PAF J-10CE News, Updates and Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
m52k85 said:
Even the F-7/ Mig-21s had more, they famously had 45 mins of endurance without external tanks. With a fuel fraction of 27.5, significantly higher than that of the F-7 (0.24 from memory), The J-10 should be able to give north of 1 hour patrol time at or near base without external tanks.

Some back ground: We know there are three variables that affect range and endurance:
1. Aero foil configuration or Lift-to-Drag ratio: The F-7 and J-10 are both deltas but the J-10 has canards which improves flow characteristics. Also, the J-10 was conceived in different light vs the Mig-21s interceptor design parameters, hence other characteristics like aspect ration, wing thickness etc would favour a multi-role cruiser over an interceptor dasher design.
2. Propulsion efficiency: Swap a turbo-fan for a tubo-jet and you get more range and endurance. The J-10 does that.
3. Fuel fraction: see breguet's range equation. Not as good as other modern deltas (Typhoon 0.31, Rafale 0.32 - again from memory), but better than F-7 and Jf-17.

The Jf-17 improves on 1 and 2 vs the F-7 but not really on 3, hence its short legs compared to J-10 and one of the reasons for the J-10 making its way into PAF.

A good summary: https://people.clarkson.edu/~pmarzocc/AE429/AE-429-11.pdf
Click to expand...
Hi,

I believe mig21's total time in air was 30-45 minutes or so with external fuel tanks.

Listen to Sattar Alvi's interview---. After 30-45 minutes in air---the israelis would send their aircraft to take them down because they were almost out of fuel ready to land---.
 
MastanKhan said:
I believe mig21's total time in air was 30-45 minutes or so with external fuel tanks.
Click to expand...

That's for the first variants of mig-21s and that's supposedly in clean condition. Later soviet variants improved it.

"Like many aircraft designed as interceptors, the MiG-21 had a short range. This was exacerbated by the poor placement of the internal fuel tanks ahead of the centre of gravity. As the internal fuel was consumed, the center of gravity would shift rearward beyond acceptable parameters. This had the effect of making the plane statically unstable to the point of being difficult to control, resulting in an endurance of only 45 minutes in clean condition. This can be somewhat countered by carrying fuel in external tanks closer to the center of gravity. The Chinese variants somewhat improved the internal fuel tank layout (also second generation of Soviet variants)"

source: https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/MiG-21bis_(Fishbed-L)_Russian_Fighter_Aircraft


However, don't know how much it improved in later variants.
 
MastanKhan said:
Hi,

I believe mig21's total time in air was 30-45 minutes or so with external fuel tanks.

Listen to Sattar Alvi's interview---. After 30-45 minutes in air---the israelis would send their aircraft to take them down because they were almost out of fuel ready to land---.
Click to expand...
30-45 min is combat sorties.

55min normal piece time
 
Awwad said:
That's for the first variants of mig-21s and that's supposedly in clean condition. Later soviet variants improved it.

"Like many aircraft designed as interceptors, the MiG-21 had a short range. This was exacerbated by the poor placement of the internal fuel tanks ahead of the centre of gravity. As the internal fuel was consumed, the center of gravity would shift rearward beyond acceptable parameters. This had the effect of making the plane statically unstable to the point of being difficult to control, resulting in an endurance of only 45 minutes in clean condition. This can be somewhat countered by carrying fuel in external tanks closer to the center of gravity. The Chinese variants somewhat improved the internal fuel tank layout (also second generation of Soviet variants)"

source: https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/MiG-21bis_(Fishbed-L)_Russian_Fighter_Aircraft


However, don't know how much it improved in later variants.
Click to expand...
Hi,

It still has a terrible loiter time----.
 
TBF beautiful looking fighter
Back bone of Plaaf mid fourth generation fleet..
Worthy opponent for Pakistan to face the best that India can throw at it ...for some time to come
 
Fatman17 said:
China's J-10: Just a Copy of America's F-16 Fighter? Actually, There Is an Israel Connection https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...ghter-actually-there-israel-connection-210756
Click to expand...
J-10C is superior to the F-16, but it does not surpass the capabilities of the Rafale or the Eurofighter Typhoon and Any Pakistani aircraft approaching India would first encounter the Tejas, as Tejas is replacing the MiG-21s that were previously stationed at forward bases near the Pakistan border.
 
Bhojpuranchali said:
J-10C is superior to the F-16, but it does not surpass the capabilities of the Rafale or the Eurofighter Typhoon and Any Pakistani aircraft approaching India would first encounter the Tejas, as Tejas is replacing the MiG-21s that were previously stationed at forward bases near the Pakistan border.
Click to expand...
OK
 
Bhojpuranchali said:
J-10C is superior to the F-16, but it does not surpass the capabilities of the Rafale or the Eurofighter Typhoon and Any Pakistani aircraft approaching India would first encounter the Tejas, as Tejas is replacing the MiG-21s that were previously stationed at forward bases near the Pakistan border.
Click to expand...
Its about tactics to develop tactics against more advanced jets so called your out of this universe Rafale, and J10C is using lots of technologies from J-20, in Air defense role it is better than Rafale because Rafale is slower which means it gives less kinetic energy to meteor than J10C gives the kinetic energy to PL15

And we are developing tactics against Rafales with friendly countries like we recently had joint exercise with Qatari Rafales
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)

Pakistan Defence Latest

Country Watch Latest

Latest Posts

Share this page

Back
Top