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

Indianfighter

Junior Member
Re: JF-17: New Pics

Munir said:
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?
All of the above mentioned technologies were pioneered by USA, but were later improved by Russia.

IRST was first introduced during the 1960s on American F-101 Voodoo and F-102 Delta Dagger fighters.
Source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


It is worth noting that the U.S. Army has flown with image intensifier helmet-mounted displays (Night Vision Goggles) since the early 1970s and has fielded the integrated helmet-mounted display (the Integrated Helmet and Display Sight System (IHADSS), manufactured by Honeywell, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, and used in the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter).

Second, the U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory (USAARL), Fort Rucker, Alabama, has over 25 years of experience with the design and performance of helmet- and head-mounted display systems. From 1972 to 1998, USAARL has published over 135 reports and articles dealing with helmet-mounted displays and the most important issue of interfacing these displays to the user (aviator).

Source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


A heat-seeking missile was once fired on a MiG-19, which did not explode. The pilot landed the aircraft safely. It was then that Russia got the first insight into heat-seeking technology and developed its heat-seeking missiles such as the R-27 Aphid.
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.
It is a misconception that unstable aircraft are more manoueverable than stable aircraft.

Although it is true that stable aircraft such as the JF-17, tend to return to stable flight upon experiencing disturbance, it is true only when the disturbance is dx, implying that it is true only when the disturbance is very small. The aircraft may not return to its original state when the aircraft is manouevered to dive even a few degress relative to the horizontal plane.

A stable design may be analogous to a boat bouncing in water before stabilizing, upon a little disturbance. But the boat may fully turn to one side, upside down, or capsize, when the external forces are too large.

Thus, there shall not be any resistance to the pilot's controls upon dog-fighting if the aircraft is a stable design such as the JF-17.

FBW designs reduce pilot-workload only. If there is dx disturbance in the normal course of flight, it is encouraged or summed until the aircraft is out of control.

It is analogous to keeping a kite in controlled flight; if the person loses the strings, the kite will fly away, drift or fall down depending upon prevalent wind conditions.

Thus, the JF-17 is likely to have equivalent manoueverability as unstable aircraft such as the F-16 or J-10 (without TVC).
 
Last edited:

maglomanic

Junior Member
Re: JF-17: New Pics

MIGleader said:
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.

Cannards are to offset the the problem of airflow in subsonic/low altitude regimes for delta wing configuration which are optimized for super sonic flights if i am not wrong. Got nothing to do with being stable or unstable. unstable aircrafts however do use control surfaces (and alot many at that) controlled by digital (as opposed to analog/mechanical) FBW to keep the fighter in stable condition (just like many have said it before)
 

Siddharth

New Member
Re: JF-17: New Pics

Indianfighter said:
It is a misconception that unstable aircraft are more manoueverable than stable aircraft.

there are few points mentioned in FAS that i am posting here. Please consider them:

"The YF-16 became the world's first aircraft to be aerodynamically unstable by design. With its rearward center of gravity, its natural tendency is to nose up rather than down. So level flight is created by the elevator pushing the tail up rather than down, and therefore pushing the entire aircraft up. With the elevator working with the wing rather than against it, wing area, weight, and drag are reduced. The airplane was constantly on the verge of flipping up or down totally out of control,. and this tendency was being constantly caught and corrected by the fly-by-wire control system so quickly that neither the pilot nor an outside observer could know anything was happening. If the control system were to fail, the aircraft would instantly disintegrate; however, this has never happened.

In pitch-up situations including hard turns which are the bread and butter of aerial combat, this negative effect is greatly magnified."

Sid
 

Black jack

New Member
Re: JF-17: New Pics

I have a question regarding FBW for the people who know what they're talking about.

Reading the comments, I find that FBW keeps unstable planes stable! So if the JF-17 is already somewhat stable then there is no need for full FBW to stabalise it?! Whats the point of having an unstable plane and then adding FBW to stabalise it? And if the JF-17 is a relatively stable desin then why would it need FBW to "stablalise" it? Don't they just cancel each other out? Obviously there has to be something more to it...if so...what? Have i totally lost the plot? :confused:

Also, assuming that unstable desins did allow to pull moreG turn etc. Wouldn't these still be limited to certain G's due to the pilot not being able to take it? So in effect it is limited either way? Can this limit be reached with a "stable" design?
 

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Re: JF-17: New Pics

Have i totally lost the plot?

...Or did you ever even have it? Perhaps you should familiriaze yourself to the very basics of military (and in general) aviation to avoid getting humiliating yourself publickly...you see i'm the one who have to whipe out all the mess afterwards...

But to awnser to your question, there's a good article about F-16 (the first FBW warplane in service) which will give quite good sum up why FBW is the way of today...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
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?

Aircraft with lerxes and canards have a tendency for negative stability, as the aerodynamic properties tend to life their nose up. Aircraft that is tail heavy tends to be unstable. Aircraft with a ratio of shorter length to the wingspan, also tends to be unstable.

I would have to say that the JF-17 is unstable in pitch or negative unstable.

There is something here that is not being mentioned with regards to FBW and that is more important than instability.

When an aircraft pulls alphas, once it reaches a certain high alpha, the plane loses both lift and speed, so it would slow and drop. Losing both speed and lift in air combat in effect would be to lose the fight. A pilot with a manual control have to be very careful and needs to keep an eye on his instruments as he pulls the nose; it would be easy for him to pull too much, lose speed and lift, or even force a stall.

FBW safeguards against from this. You can pull as hard as you want, the FBw will not let you pass the safe alpha limit.

In other words, FBW lets you pull to the limit of the plane but prevents you from going past the border. This keeps you right at the edge of best performance.

FBW also keeps an aircraft from tip stalling. All the wing surfaces are being manipulated so at slow speeds and turns, the wing does not lose lift and tip stalls. Without FBW, you need to put fences on the wing to prevent tip stalls, but this adds drag.
 

MIGleader

Banned Idiot
Re: JF-17: New Pics

Munir said:
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.

Please stop it!!!! Russian engines are some of the least reliable, especially for ships and aircraft. None of the al-31s Russia delivered to China or india has lived out their promised service life. AMOF, india's Mki engines constantly broke down in the early days, and China has lost at least two su-27s due to engine failure.

About FBW, It restricts movement. the FBW on the b-2 restricted the plane. It prevented the pilot from stalling the aircraft, which was a problem with Jack Northrops early flying wing-designs.

Now, I hear that the jf-17 was designed with a rear center of gravity, and it looks like it too. so it is at least somewhat unstable.
 

Black jack

New Member
Re: JF-17: New Pics

Gollevainen said:
...Or did you ever even have it? Perhaps you should familiriaze yourself to the very basics of military (and in general) aviation to avoid getting humiliating yourself publickly...you see i'm the one who have to whipe out all the mess afterwards...

But to awnser to your question, there's a good article about F-16 (the first FBW warplane in service) which will give quite good sum up why FBW is the way of today...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Thanks for the article, I'll enjoy. I've seen your comments regarding aviation here and have seen that you yourself are not exactly the pinnacle of aviation knowledge either. This is a forum where people come to discuss and learn.

This is an area of aviation i'm not too sure about, therefore i asked and you kindly provided an article to make it clearer which it did. I don't see anything to be ashamed about, we're all here to learn...even you.

In terms of "whiping out all the mess", it's not my fault people don't know how to be reply maturely when backed up into a corner. Thanks again for the article.
 

pngwerume

New Member
Re: JF-17: New Pics

Thanks Black jack for you comments on that noting/mention that we are here to discuss and learn.

Let us allow each other to ask questions, NOT MATTER HOW BASIC/FUNDAMETAL OR COMMON KNOWLEDGE IT IS!

It should not be, and I don't think it is embarrassing to ask basic questions.

Just give a good answer TO THE QUESTION or POINT THE GUY IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION!
 

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Re: JF-17: New Pics

Well this goes to all of you...

There's a thread called Military FAQ where all noob questions should be made. Everything goes in there...and it's very clearly pointed out in the forum rules and regulations. Now trowing some questions like that someone did after taking part to the actual discussion earned all the harsh expressions.

As beeing here too long, i can assure, it wouldn't have take too long before our pro-indian members would have attacked you and as head moderator, I would have had to whipe it all out. In our forum, we prevent things before they flame up.

I have taken notice that there have been quite many pakistanese members joining in lately. Most of you propaply come from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Now, I must point out that SDF works completely different manners. In here we actually have rules and those rules are executed in very effectively way. So if you wanna play 'everything is free' and decide by yourself, who can do what, where one can post questions and WHEN ONE CAN QUESTIONIZE RULES, I would suggest you to just stick to PDF.

Gollevainen
Supermoderator

(ps. If i even smell some sort of counter comments or whinings...some level of group banning will follow)
 
Top