JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[Munir]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

Deino, it is PS. Just check the ID number. We do not have that yet.

 

[Deino]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

Deino, it is PS. Just check the ID number. We do not have that yet.

Thanks ... Yes that was one thing I wondered, but I wasn't sure if maybe 110 is delivred !

Anyway THANx,
Deino

 

[Indianfighter]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

Are you trying to tell me that two fighters heritage can be determined by their canopy style??? That's got to be weirdest thing I have heard.

You are misinterpreting. If you followed the conversation properly, crobato was referring to the diameter of fuselages.

You seem to be confusing what flight regime means and its evident from your using statements like "its bigger" , " it carries more load", etc.

I am talking about the aerodynamic characteristics exhibited by the aircraft. That's called its flight regime. For example, whether its optimized for high-speed flight or subsonic flight, sustained turn rate, etc

And all these aerodynamic characteristics are influenced by an aircraft's mass. They're not spacestations orbiting in air-less space.

You are saying:
The wing design of JF-17 is similar to F-16

True, because they are meant to have similar aerodynamic behavior. But, you are trying to sound as if a wing design from an F-16 could somehow miraculously be put onto a JF-17 and it will work.

I'm saying it could've had other designs too, all optimized, but it chose one that is like the F-16's. And they do not have the same "flight-regimes". They're not even of the same size : A JF-17 carries 3.5 tons of warload; an F-16 can potentially carry twice as much. They clearly don't have the same flight regime (don't just go by mission profile, or interceptor vs. close air or speeds and g-limits. And yes, even in these the JF-17 and F-16 do NOT match at all).

Or as I said earlier, a variant of some western engine that wouldn't really cause huge redesign issues could also be procured. Engine overhauling and other repairs is also something PAF wants to be done in-house since it is the bulk of its fleet.

There are some rumors or possibilities but I won't be commenting on those as of yet.

A long time back, I used to read that JF-17 was also optimized for the Snecma M-88. So, did your contacts in PAF tell you that M-88 is a possible option ?

 

[Indianfighter]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

F16 doesn't have ailerons.

That's correct but what about JF-17 ? I can't say whether it has flaperons or ailerons.

 

[mean_bird]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

You are misinterpreting. If you followed the conversation properly, crobato was referring to the diameter of fuselages.

Well, the argument about the fuselage doesn't hold much water since single engined aircraft are based around the engine and we know the engines are quite different either from a Mig-21 or an F-16.

Wings and tails..yes they are heavily influenced by F-16 design but no way are they "straight from the F-16" because it doesn't work that way.

here's what you said:

In addition to that, I feel the canopy and side fuselage shapes are similar. Others disagree, fine now let's halt right here.

The basic J-7 frame continued to be taken as a template even in the FC-1 and my observation is that it's remanants are still visible in the form of the canopy, and the distinct fuselage shape from the side.

It has the J-7's canopy and fuselage (sideways). It has the F-16's flaperon wings and tail. Chengdu added side-intakes just as it did to the J-8 II, which also is from the J-7 family. I still call it the hybrid of a Russian and a US fighter jet.

In addition to that, I feel the canopy and side fuselage shapes are similar. Others disagree, fine now let's halt right here.

And all these aerodynamic characteristics are influenced by an aircraft's mass. They're not spacestations orbiting in air-less space.

Yes, and the F-35 is a heavy aircraft yes very agile and so is the Su-27/30.

I'm saying it could've had other designs too, all optimized, but it chose one that is like the F-16's. And they do not have the same "flight-regimes". They're not even of the same size : A JF-17 carries 3.5 tons of warload; an F-16 can potentially carry twice as much. They clearly don't have the same flight regime (don't just go by mission profile, or interceptor vs. close air or speeds and g-limits. And yes, even in these the JF-17 and F-16 do NOT match at all).

Its futile if we do not even agree on what flight regime is. Let me just say this... an F-16 pilot won't feel that much of a change in aerodynamic behavior when shifting to a JF-17 then say a Mirage or Sukhoi pilot.

A long time back, I used to read that JF-17 was also optimized for the Snecma M-88. So, did your contacts in PAF tell you that M-88 is a possible option ?

I am actually out-of-country these days so didn't have contact with him for some time. They gentleman is a senior engineer at PAC working directly on the project and later went to Chengdu when this project was conceptualized.

But yes, I have been hearing from rather respected forumers that french engines are a strong possibility so perhaps they must have kept this in mind when designing.

The reason why PAF didn't go for the western engines right from the start is because it was not possible to have a french engine and its consultancy to collaborate with china (for obvious reasons). Hence the decision to use the RD-93 and hire Mikoyan as technical consultants who had used this engine for their (now canceled) single engine Mig -33 (or whatever its called...the single engine version of Mig 29 that was intended to be similar to F-16)

(and for this reason I claim with 100% confidence that the JF-17 has no heritage of the Mig-21 of any sort. If anything, the fuselage might have some influence of the Mig-33 design...when PAF joined, a totally new plane with custom tailored characteristics was born).

But PAF was well aware of what problems could arise and the issue of Russian engines so I would be surprised if no provision was put for a engine change at a later stage.

 

[crobato]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

I'm saying it could've had other designs too, all optimized, but it chose one that is like the F-16's. And they do not have the same "flight-regimes". They're not even of the same size : A JF-17 carries 3.5 tons of warload; an F-16 can potentially carry twice as much. They clearly don't have the same flight regime (don't just go by mission profile, or interceptor vs. close air or speeds and g-limits. And yes, even in these the JF-17 and F-16 do NOT match at all).

Man you still don't know crap.

A Jaguar, Tornado, Su-24, and JH-7A all have similar flight regimes, despite having different masses.

A Lear Jet and B747 all have the same flight regime despite having different masses. Are you saying that a B737 has a different flight regime from an Airbus 380?

Different masses are counter acted by the size of the lift area and the power of the engines, in which case, both are adjusted proportionally to the mass. Just because something is heavier or lighter does not mean the wing configuration has to be adjusted to mass. Wing configuration is adjusted for flight regime (speed and altitude the aircraft is expected to be mostly in).

Even if you don't want to agree that is what flight regime is, feel free to disagree with the basic industry concept of it. Feel free to be alone.

 

[Engineer]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

And all these aerodynamic characteristics are influenced by an aircraft's mass. They're not spacestations orbiting in air-less space.

The dynamics of an aircraft is influenced by its mass, but aerodynamic isn't.

 

[Indianfighter]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

OK, so you mean to say a JF-17 with 50% internal fuel and dummy munitions will have the same handling as a JF-17 with 100% internal fuel and actual warheads. Even if they're flying at the same altitude and same speed (alongside each other).

This is of course, not to say that an F-16 that weighs 3 tons more will handle roughly the same at the same altitude-speed conditions as a JF-17.

You see the point is that aircraft don't fly in vacuum. Mass does affect aircraft aerodynamics of F-16 and JF-17, even if they are roughly of the same dimensions and have a wing-design that's matched.

 

[mean_bird]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

If the F-16 weighs 3 tons more, then its compensated with a higher thrust. So your logic is flawed.

And a plane's optimized aerodynamics will remain the same whether its 50% full or 100% full, just that it becomes more sluggish with weight because thrust remains the same. Look at the Raptor, so heavy but got very good thrust and very agile.

 

[PrOeLiTeZ]

Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009

OK, so you mean to say a JF-17 with 50% internal fuel and dummy munitions will have the same handling as a JF-17 with 100% internal fuel and actual warheads. Even if they're flying at the same altitude and same speed (alongside each other).

This is of course, not to say that an F-16 that weighs 3 tons more will handle roughly the same at the same altitude-speed conditions as a JF-17.

You see the point is that aircraft don't fly in vacuum. Mass does affect aircraft aerodynamics of F-16 and JF-17, even if they are roughly of the same dimensions and have a wing-design that's matched.

carrying munitions increases drag which obviously effects the aircraft performance, and its aerodynamics. But increasing the actual weight of the aircraft only means less payload unless you increase the amount of thrust generated by the engine to compensate. Increasing its mass doesnt effect aerodynamics, aerodynamics is a factor of its external shape effecting airflow and flight performance. This is simple physics which you got wrong. A fighter jet carrying full amounts of fuel and weapon payload is still gonna fly better then a 737 without payload and minimal fuel. aerodynamics, wing design, tail design, engine thrust ratio is what makes it different.