Adam_Khan
BANNED
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2019
- Messages
- 597
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
There is no difference but the two cockpits bro,just that they have covered the central pedestal display in the naval version.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Look, I'm not here for arguments. But I'll illustrate my point.Yes I understand there are different types of species of human in West and Indian for cockpit design....Yes I mean in terms of market the customer sees only that extra and larger MFD things....wasn't you go to buy a car from a showroom?....Think in that terms....Rafale,Typhoon,Eagle and Gripen have the best HMD but still look at their cockpit and HUD.....
Also look at the HUD of block 3.
Also look at the position of pilot. View attachment 617998
As the sitting of pilot is concerned it is sorry to say a senseless argument....And it is not where you can lie
Excellent....Look, I'm not here for arguments. But I'll illustrate my point.
Here is a JF-17 pilot in the cockpit and as you can see clearly, the canopy sill comes up right near his shoulder, just a few cm below where his shoulder is. The same thing can also be seen for the front seat JF-17B pilot, although to be fair, the picture is taken from a lower angle and hence it seems worse than in the single seater JF-17.
Here is a Tejas pilot in the cockpit and as you can see clearly, the canopy sill is several inches below his shoulder.
It has to do with the way the contour lines on the JF-17 and Tejas were designed, at the very beginning of the design process.
Here is another view. This time, with the canopy open and here one can see clearly how high the respective pilots sit in the cockpit.
Here is a JF-17 pilot in the cockpit and the cockpit edge (over which the canopy sill sits) is a few inches below his shoulder
Here is a Tejas pilot in the cockpit and the cockpit edge (over which the canopy sill sits) is several inches below his shoulder.
See the difference? Different designs, different outcomes.
Another aspect that also becomes clear with these images is that the Tejas ejection seat is inclined at a greater angle than the JF-17's ejection seat. And why does that matter? Because seat inclination helps the pilot in dealing with high G-forces, generally believed to improve G-force handling by upto +1 G. The higher the inclination the better. Obviously without making the inclination so great that the pilot cannot operate the instruments or see the MFDs. The F-16 has one of the highest seat recline angles- it's 28 degrees I believe.
Look, I'm not here for arguments. But I'll illustrate my point.
Here is a JF-17 pilot in the cockpit and as you can see clearly, the canopy sill comes up right near his shoulder, just a few cm below where his shoulder is. The same thing can also be seen for the front seat JF-17B pilot, although to be fair, the picture is taken from a lower angle and hence it seems worse than in the single seater JF-17.
Here is a Tejas pilot in the cockpit and as you can see clearly, the canopy sill is several inches below his shoulder.
It has to do with the way the contour lines on the JF-17 and Tejas were designed, at the very beginning of the design process.
Here is another view. This time, with the canopy open and here one can see clearly how high the respective pilots sit in the cockpit.
Here is a JF-17 pilot in the cockpit and the cockpit edge (over which the canopy sill sits) is a few inches below his shoulder
Here is a Tejas pilot in the cockpit and the cockpit edge (over which the canopy sill sits) is several inches below his shoulder.
See the difference? Different designs, different outcomes.
Another aspect that also becomes clear with these images is that the Tejas ejection seat is inclined at a greater angle than the JF-17's ejection seat. And why does that matter? Because seat inclination helps the pilot in dealing with high G-forces, generally believed to improve G-force handling by upto +1 G. The higher the inclination the better. Obviously without making the inclination so great that the pilot cannot operate the instruments or see the MFDs. The F-16 has one of the highest seat recline angles- it's 28 degrees I believe.
Excellent....
But as you know that from Mig-33 To Super 7 then ultimately to JF-17 Thunder it has Russian genes in Simple words....As just in case of mki....Look at the pilot position....
It doesn't Matter where the pilot sits....View attachment 621460 View attachment 621459
What matters is the arsenal and Radar of a plane in real combat but In exports the OTHERS thing matters ....For Example the engine of a plane....No m not taking about the thrust etc etc The matter of concern is availability....price and performance.MAF has air superiority over Bangladeshis air Force cz of there arsenal i.e SD-10....I mean There are very few air forces which can bear a volley of SD-10 direct on face and BAF is certainly not one of them.
The place where the pilot sit in Thunder is same as that of Gripen.I was discussing the cockpit design as you claimed that the JF-17 had a better cockpit than the Tejas. Whereas cockpit design has several elements that need to be factored in, not just the size of MFDs.
So you are saying in way that The Sukhois are just a piece of shit where the pilot sits deep inside cockpit????.
How does this matter? Well, if you ask pilots they'll tell you. For e.g. F-15 pilots always remarked how the high seating in the F-15 cockpit gave excellent view out of the cockpit, when compared to any other fighter. Which helps greatly in general flying as well as in close combat. Ask any MiG-21 pilot and you'll know that they always had the disadvantage of sitting in a cockpit that gave very poor frontal view and not that great side views either.
I agree that the JF-17's genesis was in the Super-7 project. That Russian cockpit design philosophy is somewhat visible there.
Extremely well articulated !
What is your least favourite thing?
The refuelling probe length and position on the Gripen C/D. Even though I know the reasons behind the placing and length (retrofitted into an already set fuselage) it makes a mission component, that should be easy and predictable, an unnecessarily exciting part of the mission. Anecdote coming up! I’ve been told that when Gripen C/D was certified for air refuelling the subject matter expert pilot said something like: “Gripen has probably the world’s worst probe placement but compensates that with the world’s best flight control system.” I concur with the statement. You can fly to the basket/drogue and stay easily within a meter or so of it, positioning your Gripen with almost centimetre precision with the stick, but when you approach it the wake of the canopy will push it outwards. This means that you’ll have to “go for it” and aim a bit on the outside of the drogue. This is not a good recipe for predictability. You do get good at it after a while and learn how to do it safely, but a longer probe wouldn’t harm.”
The place where the pilot sit in Thunder is same as that of Gripen. View attachment 621600
Also you can consider the F/A-18 Super Hornet....
View attachment 621601
And also the cockpit of Thunder is designed in an incline way....I mean the edges of the cockpit lowered as we move to the anterior side of the plane....It is also an illusion for some people in a way.
So you are saying in way that The Sukhois are just a piece of shit where the pilot sits deep inside cockpit????
View attachment 621602
The Chinese spent Billions $ on J series flankers and bought Su-35....Are Foolish people or you r smarter enough than them?
I am what kind of difference 2 to 3 inches gonna make?
As far as MFDs r concerened m sure that you never went to bought a even a simple car like Suzuki Alto 800 from a showroom....So you can understand what I meant....That these things really matters....View attachment 621607
Thank you.
I had seen some other post here that was criticizing the positioning of the aerial refueling probe on the Tejas. Well, here is my take on it.
The fact is that many of the Tejas' Test Pilots are former Mirage-2000 pilots and as we know, the positioning of the probe is nearly the same on both jets. If pilots flying the Mirage-2000 never complained about the probe blocking the view, then the same applies to the Tejas.
Why you can't understand that everyone does not live in your Wizard of Oz....Thank you.
I had seen some other post here that was criticizing the positioning of the aerial refueling probe on the Tejas. Well, here is my take on it.
The fact is that many of the Tejas' Test Pilots are former Mirage-2000 pilots and as we know, the positioning of the probe is nearly the same on both jets. If pilots flying the Mirage-2000 never complained about the probe blocking the view, then the same applies to the Tejas.
And if you've seen videos of the Mirage-2000 from the cockpit, you'll realise that the probe doesn't really block the view.
But there is a huge advantage to it being positioned in front of the canopy and not on the side.
1) It is right in the eye line of the pilot, looking forward. He doesn't have to look sideways to position the fighter to refuel
2) It avoids the possibility of the drogue basket hitting the canopy when a contact is missed. This is one of the biggest threats to pilots in fighters where the probe is placed on the side. The drogue basket if it swings about, can crack a canopy and no pilot on earth will want that.
3) Very careful CFD and wind tunnel testing and modeling was done to analyse the wake flow and as a result, when the first contact was attempted with the drogue basket, it was done beautifully.
4) the FCS is designed to make the aerial refueling an extremely smooth and safe operation. Once again, according to a Tejas Test Pilot I spoke to, aerial refueling is the easiest on the Tejas compared to all other IAF jets, including the Mirage-2000.
Read this interview with a Gripen pilot
When asked what is his least favorite thing about the Gripen- it was the aerial refueling probe. The reason why it was placed there was because it was retrofitted into an already set fuselage and they didn't want to make all the changes required to put it up front next to the pilot's field of vision.
I can see from the quality of your posts as to what your level of discussion will be.
I won't discuss this anymore with you since it's not worth my time.
Nahh bud it was the F-35 lightning ll cockpit ....And my point was that if The modren looking cockpit was not the case then the makers of F-35 which are the finest of this world could put 2 to 3 small piece of shit MFDs in their state of art machine....Positioning of refueling probe is an issue that exists only in the imagination of posters of this forum. A term comes to mind 'Criticizing for the sake of criticizing' - since some of the posters are desperate to find faults with Tejas this seems to be one of the stupid items that generally has consensus over here. On the contrary JF17 refuelling probe is actually poor and is a cop out due to design inefficiencies.
1st is this JF17 block 3 cockpit ?
2nd LAD is not just about display but is much more than that.
Why you can't understand that everyone does not live in your Wizard of Oz....
If that is the case then Why Lookhead Martin developed that kind of aerial refueling probe in their premier
F-22 Raptor?....Where the pilot can't see anything.View attachment 621776Also look at the aerial refueling probe of
F-15 Strike Eagle....Are these premier aircraft companies of the world couldn't put a piece of shit looking probe direct inside the mouth of the plane?View attachment 621777at last for more of your Satisfaction you can also consider the aerial refueling probe of
F-16 Fighting Falcon. View attachment 621778I was only saying that you are just making a fool out of yourself....
Nahh bud it was the F-35 lightning ll cockpit ....And my point was that if The modren looking cockpit was not the case then the makers of F-35 which are the finest of this world could put 2 to 3 small piece of shit MFDs in their state of art machine....
Anyway thanks for asking.....
As far as the aerial refueling probe of
JF-17 Thunder is concerned it is on the same position as that of F-35 lightning ll
Are you consider CAC and Lookhead Martin
Companies Foolish that they put aerial refueling probe in decent looking way rather putting it like a tumor direct on the face of the airplane as in Tejas?View attachment 621775
As far as the aerial refueling probe of
JF-17 Thunder is concerned it is on the same position as that of F-35 lightning ll
Are you consider CAC and Lookhead Martin
Companies Foolish that they put aerial refueling probe in decent looking way rather putting it like a tumor direct on the face of the airplane as in Tejas?View attachment 621775
Positioning of refueling probe is an issue that exists only in the imagination of posters of this forum. A term comes to mind 'Criticizing for the sake of criticizing' - since some of the posters are desperate to find faults with Tejas this seems to be one of the stupid items that generally has consensus over here. On the contrary JF17 refuelling probe is actually poor and is a cop out due to design inefficiencies.
1st is this JF17 block 3 cockpit ?
2nd LAD is not just about display but is much more than that.
Hello
When is hal lca tejas mk1a going to be inducted?
Some say 2023-24.
And what is news of hal mwf. I saw photos of the aircraft, it is beautiful.we need to produce 100+ mwf in next 5-10 years.
Should we trust ada and hal.