JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Indianfighter

Junior Member
Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

The last paragraph is certainly wrong. Stability in different axis are caused by different factors that don't affect one another. For example pitch instability is caused by the center of lift being ahead of center of gravity, which has nothing to do with lateral stability that dictates roll. The latter is caused by the differences of lift between the two wings. In fact aircraft that is laterally stable can have FBW, and aircraft that is laterally unstable may be manual. A number of world war II fighters can be considered laterally unstable like the Fw 190A. Static directional stability is determined by the size of the tail fin and you always want this stable by all means. Fighters can be unstable in only one axis, and its not necessary, even detrimental to be unstable in all three, and you can't certainly be unstable on yaw if you want to be flight worthy.
All of this may be true except that instability in different axes is totally independent of each other. All modern fighter aircraft are only pitch unstable, but have FBW in all 3 axes, and atleast in case of you-know-what, the FBW testing has been done keeping into account spin avoidance during high AoA.

Manual handling of instability was probably possible only in ww2 jets and small trainers now, but it has never been present in larger fighter aircraft.
The official confirmation is already there so don't keep on insisting the contrary and grasping empty straws.
I think the website's claims need more examination. It claims stability augmentation in roll and yaw axes, even though all fighters are instable only in pitch axis. Secondly it further claims that these two axes are not FBW, but are conventional, even though it is well known there is no modern fighter aircraft which leaves yaw or roll instability for the pilot and his mechanical controls to handle (it is only possible in small trainers). So that's why that claim may need more examination, moreover as that website is known for errors and ambiguous specifications (like loading and top-speed).

Munir said:
We know that JF17 can handle 8,5 G. Whether it uses FBW or not... The opponent will not feel much difference. The F16 is able to handle more but it does not mean it will win easily 1v1 when opposing JF17...
That's true, but the pilot's workload increases because stable aircraft have a tendency to resist maneuvers whereas instable ones have a tendency to assist maneuvers. This was a novel concept developed to reduce the pilot's workload while maneuvering, while delegating the task of normal flight to flight-control.
 
Last edited:

boldkhan

New Member
Registered Member
Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

Well guyz is there any chance of Jf17 being equip with rd-93 with thrust vectoring nozzels and what will be the difference if that happend.One thing more i heared that Egypt was keen to get the jf17 on T-O-T basis , what happend to that deal.
 

Munir

Banned Idiot
Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

That's true, but the pilot's workload increases because stable aircraft have a tendency to resist maneuvers whereas instable ones have a tendency to assist maneuvers. This was a novel concept developed to reduce the pilot's workload while maneuvering, while delegating the task of normal flight to flight-control.


In case of problems you end up with a uncontrallable plane. Besides that it flies inefficient (tendency to change and active controls). I do not think it has impact on workload. The pilot flies like usual. Only difference is that instead of direct input control the computer generates control signals. There is no change in workload.... The computer might block dangerous moves but in todays non fbw you can have the same... Even mine RC plane has some FBW ideas...
 

boldkhan

New Member
Registered Member
Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

May be i am wrong but according to my knowledge jf-17 will soon gain complete fbw abilities in the early upgrades.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

All of this may be true except that instability in different axes is totally independent of each other. All modern fighter aircraft are only pitch unstable, but have FBW in all 3 axes, and atleast in case of you-know-what, the FBW testing has been done keeping into account spin avoidance during high AoA.

Manual handling of instability was probably possible only in ww2 jets and small trainers now, but it has never been present in larger fighter aircraft.

I think the website's claims need more examination. It claims stability augmentation in roll and yaw axes, even though all fighters are instable only in pitch axis. Secondly it further claims that these two axes are not FBW, but are conventional, even though it is well known there is no modern fighter aircraft which leaves yaw or roll instability for the pilot and his mechanical controls to handle (it is only possible in small trainers). So that's why that claim may need more examination, moreover as that website is known for errors and ambiguous specifications (like loading and top-speed).


That's true, but the pilot's workload increases because stable aircraft have a tendency to resist maneuvers whereas instable ones have a tendency to assist maneuvers. This was a novel concept developed to reduce the pilot's workload while maneuvering, while delegating the task of normal flight to flight-control.

No you're wrong again. The website never claimed that the plane's roll and yaw axis is unstable. You're putting in words again.

Stability augmentation is exactly what it says, to add stability measures but that does not mean the roll and yaw axis is unstable. It may just be low stability. By stability augmentation, it means that the controls may not be completely manual but partly assisted by the FBW.

Manual handling of instability is possible in fighter jet aircraft, though they tend to make the aircraft difficult to fly. The MiG-19/J-6 for example either has low instability or close to being unstable, as the plane requires constant corrections and pilot attention to fly.
 

Indianfighter

Junior Member
Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

Munir said:
In case of problems you end up with a uncontrallable plane. Besides that it flies inefficient (tendency to change and active controls). I do not think it has impact on workload. The pilot flies like usual. Only difference is that instead of direct input control the computer generates control signals. There is no change in workload.... The computer might block dangerous moves but in todays non fbw you can have the same... Even mine RC plane has some FBW ideas...
An unstable aircraft has a natural tendency to generate movements that are
kept in check by flight control in normal flight. But if the pilot wishes to maneuver, the aircraft obliges more readily than a conventional aircraft because the tendency is already there. An conventional aircraft has a tendency to stay undisturbed, and so if it is maneuvered, it will not oblige as readily.

FBW, or translating pilot's electrical inputs from his joystick to mechanical output is just only one of the components of Flight-control. Flight-control can control the surfaces even without the pilot's knowledge to satisfy the pilot's wish of flight (like an air-conditioner that maintains room temperature even if the outside environment is a desert or below zero). It's other job is to disallow the pilot to exceed safety limits like G limit or roll limit.

The JF-17 has a hybrid control, which at least by the examples so far means that it is a stable aircraft. This is because it is a fact that modern 4G aircraft are only pitch unstable and they have FBW in all the three axes. Most importantly, the FBW of different axes does not work in isolation, but work together to keep the aircraft stable. I don't think there is any point in debating further, because there is no official clarity yet on the JF-17.

Lastly, I don't think that url pac.org.pk is the official website. It says Mach 1.6 is 1,909 km/h, but then says Mach 1.8 is 1350 KPH, besides some other spelling typos and grammatical errors. One phrase says, "Earlier news reported 16 aircraft to be delivered in 2006.....if this is still true, 12 will be produced by CAC of which four will be delivered to Pakistan." What does does it mean by "earlier news reports" and "if this is true" ? I mean that being the partner in JF-17, shouldn't it be knowing already ?
 
Last edited:

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

Personally I think you just want to keep on wish dreaming that the JF-17 isn't unstable, just to conform to some dogma. I suspect you're doing this for some agenda.

Sorry, but Chinese sourced reports are consistent in saying that the JF-17 are unstable while you have no proof to the contrary.

The JF-17 has a hybrid control, which at least by the examples so far means that it is a stable aircraft. This is because it is a fact that modern 4G aircraft are only pitch unstable and they have FBW in all the three axes. Most importantly, the FBW of different axes does not work in isolation, but work together to keep the aircraft stable. I don't think there is any point in debating further, because there is no official clarity yet on the JF-17.

Boy that is not correct either. They may be FBW in all three axis, but that has nothing to do with roll and yaw instability, which means there maybe no need for oscillating correction movements on these axis. They choose to incorporate FBW on roll and yaw axis as a matter of convenience. If you start with one, why not do it all. Its just more elegant that way. One possible reason why they were not in the original JF-17 prototypes were a matter of cost. Stability augmentation can still be handled electronically because secondary control surfaces, such as the trim and the slats, are still regulated by the FBW, even though the main control surfaces might be manually controlled. But for the most part it only means that both manual and FBW generated control forces are simultaneously contributing as a sum to the control surfaces.

Please note that many FBW systems have manual backups. Which means that if the FBW fails, the plane can be flown on the backup manual control systems. Example of this, the Japanese F-2 fighter. So having manual flight control is proof that a fighter is not negative unstable?

The system on the JF-17 being described might also be best similar to this one. Coincidentally its also a fighter with similar appearances, market niches, and weight/performance class as the JF-17, and one that the JF-17 is often compared with. The F-20 Tigershark.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"The flight control system combined the advantages of an electronic, or fly by wire, system with the safety and reliability of a mechanical system. Primary flight controls included an all movable horizontal stabilizer, ailerons, and rudder. The flight controls in all three axes were controlled through a combination of pilot-commanded mechanical inputs and the dual digital three axis Control Augmentation System (CAS) commanded by the Flight Control Electronics Set (FCES). In the pitch axis, for example, the CAS system accounted for approximately 40 percent and the pilot's mechanical input for approximately 60 percent of the total control authority of the horizontal stabilizer.

Should the highly reliable FCES have failed for any reason, the mechanical system had sufficient authority under all loading conditions to control and land the aircraft safely. "

In other words, both mechanical and electrically generated forces are being combined to control the surfaces.

Lastly, I don't think that url pac.org.pk is the official website. It says Mach 1.6 is 1,909 km/h, but then says Mach 1.8 is 1350 KPH, besides some other spelling typos and grammatical errors. One phrase says, "Earlier news reported 16 aircraft to be delivered in 2006.....if this is still true, 12 will be produced by CAC of which four will be delivered to Pakistan." What does does it mean by "earlier news reports" and "if this is true" ? I mean that being the partner in JF-17, shouldn't it be knowing already ?

Sorry, that is the official factory website all right. Look around.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


with the official logo on it, and references to all the factories. Frankly its easy to prove if the website is a phony or not. Just find the real website. The PAC is a mighty big entity---it should at least have a website.

So where is the duplicate website?

I think you are nit picking, or reading way too much into this, just to "prove" that the JF-17 is "stable". I've seen many factory websites around the world with bad English, and bad English alone does not prove that the website is false.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

Here is another example of an aircraft with hybrid FBW and manual controls. This one is advanced civil jet set to be introduced in 2013.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Cessna's Citation Columbus to have 'hybrid' fly-by-wire
By Graham Warwick
Click Here

Cessna's new Citation Columbus large business-jet is to have a unique hybrid fly-by-wire and mechanical flight control system developed by the aircraft manufacturer. The Columbus is to fly in 2011.

The hybrid system will combine the handling and stability enhancements possible using FBW with the simplicity and reliability of manually powered controls, says Cessna.

In the pitch and roll control axes, the aircraft will have split ailerons and elevators. One side of each surface will be manually actuated via mechanical linkages, the other hydraulically boosted with fly-by-wire signalling, says Rolf Anderson, engineering supervisor on the Columbus flight control system.


Cessna's $27 million Columbus is to enter service in 2013 © Cessna

The mechanically actuated surfaces will be sized to ensure the aircraft can be controlled manually if the fly-by-wire is lost. But in normal operation both sides will move simultaneously in response to pilot inputs, the manual surface doing most of the work while the FBW surface tailors handling and augments stability.

In size, the ailerons will be split about two-thirds/one-third between manual and FBW while the elevators will be split roughly in half, says Anderson. Cessna calls the pitch/roll control system SmartBoost, and has applied for a patent.

In the yaw axis, the Columbus' rudder will be split into two roughly equal parts, the upper section FBW-controlled and the lower section hydraulically boosted with mechanical reversion in an emergency. Cessna calls this system SmartPower.

Anderson says Cessna's hybrid approach allows a simplified, highly reliable mechanical control system to be combined with the benefits of fly-by-wire without the need for the high level of redundancy and monitoring required for full FBW.

"Our primary goal was to harmonise the flight controls, with nice feel and performance characteristics," he says. As it is not required for continued safe flight, the FBW system can be simpler, yet also be used for trimming, stability augmentation and autopilot functions.

Overall, Anderson says, the hybrid flight-control system reduces parts count, improves maintainability and lowers operating cost. Fly-by-wire helps with rigging the mechanical controls, which in turn reduce the need for complex FBW backup controls.

The company has been developing the system for the past year, he says, including extensive simulations, ground testing and flight tests in a modified Citation. Parker Aerospace has been selected to provide the powered flight control system.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Cessna warms to fly-by-wire for Columbus, but system is a hybrid

By Matt Thurber
April 1, 2008
Avionics, Aircraft

Whenever a manufacturer develops a new airplane, engineers have the opportunity to incorporate new technology into the design. With the large-cabin Columbus, Cessna engineers didn’t opt for a composite airframe or an all-electric systems architecture, but they have chosen an innovative approach to fly-by-wire flight controls. The Columbus system is Cessna’s first application of fly-by-wire flight controls, and the design of the system has features that are unique enough that the company has applied for patents on the system architecture.

In “traditional” fly-by-wire systems, cockpit controls–generally sidesticks–send signals to computers and then to actuators that move the flight control surfaces. The actuators are normally hydraulic, but this makes for heavier systems installations because of the need for redundant hydraulics.

Of course, fly-by-wire systems, so vitally dependent on a reliable source of electricity, also have stringent requirements for backup electricity generation and storage (batteries) as well as redundant computer systems. The worst-case scenario for a traditional fly-by-wire system is complete loss of all electrical generation and storage capability, which likely means loss of the aircraft.

Reliable Fly-by-Wire
Known to be conservative when it comes to adoption of new technology, Cessna has figured out a way to provide the benefits of fly-by-wire flight controls while retaining the ultra-reliable cable-operated flight control technology that has served aviation well for more than 100 years.

The Columbus flight control system is a “hybrid fly-by-wire” system. Hybrid means that part of each primary flight control is operated by the fly-by-wire system and another part by cables. This design delivers two major benefits: the performance and safety improvements offered by fly-by-wire and a simpler, less electrically and electronically complex backup system.

Cessna’s hybrid fly-by-wire system weighs significantly less than either a traditional fly-by-wire system or a completely mechanical flight control system. All Columbus primary flight controls–ailerons, elevators, rudder–are moved by hydraulic actuators. Five spoiler/speed-brake panels on the wings are also hydraulically actuated and controlled by the fly-by-wire system. The Columbus has two hydraulic systems instead of the three normally needed by a full fly-by-wire jet. The fly-by-wire signals drive one set of actuators, and the cables– attached to a yoke and not a sidestick–drive another set. Each flight control is split into two, so that one hydraulic actuator moves one part of, say, the aileron and the other actuator moves the other part.

In normal flying both flight control segments move, but each is large enough for safe control of the airplane. If a cable breaks, for example, the remaining fly-by-wire-controlled surface is sufficient to control the airplane. Each aileron is split
into two unequal sections; the fly-by-wire section is one-third smaller than the cable-controlled section, and the outboard aileron panel is the larger section. The elevators and two-panel rudder are split evenly.

In normal flying, both sets of flight control panels “work together to provide tailored roll or pitch performance,” said Rolf Anderson, a supervisor on the Columbus flight control system.

A side benefit of fly-by-wire systems is that engineers can program the computer to make the flight controls perform functions that normally require extra hardware. Autopilots in aircraft with mechanically controlled flight controls require a servo, attached to the control cables, with at least one for each axis. Trim tabs and separate cockpit controls and cables to drive them are another example, as are yaw- and roll-damping stability augmentation mechanisms. But fly-by-wire computers can mimic those functions, thus saving more weight and complexity.

Cessna engineers have been working on the system for a number of years, according to Anderson, including extensive ground testing and flight tests last year on a Citation Sovereign. To his knowledge, no other aircraft manufacturer has developed a similar hybrid fly-by-wire system. “We’ve designed a system that gives you the benefits of a manual system for safety and uses the benefits of fly-by-wire for tailored performance. Either is adequate to control the airplane. Together they provide reliable superior performance.”

While the Columbus fly-by-wire system will offer some envelope protection features, Anderson said that Cessna is trying to keep the design as simple as possible and not overly complex with high-level functions. One feature that will be incorporated is diagnostic and rigging capabilities, something that is difficult to provide on a pure mechanical flight control system.

Cessna marketers and engineers spent about six years interviewing and polling potential Columbus customers, and Anderson said that the hybrid fly-by-wire system has been well received. “The main customer wish list,” he said, “is that our airplanes are reliable, easy to maintain and safe.”

Parker Aerospace’s Control Systems Division will help design and manufacture the primary and secondary flight control system.

Cessna is contemplating derivative versions of the Columbus, and the hybrid fly-by-wire system will be the control system of choice. The Columbus should receive FAA certification in 2013 and enter service in 2014. Configured for 10 passengers, the Columbus offers 4,000 nm range at Mach 0.80, Mmo of Mach 0.86 and a full-fuel payload of 1,950 pounds.
 

Indianfighter

Junior Member
Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

crobato said:
Boy that is not correct either. They may be FBW in all three axis, but that has nothing to do with roll and yaw instability, which means there maybe no need for oscillating correction movements on these axis. They choose to incorporate FBW on roll and yaw axis as a matter of convenience. If you start with one, why not do it all.
No it is not true that all the 3 axes are made FBW-capable out of convenience. As I said previously, even if aircraft are just pitch unstable, they have FBW in 3 axes precisely because all the 3 axes do not work in isolation (contrary to your view) but they work together by supporting each other. In this very aspect, the tests of another Asian fighter jet under high AoA conditions were done keeping in mind directional stability, rolling moments, spin recovery and checking the quantum of rudder authority at high angles of attack.

Thus if JF-17 is indeed pitch unstable, it should have most probably have had FBW in other axes too, like all other combat aircraft in service presently.

Once again the presence of instability implies FBW, but the converse is not true. Examples of the converse are civilian aircraft like the Cessna examples that you gave now. Being civilian, they do not have the need to perform military maneuvers with passengers on board, and so do not have any need for instability.

crobato said:
One possible reason why they were not in the original JF-17 prototypes were a matter of cost. Stability augmentation can still be handled electronically because secondary control surfaces, such as the trim and the slats, are still regulated by the FBW, even though the main control surfaces might be manually controlled. But for the most part it only means that both manual and FBW generated control forces are simultaneously contributing as a sum to the control surfaces.
It's true that JF-17 does have leading edge flaps like the F-16, which are likely to be controlled intelligently by the flight-control computer, without the pilot's knowledge. This is done to enhance maneuverability. It's FBW also has the restrictive property in not allowing the pilot to exceed certain limits. But all this still does not imply instability. As I pointed out in PDF forum, the JF-17's testing period is even lesser than an Indian trainer, IJT Sitara, which took a little more than 3 years from debut flight to certification. Instable aircraft that too with FBW usually have been tested for at least a decade.

crobato said:
Please note that many FBW systems have manual backups. Which means that if the FBW fails, the plane can be flown on the backup manual control systems. Example of this, the Japanese F-2 fighter. So having manual flight control is proof that a fighter is not negative unstable?
By hybrid controls I meant the kind of controls JF-17 has like FBW in one axis and hydraulic in the other two. I'm not talking of manual backups like in the Cessna aircraft, which are present only for passenger safety. In fighters with full-FBW, manual back-ups are replaced by triple or quadruple redundant flight-control (so that if one line fails another can take over). In the other Asian fighter, there are provisions so that the safety control restrictions of the FBW are actually overridden in case of emergency situations.

Besides in case of the F-2, there was some dispute over the US providing the full source-code of the F-16's FBW to Mitsubishi. So maybe it's more due to politics rather than aerodynamics.
 

Munir

Banned Idiot
Re: New JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

>>> As I pointed out in PDF forum, the JF-17's testing period is even lesser than an Indian trainer, IJT Sitara, which took a little more than 3 years from debut flight to certification. Instable aircraft that too with FBW usually have been tested for at least a decade.

Maybe now you understand the effort the Chinese engineers had to make. Some had to delay wedding for a few years cause next to double hours every day the project was on th emove 24/7. Totally different with the 9 to 5 mentallity which we have on other projects. So lets calculate... If we compare 2/7 with 9to5 then there is no unrealistic planning if they achieved the same in 1/3 of the time... Certainly if the have lot more manpower to do the job. Even with traditional methods they would do things faster.

About the rest. Having talked to the real engineers I find your comment wrong but I have no urgent feeling to defend everything cause it doesn't help much cause same arguments are repeated without knowledge or evidence.

About Sitara... Well, it would certainly a bit faster if mr Singh closes and locks his canopy next time. It was very detailed mentionned on AFM magazine so please do believe that it is true. Besides that changing engines over and over again doesn't help either to show speedy development. Same with Druv and LCA. I did not see JF17 change engines even though some saw highly active Indian media sugesting that. By the way, saw Sitara perform in Le Bourget. Talked to the very polite and well informed engineers. Nice fellows Hats of for them.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top