LowRider88

UBoats also said the J-8II has min maneuvering speed under 200 km/hr, which is better than F-5E. So it has good low speed maneuverability. It also has good climb rate so I should be able to play turn fight or energy fight, 1 or 2 circle fight. So it should be a good dog fighter. I would like to know the tactics used in that mock fight too!

I was reading the wiki article for the CJ-6 and found out that the designers built it because the Yak-18A did not entirely fit their needs. That is not to say that the 18A is a bad plane, but that just like the Soviet subs, they could not fulfill all the requirements of the Chinese. I noticed that the Yak-52 and the Yak-18A seem quite similar, more so than the CJ-6 is to either. So this lead me to think about the different design aspects of the CJ-6 and why those differences mattered to the PLAAF. I am only an amateur aero dynamicist, so these are only my guesses rather than proven fact. In terms of external shape differences, here are what I noticed, but more may apply: CJ has square tips on wings and tail surfaces, while the Yak has curved From nose to tail the Yak’s fuselage is straight at the top and curved on the bottom, while the CJ is more evenly tapered from the rear wing edge to the tail CJ has a single flap surface from wing to wing, while the Yak has typical separate flaps CJ has flush riveting while the Yak does not CJ has trailing link main landing gear, the Yak has straight great legs CJ main landing gear folds inward into the wing, while the Yak’s folds forward and protrudes Many sources state the CJ is more comfortable and roomier in the cockpit than the Yak CJ has dihedral bent wings while the Yak’s wings are straight CJ is all metal except for control surfaces, while Yak has a mixed structure Based on these differences, this is my guess as to why the Chinese opted for them. I suspect the main reason may be the Chinese did not have the degree of available fuel as the Soviets may have had. So they may have designed the CJ to be more fuel efficient and have a longer endurance. That may be the reason for the flush riveting and the fully retracted landing gear. But a great design feature of the Yak is that with its gear retracted, it could still belly land and not damage the fuselage and wings, because of this protruding wheels, just like the A-10. So this may be the reason the CJ was designed with a single long flap running under the body, so that the flap and not the rear gear could take the brunt during a belly landing. I am not entirely sure why the CJ’s tail slopes down more than the straight back tail, or perhaps up sloping tail of the Yak. The Yak’s tail does seem more traditional since many planes have that up slope so the tail does not hit the ground during take offs or landings. Perhaps the CJ uses the evenly sloped and tapered tail for cruise aerodynamics, as a more evenly tapering tail is more like a teardrop shape. Maybe this helps with efficiency and therefore fuel economy. I would guess that the down sloping tail might give the rear seater in the CJ a better rear view when looking back as well. But then the problem would be that the tail is lower, and this could cause the CJ to have more tail strikes than the Yak. So maybe this is the reason the trailing link main landing gear were used. If we take the difference in downward slope of the tail between the CJ and the Yak, this difference might be the same as the offset of the trailing links. The more flatter bottom of the fuselage might have possibly been the reason for the CJ’s more roomier cockpit. Maybe the flatness allows the cockpit to be extended further back to make more room. There are a few design elements I can’t guess about. For the bent wings, I think the CJ just inherited from the Yak-18. But then why did the Yak-52 go on to have straight wings? Maybe that has something to do with landing gear design or for better roll rate. The other is why did the CJ opt for square tip everything? It does have a vertical tail root extension to give added stability, which in a way could be somewhat equivalent to the Yak’s vertical tail, albeit not curved and smoothed out. Could it be the square wing tips were to increase aspect ratio, since (according to what I googled) vortices on square tips are to the side, while on curved ones they are on top? But if so, while make all tips square, instead of just the wings only? In comparison, I know the BF-109 started out with square wing tips, but then they were extended and rounded later in its service life. I assume that was because as the plane’s equipment increased over time they had to increase the wing area to keep the same wing loading, and why not copy the Spitfire to an extent. But then by war’s end, most later planes all went back to square tips. I googled that the spitfires elliptical wing was best at reducing induced (maneuvering) drag mainly at high altitude. So why does the Yak stick to curved tips? Aerobatic planes usually don’t fly as high as the WWII scenarios (the audience would have trouble seeing them). Anyway, if there are any other amateur, or maybe profession aerodynamicists out there, I would be interested to know your ideas.

It’s likewise great to talk to gentlemen like you guys too If I come off like a troll, please excuse me, I don’t intend to offend gentlemen. I just don’t tolerate close minded bullies. But tolerance is a virtue, so I can learn from you all. You have an interesting perspective. Actually the whole convergent evolution concept is interesting whether in aircraft design or in nature. I think it can really be fun understanding the background behind why certain design choices were made and what socioeconomic conditions were involved in those choices at the time. Thanks for piquing my interest.

Good words, with good intentions. Thanks for the reminders, but for me I was clam all the way. But if someone is being a jerk, why should I have to be respectful? I respect everyone else here. Unfortunately this forum doesn’t manage these racist people very well. I note there were some trolls here, and the moderators censored me for commenting that there are trolls here. Regarding the J-20, I don’t see the commonality. I don’t know of any other plane that is a canard delta configuration, that also has LERX, and is stealth. And now is one of those that has a 2 seat version. Neither the MiG, or any other aircraft, pre or post production is similar. We can speculate all we want if there was any copying but in this case the copying claims seem superficial. PLAAF has posted a great thread on the history of the J-8 and includes pics of the different versions of the J-9, one of which is far more similar to the J-20 than the MiG.

Good description! Yep, like talking to a baby Just have to close the door sometimes.

Bahaha! Dude loses it and admits he is trolling the lame narrative. Terribly if I must say. Maybe you should do some research before you speak: If J-8 was an attempt to copy the Su-15, as you so preciously keep hoping, then how is it any different from the F-15 copying the MiG-25? The Su-15 can’t maneuver under 200 kph, with its higher wingloading. Copy paste, copy past, blah blah blah. Hey the side profile of the F-16 looks mightily similar to the Ye-8. Ah ha! Copy paste! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_Ye-8#/media/File:Mikoyan-Gurevich_Ye-8_3-view_line_drawing.jpg Bahaha!

So finally you reveal your true colors. Just took a bit of prodding. So your whole point is to try to low key imply the lame and highly uneducated Chinese copy and paste troll narrative. How many people on this thread have to “try and help you out understand” that the J-8 was based on the MiG-21 and not the Su-15. Give it some time, you will get there eventually. What if it was a print copy? So? What is so significant about your superficial grasp of airframe design that it warrants bothering everyone with the dead topic? Did you know the F-15 was an attempt to copy the MiG-25? China didn’t get any help from the Su-15 design team. That was the Soviet Chinese split at the time. As for print copy, where is the bubble canopy the Su has? Where is the Su’s ventral tail? You can shake your fist all you want, I’ve lost interest in wasting my time on useless observations. Before we part ways, here is a video from a gentleman who actually understands the influences for the J-8. He’s playing an air quake, it at least he gets it.

Not really. Looking similar does not mean the designers set out to rebuild another aircraft. Did the J-8 designers say to them selves “hey, I want the Su-15”? No, they said “hey I need something that can intercept something faster and higher than what I can do now”. That’s called convergent evolution. Did the Su-15 have a J-8I similar looking early version? No, they just look superficially similar.

Yeah, that’s my point. Superficial vs Scientific. Is the Su-7 essentially a copy of the MiG-21? Why do they handle differently? Of course J-8 and the Su-15 will look similar, they are both interceptors. Maybe you should check if the Su-15 looks similar to the J-8E.

I think the onus is on you to do the research confirm that assertion. Why? Because it looks like something? Can you be more scientific?

You are just as reliable as Deka Thanks, it great when grand assertions with faulty research are countered. Equal parts? No trained pilots? No concept of tech transfer and no understanding of historical capability to build onto and eventually enhance those legally purchased tech? People nowadays don’t take breaths before speaking.

By dirty, you gear and flaps down? Any details about “clean”, and percentage of fuel left? I found this article that says the CJ-6 clean stall speed (given a very particular situation): https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2013/july/pilot/east-west-fly-off Would be cool to see which has better min stall speed. My rough calculations have the Yak winning when both are near empty, but when fully loaded the CJ wins. I guess it may be due to the CJ being all metal vs some metal piping in the Yak. I am jealous too. That is a slick paint job, and I like that the cockpit is fairly original. Sounds sweet too. Man, $70k. Maybe when I pay off a few things. In the meantime I guess I have to hope on Deka. Or get into FSX. I know, it’s just not the same Do you have to do air shows or tours for people to cover the costs?

It’s a Chinese aircraft in that it was mainly designed and built by Chinese, with some feedback from Pakistan. If China had to (e.g. ran out of J-10s and had to make something quicker) they could spin up a few FC-1s. So yeah, it is.

Great info. So a low end model is about the cost of an average car? How much does it cost to store and maintain? Online sources for metrics seem to vary depending on as you say mods people make on the planes, but from what I was able to calculate from values online, the CJ-6 has better wingloading over the Yak-52. When you say eye popping performance, is that mainly due to roll and climb rate, and acceleration? Any experience with their low end stall speeds?

Nice. Did it cost you $50k - $100k as mentioned in the walkaround video above? What line of work do you do to afford a real one? Do you have to do air shows to pay for it?

Anyone know how many shells for this cannon, same as MiG-21?

I would like the L-15 also. But taking into consideration that they will be focusing mainly on the development of the J-8II now, if they were willing and able to take on a side project, which one would be cheaper and easier to deliver sooner, and might garner even more sales? The L-15 is a whole new module built from scratch and might have documentation difficulties if the export versions do not differ from the active PLAAF versions. Instead, a CJ-6 mod has already been built by someone in the area, and just requires some translation and verification, and has publicly available free western manuals available for download: https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1421073/Nanchang-Cj-6a.html

Could the DCS J-8II be furnished with a complete, historically accurate Chinese pilot 3D model? Multicultural pilots are sorely lacking in DCS, and this plane would be a worthy one for a historically accurate and relevant pilot model. Just a thought, this pilot would be a great reference and a great tribute to the plane:

The JustFlight mod market for the FSX sim has a Nanchang CJ-6 mod available for that sim. That mod was made by someone from inside China. It seems to have a complete external and cockpit model and perhaps a reasonable FM. Would it be possible for Deka to partner with this individual to translate his work into DCS? It would be great if Deka could work their magic, check the documentation, ensure the accuracy, and perhaps add different variants of the CJ-6, like the standard trainer, the single seater, and the armed version with guns. Since this individual did most of the work, perhaps this could be a great partnership and a quick win for Deka, as there is much love for this aircraft around the world, and would surely sell well, since it partners well with the existing DCS Yak-52. Some videos for inspiration - Nanchang CJ-6 Documentary: Nancy Chang Walkaround: CJ-6 at air shows: A Xinjiang actress, an Olympic swimmer and other native celebrities flying the CJ-6: CJ-6 vs Yak-52 at air races: CJ-6 getting a second life as a world wide sports plane:

I haven’t flown either, but I have heard that before also. Although, I also have heard that engine is not too reliable: But anyway, let’s not stray too off topic on the J-8 here.

Yeah, I assume it would be like the JF-17, and now the J-8 ,right? Of course they would not share the active versions. Yep, I think the CJ-6 would sell well both in the east and west. Lot’s of love for it in the US. There’s also a rivalry between it and the Yak, which we already have in DCS, so that rivalry could move online too. If they had an armed CJ-6 and an armed T-28, that would be a cool what if scenario.

Since Deka is a Beijing shop focusing on Chinese planes, it does seem to be fair or make sense to ask them to reinvent a DCS F-16, especially when one already exists from DCS. It seems the developer teams are from all over the world so who better to build a plane for a nationality than a team from that country. So an F-16 would be built best with the passion of its developers from the same country. I suspect Deka would have better capability to get docs for a Chinese plane over a US plane. Me personally, I wouldn’t want to see a separate F-16A module. If one were to be made it should be from DCS as an add on. There are way too many western planes in DCS already. All the 4th gen are already covered, and now DCS is targeting Vietnam era west jets. What fun is there to fly a WWII Corsair when there are no enemies for it?

I think there are still many options for Deka. They could target any retired aircraft, like the Q-5, or early J-7, or any sold to external customers like the CJ-8, JL-8, JL-10. I personally can wait for the Q-5. And a CJ-6 in 3 variants, standard, single seat, and with guns and bombs would be awesome.

I think you may be right, but hope you are wrong Even if it is a ways away, daily checking is still fun and therapeutic to me. I think someone said the J-8F would be retired in 2025, so potentially we might get that in 2 years. So would that imply we would get the PP before then? Or are the documentation rules so strict that we can only get the PP once the F is out of service? Just speculating. If documentation is the main hurdle, I’m still scratching my head why the Q-5 was not done first, as I am still dying for that one. They could have done A-5 with Pakistani version, just like JF-17. Opps, maybe I shouldn’t that, as I want a Q-5 over an A-5.

I kinda prefer the western version, as, if you are right, BVR provides a more significant advantage and strategy than just supersonic. But I think western version shouldn’t clump WWII jets into swept wings. They should have gen 0 for straight wings. Also, it seems hard to place planes like the F-5E. I wouldn’t say it is 2nd gen, just because it has no BVR. I believe it was the first fighter to use lifting body design and LERX, and influenced the design of all 4th gen fighters thereafter. Also, the F-14 and F-15 both started with no fly by wire and relaxed static stability, yet they are considered 4th gen. I guess the classification method is more time interval based, or subjective overall. But Thanks for reminding about the difference in categorization culture.