Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread
So, There are total 8 fighters inside Pakistan involved in Weapon Testing.
So, There are total 8 fighters inside Pakistan involved in Weapon Testing.
JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread
- Thread starter crazyinsane105
- Start date
- Status
Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread
"Near future" is relative. I thought China bought at leat 100 RD-93 engines for the FJ-17 about a year ago? Also that China had to seek permits to re-export to "6 countries" ... .. I thought by the time China starts any serious production for export, they would have a their own engine.
"Near future" is relative. I thought China bought at leat 100 RD-93 engines for the FJ-17 about a year ago? Also that China had to seek permits to re-export to "6 countries" ... .. I thought by the time China starts any serious production for export, they would have a their own engine.
Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread
If you want a twin engined jet, it's a new aircraft and not JF-17 any more. You'd have to once again go through test and evaluation.
If they already need a new engine, something went wrong in the process I think. Exept for a new engine was/is under development and the current one only used for getting the aircraft into the air for testing ...
If you want a twin engined jet, it's a new aircraft and not JF-17 any more. You'd have to once again go through test and evaluation.
If they already need a new engine, something went wrong in the process I think. Exept for a new engine was/is under development and the current one only used for getting the aircraft into the air for testing ...
Indianfighter
Junior Member
Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread
Well, we know for certain that stability augmentation in any axis is necessarily provided by FBW in that axis, but that is not possible using conventional (hydraulic) controls. I'm not sure how to interpret PAC's statement above.nemo said:
Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread
Adding fbw isn't making your aircraft better. Mig29 without fbw was not less then F16 with FBW. And do understand that FBW of a simple delta (LCA) is a lot simpler then the conventional design... I do not understand why Indian posters are so obsessed with certain logic when it comes to their fighters or Chinese fighters...
If JF17 rolls worse then we (pakistan) would skip that plane... And do notice that F5 rolls a lot better then F16... We know the first design had not complete fbw... But it had also no DSI... I have been flying the sim and have asked some questions about fbw and I can assure you that it has been improved considerably and it is full fbw. I bet that is a lot more reliable then reading post from someone that hates the plane from the beginning.
In the past JF17's 8,5 G were so often used as being an important variable which showed its inferiority. We know that LCA has even lower design parameter and now it is no longer an important issue. Same was about LCA's composites (low weight, high tech parts, good engine) yet we know that it is heavier then expectes... They shifted to a better engine and even that is not the best alternative sofar... We heard the RD93 boycot more then wished yet we see the same plane with RD33 in Pakistan...
Somehow we can conclude that Indian posters are less informed and often nationalistic and biassed. Unfortunately.
Adding fbw isn't making your aircraft better. Mig29 without fbw was not less then F16 with FBW. And do understand that FBW of a simple delta (LCA) is a lot simpler then the conventional design... I do not understand why Indian posters are so obsessed with certain logic when it comes to their fighters or Chinese fighters...
If JF17 rolls worse then we (pakistan) would skip that plane... And do notice that F5 rolls a lot better then F16... We know the first design had not complete fbw... But it had also no DSI... I have been flying the sim and have asked some questions about fbw and I can assure you that it has been improved considerably and it is full fbw. I bet that is a lot more reliable then reading post from someone that hates the plane from the beginning.
In the past JF17's 8,5 G were so often used as being an important variable which showed its inferiority. We know that LCA has even lower design parameter and now it is no longer an important issue. Same was about LCA's composites (low weight, high tech parts, good engine) yet we know that it is heavier then expectes... They shifted to a better engine and even that is not the best alternative sofar... We heard the RD93 boycot more then wished yet we see the same plane with RD33 in Pakistan...
Somehow we can conclude that Indian posters are less informed and often nationalistic and biassed. Unfortunately.
Indianfighter
Junior Member
Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread
Munir I don't know why you say that when I have categorically said that JF-17 should have equal A2A capabilities as a F-16 C/D over a year ago on this thread itself. Also no member broached the topic of LCA.
Its certainly true that all unstable aircraft in operation have FBW in all the three axes and not hybrid controls. That's why it is quite possible that JF-17 is not unstable, but I think a definite official confirmation may be needed.
Munir I don't know why you say that when I have categorically said that JF-17 should have equal A2A capabilities as a F-16 C/D over a year ago on this thread itself. Also no member broached the topic of LCA.
Its certainly true that all unstable aircraft in operation have FBW in all the three axes and not hybrid controls. That's why it is quite possible that JF-17 is not unstable, but I think a definite official confirmation may be needed.
Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread
Don't you even dare to start india-pakistan pissing contest in here...:nono::nono:
All participants of that will be treaten equally harsh.
So quit talking about LCA and stick to JF-17/FC-1
Gollevainen
Supermod
Don't you even dare to start india-pakistan pissing contest in here...:nono::nono:
All participants of that will be treaten equally harsh.
So quit talking about LCA and stick to JF-17/FC-1
Gollevainen
Supermod
Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread
The last paragraph is certainly wrong. Stability in different axis are caused by different factors that don't affect one another. For example pitch instability is caused by the center of lift being ahead of center of gravity, which has nothing to do with lateral stability that dictates roll. The latter is caused by the differences of lift between the two wings. In fact aircraft that is laterally stable can have FBW, and aircraft that is laterally unstable may be manual. A number of world war II fighters can be considered laterally unstable like the Fw 190A. Static directional stability is determined by the size of the tail fin and you always want this stable by all means. Fighters can be unstable in only one axis, and its not necessary, even detrimental to be unstable in all three, and you can't certainly be unstable on yaw if you want to be flight worthy. You would certainly need to be pitch unstable for maneuverability; roll instability isn't that necessary, you only need to roll fast; and you must be yaw and directional stable.
Pitch instability
Lateral stability
Directional stability
The official confirmation is already there so don't keep on insisting the contrary and grasping empty straws.
The last paragraph is certainly wrong. Stability in different axis are caused by different factors that don't affect one another. For example pitch instability is caused by the center of lift being ahead of center of gravity, which has nothing to do with lateral stability that dictates roll. The latter is caused by the differences of lift between the two wings. In fact aircraft that is laterally stable can have FBW, and aircraft that is laterally unstable may be manual. A number of world war II fighters can be considered laterally unstable like the Fw 190A. Static directional stability is determined by the size of the tail fin and you always want this stable by all means. Fighters can be unstable in only one axis, and its not necessary, even detrimental to be unstable in all three, and you can't certainly be unstable on yaw if you want to be flight worthy. You would certainly need to be pitch unstable for maneuverability; roll instability isn't that necessary, you only need to roll fast; and you must be yaw and directional stable.
Pitch instability
Lateral stability
Directional stability
The official confirmation is already there so don't keep on insisting the contrary and grasping empty straws.
Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread
I agree with supermod statement. All I had to say about it is already posted.
About FBW and agility. It is not up to FBW to make it more agile. I think FBW van limit movement (software) cause the plane would go crazy without it. SOme planes are limited to 9g but the same can go much further if operator accepts more damage. In the past a true dogfighter needed power and agility. These days with newest generation WVR AAM with HMS in combination with netcentric approach and long(er) range BVR we should discuss how much a 9G plane will add in this environment. Stealth and BVR are much more important...
Back to JF17. I agree that official statements on papers make a lot difference but there is a point we can repeat again and again. I have talked to engineers and pr people from China on several occoasions. I have seen pics of FBW equipment which clearly showed 4 boxes of electronics with same connections. The fact is that we can be already happy to know that cause we will not get the latest info on that. It is like PAF. You know they have a lot of weapons but you hardly see any on pics... We have seen Ra'ad but have we ever seen the older H2/H4? Besides some statements we all know that it might have correlation with SA weapons. So, I agree we want some evidence but one should understand that there is a reason why not all will get that info.
We know that JF17 can handle 8,5 G. Whether it uses FBW or not... The opponent will not feel much difference. The F16 is able to handle more but it does not mean it will win easily 1v1 when opposing JF17...
When we look at the reason for JF17... It is suited for that. It is able to bridge the gap between F16 block15 and the newer Block52. Besides that it wil operate with J10/FC20 and surely not without Erieye/ground radars. It is not going to penetrate India that much and knowing that it will have 2-4 SD10's will make the opponent think twice.
I agree with supermod statement. All I had to say about it is already posted.
About FBW and agility. It is not up to FBW to make it more agile. I think FBW van limit movement (software) cause the plane would go crazy without it. SOme planes are limited to 9g but the same can go much further if operator accepts more damage. In the past a true dogfighter needed power and agility. These days with newest generation WVR AAM with HMS in combination with netcentric approach and long(er) range BVR we should discuss how much a 9G plane will add in this environment. Stealth and BVR are much more important...
Back to JF17. I agree that official statements on papers make a lot difference but there is a point we can repeat again and again. I have talked to engineers and pr people from China on several occoasions. I have seen pics of FBW equipment which clearly showed 4 boxes of electronics with same connections. The fact is that we can be already happy to know that cause we will not get the latest info on that. It is like PAF. You know they have a lot of weapons but you hardly see any on pics... We have seen Ra'ad but have we ever seen the older H2/H4? Besides some statements we all know that it might have correlation with SA weapons. So, I agree we want some evidence but one should understand that there is a reason why not all will get that info.
We know that JF17 can handle 8,5 G. Whether it uses FBW or not... The opponent will not feel much difference. The F16 is able to handle more but it does not mean it will win easily 1v1 when opposing JF17...
When we look at the reason for JF17... It is suited for that. It is able to bridge the gap between F16 block15 and the newer Block52. Besides that it wil operate with J10/FC20 and surely not without Erieye/ground radars. It is not going to penetrate India that much and knowing that it will have 2-4 SD10's will make the opponent think twice.
- Status