What's new

FC-1 (JF-17) powered by WS-13 engine carries Taxi Trials

^^^^^

Thank you every one for understanding,
and I am glad I was able to convey my point.

Mastan Khan, I will be looking forward to that article,
I might be able to add some things in it ;)
 
.
Boss,
that is the point,
the F-16 was DESIGNED to carry both, JF-17 was not.
Once the aircraft is designed to carry both engines
you can imagine that the engine developers had kept that in their mind and ensure that the engine can be replaced by the other one.

in this case we have a problem putting the Russian engine, we are running after the Ws-13 engine, which is not even fully mature, and over time it will have modifications before it is bullet proof and water tight.

Even if the WS-13 was intended to be RD-93's replica.
I can guarantee you,
even if you have the precise schematics of the RD-93,
even if the russians give you the alloy secrets
even if you have the same fabrication facilities
with all the even ifs
manufacture the same engine in China, and the product will be different from the original.

and integrating and debugging that is an even bigger pain in the @r$3.

so how can PAF/PAC bank on being able to just slapping it in ?


Now for IceCold:

See it this way
What do you call major modification ?
is it a structural change ?
is it concerned with moving equipment within the bay, to accommodate the new engine ?
do you refer changes to the fuselage design ?

All of the above are major changes in their own right, for the sake of the argument as imagine that these are all not the problem.
Just the re-work required in the control systems is bigger task than any one of the above changes.

I am not saying that it is impossible to put another engine in the air craft.
However I am saying it is difficult.
It will require a lot of changes and modifications.
and even when these changes are made, end of the day you will find out self to have made more compromises than any thing else.

Imagine this,
you have to move the mount point of the engine 6" for the new engine.
That is all, only 6 ", weight distribution is the same, every little detail is the same.
Now to make a new mount point, you will first remove the first one,
on the new mount point position, you will have to make the following:

1. Structural impact whereby you will have to study the stresses placed on the supporting fuselage. You will have to analyze take of, landing, super sonic, turns etc in account and simulate as much as possible to avoid experimentation.

2. Metal fatigue analysis: you will re-do all your calculations to analyze the ALL metal fatigue variables to make sure that this change will not cause an out of bound change any where else.

3. Vibration stabilization: This is EXTREMELY critical and it is self explanatory.

4. You will have to re-calibrate all your control systems to ensure your FBWs and rest work as they should.

the above 4 are just the some major tasks,
Now imagine you will have to do the above several times over to pass the quality cycles.

That is engineering for you ! and this is how meticulously a war machine is produced.

You raise some valid points which is a delight to read.

I think the question is - how much did the JF-17 designers knew about the WS-13 engine when designing the plane and how well tailored is the WS-13 for the JF-17.

Another thing to consider is how much data from the testing they have. Sure enough, even if WS-13 is simulated to fit perfectly, it will still require a thorough testing to verify the same.

The 'assumption' here, which is quite a strong assumption by the way, is that the WS-13 was intended for the JF-17 all the way and it couldn't so happen because the WS-13 wasn't working flawlessly by then. Then again the question is what was changed in the WS-13 and how drastically different (in terms of weight, dimensions, etc) it is from the originial design or is it some internal modifications.

If rumors are to be believed that the WS-13 is already doing taxi trials, then one could imagine that a prototype has been used all this time trying to integrate the WS-13 into the JF-17 and that the engineering 'nightmare' phase has passed - well except for the unforeseen concerns you will encounter when the real thing flies because even your best estimates and simulations won't work perfectly in the real world.

If such is the case, the second batch of JF-17s could very well be using the WS-13 ( if it passes all tests).


In order to reverse engineer a product you ought ot have the thinging, the brains and the technology to stand behind yoru work.

Why do you need to reverse engineer something---that is the first question---you do it because you were not capable of designing it in the first place---.

Now if you were not capable of designing it in the first place---then your end product will not meet the performance level of what you are copying----this is design engineering in its simplest form.

Hello Khan Sahib, how are you doing?

Not every 'reverse engineered' product has to be inferior to the original one. Reverse engineering is quite a loose term which can range from someone disintegrating a piece and equipment trying to replicate it by essentially measuring every part and building it - without understanding how the darn thing works- and thinking when they put together everything, it will work just fine, since it did for the original equipment.

On the other hand, reverse engineering will provide you a platform on which to stand on - as a measure of bypassing the long process of reinventing the wheel - and begin the race.

A lot of research today is based on criticially analyzing a brilliant piece of someone else's research - which you probably didn't think of or could develop on you own - and providing improvements on it. In reasearch, you usually have the other guys publication to work on while in reverse engineering, you basically have the product and need to figure out the other person's ideas yourself.

Depending on how capable you are, you can make both inferior or superior product from a reverse engineered one.
 
.
Mean-bird,

Thanks for the post---I should have kept the scenario limited to the geographic area that it was being used in and the equipment in question----my statement is not a generalized standard of reverse engineering.

It was purely meant for defence production items in countries of inferior technology and a metalurgical research base. It should basically be used in scenarios of east trying to replicate western technologies and the hurdles that are faced.

Thankyou.
 
.
My focus is on status quo. Talking about stealth versions is stupid, the whole aircraft will have to be re-designed. You can be stealthy and make amends to reduce RCS. But neither we nor China has full access to purely stealth materials or technology (correct me if im wrong)

It is a 4th gen fighter that can easily be upfitted and upgraded with 4.5 gen technologies and capabilities. It has been designed in such a way to accomodate future upgrades.

Totally agree, but there are enough Pakistani members that doesn't see JF 17 that realistic right?

they are already inducted into PAF; look at Sq. # 26.

Is said the upgraded second, or third batches of JF 17 are just as near as MMRCA, or Pak Fa. Inducted are only the first few of the first batch.

Nobody said it was a flagship fighter for the PAF. That title would go to the brand new F-16s, most likely. And those will be highly potent aircrafts which will help tilt the balance MORE in our favour --especially as far as defending our skies is concerned, as well as offensive-defence type missions

Not really, after the first reports of former F16 pilots that now flys JF 17, several people jumped into the conclusion that JF 17 already is on par with F16 and could even exceed it with some few upgrades. What they forget is, the comparison was between a JF 17 with 4. gen capabilities and not upgraded F 16s with 3+ capabilities only. It shouldn't be a surprise that the pilots were more than happy then.
I disagree regarding the belance, PAF will more capable than before, but with with the new upgrades of M2K and Mig 29 and additional MKIs the balance is obviously in favour of IAF, be it techs, weapons, or numbers. But that's a different topic right?

Let's just say, there arent as ''disposable'' as your Mig-21s. The flankers are definately a force to reckon with. But with such a fighter comes INTENSE (I stress the word) maintenence requirements even after individual CAPs/sorties.

You can also say, the Su 30s of IAF have a better reliability record than PAFs F 16 with only 2 crashes, whereas 8 F16s crashed in the same timeframe:

List being compiled
 
Last edited:
.
I have reviewed Abu Zulfiqar's post and persoanlly i find nothing objectional in the first 3 or 4 paras. it is also polite and therefore you cant really object to that.

Actually I only objected on one part of his post, the one I quoted, the other point was that I expected such a senior member like him not to react like that, especially compared to new members. I mean, Schindlers post was very short, but Abu Zulfiqar's quoted nearly every sentence and commented on them. All I meant was, that this wasn't really necessary, not that he was offensive, or something like that. If senior members like yourself, or him doesn't have the patience, or ease in discussions, how should new members learn it? So it isn't that surprising that so many threads ends up in simple trolling and flaming (of all nationalities of course) or?
 
Last edited:
.
Dear,

There are many theories flying around this thread, none is supported or dismissed by any JF-17 engineer so far, so all of them will carry some weight to be the correct hypothesis. In the interest of discussion and completing the list of theories, i will not hesitate to present mine.


China has been doing R&D on FADEC supported futuristic engines since 80's. They are just beginning to show success in the form of WS10 and WS13 engines. JF-17 was designed to accommodate a domestic Chinese engine (presumably WS12/13) from the start. But since engine technology was not upto the acceptance mark, the initial production and testing starting off with first flights dating back to 2003 could have been delayed for almost a decade, if Chinese/Pakistani engineers insisted on mating these unproven Chinese engines from the very beginning.
Quick way around was to contract Russian Kilmov into "modifying" (and that's the key word here) their improved RD33-series3 into RD93 to be installed in lieu of WS13 until WS13 proved its reliability and thrust requirements.

If this theory turns out to be correct, then JF-17 was designed to mate with WS13, and was "modified" into accepting RD93.

I strongly believe this hypothesis to be true, but in the absence of any testimony from any JF-17 engineer, i cannot present this theory as a fact. You are free to choose whatever you think is the correct.

Regards,
Sapper
 
.
@Salman,

JF-17 was designed with four engines in mind (Russian, US, French and Chinese) and is an example of Plug and Play concept. This is even mentioned by both Chinese as well as PAF officials. Can you give a proof that it cannot accommodate anything other than RD-93 when initial choice was French and US engines? RD-93 was an interim solution as no other option was available at that time and Chinese engine was not even in the picture. Plug and Play says it all my friend
 
.
Quick way around was to contract Russian Kilmov into "modifying" (and that's the key word here) their improved RD33-series3 into RD93 to be installed in lieu of WS13 until WS13 proved its reliability and thrust requirements.

RD-93 IS NOT A DERIVATIVE OF THE SERIES -3 ENGINE BUT THE BASIC RD-33
 
.
I think the question is - how much did the JF-17 designers knew about the WS-13 engine when designing the plane and how well tailored is the WS-13 for the JF-17.

Dear MB, All along we knew that JF-17 airframe is entirely decoupled from the engine.
With this i assume all controlls will be uneffected if any.... engine is used.
Now any engine (matching thrust) would certainly can shift the center of gravity hence would require minor to major changes.
Minor changes measn only in airframe but again these will be required only when alternate engine differs from RD-93 and i see no reason why PAF should choose such engine at any time!
Now, WS-13 is of identical dimensions as RD-93 and minor weight issues are offset by increased thrust.
In my opinion real challenge for WS-13 is its performance and not integration as it was considered in design.
 
.
RD-93 IS NOT A DERIVATIVE OF THE SERIES -3 ENGINE BUT THE BASIC RD-33

Dear,

I don't want to fight you over this but RD-33 basic had MTBO of 300 hours, which was improved to 1000+ for series 2 and 1500+ for series 3. RD-93 shares its MTBO with series 3, since its reported life-cycle is of 4000hrs with ~1500 hrs MTBO.

Regards,
Sapper
 
.
^^ Series 3 is operational with India only.. The contract which signed between Russia and China is for basic version.
 
.
^^Any link, in support of your claim?
 
.
^^ Series 3 is operational with India only.. The contract which signed between Russia and China is for basic version.

Ahem Ahem ...

Please visit this site:
RD-33 (MZAK Pictures)


Original Text:
RD-33 série 3
Má meziopravový resurs zvýšen ze 700 na 1000 hodin, celková životnost je 2000 hodin, forsážní výkon zůstává na 8300 kp. Je to motor pro MiG-29SD/SM (oba prvně vzlétly v roce 1995). Na výstavě ILA 98 byl s těmito motory představen letoun MiG-29SMT (první let v roce 1998). O instalaci RD-33 série 3s se uvažovalo u starých německých MiG-29. Těžko říct, jestli modernizace nakonec proběhla.

Rusko a Malajsie provedly v roce 1997 čtyřfázový upgrade objednaných MiGů-29S na vlastní malajsijskou verzi MiG-29N (= SD s vylepšeními). Byl přidán nástavec pro tankování ve vzduchu, použit radar N019M1 a střely R-77. Poslední fází bylo nahrazení motorů RD-33 série 2s za motory RD-33 série 3. Zálet prvního upraveného letounu byl proveden 8.4.1998.

Podle zpráv z roku 2002 se u MiG-29SMT (a SMT-II) počítá se zvýšením životnosti motorů RD-33 série 3 až na 4000 hodin, čímž o 40% klesnou provozní náklady. Jedny ze zlepšení, které mají vést ke zvýšení životnosti, jsou zpevněná konstrukce třístupňového labyrintu spalovací komory a odolnější ložiska.


Translated into English:
RD-33 Series 3
Meziopravový resurs has increased from 700 to 1000 hours, the total life is 2000 hours forsážní output remains at 8300 kp. It is the engine for MiG-29SD/SM (both first flew in 1995). At the exhibition ILA 98 was introduced with these engines MiG-29SMT (first flight in 1998). The installation of RD-33 series 3s are considered in the old German MiG-29. Hard to say whether modernization eventually took place.

Russia and Malaysia in 1997, made a four-step upgrade MiG-29s ordered on their own version of the Malaysian MiG-29N (SD = with enhancements). Extension was added for refueling in the air, used in radar and missile N019M1 R-77th The last phase was the replacement of engines RD-33 engines for the series 2s RD-33 Series 3 Maiden flight of the first revised the airplane was conducted April 8, 1998.

According to reports from 2002, the MiG-29SMT (and SMT-II) provides for increasing the life of engines RD-33 3-series up to 4000 hours, so a 40% drop operating costs. One of the improvements that have lead to increased durability, the reinforced construction of a three-tiered labyrinth of the combustion chamber and more durable bearings.


These are the exact same specs for RD-93 unlike the original RD-33.
Thrust: 8300 kgf
Life: 4000 hours

Regards,
Sapper
 
.
Hello Khan Sahib, how are you doing?

Not every 'reverse engineered' product has to be inferior to the original one. Reverse engineering is quite a loose term which can range from someone disintegrating a piece and equipment trying to replicate it by essentially measuring every part and building it - without understanding how the darn thing works- and thinking when they put together everything, it will work just fine, since it did for the original equipment.

On the other hand, reverse engineering will provide you a platform on which to stand on - as a measure of bypassing the long process of reinventing the wheel - and begin the race.

A lot of research today is based on criticially analyzing a brilliant piece of someone else's research - which you probably didn't think of or could develop on you own - and providing improvements on it. In reasearch, you usually have the other guys publication to work on while in reverse engineering, you basically have the product and need to figure out the other person's ideas yourself.

Depending on how capable you are, you can make both inferior or superior product from a reverse engineered one.

Hi,

I didnot read your post correctly---see---my words are minced again to convenience.

I stated " In order to reverse engineer a product you ought ot have the thinking, the brains and the technology to stand behind your work ".


It took china close to 25 years to copy the american Mark 48 torpedoe in the form of Yu 6---at one stage they had to shelve the program because they didnot have the technological experties to follow through.

My discussion has never been about any american designer copying another american designer's product---but the discussion has revolved around china---china and china---india---russia---and pakistan.

So let us keep our discussion about reverse engineering in the similiar category and region.:pakistan:
 
.
I have a question if taxi trails have already been taken place with ws-13, this means what ever modifications were required to accommodate a new engine has been already done.
My question is from this stage how long will it take for the WS-13 to fully equip the next batch of the JF-17s and secondly what are the parameters/benchmarks that are kept in mind before installing a new engine on a single engine jet.

Salman since you are an engineer perhaps you can enlighten me on this one.

Thanks
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom