solve the gas-driven lift fan issues MDD/NG/BAE faced during JAST. If they could, they could configure it as single lift plus double lift and cruise with a single big GDLF fed from both engines.

Obviously, a more logical choice if they do want a STOVL fighter would be to develop a bespoke design, but at least there are candidate solutions that could make a double engined STOVL fighter possible.
Click to expand...
Twin engine failure modes make that very much a non-starter.
 
didn't know there's a carrier version of the L-15. I thought they were going with that J-7 based trainer. FTC-2000 was it?
 
helmutkohl said:
didn't know there's a carrier version of the L-15. I thought they were going with that J-7 based trainer. FTC-2000 was it?
Click to expand...

Actually I'm not sure if the JL-9G and the slightly improved GA was ever planned to operate off a true carrier. IMO they were at least in the end only used for take off and non-arrested landings.

1728654098015.png

PS: the only one fitted with a hook was the prototype no. 423

1728654195823.png

Therefore as it seems - and since the JL-9 is totally dated anyway - the PLAN decided to use the JL-10 for its next / or in fact first true carrierborne trainer named JL-10J:

1728654289130.png
 
siegecrossbow said:
JL-9 has MIG-21 roots so low speed handling characteristics will never be as good as something like an L-15. This probably makes it less attractive for genuine carrier operations.
Click to expand...

I wonder why it was developed to begin with ? As a backup plan in case the naval development of the L-15 ran into serious difficulties ?
 
No significant difference here, both require immediate (automatic) ejection.
Also, while they weren't terribly successful, yak-38/38m/141 were 3-engined designs. It works.
 
Last edited:
You have to hand it to the Soviet's at that time they did push the boundaries for STOVL technology enpecially with the YAK-141 supersonic STOVL fighter. Could China pull off the same thing? It remains to be seen, though the way that China are currently going I would not think that it would be beyond them.
 
Scott Kenny said:
But without an instant snap-roll to the dead engine, giving time to eject.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant factor. If you're that close to ground single engine is just as dangerous. Also, engines aren't mounted on wingtips but close to boresight centre axis.
 
Scott Kenny said:
But without an instant snap-roll to the dead engine, giving time to eject.
Click to expand...
Well, if fan fails f-35 will snap-roll forward instead.
Digital hover control+ automatic ejection at this stage control the issue, f-35 proven it quite well.

But it isn't related to fc-31 in any way.
We saw some patents for Chinese VTOL, it is in a completely different direction.
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
Well, if fan fails f-35 will snap-roll forward instead.
Digital hover control+ automatic ejection at this stage control the issue, f-35 proven it quite well.
Click to expand...
Yes, we've seen a couple of videos where that happened on F-35s.


Maro.Kyo said:
Irrelevant factor. If you're that close to ground single engine is just as dangerous.
Click to expand...
No, because the loss of one engine equals the loss of the aircraft in this case, twin engine VTOL is twice as likely to cause loss of aircraft. It's not P(losing both engines), which is P(lose engine)^2, it's 2*P(lose engine).
 
Scott Kenny said:
No, because the loss of one engine equals the loss of the aircraft in this case, twin engine VTOL is twice as likely to cause loss of aircraft. It's not P(losing both engines), which is P(lose engine)^2, it's 2*P(lose engine).
Click to expand...
The probability of engine failure can vary with design choices rather than being constant.. There's also whether the failure modes are common or independent e.g. separate SDLF within F-35 opens up new failure modes (e.g. FOD ingestion to fan) which impacts failure probabilities despite it being single engine.

Basically, you can take multiple approaches to get the same probabalistic safety target
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom