JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 6]

[Deino]

But again what sense would an AL-31FN-powered JF-17 make ?? ... even more it is not that simple: You would need a new and enlarged intake system, with that the whole aircraft's structure would change ...

It would cost a lot to redesign, test again and certify a de facto new aircraft that nearly already exists. As such it would be much simpler and even more cost effective to purchase the J-10.

As a result: CAC will surely does not make this from their own ... and I highly doubt that Pakistan could pay this alone.

Deino

 

[Basel]

Jf-17
length = 49 feet, Wingspan = 31.0 ft, Engine thrust = 18900 lb
F-16
length = 49.3 feet, Wingspan = 32.8 ft, Engine thrust = 29500 lb
J-10
length = 51 feet, Wingspan = 32.8 ft, Engine thrust = 27560 lb

When lengths are almost equal, then why JF-17 engine thrust is lower. With slight redesigning, Al-31FN can be added. Similarly wingspan can be increased to 32 ft to accommodate more weapons or pods.

Increasing size of plane for twin seat JF-17 may allow installation of AL-31FN and it will also add TVC option too. But comparison of both engines from experts can tell how much better will be AL-31FN Pros & Cons? In case it is installed in JF-17 twin seat version.

Bhai please don't use a gun to kill the mosquito :/ AL-31 is another class of engine and you are suggesting a whole new level of designing and integration for JFT to fit with this.
Ooh please what can be done with a little more work up with the present engine similarly as Americans did with their F-414 series for that purpose you are suggesting a whole new category of engine.
A suggestion of EJ-200, 210 even 220 are think able as they are of the same class but with better technology which comes with maintain ability and performance perks but AL-31 it's like putting in a Dumper engine in a car.

If you read my posts then you will know why I suggested AL-31FN for JF-17s twin seat version because it should be as different to single seat version as F-16s & F-2s (Japan) are and for that you will need AL-31FN with TVC and after that no new 4 or 4++ gen fighter will ever be needed by PAF as they could play around that larger air frame and more powerful engine for their needs.

Sorry, but a larger version of the JF-17 with an AL-31FN simply does not make any sense ... then it would be a direct rival for the J-10 !

Is F-2 a rival of F-16??

 

[Deino]

@ Basel ! What does the F-2 has to do with the F-16 in this regard ! My point is that CAC won't develop a competing design from their own founds and Pakistan simply cannot afford the development on its own.

YES, if Pakistan can pay for the development in the same way Mitsubishi paid to LM, then YES all is feasible ... but in the end a further development of the J-10 would make much more sense than to scale up the FC-1 to an J-10 equivalent..

Don't get me wrong, but as long as we are discussion in a realistic way ... it won't happen, otherwise as a pure what if it is possible, but then I'm sure we are simply in the wrong forum here.

What You suggest is as if Northrop would scale up the F-20 or Saab its Gripen to fit an F100/F110 engine to be a F-16-comparable fighter ... as such in the end it is much wiser what Mitsubishi did: They simply took the F-16 and modified to the F-2.

Deino

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

[QUOTE="Basel, post: 6873595, member: 150717"]Increasing size of plane for twin seat JF-17 may allow installation of AL-31FN and it will also add TVC option too. But comparison of both engines from experts can tell how much better will be AL-31FN Pros & Cons? In case it is installed in JF-17 twin seat version.



If you read my posts then you will know why I suggested AL-31FN for JF-17s twin seat version because it should be as different to single seat version as F-16s & F-2s (Japan) are and for that you will need AL-31FN with TVC and after that no new 4 or 4++ gen fighter will ever be needed by PAF as they could play around that larger air frame and more powerful engine for their needs.



Is F-2 a rival of F-16??[/QUOTE]
Increasing the size would not be too much only 0.2-0.4 feet in length just to accommodate a longer nose so that an other type of radar may be added. The wing span may be increased to increase performance. The major change that might be done is to create space by reducing weight so that the second pilot can be accommodated. One more modification could be to the fuselage but how would that effect the engine space and other goodies is not yet known. One can only speculate, once a proto-type is produced and made public then only one can see what changes are made. There is a possibility that JF-17B would not have the same range as JF-17A.

F2 is not a rival to F-16 but a variant. F-2 was manufactured by Mitsubushi with a customised range that would cover Japan. At that time air to air refuelling and fuel efficient engines were not given a higher priority rather the entire aircraft was designed to be bigger than the F-16. May be if today Japan buys more F-16's they might be with CFT and a better engine and capable of IFR.

 

[Kompromat]

Come on guys, let's rest this AL-31 debate. No such thing is possible nor planned. If we really wish to invest, we ought to follow the Gripen-NG path.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

Come on guys, let's rest this AL-31 debate. No such thing is possible nor planned. If we really wish to invest, we ought to follow the Gripen-NG path.

Gripen always had a good engine unlike JF-17. Better wing and lighter because of carbon fibber.

 

[Ali Q]

Lets see the block 2 fly first and not cook the khayali pullaows around non sensical ideas.. We don't have an economy that can sustain adventurism let's keep limitations in mind.

 

[MastanKhan]

Sorry, but a larger version of the JF-17 with an AL-31FN simply does not make any sense ... then it would be a direct rival for the J-10 !

Hi,

Thank you for your comments---a larger JF17 with an Al-31FN is basically a J 10----.

 

[Kompromat]

Gripen always had a good engine unlike JF-17. Better wing and lighter because of carbon fibber.

and always overpriced

 

[MastanKhan]

This might be possible as J-10 might never be put for export.

Sir,

Firstly---J 10 was just offered to Pakistan a few months ago---20 of them---.

At this time---anything and everything from china is available to Pakistan. For some items---Pakistan needs the funds---other items are available for very soft loans----.

China is being cornered---situation with Japan, Vietnam, Philipines, USA, India is not the best. The Japanese are flying 400 + sorties a month to face off Chinese aircraft---the stress level in the Japanese pilots is extremely high---and that is just the air force---the Japanese navy is busy 24/7 at high alert---margin of error is reduced to zero------lots and lots of issues---east and south china seas are a hot zone.

China wants to secure its flanks and wants to keep its trade routes open and one of the routes is thru Pakistan.

Gripen always had a good engine unlike JF-17. Better wing and lighter because of carbon fibber.

Hi,

99% of the world fighter aircraft are flying and doing a tremendous job without carbon fiber parts. The most important things that are needed are an Aesa radar, JHMCS and off bore sight missiles.

Lets see the block 2 fly first and not cook the khayali pullaows around non sensical ideas.. We don't have an economy that can sustain adventurism let's keep limitations in mind.

Sir,

What kind of comments are these---please expand on your thoughts.

 

[Ali Q]

Sir,

Firstly---J 10 was just offered to Pakistan a few months ago---20 of them---.

At this time---anything and everything from china is available to Pakistan. For some items---Pakistan needs the funds---other items are available for very soft loans----.

China is being cornered---situation with Japan, Vietnam, Philipines, USA, India is not the best. The Japanese are flying 400 + sorties a month to face off Chinese aircraft---the stress level in the Japanese pilots is extremely high---and that is just the air force---the Japanese navy is busy 24/7 at high alert---margin of error is reduced to zero------lots and lots of issues---east and south china seas are a hot zone.

China wants to secure its flanks and wants to keep its trade routes open and one of the routes is thru Pakistan.



Hi,

99% of the world fighter aircraft are flying and doing a tremendous job without carbon fiber parts. The most important things that are needed are an Aesa radar, JHMCS and off bore sight missiles.



Sir,

What kind of comments are these---please expand on your thoughts.

hahahaha.... realm of stupidity.. No thanks Khan Sahb

 

[MastanKhan]

hahahaha.... realm of stupidity.. No thanks Khan Sahb

What realm---. Please---let us not talk in riddles---speak up---what do you want to say.

 

[Ali Q]

What realm---. Please---let us not talk in riddles---speak up---what do you want to say.

I was just feeling that our forum here is a lot more of a make-a-wish sort of an affair.. out of which most of the things don't normally make sense .. and we keep trolling each other, like we are right now.

 

[MastanKhan]

I was just feeling that our forum here is a lot more of a make-a-wish sort of an affair.. out of which most of the things don't normally make sense .. and we keep trolling each other, like we are right now.

What were your expectations and what do you mean by "trolling now"!

 

[Manticore]

Jf-17
length = 49 feet, Wingspan = 31.0 ft, Engine thrust = 18900 lb
F-16
length = 49.3 feet, Wingspan = 32.8 ft, Engine thrust = 29500 lb
J-10
length = 51 feet, Wingspan = 32.8 ft, Engine thrust = 27560 lb

When lengths are almost equal, then why JF-17 engine thrust is lower. With slight redesigning, Al-31FN can be added. Similarly wingspan can be increased to 32 ft to accommodate more weapons or pods.

If you need a different / bigger fighter, then modifications have to be done. Either go for the already in production delta canard j10 which has better high altitude performance or design a new fighter from the ground up which will cost a lot of money in R&D and an indefinite completion time frame

The cranked-arrow wing shape in F16XL provided better low-speed lift and handling characteristics than the modified "double-delta" wing used on the other SST.
The design of the cranked-arrow wing was a cooperative effort of
the General Dynamics Corporation and the NASA Langley Research
Center (LaRC). The cranked arrow wing, common for both the F-16XL-1 and F-16XL-2 versions, was designed to provide the F-16 aircraft with improved supersonic performance while maintaining transonic performance that was comparable with that provided by the current F-16 design.The resultant design had a leading-edge (LE) sweep angle of 70 deg inboard and 50 deg outboard of the crank. At the juncture of the wing leading edge with the fuselage, an S-blend curve was placed in the leading edge to alleviate a pitch instability that was found to occur at high angles of attack in wind-tunnel tests and wing-tip missiles installed.
NASA Armstrong Fact Sheet: F-16XL Laminar Flow | NASA
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070003727.pdf
The inital design was to compete for a multi-role strike aircraft contract that was won by the F-15E

or perhaps ditch a new design consideration at all and get what is finally working

''the XL never worked good, all the lift vortexs induced by their sharped delta went to those small wing section in the aft of the main wing, that created negative lift (behind the CG) , inducing constantily "nose down" movement, with that wing they moved the CG more aft and lift vector even more , -it had an leading sweep of arround 70º!''