David Hingtgen Posted January 31, 2007 Author Posted January 31, 2007 Hey, I like ships too, and love the naval episodes. Now if we can only get "half the US Navy's planes vs the Musashi" and "how many bombs does it take to sink the Tirpitz?" I'll be happy. PS---hey, there's only so much they can do with their budget/knowledge, I'm surprised we get semi-accurate weapon loads at all. Area 88 did no better with disappearing missiles! And if you're going to complain about that, might as well complain that the control surfaces don't move. (And then we could list 50 errors per minute)
T.V. Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 And if you're going to complain about that, might as well complain that the control surfaces don't move. (And then we could list 50 errors per minute) LMAO! I'm interested in this series.. too bad it isn't shown on T.V. here in the Netherlands.
Nied Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 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.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Any chance of seeing lineart of the Lavi and the J-10 side by side?
David Hingtgen Posted January 31, 2007 Author Posted January 31, 2007 Just a heads-up: The F-8 episode of Dogfights is on again Friday night. It usually repeats 2 or 3 hours after the initial showing, too. Lone Sundowner F-8 vs 4 MiGs=awesomeness.
Knight26 Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 The J-10 is your typical Chinesse knock off of an otherwise potentially great plane, the Lavi. But then again pretty much every aircraft the Chinese have built, except those built under liscence (su-27 et al) have basically been poorly built knock offs. Now you know why bootlegging of toys, videos, games, etc... is so prevelent over there.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 I am hoping they will knock off the YF-23 next.
T.V. Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 (edited) To quote the movie Zoolander: I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here! You are. The planes aren't identical in any respect. They share as much as the early '80s Rafale prototype shared with the EFA prototype. The French initially were a partner of the EFA program, but in the '80s they decided to go at it alone. Lo and behold, the Rafale has a twin engine delta canard configuration, just like the Eurofighter, but that's were the simularity ends. The J-10 benifited greatly from the aerodynamic experience the Israelis had with the Lavi, so that's why the configuration and planform is similar. However, not a single part is exchangable between the two aircraft. I have some high detail line art of the J-10 in some of my aviation magazines, so I'll scan and post it later today. Edited January 31, 2007 by T.V.
F-ZeroOne Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 The structure of both aircraft is notably dissimilar. Er... that jury. I'm going by comments made on another forum, but as has been pointed out, probably the most likely explanation is that the Chinse used the Lavi as a basis to build an aircraft within their capabilities. Perhaps a similar comparison could be made with the F-16 and Japanese F-2, which is based on the F-16 but is quite a different beast in detail. For one thing, it costs a heckuva lot more.
F-ZeroOne Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Hey, I like ships too, and love the naval episodes. Now if we can only get "half the US Navy's planes vs the Musashi" and "how many bombs does it take to sink the Tirpitz?" I'll be happy. Answer: not many, if the bombs weigh 12,000lbs each and are dropped by 617 and 9 squadron. (although there were a lot of previous attempts... )
T.V. Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 (edited) Er... that jury. I'm going by comments made on another forum, but as has been pointed out, probably the most likely explanation is that the Chinse used the Lavi as a basis to build an aircraft within their capabilities. Perhaps a similar comparison could be made with the F-16 and Japanese F-2, which is based on the F-16 but is quite a different beast in detail. For one thing, it costs a heckuva lot more. 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. Edited January 31, 2007 by T.V.
Nied Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 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.
Phyrox Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 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. 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.
David Hingtgen Posted February 1, 2007 Author Posted February 1, 2007 I think a good comparison would be A-7 vs F-8. You can't turn one into the other, but they're very similar designs.
T.V. Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 (edited) 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. Exactly. The Lavi is the inspiration, nothing more. The experience with the planform and avionics proofed invaluable for the J-10 programme. Without Isreali assistance I'd doubt that the chinese would've come this far. Aircraft are complex specialised machines, therefore "cut 'n paste" engineering is pretty useless when the parameters change. Principles and knowledge can be transferred to the new design, but copying and rescaling parts of the design simply doesn't suffice. The J-10 is a notably different aircraft from the Lavi. It doesn't share much of the design with the Lavi, as the J-7 and MiG-21F-13 or Mirage III/V and Nesher/Dagger/Kfir do. The Kfir C7 and latest J/F-7 variants share features with the Mirages and MiGs they were based on, but the J-10 is a totally unique design from the ground up. Just because they look similar doesn't mean that they're internally identical in some respects. A "copy" or "bootleg" infers that the design didn't start from scratch but instead was a modified existing design. With the J-10, that's not the case. It used a planform similar to the J-10, because it was relatively known aerodynamic territory. However, internally it is a completely different beast. Also, the changes to the planform and size deem it a different design completely. They had to start from scratch, just because adapting the Lavi would take more time than doing that. The Rafale isn't a bootleg Eurofighter, for example. The new Ford GT isn't a bootleg GT40 either, despite them looking nearly identical to the untrained eye. P.S. Haven't found the issue with the line art yet (was some time ago), so the scan will have to wait. Edited February 1, 2007 by T.V.
Nied Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 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.
Lynx7725 Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 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.
Nied Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 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.
Lynx7725 Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 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. 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.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 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. How about the JF-17/FC-1/whatchacallit? I still don't know which design they cobbled together that one from.
F360° Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 I found some pic for you guys. [attachmentid=40117] [attachmentid=40116] [attachmentid=40115]
Nied Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 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.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 (edited) :deleted: Edited February 2, 2007 by Retracting Head Ter Ter
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 I found some pic for you guys. Damn canard/delta/single tailfin designs all look the same to me!
Nied Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 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.
Lynx7725 Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 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. No arguments there, they are a bit backwards. But really, what's the issue? A copied aircraft is still a flying aircraft; without having the original and the copy compete with each other, you can't really tell which is the better aircraft. Could be the copy might have improvements that makes things better, etc. I think the important thing here is to recognize that the needs are different; PRC military doesn't really rely the cutting edge aircraft, not when they can put up lots of aircraft based off ground bases, so not being SOTA isn't a big issue (I think.. might be wrong there). The US military however, tends to rely on the quality and technological edge, and that made it critical for US aircraft to be innovative. And while reverse-engineering, they are slowly oh so slowly gaining the experience necessary to build their own. It's odd to say this, but it's really the Chinese way; take apart somebody else's work, understand the concepts, then start building and improving on the original design. It ain't sexy, I admit, but it gets the job done. It's true that the PRC aeronautical industry had stagnated over the years, but now it seems that they are keen to get it going again. Who knows, maybe another 2 decades we would see original PRC aircrafts...
buddhafabio Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 you will just here the same thing in the end from our air force "fox 2..........target has been destroyed"
T.V. Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 I found some pic for you guys. Thx! I still haven't found the lineart I was looking for, but then again the article is 1 or 2 years old and the mag is boxed up somewhere, so it'll take some time before I'll find it. Anyway, here's an page from a more recent article. It's from Combat Aircraft, nov '06. I marked the paragraph that deals with the discussion wether or not the J-10 is a "carbon copy" or simply a reverse engineered and modified Lavi, or an original design. I've added some Lavi line art as well.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 3, 2007 Posted February 3, 2007 How accurate is that Lavi lineart? Some features seem significantly different from the J-10 if we go by that lineart.
Graham Posted February 3, 2007 Posted February 3, 2007 Damn canard/delta/single tailfin designs all look the same to me! No, no, no! Repeat after me. "The single seat Eurofighter Typhoon is the most beautiful plane in the world". All other planes are hideous by comparison. Graham
David Hingtgen Posted February 3, 2007 Author Posted February 3, 2007 Eurocanards all look the same. (Not my term, but so perfect I use it all the time).
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 3, 2007 Posted February 3, 2007 No, no, no! Repeat after me. "The single seat Eurofighter Typhoon is the most beautiful plane in the world". All other planes are hideous by comparison. Graham The Beautific YF-23 sneers at your lumpy EuroTyphoon!
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 3, 2007 Posted February 3, 2007 Eurocanards all look the same. (Not my term, but so perfect I use it all the time). Is there any significant reason why twin tails don't go with the delta/canard config? The Mig1.44 is a rare one. I never liked the big-arsed single fins.
David Hingtgen Posted February 3, 2007 Author Posted February 3, 2007 Well, generally twin tails are used when you can't fit a single large tail. I think part of the reason is simply that most delta canards are pretty small, with a narrow rear fuselage (usually single engine, or two small ones) and there's not really room to have side-by-side fins.
Mislovrit Posted February 3, 2007 Posted February 3, 2007 No, no, no! Repeat after me. "The single seat Eurofighter Typhoon is the most beautiful plane in the world". All other planes are hideous by comparison. Graham Between the Typhoon, Gripen, and Rafale, imho the Typhoon is the ugliest of the three.
Recommended Posts