Request - Engine pylons available by default

[Mike_Romeo]

Dear DekaIronworks,

Currently, the J-11 has no pylons on the engines by default, unlike the Su-27/33. I would like to request them to be visible by default with the possibility to remove them like in the F/A-18 hornet. I want to request so that when you add modded missiles like the PL-12 via lua changes, that they don't float around with no physical connection to the aircraft. It would greatly improve our immersion and illusion of having a modern Chinese Flanker with modern missiles. Thank you in advance.

Sincerely, Mike_Romeo

J-11 and SU-27 with and without engine pylons:

FA-18 with the option to remove pylons:



PL-12 floating under the J-11 engines:



Su-33 (J-15) not having that issue:

[Wyvern]

Wont happen. 
Here is a mod tho
I recommend high alt and speed for the SD-10
J-11A.lua

[Mike_Romeo]

45 minutes ago, Wyvern said:

Wont happen. 
Here is a mod tho
I recommend high alt and speed for the SD-10
J-11A.lua

Wont work on multiplayer unless everyone download it. Since PL-12 are massively used on the Growling Sidewinder server, Deka might look at making it possible.

Edited September 1, 2023 by Mike_Romeo

[Wyvern]

Nope wont happen anytime soon.
I in fact have not seen pictures of J-11A and Bs carrying them on those Stations

i.Deka doesnt work on the J-11A anymore and that wont change, unless there is a serious bug that has to be fixed.

Edited September 2, 2023 by Wyvern

[Mike_Romeo]

@uboats can we please get this change ? It would be just two tiny changes in the J-11.lua Please just set the arg_value in line 339 and 410 to zero. Many Growling Sidewinder server players would benefit from this tiny change.

[uboats]

On 2/13/2024 at 3:46 AM, Mike_Romeo said:

@uboats can we please get this change ? It would be just two tiny changes in the J-11.lua Please just set the arg_value in line 339 and 410 to zero. Many Growling Sidewinder server players would benefit from this tiny change.

what's this change for?

[FlankerFan35]

1 hour ago, uboats said:

what's this change for?

When missiles are modded onto the J-11, for example SD-10 or PL-12, pylons disappear and weapons hang in midair. 

Not exactly a priority I know but a welcome quality of life for modders etc 
 

[uboats]

40 minutes ago, FlankerFan35 said:

When missiles are modded onto the J-11, for example SD-10 or PL-12, pylons disappear and weapons hang in midair. 

Not exactly a priority I know but a welcome quality of life for modders etc 
 

can you show how did they add pl12/sd10? they can add arg_value to each loadout respectively, which should override the pylon one

[FlankerFan35]

13 minutes ago, uboats said:

can you show how did they add pl12/sd10? they can add arg_value to each loadout respectively, which should override the pylon one

@Mike_RomeoIs part of server that did this modification so I will let him answer as he may know more about it than myself.

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, FlankerFan35 said:

@Mike_RomeoIs part of server that did this modification so I will let him answer as he may know more about it than myself.

Even if Mike patches the server (which is not really needed), this needs to be rendered on client side. The mod itself can work on vanilla server/client as long as miz file contains the correct payload.

@uboatsnot sure if arg_value  can be specified in miz file (mission)?

null

[Wyvern]

ill try it out, I doubt it can be done.

What could be done however, is adding the option to remove the pylons manually, like the F-16 or F-18 have it. Its possible and relatively easy to do:
 

[okopanja]

3 hours ago, Wyvern said:

ill try it out, I doubt it can be done.

What could be done however, is adding the option to remove the pylons manually, like the F-16 or F-18 have it. Its possible and relatively easy to do:
 

Inside mission file I tried this with no effect:

null

Edited February 14 by okopanja

[Mike_Romeo]

13 hours ago, uboats said:

can you show how did they add pl12/sd10? they can add arg_value to each loadout respectively, which should override the pylon one

Manually added by unzipping the .miz file and directly edited mission file via Notepad++

 

Is there perhaps a different way you recommend so the pylons are displayed for everyone on the server without installing any mods ?

[uboats]

further checked, by default, unlike underwing stations, j-11a has no pylon mounted under intake unless there's loadout

so for station 4/7, default arg is 1

[Mike_Romeo]

42 minutes ago, uboats said:

further checked, by default, unlike underwing stations, j-11a has no pylon mounted under intake unless there's loadout

so for station 4/7, default arg is 1

Can the default arg set to 0 please so the pylons do show up like in the Su-27 and Su-33 ? There are also plenty of real life J-11 pictures with no weapons but still with the pylon attached.

[Wyvern]

The pylons can and are being removed irl, 
both pylon 3/8 and 4/7, 

maybe there is stuff that can be done, we'll see

[Mike_Romeo]

THANK YOU DEKA

[Schmidtfire]

I don't get this obsession with J-11A and PL12 on the GS server? It's unrealistic nonsense and not close in performance to a JF-17 with SD10.

But happy you got what you asked for. Mod looked funny without the pylons^^


 

Edited April 12 by Schmidtfire

[Mike_Romeo]

18 minutes ago, Schmidtfire said:

It's unrealistic nonsense

We dont aim to be realistic but fun. I mean, the GS server wouldnt be the GS server if it would be realistic. Many Flanker players don't feel like underdogs anymore and thanked us for that. It also helps to balance both sides. 

18 minutes ago, Schmidtfire said:

and not close in performance to a JF-17 with SD10

Better compare it to the Su-27 with R-77. Also pretty sure a Mach 2 J-11 at 40.000ft with only 4 missiles will outrange the JF-17 by far + its not as limited by radar range as the Jeff

Edited April 12 by Mike_Romeo

[F-2]

Plus J-11A have been spotted with PL-12 in recent years 

 

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/326099-j-11a-with-pl-12/

[Wyvern]

On 4/13/2024 at 12:13 AM, Schmidtfire said:

It's unrealistic nonsense and not close in performance to a JF-17 with SD10.

As F-2 said, there is evidence that there is PL-12 equipped J-11As, along with (as Ive recently seen) retrofitted Chinese MAWS systems.

I will say that I havent seen the Chinese carry R-27ET along with the PL-12, which (in GS) is an absolutely deadly combo if you know what youre doing.

I feel like there should be a proper investigation into that matter. The Info and the actual Op Manuals for the Su-27SK are publicly available, however the only ones that I could find were in Russian and Spanish. There was an english one, but its only a google translated version of the Russian manual.


As for the performance, youre simply wrong. The SD-10/PL-12 is a larger missile than the AIM-120C, meaning it will profit a lot from high altitude-high energy launches.
Therefore, since the J-11A has more engine power and a larger wing surface, it can reach an higher altitude, while remaining in stable flight.
yes you can get an JF-17 to 35k+ ft, but the single RD-93 engine that the JF-17 has, is not powerful enough to keep you that high with good speed.
Meanwhile you can stay at up to 45k with the J-11A and the same loadout (4x SD-10/PL-12 + 2x PL-8/R-73) as that would be a rather light load for the J-11A. 


A big reason for that is the raw power that the AL-31F has, compared to the RD-93, along with the fact that the J-11A has two of them.
The following numbers factor in Pylon weight, thrust in AB (as you would use to get a good missile off) and a similar loadout.
For the colors: Loadout, Weight, Thrust

The JF-17 with 4xSD-10 + 2xPL-5 + 2x1.100L Fuel + Full internal fuel, will come in around 12388kg (27310lbs) with 84.4kN (19000lbf).
The J-11A with 4xPL-12 + 2xPL-8 + full internal fuel will come in around 21526kg (47456lbs) with 247.2kN (55200lbf).

Now of course, we have consider that the Flanker has a much higher weight, meaning we have to do some math.
Im not a physicist, nor a mathematician, so correct me if im wrong.
After taking the Thrust of the JF-17 and dividing it by its weight, (84400N/12388kg) I came out to 6.8N
After taking the Thrust of the J-11A and dividing it by its weight, (247200N/21526kg) i came out to 11.8N
That means the engines on J-11A put out 74% more thrust to move its weight, Compared to the JF-17.

This also explains how the J-11A can get up to around M2.2, while the Jeff barely scratches 1.6.
Along with the larger Wing Surface, it just gives the SD-10/PL-12 a much better launch than the JF-17 could provide.

Generally that makes me wonder why Pakistan and China decided to equip it with the RD-93, instead of the AL-31F, which alone has about 50% more power than the RD-93. I heard that Russia Lied to them about the performance characteristics, but thats an entirely different topic.

Edited Wednesday at 01:51 AM by Wyvern

[zerO_crash]

15 hours ago, Wyvern said:

As F-2 said, there is evidence that there is PL-12 equipped J-11As, along with (as Ive recently seen) retrofitted Chinese MAWS systems.

I will say that I havent seen the Chinese carry R-27ET along with the PL-12, which (in GS) is an absolutely deadly combo if you know what youre doing.

I feel like there should be a proper investigation into that matter. The Info and the actual Op Manuals for the Su-27SK are publicly available, however the only ones that I could find were in Russian and Spanish. There was an english one, but its only a google translated version of the Russian manual.


As for the performance, youre simply wrong. The SD-10/PL-12 is a larger missile than the AIM-120C, meaning it will profit a lot from high altitude-high energy launches.
Therefore, since the J-11A has more engine power and a larger wing surface, it can reach an higher altitude, while remaining in stable flight.
yes you can get an JF-17 to 35k+ ft, but the single RD-93 engine that the JF-17 has, is not powerful enough to keep you that high with good speed.
Meanwhile you can stay at up to 45k with the J-11A and the same loadout (4x SD-10/PL-12 + 2x PL-8/R-73) as that would be a rather light load for the J-11A. 


A big reason for that is the raw power that the AL-31F has, compared to the RD-93, along with the fact that the J-11A has two of them.
The following numbers factor in Pylon weight, thrust in AB (as you would use to get a good missile off) and a similar loadout.
For the colors: Loadout, Weight, Thrust

The JF-17 with 4xSD-10 + 2xPL-5 + 2x1.100L Fuel + Full internal fuel, will come in around 12388kg (27310lbs) with 84.4kN (19000lbf).
The J-11A with 4xPL-12 + 2xPL-8 + full internal fuel will come in around 21526kg (47456lbs) with 247.2kN (55200lbf).

Now of course, we have consider that the Flanker has a much higher weight, meaning we have to do some math.
Im not a physicist, nor a mathematician, so correct me if im wrong.
After taking the Thrust of the JF-17 and dividing it by its weight, (84400N/12388kg) I came out to 6.8N
After taking the Thrust of the J-11A and dividing it by its weight, (247200N/21526kg) i came out to 11.8N
That means the engines on J-11A put out 74% more thrust to move its weight, Compared to the JF-17.

This also explains how the J-11A can get up to around M2.2, while the Jeff barely scratches 1.6.
Along with the larger Wing Surface, it just gives the SD-10/PL-12 a much better launch than the JF-17 could provide.

Generally that makes me wonder why Pakistan and China decided to equip it with the RD-93, instead of the AL-31F, which alone has about 50% more power than the RD-93. I heard that Russia Lied to them about the performance characteristics, but thats an entirely different topic.

 

You are oversimplifying a very complex topic. By that, absolutely most of it, becomes wrong.

 

Both RD-93 (RD-33, with gearbox placed on the bottom to fit JF-17) as well as AL-31F are great engines, there is no doubt there. They both perform incredibly well, even at very high altitudes. A comparison is, however, pointless. They are of different sizes (RD-93/33 is significantly smaller). JF-17 simply has no space whatsoever for an AL-31F, let alone the fuel for its realtively higher fuel consumption. The JF-17 doesn't need it either. Actually, it is completely wrong to claim that the aircraft "barely" reaches M 1.6. Is reaches it incredibly fast, and you have to hold the throttle back in order not to exceed design limitations and cause damage. It has a good trust-to-weight ratio, counter to what most claim. It has 1.07 in T/W empty. At combat load, it has approximately 0.85 in T/W. Compare that, to SR-71 which had 0.395 in T/W! 

 

The ability to climb high and fly fast, as can be seen above, has essentially less to do with just engines. The airfoil - the aerodynamic properties of a bulk, are far more important. JF-17 is built for M 1.6, and a certain max in altitude. That's really it. In order to completely change its valors, you need to redesign the aircraft.

 

A pure numeric approach, doesn't get you there either (that's why any new aircraft is tested in wind tunels, and good CFD software). That is, because of different phenomenon in aerodynamics/general physics for which pure numbers don't account for. In case of JF-17, here is the extract from the guide:

 

"Max IAS in low altitude is 1300 km/h (702 kts), but you may exceed this speed in the game. In the real world, plane will have aeroelastic problem over this speed. In the game, your acceleration will be very slow when above this speed.

In high altitude, plane’s max Mach number is M1.6, but you also may exceed this speed in the game. In the real world, the limitation is come from plane’s stability and aerodynamic heating. Of course, we won’t let you go much faster than this."

 

In either case (low/high), aeroelastic problem or aerodynamic heating, are complete inhibitors. Basically, this is not the tuning of a car, it's a complete redesign.

 

Ultimately, the JF-17 is what it is, and it is a great aircraft for its purpose. You, however, are trying to change into something it isn't designed for. That will never work. The building of an aircraft, starts with a mission/concept, then taken through design phase with testing, and finally refinement, with testing. Not the ther way around.

 

You don't understand why the plane is like it is, because you haven't read its history. I suggest you do that. The main reason why this aircraft exists (instead of picking available fighters internationally), was the notion of low cost, affordable. AL-series of engines, are anything but. A bigger airframe is anything but. A higher performing one, is even more anything but. This is supposed to be a small, nimble, multipurpose aircraft that is affordable to a poorer nation, and can perform a whole range of missions. The idea is further that with advanced weaponry, one will alleviate, what one might consider, limitations of the platform. The fact is, for any of the missions that it is built, it performs it incredibly well, and that affordably.

 

I will leave this for you to chunk on: 

 

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/in-1985-an-sh-37-viggen-in-reconnaissance-mission-performed-aerobatic-manoeuvres-at-low-altitude-to-shake-off-two-soviet-su-15s-one-of-the-flagons-crashed/amp/

 

If you're claiming a aircraft/mission is bad, because you are not in a dominant platform, then you are doing it wrong.

[Wyvern]

I wasnt trying to prove that the JF-17 is bad, its good in its own roles,
I was just trying to show that the J-11A indeed can outperform a JF-17 with that specific loadout, as an answer to schmitdfire's comment.

The Jeff will still beat the Flanler in any other role other than Air-Air

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

[zerO_crash]

Fair enough.
 

Well, the JF-17 is the most modern aircraft variant in DCS (2017). It has an edge in terms of guided A-G weaponry, which the much older J-11 doesn't have. Still, it won't "beat" J-11 based on that alone. J-11 can carry much more weaponry, even if unguided. It really depends in both cases on the proficiency of the pilot in question (with J-11 demanding a more capable pilot - unguided weaponry). If the targets are frontline ones, without too advanced AAA/SAM/Manpad systems, then J-11 brings more weaponry, and heavier, to the front. If the targets are protected and require stand-off, JF-17 will likely perform equal-better. It all depends. Thus, it's not one-sided in any case.

 

There are, however, missions that JF-17 can do, which the J-11 cannot. For example, ELINT (anything with RWR can do triangulation, but JF-17 has specialized equipment for it), SEAD, FAC (with the option to distribute coordinates to the wing for specific targets), Anti-ship (strictly speaking, both can do it, but JF-17 has specialized weapons for the role, as well as stand-off), deep territory strike (cruise missiles), and a few more.

[Wyvern]

okay sorry to be rude, but I dont have much patience today.
Can you please try to properly read the post? 
Nobody said anything about Air to Ground combat. 

yes, the JF-17 the most modern aircraft in DCS, as it is a 2005-2008 model.

When doing AIR TO AIR, with an AIR TO AIR loadout, the J-11A will outperform the JF-17.

The message i sent was an reply to him saying the JF-17 will outperform the J-11A, in the SPECIFIC CONTEXT of AIr to Air combat with the SD-10/PL-12.
Meanwhile youre just talking about something else.
Nobody here ever said the J-11A can do better AG.
We were simply talking about the Air-to-Air capabilites, SPECIFICALLY comparing their performance when carrying the PL-12/SD-10.