Air Force Question Thread

[hassan1]

which PAF aircraft is this?


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[guru8904]

which PAF aircraft is this?


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

This is a Quickie II. It was a kit plane acquired and assembled by the Aircraft Manufacturing Factory, Pakistan Aeronautical Complex somewhere in the late 80s. It flew only a few times since it had some serious engine/airframe issues and was later given to the museum.

 

[guru8904]

There can be different abbreviations of these words i dont know for which you are talking about but being precise what i know i'll share it with you

CFT stands for Conformal Fuel Tanks.

Conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) are additional fuel tanks fitted closely to the profile of an aircraft which extend either the range or "time on station" of the aircraft, with little aerodynamic penalty compared to the same fuel capacity carried in external drop tanks.

here is a Pic of F-15 CFT

BFT
In military context BFT can be abbrevation of different things,But the common one is

Blue Force Tracking : which is a United States military term used to denote a GPS-enabled system that provides military commanders and forces with location information about friendly (and despite its name, also about hostile) military forces.

PFT
PFT term is usually used in military for "Physical Fitness Test"

Your explanations could be right in a general sense but specific to PAF, these acronyms stand for:

CFT College of Flying Training
BFT Basic Flying Training (Wing)
PFT Primary Flying Training (Wing)
ATT Aircraft Technical Training

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

ok this question is related too my previous one.
can some senior member tell me which version of mirage was flown by Sir.Murad Khan in 1971 war.?
acurate answer plz

can anyone answer

 

[aliyusuf]

can anyone answer

Mirage-IIIEP?

I could be wrong ... I was just a 4 year old back then .

 

[Qasibr]

I have two things I wanted to find out more about.

First's the likelihood of the Chinese inducting the JF-17/FC-1 in the context of their having cleared the aircraft in "design appraisal", and then their conducting successful taxi trials of the aircraft using the WS-13 engine recently. Why would the Chinese be conducting these tests and spending time on the aircraft if they weren't seriously thinking about it.

One can imagine that a major concern for the Chinese would be that the aircraft have a native engine if they were to induct it. So anyone have any info on the Chinese inducting it, and what the status of the WS-13 project is?

And secondly I wanted to ask about JF-17's twin seat variant. Last I heard Pakistan had decided to foot the bill to develop the variant, any updates on that?

Thanks!

Design Appraisal: FC-1 Xiaolong fighter passes design appraisal - People's Daily Online
Taxi Trials: China Defense Blog: FC-1 equipped with WS-13 completed first successful runway taxi test.

 

[Dazzler]

Simplest explanation is that they are replacing their ground strike capable Q-5s with jf-17s.

Two seat variant is deemed necessary for PAF and we will pay the development expenditures but it will take some time to develop as we have too many projects going on in house.

 

[Qasibr]

Simplest explanation is that they are replacing their ground strike capable Q-5s with jf-17s.

Two seat variant is deemed necessary for PAF and we will pay the development expenditures but it will take some time to develop as we have too many projects going on in house.

@nabil, that's the thing - Pakistan said they were going to *fund* the development, my understanding was that it would still be the Chinese who'd develop it. I don't think we have the ability to manufacture new aircraft designs, my guess is that funding is the biggest hurdle here. I just don't see how that problem's going to subside in the short run.

Let's really hope the Chinese go for the JF-17, that'd mean that they'd have a vested interest in continously upgrading the aircraft.

 

[Zarbe Momin]

we are doing MLU of our F-16 A&B models and we are going to groud our F-7P fighters in few years. My question is that would it be economical to redesign & reconstruct some parts in our existing F-7P's as it can be seen in Guizhou JL-9, although it is newly built on design of F-7 and not existing F-7 reconstructed.(Guizhou JL-9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) i.e bigger nose which can bring betterment in Radar, air inlets on side can also be DSI, change in tail and redesing it like JF-17, data link with air born radar, and WS-13 engin, on tip of wing extra hard points, wings like F-7PG, air to air refueling and CFT. (Its a bit imaginative work), now we have our own trained man power because of JF-17 project and reconstruction can be done in Pakistan in Kamra

 

[Tempest II]

we are doing MLU of our F-16 A&B models and we are going to groud our F-7P fighters in few years. My question is that would it be economical to redesign & reconstruct some parts in our existing F-7P's as it can be seen in Guizhou JL-9, although it is newly built on design of F-7 and not existing F-7 reconstructed.(Guizhou JL-9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) i.e bigger nose which can bring betterment in Radar, air inlets on side can also be DSI, change in tail and redesing it like JF-17, data link with air born radar, and WS-13 engin, on tip of wing extra hard points, wings like F-7PG, air to air refueling and CFT. (Its a bit imaginative work), now we have our own trained man power because of JF-17 project and reconstruction can be done in Pakistan in Kamra

Ever wondered why they crash the old cars (e.g. 15 year old BMW 5-series) instead of saving the environment and money buy reusing most of the components and produce a 2010 BMW 5-Series?

My take is by the time you dismentle, inspect, clean and repair EVERY panel, bolt, rivert, shaft, etc it will cost you more than a new machine. There will be some aspects of the old model/design you just cannot change - you therefore are unlikely to get as good a machine as starting anew.

Just my opinion.

 

[nightcrawler]

Questioned it before but never got the answer so here its is again

it is mentioned that the presence of LERX above air intakes in T-50 is great improvement when compared with F-22. I would like to know how this gonna effect the performance of T-50.
Given that

The F-22 Raptor has chines that lead to the leading edge extensions that are blended into the engine air intakes
Wikipedia

How do LERX in T-50 compares with chines in F-22??

 

[SQ8]

The LERX in T-50 arent just LERX, they lead to LERX like canards which are movable surfaces. The F-22 has Chines similar to the concept used in the SR-71, they are still fixed surfaces.
The T-50's surfaces assist in maneuverability and may afford it a better performance in flight as compared to the F-22.

 

[nightcrawler]

The LERX in T-50 arent just LERX, they lead to LERX like canards which are movable surfaces. The F-22 has Chines similar to the concept used in the SR-71, they are still fixed surfaces.
The T-50's surfaces assist in maneuverability and may afford it a better performance in flight as compared to the F-22.

I am an engineering student so plz dont get annoyed by mine toooo technical queries!!
I have read

The chines contribute useful additional lift at supersonic speeds, as well as acting as LERX at low speeds.

WikiPedia

Question is simple. Provided that chines can act as LERX too; can LERX do the same & do plz provide any magnified image of a plane incorporating LERX or Chines I have seen various pics but can tell where these respetive parts are

 

[SQ8]

First fighter with LERX

See the area that joins with the main wings.. from the joint at '46' to where the angle of the plane changes.. and the wings start.
Thats the LERX.
Here are some more LERX from other fighters.

Here are the LERX on the F-22 and T-50..

In this case right above the intake's..

Chines, are flattened winglike extensions that lead from the root of the wing blending into the forward fuselage.

If you look at the sides of the nose of the SR-1 you see that they seem like they have been flattened and then get thinner till at the sides.. this goes on to meet the wing roots. This flat surface that runs across the front of the fuselage is referred to as Chines.

 

[Donatello]

Hey!

This is the Airforce question thread, so instead of opening a new one i would rather ask a simple question here.


Pakistan recently ordered and started receiving 500 BVR AAMs from USA which were AIM 120-c5 class.
We also ordered 200 SRAAMs which were AIM9 class.

Can someone tell us why did we order so less SRAAMs? Like do we have plenty of them already or are we using some other SRAAMs in large numbers? Because certainly the entire PAF fleet is capable of using AIM9 so why order so less?

Thanks!