Request - Engine pylons available by default

[Schmidtfire]

What I like to know is if you even get a proper loft profile with J-11? With JF-17 you can pitch the aircraft and initiate a loft profile for SD-10.

[zerO_crash]

2 hours ago, Wyvern said:

dont have much patience today.
Can you please try to properly read the post? 
Nobody said anything about Air to Ground combat. 

 

It is clear that you are not patient. It is even more evident, that you are not reading what you are writing. "Nobody said anything about Air to Ground combat." - You absolutely did:

 

5 hours ago, Wyvern said:

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

 

You are not paying attention to what you are writing. "... any other role than Air-Air", is definitely A-G accounted for!

 

2 hours ago, Wyvern said:

Nobody here ever said the J-11A can do better AG.

 

I did, as a reply to your statement that JF-17 will outdo the J-11A in anything else than A-A.

 

You are not specific enough in your communication, and you make gross estimates which simply are not true. If you don't have the patience to write with some level of specificity, then you ought to consider whether to write at all.

 

2 hours ago, Wyvern said:

We were simply talking about the Air-to-Air capabilites, SPECIFICALLY comparing their performance when carrying the PL-12/SD-10.

 

I am fully aware of what the discussion is about, you do not need to inform me about that. I read the thread carefully. The point is, you went far outside the boundaries of that specific point - discussing matters of aircraft design, swapping out engines, what if's, and generally much more.

 

Further examples:

22 hours ago, Wyvern said:

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.

 

This statement is purely wrong. A volumetrically "larger" object, in no way increases it's ability to "fall down" (potential kinetic energy - KE) better than a "smaller" object. What matters in this case, is weight. The greater the weight of the object, the greater the KE, meaning the more kinetic energy it will have upon losing its potential. In layman's terms - the heavier an object, the higher the force it will fall down with. That is what you mean, but it is not what you write. Granted, you state - "Im not a physicist, nor a mathematician, so correct me if im wrong.". That is something one notices right away, but regardless, that's why I correct you. 

 

Still, that is only a small part of equation. As a quick example:

A AMRAAM AIM-120 A/B/C weighs approximately 157kg¹

A Vympel R-77 (first iteration) weighs approximately 175kg²

 

If you dropped both missiles (no propulsion) from a high altitude, the R-77 will out-accelerate the AIM-120 in the start, until the drag of the grid tail fins start to produce a serious amount of drag, afterwhich the AIM-120 will not only accelerate faster (at higher speed), it will actually attain higher speed (due to less drag). That shows you how wrong your statement is. Furthermore, just because one body is physically bigger than another (i.e. more drag), there is another concept that is essential to the total drag-factor of an object. That is the objects slenderness (known as "slenderness ratio"). A body can physically be bigger than any other, but if its slenderness ratio is relatively high (quotient between the height and the width of an object is high), then that bigger object will actually pose less drag than a smaller object, albeit with worse ratio. The best is, there are more factors to consider, when making the statement as to what falls quicker or generally has better KE.

 

I could pick you apart in hundreads of ways, but that's not my point. That's why I stated in the beginning:

 

7 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

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

 

Feel free to discuss as you wish, but know that you will be corrected in the open forums where mistakes are made. You make gross assumptions, and the fact that you touch on the deeper level of physics, without prior knowledge of even basic concepts, doesn't make it good either.

 

Therefore, my dear, instead of using the energy on "okay sorry to be rude...", use it instead to at least attempt to verify what you write, before you actually write it. And if you get input on your writing, then take it with a smile and appreciation that someone bothered. Normally, in the capitalist world, knowledge costs. I give it for free. You're welcome!

 

As to this:

22 hours ago, Wyvern said:

I heard that Russia Lied to them about the performance characteristics, but thats an entirely different topic.

 

China and Pakistan signed a memorandum of understanding for a joint design and development of a new fighter (what became JF-17) in 1995. (Later that year, Mikoyan joined to support the design phase.). That means, the first thought of a plane, which wasn't yet JF-17, came up in 1995 earliest.

China, bought the Su-27SK (first export of a Su-27 to any country, by the way) from Russia with orders being made in '90s. The deliveries started in '92, with some 36 Su-27SKs and 42 Su-27UBK (two-seater, training variant). Both those fighters had the AL-31F engines.

Consider your statement above: Does it make sense that Russians would lie about anything on a project where a mutual agreement barely was made in 1995 (we aren't even talking about designs), when China had recieved planes which had these very same engines three years earlier in 1992?! Do you think that China didn't know what it got three years before even agreeing on a cooperation with Pakistan?

 

Glad we got this settled! Let's leave it at that!

 

¹AIM-120 AMRAAM - Air to Air Missiles - Missiles - European Defence Equipment - Armed Forces Europe - edmis2a5

²Vympel R-77 | Weaponsystems.net

Edited April 24, 2024 by zerO_crash

[zerO_crash]

2 hours ago, Schmidtfire said:

What I like to know is if you even get a proper loft profile with J-11? With JF-17 you can pitch the aircraft and initiate a loft profile for SD-10.

There is a reason Deka doesn't want to touch on the topic. There simply is not enough information on the matter. While I generally don't have too much Chinese documentation, they are even more restrictive with their policy on declassifying documentation, than Russia is. Personally, I have never comes across any credible Chinese source (I have looked for the specifics of Chinese Flankers) which would even mention the subject. The only reason we really know so much about JF-17, is because it is a purely export product. Flankers are domestically used, and that's the problem.

 

Possibly someone with Chinese bakground can comment any more on the topic at hand.

Edited April 24, 2024 by zerO_crash

[Wyvern]

3 hours ago, Schmidtfire said:

What I like to know is if you even get a proper loft profile with J-11? With JF-17 you can pitch the aircraft and initiate a loft profile for SD-10.

Yes you can, we tried. It works surprisingly well actually

[Mike_Romeo]

I love how this thread went from a request of engine pylons went into a full discussion of the missile and aircraft performance.

[Schmidtfire]

4 hours ago, Mike_Romeo said:

I love how this thread went from a request of engine pylons went into a full discussion of the missile and aircraft performance.

The new pylons is closely associated with the missile mod used on GS server. So it's only natural to discuss the benefit of the J11 with PL-12 missiles
as it's was the driving factor behind the new pylons.

...and if it's realistic, why won't Deka implement the missile aswell? 
 

Edited April 25, 2024 by Schmidtfire

[Mike_Romeo]

14 minutes ago, Schmidtfire said:

The new pylons is closely associated with the missile mod used on GS server. So it's only natural to discuss the benefit of the J11 with PL-12 missiles
as it's was the driving factor behind the new pylons.

...and if it's realistic, why won't Deka implement the missile aswell? 
 

 

Because they modeled a version before the PL-12 got introduced. Thats why it carry the R-77. Also this change of pylon visibility is for the entire community that can now put anything on them without floating in multiplayer.

Edited April 25, 2024 by Mike_Romeo

[Schmidtfire]

Got it, It's for accessibility/gameplay 

Not everyone can afford the JF-17 so this makes the much cheaper J-11 a bit more competitive with the PL-12. Sounds reasonable.