Torbernite

I would try to find a proper date as soon as possible for that, I think no later than Apr. 1st at least. Such a photo may be difficult as I remembered that plane is in an indoor exhibition hall and photograph is limited in many places, for the space is limited and some areas are under the management of the air force. If that's hard I will try to take a side view of the tail part to show the fin root (the fin is folded when gears down) to show the rear edge and then try to find if there is another plane of J-8II series in outdoor area.

The fin should always have horizontal bottom after all and all drawings with slant bottom should be imprecise. The rear edge might be very slightly sweeping forward and looks exaggerated from some direction, so maybe neither the squared nor greatly sweeping drawings are precise. But I'm not sure! J-8II series has two main frame design and the main difference is the 2 vs. 4 fences. I don't know whether the fin was changed because the "sweeping" rear edge appears on photos of both frames. If necessary, I can try to go to check the one in Beijing in several days. It should be in China Aviation Museum, but now I'm not sure its display area is open or not. Another question I'm wondering is, whether J-8II retained the excess fuel tank of J-8I? J-8I has an excess or backup fuel tank in frontal frame, which is empty in most cases but usable in ferry flight or long-range patrol, like the flanker's excess tanks. Those excess fuel is unable to drop quickly like drop tanks, and it causes forward moving of mass center, lower overload limitation and in takeoff it makes rotation a bit harder. But the tank causes no drag like drop tanks so the range could be longer than using drop tanks with equal fuel. This tank is intended to make some use of the space left after the cockpit is moved forward to balance the two heavy engines. But the frontal fuselage of J-8II is largely redesigned, so I don't know whether it's retained.

Not exactly if you take earlier planes into account. Due to its old-fashioned thoughts and the delayed development, J-8 is surely inferior to F-15 or something like that, also possibly to phantom. But if the target is a MiG-21 or 23 or similar ones, the situation is different. According to the test pilot, in test flight and simulated combat against J-7 (those based on MiG-21F-13, not the 21MF or bis version) carried out by PLAAF, J-8I is better in acceleration, climbing, vertical maneuver, steady level turning with Max. throttle, equal in deceleration level turning and steady level turning with afterburner, and only inferior in roll rate and deceleration performance. J-8II has slightly increased wing load and decreased ceiling. While the increased afterburner thrust brings better climbing, acceleration and level turning performance, and the differential horizontal stabilizers make up for the roll rate by 20-30%.

According to the memoir from Ge Wenyong, test pilot and instructor pilot of PLAAF, in early 1964 they tested the F-86F-30 brought by KMT surrender pilot, and found the hydraulic system worked at same pressure (3000 psi or 210 kgf/cm^2) with J-7 (the basic version, or in other words, MiG-21F-13), and the emergency hydraulic pump was same in appearance. While the hydraulic system of J-5 and J-6 or MiG-17/19 works at about 145 kgf/cm^2 and their hydraulic accessory was larger and heavier. Considering a relatively complete F-86 wreckage was captured in 1951, was its hydraulic design and equipment absorbed into MiG-21 design?

I'm also afraid that CJ-6 would not touch those more interested in combat mission. But the simpleness makes it possible as a mod, and this topic of trainer is more suitable as a mod. (I mean most lovers come for enthusiasm and preference while those who want an interesting combat aircraft may not buy it.) I think you may find someone willing to do that. Deka seems to have no spare productivity for another primary trainer into DCS. I checked the memoir from Gu Songfen (aerodynamic engineer of J-8 and chief designer of J-8II, also participated in CJ-6) for more information but found little more than the above videos, so I think it's not necessary to post it right now. No specific answer but I think maybe about the manufacture. Gu remembered that the structure designer called him from the factory, that the trailing edge of NACA23013 (used at wing root) was too thin to process. Finally, they chose to cut off some area of the thin trailing edge. This problem showed their processing capability was quite limited at that time and might be related to the design.

@uboats Could you show us the HOTAS design on the stick? I wonder how many 4/5-way hats are used.

You are right. F-8IIM is an export-oriented version with GPS, mission computer, 1553B data bus, Russian ZHUK radar and R-27, while it's never actually exported. It's not the version sent to America and was born after the end of PP project.

Well… Do you know a Chinese meme called "Cai Guoqing in sky"? In late 1980s, a Singaporean military industries delegation came to China mainland for visit. A pilot of Chinese ancestry who had flown several western planes took an experience flight on J-8I. He commented it felt like "an athletic handsome man in the sky". This nickname then spread among aero industries practitioners in China and was inherited by J-8II series. In fact, it's a euphemism meaning J-8I is large in scale and nice on data but left behind on avionics and only apparently "athletic" in show but not "strong" enough in combat, and the Chinese receptionists understood that. Cai Guoqing is a singer of PLA military art troupe and was considered as typical Adonis type man at that time, known as "top 1 handsome man in the army". So when this comment was known by the Chinese aero fans, this tag changed to "Cai Guoqing in sky" as a self-mocking banter. This meme was indirectly used by Deka earlier on Chinese social media in their hint for the next module, and that's why I said at that time, that it must be a J-8 or J-8II but the meme is too Chinese to explain on the forum.

He means our module would never be full realistic, just like that we can talk about anything in forum and game, facing no more than ban, but making that datalink would put them into real jail.

Could it be modded in a simplified or hypothetical way like M2000C? And a special option to disable it for those hate that.

I have to say you two made my dream atmosphere. While I don't agree with the J-20-MiG similarity either, Wyvern also raised it up quite cautiously and calmly, and good to see you made it clearer. Even exact genetics and evolution studies went through an age of morphology (and even now morphology is still important) before molecular biology comes to make a mess. I have accepted the truth that we normal fans can hardly find better way than "visual inspection" to rise a query on the relationship of aircrafts. Even the most precise guy can't avoid that before getting more info of the development and history. In fact, most people in the forum seem to know little about those unproduced early Chinese projects, which can prevent many argue here. I hope someone can make such a brief introduction and it could be useful. I would try to find some more info myself.

OK let's do a quiz. I put the aircraft A and B here. A and B are both originally designed as an interceptor for high altitude and high speed, while B was developed for several other usage, but A was never put into most of those usage. A and B have similar intakes design, but A has a fixed intakes and B variable, and B has conical camber while A doesn't. As a result, B is better at dogfight than A. A and B have some rumor about copy, but their similarity is quite limited and can be well explained in their development history, while the rumor just ignores it and keeps on asking for an explanation for the similarity, which they want. Now tell me are they MiG-25 and F-15? Well, it could be Su-15 and J-8II. The difference is just, your preference. Surely invalidate. I have shown you the development history and it can explain "why the J-8II looks in this style", so logically no need for a different theory for its looks getting a Su-15 involved, if you found them similar, the story and convergent evolution have already told you the reason, what's beyond them is only the coincidence. If you persist in your theory, it's your job to provide more evidence for your theory, such like a document of Chinese espionage to steal a Su-15 print or aircraft or wreckage. So where is it? Agree. However, discussing with an impenitent guy is never intended to change his mind, but to prevent him from deceiving others. Our forum has too much tolerance to ill-considered rumors and too little to those against them.

"Looks like" never provides reliable logics. Or I can just say, sounds like you are just despising their design capability and just going your own way. Side air intakes were used in many aircrafts, even on Q-5 although it doesn't use a radar. They don't need specifically a Su-15 to know "side intakes provides better radar position", every designer should already know that in 1970s. Su-15 doesn't use the intake variable ramps and leading-edge conical camber, which the J-8II rely on. That's because the rear part is inherited from original J-8 which is based on the MiG-21 with enlarging and tunes of aerodynamics, and the frontal part is partly learned from MiG-23 and F-4. During developing of J-8II, MiG-23 from Egypt and F-4 from Vietnam were studied. The air intakes provided important references, the engine of MiG-23 was also highly estimated and chosen to be the original power for J-10 prototype (while not successfully imitated before AL-31F acquired). If you are just to find a foreign dad for J-8II to prove the Chinese can't design a fighter without a copy source, then that should be the point instead of Su-15. Even "J-8II is a MiG-21+MiG-23" is better than your attempt. But sadly, you don't even get a better view to do that.

意思就是中文写好发出来了，现在还在翻制英文版 以及我在这边再问一下，双管23炮应该是23-3还是23-2?手册上是23-2，这个不是单管嘛？

On the HDD figure, what's the CCIL mode?

I doubt if they can. The GCI datalink reflects the whole warning and interception system and could be still classified now. There are many J-7s in PLAAF and similar system may be still in service. A twin barrel 23 cannon in centerline, same one with JF and basically as GSh-23L of MiG-21Bis. I remembered uboats said it has a negative installation angle like JF. It could be hard to use, but still easier for us than in reality. This gun is tiring to reload on the ground, for the gun is installed behind the nose gear and need to be dismounted to reload (the ammo box can't be reached before dismounting the cannon) and after being re-mounted it needs re-calibration, in which the nose gear has to be retracted and the nose supported by other equipment. Also @uboats could you confirm the JF's cannon is 23-2 or 23-3? The manual said 23-2 but I found 23-2 is a single barrel cannon and the copy of GSh-23L is 23-3.

Not so much. The one we would get should have modern but limited fire control for AG mission, but only uses dumb bombs and rockets according to the newsletter and the historical background, reasonable to assume maybe LGBs under buddy-lasing in the future but no more. 1553B data bus is used but more equipment would be too far from the historical design and documents. The real J-8 in PLAAF has some version for other missions like SEAD (J-8H, partially could be regarded as multirole) or recon. But that's not a multirole or it would not be a new subtype. Neither the J-8 is designed to do these jobs. Exactly it is an interceptor, although not very weak in dogfight compared with its counterparts. It has enough space for the extra avionic modification and the high-altitude and high-speed performance could be useful in recon missions, but the most important reason is that it's nearly the only well tested platform in 1990s and early 2000s. J-10A first flight was in 1998, and domestication and modification of J-11 was in limited level, while J-7 and Q-5 were not big enough for more modification. So, during that period many tests and modifications were done on J-8/8II or JH-7 platform. It used to be the testbed of FBW, aerial refueling and new weapons. The integration test of PL-12 was even accomplished earlier on J-8II than J-10.

MiG-21bis could have the criticized Kh-66 and CCIP, Spanish Mirage F1 could have never equipped S530F payload, C-101 could use its tested-only sea eagle, Ka-50III could have the transplanted pylons from Ka-52, M2000C could be speculated at first and got the chance of later perfection. And Deka is not allowed to make a fully tested, documented, real plane available and the only legal subtype to make? Politely I shouldn't conjecture but I have been always feeling that some of us get especially strict when same thing turns to Deka.

If you just want a rough succedaneum in your mission to dress up as a Su-15, I think J-8 could be a choice. But the mission must be edited carefully to avoid the goof. The radar from J-8, either APG-66 or the J-8F ones, is better than Su-15, at least the early variants (I don't know whether the later Taifun radar uses envelop-detection or doppler method). But J-8 doesn't have a datalink or GCI system like Su-15 (that doesn't matter, it's not very possible to reproduce such a system in DCS). And J-8 uses better medium range missiles (PL-11/12) than old AA-3. J-8 doesn't have double-delta wings, but it has the leading-edge conical camber so the subsonic performance could be different. If you want to make such a mission, J-8's interception must be limited to lower range (better if you could get a mod to use downgraded old missiles or even tune the radar performance, or just remove the med-range as a J-8B) and also avoid its dogfight. Then maybe it could be a good actor in your mission.

Maybe not so long. They used to be working on many projects, mainly modeling works and some technical reserve. The early process was disrupted by a severe model stealing incident in which most of those WIP models were stolen for illegal sales. Those models are mostly obsoleted and their present works are nearly started all over again. We don't know when they decided to make a J-8II but at least no earlier than 2020. In early 2020 they were still discussing about the selection of the next module. They said several planes, selected according to their internal preference, were submitted to ED for investigating the legality or arrangement conflict, and only after that could they start the document works. At that time their estimation was the 2nd module would start after the jeff was roughly completed. This sounds consistent with what is happening now.

Totally agree. And the project is not carried out fully by Americans. There were Chinese technicians sent to Grumman to work with the foreign cooperators. There could be documents in Chinese archives and Deka may have the access to them if allowed. The classification of those documents (if exist) is surely lower than those in service. Subsystems may have more info and mainly the overall design needed to put them together.

PP doesn't include improvements on power or aerodynamics, so the data from existing subtypes could be good enough as an approximation. The only changeable factor is the weight or mass center, but the weight could be acquired from the remaining data, and the mass center may not be very different as the control system is conventional.

Now we know it's the completion of J-8 first prototype. However, the prototype looks like a 2-engine powered big MiG21 with some inconspicuous improvements such as the airfoil profile, and not similar to our J-8II, especially the frontal parts. (However, the larger cone and lateral inlets were already designed before the Peace Pearl Project.) The J-8PP we would get as full fidelity module is Peace Pearl Project improved subtype and this project ended in early 1990s due to the political issues between China and America, no actual plane produced. Maybe that's why Deka can make this module (the J-8F with PL-12 and modern AG weapons only comes as AI-only plane). In fact, this module may be a slightly "what if" product. Aspides were delivered to China after the end of PP project (although the introduction of aspides were decided before that), and tests were finished during late 1990s and early 2000s on different subtypes with Chinese radar and CWI, so it's not very clear whether PP project would include aspides. With the western FCC and 1553B data bus, this should be possible and not very difficult. The history of PP project is very unclear, because the American participators tend to downplay their parts after the end of the project due to the following strict official prohibition. It will be of great value if deka could get access to some documents from this side in China.

New hint already there and I bet, a J-8.

In fact, all of Q-5, H-6 and J-8 could be associated to this year. However, Deka have just posted a new hint (which is difficult to explain out of Chinese context and meme) pointing to J-8 in my interpretation. Maybe we will see something in newsletter soon.