Ask anything Thread


Scratch

Captain
Well that's really a non-issue.

When you are carrying such heavy external loads, extreme manoeuvres are not really recommended.

To try and deploy flaps completely when carrying such missiles will probably see the wings ripped off your plane before the flaps comes close to the missiles.
I really don't get that part. Max flap extension will, I'm quiet certain, only happen during final approach & landing. And post #2042 shows flaps deployed with these missiles loaded in what appears to me to be an approach set-up.
The "Maneuver" setting of slats/flaps normally sees them least extended of all the possible settings anyway. And with most of the external load attached to the wings, a theoretical high lift situation produced by a full flap extension will not make the wings rip off. Since all the forces act on the wing directly, and do not go through the wing / fuselage joint. If at all, the weapon mounts holdeng the missiles will fail structurally.
That is why heavy loads are normalle better placed under the wings. If placed under the fuselge, then all the stress of high wing lift vs. heavy fuselage momentum will go through the wing mounts.
 

[email protected]

Junior Member
Registered Member
Actually that two largest missiles (C-802) let JF-17 cannot move its trailing edge flaps completely. After all, JF-17's size is not that large.:p

oh come on man don't make such claims on the basis of single pic which you have just seen & in that pic it appears that the C802 is in direct contact of wing surface ..... (sorry to say but this sound more than stupidity if flaps are not able to move in this load configuration then how would the jet will take-off .... ???) ... plz have a look at the below attach pics .... showing the height of the weapon rack which create a suitable distance between the weapon & the wing surface .... & allow the movement of flaps

Capture11.ee.JPG
1431863402059.ee.jpg
 

Quickie

Major
That was what I imagined. It's too risky for the flap to be blocked by the weapons load. Notice the distance between the deflected flap and missile, which is necessary for airflow across the flap to be affected as little as possible.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
That was what I imagined. It's too risky for the flap to be blocked by the weapons load. Notice the distance between the deflected flap and missile, which is necessary for airflow across the flap to be affected as little as possible.
Of course not. No sane person would mount anything that would physically hinders the operations of critical components of flight. Putting any external obstruction on moveable surfaces of the wings, tail etc would be quite suicidal on any plane let alone a military plane.

This shouldn't even be a topic of discussion. lol
 

Ashbringer_NEU

New Member
Registered Member

oh come on man don't make such claims on the basis of single pic which you have just seen & in that pic it appears that the C802 is in direct contact of wing surface ..... (sorry to say but this sound more than stupidity if flaps are not able to move in this load configuration then how would the jet will take-off .... ???) ... plz have a look at the below attach pics .... showing the height of the weapon rack which create a suitable distance between the weapon & the wing surface .... & allow the movement of flaps

View attachment 14946
View attachment 14947
Hi dude,thanks for your reply and picture, yes maybe you are right. I did not get this conclusion by the picture, it came from a Chinese military website:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


62085_412511_968928.jpg

The Chinese in this picture said :"As a light fighter, Anti-ground and anti-ship missiles are always too big for JF-17, it's flaps cannot down completely when it is carrying C-802AKG" (sorry my English is not so good, but the meaning of sentence is kind of like that...)

As far as I know, this "出鞘 Chuqiao" program is written by a famous and trustworthy Chinese military fan, his conclusions and intelligence are usually correct.
 

Ashbringer_NEU

New Member
Registered Member
It seems that some friends here disagree with what I said about JF-17's flaps issue in this thread before. I'd like to discuss this problem with you, since actually I am not sure is this flaps issue true or not. Like I said, I read this issue on a Chinese military webpage which I thought is reliable. So I mentioned it in thread, however I saw pictures you guys put, and now I am not sure about it.....
Maybe we can discuss about it more and see if we can find the truth? Or if there is someone who know pilots in PAF or engineers in CITC can answer me this problem? Thank you.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
It seems that some friends here disagree with what I said about JF-17's flaps issue in this thread before. I'd like to discuss this problem with you, since actually I am not sure is this flaps issue true or not. Like I said, I read this issue on a Chinese military webpage which I thought is reliable. So I mentioned it in thread, however I saw pictures you guys put, and now I am not sure about it.....
Maybe we can discuss about it more and see if we can find the truth? Or if there is someone who know pilots in PAF or engineers in CITC can answer me this problem? Thank you.
Ash I can say with 99.99% certainty that the missile does not affect the movement of the flaps. As I've said in my previous post nobody in their right mind would mount any missiles that would hinder the functions of ANY flight control surfaces.

The missile's body and weight will most definitely affect flight characteristics of any aircraft, but that's something entirely different.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Actually that two largest missiles (C-802) let JF-17 cannot move its trailing edge flaps completely. After all, JF-17's size is not that large.:p
:p[/QUOTE]

I find this statement unusual to say the least, and question its veracity, please post a link authenticating this statement. That is a rather bizarre proposition, to carry an external load that prohibits full control movement is simply not SOP? its just not, so please verify this statement with a credible link or withdraw it? Thanks Brat

Looks like Bro Kwai has already addressed this error of the Bro? Ashbringer, I can state with absolute certainty that is a "krock", simply NOT true, and rather than discuss your statement, it should be corrected by you sir. There are a lot of unreliable posts on the internet, whoever proposed such non-sense is def not a reliable source.
 
Last edited:

Top