I agreed your arguments now what? Never satisified?
3 Likes
anything but stopping to cope
from you
So agree with u is cope, ok
2 Likes
you are the one coping
nope, seems like u r now
1 Like
sure mister misinformation
sure, mister nerd
2 Likes
maybe, but you just point out their problem in proof, not the problem it self.
Imo, the point of J-10 having too much supersonic drag is still there.
J-10 is designed based on the concept of competing for cross theater air superiority and homeland air defense missions, that’s why it changed the pitot tube inlet(which is light but not good in supersonic, suitable for subsonic dogfight) to supersonic rectangular inlet
4 Likes
According to the argument, J10C accelerate to 1600km/h is faster than JAS39E and Su30sm, way better than F/A18E, so supersonic drag is not too much for it
I agreed with him and seems like his not satisified, since J10C is better than Su30sm, which is 14.3, so J10C has to raise to 14.7, Gaijin did the proper job, well done gaijin
Fix confirmed.
1 Like
I didn’t mean that the current in-game J-10C should stay at having AL-31F, what I mean is that since most J-10C has changed their engines to WS-10B during MLUs the in-game modal should have WS-10B as its main engine. Plus the mass should not be that much because the mass losses caused by the shift from traditional, rectangular divert intake to DSI compensates (at least mostly, if not totally) the weight gained by the radar change.
1 Like
Thats another point, Brits got India now, but they confirmed that Singapore is not giving Chinese tech tree and meawhile gain the whole Southeast Asia to Japs.
Chinese vehicles always get either nerfed or late release
3 Likes
not really.
the argument on this is based on wrong basic knowledge.
but you all focus on other’s problem and not about other’s point.
1 Like
And that.
In fact, the J-10 is a single engine fighter, while the Typhoon and Rafale are twin engine fighters. Therefore, it should have a smaller fuselage cross-sectional area and a better area ratio than these two. I believe that the gusts in the game have too little supersonic drag, while the J-10 has too much supersonic drag. I believe someone has already mentioned the design optimization of the J-10 in terms of supersonic area ratio here.
2 Likes
the J-10C would perform way better if it had way less supersonic drag (not just the fuselage) yes, to the point where the WS-10B wouldn’t even be probably needed. i do wish it gets a drag reduction more than the WS-10B
2 Likes
The graph we are showing is about the Mach coefficient, that is, the total drag of the fuselage. The fuselage drag coefficient is a dimensionless number that quantifies the aerodynamic efficiency of the fuselage in relation to its shape and size.
You’re showing completely different graphs. Your first graph is about engine performance as a function of speed, and the other graph is about lift/drag polar, which shows drag based on AoA and speed.
7 Likes
That is such a hyperfixation on a specific singular value, when it could be the case that the developers just made it high drag on the fuselage while making it very low drag on the wings for example, overall balancing each other out. This is one of the reasons developers do not accept reports based on datamines as players would fixate on single values without looking at the complete total picture.
If the J-10C already has a total overall drag lower than other delta canards then the fixation on the fuselage is nitpicking when it may be the case that the wing drag is too low and thus overperforming, so the fuselage drag is higher relatively to balance it out while the overall drag is still lower than other delta canards.
5 Likes
i will say though, the supersonic cd0 change of the J-10C on the wings, fuselage & stabilizers are the highest for the deltacanards in game, and that is pretty much the only issue with the J-10C that i can see right now, which is why i do agree that it needs to be lowered. but yeah hyperfixation on the fuselage cd0 alone is pretty stupid
3 Likes
Yes, compared to its European canard counterparts, the subsonic-supersonic drag variation of the J-10 is much steeper. Its transonic drag curve is actually similar to the conventional layout of the F-16.
2 Likes