Chengdu J-10, History, Performance & Discussion

[ron_23]

pylon drag isnt modeled in game

becasue if it was the f-18 would be way slower

[crunchyBoy]

We’re talking about drag, you’re showing an engine performance curve

[NCC105]

@Yamahagi

Let me refine my previous point. Initially, I assumed the Cd0 was based on a separate reference area, but I now realize it actually uses wing area as the reference. Considering the J-10C and the Eurofighter have similar fuselage lengths, the J-10C—due to its single-engine design—has a smaller cross-sectional area and features a more pronounced “waisted” fuselage design. Therefore, its fuselage drag in the transonic regime should generally be lower than that of the Eurofighter. Given the difference in reference area (37 m² for the J-10C vs. 51.4 m² for the Eurofighter, excluding ailerons), the peak Cd₀ for the J-10C should be below 0.0194, whereas the current value is 0.0204.

Furthermore, a more suitable reference for wing comparison is actually the JAS 39 Gripen, as they share similar wing sweep angles and canard positions relative to the wing. Considering the J-10 has no wingtip pylons and incorporates wingtip design similar to the F-15’s clipped tips, the wing Cd₀ of the J-10C should not exceed the JAS 39’s peak of 0.0112, yet the current value is 0.0123.

let me just borrow this for a quick answer. and I’m sure there is enough talking in this thread, explaining J-10’s design is more focus on supersonic not subsonic

@yiehgd

its not about missile and anything, its the pylon drag

most pylon drag isn’t modeled in game. only in some helis, so it’s the plane’s drag

[yiehgd]

guess what? try it with and without, significant difference

[ron_23]

reading?

it clearly says drag and its until kgf

thats the unit drag is measured in

[ron_23]

guess what

that appies to every aircraft ingame

[yiehgd]

try it then, shooot every missile with empty pylon, just cant get above M1.3

[ron_23]

you cant just compare the Cd0 of two completly different planes

i dont know if you noticed but this:

is different from this:

[ron_23]

me when i lie:

[yiehgd]

7min fuel 4 missile wow, take it in battle

[ron_23]

fuel dosent matter for top speed

and carrying missiles will only make me slower but sure i can do it again with full fuel and no missiles

and the result will be the exact same

[crunchyBoy]

the drag on the different parts of the fuselage

In aeronautics, drag in kgf is the air resistance converted into kilograms-force. It’s used to measure the force opposing the aircraft as it moves forward. Therefore, engine power is what’s needed to compensate for this drag.

You’re talking about drag in relation to engine power, that’s why I pointed out that your curve is linked to engine performance and not the fuselage. You’ve used the wrong category when you created your curve.

[crunchyBoy]

[ron_23]

thats not the drag

it is the drag coefficent

the drag coefficent is used to calculate the drag

[ron_23]

@crunchyBoy

You’re talking about drag in relation to engine power, that’s why I pointed out that your curve is linked to engine performance and not the fuselage. You’ve used the wrong category when you created your curve.

iam not

you just have no clue what you are actually talking about

[NCC105]

you still don’t have any proof that why J-10 should have such high cd0.
while all secondary analysis suggests it focus on supersonic fighting.
J-10A’s mid-range coupled canard wing and supersonic rectangular inlet suggests it was born more as an interceptor, and the background of its design also suggests this. in J-10C it changed to DSI but the basic design still remains same.

[NCC105]

well, in this part you are right

[ron_23]

and you dont have any proof that it should be lower

so you can stop arguing now

[ron_23]

is this enough fuel for you?

[NCC105]

no I have. at least secondary
you know you can never find real curve like this

@ron_23

@NCC105

while all secondary analysis suggests it focus on supersonic fighting.
J-10A’s mid-range coupled canard wing and supersonic rectangular inlet suggests it was born more as an interceptor, and the background of its design also suggests this. in J-10C it changed to DSI but the basic design still remains same.