What's new

Specifications of JF-17

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.

Hi,

You have to understand Paf's mindset---they are extremely rigid in their utility. The other factor is---that if it was MY CHOICE----I would not care about changing the engine----RD93 upgrade is doing a wonderful job---.

I would invest the difference in price between the Rd93 and EJ200 in the fire control radar and the avionics package and missiles etc.

If the difference is 5 million dollars in the price---can you imagine the potency of the system that they can get on the JF17 with that extra 5 million dollars per aircraft---.
 
what upgrade?

Hi,

You have to understand Paf's mindset---they are extremely rigid in their utility. The other factor is---that if it was MY CHOICE----I would not care about changing the engine----RD93 upgrade is doing a wonderful job---.

I would invest the difference in price between the Rd93 and EJ200 in the fire control radar and the avionics package and missiles etc.

If the difference is 5 million dollars in the price---can you imagine the potency of the system that they can get on the JF17 with that extra 5 million dollars per aircraft---.
 
6iOwLq0.jpg
 
plz read as

A turn rate of sustained 16°.0/sec (instantaneous 19°.0/sec)

Mate, what is sustained and instantaneous turn rate of F-16s?

Edit

Found it over here.

F-16 C/D
Maximum instantenous turn rate: 26 degrees/second
Maximum sustained turn rate: 18 degrees/second

I had learned from some members that JF-17 is more agile than F-16 A. Can somebody if above (news clip) statistics are untrue or is JF-17 actually less agile than F-16s?

Any informed member is welcome to share his views.
 
plz read as

A turn rate of sustained 16°.0/sec (instantaneous 19°.0/sec)

The F-7PG has max sustained turn rate (STR) of 16 deg/sec and max instantaneous turn rate (ITR) of 25.2 deg/sec.
Source : http://www.urbanpk.com/pakdef/pakmilitary/airforce/ac/f7pandpg.html

With such turn rate specs, I would say it is more than comparable on the horizontal plane to the Thunder if the above stated STR of 16 deg/sec and ITR of 19 deg/sec figures are true for the Thunder.

I am just a bit curious that after so much effort that had gone into the design of the Thunder and being a generation ahead of the PG conceptually, how come they end up with a fighter that cannot surpass the F-7PG in horizontal maneuverability?

Sir your opinion on this would be appreciated.
 
Last edited:
The F-7PG has max sustained turn rate (STR) of 16 deg/sec and max instantaneous turn rate (ITR) of 25.2 deg/sec.
Source : http://www.urbanpk.com/pakdef/pakmilitary/airforce/ac/f7pandpg.html

With such turn rate specs, I would say it is more than comparable on the horizontal plane to the Thunder if the above stated STR of 16 deg/sec and ITR of 19 deg/sec figures are true for the Thunder.

I am just a bit curious that after so much effort that had gone into the design of the Thunder and being a generation ahead of the PG conceptually, how come they end up with a fighter that cannot surpass the F-7PG in horizontal maneuverability?

Sir your opinion on this would be appreciated.

Sir the thing which we should keep in mind that the article was published in 2010 but in that article if your read it completely (link of the article) it become clear that the author was covering the time when JF-17 was flying with restricted flying envelop in prototype phase (2003-2005) for example the author wrote that the JF-17 is using Griffo S-7 M3 version radar (though we know JF-17 never used it, it was just evaluated during the development stage & some other examples could be observed in that article)

So based on this it is save to assume that these were the minimum figures of turn rate at the initial stage of JF-17 development, later in the development cycle lots of improvements were made & flying envelope were expanded.
 
Last edited:
The link to the article and your explanation is helpful in understanding the background of the assessment being made of the Thunder and puts my mind more at ease on the subject..

Thank you.
 
Some comparative/reference/benchmarking data: I am sure the altitude and weight comes into play. Also the version of Mig-21 or F-16 to compare with. See the F-16 is the "C" addition.

F-16
F-16.jpg


Mig-21
Mig-21.jpg
 
The F-7PG has max sustained turn rate (STR) of 16 deg/sec and max instantaneous turn rate (ITR) of 25.2 deg/sec.
Source : http://www.urbanpk.com/pakdef/pakmilitary/airforce/ac/f7pandpg.html

With such turn rate specs, I would say it is more than comparable on the horizontal plane to the Thunder if the above stated STR of 16 deg/sec and ITR of 19 deg/sec figures are true for the Thunder.

I am just a bit curious that after so much effort that had gone into the design of the Thunder and being a generation ahead of the PG conceptually, how come they end up with a fighter that cannot surpass the F-7PG in horizontal maneuverability?

Sir your opinion on this would be appreciated.

Do remember the F-7PG is called a mini-F-16 by PAF guys. In simulated dog fights it gives tough time to even the F-16 at flying factors which benefit the PG.

https://defence.pk/threads/mirage-f-7pg-and-other-combat-aircrafts.63957/page-28#post-6103269

Rest has been cleared by HRK.
 
Per Article published in AFM and/or brochure for an Airshow for jf17 FCS has limit for 8G max and 26degree turn which ever comes first
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom