China tries to hide J-10 fighter crashes

[qwerrty]

<lol...look at all of the crashes of SU-30's and SU-27's how many engine failures have accured in 25+ years of oporation?>

How many? Do you absolutely know? When it comes to military accidents the military never comes clean (for any country).

Also those planes has 2 engines if one fails the pilot can still fly with another. There' re reasons why why the Russians never build plane with single engine. Their engine is just not reliable..

 

[Peace Sells no one buying]

mDumb

my intent for this thread is to discuss this article, *not* for forum members to use it to bash China. in your opnion this is a highly negative article (I can't help if the article, in your perspective, bashes China). I agree -- there is not much there, I'd love for there to be more technical information available. I don't think the source is bad, that said, no source is without inherent bias. I got it from a Western defense industry news source. Of course they are going to take a cheap shot at press freedom in China - get over it. Maybe there would have been more technical information to report if the press was Free-er in China? I honestly do not know, because I don't read Chinese sources.

My personal spin is that all nations have stumbles when trying to make something new. I think that this plane could be quite worth it for China if they can use it to replace older planes and sell it on the market for cheaper than other nations sell their used F-16's. They appear to fill similar roles.

 

[Paksindhi]

1 or 2 or 4 or 500 or whatever just depends upon how many incidents manage to reach the media......

HOW MANY MIG'S U CRASHED, THEY WERE NOT PROTOTYPES, DEPEND'S UPON HOW MANY INCIDENTS MANAGE TO REACH UR MEDIA.

 

[dingyibvs]

lol...look at all of the crashes of SU-30's and SU-27's how many were do to engine failures in the past 25+ years of oporation? And now all of the sudden the Chinese authorities blame it on the engine? It could be very possible that one al-31 failed but three? One question, were all three equiped with AL-31's?

You do realize that the Su-27 and its variants are twin engined, right? If the chance of one engine failure is 1/50, simple arithmetics indicate that the chance of both engines failing is 1/50th of that.

Engine failures ARE big problems for single engine airplanes, but it doesn't have to indicate a problem with the engine per se. All engines fail, it's simply unavoidable. Look at how many F-16s have crashed! 10 crashed in '07, 9 in '06, and a total of 122 F-16s crashed in the ten years from '89 to '98, for example. Now, not all of them are due to engine problems, I'm sure, but a lot of them are. Does it mean their engines suck? Does it mean they have design flaws? NO! Planes crash, and single-engine planes tend to have engine failure problems, they're simply facts of life.

 

[ptldM3]

Also those planes has 2 engines if one fails the pilot can still fly with another. There' re reasons why why the Russians never build plane with single engine. Their engine is just not reliable..

Russians have build single engine platforms such as the Mig-23 which is a realatevly safe aircraft and the Mig-21 which has a high crash rate but it's mainly do to pilot error.

 

[qwerrty]

mDumb

my intent for this thread is to discuss this article, *not* for forum members to use it to bash China. in your opnion this is a highly negative article (I can't help if the article, in your perspective, bashes China). I agree -- there is not much there, I'd love for there to be more technical information available. I don't think the source is bad, that said, no source is without inherent bias. I got it from a Western defense industry news source. Of course they are going to take a cheap shot at press freedom in China - get over it. Maybe there would have been more technical information to report if the press was Free-er in China? I honestly do not know, because I don't read Chinese sources.

My personal spin is that all nations have stumbles when trying to make something new. I think that this plane could be quite worth it for China if they can use it to replace older planes and sell it on the market for cheaper than other nations sell their used F-16's. They appear to fill similar roles.

It's from Strategypage mentions in first paragraph.

 

[dingyibvs]

It's from Strategypage mentions in first paragraph.

Well that explains it. Strategypage, lol, what a joke.

 

[Paksindhi]

PROPAGANDA, r there any byer's.

J-10 FIGHTER'S R AS GOOD AS F-16's and they r cheaper also.

US can't digest that hence the PROPAGANDA.

 

[qwerrty]

Russians have build single engine platforms such as the Mig-23 which is a safe aircraft and the Mig-21 which has a high crash rate but it's mainly do to pilot error.

sorry, i meant modern plane. you said it..very high crash rate for their single engine plane.

 

[ptldM3]

You do realize that the Su-27 and its variants are twin engined, right? If the chance of one engine failure is 1/50, simple arithmetics indicate that the chance of both engines failing is 1/50th of that.

Engine failures ARE big problems for single engine airplanes, but it doesn't have to indicate a problem with the engine per se. All engines fail, it's simply unavoidable. Look at how many F-16s have crashed! 10 crashed in '07, 9 in '06, and a total of 122 F-16s crashed in the ten years from '89 to '98, for example. Now, not all of them are due to engine problems, I'm sure, but a lot of them are. Does it mean their engines suck? Does it mean they have design flaws? NO! Planes crash, and single-engine planes tend to have engine failure problems, they're simply facts of life.

No one is arguing that a twin engine platform isn't safer than a single engine platform but a twin engin platforms may also crash if an engine losses power, take for example, the Mig-29 that sucked in a bird at a French airshow, it still crashed. I'm also very aware that planes crash in fact i knew people involved in aircraft crashes. Like i mentioned the problem could be anything from maintanance to bird strikes.

 

[ptldM3]

sorry, i meant modern plane. you said it..very high crash rate for their single engine plane.

Did you miss the part were i said the crash rate was do to pilot error? Also look at the Mig-23 how many engine failures has it had in it's 40 year servive? Now how many Mig-23's are in poor countries with poor maintanace crews?

 

[qwerrty]

MIG 23 are equipped with turbojet engines. Russian turbofans are well know for not reliable compare to western engines.

 

[mDumb]

<Never comes clean? The US has come forward to say several F-22 have crashed and Russia has done the same with the SU-35 as well as other platforms.>

Dude, you missed my point totally. The point is that as a civilian who relies on public published articles will NEVER know the absolute or exact number of crashes for F-22. Unless you're in F-22 program.

 

[dingyibvs]

No one is arguing that a twin engine platform isn't safer than a single engine platform but a twin engin platforms may also crash if an engine losses power, take for example, the Mig-29 that sucked in a bird at a French airshow, it still crashed. I'm also very aware that planes crash in fact i knew people involved in aircraft crashes. Like i mentioned the problem could be anything from maintanance to bird strikes.

I'm just making the point that you can't use the Su-27 series' crash rate due to engine failures to justify its safety vis-a-vis the J-10.

 

[Peace Sells no one buying]

I got it from defpro.com not that other site.

EDIT: what I mean is that i don't think that defpro would cite a bad source for information - think what you want about strategy page; but they think high enough of them to use their information.