JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[HRK]

It cannot mount a 1100 KG missile on inner or outer pylon---but only the center pylon---and that was made very clear by the vice ACM a couple of years ago and discussed quite a bit on this JF17 thread---.

Well it can---but after the launch of one ALCM---the aircraft would roll over---.

OK this debate has been dragged too much though good points are made by both sides but the very basic of this debate is initiated with wrong assumption that JF-17 will have difficulty in carrying two Anti-ship missiles

I think its suitable to have a look at what ACM Khalid had said in his interview

Now the very first thing about this asymmetric configuration is that it is adopted to have better range over sea during Anti ship operations and as we know JF-17 carry 3000 litre fuel internally so carrying two anti-ship missiles without additional fuel tank will reduce the range drastically, therefore in asymmetric configuration of 1 anti-ship missile and two external fuel tank of 1,100 L and 800 L gives almost 81% of total fuel caring capacity for anti-ship role without air to air refuelling which mean with air to air refuelling JF-17 in anti-ships role now could take two anti-ship missiles without sacrificing range.

secondly both inner pylon of JF-17 can carry 1100 KG weight (1 litre= 1 KG) which is evident as JF-17 carry two 1,100 litre fuel tanks on each inner pylons centre pylon can carry 800 litre fuel tank

Third I find no reason why JF-17 flight control system would not be able to deal with difference of load at both wings after the release of anti-ship missile here we must keep in mind fuel weigh is not a constant number but a dynamic figure due to its consumption during the flight so as explained by gambit i believe 1,100 L fuel tank at the other inner pylon would be used first as feed tank to the main fuel tank of JF-17 in this configuration hence reducing the weight.

 

[gambit]

This is going to be fun...

The main argument is
1. Aircraft CG can be altered by re distributing fuel. Which you've also agreed.

Yes, I did.

2. It can be automated by FCS (FBW and fuel management system) which you say is not desirable.

What 'can be' done does not equate to proof. You do not need a law degree to understand that. Even in a court of public opinion.

3. You want proof that JF-17 has such a system.

We all do.

And infact did some further reading on the topic to to confirm my hypothesis.

You sounds like a smart guy. Then you should know that a hypothesis does not equate to proof, let alone a solidified theory.

Yes normally there is sequential transfer of fuel between tanks but the system can be controlled via cross feed pumps to manage a mismatch or alter CG manually. And in more modern jets it can be managed by the flight control system. This is the thing you are not agreeing to and that the JF-17 doesnt have such a system, you want proof.

I'm sharing extract from a book please read last four lines of extract to confirm FCS and fuel system can work together and such systems exist on F-35 and Eurofighter.

You mean this: "This mean that the fuel system and FCS must exchange information with appropriate integrity and this can significantly affect the design of each system. Examples of where this is implemented are highly agile aircraft such as Eurofighter Typhoon and F-35." ?

Sorry, but that still does not constitute proof. I advised you to do lots of basic research, did I not?

Center of Gravity (CG)...Here is the kicker...

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

In fixed-wing aircraft, lateral balance is often much less critical than fore-aft balance, simply because most mass in the aircraft is located very close to its center. An exception is fuel, which may be loaded into the wings, but since fuel loads are usually symmetrical about the axis of the aircraft, lateral balance is not usually affected.

The highlighted is where you cannot apply what you think happens on an airliner onto a smaller jet fighter.

On an airliner, the bulk of the fuel load is in the wings, which means the lateral off-balance condition is a high possibility.

But on a jet fighter, the bulk of the fuel load is in the fuselage, which means the fore/aft off-balance condition is a high possibility. So high the fore-aft off balance condition that an asymmetric wing fuel load is considered normal -- within certain specs for each fighter, of course.

So what the book source you brought on really mean is in reference to the fore-aft off balance condition that the fuel system can communicate to the FLCS so that the jet can auto correct itself.

This is what an aviation fuel quantity probe (sensor) looks like...

http://liquidmeasurement.com/products/fuel-probes/

Each probe is a tube-within-a-tube construct to form a capacitor. The fuel level -- ON LEVEL FLIGHT -- covers the length of the probe. A high fuel level means a virtual large capacitor. The fuel serves as the dielectric. As fuel is used, this virtual capacitor gets smaller and smaller. The capacitor method is the most reliable in terms of durability and precision. The type of fuel quantity measured is weight and the unit is 'pound' or lb.

http://www.industrial-electronics.com/aircraft_11.html

Even on a fighter, a fuselage tank probe can be nearly one meter length. But on a wing tank -- probe length is less than the width of your palm. And as we move towards the wing tip, the fuel tank at that position, if there is one, have no probe at all.

http://www.aerospace2000.com/Products-18.html

Do you see the length of the fuel quantity probe in that source? Yes, it is that short. The holes on the bottom allows fuel to be inside the tube to form the capacitor.

So for a jet fighter to be so worry about asymmetric wing fuel load is absurd. It is a waste of resources to design a compensator for that condition.

What this mean is that on a jet fighter, we are not going to be transferring fuel across the wings to automatically compensate for any type of asymmetric load on the wings, be it from asymmetric weapons or fuel. The wing tanks will feed the fuselage tanks until the wing tanks are empty. The externals will feed the wings until the externals are empty. If there are any lateral asymmetric load, it will be up to the pilot to MANUALLY compensate for that condition via the trim wheel/knob.

Now coming to JF-17, while searching on fuel management systems came across a English translation of the Mig-29 handbook it states if equipped with fuel tanks both sides must have equal fuel. And the sequential system pumps fuel from those external tanks to wing and then the main tanks. Same likely holds for most jets you see carrying equal amount of fuel both wings. Likely why F-16 only uses aft and front load to manage CG and not wing load as it can't handle asymmetric fuel loads on the wings.

Just because you must have equal wing fuel load on the fighter does not mean you are transferring fuel across the wings like the airliner does it. Am not going to research the J-17's wing thickness. You can do that for yourself and see if it is financially acceptable to build such a system.

Reason why I'm saying JF-17 must have a automated mechanism to balance fuel and

resultantly alter CG is because otherwise this loadout configuration in the picture is not possible.
View attachment 469837
It's carrying a asymmetric fuel load and if flight in this configuration is possible it's FCS must be managing fuel transfer on wings.

Wrong...!!!

Even when I was on the F-111, we often flew with asymmetric wing stores. We simply MANUALLY trim the jet. Even on civilian aircrafts, one of the most important thing you learn is trimming. Flying out of trim cost fuel. Flying is actually more mentally taxing than driving. On the road, if your car's suspension is properly aligned, the pavement is a contributor to you bearing fairly straight ahead. But in the air, you have nothing to assist you. The aircraft could be flying out of trim and you would not even know it. So by the time you earned your pilot's license, you would have -- or should have -- been fully trained on how to properly trim the aircraft.

But this does not mean the same technique cannot be used on a fighter jet as well. If the imbalance is too large since everything is now electronically controlled its not too far fetched to believe fuel crossfeed can be used to augment the trim setting. Down side of using trim is it creates unwanted drag and affects range. Since electronic systems are advanced enough the CG method (eg front, aft, left right) has benefits if enough fuel still on board.

Fine. Let us get to the details...

- Pump size?

- Fuel line diameter?

- Fuel flow rate?

- What is the unit of communication to the flight control computer (FLCC)? Meaning, do you want to go with the unit of weight on each wing?

- What are your ranges of tolerance? Meaning do you want to trigger lateral fuel transfer upon 1 lb or 10 lbs or 100 lbs of difference?

- What if a fuel quantity probe failed in flight? How would the FLCC deals with a sudden loss of quantity info from one wing? Immediately? Delayed by how long? Cockpit alert level? Or do you think a fuel quantity probe last forever? So if you have an asymmetric weapons load on the port wing, but during flight two fuel quantity probes on the starboard wing failed, now what?

All these are general questions that I doubt you have considered. You think these questions are free, as in money free? No, each time you want to compensate for something, it cost money, and in aviation, it adds weight. So now your per jet cost and per jet weight went up.

You have nothing but your own speculations and faith that the J-17 is equipped with an automatic asymmetric load compensator via lateral fuel transfer.

How about someone in this forum, living in Pakistan, contact an active duty J-17 pilot and ask if there is such a system on the J-17?

Have YOU even consider the possibility of a 'No' answer before you post your assertion that resulted in this debate? If there is such a system, surely the Pakistani pilot would be well trained in it. All he has to say is 'Yea' or 'Nay'. That is not classified information.

By the way, I know what 9g feels like in the F-16. And the view of the planet and of the horizon from the F-16's bubble canopy is magnificent.

Third I find no reason why JF-17 flight control system would not be able to deal with difference of load at both wings after the release..

Of course the jet would be able to compensate, but thru trimming, as in a small deflection of the appropriate flight control surface(s).

On an airliner, an asymmetric load means trapped fuel which means a asymmetric weight, not drag. The engine dropped from the wing would mean both asymmetric weight and drag. But that radical condition is beyond the scope of this debate.

What Mr. Shabi does not understand is the behaviors of an asymmetric drag condition on the jet fighter, like carrying weapons load.

An asymmetric load, notably of drag, tends to produce a rolling motion, as if an aileron or horizontal stab is deflected.

http://www.amaflightschool.org/diy/trimming-ground-directional-controllability

If the airplane is heavy on one side, it will tend to roll that way when in level flight.

The solution for the non-airliner aircraft is to deflect the other (opposite) flight control surface(s), not by transferring fuel back and forth.

Here is what non-flyers usually do not understand...

Fuel that is not sent to the engine(s) is the equivalent of having no fuel at all.

Using rough figures to illustrate my point...

Say my aircraft have two fuel tanks, A and B, and each holds 50 lbs for a total of 100 lbs. With that quantity, I will be able to travel 100 miles.

When a pilot says he has X fuel load, he really means he has X fuel quantity TO BURN. Not how much he carries.

If fuel tank B is shut off, will I still be able to travel that 100 miles? Of course not. My total fuel weight is still the same, but not my capable flight distance, which is now 50 miles.

Ergo...TRAPPED OR CAPTIVE FUEL IS THE SAME AS NO FUEL.

So for the J-17 or F-16 to keep constant fuel in the wings just to transfer them back and forth to compensate for an asymmetric load condition is absurd. You are cutting short your combat range.

 

[HRK]

So for the J-17 or F-16 to keep constant fuel in the wings just to transfer them back and forth to compensate for an asymmetric load condition is absurd. You are cutting short your combat range.

I think it is the crux of the debate ...

 

[Shabi1]

This is going to be fun...


Yes, I did.


What 'can be' done does not equate to proof. You do not need a law degree to understand that. Even in a court of public opinion.


We all do.


You sounds like a smart guy. Then you should know that a hypothesis does not equate to proof, let alone a solidified theory.

You mean this: "This mean that the fuel system and FCS must exchange information with appropriate integrity and this can significantly affect the design of each system. Examples of where this is implemented are highly agile aircraft such as Eurofighter Typhoon and F-35." ?

Sorry, but that still does not constitute proof. I advised you to do lots of basic research, did I not?

Center of Gravity (CG)...Here is the kicker...

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

The highlighted is where you cannot apply what you think happens on an airliner onto a smaller jet fighter.

On an airliner, the bulk of the fuel load is in the wings, which means the lateral off-balance condition is a high possibility.

But on a jet fighter, the bulk of the fuel load is in the fuselage, which means the fore/aft off-balance condition is a high possibility. So high the fore-aft off balance condition that an asymmetric wing fuel load is considered normal -- within certain specs for each fighter, of course.

So what the book source you brought on really mean is in reference to the fore-aft off balance condition that the fuel system can communicate to the FLCS so that the jet can auto correct itself.

This is what an aviation fuel quantity probe (sensor) looks like...

http://liquidmeasurement.com/products/fuel-probes/

Each probe is a tube-within-a-tube construct to form a capacitor. The fuel level -- ON LEVEL FLIGHT -- covers the length of the probe. A high fuel level means a virtual large capacitor. The fuel serves as the dielectric. As fuel is used, this virtual capacitor gets smaller and smaller. The capacitor method is the most reliable in terms of durability and precision. The type of fuel quantity measured is weight and the unit is 'pound' or lb.

http://www.industrial-electronics.com/aircraft_11.html

Even on a fighter, a fuselage tank probe can be nearly one meter length. But on a wing tank -- probe length is less than the width of your palm. And as we move towards the wing tip, the fuel tank at that position, if there is one, have no probe at all.

http://www.aerospace2000.com/Products-18.html

Do you see the length of the fuel quantity probe in that source? Yes, it is that short. The holes on the bottom allows fuel to be inside the tube to form the capacitor.

So for a jet fighter to be so worry about asymmetric wing fuel load is absurd. It is a waste of resources to design a compensator for that condition.

What this mean is that on a jet fighter, we are not going to be transferring fuel across the wings to automatically compensate for any type of asymmetric load on the wings, be it from asymmetric weapons or fuel. The wing tanks will feed the fuselage tanks until the wing tanks are empty. The externals will feed the wings until the externals are empty. If there are any lateral asymmetric load, it will be up to the pilot to MANUALLY compensate for that condition via the trim wheel/knob.


Just because you must have equal wing fuel load on the fighter does not mean you are transferring fuel across the wings like the airliner does it. Am not going to research the J-17's wing thickness. You can do that for yourself and see if it is financially acceptable to build such a system.

Wrong...!!!

Even when I was on the F-111, we often flew with asymmetric wing stores. We simply MANUALLY trim the jet. Even on civilian aircrafts, one of the most important thing you learn is trimming. Flying out of trim cost fuel. Flying is actually more mentally taxing than driving. On the road, if your car's suspension is properly aligned, the pavement is a contributor to you bearing fairly straight ahead. But in the air, you have nothing to assist you. The aircraft could be flying out of trim and you would not even know it. So by the time you earned your pilot's license, you would have -- or should have -- been fully trained on how to properly trim the aircraft.


Fine. Let us get to the details...

- Pump size?

- Fuel line diameter?

- Fuel flow rate?

- What is the unit of communication to the flight control computer (FLCC)? Meaning, do you want to go with the unit of weight on each wing?

- What are your ranges of tolerance? Meaning do you want to trigger lateral fuel transfer upon 1 lb or 10 lbs or 100 lbs of difference?

- What if a fuel quantity probe failed in flight? How would the FLCC deals with a sudden loss of quantity info from one wing? Immediately? Delayed by how long? Cockpit alert level? Or do you think a fuel quantity probe last forever? So if you have an asymmetric weapons load on the port wing, but during flight two fuel quantity probes on the starboard wing failed, now what?

All these are general questions that I doubt you have considered. You think these questions are free, as in money free? No, each time you want to compensate for something, it cost money, and in aviation, it adds weight. So now your per jet cost and per jet weight went up.

You have nothing but your own speculations and faith that the J-17 is equipped with an automatic asymmetric load compensator via lateral fuel transfer.

How about someone in this forum, living in Pakistan, contact an active duty J-17 pilot and ask if there is such a system on the J-17?

Have YOU even consider the possibility of a 'No' answer before you post your assertion that resulted in this debate? If there is such a system, surely the Pakistani pilot would be well trained in it. All he has to say is 'Yea' or 'Nay'. That is not classified information.

By the way, I know what 9g feels like in the F-16. And the view of the planet and of the horizon from the F-16's bubble canopy is magnificent.


Of course the jet would be able to compensate, but thru trimming, as in a small deflection of the appropriate flight control surface(s).

On an airliner, an asymmetric load means trapped fuel which means a asymmetric weight, not drag. The engine dropped from the wing would mean both asymmetric weight and drag. But that radical condition is beyond the scope of this debate.

What Mr. Shabi does not understand is the behaviors of an asymmetric drag condition on the jet fighter, like carrying weapons load.

An asymmetric load, notably of drag, tends to produce a rolling motion, as if an aileron or horizontal stab is deflected.

http://www.amaflightschool.org/diy/trimming-ground-directional-controllability

The solution for the non-airliner aircraft is to deflect the other (opposite) flight control surface(s), not by transferring fuel back and forth.

Here is what non-flyers usually do not understand...

Fuel that is not sent to the engine(s) is the equivalent of having no fuel at all.

Using rough figures to illustrate my point...

Say my aircraft have two fuel tanks, A and B, and each holds 50 lbs for a total of 100 lbs. With that quantity, I will be able to travel 100 miles.

When a pilot says he has X fuel load, he really means he has X fuel quantity TO BURN. Not how much he carries.

If fuel tank B is shut off, will I still be able to travel that 100 miles? Of course not. My total fuel weight is still the same, but not my capable flight distance, which is now 50 miles.

Ergo...TRAPPED OR CAPTIVE FUEL IS THE SAME AS NO FUEL.

So for the J-17 or F-16 to keep constant fuel in the wings just to transfer them back and forth to compensate for an asymmetric load condition is absurd. You are cutting short your combat range.

This discussion has been enlightening but unfortunately we are just going round and round. From all the reading I've had to do on this topic I'm even more sure about what I've said. I'm still sticking to my view point so still don't agree with you.

So lets just agree to disagree and let it be.

 

[gambit]

I think it is the crux of the debate ...

Nowhere have I said it could not be done -- transferring internal wing fuel to compensate for asymmetric load, weight or drag.

But keeping fuel for that purpose is the equivalent of having a bad fuel pump: trapped fuel.

When I was active duty, we occasionally did abort a jet for fuel transfer issues. Trapped fuel is the same as no fuel. The difference is that you are still burdened with a fuel load and you cannot use a portion of it. So why would you want to fly at all? How far can you go to make a contribution to the war effort with one fuel tank that cannot spend its fuel?

Am not saying the Chinese engineers cannot design and build such a system. It it not technically impossible. But can someone ask an active duty J-17 Pakistani pilot if it make sense to trap wing tank fuel 'just in case' one bomb dropped but the other did not?

...I'm even more sure about what I've said.

Then prove it. So far you have not. All you did was speculate and now you just stated an unsupported conviction.

I do not debate to change your mind. I have always said that my main target is the silent audience out there. For every person that participate in a debate, there is one hundred who observes. Each have his own level of knowledge and ignorance. They read, make up their minds as to who is the more credible, then quietly leave. I posts for them, not for you or anyone else.

 

[Shabi1]

Nowhere have I said it could not be done -- transferring internal wing fuel to compensate for asymmetric load, weight or drag.

But keeping fuel for that purpose is the equivalent of having a bad fuel pump: trapped fuel.

When I was active duty, we occasionally did abort a jet for fuel transfer issues. Trapped fuel is the same as no fuel. The difference is that you are still burdened with a fuel load and you cannot use a portion of it. So why would you want to fly at all? How far can you go to make a contribution to the war effort with one fuel tank that cannot spend its fuel?

Am not saying the Chinese engineers cannot design and build such a system. It it not technically impossible. But can someone ask an active duty J-17 Pakistani pilot if it make sense to trap wing tank fuel 'just in case' one bomb dropped but the other did not?


Then prove it. So far you have not. All you did was speculate and now you just stated an unsupported conviction.

I do not debate to change your mind. I have always said that my main target is the silent audience out there. For every person that participate in a debate, there is one hundred who observes. Each have his own level of knowledge and ignorance. They read, make up their minds as to who is the more credible, then quietly leave. I posts for them, not for you or anyone else.

There is nothing left to say. Its upto the readers to make their minds. Closed..

 

[MZ-PDF]

The only thing that the original super 7 had in with the eventual super 7/jf-17 was the name and that china was one of the partners. The JF-17 borrowed more from the Mig-33 (IZD 33) light fighter concept.

Is this a prototype?

 

[MastanKhan]

And the one asking for credentials is a car sales man in USA... just to make sure every one understands credentialing process here

Hi,

With automotive engineering background---thank you.

Why are we having this discussion of asymmetric loads on wings again?

the gentleman who had started this now, had done so earlier as well, at that time he did not even know about trimming. At that time I think he had watched some video of JF-17 dropping a bomb/missile from one wing. And its behaviour right after the drop made him have some 'ideas'.

Technically, you can jettison all payload on one wing and it will still be flight worthy.

How an aircraft behaves in such a situation depends upon nature of its flight control system. If you drop/jettison from one wing than that fighter will get effected, mostly, by drag and weight. In manual, hydraulic/analog systems, a pilot will use his stick and pedals to control roll and yaw immediately and than once out of that manoeuvre he will use trim functions to achieve straight flight. How quickly he adjusts (so that some idiot watching a video of it do not end up having ideas) depends upon his skill. In F-16, at-least roll gets taken care of by FLCS. This has nothing to do with its aerodynamic design but with the way its FBW and stick input works. F-16's stick input has a very different 'feel' from a hydraulic/analog based system and require roll to be assisted by FLCS.

Hi,

Sir---trimming is a given phenomenon---either riding a bicycle---motorcycle---driving a car or flying an aircraft---.

Even illiterate bus and truck drivers use that phenomenon in balancing out the weight on their vehicles when loading---. Even a person using a donkey cart uses trimming to balance out the weight on the cart by placing by distributing weight properly for balance and stability.

So---don't run ahead of yourself---.

Says the person who thinks it's viable to give the JF-17 a 25% size increase. Wouldnt it save time and money to buy J-10 instead.


I laid out my points with sources and picture proofs if you don't think they are enough its ok. No hard feelings lets agree to disagree and stop this topic here.

By the way I knew about the U2/ Starfighter thing, used to watch Wings on Discovery channel .

For a long time was a guest visitor on this forum and it caught my eye because I was interested in JF-17 development and official information was rare. Only lately have I started posting with more frequency as a hobby when I have free time.

FYI, I remember in 1999 there was news clipping in Dawn hard copy that JF-17 which was Super-7 back then has gone through wind tunnel testing with Mikoyan assistance and the airframe is max tested for Mach 2.8. Couldnt find it again as Dawn was not available in electronic form, so havnt mentioned before.

I have a Degree in Electronic Engineering, several certifications in Telecom, Project Management and a MBA. Sort of a jack of all trades and a tech geek also contributing to solve issues in Pakistan using technical expertise. Spent my childhood in Turkey and Pakistani community was not too much there back then, we used to have good interaction with the PAF pilots who came on yearly rotations with their families. Take interest in aviation because I went to airforce school after return.

My final engineering project was a low power radar type system which could be used for low power robotics or as a training simulator. Started my career in PIA engineering and spent quite a bit of time in line maintenance, moving between avionic repair workshops. Decided to switch as it was apparent from looking at my senior colleagues that this is not where I want to see myself working 10yrs down the line. Aircraft technology is so rapidly evolving and completely new things come up so often that you need to continuously get certifications else risk becoming replaced by new comers. Seniority doesn't matter for stagnant technical people much when the technology keeps evolving. When Fokkers were made transistor wasnt invented, when 747 and Airbus A300/310s came there were single layer PCBs everything hydraulic and when the 777s came you had multi layer PCBs which were basically non repairable if faulty. And out of observation safe to say whatever technology available commercially its available in advance on combat aircraft as they are the pinnacles of technology to whatever era they were developed in.

From there moved to SITA "Société Internationale de Télécommunications Aéronautiques" a Geneva based society with presence wherever there is a international airport, now switched to telecom and technology integration field. Worked on communication systems for airports/airlines including installing repairing Aircom systems (system used for data link of aircraft with ground maintenance). Since foreign companies wanted to avoid sending their nationals for their projects in Pakistan yet maintain a presence here. SITA in agreement with Orange, lent out it's service for Telecom IT infrastructure in Pakistan. So ended up implementing IT and secure communication projects for fortune 500 companies as well as UN, Mastercard, VISA. Gained experience working on VSAT and fiber optic communication links as well as VPNs. While there on avg had 40hrs a month of trainings so was really hectic with traveling and long out of normal business hour work.

Was ambitious and after couple years made the decision that I need to move to management and once my MBA was complete which I might add I did in service and is from IBA which is the oldest business school outside of North America took the decision to become a Entrepreneur.

Started a security surveillance and automation solutions company, it's going well. Reverse engineered a quadcopter industrial drone and improved configuration for 50min flight time along with 40km range with realtime video feed for law enforcement use for when they go for hostage rescue. Then started a real estate consultation and construction company, Alhamdullilah its doing extremely well and is my primary bread earner which I re invest in R&D. 2yrs ago started a power generation company and that too is going well. So a Director in three companies.

Despite being in management I'm still sort of a tech geek and I'm doing R&D projects for very affordable solar conversion projects suited to Pakistan in prototype phases. Electric conversion kits for Rickshaws in pipeline along with proposals for converting existing street lights to solar for which manufacturing will be done in Pakistan. Latest venture is in RO water treatment. We've deduced RO plants in rural areas dont work well because of electricity shortage their membranes get damaged and it's too expensive to purify high salt water in Gwadar area and no off the shelf solutions available so we are replacing normal pumps with solar DC pumps and its in prototype phase as well.

One observation or a problem I would like to share, it's easier to convince clients to buy European products as they have good reputation and in high end solutions Chinese products were bought where price was a constraint but in the last 1.5-2 yrs Chinese not only have they done catching up they are now often the most efficient technology providers since heavily investing in R&D. In surveillance, power, solar and sensors it's now a problem for me that I have to put in extra effort to convince clients that US/EU options are sometimes not the best route.

And Inshallaha much more to come, I'm still very young

Hi,

Thank you for your " detailed " introduction---.

The design---form and function of a 25% larger JF17 would be different than that of the J10---due to the wing design and those little winglets " canards " behind the cockpit of the J10---.

They are fundamentally two different aircraft design concepts---.

Paf does not like the canard type design on its aircraft due to !!!!!

Sources really don't mean anything if one comes across someone who has first hand information---.

As for the AVm's remarks---he has already made an explanation---his answer " yes " is a tactical answer to create confusion in the sense that he might have said too much---or the interviewer was bugging him too much.

One has to understand---laws of physics do not change for me or for someone else---thanks.

 

[khanasifm]

OK this debate has been dragged too much though good points are made by both sides but the very basic of this debate is initiated with wrong assumption that JF-17 will have difficulty in carrying two Anti-ship missiles

I think its suitable to have a look at what ACM Khalid had said in his interview
View attachment 469964

Now the very first thing about this asymmetric configuration is that it is adopted to have better range over sea during Anti ship operations and as we know JF-17 carry ~2,300 litre fuel internally so carrying two anti-ship missiles without additional fuel tank will reduce the range drastically, therefore in asymmetric configuration of 1 anti-ship missile and two external fuel tank of 1,100 L and 800 L gives almost 80% fuel caring capacity for anti-ship role without air to air refuelling which mean with air to air refuelling JF-17 in anti-ships role now could take two anti-ship missiles without sacrificing range.

secondly both inner pylon of JF-17 can carry 1100 KG weight (1 litre= 1 KG) which is evident as JF-17 carry two 1,100 litre fuel tanks on each inner pylons centre pylon can carry 800 litre fuel tank

Third I find no reason why JF-17 flight control system would not be able to deal with difference of load at both wings after the release of anti-ship missile here we must keep in mind fuel weigh is not a constant number but a dynamic figure due to its consumption during the flight so as explained by gambit i believe 1,100 L fuel tank at the other inner pylon would be used first as feed tank to the main fuel tank of JF-17 in this configuration hence reducing the weight.

F-7 carries 2300 jf carry ~3000litres internally and same in 3 external drop tanks 2x1100 plod 1x 800

topic has been beaten to death many times before

 

[Basel]

Sir please check F35 programe cost and owner of this project has more then Trillion dollars of luxury we dont

You didn't understood my post.

 

[Mrc]

Hi,

With automotive engineering background---thank you.

Boss u are not legally allowed to change a car battery in US....
Don't b naive

 

[HRK]

F-7 carries 2300 jf carry ~3000litres internally and same in 3 external drop tanks 2x1100 plod 1x 800

topic has been beaten to death many times before

my bad ... you are right
I have edited my post accordingly ...

 

[MastanKhan]

Boss u are not legally allowed to change a car battery in US....
Don't b naive

Hi,

Car batteries---light break light bulbs---turn signal bulbs etc---floor mats---those I am allowed to change---

 

[khanasifm]

Someone posted in one of the thread claiming this is from official specs but cannot confirm

 

[gambit]

The asymmetric loaded JF-17 pic that @Shabi1 has shared is evidence enough of fuel management between wings.

No, it does not.

Let us take the F-16, a jet that the PAF flies, for example...

The JDAM is certified only on stations 3 and 7 as shown above. The smallest JDAM is the is the GBU-38 at 500 lbs, so we can use that for our example.

On the F-16, each wing's internal fuel load is about 500 lbs.

Let us say that an F-16 reported a hung JDAM, or failed to release.

Let us say that the F-16 can transfer fuel anywhere.

Are you telling everyone that in the event of a hung 500 lbs JDAM, the F-16 is going to engage in a captive fuel situation, as in keeping fuel in place in the opposite wing, to maintain balanced flight?

Never mind the laws of physics that says aerodynamics forces using trimming can be greater than 500 lbs in the opposite direction to maintain equilibrium. You would rather use captive fuel thereby reducing range? That is assuming you have enough fuel in the first place. What if you have no external and internal fuel wings to use? Are you going to say use trimming? Then why not use trimming in the first place and use the fuel to get home?

Like Mr. Shabi, you are willing to make this leap of faith, not because you put any real effort into research, but because you NEED to satisfy your own feelings that the JF-17 is better than the American product -- at any cost.

What if the hung ordnance is the larger JDAM of 1,000 lbs? The opposite wing can only hold 500 lbs. Where is the counter-balance now? Let me guess -- trimming? Then why not use trimming in the first place?

How much internal wing fuel on the JF-17?

Let me put this scenario to you...

A JF-17 pilot radioed an inflight emergency (IFE) of a hung ordnance situation. He engaged captive fuel to balance out the jet. But in doing so, he now lacks to fuel range to make home. Can he get an air refueling assist?

So now the PAF is going to launch an air refueling rescue when there have ALWAYS been a better alternative to counter-balance a hung ordnance -- trimming.

Do you see how absurd is this mental experiment? It defies logic and common sense. If you answer use trimming and captive fuel, then why not use trimming in the first place and save everyone the headache?

@gambit may be a professional but doesn't mean he is right on every thing.

Nowhere have I declared that wing-to-wing fuel transfer on a jet fighter is technically impossible. But it does defies logic and common sense when there is a better alternative -- trim the jet.

I know...I know...We Americans are stupid...