JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

delft

Brigadier
yes, its just a means to increase vertical stabilizer area in order to maintain yaw stability on the south end. You've increased the mass and vertical surface on the front and must compensate with an equal increase in area and effectiveness of the vertical stabilizer in order to maintain yaw stability.

No it will not likely result in a change of shape on the single seater.
I think the area has remained the same but the moment arm has increased due to the sweep of the tail.
 

Franklin

Captain
Do you guys think that the block III is going to be a single seat version of the JF-17B or will they go back to the old JF-17A configuration ? The canopy of the JF-17B configuration seems to be larger than the JF-17A configuration so it offers the pilot a better view of its surrounding. That would be useful with the new HMD system.

Is the JF-17B configuration going to be slower than the J-17A configuration because the plane seems to be "thicker". It also should reduce the T/W ratio of the plane and therefor make it less maneuverable.
 
Last edited:

Blackstone

Brigadier
This video show the modern design and modern manufacturing of Xiaolong aka JF 17 B
Notice the youthful Design team guess average age of 30.They are at the peak of their creativity
I guess the torch has been passed . The pioneer has retired or passed away


View attachment 38406

View attachment 38407

View attachment 38408
Who gave the plane a fat guppy look, and which boy wonder designed the ugly canopy hinges? Send those geeks to an aesthetics academy!
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Who gave the plane a fat guppy look, and which boy wonder designed the ugly canopy hinges? Send those geeks to an aesthetics academy!

Like they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Compare to this LOL;)
300px-USAF_X32B_250.jpg


This guy and Fanbing bing definitely look better
C-lQ4TJXYAATasH.jpg


It is like comparing

upload_2017-4-30_16-19-30.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Blackstone

Brigadier
Like they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Compare to this LOL;)
300px-USAF_X32B_250.jpg


View attachment 38410
I remember seeing a documentary long ago on competition between Lockee Martin's X-35 and Boeing's X-32. The ungainly appearance of Boeing's tender was mentioned more than a few times. The Air Force chose the F-35 over the X-32 monstrosity, but I doubt looks had much to do with it. Maybe just a tiny bit? Also, JF-17B is easier on the eyes than the X-32, but that's hardly the point, is it?
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
I remember seeing a documentary long ago on competition between Lockee Martin's X-35 and Boeing's X-32. The ungainly appearance of Boeing's tender was mentioned more than a few times. The Air Force chose the F-35 over the X-32 monstrosity, but I doubt looks had much to do with it. Maybe just a tiny bit? Also, JF-17B is easier on the eyes than the X-32, but that's hardly the point, is it?

Well I am responding to your post that short shrift Chinese design team as lack in aesthetic. The truth is form follow function. The addition of copilot remove the space for fuel. So they have to add rump or hunch back. then probably they have to streamline it to reduce drag maybe?

End up with that form which I don't think it is that bad
So it is not particular to Chinese team. Highly paid and skilled boeing designer did the same too
Compare to Being entry JF17B is paragon of beauty. I was about to compare Monica Levinsky to Fan BingBing But decide against it. Because the Air force commander once compare Boeing entry as Monica
 
Top