What's new

JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 6]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course. A better and Chinese engine will be an important step forward for the program.

Hi,

And then what! So---what will happen after wards----.

I say that more buyers will stick with the RD93!! engine. Parts and service easily and readily available----no new setup required---service and maintenance is predictable.
 
Hi,

And then what! So---what will happen after wards----.

I say that more buyers will stick with the RD93!! engine. Parts and service easily and readily available----no new setup required---service and maintenance is predictable.

The RD-93 is giving pretty good performance suitable for a plane like the JF-17 too. But generally, engines tend to go up in power as platforms mature with steady development.
 
waiting for the videos of the anti-ship missile tests as mentioned in the interview. Wonder which one are they going to test C-802 or CMK-400?


not really, that's the job of the aircraft flight control computers. They're suppose to keep the aircraft in its flight envelope at all time even if the pilot pushes it too hard.
JF-17 has fly by wire, which means it has flight envelope protection for +8/-3 Gs. The wing cannot just disintegrate..... Something is not right here

Although a stall could bring it down, but we don't know if that was the cause
Looks like RD-93 overhaul capability is now available at PAC per this program

 
It is. Maybe there's a mistake including F-7s in above post




I think it's about time our forces keep us posted with on-goings. Secrecy is one thing to a required level but covering blunders isn't good


No one likes to hang out their dirty linen
 
Well, that specific role is now being superseded by a 'multi-role' aircraft....the KLJ-7 is superior in all aspects to the radar carried by the Mirages....meaning...it can do a better job at air to air and air to sea.....while carrying more anti ship missiles.....2 or 3 compared to the limited range single Exocet.



So block III will be the first radical re-design.....AESA, more Engine thrust...possibly more hardpoints for the pods and perhaps IRST and true HOBS capability?



It was a test aircraft out of PAC....not an operational one.....meaning the FBW rules can be overridden.....i mean...you write the software...of course you can disable it.

Similar to the Airbus A400 tranporter crash in Spain.....

You're missing my point. Someone posted earlier that the F7s of Masroor were in the maritime role. I was trying to correct that.
 
WTF
 

Attachments

  • 1435558067543.jpg
    1435558067543.jpg
    37.4 KB · Views: 134
.
It's to spread the message that one should obey traffic rules no matter who you are or what you carry . . .. .to ya agr biwi bazar se soda lanay ka kahy to jahan bi ho, jis halat ma bi ho wahan se mur jao hukam bja lanay k liyay. :lol:
 
Those claims of performance parity will be supported only by actual kill ratios in a war using one side or the other's equipment, just like the Soviets aircraft showed during conflicts in the Middle East, and that has not happened yet.
But PAF or Pakistan wont want or ask for a war just to TEST there new weapon system, we are not USA. :)
For now, we have to follow the specs on paper and that is good enough for me, just as it is good enough for all the other countries.
 
Any idea when JF 17 block 2 first squad ig going to be officially raised....?
 
But PAF or Pakistan wont want or ask for a war just to TEST there new weapon system, we are not USA. :)
For now, we have to follow the specs on paper and that is good enough for me, just as it is good enough for all the other countries.

May be the next Kargil will use the JF-17's abilities?

RD-93MA is under evaluation as of now along with WS-13.

Yes, that is known. When will the WS-13 version inducted in service is the question.
 
not really, that's the job of the aircraft flight control computers. They're suppose to keep the aircraft in its flight envelope at all time even if the pilot pushes it too hard.
JF-17 has fly by wire, which means it has flight envelope protection for +8/-3 Gs. The wing cannot just disintegrate..... Something is not right here

Although a stall could bring it down, but we don't know if that was the cause
You are essentially -- correct.

An aircraft's flight envelope contains the physical limits, such as maximum altitude, speed, etc., that the aircraft can operate without departure of controlled flight. Each aircraft have unique flight envelope.

That said, the F-16's maximum rated altitude is (rounded off) 15,000 meters. Does that mean the aircraft will spin out of control at 15,001 meters ? No, it does not. What 'maximum altitude' really mean is that if the pilot want to perform all the maneuvers that made the F-16 famous, he should remain within (below) that altitude limit. If the pilot decide to breach that maximum altitude limit -- for whatever reason -- the jet's FBW system will continue to work to its best capabilities to execute any maneuver commanded.

For speculation's sake, let us say that the F-16's central air data computer (CADC)...

Repairing a F-16 Central Air Data Computer (CADC)

...Cannot compute altitude at 15,100 meters because the air is too thin. The pilot insist that he must reach 15,200 meters. As the air gets thinner and thinner, the jet's entire avionics system struggles to compensate for decreasing static pressure at 15,000 meters altitude. At 15,150 meters, any commanded maneuver may result in excessive flight control surfaces travel because the CADC was not designed to deal with such thin air, thereby the CADC tells the flight control computer (FLCC) that (false) fact, so the FLCC commanded the flight control surfaces to travels as much as possible, trying to grab as much aerodynamic forces as possible, so the jet departs from controlled flight. It does not matter if air density at 15,200 meters altitude is sufficient for the jet to execute maneuvers, the CADC was simply inadequately designed to deal with that altitude, thereby creating a flight envelope limit of 15,000 meters altitude.

FACT: Flight envelope is an artificially created set of rules for a specific aircraft.

Can we -- with software based flight controls laws -- prevent an aircraft from leaving its estimated flight envelope ? Absolutely we can. But the reason it is not wise to do so is because the technology is still limited in dealing with variables that may arise in flight, especially in combat maneuvers.

For example...One tactic to deceive/seduce an IR sensor is to flight straight into the sun, so a pilot may need to exceed AOA limits temporarily to save his life. The jet's FLCC does not know there is a missile coming. The pilot does.

On the other hand, allowing the pilot that kind of freedom can and have been dangerous. If during straight and level flight, I kicked left rudder. Modern FBW jets practically removed pilot rudder inputs in maneuvers. The jet can perform coordinated turns better than any pilot can. So what need is there for me to kick left rudder in straight and level flight ? None. I have just departed from controlled flight.

Can I controlled flight straight into the ground ? Absolutely I can and sadly many pilots, in peace and in war, have. It is called CFIT.

Controlled flight into terrain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I do not command pitch up when approaching a mountain top, I will perform a CFIT. Maybe it was dark. Maybe I am dazed from lack of blood because I was wounded in combat. The jet does not know there is an approaching mountain top. I do, or at least supposed to know.

Modern FBW-FLCS make aircrafts of any performance level safer to fly, which includes maneuvers, but the technology cannot prevent the pilot from taking the aircraft out of its specified safety zone, either intentionally or unintentionally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom