Specifications of JF-17

[Viper0011.]

The above specs in the pictures show that:
JF-17B is shorter than JF-17A (14.93 vs 14.5m)
JF-17B height is less than JF-17A (4.6 vs 4.72m)
Payload is better (4500 vs 3600kg(Blk I))

Aren't these strange parameters? They could keep the same length to accommodate more fuel? Any expert here?

@MastanKhan @Viper0011. @Tempest II

Note: the parameters for JF-17A are taken from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder

These are not significant changes. The primary purpose of any two seat is fighter conversion and advanced training combat preparedness. Obviously, these are used in the combat also so keep that in mind, so due to the addition of a second seat you might see some small changes in the air-frame.

Second, the payload of the block II air-frame is better so this two seat would be a block II trainer / fighter conversion version, which uses better avionics, etc.

 

[aftab_s81]

These are not significant changes. The primary purpose of any two seat is fighter conversion and advanced training combat preparedness. Obviously, these are used in the combat also so keep that in mind, so due to the addition of a second seat you might see some small changes in the air-frame.

Second, the payload of the block II air-frame is better so this two seat would be a block II trainer / fighter conversion version, which uses better avionics, etc.

Any specific reason that they have reduced the size of machine instead of increasing? May be they have designed more compact avionics? Also the reduced height may result into even less ground clearance. IMHO, JF-17's ground clearance is already very small (say compared to Mirage machines).

 

[Viper0011.]

Any specific reason that they have reduced the size of machine instead of increasing? May be they have designed more compact avionics? Also the reduced height may result into even less ground clearance. IMHO, JF-17's ground clearance is already very small (say compared to Mirage machines).

Its probably due to the use of more composites and strengthened air-frame allowing for more carrying capacity, yet a small reduction in size that may be needed to allow for better aerodynamics with two seats and adjustment of all sub-systems for the second cockpit.

 

[aftab_s81]

@Viper0011.

Any idea of the percentage of composite materials being used in Block II machines? Is this facility setup in Pakistan as well or only China got the capability?

 

[MastanKhan]

The above specs in the pictures show that:
JF-17B is shorter than JF-17A (14.93 vs 14.5m)
JF-17B height is less than JF-17A (4.6 vs 4.72m)
Payload is better (4500 vs 3600kg(Blk I))

Aren't these strange parameters? They could keep the same length to accommodate more fuel? Any expert here?

@MastanKhan @Viper0011. @Tempest II

Note: the parameters for JF-17A are taken from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder

Hi,

Unless it is official release---I would wait.

 

[JamD]

The above specs in the pictures show that:
JF-17B is shorter than JF-17A (14.93 vs 14.5m)
JF-17B height is less than JF-17A (4.6 vs 4.72m)
Payload is better (4500 vs 3600kg(Blk I))

Aren't these strange parameters? They could keep the same length to accommodate more fuel? Any expert here?

@MastanKhan @Viper0011. @Tempest II

Note: the parameters for JF-17A are taken from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder

I am fairly certain the length will remain unchanged.

The height is decreased because the ECM box on top of the tail is removed and its components moved into the bigger dorsal spine.

The wingspan is increased because there is slightly more weight and/or to keep the handling characteristics as close as possible to the single-seater.

 

[graphican]

I am fairly certain the length will remain unchanged.

The height is decreased because the ECM box on top of the tail is removed and its components moved into the bigger dorsal spine.

The wingspan is increased because there is slightly more weight and/or to keep the handling characteristics as close as possible to the single-seater.

When using a new/different engine, would length change? If so, this might be a hint that a different engine is being used for B variant.

 

[Thorough Pro]

There is no fixed true speed for any jet. Speed depends on a lot of variables like the load, the altitude, temperature, air density, etc. etc. What's provided is normally a recommended max that the jet can go safely

what is true speed of JF17?

somewhere it is Mach 1.6, 1.8 and somewhere it is stated as Mach2.

 

[JamD]

When using a new/different engine, would length change? If so, this might be a hint that a different engine is being used for B variant.

I doubt it. The jf17 was designed to accept a variety of engines from the get go. But then you might be right. I don't know for sure. What I heard was that jf17b would use the smaller snecma m88 to allow more room for second pilot. But these are just rumors.

 

[araz]

I doubt it. The jf17 was designed to accept a variety of engines from the get go. But then you might be right. I don't know for sure. What I heard was that jf17b would use the smaller snecma m88 to allow more room for second pilot. But these are just rumors.

In the current climate any contract with the french is unlikely. The EJ200 was quoted at 11million a pop against 2.5 million per RD93.EVEN if the 93MA is 3.5 million there is a huge cost implication inspite of the sophistication of the EJ series. I cant see snecma being any cheaper.
A

 

[khanasifm]

Specs official site

http://www.avic.com/en/forbusiness/militaryaviationanddefense/fighters/index.shtml

 

[RAMPAGE]

In the current climate any contract with the french is unlikely. The EJ200 was quoted at 11million a pop against 2.5 million per RD93.EVEN if the 93MA is 3.5 million there is a huge cost implication inspite of the sophistication of the EJ series. I cant see snecma being any cheaper.
A

But Sir, I don't think that you're considering life hours and MTBO and fuel economy etc.

 

[araz]

But Sir, I don't think that you're considering life hours and MTBO and fuel economy etc.

Firstly the PAF just does not have the funds for acquisition of EJ200 series. Secondly EU MAY well not sell the engine to you. Thirdly even considering all the other factors RD 93
turns out to be a much cheaper option

 

[MastanKhan]

I doubt it. The jf17 was designed to accept a variety of engines from the get go. But then you might be right. I don't know for sure. What I heard was that jf17b would use the smaller snecma m88 to allow more room for second pilot. But these are just rumors.

Hi,

JF 17 is a modular design---the aircraft was not built around and engine----but for engines of similiar class and design---.

If you may remember that it was originally planned to take on the chinese---what is it the WS13 when it got ready---.

 

[JamD]

Hi,

JF 17 is a modular design---the aircraft was not built around and engine----but for engines of similiar class and design---.

If you may remember that it was originally planned to take on the chinese---what is it the WS13 when it got ready---.

Yes, that is why I said, "The jf17 was designed to accept a variety of engines from the get go."

The m88 rumors for JF-17B are there because it was one of the engines originally kept in mind for the JF-17 and it is significantly smaller in length compared to the RD-93 and WS-13 (by about 70 cm) (the logic of the rumors being extra space is needed and/or welcome because of the second seat). But I suspect they are going to make it work with the RD-93.