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.
So we can say that the pitch axis-only FBW was to save time during the development/testing stages rather than to reduce cost?gambit said:Note that whenever a design is moved towards relaxed stability, it is the pitch axis that gives the aircraft the greatest potential for both maneuverability and of course, disaster when things do go wrong. It has been reported that on some designs, pitch axis is FBW while the roll and yaw are electro-mechanical. That tells us much more about expertise about integration and sophistication than about cost. But the significant item is that if the intent is to make the design highly maneuverable, efforts must be concentrated on the pitch axis.
But the debate continues on how competent a fighter it actually is. The main argument by the detractors being that if it isn't as good as any of the Euro-canards, it isn't competent enough.Therefore for PAF needs of a competent aircraft in large numbers, JF-17 fits the bill.
So we can say that the pitch axis-only FBW was to save time during the development/testing stages rather than to reduce cost?
But the debate continues on how competent a fighter it actually is. The main argument by the detractors being that if it isn't as good as any of the Euro-canards, it isn't competent enough.
----
Something I recently came across:
IAR-95
The Romanian IAR 95. Development was cancelled due to high costs. Looks quite similar to the FC-1/JF-17.
A model of its dual seat version:
So we can say that the pitch axis-only FBW was to save time during the development/testing stages rather than to reduce cost?
But the debate continues on how competent a fighter it actually is. The main argument by the detractors being that if it isn't as good as any of the Euro-canards, it isn't competent enough.
----
Something I recently came across:
IAR-95
The Romanian IAR 95. Development was cancelled due to high costs. Looks quite similar to the FC-1/JF-17.
A model of its dual seat version:
The nose of JF is a bit bigger or? But the rest is really so similar, crazy!Apart from DSI and dual seat, it looks like a carbon copy of the JF-17. Even hard points seem to be equal in number.
Apart from DSI and dual seat, it looks like a carbon copy of the JF-17. Even hard points seem to be equal in number.
Could the Chinese have been inspired by the IAR-95? It's possible. Is the J-9/FC-1 a COPY of it, a replica? I do not think so.( no chance)
well if one look at this picture it do look quite similar to the JF17 but for better comparison let us look at them simultaneously:
IAR95
i tried to get a picture of JF17 from the same angle but this is the best i could find, lets hope it serves the purpose.
now by looking at them in one glance there are lot to differences in the design, for example;
1. the wing support for JF starts right from the air inlet whereas for the subject it is somewhat backward from the inlet.
2. in Jf17 the front wing are right at the vertical middle of the inlet whereas as incase of IAR 95 it is at the bottom!
3. the distance between front and rear wings for JF17 is lesser then it is for IAR95
4. the nose is altogether different.
5. even the tail of both these planes is different, this can be picked if you just ive them a look!
6. the JF17 engine outlet is extended somewhat outward for the main fram whereas in IAR95 it ends right where the tail flaps end!
well to sum up the debate, the words by Mr. Wild Peace say it all