Re: JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread 2009
What's up with the forum these days? Its down more often than its up.
Do you understand similarity ? I've already told you that the exact diameters are not even in discussion : it's their shapes. Their SIMILAR shapes.
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.
It has less power because it weighs less and carries lesser loads. That means that it has to have different design considerations; yet it's wing has an uncanny resemblance to the F-16's.
Now why discuss Lavi and Mirages ? J-10 is much bigger and heavier than Lavi and hence doesn't have the same flight regime. It only looks similar.
No it doesn't.
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
A cropped delta of the type of F-16 does not extend to the start of the exhaust and a provision for wing-tip missile. This type of cropped delta is NOT found on any other fighter aircraft other than F-16 and clones. Now, it is also found on the JF-17 which is proof enough that F-16's from PAF have been used for the purpose.
The sweep is also nearly the same if you try to superimpose the images of their wings.
I said I appreciate Lerxs and DSI on the FC-1 if it helps it fly well. I just made an observation that it's wings are uncannily similar to the F-16.
Even Pakistanis like mean_bird have accepted that it's wings are like F-16. He rightly said that lots of computations go into even for doing that, and I agreed.
Now, let's stop this discussion as we hold our viewpoints as much as before. No use arguing further. For me it's enough that a couple of Pakistanis have admitted that JF-17 does indeed have an F-16 - like wing structure.
Please, don't use my shoulder to fire your gun.
Btw, If I understood each of you, we are all saying the same thing.
I said:
PAF is impressed by F-16's handling and maneuverability, its fits the tactics and doctrine they have developed over the years, and therefore wanted its next fighter to have the similar characteristics.
Here's what Crobato said:
"If an aircraft is operate on the same flight regimes as the F-16, as in trying to obtain the best performance in the same altitudes and speeds the F-16 operates, you would reach to the same mathematical conclusions on aspect ratio and wing sweep."
As I said previously, there is a century of aerodynamics study that is pretty well documented except for a few classified details. Its pretty much well-known what delta designs are good for and what a cropped delta-design would be good for.
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.
Even if everything else on the JF-17 was identical to a F-16, just the addition of large LERX would change the design of, among other things, the wings. No wonder they have a different sweep angle than a F-16. But they are still cropped delta hence similar looking.
I repeat, wing designs and aerodynamics is well-studied in the literature. Even before you sit for the first meeting of what your future plane will look like, you already know which design is suited for what kinds of aerodynamics behavior.
The example of boeing vs airbus aircrafts looking similar is a very valid example even though technically they are quite different. Moreover, every glider must have a high aspect ratio, so two gliders will share this. Discovery shuttle has bad AR and believe me the next country designing one will make it look more similar to the discovery shuttle than say a glider...why? because they are meant for different aerodynamic behavior.
What may look visually similar to you is not actually so similar technically and even the visual differences has been pointed out by Crobato so no need my repeating this.
Well, the JF-17 is also going that way now. No sign of WS-13 and now PAF wants an altogether new western engine.
Just wait and see. It doesn't necessarily have to be that way. As I said, (strangely) I haven't heard a single PAF official complain it is underpowered but they complain of engine life/serviceability issues. If China or Russia can improve on those, the result could be different. The WS-13 is yet to get operational, so its too early to see how it will be.
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.
Good, you atleast agreed with me on one point. I've already said that they surely must have had to do computations to adopt it on the JF-17 + adding lerxes and dsi.
I have repeated this point various times in my posts from the very beginning but its hardly the way you are trying to present it.
