BF2 Jets Comparison: Chart+Pictures. Input Needed.

[General_Han_Solo]

Re: BF2 Jets Comparison: Chart+Pictures. Input Needed.

18 tonnes for a J-10??? That seems a bit excessive..

How come the much larger aircraft (including bombers!) carrying much heavier payloads are much lighter??

If the J-10 is as heavy as in the chart, surely the maneuvering abilities shouldn't be as good as they are..

Given the small size of the aircraft (hence small control surfaces) and it's heavy weight, it should maneuver like a brick.

Also, the J-10 should have a extra tent sized collision mesh added to the top of it to make it even

I think its a typo, more like 1800 kg's or ~2000 kg's

[Ghilleman]

Re: BF2 Jets Comparison: Chart+Pictures. Input Needed.

I posted the real world stats for the J-10 and the JSFB on another thread,and i can do so again if anyone wants me to.

[General_Han_Solo]

Re: BF2 Jets Comparison: Chart+Pictures. Input Needed.

Yeah ok

[JTF2_darkloop]

Re: BF2 Jets Comparison: Chart+Pictures. Input Needed.

geeze so much effort
you have a carreer in tsomething to do with this stuff
im so impressed
when i have time i will read this
WOW
great stuff man
really insightful and full of information

g/j

JTF2_darkloop
*Lance Corporal

[Black_Duck_4]

Re: BF2 Jets Comparison: Chart+Pictures. Input Needed.

I am not offended, and I was overreacting. I owe you an apology.

However, my source indicates that there is no way those two nation collaborated. (You don't just hand in your top secret fighter project to a nation that you are not even that close with.)

The Chinese had a fighter design called J9, which looks extremely similar to the Lavi and J10. J10 was based on the design of J9. J9 was canceled.

That's ok, no need for appology.

bottom line the J10 is a super combat jet in BF2 and in real life.

F35 is to replace the AV-8B Harrier and will be used as a Joint Strike Fighter, it is good to see your research! Thanks!

Absolutely, it has the harrier advantages plus the stealth capabilities. Its radar cross section is extremely small. In the other hand it does have long range Doppler radar (i think a pulsed type). The F35B in real life can see it prey first and do the killing then retreat to safe.

[HAWK503]

Re: BF2 Jets Comparison: Chart+Pictures. Input Needed.

All this stuff is totally wack, awesome, but totally wack.
how did you work out that whole chart?!?!?!?!

[Mavlyn]

Re: BF2 Jets Comparison: Chart+Pictures. Input Needed.

Most impressive guys, most impressive!

Personally, I just use jets as a high speed taxi- *ducks stones being thrown*

Just egging you pilots on.

[JYEK]

Re: BF2 Jets Comparison: Chart+Pictures. Input Needed.

Very good job Ducky1, very enlighten indeed.

I was doing research all the day about modern combat jets. Yes the J10 weights range 18 to 19 tons!! It was build by a Chinese company CAC and an Israeli company. Chinese PLA spent twenty years creating, importing, and stealing technology to bring the J10 to the sky. I read about the effect of the weight on the maneuverity and looks it has no effect at all. Remember one of the best jets in maneuvering is the F16c and it weight 19 tons! And the F35B was not to replace the F18 horrent but to replace the stealth jets. In real life its real power is its very long killing radius. It can see first and shot first! :hmm:

Wow make me look differently to jets!!

1. There is some confusion over the mass of a J-10. It's a very new plane only entering service in small quantities in 2004 so not much is known about it, especially outside of China. As far as I can gather, the BF2 team probably made a mistake of using the "maximum take-off weight" rather than a "typical weight" of a J-10 as the in-game weight. The Wikipedia entry suggests that the max take-off weight is roughly 18000KG (as the quoted in-game weight), while the empty weight is about 10000KG. Loaded with armaments, the typical service weight should be somewhere in between the two figures.

2. The joint work between China and Israel may only be a speculation due to the similarities in physical appearance between a prototype J-10 and the Israeli Lavi.

3. I don't think the F-16C weighs 19 tons. According to Wikipedia again, the F-16C Block 30 has an empty weight of 8,272 kg, a loaded weight 12,003 kg, and a max takeoff weight 16,875 kg. These figures also seem consistent with figures I'd read elsewhere.

4. It's somewhat debatable what the F-35 will replace. The F-35 was originally pitched to replace many planes currently operated by the airforce and the navy, including the AV-8, F-16, F/A-18, A-10, and some other planes currently used in European forces. Orders for F-35 have been decreasing over the years so the situation is a bit cloudy now. But I think the original concept of the USAF is to have the F-22 for air superiority and the F-35 for strike/multi-role, together replacing every fighter/strike plane they currently have. It will be much clearer when the F-35's actually enter service in large quantities.

[DOGGiE52]

Re: BF2 Jets Comparison: Chart+Pictures. Input Needed.

What a job! How do get time for this? Where's your motivation ?

[OSUPIC]

Re: BF2 Jets Comparison: Chart+Pictures. Input Needed.

First drag does depend on weight, although not directly. That is why so much design is put into using lightweight materials.

1. To fly you must produce at least as much lift as weight.
2. Lift L ~ 1/2 V^2 CL S P
3. Induced Drag D ~ 1/2 V^2 CD S P
Where
V = Velocity, Cx = Coefficient of lift/drag, S = surface area, P - Roe, sorry no Greek, air density
Note: the induced drag is only the drag that is produced as a direct result of the production of lift, this does not include form, interference, or parasite drag.
The coefficient in both cases is derived from angle of attack (difference between the cord line and the relative wind), wing shape, etc.

So the more weight you fly, the more lift you must produce, and hence the more drag you have to overcome.

This also has implications for turning ability, to turn you need to accelerate towards the center of the turn. The quickest way to do this is by creating a horizontal component to lift, i.e. roll so the wings are lifting into the turn. This acceleration can be increased by producing excess lift, however doing so increases drag at a proportional rate. This creates g-force, or load, L = Lift/Weight. Therefore the optimal turning velocity is governed by how much load can be imposed on the airframe/pilot, going faster than that speed only increases the turn radius (faster velocity + same acceleration = increased turn radius). Also a heaver aircraft will have to produce more lift to impose the same amount of load, which means more drag (and if using the same wing more speed).

One Small nit pick - please don't call those things on the ends of the wings flaps, the correct terminology is ailerons. Flaps are high lift/drag devices which uniformly change the shape and some the surface area of the wing, in order to allow slower landing speeds and/or higher angle approach to land.

[F-1]

Re: BF2 Jets Comparison: Chart+Pictures. Input Needed.

First drag does depend on weight, although not directly. That is why so much design is put into using lightweight materials.

1. To fly you must produce at least as much lift as weight.
2. Lift L ~ 1/2 V^2 CL S P
3. Induced Drag D ~ 1/2 V^2 CD S P
Where
V = Velocity, Cx = Coefficient of lift/drag, S = surface area, P - Roe, sorry no Greek, air density
Note: the induced drag is only the drag that is produced as a direct result of the production of lift, this does not include form, interference, or parasite drag.
The coefficient in both cases is derived from angle of attack (difference between the cord line and the relative wind), wing shape, etc.

So the more weight you fly, the more lift you must produce, and hence the more drag you have to overcome.

This also has implications for turning ability, to turn you need to accelerate towards the center of the turn. The quickest way to do this is by creating a horizontal component to lift, i.e. roll so the wings are lifting into the turn. This acceleration can be increased by producing excess lift, however doing so increases drag at a proportional rate. This creates g-force, or load, L = Lift/Weight. Therefore the optimal turning velocity is governed by how much load can be imposed on the airframe/pilot, going faster than that speed only increases the turn radius (faster velocity + same acceleration = increased turn radius). Also a heaver aircraft will have to produce more lift to impose the same amount of load, which means more drag (and if using the same wing more speed).

One Small nit pick - please don't call those things on the ends of the wings flaps, the correct terminology is ailerons. Flaps are high lift/drag devices which uniformly change the shape and some the surface area of the wing, in order to allow slower landing speeds and/or higher angle approach to land.

Thanks for the info.

Regarding the flaps/ailerons comment, I agree with you, but I was just using the same name as BF2Editor. In other words: I used the name which EA used.

It seems that you are either a real world pilot or flight simulator fan. I knew most of the things you mentioned from Microsoft Flight Simulator

[masterofflama]

Re: BF2 Jets Comparison: Chart+Pictures. Input Needed.

wow nice job man!

[Dairuka]

Re: BF2 Jets Comparison: Chart+Pictures. Input Needed.

wow nice job man!

You probably can get banned for bumping ancient threads you know.

[CHARGER_76]

Re: BF2 Jets Comparison: Chart+Pictures. Input Needed.

You probably can get banned for bumping ancient threads you know.

True, but not a bad thread to revive. I got a bit from it. better than bumping up a dull "joystick help" or "serialbutcher is a ****er" thread.

[Supermario]

Re: BF2 Jets Comparison: Chart+Pictures. Input Needed.

You probably can get banned for bumping ancient threads you know.

You can?