超级军网棍B采用dsi进气道后对空战性能影响是好还是坏？
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/27 14:14:45
目前对dsi进气道流行的说法有两种：
1、不少人说dsi对亚音速条件下的性能有好处，相反对高速条件下产生不利影响。因此，棍b用了dsi后，对地性能，多用途能力提升，空优性能特别是高空高速性能下降。
2、不少资料显示dsi对速度范围适应广，且多产生有力影响，对于棍子2.0M，或者2.2M下的全包线性能都有正面作用。持这种观点的有当铺等人。
我倾向于后者，并认为棍b不会放弃空优能力，在使用绩优alf31情况下，由于采用dsi进气道后的减重，采用新复合材料后，重量不会比棍a提高多少，而且，随着将来换99m2，太行改，空优性能也有会提升，当然远期隐身大改后换ws15，那空优及多用途能力更会同时提高。
目前试生产，定型前的棍b，个人感觉，重点强化了电战，与系统整合系统能力，期待最短版动力的提升。
筒子们怎么感觉的？目前对dsi进气道流行的说法有两种：
1、不少人说dsi对亚音速条件下的性能有好处，相反对高速条件下产生不利影响。因此，棍b用了dsi后，对地性能，多用途能力提升，空优性能特别是高空高速性能下降。
2、不少资料显示dsi对速度范围适应广，且多产生有力影响，对于棍子2.0M，或者2.2M下的全包线性能都有正面作用。持这种观点的有当铺等人。
我倾向于后者，并认为棍b不会放弃空优能力，在使用绩优alf31情况下，由于采用dsi进气道后的减重，采用新复合材料后，重量不会比棍a提高多少，而且，随着将来换99m2，太行改，空优性能也有会提升，当然远期隐身大改后换ws15，那空优及多用途能力更会同时提高。
目前试生产，定型前的棍b，个人感觉，重点强化了电战，与系统整合系统能力，期待最短版动力的提升。
筒子们怎么感觉的？
1、不少人说dsi对亚音速条件下的性能有好处，相反对高速条件下产生不利影响。因此，棍b用了dsi后，对地性能，多用途能力提升，空优性能特别是高空高速性能下降。
2、不少资料显示dsi对速度范围适应广，且多产生有力影响，对于棍子2.0M，或者2.2M下的全包线性能都有正面作用。持这种观点的有当铺等人。
我倾向于后者，并认为棍b不会放弃空优能力，在使用绩优alf31情况下，由于采用dsi进气道后的减重，采用新复合材料后，重量不会比棍a提高多少，而且，随着将来换99m2，太行改，空优性能也有会提升，当然远期隐身大改后换ws15，那空优及多用途能力更会同时提高。
目前试生产，定型前的棍b，个人感觉，重点强化了电战，与系统整合系统能力，期待最短版动力的提升。
筒子们怎么感觉的？目前对dsi进气道流行的说法有两种：
1、不少人说dsi对亚音速条件下的性能有好处，相反对高速条件下产生不利影响。因此，棍b用了dsi后，对地性能，多用途能力提升，空优性能特别是高空高速性能下降。
2、不少资料显示dsi对速度范围适应广，且多产生有力影响，对于棍子2.0M，或者2.2M下的全包线性能都有正面作用。持这种观点的有当铺等人。
我倾向于后者，并认为棍b不会放弃空优能力，在使用绩优alf31情况下，由于采用dsi进气道后的减重，采用新复合材料后，重量不会比棍a提高多少，而且，随着将来换99m2，太行改，空优性能也有会提升，当然远期隐身大改后换ws15，那空优及多用途能力更会同时提高。
目前试生产，定型前的棍b，个人感觉，重点强化了电战，与系统整合系统能力，期待最短版动力的提升。
筒子们怎么感觉的？
搞不好J10B会放弃高速
整机推重比的变化怎样？
99M2的话设计14吨，台架推出15吨。
应该不会彻底放弃高速性能。
留个记号，等高手回答~
牺牲高速性，重量有所减轻！
DSI是进气道,进气大,发动机推力当然就大了贝.. 另:第2种明显错误,据说同样进气的F-35战斗状态挂载下,最大速度不过1.6M...达到2.0M这么牛比,恐怕是F-22吧..高空高速,F-22的专利呀..... :D
我国低空大表速纪录是J10创下的，这个纪录有可能再次被刷新。
不过高空高速就继续指望J8吧……
不过高空高速就继续指望J8吧……
据说牺牲0.4以下的效率可以DSI把适应上限提升到2马赫。
然后0.4以下另开进气门。
然后0.4以下另开进气门。
不可能放弃高速，空军的主要使命就是截击，现阶段中国空军还没到可以完全职能分化的程度。
DSI=牺牲高空高速？
...... 这种伪命题，超大还讨论得这么开心
...... 这种伪命题，超大还讨论得这么开心
]]
]]
DSI Origins
The DSI traces its roots to work done by Lockheed Martin engineers in the early 1990s as part of an independent research and development project called the Advanced Propulsion Integration project. The concept was developed and refined with Lockheed Martin-proprietary computer modeling tools made possible by advances in Computational Fluid Dynamics, or CFD. CFD is the science of determining a numerical solution to the governing equations of fluid flow and advancing this solution through space or time to describe a complete flow field of interest—in this case, the flow field of a fighter forebody, inlet, and inlet duct.
CFD, considered a branch of fluid dynamics, provides a cost-effective means of simulating airflow. The development of more powerful computers has furthered CFD advances to the point that it has become the preferred means of evaluating aerodynamic designs.
Basic research of the inlet concept continued through the mid-1990s. Traditional wind tunnel testing of small plastic inlet models built with stereolithographic techniques augmented a CFD-based development process for the DSI. Engineers made enough technical advances during this period that two US patent applications were filed, one dealing with the overall design and the second dealing with the integration process of the new technology. (Both patents were granted in 1998.) The diverterless inlet designs built and tested with this combination of CFD and small-scale wind tunnel models formed a database of inlet configurations that would subsequently prove valuable to the Lockheed Martin JSF design.
Stereolithography
Stereolithography builds a part very quickly from a vat of photocurable resin. A laser scans the surface of the resin, following a computer-based description of the part. The laser draws the bottom layer of the part first. When the layer is complete, a platform just below the cured layer drops lower into the vat of resin. Fresh resin washes over the part, and the laser proceeds to build the next layer. A three-dimensional design is built up in this additive process. When all layers are complete, the part is cleaned and put through a final curing process.
Full-Scale Test Inlet
The DSI flight-tested on the F-16 in 1996 was designed on computer workstations using three-dimensional solid models. It was developed with minimal airframe impacts and maximum use of existing hardware to reduce design and manufacturing costs. The F-16’s modular inlet design allowed development of a DSI-equipped inlet module without significant impacts to the aircraft forebody or center fuselage. As with the existing inlet design, the new inlet module formed part of the forward fuselage extending from the inlet leading edge to the interface between the forward fuselage and center fuselage. The compression surface was attached to the existing forward fuselage below the cockpit without affecting the rest of the forebody or the chine. New duct lines were developed to form a transition from the new inlet aperture to the existing duct.
The upper surface of the F-16 inlet module forms the floor of the forward fuel tank. This fuel tank is located directly behind the pilot. The lower surface of the fuel tank floor forms the upper surface of the F-16 inlet duct. This fuel tank floor offered an ideal starting point for the structural layout of the new inlet module since it is an assembly that can be procured directly from the F-16 production line. The diverter support beam was also retained and, in combination with the fuel tank floor, formed the primary means of attaching the new inlet module to the forward fuselage.
The DSI traces its roots to work done by Lockheed Martin engineers in the early 1990s as part of an independent research and development project called the Advanced Propulsion Integration project. The concept was developed and refined with Lockheed Martin-proprietary computer modeling tools made possible by advances in Computational Fluid Dynamics, or CFD. CFD is the science of determining a numerical solution to the governing equations of fluid flow and advancing this solution through space or time to describe a complete flow field of interest—in this case, the flow field of a fighter forebody, inlet, and inlet duct.
CFD, considered a branch of fluid dynamics, provides a cost-effective means of simulating airflow. The development of more powerful computers has furthered CFD advances to the point that it has become the preferred means of evaluating aerodynamic designs.
Basic research of the inlet concept continued through the mid-1990s. Traditional wind tunnel testing of small plastic inlet models built with stereolithographic techniques augmented a CFD-based development process for the DSI. Engineers made enough technical advances during this period that two US patent applications were filed, one dealing with the overall design and the second dealing with the integration process of the new technology. (Both patents were granted in 1998.) The diverterless inlet designs built and tested with this combination of CFD and small-scale wind tunnel models formed a database of inlet configurations that would subsequently prove valuable to the Lockheed Martin JSF design.
Stereolithography
Stereolithography builds a part very quickly from a vat of photocurable resin. A laser scans the surface of the resin, following a computer-based description of the part. The laser draws the bottom layer of the part first. When the layer is complete, a platform just below the cured layer drops lower into the vat of resin. Fresh resin washes over the part, and the laser proceeds to build the next layer. A three-dimensional design is built up in this additive process. When all layers are complete, the part is cleaned and put through a final curing process.
Full-Scale Test Inlet
The DSI flight-tested on the F-16 in 1996 was designed on computer workstations using three-dimensional solid models. It was developed with minimal airframe impacts and maximum use of existing hardware to reduce design and manufacturing costs. The F-16’s modular inlet design allowed development of a DSI-equipped inlet module without significant impacts to the aircraft forebody or center fuselage. As with the existing inlet design, the new inlet module formed part of the forward fuselage extending from the inlet leading edge to the interface between the forward fuselage and center fuselage. The compression surface was attached to the existing forward fuselage below the cockpit without affecting the rest of the forebody or the chine. New duct lines were developed to form a transition from the new inlet aperture to the existing duct.
The upper surface of the F-16 inlet module forms the floor of the forward fuel tank. This fuel tank is located directly behind the pilot. The lower surface of the fuel tank floor forms the upper surface of the F-16 inlet duct. This fuel tank floor offered an ideal starting point for the structural layout of the new inlet module since it is an assembly that can be procured directly from the F-16 production line. The diverter support beam was also retained and, in combination with the fuel tank floor, formed the primary means of attaching the new inlet module to the forward fuselage.
]]
]]
单进气道就减不少重量了，不过实际性能怎样有待证实，也有可能是专为巴基斯坦生产的？？？
怎么现在还有人说DSI影响高速性能啊？
]]
原帖由 Spica 于 2009-3-24 23:44 发表
怎么现在还有人说DSI影响高速性能啊？
制空战斗机F22仍然用隔离进气道，低端炸弹卡车F35用DSI。
你觉得应该怎么看DSI？
原帖由 thomasyoung 于 2009-3-25 00:32 发表
制空战斗机F22仍然用隔离进气道，低端炸弹卡车F35用DSI。
你觉得应该怎么看DSI？
没有明显的可比性
原帖由 thomasyoung 于 2009-3-25 00:32 发表
制空战斗机F22仍然用隔离进气道，低端炸弹卡车F35用DSI。
你觉得应该怎么看DSI？
本人是菜鸟都不懂，只是觉得22那怎么说也是20年前设计的气动了，它没用不能说就不好。
换个说法，美国海军未来50年的主力战机用DSI，你觉得应该怎么看？:D
]]
空军界两大以讹传讹：
鸭翼不能隐身
DSI不能高速
鸭翼不能隐身
DSI不能高速
原帖由 歼击机07 于 2009-3-25 00:49 发表
空军界两大以讹传讹：
鸭翼不能隐身
DSI不能高速
你头像是你女儿？好可爱
原帖由 歼击机07 于 2009-3-25 00:45 发表
22速度也不算很快，1.8M巡航，2.2M的极速，其正常飞行速度基本都在常规DSI范围内
最大2.5M好吧..
原帖由 PRINCEBUSTER 于 2009-3-25 02:07 发表
最大2.5M好吧..
没证据，最多只有M2.42的说法，还不是确凿的。
那只是J-10改的新航电和新进气技术验证机。J-10还有新发动机技术验证机，还有超机动性能验证机。
真正的10B还没出现呢。真正的10B是否完全采用这些技术，还要看验证后的效果，还可能有微调，甚至放弃不用。
真正的10B还没出现呢。真正的10B是否完全采用这些技术，还要看验证后的效果，还可能有微调，甚至放弃不用。
F---10 截击型号,多用途型号 都很重要
各300架:victory:
各300架:victory:
:D 29# 今天都是肯定方式的发言阿
就棍子的超级大垂尾来看，对高空高速下的偏航控制力不抱太大信心。AL31和太行的高空推力下降都比较厉害，指望棍子跟八爷比拼高空高速能力似乎不太乐观。
原帖由 strongp2 于 2009-3-25 09:57 发表
没证据，最多只有M2.42的说法，还不是确凿的。
拜托,F-15E 最大 2.5M左右,我说的是最大范围的下限..
原帖由 ertert 于 2009-3-25 10:02 发表
那只是J-10改的新航电和新进气技术验证机。J-10还有新发动机技术验证机，还有超机动性能验证机。
真正的10B还没出现呢。真正的10B是否完全采用这些技术，还要看验证后的效果，还可能有微调，甚至放弃不用。
如果您老没有确切的消息来源
请在语气如此肯定的话前面加上“我认为”:handshake
]]
原帖由 歼击机07 于 2009-3-25 00:49 发表
空军界两大以讹传讹：
鸭翼不能隐身
DSI不能高速
不是绝对的不能高速，而是指速度高到一定程度后，DSI的总压恢复率下降得非常快。
原帖由 PRINCEBUSTER 于 2009-3-25 11:15 发表
拜托,F-15E 最大 2.5M左右,我说的是最大范围的下限..
F-15C也是M2.5。15E阻力增加了，推力也上去了，也有说法是下降到M2.35。如果有飞包，可以拿出来看看。
你引用的语句里分明是说F-22的最大速度。这个只看过M2.42的最大值。
原帖由 歼击机07 于 2009-3-25 00:49 发表
空军界两大以讹传讹：
鸭翼不能隐身
DSI不能高速
放Google一搜就有两者相关的文章，你要有能力何不写一篇文章来反驳，证明它是“讹”
原帖由 碳酸氢镁镁 于 2009-3-25 01:02 发表
你头像是你女儿？好可爱
我有这么可爱的女儿就好了
相对来讲，外挂物速度的影响更大，很少有几种飞机在带弹后速度能在M2以上的，因此对于“高速性能”，不必看得太重——一般只要加速足够大就行，好一点的可以追求降低油耗，至于M2以上的速度，最多只有空机逃命的时候才有点用，还要有个前提：余油量足够。