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

SUPER=BUG said:
There are also some rumors on my side that there were two different J35s on display at that time, although they were both numbered "75" at the back, and as for this statement, I can't tell it.
Click to expand...


That's not a rumour, but a proven fact! ... most likely they even showed three different aircraft!

J-35A prototypes 01 - 03 + engines.jpg

1742987866969.jpeg
 
Wow, you're right, I always thought the two fighters were different.Other than that, do you know the naval version of the J35, the flaps may be a little different.
 
It appears that currently there are only two codenames: FC31 and J35. J35 is a significant improvement based on the FC31, while the foreign trade version corresponds to the FC31, or rather, it is designed according to the specific requirements of clients starting from the FC31 model.
 
Nice find SUPER=BUG, does that mean that all future PLAAF/PLAN fighters will have the two dimensional thrust vectoring nozzles fitter as standard or being retrofitted with them?
 
FighterJock said:
Nice find SUPER=BUG, does that mean that all future PLAAF/PLAN fighters will have the two dimensional thrust vectoring nozzles fitter as standard or being retrofitted with them?
Click to expand...
Oh, friend. This type of nozzle will make a slight difference in performance, the binary vector engine has almost 10% thrust loss, but the airflow close to the rectangular nozzle is easier to dissipate heat and will be better in terms of stealth. If China's engines are strong enough in the future, I think it's possible.
 

Attachments

  • 1743870796845.png
    1743870796845.png
    228 KB · Views: 34
Thanks SUPER=BUG, and also thanks for posting the diagram that explains the difference between the two vectoring nozzles that has been annoying me for quite some time.
 
FighterJock said:
Thanks SUPER=BUG, and also thanks for posting the diagram that explains the difference between the two vectoring nozzles that has been annoying me for quite some time.
Click to expand...
You're welcome, it's my pleasure to answer some of my friends' questions :)
 
SUPER=BUG said:
Oh, friend. This type of nozzle will make a slight difference in performance, the binary vector engine has almost 10% thrust loss, but the airflow close to the rectangular nozzle is easier to dissipate heat and will be better in terms of stealth. If China's engines are strong enough in the future, I think it's possible.
Click to expand...
10% loss is what the Russians have claimed with their crude initial attempts at a flat vectoring nozzle design. Those losses are not inherent to the configuration, but are a design challenge to overcome. The F-22/F119 nozzle losses are significantly less than the Russian experience.
 
F119Doctor said:
10% loss is what the Russians have claimed with their crude initial attempts at a flat vectoring nozzle design. Those losses are not inherent to the configuration, but are a design challenge to overcome. The F-22/F119 nozzle losses are significantly less than the Russian experience.
Click to expand...
I remember reading (here?) that the flat nozzle can help with drag by optimizing the airflow separation, and reducing the wake turbulence, does this sound plausible to you?
 
Absolutely! The reason that the external flaps (I.e. turkey feathers) were removed from the USAF F-15s is the the turbulent flow around two closely spaced round nozzles (and the 4 tail surfaces) was any extremely challenging environment, and it cost a lot of maintenance and spare parts to keep replacing them. The square nozzles integrate much more smoothly in that closely spaced environment, reducing drag and improving signature.

FYI - the composite black turkey feathers on the F100-229 were designed to live in the F-15 aft end environment. The USAF decided to leave them off for cost and commonality with the earlier -100/-220 powered F-15.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom