It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


J-10 - Combat Aircraft Magazine

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 06:14 PM
Use the link buttoms to get a bigger picture, of interesting note, read the end of page 6 for their comparison with the LAVI, F-16 and MiG-29 in range and bomb load

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting

posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 09:38 AM
The range extension as mentioned in the article is due to the canrad/delta config whcih givs a better lift/drag ratio; something lacking in the MiG-29 or F-16.
A good read even though it doesn't reveal anything drastically new here.
thanks for sharing it with us..

posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 09:45 AM
Thanks for sharing chinawhite.

The article made for a nice read after a long break.

It is noteworthy to add that the "super-duper F-16 beating" picture of the J-10 and notions of it being "fully indigenous" and Israel having nothing to do as propogated extensively by some posters with vested intrests seems to have been shattered by the article.

posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 06:15 PM
Same ole Stealthspy,

Takes every chance to flame

You need not point any fingers about the J-10 being a "copy" because this shatters the hundreds of "reliable" googled sources you posted over the years

It is noteworthy to add that the "super-duper F-16 beating" picture of the J-10

Add the Su-27 to the list

"fully indigenous"

Apart from the engine, which area wasn't developed in china

[edit on 7-10-2006 by chinawhite]

posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 03:04 AM

Pylon for a targeting pod

posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 11:22 AM
I suspect that empty weight of J-10 would be such heavy approxi to 10tons, but wing area seems to be more true than the data revealed on internet. My original speculation is 40 square meters.

posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 11:32 AM
Very nice information. Thanks for posting!

posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 10:48 PM

posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 06:06 AM
An FC-1 thunder there..
Any idea which Prototype?

posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 06:20 AM

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Any idea which Prototype?

03 and 04

Prototype 06 has been completed and flying

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 05:44 PM
I was particularly struck by the predicted strike radius and payload of the J-10. If true, this could be a real game changer for China. It would be their first, truly survivable strike platform.

I obtained my copy of this article at the local bookstore. If anyone wants an original copy (and as subject matter on China goes, there aren't that many articles like this out there), they can also obtain a copy direct from the publisher:

posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 11:55 AM
......4 times the combat radius and bombload as Mig29s and close to doubling that of

where did the news paper get all those info?

the pic of FC-1 and J10 remind me of the old J7 and J8 combination, I suppose the PLAAF will replace that with the new FC-1 and J10 combination?

[edit on 10/28/2006 by warset]

posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 12:52 PM
If it has twice the range of an F-16 where does the fuel go? The wings are too small (certainly not twice as big as an F-16's) and the engine is quite large so fuselage space is limited.

I don't suppose the figures are comparing a J-10 with external tanks against an F-16 without are they?

posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 05:23 PM
Here is what the article calculated for the J-10

Length - 16.5m
Wingspan - 11.3m
Height - 6m

Gross wing area - 45.5m²

Here is the F-16 dimensions from wikipedia

Length - 14.8 m
Wingspan - 9.8 m
Heigh - 4.8 m)
Wing area - 27.87 m²

So its basically the design and the size of the aircraft

posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 05:27 PM

Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting

posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 05:33 PM
I still don't see where twice the range comes from though? And as you must have known I'm an admirer of the J-10 and have defended it on here many times, but this range figure seems wrong is all.

Plus, is there any possibility of getting the dimensions in proper measurements instead of those silly French things?

posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 09:07 PM

Originally posted by waynos
I still don't see where twice the range comes from though?

The magazine basically did educated guesses on the range with consideration from similar systems like the LAVI and F-16.

The magazine claims the J-10 has a internal fuel load of 9,850lb of fuel, while the F-16 has 6,845lb of fuel. Add this to the 12% increase in range because of extra lift and thats about 1110km more range?

And as you must have known I'm an admirer of the J-10 and have defended it on here many times, but this range figure seems wrong is all

I also think the article has exaggerated these figures a little, but when you consider the F-16XL and its increases of range, it seems plausible. Although the F-16XL has a much bigger wing area and carries more fuel. I didn't think you were making bad points or being agressive at all, your an admirer of aircraft and seem to have no agenda at all. Very un-biased opinion


Length - 54 ft
Wingspan - 37 ft 2 in
Height - 15 ft 6 in
Wing area - 490 ft²
Internal fuel - 4460kg

Here is the F-16 dimensions from wikipedia

Length - 49 ft 5 in
Wingspan - 32 ft 8 in
Height - 16 ft
Wing area - 300 ft²
Internal fuel - 3105 kg


Length - 54 ft 2 in
Wingspan - 34 ft 3 in
Height - 17 ft 7 in
Wing area - 633 ft2
Internal fuel - 5600kg (?)

[edit on 28-10-2006 by chinawhite]

posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 05:52 AM
Thanks chinawhite, for the kind words and for the figures I can relate to

I think you are right and that the figures are a bit exaggerated. I am only just appreciating too just how much bigger the J-10 actaully is by comparison with the F-16 and Lavi that it is supposedly "copied" from.

When estimating the internal fuel capacity it would be useful to know the locations and types of the tanks, ie a few aircraft have fuel tanks in the fin, but most don't. Some fuselage tanks are simply located inside the fuselage behind the cockpit, some are thin 'saddle' type tanks that are located around the outside of the fuselage where other equipment is accomodated in the central area. You can also get integral tanks which actually form part of the structure themselves which afford greater capacity than conventional tanks.

Is there anyinformation on the tank type and location in the J-10 available or did they simply guess it from the aircrafts size?

[edit on 29-10-2006 by waynos]

posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 08:01 AM
What version of the F-16 is the article using for comparison? I too think the figures are over exaggerated but one thing is for sure it will not have twice the range of the Block 60 and doubtful of the Block 50/52.

posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 01:49 PM
Chinawhite, I personally hate to say this but really, China do deserve to modernize their air force. They do impress me with their fighter jets in their inventory. J-10, Su-27 (J-12) and Su-33 (designation unknown for now for navalized version for their future carriers which should be completed before 2010 or being most disappointed naval force ever seen in history). They doesn't have enough experience to build their own carriers so they did phone-called Russians and French to help them out. Anyways the point is that the J-10 already made the so-called experts and doubters shut up because it perform very well in every important areas of rules in the air. It is agile enough to fight with F-15 and MiG-29. It have impressive thrust-to-weight ratio that can easily push the jet to maximaze the pilots' comfortable to fight with condifidence. I'm 110% supporter of F-22 Raptor and I already knew, J-10 will not beat it for sure. Sorry, slacker.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in