What's new

Round One JF17 - Poor Display By Tejas Took 10 more sec Than JF17 To Go Up

I'm not commenting on a person but on a statement, on the nature of a comparison made. Besides, here we are on page 26, and I'm waking someone up?

Yep, 26 pages full of taking dig at Tejas based on OP.

Your comment will simply kill the fun, Very unlike of PDF. :)
 
.
Hi,


What a joke this display is---the aircraft releases brake at 5:29---wheels up at 5:41---sticks its wheels in at 5:49---and keeps on flying low to gain speed till 5:59---ie is 10 seconds and when it gathers speed---and when it has enough energy buildup---it goes up---.

30 seconds---half a minute-----

What a chicken sh-it lack of power display----

@Viper0011. @Irfan Baloch @Zarvan @Manticore and everyone else----check this out bud----you would like the info

Now look at the take of of the JF 17 at paris

Brake release at 00:57 second-----the moment the wheels are off the ground--it takes a steep climb at 1:17 second and shoots up-----and still the wheels are down and not tucked in---which means a massive drag on the aircraft---.

The wheels go in at around 1:30---.

So---basically---it is up at close to 4000 feet elevation whereas the Tejas is just about lifitng off the runway to put its nose up in the air.

Guys---just check the vidoes out----. Pakistani guys---I told you many months ago---there was a reason for the wheels out take off and the hanging wheels----. They don't want to show the actual power of the aircraft.

PAF's JF-17 Thunder Flying over Paris Air Show 2015 - Video Dailymotion

Source: Bahrain Airshow 2016 : Light Combat Aircraft Tejas in action | Page 8
Dil ke khush rakhne ko...Galib yeh khayal achha hai....
 
. . .
LCA Tejas took 18 seconds from break release to landing gears compartments close..... I am sure JF17 could do all of that in 8 Seconds.
 
.
Thrust to weight:
F16C block 50: 1.095
JF-17/FC-1: 1.09
Tejas/LCA: 1.07
JAS 39C/D Gripen: 0.97
Mig 21: 0.75
Mirage 5F: 0.61
Mirage 3E: 0.58

Rates of climb:
F16C block 50: 254 m/s
Gripen: 254 m/s
JF-17/FC-1: 249m/s
Mirage 3E 237 m/s
Mig 21: 225 m/s
Tejas/LCA: 200 m/s
Mirage 5F 186 m/s

It could well be that the JF-17 has a better initial climbs rate.
However, that does not automatically mean it is underpowered.
 
.
Thrust to weight:
F16C block 50: 1.095
JF-17/FC-1: 1.09
Tejas/LCA: 1.07
JAS 39C/D Gripen: 0.97
Mig 21: 0.75
Mirage 5F: 0.61
Mirage 3E: 0.58

Rates of climb:
F16C block 50: 254 m/s
Gripen: 254 m/s
JF-17/FC-1: 249m/s
Mirage 3E 237 m/s
Mig 21: 225 m/s
Tejas/LCA: 200 m/s
Mirage 5F 186 m/s

It could well be that the JF-17 has a better initial climbs rate.
However, that does not automatically mean it is underpowered.
Jf 17 T/w & tejas rate of climb is debateable just like jf combat radius of more than 1200km with internal fuel is @Abingdonboy @PARIKRAMA
 
.
Jf 17 T/w & tejas rate of climb is debateable just like jf combat radius of more than 1200km with internal fuel is @Abingdonboy @PARIKRAMA
Everything is debatable. Point is that the relationship between eg climbs rate (or minimum takeoff distance) and thrust to weight ( or "power") isn't straightforward.

Assuming for a moment that the rate fo climb data are correct, isn't it interesting that tailplaneless delta wing designs seem to group together at the lower end? 3 of 4 are in the lower half, or 2 of 3 if you count Mirage 3 and 5 as 1.
 
Last edited:
.
Thrust to weight:
F16C block 50: 1.095
JF-17/FC-1: 1.09
Tejas/LCA: 1.07
JAS 39C/D Gripen: 0.97
Mig 21: 0.75
Mirage 5F: 0.61
Mirage 3E: 0.58

Rates of climb:
F16C block 50: 254 m/s
Gripen: 254 m/s
JF-17/FC-1: 249m/s
Mirage 3E 237 m/s
Mig 21: 225 m/s
Tejas/LCA: 200 m/s
Mirage 5F 186 m/s

It could well be that the JF-17 has a better initial climbs rate.
However, that does not automatically mean it is underpowered.
No disrespect Sir But NP1 aircraft bested the benchmark with a climb rate of around 11 degrees.At 150 knot

To convert climb gradient to climb rate, multiply the gradient by the airspeed in knots. Climb rate (fpm) = Climb gradient (%) x Airspeed (kts) Assumes: 1% climb gradient over a mile = 60 ft (1% of 6000ft=1nm) No wind; groundspeed = airspeed

So Lets Assume Climb gradient =5.5%
Airspeed=150 Knots

Climb rate =150 x 5.5 =825 Feet per Second

Converting FPS into MPS = 251.46 m/s Actual Climb Rate of LCA

HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions-[Thread 2] | Page 27
 
Last edited:
.
Tbh I had avoided this thread owing to lack of actual numbers which I can substantially correlate and say what is what.. Unlike what ppl say, based on internal fuel load approximation and perhaps with standard weapon package for a typical mission I don't see JF17 to be on air for more than 60 minutes or say 500 odd km combat radius.. Ppl may talk anything but engines SFC does nt work like the way both sides claim. Typically more with the weapon loads and altitude plus vitally at what speed this entire mission is planned to be achieved.. In all practical sense , I see mission times more like 45 mins both planes in this thread which is in line with no external tanks and limited scope with which the whole theater of ops is desired...

Beyond this any other comparison is futile as jf17 cannot outdo a F16 newer blocks of block 60 and above with present blocks perhaps with block 3 it may challenge it.. The same with LCA mark1a..

Rest all here is more of high patriotism and emotions running to outdo each others program

As long it serves the purpose its fine..
 
.
Thrust to weight:
F16C block 50: 1.095
JF-17/FC-1: 1.09
Tejas/LCA: 1.07
JAS 39C/D Gripen: 0.97
Mig 21: 0.75
Mirage 5F: 0.61
Mirage 3E: 0.58

Rates of climb:
F16C block 50: 254 m/s
Gripen: 254 m/s
JF-17/FC-1: 249m/s
Mirage 3E 237 m/s
Mig 21: 225 m/s
Tejas/LCA: 200 m/s
Mirage 5F 186 m/s

It could well be that the JF-17 has a better initial climbs rate.
However, that does not automatically mean it is underpowered.
My Calculation is from both official websites:You do the maths
LCA tejas- Empty weight-6560kg,Max Thrust-20200lbs(84.6KN),MTOW-13000kg(inclusive of 300kg of Balast for COG will be removed in coming months)
Jf17-Empty Weight-6586kg,Max Thrust-18659lbs(83Kn),MTOW-12,474 kg
 
.
No disrespect Sir But NP1 aircraft bested the benchmark with a climb rate of around 11 degrees.At 150 knot

To convert climb gradient to climb rate, multiply the gradient by the airspeed in knots. Climb rate (fpm) = Climb gradient (%) x Airspeed (kts) Assumes: 1% climb gradient over a mile = 60 ft (1% of 6000ft=1nm) No wind; groundspeed = airspeed

So Lets Assume Climb gradient =5.5%
Airspeed=150 Knots

Climb rate =150 x 5.5 =825 Feet per Second

Converting FPS into MPS = 251.46 m/s Actual Climb Rate of LCA

HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions-[Thread 2] | Page 27

I've used climb rates I found in public sources. There may well be an established procudure to measure 'formal' climb rate, which is different from what we've seen in the footage here. I don't know. I know there a distinction is made between climb rate and initial climb rate. There too is a possible source of confusion. Nonetheless, looking at your calculation, that would bring LCA climbs rate and that of quoted JF-17 climbs rate very close.

Given what you enlarged in my post, what does your calculation take away from the statement that "However, that does not automatically mean it [LCA] is underpowered."?

Tbh I had avoided this thread owing to lack of actual numbers which I can substantially correlate and say what is what.. Unlike what ppl say, based on internal fuel load approximation and perhaps with standard weapon package for a typical mission I don't see JF17 to be on air for more than 60 minutes or say 500 odd km combat radius.. Ppl may talk anything but engines SFC does nt work like the way both sides claim. Typically more with the weapon loads and altitude plus vitally at what speed this entire mission is planned to be achieved.. In all practical sense , I see mission times more like 45 mins both planes in this thread which is in line with no external tanks and limited scope with which the whole theater of ops is desired...

Beyond this any other comparison is futile as jf17 cannot outdo a F16 newer blocks of block 60 and above with present blocks perhaps with block 3 it may challenge it.. The same with LCA mark1a..

Rest all here is more of high patriotism and emotions running to outdo each others program

As long it serves the purpose its fine..

<chuckle>
Indeed.

(see post #393:In that case, I deeply and humbly apologize )

My Calculation is from both official websites:You do the maths
LCA tejas- Empty weight-6560kg,Max Thrust-20200lbs(84.6KN),MTOW-13000kg(inclusive of 300kg of Balast for COG will be removed in coming months)
Jf17-Empty Weight-6586kg,Max Thrust-18659lbs(83Kn),MTOW-12,474 kg

LCA t/w between 0.7 and 1.4 (ave 1.05)
JF-17 t/w between 0.68 and 1.29 (ave 0.98)

This is not necessarily inconsistent with numbers I posted above.
 
.
It was not taking a dig at Tejas----but at a 33 years old project finally flying at an international show----.
Sir Don't Mind Due You Heard What is AERO India ??

I've used climb rates I found in public sources. There may well be an established procudure to measure 'formal' climb rate, which is different from what we've seen in the footage here. I don't know. I know there a distinction is made between climb rate and initial climb rate. There too is a possible source of confusion. Nonetheless, looking at your calculation, that would bring LCA climbs rate and that of quoted JF-17 climbs rate very close.

Given what you enlarged in my post, what does your calculation take away from the statement that "However, that does not automatically mean it [LCA] is underpowered."?
No,Sir Actually My Calculations were Mere Attempt For Correction,Nothing Else My Sources are also what Published During NP-1 Trials.

Hope you Not Presumed My Humble attempt In any other Way Sir, Im a Admired Reader of Your Posts on PDF:-)
 
. .
When you drop the 'son' bit (you got less than 10 years on me) and stop taking things personally. I made a polite post. If you don't think so, please feel free to report it.
he is 59 years old.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom