PLAAF JZ8F first picture

Hi Crobato: I thought by increase the wingspan you have resulted a smoother ride at low levels, I was told both J7 ( none E,G) and J8II have a very jittery ride at low level because of the delta wing design. For a fast tactical photo recon jetfighter like the JZ8F to survive in a modern battlefield, it has to have a strong ECM suit on one hand, and on the other hand, it's flight profile has to be extrem low level entry then zoom up fast to attitude, take the pictures, then drive down low again to get away. The old traditional way for a recon plane is high level and fast speed entry, then even faster speed and still higher attitude for get away. This old way in today's battlefield is a sure way to get yourself shotdown(killed). So, in a way, better flying qualities at low level for the JZ8F maybe is more important than regular J8IIF. So if they( SAC) increased the wingspan without change the shape, the jet will have a better ride at low level but at the same time high speed qualities suffered little. What do you think?

Actually, increasing wing span would have worsened your low level ride.

If you like a smooth low level ride, better with low wingspan and high wing loading. Of course the disadvantage to this is that it lengthens your take off and landing, making the plane more difficult to land.

The Starfighter with small, short wingspan wings, happens to be ideally for low level strike and reconnaissance missions, although the plane can do high altitude ones as well. Visualize this too, why variable wing fighters and bombers like F-111, MiG-27, Su-24, Tornado and B-1 all sweep their wings when they go low level.

crobato said:

Actually, increasing wing span would have worsened your low level ride.

If you like a smooth low level ride, better with low wingspan and high wing loading. Of course the disadvantage to this is that it lengthens your take off and landing, making the plane more difficult to land.

The Starfighter with small, short wingspan wings, happens to be ideally for low level strike and reconnaissance missions, although the plane can do high altitude ones as well. Visualize this too, why variable wing fighters and bombers like F-111, MiG-27, Su-24, Tornado and B-1 all sweep their wings when they go low level.

Click to expand...

I see, thanks man for the explaination. You are right, it make them no sense to change the wings, I must had too much to drink by thinking the wings looked bigger. I had seen a F104 up close and personal in Dayton Airforce Museum, i must say, I understand why they call it the missile with wings.

Crobato: I just used a ruler to measure the wing length of this new JZ8F picture in relation to the total length of the fuselage of this jet and compared to this picture of the J8IID, Take a look guys, either the F model a lots shorter( more than the 35cm) or the wing is bigger. What do you think?

sorry, I deleted the first pict of the JZ8F, better picture is in next post.

onemore time, hope this pict is sharper.

To be honest I think PLAAF is wasting its money on this type, would make more sense to just re-role a handful of J-11 Flankers as recce with pod mounted sensors. Might cost more off the line but much more survivable and better performance.

beijingcar said:

Crobato: I just used a ruler to measure the wing length of this new JZ8F picture in relation to the total length of the fuselage of this jet and compared to this picture of the J8IID, Take a look guys, either the F model a lots shorter( more than the 35cm) or the wing is bigger. What do you think?

Click to expand...

To be honest I don't really see any change at all on the wing except that the nozzles on the J-8F seem shorter, probably due to the new engines. Perspective changes make it difficult to calculate exactly but you can get a planform of the J-8II here at . A wing without loads and less points can give the impression that it may be bigger than the same wing loaded with stores and pylons.

Beautiful looking bird.

planeman said:

To be honest I think PLAAF is wasting its money on this type, would make more sense to just re-role a handful of J-11 Flankers as recce with pod mounted sensors. Might cost more off the line but much more survivable and better performance.

Click to expand...

If they're wasting money they're not wasting that much money.

As for the J-11s, I think its such a valued resource it has little to benefit them for noncombat duties. Besides the J-11 is not necessarily faster than the late model J-8F, which uniquely for a plane of its design generation, to boast a TWR well over unity (1.10+ with full internal fuel and 4 AAMs, whereas the Flanker is 1.08 with 56% internal fuel and basic AAMs).

I think the PLAAF is just trying to make better use of available resources.

As for the plane's aesthetics, I always felt that the J-8II looks much better on the air than it is on the ground.

As for survivability, I would agree that every 3rd gen fighter lacks the maneuverbility to give some some survivabily over 4th gen fighters and for evasion of modern missiles. But at least, unlike planes like upgraded Phantoms or Fishbeds, the J-8F has the speed to cut out of there when there is serious trouble. Tactically, it should play a hit and run role. Acquire the targets with the fairly big radar, lock on, shoot with the PL-12s, and scoot outta there.