Nied

That's my point really. It's just progress, You copy things back and forth until you are confident enough to build your own designs. Sure, it's underperforming, but it's slowly gaining the experience needed to do things -- recall that both the US and Soviets had very good motivations to bring things up, both a shooting war and the growing Cold War. The PRC doesn't really have that impetus.

Iran is quite innovative in this area, but also recall that they had a shooting war with Iraq "recently", and their always strained relationship with the Western World -- even Russia -- give them good motivations to be innovative. PRC's a bit backwards perhaps because the rest of the world has always been a bit wary about confronting them,

Nonetheless, they are still one of a handful of nations/ coalition that are actually capable of creating their own aircrafts. No matter how much we might scoff at imitations, the capability isn't something to sneeze at.

If the Chinese aerospace industry were as young as say Iran's I'd agree with you. But they've been building airplanes since the '50s and they still haven't progressed beyond reverse engineering someone else's designs. They have gotten better at pretending they come up with original aircraft (they at least copy concept aircraft now), but they've never progressed to actual originality. To use your example, by the next generation of aircraft both the USA and USSR were producing wholly original designs, while the Chinese have gone through several generations of reverse engineered aircraft.

How about the JF-17/FC-1/whatchacallit? I still don't know which design they cobbled together that one from.

Based off of a design Mig came up with for a lightweight export aircraft called the Mig-33. It was gong to be the Soviet Union's version of the F-5 but the fall of communism killed it. Eventually the design got sold to Chengdu and viola FC-1. The Chinese slapped some bigger LERXs and some diverterless intakes on it and called it their own.

Uhm, really, what's the issue with the Chinese copying a design? The greater concern (IMO) is that their industries are now capable of creating aircraft from scratch (even if it's a copy). That's a certain meaningful threshold in capabilities.

Looking back, both the US and Russia really got their starts in the Jet Age with the Sabre and the MiG 15 -- which were copies/ extensions of technologies off German prototypes, if memory serves.

Because both the US and the Soviets (later Russians) outgrew making carbon copies of advanced German designs and went on to build completely original aircraft. The Chinese on the other hand have one maybe two designs that aren't copies or kitbashes of someone else's aircraft. Their airforce is almost nothing but copies, the J-7 is a Mig-21 with minor tweaks, the J-8-II is a enlarged Mig-21 with the nose of a Mig-23 scabbed on, and the Q-5 is a modified Mig-19. Those planes are in the process of being replaced by the J-11 (licensed built Su-27), the J-10 (carbon copy Lavi as has been discussed here), and the JH-7 (about the only original design to come out of China). Compare that to say India which was able to develop a completely original design for a indigenous fighter (Tejas LCA), hell even Iran is is making stuff more original than them. For it's age, the Chinese aerospace industry has shockingly underperformed.

If building a working military aircraft were similar to building a model kit, then I'd agree that this is a "copy."

But the intricacies of avionics, internal structure, weight and weight distribution, engine, exact aerodynamic properties, etc. sorta shows the lie of such claims. Sure, they used the LAVI as a departure point, but to say it is a copy, or a knock-off is to belie one's understanding of the complexity of aircraft design.

The avionics fit of the J-10 is based on that of the Lavi as well, and if you look closely it even has panel lines in the same place as the Lavi (take a look at this photo of the lavi and compare it to the panels on the J-10 below). Hell I didn't realize it until I made the image but the odd hump on the J-10's back exactly mimics the contours of the Lavi's canopy fairing (since the J-10 is much larger it's canopy is smaller in relation to it's fuselage and thus fairs into the rest of the body further ahead of the "hump"). The Chinese have taken fighters and made "giant" copies before: the J-8 is just an enlarged Mig-21/J-7 with twin engines.

Yes, but the F-2 does share some structural parts with the F-16, unlike the Lavi and J-10.

The F-2 is an extensive redesign of the F-16, while the J-10 is a new design that's based on the Lavi.

I'd almost go as far as to say that the F-2 is an F-16J 'Kai'...

As for the J-10 Lavi debate.

Hongdu got assistance from Yakovlev with their JL-15 trainer, which 'magically' turned into an aerodynamic design resembling the Yak-130.

They're still different aircraft, but they share an aerodynamic basis.

The Mig-29 and Su-27 were also based on the same aerodynamic research and thus their planforms ended up being similar.

I think you're mistaking the word "copy" for "exact copy." I never claimed that parts between the Lavi and the J-10 are interchangeable, just that the Chinese took the Lavi design and copied it with some modifications to fit their industrial base. The resulting aircraft isn't identical, but it's very clearly copied from it, as Knight26 said it's a bootleg Lavi. By your logic the J-7 isn't a copy of a Mig-21 because very few of their parts are interchangeable, even though it's a known fact that the Chinese reverse engineered the Mig-21 to build it.

The structure of both aircraft is notably dissimilar.

The J-10 is more likely to be inspired by the Lavi than anything else.

Isreali assistance was no doubt a great benifit to the project, but the J-10 is far from a scaled up Lavi.

The early J-8 is basically a scaled up twin engined J-7, but the J-10 is a whole different beast from the Lavi.

Just having different materials to work with, less refined manufacturing techniques, a different engine and a different performance requirement, meant that making the J-10 into a scaled up version of the Lavi wasn't going to yield any desirable results.

Instead, they put the aerodynamic knowledge of the Lavi to use to make a suitable aircraft for their own requirements and constraints.

The similarities between the J-10 and Lavi programmes are more like between the F-16 and AIDC Ching-Kuo.

To quote the movie Zoolander: I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here! Aside from some changes to the wing (explained by the immature Chinese composite industry) and the squared off intake it's just an enlarged Lavi. The canards, the twin ventral fins, the tailfin, hell even the landing gear deploys the same. Chengdu even went so far as to copy the speedbrakes on the Lavi. The main changes the Chinese made were to use all metal construction (vs the heavy use of composites in the Lavi) which required a bigger engine (AL-31F vs the PW1120 which is roughly the same size as the F/A-18's F404) which required a larger airplane. Changing the size obviously changed some minor parts of the design but it's clear the Chinese engineers took great pains to maintain as much of the Lavi design as they could.

The jurys still somewhat out on this one, though one thing I would like explained is the air intake - there are little struts that appear to connect the forward part of the intake to the fuselage? Or they just reinfrocement? Or some sort of aerials?

What jury? The planforms of both aircraft are nearly identical, the only real difference between the two are their size and the lack of composites on the J-10. Even it's radar is based off the EL/M-2032 that was developed for the Lavi.

Am I the only one who watches "Dogfights" on The History Channel? It's been like 2 months and I haven't seen anything about it. Best show on TV, if you like planes... (I pretty much watch that and "Heroes" nowadays)

I had this weeks episode on my DVR and watched it last night. It's quite good but every so often they use pretty slapdash looking meshes for the airplanes. The F-15s and Mirage IIIs in the last episode looked really off (the canopies were way too big) and I've noticed that the sidewinder model they use in most episodes is atrocious. I was hoping that this would improve as time went on but it actually looks like it's getting worse (the F-15s in the last episode were losing and gaining ordinance in every shot). Also I'm getting tired of seeing naval engagements, the show is called "Dogfights" not "Naval Battles that Vaguely Involved Aircraft."

The slat itself wouldn't weight much, but the guide rails and rotary driveshaft for it would be I think---quite pointless for such a small section. (and there's the issue of room) It'd be like adding swing winglets to a fixed-wing plane---the external part itself wouldn't weight much, but the associated mechanism would---you'd have to add and support an entire system, but only a small part benefits.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Mig was experimenting with a drop down section on the LERXs to help improve lift on the Mig-29KUB. Perhaps we're reading a poorly translated description of that?

Waits for the "but its just a Lavi with a red star stuck on it!!" posts.

It is! I mean look at it!

The APG-73 currently fitted to both Super and Baby Hornets is widely considered one of the best airborne radars flying today, and the APG-79 currently being retrofitted to Super Hornets is basically the F-22's APG-77 with a smaller Transmit receive array. Neither is crappy. As David said it's more of an issue of compatibility. The APG-79 with it's amazing frequency agility is probably technically capable of being compatible with the Phoenix, but by the time the Navy had gone through the trouble of clearing it on the Rhino, and witting up the fire control software the AIM-120D will be in service and it'll be redundant. AFAIK the AIM-120D is going to be similar to the Meteor but with a more advanced ramjet motor which should give it a little more range, one pretty close to the Phoenix's, but without the dud rate.

Just a quick video plug.

What do you do when your F-15 loses an entire wing in a mid-air collision?

It's easy, you just land...

No offense T.V. you're new and probably didn't know, but that's the fourth or fifth time that story has been posted in one of the incarnations of the Aircraft vs Super Thread. We know. It's a testament to how much lift the Eagle gets from its fuselage that it was able land safely.

. . . Thus all the tortured means by which rabid fans (with some help from Kawamori) have "explained" the more modern functionality and appearance of the VF-0 (ie, it not being a precursor to VF-1 but instead a test-bed for even more futuristic systems, etc.).

But, of course, the real reason the VF-0 is more modern than the VF-1 is because Kawamori designed it twenty years after he designed the VF-1 and was more interested in designing an appealing, kick-ass variable fighter that might help Macross Zero succeed in the anime marketplace than he was in maintaining continuity with his twenty year-old VF-1 design that looks very dated by today's standards.

You actually see that kind of thing all the time. just because a technology is invented doesn't mean its mature enough to be put into production in the thousands of numbers the VF-1 was built in. Real world example the YF-22 prototype used advanced touch screen displays, but the F-22A uses more conventional buttons because the technology didn't work very well. The F-35 on the other hand is slated to get the more mature and workable version of the same technology.

Wee actually see that in the anime. The VF-0 is constantly being worked on, overhauled, and upgraded with jury rigged solutions. The Asuka is supposed to have several squadrons of them but they only seem to be able to get a handful airborne at any given time. Sure it might have a few bits of advanced design and technology but what good is that if they land them in the hangar all the time?

This has been a pet peve of mine for a while.

1.) The VF-0 doesn't have a 360 degree wrap around cockpit. we see a sort of stylized shot in the first episode that gave everyone the misconception that it did, but later shots (and indeed a close look at that shot) show that it uses plain old flip down screens like the VF-1.

2.) There's no evidence that the VF-1 and later model valks lack the eye tracking system in their helmets they just aren't explicitly shown. We do see them shoot down incoming missiles in the exact same manner as Roy's VF-0 so there's no reason to conclude they don't have the same or similar system installed.

As for size I think Mr March hit it on the head. The VF-0 was a technology demonstrator, it was supposed to prove that you could build a plane and make it transform into a working mech. They only had working conventional engines at the time so they built it to a size that could fly using conventional engines. The VF-1 was built to match what was thought to be the size of a standard Zentradi (the UN had no way of knowing that Zentradi came in two sizes) which could only be accomplished using more advanced propulsion technology. If I had to guess I'd say that later Valks like the VF-17, VF-19 and VF-22 were designed bigger to overpower Quedelun-Rau and Nousjedul-Ger battlesuits.

Are the GDs necessary? Since most kinetic kill weaponry would be ferrous anyway (especially if fired from a rail gun) wouldn't a magnetic field as powerful as the one you're talking about trap or alter the course of a KE projectile? At the very least you'd expect it slow down a ferrous KE weapon limiting the amount of damage dealt. The only problem with this is that the KE from projectile weapons would be transfered to the shield generator so it would have to have a heavily re-enforced mount, this might be easier than armoring a whole ship though.

HG can't afford Yamato, they can barely afford Toynami. Yeah yeah I know, the toymaker pays for the rights to license the toys, but if it was that easy why haven't they pushed their products on the many other toy companies in the US?

Because they have a disputed license to (in the US) a third tier 80's cartoon show that has at best a small cult following? That's not exactly something to entice most US toy makers (especially for Macross/Macross saga merchandise which can't be sold in Japan). On the other hand international licensing for a show that has it's own small cult following in Japan in addition to the one it has here in the states, to a small boutique toy manufacturer with it's own cult following (both in Japan and in the states) makes a lot of sense. Honestly I'm surprised HG hasn't tried it before.

Why would HG having the rights be a problem? HG simply licenses companies. HG cannot license Yamato to make Macross Saga toys because of BW but since HG has universal rights to Mospeada they can license whoever they want. BW won't care about a Mospeada product... they have no right to. HG doesn't care about Macross products in Japan so they have no animosity toward Yamato.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Macross licensing mess were resolved in HG's favor (a big if admittedly) that we would see Yamato 1/48s and 1/60s being repackaged for US sale (either as Robotech or Macross). Yamato is a company that has proven they can make quality products. HG might not be able to sell their Macross products (although you can bet they wished they could) but why wouldn't they take the opportunity to have Yamato make high-quality toys for one of their undisputed properties?

I'm planning on doing some minor customization work on my Millia 1J sometime in the near future and I'd love to get this info as well.

EDIT: though, if they act as heat diffusers, it does make sense. It kindof supports the 'afterburner' setting in the throttle - heat is pumped into those things (when it normally isn't) to add just a little more heat expansion/thrust at the back end of the engine, in addition to providing a little more finely tuned vectoring to the thrust. Or something like that. Anime isn't reality afterall.

Like I said at the beginning of the thread they're more likely to be thrust diffusers than heat diffusers. Even with the two halves of the feet splayed out, without the diffusers thrust is going to come out in a pretty much cylindrical column half a meter wide. Add 23000 Kg of superheated supersonic thrust and you could easily punch a hole right through quite a few things (like a runway or a nice expensive carrier deck). It's called ground erosion and it's one of the biggest concerns when designing VTOL aircraft.

You know since Skull Squadron stole the Wolfpack's squadron number and horizontal nose stripe, I always thought it would be funny to see a Valkyrie in modified Wolfpack markings, with the squadron number SVF-84 (or 103) and a diagonal nose stripe.

Max's dogfight wit Milia is a prime example of instantaneous thrust responses.

The Battroid flits about the sky like it is being held with guide strings.

*NO* conventional engine can react that way. Are we going to base this on the engine running at full power almost the entire time with thrust being vented in all different directions to control output? I don't buy that explanation.

Also, blue flamed exhaust implies a very efficient *COMBUSTION*, not just some gee whiz thermonuclear reactor heating air.

In batroid mode his main engine thrust would be augmented with backpack thrusters, "armpit" thrusters and an ungodly amount of verniers (21 going by a quick count on my Yamato) all of which would provide instantaneous thrust while the main turbines catch up. Actually since the intake shutters are closed in Batroid it could be that the engines revert to "rocket" mode and are just dumping RM in instead of using air like they would in space.

My airplane has FADECs and one of the fastest spoolup times in the industry. It is NOT instantaneous as we see in Macross. It can't be. Physics.

Even if you had an instantaneous spoolup you will still not see the acceleration rates we see in the animation. There is something else at play.

And as I originally stated the only place I've seen instantaneous thrust is in space. In atmosphere it acts like a normal jet engine. The best example off the top of my head would be Hikaru's infamous first kill, you can hear and see the engine spool up over the course of about a second before frying that poor man. If you've got some specific counter examples I'm all ears but until then I stand by my claim.

Well no offense intended as you are obviously very sharp...BUT... Jet engines, regardless their type--turbofan or turbojet, Kerosene or Themonuclear--have a definite lag between the time when power is applied and when it is felt. The larger the bypass ratio the smaller the lag time is at low altitudes as a large N1 fan is in effect a propellor of sorts. The lag is still quite large. The Valkyrie appears not to have such a lag. The only way this can be overcome is with a rocket-type effect IMHO.

I'm aware of the lag time between throttle commands and the engine spooling up, I just don't see anything that a Valkyrie can do that can't be explained by a good FADEC verniers and FBW.

You can't just add extra heat. The N2 fan will melt.

I totally understand the cooling effect that air has on an engine. HOWEVER, you cannot go from nominal to maximum rated power in a matter of moments without overtemping the engine. There's simply not enough airflow fast enough to get you there.

Try it with your car on a hot day sitting still. Rev the engine rapidly and momentarily. The temperature *WILL* spike. The airflow over the radiator is not going to instantaneously cool enough to prevent it. That's a combustion engine. Imagine a "star heat reactor".

OUCH.

Your only hope is to "AFTERHEAT" or "HEAT" the bypass air in conjunction with some sort of explosive, expansive, rocket-effect RM in the tail feathers to boost you forward. That is probably what "OVERBOOST" actually means.

Also, the more area you have exposed to the air flowing over the reactor the more efficient the heat transfer. Thus an additional heater downstream is more efficient than a single *HOTTER* reactor would be.

As JB0 pointed out the amount of heat generated by a fusion reactor is going to stay pretty much constant, the only diffence is how much air you transfer it to. If anything you'd risk overheating at lower throttle settings, not higher.

For the most efficiency liquid or even powdered solids would be best as areacton mass. I alwasy assumed that reaction mass would just be sprayed right into the core of the engine in space.

Nonsense hardly.

You are not going to get an instantaneous reaction the way we see it in the show without propellant of some sort.

It's akin to "slippage" with a boat screw. The compressor simply cannot shove that much air through the engine that quickly and the engine cannot draw it on its own. Something else is at work here and I think it has to be chemical on some level.

I'm not sure what you mean by instantaneous reaction, Valkyrie engines behave the same as traditional jet engines in an atmosphere. They do seem to have the ability to switch on and off in space pretty quickly, but the compressor wouldn't have anything to do with it there since there's no air to move.

Why heat it to a higher temperature and melt the engine in transition when you can just heat the bypass air using the same temperature ratio as in the primary stage? You will avoid thermal shock to the reactor and increase engine life dramatically.

There's certainly no other reason to have a "third stage reactor mixer" in the feet.

You try flitting about the sky with those instantaneous bursts of power we see and watch what happens to your reactor temps. Might as well use what's left to make pots and pans 'cause it isn't going to last more than a couple of seconds.

Third stage reactor mixer? Again you wouldn't have to worry about melting the engines because you're also moving more air through them as well which helps them maintain their temperature. Air isn't only acting as a reaction mass it's also cooling the fusion reactor, in later designs like the FF-2500Es in the YF-19 or the FF-2450Bs in the YF-21 the FADEC has to limit their power in atmosphere because they simply aren't capable of sucking in enough air to cool the engines. I won't deny that using an overboost setting might screw with the TBO of the engines, but that's why there are rules to limit it's use today and almost assuredly in Macross.