JF-17B Updates, News & Discussion

[ghazi52]

 

[Big_bud]

Hi,

As someone with automotive engr background---I can assure you that this 3rd rate hinges design of the JF17 canopy does not fall under the umbrella of K.I.S.S.

This is poor workmanship and a shoddy design---just like your habits are a reflection of your personality as to who you are---the engineering design is also a reflection of your mindset.

There is something as a rugged design. It has its own appeal. If Mercedes can put hinges on its flagship, most expensive, most popular, Hollywood boulevard pacing SUV? Why can't we? As I said, its the most weight efficient method of attaching a canopy to the jet.. No nonsense design. Doesn't matter what anyone on the internet thinks. It is not made for them.

 

[GriffinsRule]

I think that's your understanding and probably practice in life.
Try to understand from an engineering and cost prospective. Open your mind to ideas. Have a nice day...or not. Your choice....as PAF chose the hinges.

Couldnt help but try to make it personal huh. PAF did choose those hinges which imo is a poor design choice.

People think most important thing in aerial warfare is hinges of the cockpit.


If it can lock and kill target at 160 km... Would it matter what hinges was it using?

No need to complicate simple things
If it works

It matters, esp if that is the mindset that is going into AZM. If so, don't expect anything great to come out of it.

 

[Mrc]

Couldnt help but try to make it personal huh. PAF did choose those hinges which imo is a poor design choice.

It matters, esp if that is the mindset that is going into AZM. If so, don't expect anything great to come out of it.

Its not designed for beauty pagent or cat walks...

I think it's brilliant... U only engineer the things that Nedd to be engineered...

Where a hinge works perfectly.... fine use a hinge....

Its not a premium car

 

[GumNaam]

Its not designed for beauty pagent or cat walks...

I think it's brilliant... U only engineer the things that Nedd to be engineered...

Where a hinge works perfectly.... fine use a hinge....

Its not a premium car

well the outward protruding hinges add to the RCS albeit not by much. engineering wise, it would've been a better design to turn them inwards some how.

 

[MastanKhan]

View attachment 750907

View attachment 750908

View attachment 750909

There is something as a rugged design. It has its own appeal. If Mercedes can put hinges on its flagship, most expensive, most popular, Hollywood boulevard pacing SUV? Why can't we? As I said, its the most weight efficient method of attaching a canopy to the jet.. No nonsense design. Doesn't matter what anyone on the internet thinks. It is not made for them.

Hi,

If it was not for the green flag---your post is not worth answering to---. Please be a little more intelligent.

Thoughtlessness has no limits---. These vehicles reflect an image of rough n tough---sturdiness----machismo---.

They are not sleek and slender race cars---aerodynamic in design---cutting thru the air

 

[Big_bud]

Hi,

If it was not for the green flag---your post is not worth answering to---. Please be a little more intelligent.

Thoughtlessness has no limits---. These vehicles reflect an image of rough n tough---sturdiness----machismo---.

They are not sleek and slender race cars---aerodynamic in design---cutting thru the air

View attachment 750924

View attachment 750926

When you are designing an aircraft out of your own money, you can design it like a Koenigsegg, Pagani or a Ferrari . Now its already stretched too much and getting funny. I'd leave it here.

 

[MastanKhan]

When you are designing an aircraft out of your own money, you can design it like a Koenigsegg, Pagani or a Ferrari . Now its already stretched too much and getting funny. I'd leave it here.

Hi,

No you don't.

Aircraft designs follow design standards---.

 

[Mrc]

well the outward protruding hinges add to the RCS albeit not by much. engineering wise, it would've been a better design to turn them inwards some how.

I would presume that people who are making aesa and aesa equipped fighter can design basic hinges if they deemed it necessary.....

 

[Thorough Pro]

do these qualify as "low cost"? Thunder does. Thunder was designed to be a "LOW COST"

Hi,

If it was not for the green flag---your post is not worth answering to---. Please be a little more intelligent.

Thoughtlessness has no limits---. These vehicles reflect an image of rough n tough---sturdiness----machismo---.

They are not sleek and slender race cars---aerodynamic in design---cutting thru the air

View attachment 750924

View attachment 750926

 

[iLION12345_1]

so apparently now the PAC engineers are not good enough because they put hinges on an aircraft canopy. (Other aircraft do use similar hinges as well. Mostly trainer aircraft as JF-17B is, for cost measures and simplicity.)
Why do Pakistanis feel the need to question everyone that’s more qualified than them? It’s not like these engineers made a super-sonic fighter aircraft, no, they have exposed hinges? Must be dumbasses.

Come on, this hinge discussion has been overdone to death before already, there’s better things to discuss.

 

[araz]

so apparently now the PAC engineers are not good enough because they put hinges on an aircraft canopy. (Other aircraft do use similar hinges as well. Mostly trainer aircraft as JF-17B is, for cost measures and simplicity.)
Why do Pakistanis feel the need to question everyone that’s more qualified than them? It’s not like these engineers made a super-sonic fighter aircraft, no, they have exposed hinges? Must be dumbasses.

Come on, this hinge discussion has been overdone to death before already, there’s better things to discuss.

Fully agreed. I think it is a difference of opinion. People who dont like the hinges rightly feel that aesthetically they look bad. Others say it-is an economical/functional choice and so can we agree to disagree and move on please?
I suspect it might add to the RCS but the question is by how much? If PAF perceives a BVR battle in majority of cases then can we agree that it will not be a significant factor at all? On the other hand on the merge with HOBS missiles flying around will anyone really care about the insignificant increase in RCS?
I think all learned posters will agree that both planes will be too busy saving their rear ends to care.
So in essense can we agree that aesthetically they look bad but practically their use is indicated both in a cost effective and sturdy manner to secure the canopy. The consequent increase in RCS will be insignificant to matter
Kind regards
A

 

[Trango Towers]

Couldnt help but try to make it personal huh. PAF did choose those hinges which imo is a poor design choice.

It matters, esp if that is the mindset that is going into AZM. If so, don't expect anything great to come out of it.

I am an aerospace engineer. Graduated from Cranfield institute of tech with a masters in aircraft design and I can say with years of experience in design that you can say all you like it's doesn't matter. As a structural engineer I have done work on the design of the leading edge and trailing structures of the inner wing of the a310, a320 and some work on the a330. I have also worked on the helmet mounted system for the aeuropean fighter aircraft that minimises injuries during ejection and reduced blackouts. That's aside from the fact I f around on PDF

If you examine say the mig 21 you will see it's a supersonic fighter without the expensive sleek lines of Western fighters yet its one of the most successful designs. It may not look pretty and I agree with you but PAF isn't about being pretty.
Regarding personal...go back and look at what you wrote in reply to my initial post. If you can't take it don't dish it.

 

[Hassan78610]

View attachment 750893

Beautiful bird.. actually looks prettier to me than single seat version.

Does Jf17B complements Mirage5/III?

 

[MastanKhan]

do these qualify as "low cost"? Thunder does. Thunder was designed to be a "LOW COST"

Hi,

I did not want to say it---but here it is.

The concept LOW COST was a DECEPTION right from the gitgo---. People having started to relate it to CHEAP and such is not the case.

The aircraft was designed to take on the enemy aircraft in service and future aircraft that the enemy would be getting---so how could it be cheap---.

All the gadgets that this aircraft has---are the best available to Paf---the gadgets are not cheap---neither the seat, the display or the weapons and weapon systems.

The only thing " cheap " over here is the labor. There are no compromises on structure or material used or quality of workmanship---so where does cheap come from.

It was just an illusion created to keep the aircraft UNDERRATED to deceive the enemy---and that is where the Paf has been successful.

I would presume that people who are making aesa and aesa equipped fighter can design basic hinges if they deemed it necessary.....

Hi,

Absolutely---you are correct---.

So---there must be a reason somewhere in the design stage---why it was chosen---.