JF-17 Thunder: Made for the PAF

[amardeep mishra]

That you lost a lot of people in the process.

Yours seems to be a desire to impress, not educate. There is a difference.

Mr @gambit
I never knew that presenting your views in structured and mathematically correct manner amounts to impressing crowd.

Anways,I beg to differ with you, I dont have to impress anybody . the institutes I went to/graduated are enough. I find it pityful that instead of furnishing a technical literature you continue to involve in speculations. What if the plane doesn't have horizontal stabs or stabilators like LCA?
Secondly,I never said JFT is bad plane or inferior to anything.I'm fully aware that it fulfills the needs of PAF at the moment.what I said was I do not indulge in speculations unless and until I have very credible proof.
Now if you please furnish some literature, it'd save a lot of our time, I'm Waiting

 

[Ragnarok connection]

Mr @gambit
I never knew that presenting your views in structured and mathematically correct manner amounts to impressing crowd.

Anways,I beg to differ with you, I dont have to impress anybody . the institutes I went to/graduated are enough. I find it pityful that instead of furnishing a technical literature you continue to involve in speculations. What if the plane doesn't have horizontal stabs or stabilators in modern fighter jets like LCA?
Secondly,I never said JFT is bad plane or inferior to anything.I'm fully aware that it fulfills the needs of PAF at the moment.what I said was I do not indulge in speculations unless and until I have very credible proof.
Now if you please furnish some literature, it'd save a lot of our time, I'm Waiting

Bro, I ll give you some advice...do not waste your time giving lectures to people here on science and facts, this forum runs on speculation and discussion of news articles.
People who are not as learned as you or not as smart as you 'will not' understand your point/argument. It is analagous to speaking with a mad man continously.
Find a proper scientific/engg. forum where you as well others like you can grow, and visit Pdf only to speculate, argue on stupid speculations, or enjoy troll wars.
Good day from a fellow engineer.

 

[gambit]

Mr @gambit
I never knew that presenting your views in structured and mathematically correct manner amounts to impressing crowd.

Anways,I beg to differ with you, I dont have to impress anybody .

I think you do. I could be wrong. But that is my speculation.

I find it pityful that instead of furnishing a technical literature you continue to involve in speculations.

We are talking about the JF-17. I am in the US, not Pakistan or China. I have no interests in digging up any technical literature about the JF-17.

Do not tell me that you personally have never engaged in speculations. Anyone who is involved in any type of investigations, even in the theoretical realm, speculated. World famous scientists done it. I doubt you belongs in that group. Engineers do it on a regular basis, especially if the engineer have to investigate a competitor's products, like I have.

What if the plane doesn't have horizontal stabs or stabilators like LCA?

Then you look for other clues. If there are none to indicate what kind of flight controls it has, too bad.

Secondly,I never said JFT is bad plane or inferior to anything.

Never said you did. What I said was my opinion and used myself as example as to how there is nothing wrong with speculations.

what I said was I do not indulge in speculations unless and until I have very credible proof.

You just do not like the idea that someone challenged you. What I speculated about the JF-17 is no less valid than your argument about it.

Everything you said in this thread so far have NOT disprove the public information about the JF-17 and relaxed stability. The math that you tried to use did not disprove anything but merely explained the concept of relaxed stability. You can take the default, and usually safe, position that the burden of proof rests on the claimant, therefore, those who claimed the JF-17 employs relaxed stability have to provide documents. But do not use math to explain the concept then insist that is proof that you are correct.

Now if you please furnish some literature, it'd save a lot of our time, I'm Waiting

Then you will be waiting for a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.

Bro, I ll give you some advice...do not waste your time giving lectures to people here on science and facts,...

Buddy, I have seen plenty of fantastic claims about the Brah-less missile from your fellow Indians. Some of them rivals the Chinese claims about the J-20 in terms of violating the laws of physics.

 

[amardeep mishra]

You just do not like the idea that someone challenged you. What I speculated about the JF-17 is no less valid than your argument about it.

I've said umpteen number of times and I re iterate- I will GLADLY accept a technical treatise pertaining to Rss being available on JFT. As far as challenging is concerned,next time do it on a basis you can prove using mathematical framework.
Believe me,I like the idea of RIGOROUS technical discussions much more than you do,provided it is based on something you can tangibly prove and not on speculations that too speculations that are not applicable to vast variety of jets

burden of proof rests on the claimant, therefore, those who claimed the JF-17 employs relaxed stability have to provide documents. But do not use math to explain the concept then insist that is proof that you are correct.

Yeah now you're talking, the burden of proof lies on party making the claim
Secondly I WILL use mathematics to prove my point no matter you understand or not.because that's what I've been trained to do.

Anyone who is involved in any type of investigations, even in the theoretical realm, speculated.

Speculated based on very credible science and mathematical framework and not something that can't be tangibly proven.
Kindly prove your point much more strongly .what you said(in relation to analyzing RSS by looking at airshow performance) was a speculation that too something that is not universal.
I rest my case here, if you wish to continue your explanation or shall I say speculations then go ahead and write them, but when you reply to me make sure it complies to rigid engineering/mathematical framework

My dear friend in the world of science and logic, you need only one case to prove a statement wrong, however for a statement to be correct, one needs to prove it for ALL possible cases(or prove it universally).

 

[gambit]

Yeah now you're talking, the burden of proof lies on party making the claim

Good...Then as of now, the F-16 DOES NOT employ relaxed stability.

I was on the jet for five yrs. Not once have I seen any General Dynamics rep presented any math to prove that the jet was designed with relaxed stability. NOT ONCE. All we have is GD's words -- claim -- that the jet has relaxed stability. As far as I know, not one F-16 client have examined the jet and published its flight controls algorithms for all to see that it has relaxed stability.

 

[Ragnarok connection]

Buddy, I have seen plenty of fantastic claims about the Brah-less missile from your fellow Indians. Some of them rivals the Chinese claims about the J-20 in terms of violating the laws of physics.

IF you read my post carefully...you would observe that I have not mentioned anything about any particular country, I just said that no science only speculation and discussion on def news; so you reinforce my point.

 

[amardeep mishra]

not one F-16 client have examined the jet and published its flight controls algorithms for all to see that it has relaxed stability.

@gambit
That is because it is not the client's job to design controls or even derive all those expressions.It is the job of GD which they very well undertook during the design phase.Do you expect PAF or for that matter any other operator of F16 to derive all that aircraft model?-No because they dont have to!
The job of publishing scientific literature falls on universities and companies who wish to analyze the performance of various control algorithms or design a new one for their own project.Air forces around the world do not do that! GD did not explain you the control theory behind F-16 because you dont NEED to know the mathematics to successfully operate the jet.However i am sure they would do that in a conference on lets say non-linear control. You need to know the thorough mathematical framework to
(a) Analyze the performance of an existing control system- viz step response,impulse response,stability margins(do not confuse stability margins with static stability margins of a fighter jet,stability margins in this sense is a strictly control theory term) etc
(b) Design an altogether a new control system for your aircraft model
None of the two jobs are delegated to pilots.Pilot's feedback however is very necessary and valuable thing during the design phase of control laws

 

[Sinnerman108]

Bro, I ll give you some advice...do not waste your time giving lectures to people here on science and facts, this forum runs on speculation and discussion of news articles.
People who are not as learned as you or not as smart as you 'will not' understand your point/argument. It is analagous to speaking with a mad man continously.
Find a proper scientific/engg. forum where you as well others like you can grow, and visit Pdf only to speculate, argue on stupid speculations, or enjoy troll wars.
Good day from a fellow engineer.

Oh you guys are just brilliant;

who would have thought we'd see comedy on a defense thread.

Btw, if you don't mind me telling, what is your and @amardeep mishra background ?

as in what was your father's profession ?

I want to correlate that , because both of you speak the same language.

 

[abdulbarijan]

IF you read my post carefully...you would observe that I have not mentioned anything about any particular country, I just said that no science only speculation and discussion on def news; so you reinforce my point.

Dude ... you do realize the fact that you were in your nappies or lungi back when the man your addressing was flying a falcon in Op. Desert storm ... the fact that an engineer in training based on his research work or yourself as an enthusiast of sorts are challenging the authority that comes with years of experience with the best in the field, for undoubtedly the most advanced airforce in the world .... is a testament to your foolishness ... I've seen your posts and @amardeep mishra's as well ...

Funny story the same amardeep was doubting the KLJ-7 range as officially given based on that the peak power or aperture was not disclosed and that 130 Km was too big of a range that it came close to the N011M Bars's range ... what's funny is when ELM-2032 (the radar LCA's use) was mentioned and its disclosed range of 150 Km (which I suppose is the max tracking range for any airborne target) ... there was no more arguments or responses ... No going back or forth about how this claim can also be inflated because it's actually 10 Km more then the disclosed range for Bars on board MKI (since many Indian members take it as 150 Km for 5m2) ... wanna take a wild guess as to why ??

My friend,i think you are gravely mistaken, 2032 doesnt have 150kms range.And besides against what kind of RCS?kINDLY quote the exact statement from the designer- ELTA regarding the 150kms figure. Thanks

Lemme just quote an ENTIRE thread LOADED with such claims from our Indian friends including Elta's brochures ..
CONFUSION of TEJAS'S RADAR

It seems to me, "logic and proof" are only needed when the question centers around something in Pakistani service or of Chinese origin ....I will say this though, I respect only a few Indians here and Mr. Mishra owing to his work does fall under that category ... however there is a pattern that I've seen in his posts ... It goes like this

PAC/CAC claims relaxed stability for JFT, or claims 130 Km for 5m2 radar range for KLJ-7 V2... the absence of some figures etc. that can confirm this automatically translates in to it being a false claim ... For someone who claims to accept logical answers ... I haven't really heard an answer to a counter question that I've been presenting to him time and again i.e

Which foolish company would go out and intentionally falsify claims regarding it's products capabilities ... a product that its offering for export .....when it fully knows that the false claims made can be easily busted when the potential customer tries the platform out ...

and quite unsurprisingly I've yet to see a logical answer ....

 

[amardeep mishra]

Oh you guys are just brilliant;

who would have thought we'd see comedy on a defense thread.

Btw, if you don't mind me telling, what is your and @amardeep mishra background ?

as in what was your father's profession ?

I want to correlate that , because both of you speak the same language.

@Sinnerman108
My dear friend i have already explained it in comments above,kindly take the pain of reading my comments.And if you try to read my comments without your glasses of pakistani nationalism- you might actually find them reasonable enough

what's funny is when ELM-2032 (the radar LCA's use) was mentioned and its disclosed range of 150 Km (which I suppose is the max tracking range for any airborne target)

My friend,i think you are gravely mistaken,We dont know the 150kms tracking range against what kind of RCS?kINDLY quote the exact statement from the designer- ELTA regarding the 150kms figure. Thanks

here is an official pdf from ELTA-
It says ~150kms tracking range but we dont know against what kind of RCS.Secondly if you notice,2032 has a max peak power of 3kW
http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/FILES/0/38030.pdf

 

[gambit]

@gambit
That is because it is not the client's job to design controls or even derive all those expressions.It is the job of GD which they very well undertook during the design phase.Do you expect PAF or for that matter any other operator of F16 to derive all that aircraft model?-No because they dont have to!
The job of publishing scientific literature falls on universities and companies who wish to analyze the performance of various control algorithms or design a new one for their own project.Air forces around the world do not do that! GD did not explain you the control theory behind F-16 because you dont NEED to know the mathematics to successfully operate the jet.However i am sure they would do that in a conference on lets say non-linear control. You need to know the thorough mathematical framework to
(a) Analyze the performance of an existing control system- viz step response,impulse response,stability margins(do not confuse stability margins with static stability margins of a fighter jet,stability margins in this sense is a strictly control theory term) etc
(b) Design an altogether a new control system for your aircraft model
None of the two jobs are delegated to pilots.Pilot's feedback however is very necessary and valuable thing during the design phase of control laws

You INSISTED to see the math for the JF-17's relaxed stability. Now you are trapped with your own demands, as applied to the F-16.

Prove to us that the F-16 have relaxed stability.

 

[amardeep mishra]

Prove to us that the F-16 have relaxed stability.

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&s...pY98n1A4lSdkaUZ5w&sig2=e18907VxyhTT4hQs-4mljg

- Google Scholar

NAE Website - Technology and the F-16 Fighting Falcon Jet Fighter

vast amount of research literature on internet can be found that states that f16 does have relaxed static stability which means it's CG is aft of neutral stick point

You INSISTED to see the math for the JF-17's relaxed stability.

I INSISTED to see a literature(scientific or otherwise ) from the designer saying it indeed has relaxed static stability.
To analyze static stability you only need to know position of CG vis a vis neutral point and Only designer can state if the CG is aft or forward of neutral point.
However to analyze dynamics stability you'd need pretty decent amount of mathematics. Because for that you'd need to find eigenvalues of system matrix.I'm not going to indulge in the details of dynamic stability and allied mathematics because I'm sure you'd understand nothing from such an exercise.so yes continue writing your "speculations" , I'm sure a lot of folks here would enjoy that

 

[Sinnerman108]

See, this,
now talk about center of gravity and the associated control surfaces.

VS the following.

 

[gambit]

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&s...pY98n1A4lSdkaUZ5w&sig2=e18907VxyhTT4hQs-4mljg

That is NOT proof. You posted 'old news', so to speak. Those charts could be hacked up by anyone. You flunked. You get an F.

Here is what YOU said...

i can not take it as a definite proof for it needs sound mathematical framework.

Source: JF-17 Thunder: Made for the PAF | Page 20

i was merely presenting my view(just like you are doing) although in a more mathematically exact manner.

Source: JF-17 Thunder: Made for the PAF | Page 20

...furnish a statement or a research literature from the designer(CATIC in this case) that JFT does indeed have RSS.I would happily accept it.

Source: JF-17 Thunder: Made for the PAF | Page 20

...simply furnished a simple scientific literature from the design agency- CATIC in this case regarding the presence of RSS on JFT?I am still waiting for that response and believe me i will gladly accept it!

Source: JF-17 Thunder: Made for the PAF | Page 20

I work with these things!enough said,i REPEAT PROVE ME WRONG based on mathematical framework or technical treatise produced by the designer of JFT which is CATIC.Believe me I will be more than happy to accept your story of RSS being available on JFT if you produce such a literature!

Source: JF-17 Thunder: Made for the PAF | Page 14

In the five yrs that I was on the F-16, NOT ONCE have General Dynamics presented any technical documentations, in the way that YOU insisted to qualify as proof, that the F-16 have relaxed stability.

Lt. Col. Dan Hampton (ret) is probably the best F-16 pilot in the world in terms of experience in peace and combat and he never said anything about GD's documentation.

You are correct that I do not need such documentation to operate the aircraft. But that is not what we are debating. This is about YOUR satisfaction as to what qualifies as proof.

Do you agree, Mr. PhD in Flight Dynamics and Control, that General Dynamics effectively lied all these decades ?

 

[amardeep mishra]

Do you agree, Mr. PhD in Flight Dynamics and Control, that General Dynamics effectively lied all these decades ?

So various research literature that I posted here that talk about relaxed static stability in f16 are false ?
You see, first you asked me furnish literature pertaining to RSS being available on f16,and when I did, you're quoting my own words. Instead why not get your hands dirty and furnish similar literature regarding JFT, I'm sure you can operate google and read couple of research literature, I'm again waiting