Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread
Given moderator's injunction i won't mention XXX fighter anymore, but for the benefit of readers, need a bit to know about flight principles so forgive me if this is a bit out of topic. But I feel that further discussion of fighters is more beneficial if people truly understand some of the principles rather than internet propagated myths.
And let me know about if lower wing loading has its benefits or not?
Of course it does. And it is important, crucial for maneuverbility and turn factor. Your turn rates is dictated by both your forward motion (by your engines) and by the lift (by your wings). Low wing loading makes the plane much easier to fly, handles more responsibly. Your stall boundaries are at a much lower speed. You can take off and land at shorter distances and higher angles. It enables you to fly at higher loads. In defensive BFM, makes it easier to do reversals.
But there are caveats. There are reasons why you cannot push this too far and a balance must be attained.
Now there are circumstances that it does not perform as well. Like at faster speeds for instance. A plane with low wing loading tends to be more subjected to turbulence. So in theory, while the plane can fly faster, in practice, it gets a very rough ride and shakes to pieces.
At lower altitude the same thing happens too, especially when you have a lot of turbulence. If you cannot get a smooth ride, you cannot fly fast. Its a forgotten lesson in WWII, that many higher wing loading planes often beat planes with low wing loading, because the former planes can fly faster, dive faster, use boom and zoom tactics, and are more nimbler in low altitudes. At low altitudes too, when the air is denser, this also compensates against high wing loading, and here, in this regime, even higher wing loaded planes can turn quite fast. In other words, low altitudes tend to negate wing loading.
Circumstances of wingloading is really complex. Wing loading in paper does not explain a lot. For example, in a tailless delta, part of the wing area is used by the elevons. But in a turn, the elevons are producing negative lift to push the nose up, and so they don't really count in producing positive lift. Same with tailed elevators. They're negative lift. But you need this negative lift because that is what forces the nose up. The beauty of the canard design is that all surfaces work toward the same direction.
So the design is best a compromise. You have to set a balance between high wing loading and low wing loading, between maneuverbilty, ride, and speed.
I think it should not be construed that XXX will have a far lesser turn rate than YYY because its top achievable AoA of 26 degrees is much lesser than YYY top AoA of 40 degrees.
Of course not, the F-16 achieves its best turn rate at an AoA of 25 to 26 degrees, and that's what the FBW puts it at. Once you reach past a certain AoA, which is usually the number above, the speed of the aircraft slows down because the AoA now tends to produce more drag than lift. And the drag and lift goes down even further as you reach to higher AoA till you reach the stall point.
26 degrees is perfectly adequete for an optimum turn rate. Go higher beyond that, and you face increasing drag and less lift for correspondingly higher AoA till you reach the stall limit. High AoA maneuvers should be regarded as emergency tricks pulled out of the hat. In offensive BFM, you need to point your nose quickly against the target for a quick lock and in defensive BFM, it can cause the enemy to overshoot. But the consequence is losing enough speed on your own to make you vulnerable. So its a gamble. Going up to 26 degrees have been okay for over 99% of all flighters in the past. Blame the Flanker again for instilling this mania for extreme AoA, and to a lesser extent the Fulcrum and the Hornets.
To other points.
I think, f-16 is more manaveourable due its high thrust engine, more speed and unstability on all three axis as compared thunder's on only one axis. Moreover higher climb rate gives it other additional advantage. Overall, f-16 requires much less maitenance, long engine hours(6000hrs) and high payload. Latest models can outplayeven the best in business when stretched to limit.
The F-16 is definitely faster, but
no longer as maneuverable. Face it the last F-16As have been built and they went to Taiwan. The F-16C is a ton heavier, and the higher wing loading affects its agility except on the low altitudes (see post above). If you want the F-16Agile, you need to buy the used airframes, recondition them, then upgrade their avionics. IMO, getting the F-16C---and the later ones get progressively heavier by the block---means getting a plane that wont' turn as fast, but it sure can fly fast in a straight line. Some pilots obviously like the turn, others prefer the extra grunt. Depends n their style and preference.
As for less maintentance, i don't get that impression with many of the F-16 operators. It seems it has its own bag of problems.
From the videos, the JF-17 seems to roll fast enough.
Where it needs to work is getting a more powerful smokeless engine and getting a little more fuel into that airframe.
JF-17's manoueverability seems fine enough from the video and PAF can now amply test it in excercizes with the F-16s in its fleet. Both tailed-delta designs can be evenly matched.
Definitely something to look forward to and should be the next step.
