JF-17/FC-1 to get modernized Russian RD-93

Discussion in 'World Armed Forces' started by crazyinsane105, Nov 17, 2006.

  1. crazyinsane105
    Offline

    crazyinsane105 Junior Member
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    869
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsI...8&PageNum=0


    Russian plant to modernise engine for Chinese fighter planes



    13.11.2006, 22.29




    ST. PETERSBURG, November 13 (Itar-Tass) -- Russia’s St. Petersburg aircraft engine plant will modernise the RD-93 turbojet engine for the light Chinese FC-1 fighter plane Super-7.

    This will increase the plane’s thrust by almost 10 percent. A thrust vectoring nozzle will add manoeuvrability to the plane.

    A relevant contract is expected to be signed in November or December 2006, plant director general Alexander Vatagin told a press conference on Monday.

    The plant is currently fulfilling orders under a contract signed in 2005 by Russia’s arms exporter Rosoboronexport and China for the supply of 100 RD-93 engines for the FC-1 Super 7 fighter planes, as well space parts for them for total sum of 267 million U.S. dollars.

    The plant has already supplied six engines and plans to supply nine more before the end of the year. The rest will be supplied by another plant.

    Over the almost 50-year-lond history of cooperation with China, the plant has supplied different types of engines for MiG-15 planes and Mi-8, Mi-17, and Mka-28 helicopters. More than 500 engines are currently in operation on these and other aircraft, including 30 new-generation BK-2500 helicopter engines, designed and created by the plant’s specialists, to a tune of 20 million U.S. dollars.



    Is this true that the JF-17 will have TVC capability? :confused: Because if it does, won't the aircraft have to go major structural upgrades?
     
  2. SteelBird
    Offline

    SteelBird Major

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,340
    Likes Received:
    2,607
    RD-93 is a turbojet engine? I thought it was a turbofan one. Can anyone confirm?
     
  3. sumdud
    Offline

    sumdud Senior Member
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,842
    Likes Received:
    3
    I think it was a turbofan, but wouldn't this be an overkill? This was suppose to be a cheap fighter for 3rd world countries. Having that would make the plane yet more expensive and unattractive.

    Only real places that might use them that I can think of are the aerobatic teams like 8-1, etc.
     
  4. ahho
    Offline

    ahho Junior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    795
    Likes Received:
    355
    like tphuang said about j-10 before, wouldn't adding the 3-d nozzle bur the ass it the nozzle is aiming up???
     
  5. araz
    Offline

    araz New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    1
    I dont understand one thing . What is the utility of a thrust vectored engine in a single engined aircraft in todays environment when missiles can pull 50 gs? I am all for increasing the thrust of the engine. could a learned member please answer?
    Regards
    Araz
     
  6. maglomanic
    Offline

    maglomanic Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    324
    Likes Received:
    0
    Evading A2A missiles and SAMs. It's true that missiles can pull way more Gs than an aircraft but it still gives pilot a fighting chance when his aircraft maybe at the edge of missile's maximum performance envelope.

    But then it's all about how much are you willing to spend and for at cost? It may not make much sense to equip a cheap fighter with TVC when it is not meant to go over enemy airspace for strike missions. But then if a nation can't afford much expensive solutions they might put FC-1 in a higher end role and may want to equip their core squadrons meant for this purpose only.
     
  7. araz
    Offline

    araz New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    1
    Maglomaniac
    Thank you for your response. My next question is the pilots maximum physiological endurance before black/redout is 9 Gs.Theoretically is it not going to be impossible for the pilot to sustainany more Gs and would it not negate the advantage of thrust vectoring? or have I mixed Sustained thrust and the short term Gs that the pilot can maintain is perhaps more.Thanks in advance.
    Araz
     
  8. Scratch
    Offline

    Scratch Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,116
    Likes Received:
    1,091
    To add one thing to that aircraft vs missile point. To intercept a manouvering aircraft the missile has to pull more Gs in a turn then the aircraft does. It a chase scenario I believe the missile must pull 8times the Gs the AC does.
    The Gs a pilot can stand is appr. +9/-3G, perhaps 10+ with advanced equipment.
    The TVC is not restricted to that alone. If the AC has to pull turns for a sustained time - in dogfights - the turn rate, and with it the Gs, will decrease. TVC can counter that and account for a higher sustaned turn rate without bringen the pilot in G dimensions he can't stand.
     

Share This Page