JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[Amigator]

IAF said that Tejas endurance is 59 mins only. Suppose they are assuming it in clean mode (without external fuel tanks). At 2011 French Air show in PAF Thunder presentation it's mentioned that JFT's endurance is 3.5 hrs.

Suppose it's with external drop tanks. Then a JFT's endurance in different conditions would be:

(Note: JFT has two types of Side Drop tanks. One variant can accommodate 800 ltr. & other 1100 ltr. I am supposing that above mentioned endurance is calculated with full capacity i.e. Internal Fuel + (2 * 1100 ltr. external side tank) + (1 * 800 ltr. center line tank)).

1) Internal Fuel + 1 drop tank of 800 ltr. + 2 drop tank of 1100 ltr

2320 kg internal + (818 kg * 1) + (1091 * 2) = 2320 + 818 + 2182 = 5320 KG => 3.5 hrs.

2) Internal Fuel + 1 drop tank of 800 ltr. + 2 drop tank of 800 ltr

2320 kg internal + (818 kg * 1) + (818 * 2) = 2320 + 818 + 1636 = 4774 KG => 3.14 hrs.

3) Internal Fuel + 2 drop tank of 1100 ltr (Just Side Fuel Tanks)

2320 kg internal + 1091 * 2 = 2320 + 2182 = 4502 KG => 2.96 hrs.

4) Internal Fuel + 2 drop tank of 800 ltr (Just Side Fuel Tanks)

2320 kg internal + 818 * 2 = 2320 + 1636 = 3956 KG => 2.60 hrs.

5) Internal Fuel + 1 drop tank of 800 ltr (Just Center Fuel Tanks)

2320 kg internal + 818 = = 3956 KG => 2.06 hrs.

6) Only Internal Fuel

2320 kg => 1.52 hrs.

According to these calculations JFT endurance is not bad at all. But Tejas 59 mins are bad!!!

 

[Dazzler]

AT Dubai Airshow 2017, second day, enjoy..

https://www.facebook.com/

part 2 of the video..

https://www.facebook.com/

notice the "Lack Of" smoke, especially during turns and high alpha.

 

[litman]

passing marks for the thunder. seems to be slightly under powered when compared with the world's standard of fighter jets i.e F-16. the comments of the paf spokesman were displayed on some tv channel and after watching the performance i think he was exaggerating .

 

[CriticalThought]

Interesting to note that 16-219 is displaying significantly reduced black smoke. Can we say that Russian input for reducing smoke started with Block 2? @messiach

Also note what the commentators are saying:

1. They seem confused about the LERX and comparing it with canards. Lack of information on their part.
2. Thrust is comparable to Griffen.
3. Fuel carrying capacity not that great, but it was never design for it in the first place.
4. The main thing they point out is the full 360 turn is not as tight as Gripen and Rafale which can 'pull up to 9 or 10 G on the stick'. This is complete misinformation. They are making the comments during the signature 'Thunder turn' which is an S-maneuver designed to reduce speed. It is NOT designed for optimum turn performance.

passing marks for the thunder. seems to be slightly under powered when compared with the world's standard of fighter jets i.e F-16. the comments of the paf spokesman were displayed on some tv channel and after watching the performance i think he was exaggerating .

It's an understated performance. They show better maneuvers during the 14 Aug preparations. I wonder what might be the reason for understating the performance.

 

[Tempest II]

Interesting to note that 16-219 is displaying significantly reduced black smoke. Can we say that Russian input for reducing smoke started with Block 2? @messiach

Also note what the commentators are saying:

1. They seem confused about the LERX and comparing it with canards. Lack of information on their part.
2. Thrust is comparable to Griffen.
3. Fuel carrying capacity not that great, but it was never design for it in the first place.
4. The main thing they point out is the full 360 turn is not as tight as Gripen and Rafale which can 'pull up to 9 or 10 G on the stick'. This is complete misinformation. They are making the comments during the signature 'Thunder turn' which is an S-maneuver designed to reduce speed. It is NOT designed for optimum turn performance.

View attachment 436602



It's an understated performance. They show better maneuvers during the 14 Aug preparations. I wonder what might be the reason for understating the performance.

Could it be partly to manage the smoke? the 360 turn was long.

 

[fanna4paf2]

good work

 

[litman]

It's an understated performance. They show better maneuvers during the 14 Aug preparations. I wonder what might be the reason for understating the performance.

may be the pilot felt "performance" anxiety in front of international crowd and he was too cautious.

 

[CriticalThought]

Could it be partly to manage the smoke? the 360 turn was long.

Nopes, if you see the 2015 Paris video the smoke happens in all sorts of profiles. This is biased reporting and the pilot holding back for some reason. If you look at the Su-35 and Gripen displays, they are all showing off low speed maneuvers making less noise. Basically, the displays are optimized to show off the performance of canards at low speeds for Rafale and Gripen. For Su-35 its TVC. Maybe there were noise restrictions in place?

 

[Bratva]

Interesting to note that 16-219 is displaying significantly reduced black smoke. Can we say that Russian input for reducing smoke started with Block 2? @messiach

Also note what the commentators are saying:

1. They seem confused about the LERX and comparing it with canards. Lack of information on their part.
2. Thrust is comparable to Griffen.
3. Fuel carrying capacity not that great, but it was never design for it in the first place.
4. The main thing they point out is the full 360 turn is not as tight as Gripen and Rafale which can 'pull up to 9 or 10 G on the stick'. This is complete misinformation. They are making the comments during the signature 'Thunder turn' which is an S-maneuver designed to reduce speed. It is NOT designed for optimum turn performance.

View attachment 436602



It's an understated performance. They show better maneuvers during the 14 Aug preparations. I wonder what might be the reason for understating the performance.

The thrust and engine power displayed by Gripen or by Tejas in Bahrain airshow is much better than JF-17 engine power. You can pull up all JF-17 airshow performances and maneuvers and you can see the pattern. JF-17 maneuvers seems restricted as compare to F-16 or gripen .

 

[CriticalThought]

The thrust and engine power displayed by Gripen or by Tejas in Bahrain airshow is much better than JF-17 engine power. You can pull up all JF-17 airshow performances and maneuvers and you can see the pattern. JF-17 maneuvers seems restricted as compare to F-16 or gripen .

Thunder's T/W is 1.09 which is better than F-16 in some mission profiles. There are no power issues.

 

[khanasifm]

http://m.gulfnews.com/business/aviation/dubai-airshow/dubai-airshow-2017-day-2-highlights-1.2123573


Watch: Pakistan Aeronautical Complex is producing fighter jets and trainer aircrafts and they are right here in Dubai at the Dubai Airshow 2017. Air Commodore Sohail Saeed shows us around.

 

[VCheng]

It's an understated performance. They show better maneuvers during the 14 Aug preparations. I wonder what might be the reason for understating the performance.

Perhaps to mislead the enemy by keeping the true performance capabilities under wraps?

 

[razgriz19]

IAF said that Tejas endurance is 59 mins only. Suppose they are assuming it in clean mode (without external fuel tanks). At 2011 French Air show in PAF Thunder presentation it's mentioned that JFT's endurance is 3.5 hrs.

View attachment 436573

Suppose it's with external drop tanks. Then a JFT's endurance in different conditions would be:

(Note: JFT has two types of Side Drop tanks. One variant can accommodate 800 ltr. & other 1100 ltr. I am supposing that above mentioned endurance is calculated with full capacity i.e. Internal Fuel + (2 * 1100 ltr. external side tank) + (1 * 800 ltr. center line tank)).

1) Internal Fuel + 1 drop tank of 800 ltr. + 2 drop tank of 1100 ltr

2320 kg internal + (818 kg * 1) + (1091 * 2) = 2320 + 818 + 2182 = 5320 KG => 3.5 hrs.

2) Internal Fuel + 1 drop tank of 800 ltr. + 2 drop tank of 800 ltr

2320 kg internal + (818 kg * 1) + (818 * 2) = 2320 + 818 + 1636 = 4774 KG => 3.14 hrs.

3) Internal Fuel + 2 drop tank of 1100 ltr (Just Side Fuel Tanks)

2320 kg internal + 1091 * 2 = 2320 + 2182 = 4502 KG => 2.96 hrs.

4) Internal Fuel + 2 drop tank of 800 ltr (Just Side Fuel Tanks)

2320 kg internal + 818 * 2 = 2320 + 1636 = 3956 KG => 2.60 hrs.

5) Internal Fuel + 1 drop tank of 800 ltr (Just Center Fuel Tanks)

2320 kg internal + 818 = = 3956 KG => 2.06 hrs.

6) Only Internal Fuel

2320 kg => 1.52 hrs.

According to these calculations JFT endurance is not bad at all. But Tejas 59 mins are bad!!!

Yeah well IAF made calculations based on 5 mins Full after burner, high power take off run, and other parameters in mind.
JF-17 endurance is about 50mins using the same criteria as IAF. JF17 carries about the same fuel (or less) as Tejas and has a less efficient engine. You do the math.

 

[ziaulislam]

Yeah well IAF made calculations based on 5 mins Full after burner, high power take off run, and other parameters in mind.
JF-17 endurance is about 50mins using the same criteria as IAF. JF17 carries about the same fuel (or less) as Tejas and has a less efficient engine. You do the math.

only think that hit tejas hard is the maintenance complaint, requiring 5x time maintenance as compared to f-16/gripen
its low endurance is understandable
probably thunders endurance will be the same as tejas,
though its is lighter than tejas, tejas was heavier than what it was suppose to be, could that have caused more than expected endurance issues

now i am a amateur and have no info on engines but from what i read before somewhere was The RD-33 was lighter, more fuel efficient, and had better thrust to weight ratio. It had four fan stages and nine compressor stages, whereas the F404 had only three fan stages and seven compressor stages. although it time to overhaul was way less about 400hours

1.so I thought engine was more reliable and better serviceable for tejas but not more fuel efficient
2. tejas i heavier than what it was suppose to be
3. not sure which design (pure delta vs thunder double delta) makes it inherently less efficient
correct me if i am wrong

 

[Amigator]

Yeah well IAF made calculations based on 5 mins Full after burner, high power take off run, and other parameters in mind.
JF-17 endurance is about 50mins using the same criteria as IAF. JF17 carries about the same fuel (or less) as Tejas and has a less efficient engine. You do the math.

Do you really think with full capacity of 5320 kg (internal plus external) It would fly for 50 mins? I don't think so!

Suppose PAC presentation says 3.5 for HHH (high, high, high) mission, In case of a LHL (low, high, low) war like scenario atleast it will fly for half time which is 105 mins. What do you say?