LowRider88

No, I would disagree with your assessment, and think you may be overreacting, as I don't feel I was being disrespectful. But maybe that is due to a difference in culture between you and I. However, did you know some in China have created a Rock Song version of that Anthem? To me that would be far more disrespectful. The PLA would sing that song while marching or drilling. And they may play simulations as part of their training. So to link the song to a simulation does not seem out of place to me. And why would the J-8 not be suitable to represent the PLAAF if they used it as their top fighter for a decade, and since it is also their first indigenous design? Although I like the sentiment you referenced regarding the Wang Wei, you can look at it the other way around. He is an important figure, but does he represent every other pilot who flew the J-8? The plane should have some theme music which energizes the person using the simulation, like soldiers who sing anthems while drilling. Your song is important but why use a sad song every time you launch the module. He can be remembered in other ways such as a pilot model. I would also like to remind that your username here could also be considered misappropriation as well (no disrespect, I admire that you used it), unless you were a former serving member, in which case I bite my tongue. But if you are, I think your standards are a bit too tight around the respect issue and can actually push away potential enthusiasts. But again, that could be due to a difference in culture.

Since the J-8 is the PLAAF’s first indigenous fighter design, it seems most appropriate to use this music for the module’s theme music, on the main page, load page, and advertisement videos:

Thanks very much Torbernite for your feedback. I think you are right. In retrospect, I think the slanted fin is from line drawings only and not from any real pic. Cool, I wish I had a chance to go to the same museum in the future. If you are there is it possible for you to take a perfect side profile view pic of the J-8? By perfect side view, I am referring to one where the camera position is centred between front to end, wing level, and far away enough that there is no field of view skewing (I.e. not so close that the wing looks as long as the plane). It may not be possible given how they may cram a lot of planes into the same location. Your details about the fuel tank seem more interesting than mine about the ventral fin. You are right, the might affect weight distribution and turning ability.

These pics are really making me feel sick waiting for the J-8 to be released I can’t wait to fly it. Hey PLAAF, I have seen some external pics or line drawings of the J-8 and in some, the ventral fin rear edge perfectly squared, while in other views the ventral fin looks smaller, with the rear edge sweeping forward. Would you by chance know if the the ventral fins differed between versions? Did it get larger over time?

The J-8II may have a slightly higher wingloading over the original, but it’s has wing fences which should help keep similar or better slow speed turn performance. I did calculation on rough stall speed on a thread elsewhere, and the J-8II has lower value than F-5E. So it should definitely be more maneuverable than the Tiger. F-15 may have more of a lifting body design than J-8Ii, and have better wingloading, but J-8II should have better deceleration due to lower weight, and it should be able to dive faster due to a lower frontal drag to weight ratio.

Great picture. Which variant is this?

Imagine if we got all the CJ-6 variants including the B, with guns, bombs, rockets and fuel tanks. And then they added the same load out for the DCS Yak-52. And then they added the T-28 Trojan to DCS as well. There could be some interesting CAS, Border Patrol, or duels between these trainers, which who knows, may have happened historically. There’s something about small planes. Costs as much as a car. Weights as much as a car. Fits tight like a glove. And add some guns and bombs on top. Love the jets. But also love the warbirds too.

I am by no means suggesting that Deka detract their attention away from the J-8 to focus on this. I am eagerly awaiting the availability of the 8. I am just suggesting that if they were willing and able, Deka could potential deliver the CJ more easily since it has already been made available as a mod else where, and maybe with some partnering it could be an easy win. I like that Deka takes their time to deliver a nearly completed project, rather than deliver it partially done. However the side effect of that is waiting painfully from announcement time to delivery. If they were willing and able, maybe a quick win in the mean time could give fans a little something, and help with the funding. I disagree, I believe the CJ would sell well. Motoadve says many people would be interested. And there are already other trainers in DCS, like the CJ’s brethren the Yak. The CJ also has the B, armed variant, so it could be used in combat. Thanks for digging into the square tip question. I find those details you got from the designer very fascinating. From what you said the trailing edge was trimmed, but this to me doesn’t really explain the square tips, and further why there were square tips on the tail surfaces too. But great info, Thanks for sharing!

Those are awesome videos. Thanks for the cockpit walkaround. Wow, I see you have a huge video library. Do you have a CJ startup procedure video also? I think you are totally right. With a YouTube celebrity with over 30K subscribers, a whole community of Red Star fans and flyers, available feedback from so many flyers, and available flyers to show off the plane, along with the fact the CJ already has a paid mod on the market, it seems like the CJ would be easy to make and sell in DCS.

Well if you want a Japanese or Polish warbird, why not ask one of those developers who might have any interest in those planes, rather than posting obscure planes in a sub forum for a developer which specializes in Chinese aircraft? I think you may have better chances that way. But to be honest I don’t see the appeal in any of these planes. They weren’t flown for long or even by a variety of nations, and not much impact. They wouldn’t sell well. Maybe you can ask a modder? People in the US refer to the CJ as a warbird. You can google the YouTube videos. It definitely has much greater fame and appeal.

Thanks for sharing these details. I didn’t even know of this plane before. It does look pretty. In terms of it flying on a PC, I may be biased, but I think the CJ-6 has a better chance. The numbers don’t lie, the CJ has about 200-300 flying in the US alone, was produced to from 2000-3000 in total, and has a life spanning over 60 years. So it is a popular plane. It also already has a mod, for FSX. There is definitely more interest for it. Regarding the reason for the TS-8’s short life and low production numbers, according to wiki (I know, debatable), its short life was not due to spare parts, but due to the fact it was soon replaced by jet trainers. In contrast the CJ has a very long life because it was a very easy to handle, challenging and cost effective trainer, and because it did its job so well even today it is hard to replace it. I don’t agree with your assessment that the CJ is a copy. If you look carefully, you can see the only few aspects it shares with the Yak-18 is the engine and the inverted gull wings. The TS-8 also has inverted gull wings and was completed after the Yak as well. The entire back section of the CJ is completely different from the Yak, the square tips different, the landing gear different. It is a unique plane. I like the sound of the TS-8’s engine, it has a very energetic sound

For anyone who may be interested, here is a good video describing the design aspects of the CJ-6. Have to turn on Closed Captioned Subtitles:

Hi @unoats, Would you have any details about the corner speeds, perhaps at sea level?

Comparing the pic you posted in your history of the J-7 and J-8 threat of the J-8F cockpit, with the pic of the J-8IIPP cockpit UBoats posted, actually the PP is not too different to the F. The F has the F-15 throttle, the extra MFD/HDD, and a different upper centre console, but the PP looks fairly similar. The MFD seems to be the same style with the same number and layout of buttons.

Thanks for the history. I was wondering about that from the wiki page: https://zh-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/zh/歼-8?_x_tr_sl=zh-CN&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc That’s where I found the “Flying Pencil” reference too. Due to the length of the fuselage, the aircraft is known among Chinese military fans as " Cai Guoqing in the air ", "man-operated rocket" and "flying pencil".

I completely agree with all your points. Especially the last one. War is only fun when it is virtual For the VR I wouldn’t mind the neck craning since it is realistic, but yes, I heard the same about the VR resolution problem (I use TrackIR), so you are right. Regarding the real F-4 pilots, I read this book called Clashes. So it seems during the Vietnam war, the only thine they could use the BVR was when they got radio confirmation from AWACS that no friendlies were in front, and when they were using some IFF hack called tree to identify opponents. It was a great book. I will keep an eye out for more of your videos. Nice flying!

This article seems to imply the pic was in Cali: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40396/the-u-s-once-helped-china-develop-a-modern-jet-fighter

Hi @uboats, Any reason why the J-8II would be fitted with a ground attack angled gun, when at this stage of its service it was still aimed at air defence, and does not have air to ground radar? Should the gun be more configured like the MiG-21?

I have done this also for diecast models of the J-8II.

Okay, thanks anyway. I think I found the answer. https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/71635450308585702/

Hi @uboats, would you have any details about the J-8II’s flaps? Are they maneuvering, Fowler type flaps, like the real MiG-19, or blown flaps like the MiG-21?

I guess I spoke too soon. You also use zoom in the cockpit Your previous vids were more impressive because, from what I could tell you did not rely on zoom to find targets. I guess I can’t blame you, as in the heat of battle, you use what you can. That is why it sucks that there is no online server that disables zoom in cockpit. Virtual pilots are unrealistically finding things easily using this superhuman ability and are seriously missing out on learning real methods for finding targets like formation flying, radio communication, AWACS/GCI, Radar/RWR. Most of these guys might not fare so well in real life because they rely upon the zoom in like a crutch. But I suspect you would do better than them in real life, as your previous videos you didn’t touch zoom, and here you didn’t use it when targeting, only searching. But anyway, great video. I like the historical scenario again. And liked the defensive rolling scissors you used before the first kill.

I find it harder to get turn rate and radius details online for planes. Usually that kind of detail would be in paid manuals which I don’t always have. So I typically rely on ballpark figures by calculating the wing loading and thrust to weight ratio values based on the empty weight, wing area, and thrust values, which are easily found in the Specs on the plane’s wiki pages. As a rough calculation, the F-15 has a better T/W ratio, but the MiG-19 has a better wingloading, and is also far lighter. So, so long as you don’t follow him up too much in a climb, and the opponent doesn’t let off the afterburner, I think it is realistic that you beat him. That latest MiG-19 FM tweak at that time seems legit, since they posted graphs showing the DCS version against the real FM and the lines lined up. I haven’t played DCS in over a year, and can’t confirm, but as far as I know they still haven’t fixed the maneuvering flaps retraction speed, which currently retracts too high, around 800 or 700 kph, when according the the manual it should retract lower, at 500 kph. So the MiG should be even more maneuverable in real life compared to the handicapped DCS version we have.

Out of all the videos I’ve seen, yours are most impressive, because you keep it real and don’t use zoom or snap views in the cockpit, and rely only on visual pattern recognition, radar, radio communication and maybe formations to ID the targets. I also like in this video that it was against historically relevant opponents of the 19. If you turned off the text, this could be a good docu-drama.

This is the best I could find so far: https://www-sohu-com.translate.goog/a/207948128_494439?_x_tr_sl=zh-CN&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc