Can Volvo RM-12 Jet Engine Replace Thunder's RD-93 ?`

[razgriz19]

yes i know it is sweden but my post was that sweden has banned any "future" weapons systems sales to pakistan.. it was here on this forum just few weeks ago.. but may be i m wrong.

i think ur correct, i heard that too...

 

[Paksindhi]

I am not an expert in avionics but i think PAF, should stick with chinese engines, alleast they wont stab u in back like EU or US.

 

[ANG]

Hi, I had one of my Mandarin speaking friends translate this article. Thanks!

ÊÀ½çÂÛ̳Íø£ºÊÀ½ç¾üÊÂÂÛ̳ - ÊÀ½ç¾üÊÂÂÛ̳

The prototype of domestic-made engine WS12, which will be used in FC-1 (a.k.a. J-10), is reported to simulate US-made F404 instead of Russia-made RD93. After years of exploration, the thrust of this new engine can easily reach 95KN. It is also said that, with new materials used in FC-1, the thrust-ratio can achieve 1.05, which is comparative to the medium-sized battle planes of western countries. FC-1 with new engine can take off after 400 meters (roughly 1/4 miles) taxiing. The estimate of WS12 market is optimistic. Pakistani engineers have been involved in the entire process of manufacture improvement.

 

[Icarus]

Hello all:

As you all know that Chinese Company Geely Automobiles has bought out Swedish Volvo & Volvo Aero is its Subsidary which manufectures RM-12 Turbofan Jet Engine which is the Powerplant for JAS-39 Gripen Fighter jet.

RM-12 is a derivative of GE-404 which is the powerplant for F-18 hornet.

By China having as the owner of the Company can they award a contract along with GE to CAC & PAC to power JF-17 Thunder with this Engine ?

Specs

General characteristics

Type: Afterburning turbofan
Length: 154 in (3,912 mm)
Diameter: 35 in (889 mm)
Dry weight: 2,282 lb (1,036 kg)
Components

Compressor: Axial compressor with 3 fan and 7 compressor stages
Bypass ratio: 0.34:1
Turbine: 1 low-pressure and 1 high-pressure stage
Performance
Maximum thrust:

11,000 lbf (48.9 kN) military thrust
17,700 lbf (78.7 kN) with afterburner
Overall pressure ratio: 26:1

Specific fuel consumption:

Military thrust: 0.81 lb/(lbf·h) (82.6 kg/(kN·h))
Full afterburner: 1.74 lb/(lbf·h) (177.5 kg/(kN·h))
Thrust-to-weight ratio: 7.8:1 (76.0 N/kg)




It will also Imrove thunder's speed (Possibly from current Mach 1.8 to Mach 2) and payload capacity .

Share your Ideas Please.

Regards: BB

If we opt for a new engine at this stage we will have to make modifications to the existing aircraft to accommodate the new engine, it is impossible to know what kind of effect those tweeks will have on the airplane's aerodynamics, it may just land us back to the wind tunnels, it is better to use RD-93B with thrust vectoring capability as intended, unless WS-13 can fill in......................

 

[Kompromat]

If we opt for a new engine at this stage we will have to make modifications to the existing aircraft to accommodate the new engine, it is impossible to know what kind of effect those tweeks will have on the airplane's aerodynamics, it may just land us back to the wind tunnels, it is better to use RD-93B with thrust vectoring capability as intended, unless WS-13 can fill in......................

Thunder is a moduler design and i am optimistic that i can employ various types of engines.

I am all in for WS-13 if it provides 100KTN of thurst.

 

[Materialistic]

I think it should be given a try, for the sake of 100ktn and if its possible to be fitted without any major changes to the aircraft structure then we should go for it otherwise leave it to block II and focus on induction process of these birds, & try to get our hands on tvc thing.

 

[Kompromat]

^ These things do not happen in days as you know , we surely will go for TVC if it seemed lucrative for the performance.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

But Russki what we need to consider is that with RD-93 Thunder has a speed of Mach 1.8 (or At leas this is what we are being told.)

With a weaker Engine Gripen has a speed of Mach2 .

How do you compare ???

the demonstrator for Gripen NG with F414G even super cruised

• Gripen Supercruises

 

[jagjitnatt]

the demonstrator for Gripen NG with F414G even super cruised

• Gripen Supercruises

You're right. Its not the engine that plays the major role in supercruising. Its the airframe and geometry. An airframe that has a higher drag will heat up faster and to higher temperatures at higher speeds.

Drag needs to be reduced and the airframe should be aerodynamic. Gripen is a very advanced fighter.Most of the people negate it due to smaller size.



In my view, JF-17s current engine is fine for the moment but needs an upgrade soon, since once the aircraft is loaded with weapons, the thrust to weight ratio goes down drastically, almost 0.54
Chinese engines although known to be under development, are still a secret and all the info available are from unofficial sources, basically fanboy stuff. I don't expect the first engine to be a 100+ KN thrust engine. They would work at a smaller engine first, then scale up as the platform proves itself. Knowing an engine's output is really tough. We still don't know about Kaveri, what can we know about secretive China's engine?

If China was successful in creating a 100+ powerplant, they would have been using those instead of importing from Russia. Although China will have its engine someday, it will start small and then scale up to 100+ KN engines.

 

[Kompromat]

Does it mean that Thunder with a 100KTN engine can supercruise too provided much needed structural changes in the airframe ?

 

[jagjitnatt]

Does it mean that Thunder with a 100KTN engine can supercruise too provided much needed structural changes in the airframe ?

structural changes would be required. Actually huge structural changes would be required.



-First are the engine intakes. They are not meant to be mated to a supercruising engine.

-The horizontal stabilizers too are not aerodynamic. On a smaller aircraft, one should not have horizontal stabilizers at all for supercruise or at least not so much to the rear of the aircraft.

-The main wing needs to be swept more backward.

-There are just too many edges, these edges would create lot of turbulence and its just not good.

Thats just my analysis. I never completed my Aerospace engg. So someone who completed it would be able to reveal even more.

 

[TaimiKhan]

structural changes would be required. Actually huge structural changes would be required.



-First are the engine intakes. They are not meant to be mated to a supercruising engine.

-The horizontal stabilizers too are not aerodynamic. On a smaller aircraft, one should not have horizontal stabilizers at all for supercruise or at least not so much to the rear of the aircraft.

-The main wing needs to be swept more backward.

-There are just too many edges, these edges would create lot of turbulence and its just not good.

Thats just my analysis. I never completed my Aerospace engg. So someone who completed it would be able to reveal even more.

Supercruise is sustained supersonic flight of an aircraft with a useful cargo, passenger, or weapons load performed efficiently and without the use of afterburners ("reheat").

So if we go by this definition, it seems it has more to do with engine compared to the aircraft design.

By the way, the above picture is of not the current JF-17, rather the old design.

So now plzz see this below picture, which was able to have super cruise capability, rather it is the first aircraft to have super cruise capability way back in the 60s.

English Electric Lightning


The JF-17 is i believe more aerodynamic friendly compared to this 50 era Electric Lightning. So if that aircraft could super cruise, so can JF-17. If JF-17 can go upto Mach 1.8, then its design can sustain and do super cruise capability also.

The main thing for JF-17 to do super cruise capability would be its engine.

JAS-39 Gripen can also do super cruise:

"The new Gripen NG (Next Generation) will have many new parts and will be powered by the General Electric F414G, a development of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet's engine. The engine will produce 20% more thrust at 98 kN (22,000 lbf), enabling a supercruise speed of Mach 1.1 with air-to-air missiles."

So if we look above, there is nothing to do with the design, rather the new engine with 98kN will give it a super cruise capability with A2A missiles, up to Mach 1.1.

Thus, if JF-17 can get a more powerful engine, which can propel it to Mach 1.0+ with some load of weapons without using its after burner, then JF-17 will have super cruise capability too.

In future with more composites in JF-17, and if it gets a powerful engine in the area of 100kN or more and it has ample power, it can enable JF-17 to do super cruise without using its after burner.

Here is JF-17 and the design seems perfect, all it needs is an engine and more composites to make it lighter.

 

[Kompromat]

I would love to see that big b

 

[jagjitnatt]

Supercruise is sustained supersonic flight of an aircraft with a useful cargo, passenger, or weapons load performed efficiently and without the use of afterburners ("reheat").

So if we go by this definition, it seems it has more to do with engine compared to the aircraft design.

By the way, the above picture is of not the current JF-17, rather the old design.

So now plzz see this below picture, which was able to have super cruise capability, rather it is the first aircraft to have super cruise capability way back in the 60s.

English Electric Lightning


The JF-17 is i believe more aerodynamic friendly compared to this 50 era Electric Lightning. So if that aircraft could super cruise, so can JF-17. If JF-17 can go upto Mach 1.8, then its design can sustain and do super cruise capability also.

The main thing for JF-17 to do super cruise capability would be its engine.

JAS-39 Gripen can also do super cruise:

"The new Gripen NG (Next Generation) will have many new parts and will be powered by the General Electric F414G, a development of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet's engine. The engine will produce 20% more thrust at 98 kN (22,000 lbf), enabling a supercruise speed of Mach 1.1 with air-to-air missiles."

So if we look above, there is nothing to do with the design, rather the new engine with 98kN will give it a super cruise capability with A2A missiles, up to Mach 1.1.

Thus, if JF-17 can get a more powerful engine, which can propel it to Mach 1.0+ with some load of weapons without using its after burner, then JF-17 will have super cruise capability too.

In future with more composites in JF-17, and if it gets a powerful engine in the area of 100kN or more and it has ample power, it can enable JF-17 to do super cruise without using its after burner.

Here is JF-17 and the design seems perfect, all it needs is an engine and more composites to make it lighter.

Sir, you can always install a bigger engine to enable supercruise, but the thing is that you're not aiming for just supercruise, you're aiming for supercruise and fuel efficiency and maneuverability.

The airframe of JF-17 is such that it will bleed energy very quickly. You can make it to supercruise but you'd need a much bigger engine.
Even with current engine JF-17 can not reach mach 2 even with its afterburners, whereas Gripen can go over mach 2 with a smaller engine.

Mig25 could also fly at mach 3+ speeds but it was horribly inefficient and not at all reliable.

Supercruising abilities of an aircraft have more to do with the airframe than just an engine. A plane can be made to supercruise with even a 60-70 KN dry thrust, and then there are aircraft that can't supercruise with 80-90 KN dry thrust with T/W ratio of over 1.

Drag is what causes bleeding and if the aircraft bleeds a significant amount of energy, then it can not supercruise.

The JF-17 airframe is just not upto the task. Care to disagree but it just is not possible.

BTW, the plane you mentioned English Electric Lightning is designed to be a fast interceptor. Its clearly shaped to fly fast.
Here's a better view for you.

As you can see the wings are swept to a large extent. Even the stabilizers are swept to reduce drag. The swept wing design although helps with the supercruising ability, but it drastically reduces the maneuverability of the aircraft. The wing area is reduced and the lift also decreases. The fuselage is designed to restrict least amount of air and it has two engines. Also another factor that allows it to supercruise is the central shock cone, which were also visible on other supersonic aircraft like Mig21. It helps a lot for speed but nowadays shock cones are not used.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Sir, you can always install a bigger engine to enable supercruise, but the thing is that you're not aiming for just supercruise, you're aiming for supercruise and fuel efficiency and maneuverability.

The airframe of JF-17 is such that it will bleed energy very quickly. You can make it to supercruise but you'd need a much bigger engine.
Even with current engine JF-17 can not reach mach 2 even with its afterburners, whereas Gripen can go over mach 2 with a smaller engine.

Mig25 could also fly at mach 3+ speeds but it was horribly inefficient and not at all reliable.

Supercruising abilities of an aircraft have more to do with the airframe than just an engine. A plane can be made to supercruise with even a 60-70 KN dry thrust, and then there are aircraft that can't supercruise with 80-90 KN dry thrust with T/W ratio of over 1.

Drag is what causes bleeding and if the aircraft bleeds a significant amount of energy, then it can not supercruise.

The JF-17 airframe is just not upto the task. Care to disagree but it just is not possible.

BTW, the plane you mentioned English Electric Lightning is designed to be a fast interceptor. Its clearly shaped to fly fast.
Here's a better view for you.

As you can see the wings are swept to a large extent. Even the stabilizers are swept to reduce drag. The swept wing design although helps with the supercruising ability, but it drastically reduces the maneuverability of the aircraft. The wing area is reduced and the lift also decreases. The fuselage is designed to restrict least amount of air and it has two engines. Also another factor that allows it to supercruise is the central shock cone, which were also visible on other supersonic aircraft like Mig21. It helps a lot for speed but nowadays shock cones are not used.

As for JAS-30 going Mach 2, well see this:

JF-17: Empty weight: 6,411 kg (14,134 lb)

Gripen: Empty weight: 5,700 kg (12,600 lb)

So here is the basic difference, Gripen has nearly the same thrust engine as JF-17, but Gripen is lighter compared to JF-17. So it can have greater speed.

And as for the swept wing design, if you look at JF-17, F-16 or any other aircraft, there is already swept design in them.

In the old days, the jet fighters used to had a lot of drag issue as their wings were straight, but when the swept design was brought in, the drag issue was solved.

Similarly, all modern design aircraft has swept design in them, thus the drag issue has been solved to a great extend.

See F-22, JAS-39, Typhoon, even the huge Su-35s would be having super cruise capability, even though they have large aerodynamic profiles, and the swept angle in the wings is equal to or equal to or less when compared to JF-17.

In JF-17 after the LERX ends, see the swept of the wing till the wing tip missile rail.

JF-17 with its current design can do super cruise and won't have much of a problem in the efficiency and effectiveness fields, but all it needs is more composites to lighten its weight and engine to give it that speed.

Su-35

& JF-17

See the design of all the aircraft wings and their sweptness.