JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 6]

[Stephen Cohen]

@salman-1

In the table that you have posted why is the F 16 missing ?

 

[Dazzler]

did you guys miss this part? after the ALR-400RWR integration, now the EW suite is changed to Indra's EWSC.

EW Suite Controller (EWSC): M/s Indra’s EW Suite Controller (EWSC) pre-integration was successfully accomplished in DSI Lab. Chaff & Flare Dispenser (CFD) made by Air Weapons Complex (AWC) has also been
interfaced with EWSC, and pre-integration has been verified in DSI lab.

 

[HRK]

did you guys miss this part? after the ALR-400RWR integration, now the EW suite is changed to Indra's EWSC.

I once asked about it but seems not much information is available about the sys .....

 

[Dazzler]

I once asked about it but seems not much information is available about the sys .....

strangely, nothing on their website under the defense section tab, fishy!

 

[MastanKhan]

More than 1/3rd of all fuel? :o Where did you come up with that number my friend?

According to the Raymer aircraft design methodology the fuel fraction used up for warmup, takeoff and landing is taken at around 3.5% based upon historical trends.

You are quite right that topping off in the air saves a lot of fuel but warmup, takeoff and landing taking 1/3 or 33% is ridiculous.

I did some rough calculations using historical data estimates and a landing, warmup and takeoff cycle that would be added extra for a non aerial refueled mission would be 5% of the total fuel.

So you save that 5% fuel that can be used for loiter or cruise.
QUOTE]

Hi,

1/3rd consumption is not ridiculous---it is pretty close. 5 % is way beyond ridiculous----if such was the case---loiter time would be no problem for any aircraft in the world.

I remember as a teenager 42 years ago----my dad's friend an aeronautical engineer for PIA at Karachi airport told me that the Boeing 707 consumes more fuel on take off that flying from Karachi to london---second thing he stated was that the fuel is like refined kerosene oil.

So---when I went back to my college---in my physics class I excitedly bring out this information---. That physics professor Khurshid was his name I believe in 1974 at degree college asghar mall rad Rawalpindi---that moron ripped me another arsehole and called me stupid for stating dumb things----.

So---.

 

[fatman17]

With 24 Rafale and now 46 MiG 29s we can safely assume that Egypt is not going for JFT as previously reported.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

With 24 Rafale and now 46 MiG 29s we can safely assume that Egypt is not going for JFT as previously reported.

Egypt already has F 16 and Mirage 2000

Now Rafale and MiG 29

 

[salman-1]

@salman-1

In the table that you have posted why is the F 16 missing ?

I don't why F-16 is not mentioned here. I found the chart that way

 

[alimobin memon]

With 24 Rafale and now 46 MiG 29s we can safely assume that Egypt is not going for JFT as previously reported.

Its their right to induct these jets its understood. But its sad instead of going for jets that are totally reliable they go again for rafales. these nato families will surely in future put embargoes for the parts and all and egypt will again suffer.

 

[JamD]

Hi,

1/3rd consumption is not ridiculous---it is pretty close. 5 % is way beyond ridiculous----if such was the case---loiter time would be no problem for any aircraft in the world.

I remember as a teenager 42 years ago----my dad's friend an aeronautical engineer for PIA at Karachi airport told me that the Boeing 707 consumes more fuel on take off that flying from Karachi to london---second thing he stated was that the fuel is like refined kerosene oil.

So---when I went back to my college---in my physics class I excitedly bring out this information---. That physics professor Khurshid was his name I believe in 1974 at degree college asghar mall rad Rawalpindi---that moron ripped me another arsehole and called me stupid for stating dumb things----.

So---tell me how do you want to be addressed.

If we are to believe something you heard someone 40 years ago then we are to disregard Mr.Raymer. I can assure you Raymer knows more about aircraft design than your dad's friend.

Please read up on Mr.Daniel P Raymer:
Daniel Raymer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And yes jet fuel is a refined kerosene. JP-4 JP-8 etc.

And I am an aerospace engineer so I can say these things with more confidence than someone who heard it from his dad's friend 40 years ago.

The 707 120B has a 65,600 fuel capacity.

22,000 L of fuel on takeoff and warmup?

If we are to believe you then the aircraft (edit: a fighter jet with external tanks) can just jettison it's tanks right after takeoff because it has already expended most of the 1/3rd fuel in them by the time it takes off (or right before starting it's roll, that'd be more practical).

Here are some numbers to back my claim:
JF-17 Internal fuel load 2330 kg
JF-17 External fuel load (2 1100L tanks) 1785 kg

1785/(1785+2330)=0.43 or 43%

So the two huge tanks are carrying 43% percent of the fuel load. Now if 33% of is burnt at takeoff the aircraft has no need for the tanks lol.

 

[syedali73]

Its their right to induct these jets its understood. But its sad instead of going for jets that are totally reliable they go again for rafales. these nato families will surely in future put embargoes for the parts and all and egypt will again suffer.

Anybody who could get his hands on better systems wont settle with sub par systems. When we could get our hands on F-16s, we did not drop it in favor of F-20s or other sub par systems that were on offer, though it was more than obvious that F-16s were embargo-prone. In Egyptian's case, JF is not even in the league.

 

[Arsalan]

did you guys miss this part? after the ALR-400RWR integration, now the EW suite is changed to Indra's EWSC.

did you guys miss this part? after the ALR-400RWR integration, now the EW suite is changed to Indra's EWSC.

ALR-400RWR is by Indra so what have changed? i guess the name got you confused or am i missing something?

 

[Dazzler]

the best part is,

ALR-400RWR is by Indra so what have changed? i guess the name got you confused or am i missing something?

the Indra suit controller is integrated which was not the earlier, which creates suspicion that the jf-17 is now integrated with a new EW suite made by Indra.

 

[Arsalan]

the best part is,


the Indra suit controller is integrated which was not the earlier, which creates suspicion that the jf-17 is now integrated with a new EW suite made by Indra.

You mean that somewhere it states that the JFT now come with Indra EW suite along with the ALR-400 radar warning received? Where it says that?

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

If we are to believe something you heard someone 40 years ago then we are to disregard Mr.Raymer. I can assure you Raymer knows more about aircraft design than your dad's friend.

Please read up on Mr.Daniel P Raymer:
Daniel Raymer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And yes jet fuel is a refined kerosene. JP-4 JP-8 etc.

And I am an aerospace engineer so I can say these things with more confidence than someone who heard it from his dad's friend 40 years ago.

The 707 120B has a 65,600 fuel capacity.

22,000 L of fuel on takeoff and warmup?

If we are to believe you then the aircraft can just jettison it's tanks right after takeoff because it has already expended most of the 1/3rd fuel in them by the time it takes off (or right before starting it's roll, that'd be more practical).

Here are some numbers to back my claim:
JF-17 Internal fuel load 2330 kg
JF-17 External fuel load (2 1100L tanks) 1785 kg

1785/(1785+2330)=0.43 or 43%

So the two huge tanks are carrying 43% percent of the fuel load. Now if 33% of is burnt at takeoff the aircraft has no need for the tanks lol.

Sir,

Today jet aircraft are 70% more fuel efficient then the 1st Generation ones.


In 1990 air transport contributed some 3.5% to global greenhouse gas emissions. Depending on future trends in aviation, technology and the emissions of other sectors, this share may grow to 15% or more (Penner et al. 1999). As improved energy efficiency will directly reduce the CO2 emissions of today’s kerosene-based aviation, it is important to know how aviation energy efficiency has developed historically and what might happen in the future. Mitigation of climate change is a subject of wide and intense debate. Although international air transport has thus far been exempt from the Kyoto Treaty on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is becoming increasingly clear that this will not remain so in the future. Past and future gains in aviation fuel efficiency have consequently been widely debated. A commonly cited figure of 70% gains between 1960 and 2000 is widely used as a reference for the industry’s technological achievements (Gössling and Peeters 2005). This figure was published in the IPCC’s Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere, which included a graph showing trends in the fuel efficiency of new jet aircraft coming onto the market between 1960 and 2000 (Penner et al. 1999; p. 298). It is this graph – reproduced here in Figure 1 – that suggests the figure of 70% overall fuel efficiency gains between 1960 and 2000, and based on this figure the IPCC indeed concludes: “The trend in fuel efficiency of jet aircraft over time has been one of almost continuous improvement; fuel burned per seat in today's aircraft is 70% less than that of early jets”.