JF-17 Thunder performing during Dubai Air Show 2017

[CriticalThought]

I am only quoting Wing Cdr Ronald himself said about this matter. If you know better than him, of course I can accept that too. No problem.

I am quoting from the interview of one of the pilots of JF-17 in Paris Airshow.

 

[VCheng]

I am quoting from the interview of one of the pilots of JF-17 in Paris Airshow.

And I have provided the published quote from an equally robust source (image was attached earlier).

 

[Jungibaaz]

The JF-17 isn't underpowered, various reputable sources have quoted respectable values for t/w, I'd say the difference in value is largely due to no reference to load-out or even fuel amount. Even 50% fuel vs max fuel will vary t/w wildly.

And it does not in any case need a t/w of 1 in order to do a vertical climb or loop. At any given time the four forces acting on an aircraft would be weight, thrust, lift and drag. When vertical, lift doesn't matter, and even a parity thrust to weight ratio doesn't account for drag, which you might not care about in a vertical climb, but in a vertical loop, air resistance is higher with higher AoA. Let's forget that for a second then, no drag and no lift, a thrust to weight ratio of less than 1.0 would mean that the aircraft can't accelerate when vertical. Even if it can't accelerate due to a t/w of less than 1.0, it means it will decelerate in a vertical climb where no other forces are considered.

If the aircraft has enough kinetic energy and momentum before it goes into a climb or a loop, it can perform a loop, and of course in real life scenario of vertical loop, lift is small and negligible, but drag isn't. I've heard various figures for the thrust to weight ratio of JF-17, but they're meaningless for comparison if they don't mention load-out and weight. I've heard the JF-17's t/w compared to Mirage 2000 and F-16.

In this video, at around 2 min mark, there's a clip of the JF-17 performing a short vertical climb, it's not a loop, but the first part is performed successfully. Interestingly enough PAF pilot at 2:04 mentions a thrust to weight ratio, but never have I seen these sort of figures reference a load-out or fuel.

 

[VCheng]

The JF-17 isn't underpowered,

Of course not. The test pilot describes it as "ample power" and he is correct. A T:W ratio of 1:1.1 is pretty good.

 

[CriticalThought]

That is my whole point that very few displays show this loop maneuvre it simply because it is hard to pull off at low altitudes in tight envelopes...if you gain enough speed and go very high that destroys the maneuvre...to do it the way PAF F-16s do it is not that easy...my point is that this is the maneuver that very few AFs have perfected on an F-16 and I have only seen this from PAF F-16s...even the Turks don't do this. The only other place I have seen this is with the Eurofighter and the Thunderbirds show this as well. My feeling is that they don't do this on a JF-17 simply because it cannot show this in a tight envelope and low speeds as the F-16 does it...can any expert confirm this? Remember..anyone can do this maneuver as long as the initial speed is high...the hard part is to do this at med-low speeds the way PAF F-16s do it...you can see the speed bleeding off quite a bit at the very top of the loop to a point that the F-16s seems almost stationary...this is not an easy manuevre and PAF F16 pilots have perfected it. But why don't they show this on JF-17? Again I am not expert but just my hypotheses

I have seen Thunder performing a complete loop, unfortunately didn't bookmark the video.

And I have provided the published quote from an equally robust source (image was attached earlier).

As @Jungibaaz says, it all depends on the loadout. Both numbers are correct. The important question is, can it pull 1.09 with an A2A combat loadout? Yes, it can.

 

[VCheng]

I have seen Thunder performing a complete loop, unfortunately didn't bookmark the video.



As @Jungibaaz says, it all depends on the loadout. Both numbers are correct. The important question is, can it pull 1.09 with an A2A combat loadout? Yes, it can.

The demonstrated performance speaks for itself (res ipsa loquitur) in comparison to others such as the F-16 under the same conditions.

 

[CriticalThought]

The demonstrated performance speaks for itself (res ipsa loquitur) in comparison to others such as the F-16 under the same conditions.

You need to look at the correct demonstration. There is a factor of pilot skills and instructions given to remain within a certain performance envelope.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

@Oscar @messiach I might be misreading the situation, but is the PAF basically shifting development resources now to the 5th-gen fighter (FGF)? There's no mention of a JF-17 variant after the Block-III, and the PAF basically dismissed any thought of enlarging the JF-17 airframe. Are they now preparing to move away from the Thunder (at least in terms of development) and expediting to the FGF?

Interestingly, early in 2017 Mikoyan had floated the idea of a lightweight single engine 5th-gen fighter using a new version of the RD-33 turbofan engine.

 

[Dazzler]

People tend to forget that maneuverability is not about speed, rather the transition from one maneuver to another with ease. The jf-17 does that with a lot of ease. Read below.

Unlike the f-16, Gripen that perform displays with afterburners on, the jf-17 performs them at military thrust and never exceeds 400 knots throughout the display. The fact can be confirmed by the second day's display when the commentator mentioned it performs with the engine at around 50% thrust.

That's why Gripens and vipers appear to be doing it faster, but jf-17 does them all even at military thrust without pushing the throttle. This shows that the aircraft is remarkably agile, and has great low speed handling ability. It is also more forgiving even at stall speeds compared to its contemporaries.

 

[alimobin memon]

@Oscar @messiach I might be reading the situation inaccurately, but is the PAF basically shifting development resources now to the 5th-gen fighter (FGF)? There's no mention of a JF-17 variant after the Block-III, and the PAF basically dismissed any thought of enlarging the JF-17 airframe. Are they now preparing to move away from the Thunder (at least in terms of development) and expediting to the FGF?

Interestingly, early in 2017 Mikoyan had floated the idea of a lightweight single engine 5th-gen fighter using a new version of the RD-33 turbofan engine.

Block 3 is major upgrade, small upgrades will follow like only replacement of radar etc. The structural modifications like in f16 C and D models vary from Block 30 to 50+

 

[Raider 21]

People tend to forget that maneuverability is not about speed, rather the transition from one maneuver to another with ease. The jf-17 does that with a lot of ease. Read below.

Unlike the f-16, Gripen that perform displays with afterburners on, the jf-17 performs them at military thrust and never exceeds 400 knots throughout the display. The fact can be confirmed by the second day's display when the commentator mentioned it performs with the engine at around 50% thrust.

That's why Gripens and vipers appear to be doing it faster, but jf-17 does them all even at military thrust without pushing the throttle. This shows that the aircraft is remarkably agile, and has great low speed handling ability. It is also more forgiving even at stall speeds compared to its contemporaries.

Good points, unaware of the Gripen but the F-16 in general is more agile than the JF-17. The UAE F-16 demo is more choreographed for demonstrating the performance capabilities of the aircraft. The JF-17 demo is a little more restrictive as it does not have the care-free handling like the F-16 does in comparison. And the F-16 lands at a lower speed than the JF-17, the Thunder is like a Saturn V rocket when it is on its final approach.

 

[ziaulislam]

Good points, unaware of the Gripen but the F-16 in general is more agile than the JF-17. The UAE F-16 demo is more choreographed for demonstrating the performance capabilities of the aircraft. The JF-17 demo is a little more restrictive as it does not have the care-free handling like the F-16 does in comparison. And the F-16 lands at a lower speed than the JF-17, the Thunder is like a Saturn V rocket when it is on its final approach.

People tend to forget that maneuverability is not about speed, rather the transition from one maneuver to another with ease. The jf-17 does that with a lot of ease. Read below.

Unlike the f-16, Gripen that perform displays with afterburners on, the jf-17 performs them at military thrust and never exceeds 400 knots throughout the display. The fact can be confirmed by the second day's display when the commentator mentioned it performs with the engine at around 50% thrust.

That's why Gripens and vipers appear to be doing it faster, but jf-17 does them all even at military thrust without pushing the throttle. This shows that the aircraft is remarkably agile, and has great low speed handling ability. It is also more forgiving even at stall speeds compared to its contemporaries.

so what is it?
is thunder and f-16 performance similar when it comes to pure maneuverability(that what we believed till now) or is f-16 far easier handling and thunder is like saturn rocket

 

[Raider 21]

so what is it?
is thunder and f-16 performance similar when it comes to pure maneuverability(that what we believed till now) or is f-16 far easier handling and thunder is like saturn rocket

The F-16 is an excellent design and has had over 30 years of development and one of the key elements to its design is that it can be upgraded without significant changes to the overall aircraft. The JF-17 is relatively new....so time will tell how far it will go. And yes, they need to slightly work a little more on the demo side (JF-17). At this point in time, the JF-17 is not close to the present-day F-16.....let there be no confusion in that. Sometimes national pride throws us off reality. Give the JF-17 time (if there's flexible thinking involved), and it will mature into new platforms.

 

[CriticalThought]

That is my whole point that very few displays show this loop maneuvre it simply because it is hard to pull off at low altitudes in tight envelopes...if you gain enough speed and go very high that destroys the maneuvre...to do it the way PAF F-16s do it is not that easy...my point is that this is the maneuver that very few AFs have perfected on an F-16 and I have only seen this from PAF F-16s...even the Turks don't do this. The only other place I have seen this is with the Eurofighter and the Thunderbirds show this as well. My feeling is that they don't do this on a JF-17 simply because it cannot show this in a tight envelope and low speeds as the F-16 does it...can any expert confirm this? Remember..anyone can do this maneuver as long as the initial speed is high...the hard part is to do this at med-low speeds the way PAF F-16s do it...you can see the speed bleeding off quite a bit at the very top of the loop to a point that the F-16s seems almost stationary...this is not an easy manuevre and PAF F16 pilots have perfected it. But why don't they show this on JF-17? Again I am not expert but just my hypotheses

Is that a vertical loop starting 5:08?

@Knuckles that is no Saturn V rocket IMHO. It didn't even have to open its parachute!

 

[El Sidd]

It was a joke? right?

yeah why ???