Chengdu J-9 ... Shenyang J-11 to J-13 and other failed projects

[Akasa]

...why should I use a project that is 25 yrs older ?

Because you don't necessarily have access to the newer and more complete project? If you do find evidence that the Chinese managed to obtain MiG-1.44 prototypes or technical documents, I'm all ears.

 

[gambit]

Because you don't necessarily have access to the newer and more complete project? If you do find evidence that the Chinese managed to obtain MiG-1.44 prototypes or technical documents, I'm all ears.

Do not need to. The Soviets did not need access to the technical data of the A-5 Vigilante to build the MIG-25. Or the American Space Shuttle to build the Buran.

Sure, having such access would make it easier, but for designers and engineers, you give this group too little credit for creativity and technical detective work.

 

[Akasa]

Do not need to. The Soviets did not need access to the technical data of the A-5 Vigilante to build the MIG-25. Or the American Space Shuttle to build the Buran.

Sure, having such access would make it easier, but for designers and engineers, you give this group too little credit for creativity and technical detective work.

And yet one would hardly call the MiG-25 a "development" of the A-5, or the Buran a "development" of the Shuttle. Aside from very general configuration, what do the MiG 1.44 and the J-20 really have in common?

 

[Dungeness]

J-9 or MIG 1.44 ?

If we go by public information, the J-9 project was cancelled due to severe technical and social disruptions that hindered its development, but high probability it was the Cultural Revolution that placed the most stress on the program.

The argument that the J-20 came from the J-9 is more likely from the reasoning that the J-9 is an indigenous project than from credible technical analysis. All engineering projects, no matter what, from a new tire tread to a new jet fighter, designers and engineers FIRST looks for precedents. If anything, it is to make their work easier little by little. Why design a new airfoil when I can peruse the NASA/NACA database to see if there is anything I immediately use or use with as minimal modifications as possible ?

The 1.44 project is 25 yrs younger than the J-9 project. Further, the Soviets are more renown than the Chinese when it comes to aviation. We may not know the technical details of both projects, but given the history of Soviet/Russia involvement in aviation, it is a reasonably educated guess that the MIG is more technically sophisticated and probably more complete in final design than the J-9.

So if I am going to design a jet fighter based upon my current resources and time pressure, between two precedents, why should I use a project that is 25 yrs older ?

Then one has to assume that CAC designers have complete access to the database of Mig 1.44, which was the case for J-9.

 

[antonius123]

J-9 or MIG 1.44 ?

If we go by public information, the J-9 project was cancelled due to severe technical and social disruptions that hindered its development, but high probability it was the Cultural Revolution that placed the most stress on the program.

The argument that the J-20 came from the J-9 is more likely from the reasoning that the J-9 is an indigenous project than from credible technical analysis. All engineering projects, no matter what, from a new tire tread to a new jet fighter, designers and engineers FIRST looks for precedents. If anything, it is to make their work easier little by little. Why design a new airfoil when I can peruse the NASA/NACA database to see if there is anything I immediately use or use with as minimal modifications as possible ?

The 1.44 project is 25 yrs younger than the J-9 project. Further, the Soviets are more renown than the Chinese when it comes to aviation. We may not know the technical details of both projects, but given the history of Soviet/Russia involvement in aviation, it is a reasonably educated guess that the MIG is more technically sophisticated and probably more complete in final design than the J-9.

So if I am going to design a jet fighter based upon my current resources and time pressure, between two precedents, why should I use a project that is 25 yrs older ?

Thats silly argument, what make you think J-20 came from 1.44 project?

If that is so, then it is Russia that should release stealth fighter much earlier than china.

Prove your expertise please ..

 

[gambit]

And yet one would hardly call the MiG-25 a "development" of the A-5, or the Buran a "development" of the Shuttle.

I never called them that.

Looky here...Before I came on this forum, quite literally everyone was calling the F-15 a 'copy' or a 'response' to the MIG-25 simply because of physical similarities. Now, after I pointed out the correct chronological history of the jets, nobody says that nonsense anymore. The MIG-25 and F-15 came from the A-5. Not because the Soviets had access to North American's file cabinets, but because the A-5's design gave the Soviets the necessary basic form and structure that actually flew and performed well. Their own people took it from there.

Aside from very general configuration, what do the MiG 1.44 and the J-20 really have in common?

Why is general configuration not enough ? Why do you think all F1 cars have similar configuration ? Because that configuration works.

 

[antonius123]

J-9 or MIG 1.44 ?

If we go by public information, the J-9 project was cancelled due to severe technical and social disruptions that hindered its development, but high probability it was the Cultural Revolution that placed the most stress on the program.

The argument that the J-20 came from the J-9 is more likely from the reasoning that the J-9 is an indigenous project than from credible technical analysis. All engineering projects, no matter what, from a new tire tread to a new jet fighter, designers and engineers FIRST looks for precedents. If anything, it is to make their work easier little by little. Why design a new airfoil when I can peruse the NASA/NACA database to see if there is anything I immediately use or use with as minimal modifications as possible ?

The 1.44 project is 25 yrs younger than the J-9 project. Further, the Soviets are more renown than the Chinese when it comes to aviation. We may not know the technical details of both projects, but given the history of Soviet/Russia involvement in aviation, it is a reasonably educated guess that the MIG is more technically sophisticated and probably more complete in final design than the J-9.

So if I am going to design a jet fighter based upon my current resources and time pressure, between two precedents, why should I use a project that is 25 yrs older ?

\/
\/

Thats silly argument, what make you think J-20 came from 1.44 project?

If that is so, then it is Russia that should release stealth fighter much earlier than china.

Prove your expertise please ..

Read carefully my post. I cited the AF as well.

It is clear to everyone, including your Chinese friends even though they will not admit it, that when it comes to aviation, I am way out of your league. And it has come to a point where I do not need to cite any sources to be credible. Just an explanation of how things work will do. That cannot be said for you.

Then where is your answer for my question the above?

 

[Martian2]

This is my view on the J-9.

For the Chinese jet fighter family tree, I would add J-7E "double delta" wing design.

On the left is a Chinese J-7E with a unique double-delta wing design. On the right is the Chinese J-9 canard-delta wing prototype.

 

[lcloo]

It is no surprise that J20 is a canard plus delta wing shaped, regardless whether MIG1.44 exist or not.

It is a "natural evolution" similar to that of the French Mirage family (Mirage III, IV, V, 2000 to Rafale....).

 

[Martian2]

According to Global Security, China spent 15 years researching the J-9 (1965-1980). The J-9 was canceled and never entered mass production, because China couldn't produce the WS-9 engine at the time.

Global Security says China's J-9 research paved the way for the J-10 and J-20: "The J-9, built by Chengdu Aircraft Corporation, never entered production. The single engine, delta canard design was cancelled in 1980, but the aerodynamic research in the program paved the way for the J-10 and J-20."

There were supposed to be five J-9 prototypes. I don't know how many prototypes that China built.
----------

J-9 (Jian-9 Fighter aircraft 9) | Global Security

"The J-9, built by Chengdu Aircraft Corporation, never entered production. The single engine, delta canard design was cancelled in 1980, but the aerodynamic research in the program paved the way for the J-10 and J-20. The J-9 project was transferred from Shenyang to Chengdu in 1969. The design dates from the 1970s, and it could have been an impressive aircraft, for the time, had the required technology been available. The J-9's performance requirements were focused on beating the F-4 Phantom II in combat, which had emerged as the primary American fighter aircraft in Vietnam. It was intended to carry the the PL-4, the PLAAF's version of the Sparrow, which had an SARH and IR versions. This missile was cancelled in 1985 due to technical issues. Development of the J-9 was halted in 1980 in the wake of the inability to develop the high-performance engine needed for the aircraft. The Shenyang J-8 Finback and its developments ended up filling the role intended for the J-9 design. While the J-9 remained unbuilt, it laid the ground for Chengdu's later development of the J-10 fighter, which was also a canard delta planform.
...
The initial concept was known as "draft A" ( J-9A) with the four different configurations. The J-9A-IV was similar in appearance to the later improved J-8B (J-8II) with a leading-edge angle of 55°. Further wind-tunnel tests in the fourth quarter of 1966 and early 1967 led to the conclusion that the agility of the new fighter was deficcient, as these configurations were unstable at certain airspeeds. This led to the concept designated "draft B" (J-9B), or configuration V, with a full delta configuration J-9B-V. But this also produced problems with lift at certain airspeeds and complicated the placement of lift control devices. The J-9B-V was tailless delta, similar to the contemporary Mirage III, with a leading-edge angle of 60° and a wing surface of 62 m2.
...
This required a return to the draft J-9B-V again and development further to the draft J-9B2 or now called J-9B-VI. It was decided to continue the development of the "new" J-9 as a delta-canard with either one ventral or two lateral air intakes. Possibly this study with the single ventral air intake formed the basis of the subsequent Chengdu J-10A.
...
In 1978 the priority of the J-9 program was scaled back once again. Some sources assume that still unresolved technical problems existed, others suggested that the parallel development of the improved J-7III (= J-7C/D) and the Shenyang J-8B promised better chances of success and earlier in service dates. The result was in any case that the development of the Chengdu J-9 finally ended at the end of 1980."

 

[yantong1980]

This is my view on the J-9.

For the Chinese jet fighter family tree, I would add J-7E "double delta" wing design.

On the left is a Chinese J-7E with a unique double-delta wing design. On the right is the Chinese J-9 canard-delta wing prototype.

Thanx man, this is rare pic of J-9. Few years back I curious what is look like, but this (the design) beyond my imagination. If not those d***n engine tech!

 

[clarkgap]

J-9 or MIG 1.44 ?

If we go by public information, the J-9 project was cancelled due to severe technical and social disruptions that hindered its development, but high probability it was the Cultural Revolution that placed the most stress on the program.

The argument that the J-20 came from the J-9 is more likely from the reasoning that the J-9 is an indigenous project than from credible technical analysis. All engineering projects, no matter what, from a new tire tread to a new jet fighter, designers and engineers FIRST looks for precedents. If anything, it is to make their work easier little by little. Why design a new airfoil when I can peruse the NASA/NACA database to see if there is anything I immediately use or use with as minimal modifications as possible ?

The 1.44 project is 25 yrs younger than the J-9 project. Further, the Soviets are more renown than the Chinese when it comes to aviation. We may not know the technical details of both projects, but given the history of Soviet/Russia involvement in aviation, it is a reasonably educated guess that the MIG is more technically sophisticated and probably more complete in final design than the J-9.

So if I am going to design a jet fighter based upon my current resources and time pressure, between two precedents, why should I use a project that is 25 yrs older ?

On one hand, there is no any relationship between F-15 and Mig-25 because V-5 is earlier. On the other hand, there are some relationship between J-20 and Mig-1.44 eventhough J-9 is earlier. Is this your point?

 

[leapx]

On one hand, there is no any relationship between F-15 and Mig-25 because V-5 is earlier. On the other hand, there are some relationship between J-20 and Mig-1.44 eventhough J-9 is earlier. Is this your point?

ignore him. He is a dude pretend to be an expert. I will just post a replay I already posted on an Indian forum

I don't think there is any connection between J-20 and 1.44. Anyone with some knowledge on aviation will notice the difference.

1 Aerodynamic 1.44 is quite different from J-20. 1.44 has delta wing while J-20 has dual delta wing.

2 the distance between the canard and wing is different.1.44 has horizontal wing with higher canard， while J20’s wing and canard start at some height while wing hangs down and canard sticks up. The canard is different from any fighter's as I know(I think it is about stealth)

3 Air-take-in is different.J-20 has weapon bay while 1.44 dont.that means totally different airframe.

4 Most of all, it is obvious that Stealth come first for J20. I am pretty sure 1.44 is not the same.

So with different aerodynamics,fly control，wing，canard，airframe(basically everything),what is the connection?

Anyone who can turn 1.44 into a 5-generation stealthy fighter must be very good. the problem will be:
they are so good why they start their design with 1.44, an outdated concept/idea？only biased and stupid would think they are connected.

 

[Ultima Thule]

ignore him. He is a dude pretend to be an expert. I will just post a replay I already posted on an Indian forum

I don't think there is any connection between J-20 and 1.44. Anyone with some knowledge on aviation will notice the difference.

1 Aerodynamic 1.44 is quite different from J-20. 1.44 has delta wing while J-20 has dual delta wing.

2 the distance between the canard and wing is different.1.44 has horizontal wing with higher canard， while J20’s wing and canard start at some height while wing hangs down and canard sticks up. The canard is different from any fighter's as I know(I think it is about stealth)

3 Air-take-in is different.J-20 has weapon bay while 1.44 dont.that means totally different airframe.

4 Most of all, it is obvious that Stealth come first for J20. I am pretty sure 1.44 is not the same.

So with different aerodynamics,fly control，wing，canard，airframe(basically everything),what is the connection?

Anyone who can turn 1.44 into a 5-generation stealthy fighter must be very good. the problem will be:
they are so good why they start their design with 1.44, an outdated concept/idea？only biased and stupid would think they are connected.

View attachment 439002

I can tell you that J-20 based on MIG-1.44 with lots of innovations and improvements, Just like J-10 was based on LAVI/EF-2000 with lots of innovations and improvements

 

[clarkgap]

I can tell you that J-20 based on MIG-1.44 with lots of innovations and improvements, Just like J-10 was based on LAVI/EF-2000 with lots of innovations and improvements

I know the relationship between J-10 and LAVI. The software for the FBW system of J-10 was developed by the 611 Institute (CAIG) based on a software originally developed for the Israeli Lavi fighter. I also know the relationship between CAIG and Dassault Aviation, 611 institution bought the designing software from Dassault. I can find these infomration from reliable sources. However, I do not know the relationship between J-20 and Mig 1.44.