JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[gambit]

Additional clarification about 'quadruplex'.

Q. Why do we need to split one input (such as pitot air) into four in the first place?

A. Because we live in an imperfect world.

Mechanical doo-dads wears out. Electronics loses their properties and performance with age. Anyone ever seen a leaked out capacitor in the early days of electronics engineering? So if we keep only one output from the pilot control stick to become an input to the FLCC, how do we know that the source is reliable over time and usage? We do not. Hence the brilliant idea of splitting into four and vote on them.

If the control stick wore out over time, one or more of the positional transducers will be out of tolerance. If the pitot-static probe is clogged, full or partial, there will be such wide discrepancy of air data that the entire system will be rendered useless. One into four gives us the real time redundancy checking and transparency of operations we want.

General Dynamics refined the architecture to the point where the -16's FBW-FLCS sets the standards for the current technology we see today in both military and civilian applications, and not just in aviation but in future drive-by-wire cars as well.

 

[Nishan_101]

I think the JF-17 Block-IIs might appear in public very soon with:
1. Dual seat
2. Composite
3. Retractable In Flight Refueling Probe
4. FLIR and IRST Pod.
5. RD-93B(might be possible a 100KN)
6. AESA with advance avionics and weapons

I am sure that it will going to impress us all. INSHA ALLAH. Ameen.

Hopefully the GoP will going to release the funds as well INSHA ALLAH and it will be produce about 100 for PAF. Ameen.

 

[Jango]

@gambit...what does digital four axes autopilot mean?

 

[Thunder_Rider]

That would be unlikely. The sheet metal information I know of because I asked the very same question about the pod to the relevant person.

So you are saying....... having an Intake mounted H.P with the current Block of JFT for podding or whatsoever would only create trouble ?

 

[Jango]

So you are saying....... having an Intake mounted H.P with the current Block of JFT for podding or whatsoever would only create trouble ?

In simple and plain words...the area around the intake is not sturdy enough for a hardpoint to be attached to and it might easily shear off.

 

[Gentelman]

I think the JF-17 Block-IIs might appear in public very soon with:
1. Dual seat
2. Composite
3. Retractable In Flight Refueling Probe
4. FLIR and IRST Pod.
5. RD-93B(might be possible a 100KN)
6. AESA with advance avionics and weapons

I am sure that it will going to impress us all. INSHA ALLAH. Ameen.

Hopefully the GoP will going to release the funds as well INSHA ALLAH and it will be produce about 100 for PAF. Ameen.

AESA is doubt able any any upgraded engine from Russia is too can't be possible..(atleast it will not be of 100Kn)...
probably 1pod will be used from FLIR or IRST to lower the cost...
PAF can fit IRST themselves so it is unlikely by default....
I also hope for greater payload more speed(maybe) and one more hard point .. :awesome:

 

[gambit]

@gambit...what does digital four axes autopilot mean?

Not sure where you got that from, but autopilot generally have authority over all axes. That is 'authority' not 'command'. Inside the FLCC, autopilot authority basically say 'Go here.' then another section of the FLCC that analyzes (in real time) all flight control surfaces compute the appropriate displacement values for those surfaces and executes those values.

Basic autopilot features are 'Altitude Hold' (ALT HLD) and 'Mach Hold' (MACH HLD). Other aircrafts added 'Attitude Hold' (ATT HLD). Still others added navigation features such as go to ILS station so-and-so. Then came 'Terrain Following' (TFR) that slaved the entire FLCS to the radar system.

If you can give the source where you got that phrase, I can try to clear up some mis-labeling, misphrase, or just simple misunderstanding of autopilot in general.

 

[Jango]

Not sure where you got that from, but autopilot generally have authority over all axes. That is 'authority' not 'command'. Inside the FLCC, autopilot authority basically say 'Go here.' then another section of the FLCC that analyzes (in real time) all flight control surfaces compute the appropriate displacement values for those surfaces and executes those values.

Basic autopilot features are 'Altitude Hold' (ALT HLD) and 'Mach Hold' (MACH HLD). Other aircrafts added 'Attitude Hold' (ATT HLD). Still others added navigation features such as go to ILS station so-and-so. Then came 'Terrain Following' (TFR) that slaved the entire FLCS to the radar system.

If you can give the source where you got that phrase, I can try to clear up some mis-labeling, misphrase, or just simple misunderstanding of autopilot in general.

Actually, my phrase was for a helicopter...the SA 330 Puma...I was reading about them and came across improved avionics, improved intakes and a digital four axis autopilot.

Hope that clears it up.

 

[gambit]

Actually, my phrase was for a helicopter...the SA 330 Puma...I was reading about them and came across improved avionics, improved intakes and a digital four axis autopilot.

Hope that clears it up.

A helo have altitude as an axis due to its unique flight characteristics.

Pitch is 'nose-up'. Roll is 'wing level'. Yaw is 'tail orientation'. Altitude is 'up/down'. Same for dirigibles or 'blimps'. Keep in mind that a helo or blimp can remain in one spatial coordinate and exhibit a nose-up attitude. Same for wing level, even though there is not a real wing, we just call it that to reference the attitude itself. Same for tail orientation. But altitude as an axis is unique to the helo and the blimp because either one can change altitude without changing at least pitch like fixed wing aircraft must do.

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

10-115 at CAC, notice the underbelly "pod"

UPDATE on 06..

"Fierce Dragon" 06 static test aircraft proceeded smoothly

*
Recently, 06 the AVIC Chengfei "Fierce Dragon" static test aircraft completed over 1100 channels of internal patch work into a comprehensive the fuselage wing adhesive tape paste. Early all the preparatory work is progressing smoothly, and has laid a good foundation for the follow-up test to carry out. Xu of Bo Xing-root photo coverage

Same Camera pod which earlier fitted to PT-06 for J-20 chase up. Interesting thing is why it is fitted on a in-service aircraft.

 

[Dazzler]

The superior T:W ratio is useful for all maneuvers, not just vertical. The JF-17 will scrub off speed much quicker than an F-16 in any axis due to less thrust available to maintain the maneuver.

Agility is MUCH MORE than just TWR bro, ever heard of F-4 Phantom? it had two monster turbojets yet the small light agile Fished gave it a run for its money during Vietnam war, F-5 tiger had horrendous TWR but it was once heck of an agile fighter.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Agility is MUCH MORE than just TWR bro, ever heard of F-4 Phantom? it had two monster turbojets yet the small light agile Fished gave it a run for its money during Vietnam war, F-5 tiger had horrendous TWR but it was once heck of an agile fighter.

The Phantom had a T:W ratio of about 0.85, while the Fishbed was very close at 0.84, not that different. The differences in agility were due to other design factors, mostly the design of the wings. The real issues in the Vietnam war were the type of ordnance carried by US planes, and their lack of training for close dogfights, and not the planes as much.

(The T:W ratio of the JF-17 is substantially less than 1, while that of the F-16 is well above it.)

 

[Capt.Popeye]

The Phantom had a T:W ratio of about 0.85, while the Fishbed was very close at 0.84, not that different. The differences in agility were due to other design factors, mostly the design of the wings. The real issues in the Vietnam war were the type of ordnance carried by US planes, and their lack of training for close dogfights, and not the planes as much.

(The T:W ratio of the JF-17 is substantially less than 1, while that of the F-16 is well above it.)

The Phantom was not even designed to dogfight. For that reason it had missile armament and no guns. Similarly the USAF had abandoned most tactics of dogfighting in their training.

 

[Dazzler]

The Phantom had a T:W ratio of about 0.85, while the Fishbed was very close at 0.84, not that different. The differences in agility were due to other design factors, mostly the design of the wings. The real issues in the Vietnam war were the type of ordnance carried by US planes, and their lack of training for close dogfights, and not the planes as much.

(The T:W ratio of the JF-17 is substantially less than 1, while that of the F-16 is well above it.)

The differences in agility were due to other design factors thats the point

 

[gambit]

The Phantom was not even designed to dogfight. For that reason it had missile armament and no guns. Similarly the USAF had abandoned most tactics of dogfighting in their training.

Not true...

Here is how the USAF trains...In escalation of difficulty and lethality...

1- Basic Fighter Maneuvers (BFM) -- Except that this is not about flight school. It is about trained or even combat experienced pilots taking everything they know about air combat and pushed them and their knowledge to the next level.

BFM-Offensive: Put the pilot at a tactical advantage, which is behind an adversary, and trains him on how to maintain that advantage.

BFM-Defensive: Put the pilot at a tactical disadvantage, which is in front of an adversary, and trains him on how to extricate himself from that disadvantage and get into the Offensive.

BFM-Neutral: Pilot and adversary pass each other nose-to-nose at combined speed of over 1,000 kts and trains the pilot on how to achieve the Offensive.

BFM-Dissimilar: Put the pilot in Neutral and against an unknown adversary platform and trains him how to achieve the Offensive.

2- Air Combat Maneuvering (ACM) -- Put the pilot and his wingman against a single adversary and rotate all contestants through Offensive, Defensive, Neutral, and Dissimilar. This not only reinforced BFM lessons but also to train the pilot on how to coordinate his flying with his wingman to increase the odds of victory.

3- Air Combat Tactics (ACT) -- Put the pilot and his wingman against a pair of adversary. Again, rotate all contestants through Offensive, Defensive, Neutral, and Dissimilar.

ACT-Within Visual Range and ACT-Beyond Visual Range are self explanatory.

The most realistic is ACT-Dissimilar and our pilots went toe-to-toe against Russian line fighters. And no one can cheat with ACMI pods attached to his aircraft.