J-10 - Combat Aircraft Magazine

Originally posted by OneMyrmidon
I'm 110% supporter of F-22 Raptor and I already knew, J-10 will not beat it for sure. Sorry, slacker.

But its not designed to!

Its a ground attack aircraft first, and A2A fighter 2nd. Besides, name another aircraft in the world currently that could consistently beat a F-22 one on one with equal resources.



Westy, I doubt it is being compared to an F-16 with the CFTs for range, but CFTs should impact on aircraft performance, what would the payload of a fully fuelled F-16 blk 60 be?

It is doubtful the F-16 can compare in load lugging over distance, simply due to the larger wing of the J-10.

Well, the F/A-18 classic model has around 10k lbs of fuel on board, and certainly doesn't have anywhere near the combat radius claimed in the article for the J-10, so I'm pretty confident that the figures are very optomistic. Still an interesting article though.

Originally posted by Willard856
Well, the F/A-18 classic model has around 10k lbs of fuel on board, and certainly doesn't have anywhere near the combat radius claimed in the article for the J-10, so I'm pretty confident that the figures are very optomistic. Still an interesting article though.

2 engines and a very draggy airframe...


A very crappy draggy airframe. Jeez the USN really were scraping the bottom of the barrel when they had to chose it to use as a fleet fighter...

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Westy, I doubt it is being compared to an F-16 with the CFTs for range, but CFTs should impact on aircraft performance, what would the payload of a fully fuelled F-16 blk 60 be?

The CFT's are a standard for the Block 60, kind of like the CFT's on the Strike Eagle, not sure how it would impact air craft performance though, other than of course the maneuverability and high mach aspect of it. The Strike Eagle for example carries more payload than the C version over a longer distance. And just to add, the Block 60 and 50/52+ are also cleared for three 600 Gallon external fuel tanks.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
It is doubtful the F-16 can compare in load lugging over distance, simply due to the larger wing of the J-10.

Fuel efficiency?

Originally posted by kilcoo316
2 engines and a very draggy airframe...

Having two engines impacts range? How do you know the drag value for a standard loaded Hornet/Super Hornet and that of a J-10?

EDIT: Does anyone else find it strange that different source have different specifications for the J-10, in terms of length, wing span etc...?

[edit on 29-10-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by waynos
Is there anyinformation on the tank type and location in the J-10 available or did they simply guess it from the aircrafts size?

They did pretty much guess it with reference to the Lavi design, but i have been looking for some more sources and this is what i found about the Lavi

Internal fuel: 2,722 kg

Combat radius: 2,131 km on a hi-lo-hi mission with two 454 kg Mk 84 bombs or six 227 kg Mk 82 bombs

Maybe they were influenced by these statistics?. The wings of the J-10 seem to be able to fit fuel into them, they are actually quite wide when I re-examine my pictures.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
What version of the F-16 is the article using for comparison?

F-16C Block 40. It says on the last page

Does anyone else find it strange that different source have different specifications for the J-10, in terms of length, wing span etc...?

Every other site is quoting the size of the Lavi.

The technique used to find the Actual J-10 has been known since the first real pictures of it came out. The J-10 has been seen carrying PL-8 missiles on numerous occasions, the size of the missiles are known (3m) and the actual sized was then worked out

Originally posted by WestPoint23

The CFT's are a standard for the Block 60, kind of like the CFT's on the Strike Eagle, not sure how it would impact air craft performance though, other than of course the maneuverability and high mach aspect of it. The Strike Eagle for example carries more payload than the C version over a longer distance. And just to add, the Block 60 and 50/52+ are also cleared for three 600 Gallon external fuel tanks.


Fuel efficiency?


Having two engines impacts range? How do you know the drag value for a standard loaded Hornet/Super Hornet and that of a J-10?

EDIT: Does anyone else find it strange that different source have different specifications for the J-10, in terms of length, wing span etc...?

[edit on 29-10-2006 by WestPoint23]

Yeap - but thats what I meant, its not being compared to those.

Lets consider.

F-16 Blk 40 [sources F-16.net and chinawhites earlier post for wing area

A2A take off weight - 26,500 lbs approx
Max take off weight - 42,300 lbs approx
Wing area 300 ft^2
Aspect ratio - 3.45

J-10 [sources wikipedia and chinawhite]
A2A take off weight - unknown
Max take off weight - 40,600 lbs
Wing area - 490 ft^2
Aspect ratio - 2.8


We'll just use the estimated max take-off weights for a simulated A2G mission.

Giving approx wing loadings of

F-16 -> 141 lb/ft^2
J-10 -> 83 lb/ft^2

However, the J-10 has a much lower aspect ratio... although with the tapering inherent to fighter wings the influence of the aspect is reduced a little. I'll see if I can hunt out some of the lifting line eqns later to make proper L/D comparisons.

It could be concluded that the J-10 has a less efficient wing, but due to having a much larger wing, it should still produce much better L/D figures. [Don't take this as final, I may change my mind later on when I get a chance to run calcs].



2 (comparable vs single unit) engines always increases fuel consumption - compare the F-16 and MiG-29. Heavier airframe, more frontal cross section area (more drag) etc.

The hornet is a crap airframe aerodynamically, but the C/D models are much better than the E/F series... the "super" hornet can barely break mach 1 at lower altitudes! Little wing sweep and the forcing of a thicker aerofoil section for carrier take-offs meant very poor transonic performance. They had to make the aerofoil thinner than they'd ideally like to compensate, meaning a poor performance everywhere.

Look here..........

I thought would have been the perfect picture to have gone with this article

Very nice!!
Best J-10 shot I've seen till date!

Very interesting J-10 picture. Flying over water suggest that they have now assumed a new role possibly near the Taiwan strait as well as the airbase in the Chengdu region

Very nice read indeed!!!!!!! chinawhite
so when are you going to do
a FC-1/JF-17 thunder thread.
I enjoyed the airforces monthly article on the FC-1.
Especially the time scales involved compared to US or Euro designs

link

[edit on 21-9-2007 by Jezza]

I would like to hear more about this maritime role lfor the J-10.

The Martimi-zation of a aircraft involves a lot of changes starting with redefining flight envelope, materials sceinces to counter salt actions, radar refit to include antishipping roles etc etc..

HAs the J-10 been fitted with any anti-shipping capabilities?


Jezza, the wiki for the JF-17 is not the best place to go for information of the caliber that we have made standard here on ATS.

I'm sure CW can source some good info on the same.

That wiki makes a lot of relativistic comparsions which border on being biased.

Originally posted by Jezza
so when are you going to do
a FC-1/JF-17 thunder thread.

Theres a fairly good thread here, although its a little outdated

Originally posted by Daedalus3
I would like to hear more about this maritime role lfor the J-10.

I had only stumbled on these pictures a few days ago. But if the J-10 had any Anti-shipping capabilities, we sure haven't seen any. Possibly this deployment is for air superiority or ground strike missions since the J-10 does have a nice complement of ground munitions

The engine the J-10 will be equipped with.

The First J-10



Stealth spy was claiming it crashed and even provided fake photos