What's new

Wing Reinforcement Makes Thunder More Lethal !

KaiserX

FULL MEMBER
Apr 6, 2019
681
0
1,157
Country
United States
Location
United States
I want to see Thunder Block 3 with a 200+km Range AESA and PL-15 missiles NOW :o:

Technically the PL-15 would be possible to integrate onto the thunder now with these wing reinforcements! That is the bigger news.
 
Oct 29, 2020
347
0
144
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Hi,

You teaching me basics---? I have been teaching you kids for the last 15 years now and here you are talking about the basics---.

It is easier to say than show that stability can be maintained by trimming and auto pilot.

You kids like to talk without any PRINCIPAALS OF PHYSICS behind your claims. JF17 is a very small aircraft with a small wing area. Any shift in HEAVY weight closer to the fuselage---but away from it---or a sudden lack of weight on one side would put the aircraft in a non recoverable roll and dive and spin.

The delay is the death sentence---the moment the heavy missile is released on one side---the aircraft goes out of control instantly.



Son,

I have been teaching this forum about weapons for the past 15 years plus by now---. Don't give me flimsy excuses that you have overheard---.

Fuel management system does nothing in this case---the loss / shift of weight is too high.

Fuel management systems work when they have ample time to make the correction---and a large wing area. Over here there are only seconds and that is not enough and the wing is too small.
And you know all REAL PHYSIC and others knows nothing
 

denel

PROFESSIONAL
Jul 12, 2013
5,131
-3
8,438
Country
South Africa
Location
South Africa
I want to see Thunder Block 3 with a 200+km Range AESA and PL-15 missiles NOW :o:

Technically the PL-15 would be possible to integrate onto the thunder now with these wing reinforcements! That is the bigger news.
Friend.... cool it..

You want to put a turbo charger and weight on a light suzuki motor cycle.

It is just not possible; there are structural, electrical, integration restrictions. Range means nothing - everything in moderation and kaizen steps.
 

Akh1112

FULL MEMBER
Nov 21, 2019
718
3
779
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Hi,

You teaching me basics---? I have been teaching you kids for the last 15 years now and here you are talking about the basics---.

It is easier to say than show that stability can be maintained by trimming and auto pilot.

You kids like to talk without any PRINCIPAALS OF PHYSICS behind your claims. JF17 is a very small aircraft with a small wing area. Any shift in HEAVY weight closer to the fuselage---but away from it---or a sudden lack of weight on one side would put the aircraft in a non recoverable roll and dive and spin.

The delay is the death sentence---the moment the heavy missile is released on one side---the aircraft goes out of control instantly.



Son,

I have been teaching this forum about weapons for the past 15 years plus by now---. Don't give me flimsy excuses that you have overheard---.

Fuel management system does nothing in this case---the loss / shift of weight is too high.

Fuel management systems work when they have ample time to make the correction---and a large wing area. Over here there are only seconds and that is not enough and the wing is too small.

Hi mastan my love, you use a combination of trimming and the stick, alongside that, FBW should account for it. Beyond this, such a loadout is not actually designed to be launched long times after one another. You will usually drop one, then drop another within a matter of seconds, fortunately due to the advent of guidance, you don't need to point your aircraft towards two individual targets, therefore you can launch both in salvo very quickly, allowing for you to not to meet your maker in an unrecoverable stall. What i can assure you is that the engineer's at PAC and CAC are working hard, they also know what they are doing. Fortunately, a chimpanzee could probably realise that removing mass off of one side of a scale will cause an imbalance. Therefore i assure you, our engineers, who are probably smart humans, idk, maybe there's a few monkeys in there too, who knows, understand the whole mass/drag imbalance and realise, that you need to launch in some sort of salvo. A good example of this is when A7s would go on mining missions. They carried a massive draggy mine under each wing, there are numerous examples of pilots fighting with the stick until they dropped the second, however, mines were not guided therefore had to be dropped in the area they wanted, unlike the CM400AKG which can be dropped, then guided to where it needs to go, therefore that concern being a non issue. However, i am sure the engineers at PAC and CAC appreciate your posts on PDF, helping them correct the glaring issues of their bad design. Without you, the Chinese would be unable to innovate and AZM would not be a possibility. Maybe you can throw some posts about AZM so then the engineers at PAC can use your design advice for inspiration. Thank you grand wizard mastan.


P.S As part of weapons integration, asymmetric loads testing is a massive step before weapons are certified. If an aircraft cannot fly with an asymmetric load, the munition is not certified.

Source: Ask anybody who works on this.
 
Last edited:

Thorough Pro

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 23, 2008
11,885
-19
11,158
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
they can but it compromises their maneuverability quite significantly

And modern Jets have no stabilization systems to carry one heavy weapon on one wing and no or minimal weapons on other wings during the flight, i can show you lots of pic of these
Taking off with a single missile at center hardpoint would not create any instability


Any source of this? (I know MK will puke again for this request and still not argue) but at least I gave a source - namely @Quwa - who questions this. IMO +2000 pound is way too heavy.



Oh well my old friend; you are indeed a hopeless case :hitwall: ... so you want to teach me that "only one can be carried because the launch of one missile induces instability in the flight of the aircraft---on the other side which has the second missile---which means that the aircraft could roll over to the side of the second missile on the wing"... but taking off with a single one of these heavy missiles, carrying it all along the way to its targets is possible without induced instability or rolling the other side is easily possible??

You are indeed so much funny... :omghaha:
Total 4000kg over 7 hardpoints, only the centerline and the two inner wing pylons (3, 4, & 5) are rated to carry 1000kg load.

JF-17 can be loaded with over 4000 kg of weapons, the three MK-84 have combined load of around 3000 kg....so technically it can carry the additional air to air missiles.
 
Last edited:

Akh1112

FULL MEMBER
Nov 21, 2019
718
3
779
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
they can but it compromises their maneuverability quite significantly


Taking off with a single missile at center hardpoint would not create any instability

except you physically cannot take off with a CM400AKG on the centerline. Here is something i started but could not be bothered to complete.

peep the C value
1606081271167.png

That value is excluding the thick pylon needed to support a muniton on the center station.

The CM400 AKG would need to ditch its wings etc and also potentially need to have a smaller diameter. As i said though, i could not be bothered to complete this and add the CM400AKG in, if someone does want to, go ahead, my values are there. knock yourself out
 

Thorough Pro

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 23, 2008
11,885
-19
11,158
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
CM400's circumference is not more than that of the EFT's.
Check the pics already posted in the previous posts. EFTS's on wing pylons hang lower than the centerline, same would be the case with CM400.







except you physically cannot take off with a CM400AKG on the centerline. Here is something i started but could not be bothered to complete.

peep the C value View attachment 690199
That value is excluding the thick pylon needed to support a muniton on the center station.

The CM400 AKG would need to ditch its wings etc and also potentially need to have a smaller diameter. As i said though, i could not be bothered to complete this and add the CM400AKG in, if someone does want to, go ahead, my values are there. knock yourself out
 

Akh1112

FULL MEMBER
Nov 21, 2019
718
3
779
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
CM400's circumference is not more than that of the EFT's.
Check the pics already posted in the previous posts. EFTS's on wing pylons hang lower than the centerline, same would be the case with CM400.
IDK, thats a bold claim with nothing to back it up + the CM400AKG has fins larger than those of the bags. +the cm400akg is straight, whereas the bag curves inward at the end to prevent a ground strike.
 

KaiserX

FULL MEMBER
Apr 6, 2019
681
0
1,157
Country
United States
Location
United States
Friend.... cool it..

You want to put a turbo charger and weight on a light suzuki motor cycle.

It is just not possible; there are structural, electrical, integration restrictions. Range means nothing - everything in moderation and kaizen steps.
There is a 100% of PAF equipping JF-17s with AESA and PL-15 missiles. Even reputable sources accept this. This wing reinforcement will already be included in the Block 3 upgrade. The fact that PAF is upgrading block 1/2 variants with wing reinforcement is a big deal.


 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom