JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread
- Thread starter crazyinsane105
- Start date
- Status
Indianfighter
Junior Member
Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread
No, I'm afraid that's not accurate. Firstly, a pure right-angled triangle delta is the fighter.
Now the Mirage-2000 is not pure, but a clipped delta in which its right-angled triangle is left slightly incomplete, thus forming a trapezium. ()
A compound delta is one which has one more edge in addition to the clip. The most common example is the . It's wing has 5 prominent edges including the clip (6 edges if the lateral join with the exhaust is counted).
Similar to Draken, the also shows 5 distinct edges including the clip.
This is a significant shift from the 'vanilla' delta of the Mirage-2000, which is simpler.
Draken's compound is concave (bent inwards) whereas the LCA's compund is convex (bent outwards).
The compound of the LCA is because the frontal edge which is in touch with the forward fuselage forms the crank.
Canards can also be viewed as the tail-planes brought to the front (which is why their technical term is fore-planes). Pitching is meant to be done by movable canards. That can't be said for fixed canards like in Su-30 MKI.
Drag induced while turning by the delta in the LCA is compensated to quite an extent by vortex lift created by the cranks.
-------------------------
The discussion has gone outside the scope of the topic of JF-17. To that effect, I can say that Russia definitely seeks to enter the Pakistani arms market and RD-93 may be an indirect and stealthy beginning.
The JF-17 does appear nearly as manoueverable as an F-16 in turning, but it doesn't appear to do a sustained complete vertical-climb probably because of low T/W ratio. Some weight reducing measures like composites or a high thrust engine may be urgently needed.
No, I'm afraid that's not accurate. Firstly, a pure right-angled triangle delta is the fighter.
Now the Mirage-2000 is not pure, but a clipped delta in which its right-angled triangle is left slightly incomplete, thus forming a trapezium. ()
A compound delta is one which has one more edge in addition to the clip. The most common example is the . It's wing has 5 prominent edges including the clip (6 edges if the lateral join with the exhaust is counted).
Similar to Draken, the also shows 5 distinct edges including the clip.
This is a significant shift from the 'vanilla' delta of the Mirage-2000, which is simpler.
Draken's compound is concave (bent inwards) whereas the LCA's compund is convex (bent outwards).
The compound of the LCA is because the frontal edge which is in touch with the forward fuselage forms the crank.
crobato, the crank of the LCA is used for vortix generation, if you referred to the pdf article I gave earlier "Radiance of the Tejas".crobato said:
Canards can also be viewed as the tail-planes brought to the front (which is why their technical term is fore-planes). Pitching is meant to be done by movable canards. That can't be said for fixed canards like in Su-30 MKI.
I agree that movable canards are meant to create a pitching movement (cranks being unmovable, are not meant to do that anyway). But as canards are never in the same plane as the rest of the wing, forward-drag created by them is already an inherent impediment of the aircraft. So the canard aircraft is already cruising in the disadvantage of a drag, unlike in LCA.crobato said:
Drag induced while turning by the delta in the LCA is compensated to quite an extent by vortex lift created by the cranks.
I agree that speed is bled profusely. It is infact a tradeoff to achieve a high turn-rate in a much lesser AoA. But the bled speed is more than a conventional aircraft for the same value of AoA. When an LCA already achieves the same turn at a much lesser AoA, it wouldn't have bled as much speed.crobato said:
-------------------------
The discussion has gone outside the scope of the topic of JF-17. To that effect, I can say that Russia definitely seeks to enter the Pakistani arms market and RD-93 may be an indirect and stealthy beginning.
The JF-17 does appear nearly as manoueverable as an F-16 in turning, but it doesn't appear to do a sustained complete vertical-climb probably because of low T/W ratio. Some weight reducing measures like composites or a high thrust engine may be urgently needed.
Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread
I think Russia is also looking for the leverage/balance of Indian's intention of purchase of American weapons, plus exploring the new markets of making money.
Interesting to note that Pakistan says there is no feasible configuration of J10 at the present for Pak, probably due to the J10 as the PLAAF's major combat model, so its Chinese version of avionics/radar/fire control can't be exported to Pak. And the volume of Pak's intended purchase is not big enough to support a new developed suite of electronic gear for them.
I think Russia is also looking for the leverage/balance of Indian's intention of purchase of American weapons, plus exploring the new markets of making money.
Interesting to note that Pakistan says there is no feasible configuration of J10 at the present for Pak, probably due to the J10 as the PLAAF's major combat model, so its Chinese version of avionics/radar/fire control can't be exported to Pak. And the volume of Pak's intended purchase is not big enough to support a new developed suite of electronic gear for them.
Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread
tphuang,
The data is outdated data, based on first hand talks with the very peoples involved in it in Aero India; more envelope than this has been explored in AoA but max speed havent been pushed too far; there are many issues as they approach to explore the last part of the envelope and push the plane to its limits there is a chance of crash; plus LCA has carefree handeling in all its 6 degrees of freedom in 3 axis, Almost all planes crashed during developement stage but problem is with extremely negative publicity of some of indian media funded by CIA and in the brink of MRCA, any crash can prove to be fatal; so they will go slow.
Wrong I have been told in Aero India India choose the concept after many wind tunnel tests and thoughts, initial idea was to have a canard-delta design but was dropped due to not much significant advantage to what ASR was at that time on the payload and size of the plane.
This is not pure delta but double Cranked delta, the naval version will have LEVCONS to provide it better stability while landing.
LCA will never achieve 40 AoA, what ASR is matters more than what you want.
I have no problem with it.
tphuang,
The data is outdated data, based on first hand talks with the very peoples involved in it in Aero India; more envelope than this has been explored in AoA but max speed havent been pushed too far; there are many issues as they approach to explore the last part of the envelope and push the plane to its limits there is a chance of crash; plus LCA has carefree handeling in all its 6 degrees of freedom in 3 axis, Almost all planes crashed during developement stage but problem is with extremely negative publicity of some of indian media funded by CIA and in the brink of MRCA, any crash can prove to be fatal; so they will go slow.
Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread
are you sure you are talking to the right person? I was defending LCA in my post. I don't care enough about LCA to comment more on this.
are you sure you are talking to the right person? I was defending LCA in my post. I don't care enough about LCA to comment more on this.
Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread
It does not matter if its cranked, compound, double or whatsover.
You obviously did not understand the difference between tail less and canarded/tailed.
Irrespective of the shape of the delta, the plane with seperate control surface from the main wing has inherent advantages. That is why no one, unanimously, from Russia to China to the USA to Europe, is developing a delta or sweep wing, that has no seperate control surface, canard or tailed.
The drag you claim is not a problem. In many conventionally tailed aircraft, from the MiG-29/31, to the F-4 Phantoms, to the Starfighters, to the F-15, to the F-16, to the F-14, to all the Floggers, to all the Fishbeds, you will find that the elevator is not on the same plane as the main wing.
The vortices is not part of it. Your drag is caused by the excess trim required by elevons. Vortices do not reduce drag not by a long shot, which is interacting from the opposite side of the wing.
That does not make the plane anymore maneuverable, and you cannot assume you can always turn faster on the outside. That's an old trick with delta fighters, and there are tactics that easily beat this (hi and lo yoyos---relatively old tactics and classic BFM) using a fighter with greater pointability.
That i may agree, though it does zoom-rocket climb well, but this can assume that the plane may be flying without much fuel. The two AAMs is always fixed for load. A higher thrust engine is probably needed, composites are overrated when it comes to weight savings, especially in the light of titanium and aluminum lithium alloys, the latter which appear that chinese companies like CAC may now be using. They did reduce weight on the FC-1 by 200kg using the DSI, but immedietely turned that into extra fuel storage, indicating that fuel capacity is more important issue to deal with than weight.
Its better for a plane to have more fuel and be heavier than a light plane with less fuel. It does not matter much if your plane has a better TWR than other, when its bingo, its bingo. The plane that has more fuel can use its ABs more often and that can give the crucial advantage over a lighter plane which due to less fuel, cannot exploit its paper advantage.
So it is better for the JF-17 to have a more powerful engine. The WS-13 will give it a slight boost in that respect even by only 300kg. Weight savings are going to be redirected to carrying more fuel.
It does not matter if its cranked, compound, double or whatsover.
You obviously did not understand the difference between tail less and canarded/tailed.
Irrespective of the shape of the delta, the plane with seperate control surface from the main wing has inherent advantages. That is why no one, unanimously, from Russia to China to the USA to Europe, is developing a delta or sweep wing, that has no seperate control surface, canard or tailed.
The drag you claim is not a problem. In many conventionally tailed aircraft, from the MiG-29/31, to the F-4 Phantoms, to the Starfighters, to the F-15, to the F-16, to the F-14, to all the Floggers, to all the Fishbeds, you will find that the elevator is not on the same plane as the main wing.
The vortices is not part of it. Your drag is caused by the excess trim required by elevons. Vortices do not reduce drag not by a long shot, which is interacting from the opposite side of the wing.
That does not make the plane anymore maneuverable, and you cannot assume you can always turn faster on the outside. That's an old trick with delta fighters, and there are tactics that easily beat this (hi and lo yoyos---relatively old tactics and classic BFM) using a fighter with greater pointability.
That i may agree, though it does zoom-rocket climb well, but this can assume that the plane may be flying without much fuel. The two AAMs is always fixed for load. A higher thrust engine is probably needed, composites are overrated when it comes to weight savings, especially in the light of titanium and aluminum lithium alloys, the latter which appear that chinese companies like CAC may now be using. They did reduce weight on the FC-1 by 200kg using the DSI, but immedietely turned that into extra fuel storage, indicating that fuel capacity is more important issue to deal with than weight.
Its better for a plane to have more fuel and be heavier than a light plane with less fuel. It does not matter much if your plane has a better TWR than other, when its bingo, its bingo. The plane that has more fuel can use its ABs more often and that can give the crucial advantage over a lighter plane which due to less fuel, cannot exploit its paper advantage.
So it is better for the JF-17 to have a more powerful engine. The WS-13 will give it a slight boost in that respect even by only 300kg. Weight savings are going to be redirected to carrying more fuel.
Indianfighter
Junior Member
Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread
crobato, whatever be the conclusion by each one of us, I think it should not be construed that LCA will have a far lesser turn rate than JF-17 because its top achievable AoA of 26 degrees is much lesser than JF-17s top AoA of 40 degrees {at 40 degress AoA, an LCA or Mirage-2k will somersault and sustain lot of structural damage}.
So, both JF-17 and LCA will have equal turn rates and manoueverabilities. Maybe JF-17 will be a few notches better at low-speed low alt, and LCA will be a little better at high-speed high alt, but the overall performance will be matched.
JF-17's manoueverability seems fine enough from the video and PAF can now amply test it in excercizes with the F-16s in its fleet. Both tailed-delta designs can be evenly matched.
crobato, whatever be the conclusion by each one of us, I think it should not be construed that LCA will have a far lesser turn rate than JF-17 because its top achievable AoA of 26 degrees is much lesser than JF-17s top AoA of 40 degrees {at 40 degress AoA, an LCA or Mirage-2k will somersault and sustain lot of structural damage}.
So, both JF-17 and LCA will have equal turn rates and manoueverabilities. Maybe JF-17 will be a few notches better at low-speed low alt, and LCA will be a little better at high-speed high alt, but the overall performance will be matched.
JF-17's manoueverability seems fine enough from the video and PAF can now amply test it in excercizes with the F-16s in its fleet. Both tailed-delta designs can be evenly matched.
Re: New JF-17/FC-1 thread
I think, f-16 is more manaveourable due its high thrust engine, more speed and unstability on all three axis as compared thunder's on only one axis. Moreover higher climb rate gives it other additional advantage. Overall, f-16 requires much less maitenance, long engine hours(6000hrs) and high payload. Latest models can outplayeven the best in business when stretched to limit.
I think, f-16 is more manaveourable due its high thrust engine, more speed and unstability on all three axis as compared thunder's on only one axis. Moreover higher climb rate gives it other additional advantage. Overall, f-16 requires much less maitenance, long engine hours(6000hrs) and high payload. Latest models can outplayeven the best in business when stretched to limit.
- Status