Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
the poster say 78-98..not 96..its a average thrust we take a mean of 86RD-93 = 96kN
the poster say 78-98..not 96..its a average thrust we take a mean of 86
i am not an expert juts amateur but most people say that 96 thrust is pushing engine too far
It was really interesting to see the wing loadings of different platforms
The effect of wing loadings:-
*Pros of lower wing loadings:-
1.Will have better lift at a given speed
2.It will generally be able to take off with greater load
3.Less take off speed
4.superior climb rate
5.More efficent cruising performance
6.Superior sustained turn rates
*Pros of Higher wing loadings:-
1.More suited for high speed flight.
2.Superior instantaneous turn rate.
3.More stable aircraft in turbulance etc.
Now lets compare the wing loadings of some aircrafts with our JF-17
USA :-
F/A-18 - 454 kg/m²
F-15 - 358 kg/m²
F-16 - 431 kg/m²
Europe:-
JAS-39 Gripen - 283 kg/m²
Eurofighter Typhoon - 312 kg/m²
Dassault Rafale - 306 kg/m²
Mirage-2000 - 337 kg/m²
Russia :-
Mig-29 - 442 kg/m²
SU-30 MKI - 401 kg/m²
SU-35 - 408 kg/m²
SU-27 - 371 kg/m²
China:-
J-10 - 335 kg/m²
Now lets compare it with JF-17 Thunder
The newly added LERX to PT-04 gave 9% more wing area
now if we add this to the orignal wing area of JF-17 Thunder which is 24.4m² the total wing area comes out to be 26.6m²
If we calculate the wing loading comes out to be 342.1 kg/m²
So if we base our assumptions on just wing loading then:-
JF-17 Thunder will have:-
1.better lift,climb rate,sustained turn rates with less take off speeds and a more efficent cruising performance than westrean aircrafts.
2.Better instantaneous turn rates,stability and is better suited for high speed flights on low altitudes than European platforms.
3.better lift,climb rate,sustained turn rates with less take off speeds and a more efficent cruising performance than Russian aircrafts.
4.Slightly better instantaneous turn rates than J-10.
It is really interesting because the wing loading of the JF-17 is less when generally compared to the jets that excel in instantaneous turn rates and more when compared to the jets with superior sustained turn rates.
It has most similarity with the Mirage 2000 but with a slightly better instantaneous and slightly weaker in the sustained turn rate performances.
......These are for when we only use the wing loading ......
P.S.. take it easy one me guys cuz basically i had no idea what i was writing about the whole time,im just an amatuer with no know how what so ever,i just wanted some members to also comment on the wing loadings a subject that was not discussed in great detail (Im sorry if it was)...
I stand corrected, 98kN.
I don’t think I agree. Yes you don’t what to be running your engine on the higher end most of the time, but if 98kN is the maximum given by the manufacturer, then it is more logical to give 98kN AS THE MAXIMUM. Choosing to run the engine at 98kN for 5 seconds, or 5 minutes or 5 hours is something else. The point remains the maximum thrust is 98kN.
If you are presenting a case where the “average” power makes sense, then mention that you are talking about the average – like they do for radar power, they normally give “mean”.
“Most people” don’t matter. They know little about RD-33 workings or the RD-93, and more so the latest and improved versions. What matters is what Klimov are saying unless you can prove otherwise.
On my part I have the Klimov brochure (official) and also the PAF JF-17 pilot I spoke to at Farnborough saying the Thunder has a TWR > 1. Yes I did not record the guy, but if he was at the stand representing the PAF, that, in my view is as good as it gets.
You have touched on a topic I tried to discuss last month and got no response. I will get into it in the evening when I get home. I would like to understand more about this. What I am not sure and would like to get first is the 24.4 sqm? When did we get the 24.4 figure? Before or after PT-04?
Doesn’t the canards improve the fighter nose-point ability?
Superior thrust should help the sustained turn rate. That’s my view. As you loose less speed.
My view is also that wing-loading will help determine the maximum altitude/service ceiling. I.e. lower wing loading means the plane can fly higher. If so, I then question how the Thunder has a high altitude than the Gripen?
You have touched on a topic I tried to discuss last month and got no response. I will get into it in the evening when I get home. I would like to understand more about this. What I am not sure and would like to get first is the 24.4 sqm? When did we get the 24.4 figure? Before or after PT-04?
Doesnt the canards improve the fighter nose-point ability?
Superior thrust should help the sustained turn rate. Thats my view. As you loose less speed.
My view is also that wing-loading will help determine the maximum altitude/service ceiling. I.e. lower wing loading means the plane can fly higher. If so, I then question how the Thunder has a high altitude than the Gripen?
Have you looked at the wing loading figures for the F-104 and the X-15? Obviously, there are other factors involved in determining the ceiling..