As well as the seeker head. I feel that they recently started to feel wobbly, again.
1 Like
I mean IDK if u have played J-10A extensively, but to me it felt… not very different at least from dev impression, faster, but to a limited extent, not even faster than J-11B. 2 more missiles and arguably sidegrade radar cause I loved wide scans dearly. I don’t think it is worth grinding after my attempt in dev and comparing it to J-10A.
4 Likes
Exactly, IDK why some people are trying gaslight us into thinking ‘oh the J-10C is actually really good!’. It isn’t. The J-11B I find is actually a lot better. It’s faster, more fuel, can play BVR early and transition to the furball later. The J-10C is a glorified J-10A, the radar is nice but that’s it. If you try to use it for BVR early, you won’t have enough fuel for end game, so you have to sack a pair of missiles for a drop tank. It should 13.7 or 14.0 max. Fix the supersonic drag and give it the SW-10B, and maybe it will actually be worthy of 14.3.
5 Likes
complain to the PLAAF then
you know that that wont help with the fuel consumption and will actually make it worse
1 Like
You misunderstand my point, the point isn’t ‘The J-10 has too low fuel’, it’s the ‘increase in missiles’ it gets is not really an advantage when I have to sack the same 2 missiles to carry the drop tank I need. With the plane performing correctly, I can make do with 6 Pl-12’s instead of 8. The WS-10B and a fix to supersonic drag would allow the plane to hit the speeds needed (M1.4+) to engage in BVR without it being a waste of missiles. An increase in fuel consumption by the WS-10B is fine, I gotta bring the droptank anyways. And for reference, using the Rafale I take 2 wing droptanks with 15min internal fuel, so even if they did increase interior fuel volume, I still want a droptank.
So if we objectively compare the J-10A and J-10C, all we really gain is slightly more thrust but increased weight, a better radar, and MAWS. Does that really sound like a 0.6 BR increase? No, it does not.
4 Likes
man the j10 is such a beautifull aircraft
2 Likes
You don’t need the drop tank.
There are other throttle setting than 110%
2 Likes
exactly. arb i just run full throttle cause you might as well. Sim, just run 101 throttle the entire time until engaged
well, I just get it full, it’s a bit few but just enough for me.
usually, I play in a quite aggressive style
though, about the fuel, it’s said current fuel amount is not so accurate, another version is about 20-30% more, makes it just enough for current game
I have to say that the J-10C’s internal fuel is actually only about 10% less than that of the F-16C, and its relatively limited range endurance is mainly due to engine-related issues.
And the incorrect internal modeling of the J-10 series.
The fuel tank locations on the J-10C correspond roughly to the green composite material areas shown in the diagram.
8 Likes
a slightly better radar, and it’s a sidegrade to say at most.
1 Like
I would still prefer being able to drop the extra fuel when I engage, and on larger maps, 23 min is just not enough, even on 100%, that fuel will barely get u back to base if u engage for even 3-4 min. It’s also weird to say in ARB that ‘there are other settings than 110%’ since if u wanna engage BVR, 110% is necessary, if u wanna get away from engagement, 110% is necessary. With the current rules of ARB there is no other solution than 110%.
Gotta complain to Gaijin cause it’s wrong.
5 Likes
gaijin could add the extra tanks in the x-ray but not increase the fuel
how do you know that the internal ammount of fuel is wrong
Yeah good point, although I guess we can estimate the volume, and if consumption is constant then it would def be more ‘time’. But obviously the fact that Gaijin uses time as a measurement of fuel is annoying.
1 Like
Do you have the specific fuel consumption data for the intermediate thrust setting of the AL-31F series engines? The value in the game seems a bit too high at the moment, which is affecting the performance of both the Flankers and the J-10 series.
the volume dosent help you much since the game uses the weight of the fuel and that is dependent on the fuel type used and its density
There Is a bug report regarding the too High fuel consumption on AL-31 engine and it’s derivatives
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/s170Pydpl05W
2 Likes
This issue report doesn’t specifically mention the AL-31FN and FN-3 variants. Currently, in the game, these two engines share the same fuel consumption rate as the base AL-31F. However, I’ve seen some sources suggesting they are different, though the reliability of this information is unknown.
So, based on your data, it seems that you haven’t really researched and purchased the J-10C and played it. Are all the comments you have made so far based on your speculation?
3 Likes
j10c is doing completely fine lol. it doesn’t matter if he doesn’t have the air craft, he can still make statements on it as the stats of vehicle are freely available.
also I just checked his stats, and he literally has the j-10c? so idk what you’re talking about