Boss,
that is the point,
the F-16 was DESIGNED to carry both, JF-17 was not.
Once the aircraft is designed to carry both engines
you can imagine that the engine developers had kept that in their mind and ensure that the engine can be replaced by the other one.
in this case we have a problem putting the Russian engine, we are running after the Ws-13 engine, which is not even fully mature, and over time it will have modifications before it is bullet proof and water tight.
Even if the WS-13 was intended to be RD-93's replica.
I can guarantee you,
even if you have the precise schematics of the RD-93,
even if the russians give you the alloy secrets
even if you have the same fabrication facilities
with all the even ifs
manufacture the same engine in China, and the product will be different from the original.
and integrating and debugging that is an even bigger pain in the @r$3.
so how can PAF/PAC bank on being able to just slapping it in ?
Now for IceCold:
See it this way
What do you call major modification ?
is it a structural change ?
is it concerned with moving equipment within the bay, to accommodate the new engine ?
do you refer changes to the fuselage design ?
All of the above are major changes in their own right, for the sake of the argument as imagine that these are all not the problem.
Just the re-work required in the control systems is bigger task than any one of the above changes.
I am not saying that it is impossible to put another engine in the air craft.
However I am saying it is difficult.
It will require a lot of changes and modifications.
and even when these changes are made, end of the day you will find out self to have made more compromises than any thing else.
Imagine this,
you have to move the mount point of the engine 6" for the new engine.
That is all, only 6 ", weight distribution is the same, every little detail is the same.
Now to make a new mount point, you will first remove the first one,
on the new mount point position, you will have to make the following:
1. Structural impact whereby you will have to study the stresses placed on the supporting fuselage. You will have to analyze take of, landing, super sonic, turns etc in account and simulate as much as possible to avoid experimentation.
2. Metal fatigue analysis: you will re-do all your calculations to analyze the ALL metal fatigue variables to make sure that this change will not cause an out of bound change any where else.
3. Vibration stabilization: This is EXTREMELY critical and it is self explanatory.
4. You will have to re-calibrate all your control systems to ensure your FBWs and rest work as they should.
the above 4 are just the some major tasks,
Now imagine you will have to do the above several times over to pass the quality cycles.
That is engineering for you ! and this is how meticulously a war machine is produced.
You raise some valid points which is a delight to read.
I think the question is - how much did the JF-17 designers knew about the WS-13 engine when designing the plane and how well tailored is the WS-13 for the JF-17.
Another thing to consider is how much data from the testing they have. Sure enough, even if WS-13 is simulated to fit perfectly, it will still require a thorough testing to verify the same.
The 'assumption' here, which is quite a strong assumption by the way, is that the WS-13 was intended for the JF-17 all the way and it couldn't so happen because the WS-13 wasn't working flawlessly by then. Then again the question is what was changed in the WS-13 and how drastically different (in terms of weight, dimensions, etc) it is from the originial design or is it some internal modifications.
If rumors are to be believed that the WS-13 is already doing taxi trials, then one could imagine that a prototype has been used all this time trying to integrate the WS-13 into the JF-17 and that the engineering 'nightmare' phase has passed - well except for the unforeseen concerns you will encounter when the real thing flies because even your best estimates and simulations won't work perfectly in the real world.
If such is the case, the second batch of JF-17s could very well be using the WS-13 ( if it passes all tests).
In order to reverse engineer a product you ought ot have the thinging, the brains and the technology to stand behind yoru work.
Why do you need to reverse engineer something---that is the first question---you do it because you were not capable of designing it in the first place---.
Now if you were not capable of designing it in the first place---then your end product will not meet the performance level of what you are copying----this is design engineering in its simplest form.
Hello Khan Sahib, how are you doing?
Not every 'reverse engineered' product has to be inferior to the original one. Reverse engineering is quite a loose term which can range from someone disintegrating a piece and equipment trying to replicate it by essentially measuring every part and building it - without understanding how the darn thing works- and thinking when they put together everything, it will work just fine, since it did for the original equipment.
On the other hand, reverse engineering will provide you a platform on which to stand on - as a measure of bypassing the long process of reinventing the wheel - and begin the race.
A lot of research today is based on criticially analyzing a brilliant piece of someone else's research - which you probably didn't think of or could develop on you own - and providing improvements on it. In reasearch, you usually have the other guys publication to work on while in reverse engineering, you basically have the product and need to figure out the other person's ideas yourself.
Depending on how capable you are, you can make both inferior or superior product from a reverse engineered one.
