By: Alpha Bravo
- 28th October 2016 at 12:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The first mockups of the J10 were Lavi clones, they were not more or less similar , they were THE Lavi, they didnt look like a Typhoon, they didnt look like the J9, those mockups were the Lavi in PLAAF markings, period.
On top of that we have photograpic evidences of the J10 design team right in front of a bl###y Lavi, and if this was not enough we have a bucket load of Chinese hardware that is without a question a direct copy of Israeli equipment in the exact same timeframe of the development of the fr####ing Lavi, the most obvious example the AAM that would have been the, guess what, the main air to air munition of the... bleeding Lavi, and if THIS was not enough we have the Russians stating to Janes that Chengdu actually received one Lavi airframe and quite a few Israeli sources stating that "yeah, we helped"...
Lies, all damned lies!
You dont have to be a genius to understand that in 1989 China lost access to the PW1120, so they went to the Russians, more precisely to the AL31 wich is a bigger, heavier, more powerful engine, so they had the redesign the airframe, thats why the J10 is a bigger aircraft. The end.
That certainly explains the large crank and hump in the fuselage of the J-10 (which I have always found ugly), compared with the smooth lines on the Lavi and Viper.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 28th October 2016 at 13:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That certainly explains the large crank and hump in the fuselage of the J-10 (which I have always found ugly), compared with the smooth lines on the Lavi and Viper.
Yes. The plane is basically a Lavi cut in half, with an extending piece inserted in between.. Fugly as hell, indeed..
On the double-seater it's much less apparent, hence it looks much better..
By: Dr.Snufflebug
- 28th October 2016 at 14:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
these are lies
Z-10 is Chinese. Kamov helicopters have two rotors and are large. not their style
Kamov's specialty has always been the co-axial rotors, yes, but they have designed and built helicopters with conventional and tandem rotor configurations as well, in all imaginable sizes. The contemporary Ka-62 is an example as good as any.
Chinese flankers are legal that is why Russia doesn't complain. Even if they are illegal, what can Russia do? they cannot stop it.
But even if they cannot stop it, that doesn't constitute any sort of high ground for you and your arguments, now does it?
On topic: the Lavi story is very interesting indeed. I had only the haziest knowledge of this aircraft before and basically just thought it was an F-16 with retrofitted canards and that's it. Thanks OP.
To add to this information, I found the original article on which the post of the John Golan was based. Here are some images of the most basic configurations of Lavi:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249366[/ATTACH]
The full article can be found in the proceedings on this site http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS1988/1988.html
As for the discussion on the J-10 and Lavi connection it should be noted, that J-10 cannot be treated as just an enlarged copy of the Lavi, as they were optimized towards different goals. The J-10 is a multirole fighter with the air-to-air operations as the first priority. The Lavi was far more advanced design from the aerodynamic point of view, with its main mission being the tactical air strike and in some cases strategic attacks in similar fashion to the Osirak bombardment (operation "Opera"). The air-to-air capabilities were treated as a secondary ones. It should be remembered, that we are talking about an aircraft with the empty weight of about 6940 kg and of maximum takeoff weight 19280 kg (from the B-03 prototype onward if I remember correctly). Its combat radius in Hi-lo-hi profile is given by John Golan as 2130 km. So basically F-15 range/payload performance by a Gripen-sized plane. To achieve such lofty goals the IAI used extremely close-coupled canard design to maximize the aerodynamic efficiency, as well as aerodynamic tailoring (about 50 different airfoils were used to define Lavi wing). I don't think that Chinese would go as far with the applied solutions as they simply don't need such performance. So while clearly the general configuration of J-10 was based on the Lavi, in details they are very different planes.
By: Sintra
- 29th October 2016 at 00:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Combat radii of 2130 km?
The Lavi had a worse fuel fraction than today's Gripen E and its combat radii was 800 km bigger?!
Actually thats a way bigger combat radii than the likes of the Rafale or the F35 and double the one from its most equivalent aircrafts, the Gripen A/C and the first blocks of Vipers. That number is irrealistic.
By: Lolek
- 29th October 2016 at 00:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Combat radii of 2130 km?
The Lavi had a worse fuel fraction than today's Gripen E and its combat radii was 800 km bigger?!
Actually thats a way bigger combat radii than the likes of the Rafale or the F35 and double the one from its most equivalent aircrafts, the Gripen A/C and the first blocks of Vipers. That number is irrealistic.
Well I double checked it and this is the value he states for Lavi. For comparison for F-15 he gives 2000 km, while the F-16C sits on 1410 km, but he do not specify the loadout, although nevertheless the numbers seem to be a bit inflated. It may have something to do with the amount of fuel in external tanks, as the Lavi was supposed to be capable of carrying additional 4160 kg of fuel (about 153% of internal capacity, although I've seen even higher number of 4722 kg). In general the whole Lavi layout was optimized for aerodynamic efficiency, but such radius would still be a huge advantage over contemporary designs. The problem is that there is no way to validate this figure given the premature ending of the whole program.
By: TR1
- 29th October 2016 at 20:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The first mockups of the J10 were Lavi clones, they were not more or less similar , they were THE Lavi, they didnt look like a Typhoon, they didnt look like the J9, those mockups were the Lavi in PLAAF markings, period.
On top of that we have photograpic evidences of the J10 design team right in front of a bl###y Lavi, and if this was not enough we have a bucket load of Chinese hardware that is without a question a direct copy of Israeli equipment in the exact same timeframe of the development of the fr####ing Lavi, the most obvious example the AAM that would have been the, guess what, the main air to air munition of the... bleeding Lavi, and if THIS was not enough we have the Russians stating to Janes that Chengdu actually received one Lavi airframe and quite a few Israeli sources stating that "yeah, we helped"...
Lies, all damned lies!
You dont have to be a genius to understand that in 1989 China lost access to the PW1120, so they went to the Russians, more precisely to the AL31 wich is a bigger, heavier, more powerful engine, so they had the redesign the airframe, thats why the J10 is a bigger aircraft. The end.
Don't worry, he will ignore all this and post another load of nonsense like the J-10 is clearly derived from the J-9 and nothing else.
By: Lolek
- 7th June 2018 at 17:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have a question - considering all new material that have come up recently on the topic of Lavi, has anyone come across any recent technical drawings of this marvelous plane? It was a huge disappointment for me that mr. Golan did not attach any detailed 3-views in his book. I know that some of the original drawings were made available to Bekim, who was a poster on this forum some time ago. He was making a custom model of Lavi https://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?showtopic=13162 (he stopped making updates some time ago, anybody knows what happened to his project?). Unfortunately, he posted only a fragmentary pictures, like the one below:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]260969[/ATTACH]
Despite the fact that I have been looking for accurate Lavi drawings for a few years now, the best thing I've found is an old drawing from some Russian source (unfortunately it is only a side view), about which accuracy I'm a bit suspicious :
[ATTACH=CONFIG]260970[/ATTACH]
If anybody has something better, I would be grateful. It is quite surprising to me that 30 years after cancellation of the project, even as basic thing as technical drawing is still impossible to find.
Posts: 498
By: Alpha Bravo - 28th October 2016 at 12:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That certainly explains the large crank and hump in the fuselage of the J-10 (which I have always found ugly), compared with the smooth lines on the Lavi and Viper.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 28th October 2016 at 13:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes. The plane is basically a Lavi cut in half, with an extending piece inserted in between.. Fugly as hell, indeed..
On the double-seater it's much less apparent, hence it looks much better..
Posts: 479
By: Dr.Snufflebug - 28th October 2016 at 14:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Kamov's specialty has always been the co-axial rotors, yes, but they have designed and built helicopters with conventional and tandem rotor configurations as well, in all imaginable sizes. The contemporary Ka-62 is an example as good as any.
The Z-10 is a straight Kamov "generic AH" design that was projected, drawn up etc. in Russia as the pr. 941 attack helicopter, then it was sold to China:
http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-built-chinese-z10-helicopter-2013-3?r=US&IR=T&IR=T
http://aviationweek.com/blog/chinese-attack-helicopters-secret-russian-roots
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/china-calling-top-10-chinese-joint-aircraft-projects-414513/
You're welcome.
But even if they cannot stop it, that doesn't constitute any sort of high ground for you and your arguments, now does it?
On topic: the Lavi story is very interesting indeed. I had only the haziest knowledge of this aircraft before and basically just thought it was an F-16 with retrofitted canards and that's it. Thanks OP.
Posts: 54
By: Lolek - 28th October 2016 at 19:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To add to this information, I found the original article on which the post of the John Golan was based. Here are some images of the most basic configurations of Lavi:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249366[/ATTACH]
The full article can be found in the proceedings on this site http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS1988/1988.html
As for the discussion on the J-10 and Lavi connection it should be noted, that J-10 cannot be treated as just an enlarged copy of the Lavi, as they were optimized towards different goals. The J-10 is a multirole fighter with the air-to-air operations as the first priority. The Lavi was far more advanced design from the aerodynamic point of view, with its main mission being the tactical air strike and in some cases strategic attacks in similar fashion to the Osirak bombardment (operation "Opera"). The air-to-air capabilities were treated as a secondary ones. It should be remembered, that we are talking about an aircraft with the empty weight of about 6940 kg and of maximum takeoff weight 19280 kg (from the B-03 prototype onward if I remember correctly). Its combat radius in Hi-lo-hi profile is given by John Golan as 2130 km. So basically F-15 range/payload performance by a Gripen-sized plane. To achieve such lofty goals the IAI used extremely close-coupled canard design to maximize the aerodynamic efficiency, as well as aerodynamic tailoring (about 50 different airfoils were used to define Lavi wing). I don't think that Chinese would go as far with the applied solutions as they simply don't need such performance. So while clearly the general configuration of J-10 was based on the Lavi, in details they are very different planes.
Posts: 3,765
By: Sintra - 29th October 2016 at 00:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Combat radii of 2130 km?
The Lavi had a worse fuel fraction than today's Gripen E and its combat radii was 800 km bigger?!
Actually thats a way bigger combat radii than the likes of the Rafale or the F35 and double the one from its most equivalent aircrafts, the Gripen A/C and the first blocks of Vipers. That number is irrealistic.
Posts: 54
By: Lolek - 29th October 2016 at 00:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well I double checked it and this is the value he states for Lavi. For comparison for F-15 he gives 2000 km, while the F-16C sits on 1410 km, but he do not specify the loadout, although nevertheless the numbers seem to be a bit inflated. It may have something to do with the amount of fuel in external tanks, as the Lavi was supposed to be capable of carrying additional 4160 kg of fuel (about 153% of internal capacity, although I've seen even higher number of 4722 kg). In general the whole Lavi layout was optimized for aerodynamic efficiency, but such radius would still be a huge advantage over contemporary designs. The problem is that there is no way to validate this figure given the premature ending of the whole program.
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 29th October 2016 at 00:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
J-10 is not a very advance design. Where are the CFTs so that it does not carry those external tanks. Lavi is joke. There is no actual loads pics.
Posts: 269
By: Byoin - 29th October 2016 at 04:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
cfts are a bandaid solution. f-22 doesn't use them either lol.
Posts: 198
By: Kopyo-21 - 29th October 2016 at 07:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thank you Fltgshdw
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 29th October 2016 at 08:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-22 belong to 1980s that's why its production was curtailed and more expensive and more fuel capacity F-35 was introduced
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 29th October 2016 at 20:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Don't worry, he will ignore all this and post another load of nonsense like the J-10 is clearly derived from the J-9 and nothing else.
Posts: 54
By: Lolek - 7th June 2018 at 17:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have a question - considering all new material that have come up recently on the topic of Lavi, has anyone come across any recent technical drawings of this marvelous plane? It was a huge disappointment for me that mr. Golan did not attach any detailed 3-views in his book. I know that some of the original drawings were made available to Bekim, who was a poster on this forum some time ago. He was making a custom model of Lavi https://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?showtopic=13162 (he stopped making updates some time ago, anybody knows what happened to his project?). Unfortunately, he posted only a fragmentary pictures, like the one below:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]260969[/ATTACH]
Despite the fact that I have been looking for accurate Lavi drawings for a few years now, the best thing I've found is an old drawing from some Russian source (unfortunately it is only a side view), about which accuracy I'm a bit suspicious :
[ATTACH=CONFIG]260970[/ATTACH]
If anybody has something better, I would be grateful. It is quite surprising to me that 30 years after cancellation of the project, even as basic thing as technical drawing is still impossible to find.
Posts: 498
By: Alpha Bravo - 7th June 2018 at 20:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It still looks like an F-16 in a delta/canard disguise to me.