JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread

[crobato]

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

I said that that's my own observation, while you may differ. Compare the image of a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I think they are much similar.

No. The J-7 has more of a bubble, while the latter day MiG-21 is straight and aligned to the spine back. The JF-17's canopy is shaped closer to the J-10's. Canopies are always shaped in mind with the aircraft's aerodynamics; it has nothing absolutely to do with "heritage" nor can it be used as "proof" of heritage because that is an awfully ignorant thing to say.

Oh, I'm not talking of exact diameter, but the shape. The shapes are remarkably similar, just as it's wings appear to be detached straight from an F-16.

Similarity is the subject not congruence.

I'm sorry but your past posts show a very little understanding of aerodynamics. The LERX on the first JF-17 had a sawtooth which the F-16 doesn't. Furthermore on the latter models, the JF-17 has a more cobra shaped LERX while the F-16's is concave. The aspect ratios used in the wing of the F-16 is quite common because aspect ratios dictate optimizing for the most common flight regimes the aircraft would be using, which so happens is also common with other aircraft.

The "superficial appearance" is what I'm talking of, or whatever you want to call it like "resemblance" or "look-alike". The J-8 II is a J-8 with side intakes, and this expertise was used extensively in the FC-1.

Wrong. The J-8II uses completely vertical side intakes with variable ramps. These are intakes very similar to the F-4 Phantom and the MiG-23.

The first FC-1 uses V shaped fixed intakes with the nose shaped routing the air to the intakes. This is far more akin to the F-18 and much easier to scoop air during maneuvers. The current JF-17 uses DSI intakes. Like the previous, these are fixed geometries and uses a very different principle compared to variable dividing ramps with boundary layer splitters. With fixed geometry intakes, the very dimensions of the intake has to be exhaustively tested under so many conditions and factors before the final dimensions are decided as these intakes don't have the ability to compensate as variable intakes do.

Going further, the JF-17 uses a golf ball principle behind the intakes where the "bumps" at the back of the DSI helps smooth vortice formation on top of the concave LERX.

 

[DBR01]

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

Hi! Newbie here.

How come there are no 2 seater trainer version being offered for this plane? How would, say PAF, train its pilots to fly this plane then? I assume there would be simulators, but wouldnt that be risky ie simulators straight away to single seater?

Apologies if this question has been answered before.

 

[planeman]

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

Let's stop debating the J-7 shape and JF-17's shapes. Sinodefence.com says that FC-1 was an upgrade of the J-7, that's all I repeated here.

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

I'm not taking sides but you is talking complete cowpats. J-7 is related to MiG-21/J-7 via the "Super-7" project but as a design it bears no real resemblance. Get some glasses and stop derailing an otherwise informative thread with this crap.

Thanks.

 

[Indianfighter]

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

I'm sorry but your past posts show a very little understanding of aerodynamics. The LERX on the first JF-17 had a sawtooth which the F-16 doesn't.

Nobody compared lerxes. It has the F-18's lerxes by the way.

I'm talking of WINGS. Compare the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

with the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. The wings are unmistakably similar.

Wrong. The J-8II uses completely vertical side intakes with variable ramps. These are intakes very similar to the F-4 Phantom and the MiG-23.

J-8 II uses side intakes, doesn't it ? Forget V-duct intakes or horizontal side intakes for a while. Once CAC decided that F-7's centrist intake is not needed, they put side intakes on J-8 II and FC-1 (though they may be very very very different according to you).
That's what I meant : both are improvements on the basic J-7 and both aircraft belong to the family of J -7 descendants. And I maintain that the side-ways shape of the FC-1's fuselage is also much like J - 7.

It is I guess a little unfortunate that China and India are finding it hard to put decent engines on their respective fighters. While I don't know the status of WS-13, the LCA's Kaveri needs French help now.

 

[Indianfighter]

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

Hi! Newbie here.

How come there are no 2 seater trainer version being offered for this plane? How would, say PAF, train its pilots to fly this plane then? I assume there would be simulators, but wouldnt that be risky ie simulators straight away to single seater?

Apologies if this question has been answered before.

A 2 seating JF-17 has not been developed still. So Training will be on other trainers before pilots are deputed on JF-17.

 

[mean_bird]

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

At least you are no longer claiming that the FC-1 is not an upgrade of J-7.

I have candidly repeated my point of view, my reasons for it, and my sources. If you chose to read what you want of my words, thats your choice.

You wish not to believe me, Crobato, the PAC official website, and all the evidence present but want to keep to your own personal belief.

There is no clear confirmation of JF-17's top speed. In this forum itself I've pointed out that PAC Kamra's website has 2 different figures for top speed viz. M 16 and M 1.8. Don't give the argument that those are for different versions : PAC Kamra's page doesn't mention the versions.

Even sinodefence is not sure : it says M 1.6 ~ 1.8.[/QUOTE]

The 1.8 mach was reported by janes in its dec. 2005 issue...the earlier versions had mach 1.6, but earlier prototypes could not achieve it because of problems in air intakes. This improved to mach 1.8 after revising the air intakes. The Mach 1.8 was also mentioned at IDEAS 2008.

All these are licensed or unlicensed copies. J-11 (or J-11 B ?) was the subject
of a diplomatic row between Russia and China over intellectual property. J-7 was also an unlicensed copy of the MiG-21; a mere name change does not make it Chinese or Pakistani.

What? wait.... you were having problems that JF-17 was descendant of a Mig-21, then you shifted to why China names it differently as compared to pak, then you had problem with its speed, and now you are shifting again by saying a mere name of change doesn't make a difference.

All I can see is a trend to keep shifting just for the heck of having an argument. First try to show its a J-7 descendant, now shifting to Pakistan hasn't contributed anything.

trolling to derail this thread and get it locked?

No. Mahmood said the engine performance is inadequate. You can search out the news report in which he said that.

Another argument just for the heck of it. I said its underpowered, but say "No, engine performance is inadequate". Whats the difference?

Btw, as I said Klimov is ready to provide a more powerful engine. PAF doesn't want it because
1. Its Russian and hence could be a point of sanction in future
2. Poor serviceability (as mentioned by the ACM himself).

It is supposed to use it. Has it actually ?

Do you have any news that indicates it hasn't? Trials and testing phase is completed so I assume it does use it. Even the prototype was fitted with a radar so I dont see why a SBP won't unless you have any proof it hasnt.

Your own compatriot Munir (who is also on PakDef) has said in this very thread that weapons testing is way behind. No news articles too have appeared that makes this claim.

Yeah, we've been hearing that since 2007, Selex AESA et. al. That time even I was surprised at PAF's bold moves, but turned out they remained only on paper.

Any change in engine/radar/weapons will only be from or after the second batch. So complain only if it doesn't happen in the second batch.

 

[mean_bird]

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

Hi! Newbie here.

How come there are no 2 seater trainer version being offered for this plane? How would, say PAF, train its pilots to fly this plane then? I assume there would be simulators, but wouldnt that be risky ie simulators straight away to single seater?

Apologies if this question has been answered before.

One report has said quoting a PAF official that development is underway for a twin seat version. To me it seems to make sense, since both PAF will require a twin-seater version as well as any other customer will demand it.

The single-seater version was given priority as PAF wanted to replace its aging fleet fast.

 

[Baibar of Jalat]

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

For the second batch, its upto Chinese radar producers to develop something that competes with European and American radars. Goodluck to NRIET and others.

I will bet second batch, a Chinese radar will be fielded, why people believed the first batch will have Grifo radar because they did not think China could make something better then that old radar, thankfully they have been proved wrong.

Question: How many radar producers are there in China, apart from NRIET?

 

[crobato]

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

Nobody compared lerxes. It has the F-18's lerxes by the way.

I'm talking of WINGS. Compare the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

with the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. The wings are unmistakably similar.

Man, your lack of understanding of aspect ratios oozes.

All delta wings looked similar do they not? All clipped delta wings looked similar do they not?

So what makes the wings similar? Its because they share the same aspect ratio. What is aspect ratio? Its a ratio between the width and the length of the wing. Aspect ratios determine the optimal level of flight performance given the speed. Low aspect ratios favor high speed. High aspect ratios favor low speed. Somewhere, you need to find the proper aspect ratio. Why do the F-16 and the JF-17 has the same aspect ratio? Naturally because they are meant to operate on the same flight and speed regimes. That's all what it means.

J-8 II uses side intakes, doesn't it ? Forget V-duct intakes or horizontal side intakes for a while. Once CAC decided that F-7's centrist intake is not needed, they put side intakes on J-8 II and FC-1 (though they may be very very very different according to you).
That's what I meant : both are improvements on the basic J-7 and both aircraft belong to the family of J -7 descendants. And I maintain that t
he side-ways shape of the FC-1's fuselage is also much like J - 7.

Utter baloney.

CAC didn't even design the J-8II. And once again, the J-8II is truly a totally different aircraft from the MiG-21. You have no idea for example that the intake tunnels inside the J-8I with the round intake is actually two, while the MiG-21 still only has one. You don't even understand one basic in aircraft design is that each engine must have a separate engine tunnel in order to function properly. Two engines don't share the same intake. The nose of the J-8I actually has a separate internal divider that goes all the way to the engines, just like the J-6.

V intakes and side intakes are two different things. V intakes is between underslung intake and the vertical intake. The advantage of having the intakes canted means when the aircraft is on a turn, it can route air better into the intakes. The vertical intake doesn't have this capability.

It is I guess a little unfortunate that China and India are finding it hard to put decent engines on their respective fighters. While I don't know the status of WS-13, the LCA's Kaveri needs French help now.

I'm sorry, but its India not China that is having the problem. Don't put China on the same pedestal; its very clear to anyone whose level of achievements are greater. The LCA's Kaveri had help from the Russians and now from the French? In the first place, the intake design of the aircraft sucks, that's why it can't produce power at high speeds. No matter what you do to the engine, you won't go far due to the intake design. Your designers clearly painted themselves into a corner.

At least the designers of the J-8I knew about the intake principles from the start. That aircraft was capable of going over Mach 2.

Its clear that you're trying to peddle the nonsense dogma (FC-1 derived from J-7 etc,.) from the Bharat Rashak forums, which is clearly wrong to anyone who appreciates a greater depth of understanding with aircraft designs. Don't go around acting arrogantly as if you know better than us, obviously you don't. Far from it.

 

[Indianfighter]

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

The 1.8 mach was reported by janes in its dec. 2005 issue...the earlier versions had mach 1.6, but earlier prototypes could not achieve it because of problems in air intakes. This improved to mach 1.8 after revising the air intakes. The Mach 1.8 was also mentioned at IDEAS 2008.

Now that's a source I'm willing to accept. If they said M 1.8 at IDEAS, then M 1.8 it is. Forget Jane's or internet gossip. You should bring more of such sources.

Do you have any news that indicates it hasn't? Trials and testing phase is completed so I assume it does use it. Even the prototype was fitted with a radar so I dont see why a SBP won't unless you have any proof it hasnt.

Unless there is no news, how can it be confirmed ? You only have internet forums as your guide I suppose. I've even heard that JF-17 may have Selex AESA, and French armament but how do you confirm it ?

Man, your lack of understanding of aspect ratios oozes.

All delta wings looked similar do they not? All clipped delta wings looked similar do they not?

Your ability to meander away from topics is legendary. First lerx, then fuselage diameters and now aspect ratios. OK do you think only aspect ratios decide wing shapes ? Are you saying that no other wing configuration could've been had for the JF-17 other than the one chosen ? Do you know that for a given ratio, you can have more than one design ? Heard of sweep ?

And no, it's not the ratio of wing length and width but span square and area.

Why do the F-16 and the JF-17 has the same aspect ratio? Naturally because they are meant to operate on the same flight and speed regimes. That's all what it means.

No it doesn't. Though nearly same in length and height, a JF-17 is not a M 2+ and 9g aircraft, and cannot carry as much load. So it's operating envelop is clearly not the same. It does not have the rigors of an F-16, even if it's operating envelop would have been the same (which it is not).

Now if I'm not mistaken (and I'd like someone to confirm it) the JF-17 has even retained the typical Flaperons specific to the F-16. These are not exactly airelons but are found only on F-16.

I'm sorry, but its India not China that is having the problem. Don't put China on the same pedestal; its very clear to anyone whose level of achievements are greater.

Once again, I was talking of Kaveri vis-a-vis WS-13 and not J-8 and it's intakes (look how you skidded off once more). What is the status of WS-13 and when will it be integrated on the FC-1 ? From what PAF head Tanver Mahmod said he is looking at a western engine, so what about WS-13 ?