Eurofighter and J-10 - More than a coincidence?

Ok, lets start off by having a look at the Eurofighter next to a J-10:



Doesn’t it remind you of this?



Am I the only one who thinks this is more than a coincidence that they look so alike? I can’t help but think that plans were leaked to the Chinese just like plans outlining concord were leaked to the Russians?

Everything about them looks similar in some form or another. So do you think this has been the case or is it just the fact that the Eurofighters shape is that of a natural progression of fighters?

Views please…

There is some visual similarities, but the J-10 was done with the help of Isreal.

Chinese engineers are trying to develop the J-10 from a single F-16 provided by Pakistan, and with assistance from Israeli engineers associated with Israel’s US-financed Lavi fighter program, which was cancelled in 1987.
www.fas.org...

Originally posted by Thirst
Am I the only one who thinks this is more than a coincidence that they look so alike? I can’t help but think that plans were leaked to the Chinese just like plans outlining concord were leaked to the Russians?

Sorry, but they aren't even close.


You start with a T/W ratio and wing loading (defined from mission profiles) and size your aircraft from there. The EF-T has a massively different flight envelope to the J-10.


In comparison to the EF-T, the J-10 is underpowered, and has a much higher wing loading (for combat loads). Its A2G 1st, A2A 2nd - while the Typhoon is definitely A2A 1st and A2G 2nd.

Why, oh why do some people think that just because two aircraft might share a common configuration to solve a common requirement that there is a conspiracy involved ???????? Gosh, was there conspiracy involved in the design of the Spitfire, Bf 109 and the Hurricane?? - or perhaps the Fw 190, Zero and the P-47 - of course not.

Given the state of technology, indeed the state of knowledge, at any given moment in human history, it is absolutely INEVITABLE that designers will reach the same general conclusions to solve the same problems most efficiently, most of the time.

To think that the designers (or indeed the general population) of one country are more intelligent than those of another country is nothing short of racism and bigotry!

The ONLY difference that I can see is that some countries have been able to invest more money to address basic research questions that lead to advancements in technology (remembering that at least as many research endeavors lead nowhere at all) - and as soon as you apply them (unless you are going to keep the resulting aircraft permanently in a hanger) the technology spreads, merely because other designers and researchers can see the configuration and understand that it might be a 'better' solution to some application that was previously insoluble without considerable, expensive original research. Upon seeing a new configuration, particularly applied to a traditional aircraft role (say, a ground attack fighter), it gives impetus to other research organizations to test that configuration (it also makes it cheaper in the long run, as they don't end up testing stuff the turns out to be useless).

That they do not come up with exactly the same solution (the situation where, for instance the aerodynamic qualities of Concorde were not available to that company's competitors, but more particularly even the underlying theory was not available to the Russians - due to 'Cold War' restrictions), and that the resulting aircraft are not equally successful, is absolute proof that these so-called conspiracies DO NOT EXIST.

As for copying someone else's ideas, well if you look at the 'rolleron' stabilization system on a Sidewinder you will see that it is such an elegant, simple, cheap and effective solution to an engineering problem, that has stood the test of time, and if you were designing either a similar weapon or a competitor, that you would be absolutely stupid not to consider using that system (especially if you are in a position where you can ignore patent rights!)

That most modern fighters are built in the same configuration, is merely that 'someone' first thought of that configuration, could afford to test the theory and put it into practice. Each configuration gives the design particular flight characteristics, therefore to build something else to have similar characteristics, or to counter that particular aircraft on the battlefield, it is obvious that any other design is going to have a similar or 'better' configuration to SUIT THE PURPOSE - which brings us back to which countries can afford the expense of testing all the research theories put forward all over the world, all the time.

One could go even further and suggest that because the pictures shown above are taken from the same angle, that (presuming that they were taken by different photographers) that there must have been some conspiracy involving the photographers. It is nothing more than the fact that such an angle results in an eye-pleasing result - same problem, same solution - simple as that.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 25/10/07 by The Winged Wombat]

It is farily common in aviation history for the Russians and the Chinese to copy the design of aircraft. Only have to look to the similarity between the F-86 Sabre and the Mig-19. or the F-15 and the Mig-31. Similar designs, and probably a result of industrial espionage by the Russians.

So there is no conspiracy beyond your run of the mill spying at work between the Eurofighter and the Chinese jet.

The F-15 and MiG-31 are 2 totally different aircraft - not only in looks but designed role - where 1 is an air superority aircraft the other is a dedicated interceptor - they don`t even loom alike!

The SU-27 and MiG-29 were born out of the *same* requirements as the F-15 and F-18

Originally posted by xianh
It is farily common in aviation history for the Russians and the Chinese to copy the design of aircraft. Only have to look to the similarity between the F-86 Sabre and the Mig-19. or the F-15 and the Mig-31. Similar designs, and probably a result of industrial espionage by the Russians.

Sorry, but that is all wrong.

The F-86 Sabre was an even match to the MiG-15, and they had entirely separate lineage. The Soviets would have absolutely no need to try and copy (in the MiG-19 design) what was in many ways an inferior design to their already in-service machines.

The Foxhound directly evolved from the MiG-25, this was designed as an interceptor, not an air superiority fighter like the F-15. The west first thought the Foxbat was a direct opponent to the eagle, but they were wrong - and realised as much when Belenko defected.


Infact, outside of the Buran and Tu-144, I'm having trouble thinking of anything Russian that could be called a direct relation of a western design (as regards aviation). The Buran was and is superior to the shuttle in many respects, and I don't know enough about the Charger to comment.

Oh really!

Not much similarity between an F-86 (single engined subsonic air superiority fighter) and a MiG-19 (twin engined supersonic fighter - the world's first to be able to maintain level supersonic flight, by the way) - so just what, do you think the Russians copied from the appreciably earlier F-86? Just what interest do you imagine the Russians might have had in F-86 technology to apply to a later generation of aircraft - that's just ridiculous, especially when you consider that the MiG-15 was quite a reasonable match for an F-86. What, pray tell, did the Russians copy that enabled the MiG-19 to do what no other service aircraft could at the time - go supersonic in level flight?

If you are basing your theory on swept wings and a single tail - you might just as well accuse the Russians of copying the MiG-19 from the Boeing 707!

F-15 and MiG-31 (an outgrowth of the MiG-25, incidentally) - hmm, the F-15 is designed for high maneuverability and the MiG-31 just the opposite - straight long range intercept and recon. One is designed for ops around Mach 2, the other for Mach 3. And, for your general information, the MiG-25 was designed around the concept of intercepting US bombers in the class of the XB-70 Valkyrie. Due to the effectiveness of the Russian missile defense systems against high flying fast aircraft, coming on line at the time, the XB-70 was cancelled, but the Russians continued with the MiG-25.

Any similarity between these aircraft are even less than you might apply to the configuration of the Spitfire, Bf 109 and Hurricane (at least these aircraft were designed for the same role within the same flight envelope) - the only similarity is a very vague configurational (if that's a word) one.

Certainly there has always been spying going on, and there are some easily demonstrable examples, and not always between East and West, but in this case you are way off.

I get rather sick of hearing that such and such a country always copies someone else's designs.

If anyone wants to take up the task of proving it to me, then here's your challenge........ What did the Russians copy the MiG-21 (the most produced jet fighter to date) from ?

The Winged Wombat

Originally posted by kilcoo316

In fact, outside of the Buran and Tu-144, I'm having trouble thinking of anything Russian that could be called a direct relation of a western design (as regards aviation). The Buran was and is superior to the shuttle in many respects, and I don't know enough about the Charger to comment.

The design of the Tu-144 had more to do with National prestige than anything else, I think. I have no doubt that Russia felt that they had to have a supersonic airliner as well - draw space race comparisons here - but were not really prepared for designing one. They did, obviously observe the Concorde, just as Boeing did, (the Boeing 2707 is remembered as a variable geometry design [2707-100 and 2707-200], however the final design for the Boeing SST was the 2707-300, a fixed [tailed] delta!).

What the Russians failed to achieve was the wing performance. They tried two different wing shapes, best described as compound delta configurations, neither of which worked as well as the continuously curved (ogee) wing leading edge of the Concorde which generates a massive vortex over the mid-span of the wing. So the fact that the Russians did not end up with a viable SST is proof that there was no direct (successful) spying, or copying involved. That the two aircraft had a similar - but not the same - configuration, is once again, testament to the fact that both teams were designing aircraft to do exactly the same job (and the choice of a delta is obvious when you consider the quantity of fuel required [and just where to carry it] to do those distances at supersonic speed - what a coincidence the SR-71 stored all that fuel in a delta wing as well!). That Boeing chose a different approach initially with VG, was probably due to the fact that the US SST was designed to carry a larger number of passengers at an appreciably higher Mach number, but they still ended up with a delta wing in the end.

If you consider the lack of fuel space within a supersonic swept or VG wing, this may actually have dictated to Boeing the seating capacity of their SST, by dictating the overall capacity of the fuselage, which, as well as passengers would have had to carry virtually the entire fuel load as well.

The case of the SST is a very specific one, because it is well to remember that the design of the Concorde to meet the stated requirement resulted in the rather unusual situation that the organization with the most total time at Mach 2 is not a military one, it's British Airways - by a considerable margin!

However, there is one (and only one as far as I know) aircraft that the Russians actually did copy - bolt for bolt - and that was the Tupolev Tu-4 'Bull'. They reverse engineered the Tu-4 from 'captured' B-29s and there is a direct incremental development line from the Tu-4 all the way to the Tu-95/Tu-142 'Bear' family.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 26/10/07 by The Winged Wombat]

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat

However, there is one (and only one as far as I know) aircraft that the Russians actually did copy - bolt for bolt - and that was the Tupolev Tu-4 'Bull'. They reverse engineered the Tu-4 from 'captured' B-29s and there is a direct incremental development line from the Tu-4 all the way to the Tu-95/Tu-142 'Bear' family.

The Tu-4 was a complete copy, right down to the fact that various parts were stamped 'Boeing', the cockpit dials on the prototype were in english and the development aircraft included the battle damage repairs taht the captured B-29s suffered from.

However, the only direct lineage between the Tu-4 and the Tu-95 is that the same design bureau worked on both and learnt from past experience.

The Blackjack shows some similarities to the B-1A, however I'm not sure which one inspired the other if the inspiration was there.

As far as the Tu-144 and Concorde thing, I recall reading that the Concorde took some concepts from the Tu-144. The Tu-144 was in service before the Concorde and I believe is still in service, may be wrong on that, I'll have to look into it later on.

Shattered OUT...

reply to post by ShatteredSkies


Here is your answer.

Although its last commercial passenger flight was in 1978, production of the Tu-144 did not cease until six years later, in 1984, when construction of the partially complete Tu-144D reg 77116 airframe was stopped. During the 1980s the last two production aircraft to fly were used for airborne laboratory testing, including research into ozone depletion at high altitudes.

Ahh, so it's not transporting people, but doing scientific research. Such is the fate of many fine aircraft I presume.

Shattered OUT...

reply to post by ShatteredSkies


REsearch flights only 27 of them I believe and then it was retired again and thats where it stays I assume. Not enough spare parts and the lack of funding will keep it there as with most planes.

However, the only direct lineage between the Tu-4 and the Tu-95 is that the same design bureau worked on both and learnt from past experience.

No, Wombat is correct. The Tu-4 was evolved into the Tu-80 (via the Tu-70 transport) with fuselage and wing extensions and a redesign of the flightdeck into a stepped arrangement, this design was further evolved into the Tu-85 with a further scale-up but was found to be already obsolete, the Tu-95 was then created by redesigning the Tu-85 with swept wings and turboprops (similarly to the change between the F-84E and the F-84F) so there is a direct developmental lineage from the Tu-95 to the Tu-4 and, by default, the B-29.

Another direct copy that the Russians produced was the Lisunov Li 2, a bolt for bolt reconstruction of the DC-3.

Regarding the MiG copy of the F-15, this was the MiG 29 Large, covered elsewhere, and it remained a design study only, in fact the design of the MiG 25 began in 1958, a decade before the F-15.

As for the J-10 being a copy of the Typhoon?



Only if the the man doing the copying was blindfolded and had never seen the Typhoon before.

As far as the Tu-144 and Concorde thing, I recall reading that the Concorde took some concepts from the Tu-144. The Tu-144 was in service before the Concorde

No it didn't shattered, you are correct that the Tu-144 flew first, but only by a few months and certainly no time to assess or incorporate any elements from it. Concorde had been in development since 1962 and relied entirely upon the research and findings of Bristol, Sud Aviation, Bristol Siddeley, SNECMA and the RAE.



[edit on 27-10-2007 by waynos]

reply to post by Thirst


I think that there is a resemblance. This may be based upon "copying" a design concept from a series of delta-winged aircraft, may be coincidence based on plane design evolution or may be by directly copying F16/Lavi designs as is widely speculated.

However, the J10 may look a bit like the Typhoon, but that's where it stops. The Typhoon has two engines, greater thrust to weight; is bigger; has more sophisticated man machine interface (based on what I have heard of the Typhoon's capabilities), etc...

I am sure the J-10 is a step change in the People's Liberation Army Airforce, but it is not a Typhoon.

I actually think that with those big canards it visually resembles the Saab JAS 39 Gripen.

Regards

reply to post by waynos


Thanks waynos,

You saved me digging out the multi-part article 'The Billion Dollar Bomber' from early Air Enthusiast / Air International. The personal experiences of the crews of the B-29s that 'found sanctuary' (sometimes due to combat damage, sometimes as planned shuttle raids on Japan) in the USSR, has also been well documented - eventually they were returned, but without their B-29s. The reports of reverse engineering battle damage, sounds a lot like an urban myth to me - another case of 'they'd be too stupid to know' bigotry and cold war propaganda. Ironically the engines used on the Tu-95/Tu-142 have a direct lineage back to German WWII research programs, which aimed to produce both a 'small' and 'large' family of turboprops - the 'large' series were never pursued (or at least perfected) in the West.

The Ruskies did put a satellite into orbit first, didn't they - oh, yeah that must have been Germans forced to work for them, mustn't it - just like the US space program - if you follow that theory then Germans are far smarter than either Russians or Americans!

With regard to the career of the Tu-144, I seem to recall that the aircraft never did go into service with Aeroflot as a passenger carrying aircraft, and was used for high speed mail carriage. This may be a slight exaggeration and that it was in such service for a very short period and then shifted into 'non-human' cargo.

It is my belief that the Russians started on their design (regardless of what they may say) quite a while after the Anglo-French partners, and in the spirit of the space race produced something that, while it flew first, was somewhat underdone. I do not believe that the Russians ever really expected to put the bird into service. For instance, I don't ever recall the Soviet Premier using it as an aircraft of state, which had it been a success, even technically, I'm sure he would have - if only to annoy the US.

The reason that NASA used the Tu-144 for that particular program was that there were no Concordes available and the Tu-144 was. After all, all the extant Concordes at the time were in revenue earning (or losing as the case may be) service. The Tu-144 concerned had been mothballed and had to be refurbished (and modified) for the NASA program.

I think you will find that the Lisunov Li-2 is the result of a license agreement with Douglas. Bill Gunston states in 'Aircraft of the Soviet Union' that ...

''Despite (the) wish to avoid changes, 1293 engineering change orders on original Douglas drawings involving part design, dimensions, materials and processes."

The engines installed were different as well - the original engine installed in the Li-2 was the Ash-621R. As part of the license agreement Lisunov was at Douglas, Santa Monica between November 1936 and April 1939.

The same is true of the Japanese version of the DC-3 (Nakajima L2D) - it was also licensed from Douglas ($90,000 bought them the rights to build and sell in 'The Empire of Japan and Manchukuo' - this was $10,000 more than the same deal they did on the DC-2 with Douglas).

This design copying thing is a dumb argument, especially when one considers that all aircraft cannons, for instance, are based on three or four original designs which various countries have gained licenses to produce and have gone on to refine those designs in various directions.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 28/10/07 by The Winged Wombat]

reply to post by The Winged Wombat


Yes wombat, it was remiss of me not to say that it was a licensed copy, I was including in a sense of sopmething the Russians produced from a western design and then modified themselves. Completely different circumstances from the B-29/TU-4 though.

I should talk, however, what about (most) Westland helicopters

I think we need to make a very clear distinction between licensed production of a design (and most licenses include the ability to make modifications and marketing in a particular area) and copying someone else's concept or design.

Otherwise any licensed production could be included under the umbrella of copying (or plagiarism as it would be termed in relation to literature or music).

If we include licensed production as copying, then the US would rank quite high on the list of 'copiers' . Here is a partial list…….

Martin B-57 Canberra - English Electric Canberra
McDonnell-Douglas AV-8 Harrier - British Aerospace Harrier
McDonnell-Douglas T-45 Goshawk - British Aerospace Hawk
Raytheon T-6 Texan II - Pilatus PC-9
Lockheed US101 (VH-71) - EH Industries EH-101
Allis-Chalmers J36 Engine - De Havilland Goblin
Pratt & Whitney J42 - Rolls Royce Nene
Westinghouse J54 - Rolls Royce Avon
Wright J65 - Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire
Wright J67 - Bristol Olympus
Westinghouse J81 - Rolls Royce Soar
Allison TF41 - Rolls Royce Sprey…..

And of course… The Packard V-1650 - Rolls Royce Merlin

I'm sure if I had nothing else to do, I could fill many pages with such examples

By comparison, British Licensed production of foreign designs is pretty much limited to Westland's production of Sikorsky and McDonnell-Douglas helicopters, unless you go way back to some Airspeed licenses to produce Fokker pre WWII transport designs.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 29/10/07 by The Winged Wombat]