JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

stupid post - now deleted.

Chak Bamu said:

Now why would someone bring up a binary choice of 'anything official' vs. 'your perception'? Where have you been all these years? Do you not know the reputation of Russian hardware? Do you not know that Russians value ruggedness like no other?

Click to expand...

So only because Russian engines are known to need more maintenance or fuel "compared to western engines", automatically means the WS13 also has an advantage? That's why I asked if there are any reliable infos available for fuel consumption compared to the RD93 or if that is just an opinion. So maybe you try to undertand the question first, before getting into conclusion.

sancho said:

So only because Russian engines are known to need more maintenance or fuel "compared to western engines", automatically means the WS13 also has an advantage? That's why I asked if there are any reliable infos available for fuel consumption compared to the RD93 or if that is just an opinion. So maybe you try to undertand the question first, before getting into conclusion.

Click to expand...

Sorry @sancho, I misunderstood your question.

I am bit sure that Block-IIs will be much better....

Nishan_101 said:

I am bit sure that Block-IIs will be much better....

Click to expand...

Yaar, you are always hoping and being sure of things. No matter where you post, you start with I am sure Pakistan will induct this much of this thing, I hope this will be this and that will be that.

You have been on this forum for 6 years now, just grow up now. Leave this hoping and wishing thing and get a check of the reality and see to it.

J-15飞鲨 said:

I think China and Pakistan is the most intimate friends, China, and Pakistan will have many opportunities to cooperate more advanced military equipment. First came to the forum, limited English proficiency, say not good place, hope you can forgive me

Click to expand...

brothers look after each other ... wellcome to the family ...

The attached is from Zhuhai 2012. What is the 8700kg figure? Thrust?

I think 9100 is the loaded weight, 12,700 is the MTOW, 4600 might be the payload and 8,700 is the figure for empty aircraft (no fuel, pilot etc.) All figures in Kgs i assume.

16,700 seems to be the maximum altitude in meters.
Do not know what 380/650 is.....perhaps fully loaded combat radius without/with drop tanks.

In todays air warfare Does 8.5 G meet the requirements ?

And yes I know that jf17 is just j10 but light weight which is other factor but j10 is coming according to my knowledge but I dont know and dont have any proof.

alimobin memon said:

In todays air warfare Does 8.5 G meet the requirements ?

And yes I know that jf17 is just j10 but light weight which is other factor but j10 is coming according to my knowledge but I dont know and dont have any proof.

Click to expand...

g limit of 8.5 is fine, it depends on the aircraft, and it affects the maneuvering speed.
There's a lot more to maneuverability than just g limit, there's your max AoA, wing loading, T/W ratio.

And IMO, the JF-17 works out fine.

On that last point, where did you get the idea that JF-17 is 'just a lightweight J-10'?

alimobin memon said:

In todays air warfare Does 8.5 G meet the requirements ?

And yes I know that jf17 is just j10 but light weight which is other factor but j10 is coming according to my knowledge but I dont know and dont have any proof.

Click to expand...

Safe G limit is usually exceeded during hard maneuvers buddy such as tight turns, loop, wing over during a dogfight. The certified G limit mentioned by manufacturer is a just to give an idea that this airframe can sustain the advertise value i.e. 8.5Gs (jf-17), in reality, as well as in flying demos, aircrafts corss that limit.

Higher G limit puts heavy stress on the airframe which results in cracks on wing, vertical tail etc.

Donatello said:

I think 9100 is the loaded weight, 12,700 is the MTOW, 4600 might be the payload and 8,700 is the figure for empty aircraft (no fuel, pilot etc.) All figures in Kgs i assume.

16,700 seems to be the maximum altitude in meters.
Do not know what 380/650 is.....perhaps fully loaded combat radius without/with drop tanks.

Click to expand...

Thanks for replying. 8,700kg cannot be empty weight and have 9,100kg for NTOW. That says fuel and SRAAMs weigh only 400kg. The internal fuel alone is known to be over 2t or there about. ...... 8,700kg virtually the expected thrust for the WS-13.

alimobin memon said:

In todays air warfare Does 8.5 G meet the requirements ?

Click to expand...

With HOB AAMs and helmet cueing, putting a missile on an enemy does not require one to pull spectacular Gs. ... ... One will need the high Gs to dodge missiles however.

Also from the article below, even before HOB missiles and HMS, 3-4 degrees/second turn rate advantage was necessary to outclass a rival. At dogfight speeds, I don't think 9G - 8.5G = 0.5G will give you more than 3 degree.

this is cockpit of f-18 next gen
hope jf-17 bl2 will have have this type of cockpit