JF-17 Thunder: Made for the PAF

[VCheng]

I am sure software would be updated but that brings forth a layman's question in my mind regarding limitation on FCS imposed by the current hardware. Don't the design choices, metallurgy, tonnage etc all control to a degree the flight dynamics? in that case the further refining of control laws would only bring incremental benefits.

You are correct in that the benefits will be incremental, since the software can optimize the performance only within the hard limits set by the capabilities of the hardware.

In the defense of Managers, if the manager doesn't know about the subject matter then he would be a poor manager indeed. Granted a manager does not need to concern himself with the minute details but the understanding of the criticalities of the project is a prerequisite.

Correct, but often a manager thinks that 9 women should be able to produce a baby in one month, working as a team.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

You are correct in that the benefits will be incremental, since the software can optimize the performance only within the hard limits set by the capabilities of the hardware.

Then will the hardware i.e. control actuators/control surfaces or air-frame design limits be the final cut-off point.
Pardon the limits of my approach to the topic.

 

[VCheng]

Then will the hardware i.e. control actuators/control surfaces or air-frame design limits be the final cut-off point.
Pardon the limits of my approach to the topic.

Permissible flight maneuvers should not break the airframe, stall the engine or kill the pilot. Those are hard limits. Then come the refinements within those limits, for example, what is being carried for the given mission profile, and what can be done within the limits imposed by that combination.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Permissible flight maneuvers should not break the airframe, stall the engine or kill the pilot. Those are hard limits. Then come the refinements within those limit, for example, what is being carried for the given mission profile, and what can be done within the limits imposed by that combination.

That gets clearer, then; Thanks.

 

[Spectre]

I don't have a beef with anyone. But when fools try to sound masters of the universe, I call them out. The member who started showing supreme aircraft design tech, doesn't have professional experience. PERIOD!! He's educated and I respect it. The credentials are when someone shows me that their writing or thesis is backed up by a program like the F-16, the F-18 or something at this caliber. But this gentlemen, albeit VERY educated, doesn't have that.

So if you don't have professional experience, questioning another program like the JFT with your "superior" technical "CONCEPTUAL" knowledge makes no sense. You can't make claims that the JFT does or doesn't have "X" because you " think so", and without professional experience!!!!

Next, just like the rest of Indian egoists (like yourself), he's now upset because he doesn't have professional experience. He asks for "JFT's technical documentation" as a proof. I've asked him to provide me similar documentation on F-16, F-15, F-18 etc, which I can't and no one can as its confidential. Same goes or the JFT. But, now that his "superior technical being" argument is butchered with facts, his ego is hurt and crying and all the cousins from India are invited to "deal with one member" who dared to question and proved him wrong.

The result??? Viper vs. the Indian community on the PDF. The thread is derailed, the topic is of (even with many of my previous warnings) and the Indian community and some other are too busy getting personal than countering my factual arguments, or provide proofs I've asked for!!!!! WAY TO GO. Tells me how "smart and educated" people I am dealing with. Who can't defend their own arguments with facts. So keep on name calling me, like it'll make you look smart, when its not. You guys are acting like children in junior high school, gossiping!!

@Manticore @Irfan Baloch @Slav Defence : guys the thread has been derailed to the last degree. We are SO far off the topic. Please clean up and instruct the members to remain on topic and open up an flight control and aircraft design related thread if someone "still" wants to gossip without proper experience!! Thanks!

What facts have you put forth except brandishing your own imaginary qualifications and connections. Atleast the OP and others were trying to engage the arguments until you called into question their qualifications, experience and personality

At first you were amusing now you are just a plain annoying twat specialising in hit and run tactics . Derailing the thread yourself and then name-calling the Mods to clean it up like a 13 year old.

I understand you have a chip on your shoulder but no need to be so obvious about it. Just cool it - This is just an anonymous internet forum.

 

[VCheng]

That gets clearer, then; Thanks.

It helps to think logically. As the platform matures, there will be greater understanding just how the limits can be pushed further and further out as the FCS is tested extensively and then the upgrades are rolled out to the existing aircraft wherever possible.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Good lord in Seventh Heaven! some guys do not know when to back off or gracefully exit..... but well.
Now @Syed.Ali.Haider; so the FCS would encompass a number of programs/profiles to control various mission configurations/load-outs too?

 

[Irfan Baloch]

guys stay on topic
viper take it easy

 

[VCheng]

Now @Syed.Ali.Haider; so the FCS would encompass a number of programs/profiles to control various mission configurations/load-outs too?

Absolutely, right down to ordnance and fuel loads, trim levels and even pilot weight., and all feasible combinations thereof.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

It helps to think logically. As the platform matures, there will be greater understanding just how the limits can be pushed further and further out as the FCS is tested extensively and then the upgrades are rolled out to the existing aircraft wherever possible.

As I could make out; it certainly is an incremental process, but it seems to be even tedious or time-consuming. Is all of that done through simulation or is it a must to validate every iteration in actual flight?

 

[VCheng]

As I could make out; it certainly is an incremental process, but it seems to be even tedious or time-consuming. Is all of that done through simulation or is it a must to validate every iteration in actual flight?

It is a combination of both simulation and actual testing, depending on the computer power and flying time available.

 

[Spectre]

As I could make out; it certainly is an incremental process, but it seems to be even tedious or time-consuming. Is all of that done through simulation or is it a must to validate every iteration in actual flight?

I would assume both are done, first validation through simulation and then actual flight tests through the test aircrafts.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

guys stay on topic
viper take it easy

@Irfan Baloch; everything is here, in clear day-light so to speak. If somebody feels so piqued or his ego so smothered; so as to be reduced to irrelevant statements; it is beyond reason. But the posts are there for viewing and assessment anyway, so take a look. It will be illuminating, perhaps.

 

[VCheng]

I would assume both are done, first validation through simulation and then actual flight tests through the test aircrafts.

If anyone thinks developing an FCS is easy:

 

[Viper0011.]

What facts have you put forth except brandishing your own imaginary qualifications and connections. Atleast the OP and others were trying to engage the arguments until you called into question their qualifications, experience and personality

At first you were amusing now you are just a plain annoying twat specialising in hit and run tactics . Derailing the thread yourself and then name-calling the Mods to clean it up like a 13 year old.

I understand you have a chip on your shoulder but no need to be so obvious about it. Just cool it - This is just an anonymous internet forum.

Go re-read the entire thread. Your cousin didn't put out any facts, he doesn't have professional experience. Questioning the JFT program without having experience with aircraft design and flight control engineering is absolutely stupid. Quoting terms and laws of Physics and flight control characteristics from books to sound smart, is even stupider. I ask him a few things to see his WORKING experience with anything modern like the F-16's, etc, but nothing was provided. Only a truck load of Indian "smart" people were brought to support the silly argument. This thread has become an H1B Sausage fest at this point!! I'd suggest you guys stop with insults (like on every other thread) and start to come up with facts. OR, hold your high degrees inside your closets and go get some real experience on the topic (like your cousins were shinning in the posts above). You guys look like 16 year old children in junior high school to readers!

@Irfan Baloch @Manticore @Slav Defence @WebMaster : check out the language above please, highlighted for you. I won't respond to these low level third class posts, which are typical of the Indian members when they can't deal with a topic factually.

Member ban please? as I've courteously dealt with this drama for the past 5 hours with plenty of insults and name callings!!

If anyone thinks developing an FCS is easy:

And your mysterious, hidden point behind posting this youtube video on a JFT thread was.........? No point as always?

Got it and way to go. Great contribution. What's next? You'll post a video of a Submarine on a JFT thread to make another mysterious point?