J-31 in flight

[MigBuster 2,861]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z3YzCppn2k

[JediMaster 451]

Yup, it sure can fly...in circles.

[MigBuster 2,861]

It sure does

 

 J-31 at 2014 Zhuhai Airshow

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+whiteknight06604 931]

I hear it will have twice the ramming power against those pesky EP-3s .

[+Viggen 516]

I'm sure China put a lot of work into their stolen American designed indigenous designed fighter, powered by copied Russian engines and avionics indigenous engines and avionics.

[ColonelNovak 0]

Those engines, just like a good old F-4 Phantom in military power.

[FastCargo 412]

Those engines, just like a good old F-4 Phantom in military power.

 

I was thinking the same thing...that seems like a lot of smoke for a modern fighter.

 

FC

[JediMaster 451]

To be fair, no one cares about a prototype's visibility. Unlike in the West where the new engines tend to be tested extensively and debut with the new fighter's first flight, in China and Russia it's common practice to stuff an existing engine into a new airframe, even if it's underpowered, to work out the flight dynamics while the engine is finished. They have a lot more difficulty making engines over there, and it's the major area in which they're behind the West.

 

Notice they made it a twin-engine design, even though it's barely bigger than the F-35, because they have no chance of getting an F135-class engine built anytime soon.

[MigBuster 2,861]

 

Notice they made it a twin-engine design, even though it's barely bigger than the F-35, because they have no chance of getting an F135-class engine built anytime soon.

 

Exactly - and if its a similar size almost certainly means less fuel / weapons carriage & higher fuel consumption.

[Stratos 3,167]

Only thing I know for sure is those engines are really smokey.

[+KnightWolf45 1,147]

cool a stealth fighter thats pops gas all the way to the target

[+Spillone104 553]

Normal behaviour for RD-33 engines. And... Isn't better to have 2 engines for safety reasons on a combat plane?

[MigBuster 2,861]

Could argue both ways - having 2 engines doesn't mean the failure always takes out just one of them.

[JediMaster 451]

Also, say the engine failure rate is X%. By having two engines you're doubling your chances of having one fail. Now if it's a simple one where you just shut it down, ok, dump your stores, dump some fuel, and limp home. But if it's a catastrophic failure, how far away is that other engine anyway? Unless you're in a 737-type configuration, engines that close are well known for taking out each other. Or the engine failure could cut fuel, hydraulics, anything, and make the plane unflyable even as the 2nd engine continues working.

 

So the likelihood of being in a situation where a twin-engine plane would survive when a single would not is very small with modern engine reliability even in the case of combat damage.