JF-17 Thunder / FC-1 News, Discussion & Media

Re: JF-17: New Pics

Whatever. I heard in the past that Russians could not build advanced planes. Now they tweaked it... Based on nonsens.

I don't mind discussions but without logic and intellegence there is not much discussion.

Click to expand...

This is NOT based on nonsense. I have nothing against the russians, and would post only FACTS. Russian avionics in the 1980's were no where near that of the west, just looking at the su-27s cockpit. Its common knowledge that Russian FBW was not very advanced, but I will provide a source nonetheless.

The Su-27's agility is still impressive given its size, all the more so because the Su-27 is not a "dynamically unstable" design. Western designers have chosen to build maneuverable aircraft by designing them to be aerodynamically unstable, and then using advanced control systems to keep them in the air. Russian designers, preferring reliability and with less access to sophisticated avionics systems, opted for building a stable design and tweaking it for maximum maneuverability.

Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, It wasnt until the late 90s that the russians started building planes such as the yak-130 and su-47, with less stable designs tanks to advancements in FBW.

Re: JF-17: New Pics

Munir said:

>>>MIGleader]What? i thought the limit for almost any aircraft was 9Gs, and at best 10. Even if the aircraft could handel 15g's, the pilot would not.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Stressed to +23/-23 g and with certified limits of +12/-10 g the Sukhoi has the highest thrust-to-weight ratio of any production aerobatic aircraft.

I am pretty sure that this plane has no FBW.... Manned... So any aircraft????

Let me add that Mig29 had no FBW and could do the same as F16 with FBW... And still is better in WVR...


>>>The russians did not have access to advanced FBW. so instead, they built the design and tweaked it for maximum manuverability. The west prefers making unstable planes and using FBW to control them.

Whatever. I heard in the past that Russians could not build advanced planes. Now they tweaked it... Based on nonsens.

I don't mind discussions but without logic and intellegence there is not much discussion.

Click to expand...

I think if the pilot goes to negative G's he will be blind..., the amonth of blood in the head is very dangerous at -3G's you have already "redout" (the pilot sees completely red). The structure is certified but the pilot will never goes to the -10G's limit for sure, it will goes sometimes to +12G that's all. Mirage 2000 pilots can goes to +11G's with FBW controls, but you see that on their legs...

Re: JF-17: New Pics

FBW is there to restrict dangerous envelopes. But planes can have plenty G's. And in the EF2000 they have liquid G-suit that can have high G for a very long period. About Russian planes and US planes... Russian used advanced knowledge to build planes while US planes are advanced but expensive and have lots of tools around it. Us needed titanium steel from Russia to build Mach 3 rec plane while Russia build an interceptor out of standard material (sr71-mig25)...

About Avionics. I agree that western avionics are nice but tell me who started (and become operational first) IRST, HMS and highly agile WVR missiles? TFT screens are nice but the western parts just styarted with that and I think that it is not a big deal for Russia if they would have invested the same cash. Everything the western make costs more cash and effort but will it be simple and good in most rugged situations? Nopes. Like someone said... To operate Russian aircraft one needs farmers... To operate western aicraft one needs lots of rocket scientists...

Re: JF-17: New Pics

About Avionics. I agree that western avionics are nice but tell me who started (and become operational first) IRST, HMS and highly agile WVR missiles? TFT screens are nice but the western parts just styarted with that and I think that it is not a big deal for Russia if they would have invested the same cash. Everything the western make costs more cash and effort but will it be simple and good in most rugged situations? Nopes. Like someone said... To operate Russian aircraft one needs farmers... To operate western aicraft one needs lots of rocket scientists...

Click to expand...

Yes, i once thought the russians were pinoeers in HMS sights and IRST too, but it appears not. The west had these technologies under the belt for quite many years now. The russians are currently buying French displays for their aircraft.

Highly agile WVR missles like the r-73 have owe thansk to design, not seeker, The west still domintates in seeker technology.

To operate Russian aircraft one needs farmers... To operate western aicraft one needs lots of rocket scientists...

Click to expand...

Yeah right. You need to push some 6 buttons just to fire a missle on an su-27. On an f-15, you just need to push one.

Besides, this has nothing to do with FBW. FBW technology first was fielded by the french in the late 70's. How could a plane being designed by Russia at exactly that time have FBW?

Re: JF-17: New Pics

hmm, this is a joke right? If you have ever followed Chinese military, you would realize how bad the Russian avionics are. You need to look no further than plaaf having more interest in J-11B than su-30mk3 or su-35 to see what I mean.

Sure, the russians did some good things like HMS and IRST, but that does not mean they were ahead.

Also, what's the point that an aircraft can withstand 20g load at a certain profile, when only 9g is needed? The questions should be what is the vertical and horizontal maneuverability of a plane at different altitude, speed and used fuel%? How long can these planes sustain that turn rate? for example, I remember reading that one of the problems with su-27 was that it was limited to 7g load at transonic speed.

Re: JF-17: New Pics

We agree that Russian avionics are not up to the western standard and indeed one needs huge pilot load to fly and fight... But one needs less to build, maintain or replace... Just wanted to point out that Russians did invent handy items. Like the F35 exhaust... It has been shown on a Russian plane long time ago. Maybe the electronics are not comparable but they have presented us diamonds... Rough but still diamonds.

Re: JF-17: New Pics

tphuang said:

hmm, this is a joke right? If you have ever followed Chinese military, you would realize how bad the Russian avionics are. You need to look no further than plaaf having more interest in J-11B than su-30mk3 or su-35 to see what I mean.

Sure, the russians did some good things like HMS and IRST, but that does not mean they were ahead.

Also, what's the point that an aircraft can withstand 20g load at a certain profile, when only 9g is needed? The questions should be what is the vertical and horizontal maneuverability of a plane at different altitude, speed and used fuel%? How long can these planes sustain that turn rate? for example, I remember reading that one of the problems with su-27 was that it was limited to 7g load at transonic speed.

Click to expand...

Russian avionics are bad, but that can be compensated by involving western partener. russian hardware with western avionics is the best cocktail cocktail.

for turkish gunship program russians offered Ka-50 with isreali avionics. so instead of going for a all out western design these
type of combination is still better.

Re: JF-17: New Pics

just wondering, what does aerodynamically unstable. I am still not too sure about the term, and is jf-17 stable or unstable aerodynamically?

Re: JF-17: New Pics

ahho said:

just wondering, what does aerodynamically unstable. I am still not too sure about the term, and is jf-17 stable or unstable aerodynamically?

Click to expand...

A stable aircraft, such as a modern passenger plane, is one that naturally returns to its original orientation whenever it is disturbed from that state, without any steering input from the pilot.

Fighter aircraft, such as the Eurofighter, have actually been designed to be unstable to improve their manoeuvrability. these types of aircrafts have negative stability.

An aircraft with negative stability will, in the absence of control input, depart from level and controlled flight. Aircraft are typically designed with positive stability, where a plane tends to move towards level flight in the absence of control input. However, positive stability hampers maneuverability, as the tendency to enter level flight interferes with flight maneuvers, and so a plane with negative stability will be more maneuverable. With a fly-by-wire system, such a plane can be kept in stable flight, its instability kept in check by the flight computers.

i hope that will do.

Sid

Re: JF-17: New Pics

From what I know, an unstable aircraft will use things such as canards to divert the airflow around and way from the the aircraft.

Jf-17 is relatively a stable design, but has some feature that mroe unstable aircraft may have.