JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[CriticalThought]

IMO Block 3 doesnt deserve a new engine..RD-93 will be enough since composite will be incorporated and AESA is lighter than PESA

The main feature we are looking for in RD-93 MA is FADEC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FADEC

When truly combined with digital FBW it lessens the pilot's burden by eliminating the need to continuously control the thrust. The resulting freeing up of cognitive facilities can be a decisive factor in a battle of life and death.

The wikipedia page lists the following advantages

• Better fuel efficiency
• Automatic engine protection against out-of-tolerance operations
• Safer as the multiple channel FADEC computer provides redundancy in case of failure
• Care-free engine handling, with guaranteed thrust settings
• Ability to use single engine type for wide thrust requirements by just reprogramming the FADECs
• Provides semi-automatic engine starting
• Better systems integration with engine and aircraft systems
• Can provide engine long-term health monitoring and diagnostics
• Number of external and internal parameters used in the control processes increases by one order of magnitude
• Reduces the number of parameters to be monitored by flight crews
• Due to the high number of parameters monitored, the FADEC makes possible "Fault Tolerant Systems" (where a system can operate within required reliability and safety limitation with certain fault configurations)
• Saves weight

 

[WarFariX]

well , this might sound stupid of me , is it possible that PAF may not opt for FADEC engine currently in order to minimise the major changes , pilots have to go in training for Block 3 since it has AESA and hopefully HMD? i was thinking that might be later RD-93 might be further upgraded or might be RD-93MA might be modified to suit thunder by 2027 , until then current engine should work? coz fadec sure is a big change which our pilots arent familiar with except for falcons. @Oscar @MastanKhan , your humble opinions sir

 

[CriticalThought]

well , this might sound stupid of me , is it possible that PAF may not opt for FADEC engine currently in order to minimise the major changes , pilots have to go in training for Block 3 since it has AESA and hopefully HMD? i was thinking that might be later RD-93 might be further upgraded or might be RD-93MA might be modified to suit thunder by 2027 , until then current engine should work? coz fadec sure is a big change which our pilots arent familiar with except for falcons. @Oscar @MastanKhan , your humble opinions sir

It will reduce their workload not increase it. What pilot wouldn't want that? Not only that, you have to look at the marketability point of view. Remember, JF-17B has market requirements as one of the key drivers behind it. If you want to market your jet as a true 4th gen fighter, you need FADEC + thrust vectoring + design instability thus providing increased maneuverability.

I would feel sad if after all these years the only advantage we see is AESA with HMD/S. Now if this is because RD-93 MA or some other suitable engine isn't available, we'll have to live with it, but then we should sit back and reflect on how our technological backwardness is hurting us and pulling us back.

 

[WarFariX]

It will reduce their workload not increase it. What pilot wouldn't want that? Not only that, you have to look at the marketability point of view. Remember, JF-17B has market requirements as one of the key drivers behind it. If you want to market your jet as a true 4th gen fighter, you need FADEC + thrust vectoring + design instability thus providing increased maneuverability.

I would feel sad if after all these years the only advantage we see is AESA with HMD/S. Now if this is because RD-93 MA or some other suitable engine isn't available, we'll have to live with it, but then we should sit back and reflect on how our technological backwardness is hurting us and pulling us back.

Thust vectoring on single engine can kill pilot. Instability is not in thunder's design

 

[CriticalThought]

Thust vectoring on single engine can kill pilot. Instability is not in thunder's design

OK. My bad. Maybe not thrust vectoring, although it has been tried experimentally in single engine aircraft:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_VISTA

But JF-17 has instability in the pitch axis where it is also digital FBW with quadruple redundancy. It has augmented stability in yaw and roll.

The pitch axis instability is easy to see if you ever look at the dorsal surface from the right angle. You can notice the slight curvature of the bottom surface. And yes, I am talking about changing the design. And it's not like its never been done. DSI was added towards the later prototypes of Block 1.

 

[MastanKhan]

well , this might sound stupid of me , is it possible that PAF may not opt for FADEC engine currently in order to minimise the major changes , pilots have to go in training for Block 3 since it has AESA and hopefully HMD? i was thinking that might be later RD-93 might be further upgraded or might be RD-93MA might be modified to suit thunder by 2027 , until then current engine should work? coz fadec sure is a big change which our pilots arent familiar with except for falcons. @Oscar @MastanKhan , your humble opinions sir

Hi,

Paf needs a major power boost---.

It should not be any problem if all of it is presented in the BLK3---.

 

[SQ8]

Thust vectoring on single engine can kill pilot. Instability is not in thunder's design

Basis for those statements?

well , this might sound stupid of me , is it possible that PAF may not opt for FADEC engine currently in order to minimise the major changes , pilots have to go in training for Block 3 since it has AESA and hopefully HMD? i was thinking that might be later RD-93 might be further upgraded or might be RD-93MA might be modified to suit thunder by 2027 , until then current engine should work? coz fadec sure is a big change which our pilots arent familiar with except for falcons. @Oscar @MastanKhan , your humble opinions sir

Fadec does little to pilot changes or training- if anything, it makes it easier for the pilot. What makes you think FADEC is not implemented?

 

[WarFariX]

Basis for those statements?


Fadec does little to pilot changes or training- if anything, it makes it easier for the pilot. What makes you think FADEC is not implemented?

Basics for those statements are what i saw the elites here talking on TVC that while performing a Maneuver with TVC , The G limits might cross the bearable ability of human and result would be fatal. Although there was an F-16 with 3D TVC but the project was closed. It takes lot of power. Airframe might not be able to resist the pressure

Secondly , i myself find it hard to believe that thunders lack FADEC but what we know is what we know [emoji53] [emoji53] . And since no official word i have seen for FADEC so cant conclude any statement

 

[SQ8]

Basics for those statements are what i saw the elites here talking on TVC that while performing a Maneuver with TVC , The G limits might cross the bearable ability of human and result would be fatal. Although there was an F-16 with 3D TVC but the project was closed. It takes lot of power. Airframe might not be able to resist the pressure

Secondly , i myself find it hard to believe that thunders lack FADEC but what we know is what we know [emoji53] [emoji53] . And since no official word i have seen for FADEC so cant conclude any statement

I don't know what you read or what, but no jet has TVC installed and not have control laws for its flight computer that prevents it from overstressing its airframe.

It is useless because beyond slow speed fights, TVC adds nothing at high speed over existing aerodynamic forces and creates great drag.

Moreover , with high off boresight missiles - TVC is all but redundant in a normal many vs many combat scenario

 

[WarFariX]

I don't know what you read or what, but no jet has TVC installed and not have control laws for its flight computer that prevents it from overstressing its airframe.

It is useless because beyond slow speed fights, TVC adds nothing at high speed over existing aerodynamic forces and creates great drag.

Moreover , with high off boresight missiles - TVC is all but redundant in a normal many vs many combat scenario

sir does fadec tech keeps on evolving just like engines and avionics?

 

[CriticalThought]

sir does fadec tech keeps on evolving just like engines and avionics?

FADEC will need upgrading when u want to push the limits of the flight envelope.

The F-22 is a good example. They wanted it to perform maneuvers that were previously thought impossible. So they left a lot of leeway in its flight control surfaces: flaps, ailerons etc. These would be controlled by a computer, but due to the complexity nobody could just program the computer. A large part of the F-22 program consisted of test pilot flying it and gently pushing the flight envelope. From this, data on things like airspeed etc was collected and the programming of the central computer enhanced.

It is conceivable that such upgrades could keep happening for JF-17 iteratively.

 

[MastanKhan]

sir does fadec tech keeps on evolving just like engines and avionics?

Hi,

Off course it is evolving---but it does not mean that all the changes are made just like that---.

The design has to be kept stable to be profitable and TECHNICIANS WELL TRAINED for the current equipment.

To be of military grade---it has to tested for a longtime as well---. That is why---you don't see a major change too often---but some general tweaking of the system with minimal modifications.

Changes are made for newer models---or if and when the aircraft goes in for a total re-furbish upgrade and the new equipment would be installed across the line---.

Here is an interesting article---enjoy.

http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/pistons/piston-engine-technology

https://books.google.com/books?id=p...fadec technology in the last 10 years&f=false

 

[HRK]

Secondly , i myself find it hard to believe that thunders lack FADEC but what we know is what we know

. And since no official word i have seen for FADEC so cant conclude any statement

RD-93 have Electronic Engine Control

 

[WarFariX]

Hi,

Off course it is evolving---but it does not mean that all the changes are made just like that---.

The design has to be kept stable to be profitable and TECHNICIANS WELL TRAINED for the current equipment.

To be of military grade---it has to tested for a longtime as well---. That is why---you don't see a major change too often---but some general tweaking of the system with minimal modifications.

Changes are made for newer models---or if and when the aircraft goes in for a total re-furbish upgrade and the new equipment would be installed across the line---.

Here is an interesting article---enjoy.

http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/pistons/piston-engine-technology

https://books.google.com/books?id=pSrSBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=what+are+the+changes+in+fadec+technology+in+the+last+10+years&source=bl&ots=LB6nTWGd1-&sig=y3JRpG1UqTAK6guzKX0ClImSpbM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjlq5iokMDTAhVJ5GMKHYjBCWAQ6AEIMDAC#v=onepage&q=what are the changes in fadec technology in the last 10 years&f=false

thnx very much sir

 

[Army research]