JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[Sinnerman108]

A RUDDER is used to control the YAW of the plane. nothing to do with a canard !

Why don't you guys first understand what rudders are for and what forward canards are for
before posting useless comments
try to correlate the use of these surfaces with what good they will do to aircraft.

How Things Fly: Pitch

If you notice, most modern planes that have canards, have air-intakes under the fuselage not on the sides.

Look at :-

J-10,
SU30 MKI,
Eurofighter Typhoon,
Rafale (In case of Rafale, intakes are not under but on the diagonal side. Canards are above and away from intakes)

Sukhoi30 is a huge tail heavy plane. They need the Canards to compensate this weight characteristic ; in Sukhoi's case they need the canards to keep the nose straight during normal flight.

J-10, eurofighter and Rafale use the canards to ensure laminar air flow over the wing
of the air craft during high AoA. During normal flight canards improve wing characteristics by reducing turbulence.In addition as extra control surface they allow extra manoeuvrability.

You can pretty much crack the use of a Canard surface by looking at it's position on the air craft.
and by that I mean relative to the main wing.
with the Sukhoi series the canard will be almost in the same axis as the wing
with J-10, Rafale and EF the canards are higher than the wing.

 

[SBD-3]

hay guys like we discussed in J-10 thread what the NATO callsign for JFT????

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

 

[Peregrine]

hay guys like we discussed in J-10 thread what the NATO callsign for JFT????

Is it Fierce Dragon?

 

[BATMAN]

THUNDER it is...

 

[Donatello]

A RUDDER is used to control the YAW of the plane. nothing to do with a canard !

Why don't you guys first understand what rudders are for and what forward canards are for
before posting useless comments
try to correlate the use of these surfaces with what good they will do to aircraft.

How Things Fly: Pitch



Sukhoi30 is a huge tail heavy plane. They need the Canards to compensate this weight characteristic ; in Sukhoi's case they need the canards to keep the nose straight during normal flight.

J-10, eurofighter and Rafale use the canards to ensure laminar air flow over the wing
of the air craft during high AoA. During normal flight canards improve wing characteristics by reducing turbulence.In addition as extra control surface they allow extra manoeuvrability.

You can pretty much crack the use of a Canard surface by looking at it's position on the air craft.
and by that I mean relative to the main wing.
with the Sukhoi series the canard will be almost in the same axis as the wing
with J-10, Rafale and EF the canards are higher than the wing.

Would like to point one thing out...


I am not talking about SU30 but SU30MKI.......earlier version of SU30 has tail controls and no canards so did SU35 and So did SU27.

F-15 also has no canards. All of these planes are similarly balanced on the rear and with similar empty weights, take off weights and flight controls.


SU30, SU30MKI and SU27 use similar engines.


Hence canards are not there to balance it's heavy rear weight, but for improved agility......canards were put on the later MKI series.


Canards are used for additional lift, yes that is true, but the absence of such on SU27 and SU30 doesn't mean that the plane was flying with nose up.........atleast for low altitude that would be good to have weight centered way back for increased pitch.

 

[SBD-3]

THUNDER it is...

lets hope we dont end up like fishbed, flogger and fantan kinda stuff

 

[Qasibr]

NATO callsigns were originally meant to easily identify aircraft with Russian names that were difficult to pronounce in EN. Western aircraft with EN names don't have NATO callsigns, the manufacturers/airforce names it themselves(Viper, Raptor, etc).

So I think the JFT is probably going to go by "Thunder". Sounds kind of cool, "contact Thunder, 6 O' Clock".

 

[SBD-3]

So I think the JFT is probably going to go by "Thunder". Sounds kind of cool, "contact Thunder, 6 O' Clock".

Yeah unless you're caught by complete surprise.. 12 o clock seems more logical

 

[linkinpark]

Has JF-17 took off from any high-altitude air base to see its performance characteristics under rarefied atmospheric conditions with full pay-load. The reason I'm asking this question is that I see air-intakes of JF-17 are quite narrow. Just wondering if there will be drop in performance at high altitudes with full-payload.

 

[Donatello]

Has JF-17 took off from any high-altitude air base to see its performance characteristics under rarefied atmospheric conditions with full pay-load. The reason I'm asking this question is that I see air-intakes of JF-17 are quite narrow. Just wondering if there will be drop in performance at high altitudes with full-payload.

The Attock district where PAC Kamra is (Home of current JF-17s), it is elevated at about 9,000ft. That's good enough i guess because Most JF-17s would be replacing F-7 and Mirage which are stationed at around those or less elevated areas.

 

[SQ8]

Has JF-17 took off from any high-altitude air base to see its performance characteristics under rarefied atmospheric conditions with full pay-load. The reason I'm asking this question is that I see air-intakes of JF-17 are quite narrow. Just wondering if there will be drop in performance at high altitudes with full-payload.

You should go read about the DSI intake design.
Otherwise, the Americans must be really stupid to use it on the F-35..
And the JF has made full payload takeoff's from Skardu.. that is pretty much as high as it is expected to go.

 

[hataf]

a littile to add sakrdu is 8,200 feet from sea level . . . . .

 

[Sapper]

The Attock district where PAC Kamra is (Home of current JF-17s), it is elevated at about 9,000ft. That's good enough i guess because Most JF-17s would be replacing F-7 and Mirage which are stationed at around those or less elevated areas.

Dear,

I am sorry to inform you that you are mistaken. Kamra is very low altitude area, and the airbase in question is only 1250 feet high from sea level.

The highest airbase is Skardu Forward Operating Base (FOB), which is 7500 feet above sea level, with Quetta Air Base (full fledged airbase) at almost 5500 feet height from sea level.

Rest of all Pakistan's airbases lay between 0 feet to 1500 feet above sea level.

I don't know if JF-17 has ever been tested from Quetta and Skardu, but do keep in mind that A-5 were very routinely operated from Skardu Airbase, and since JF-17 is replacing A-5, their roles-responsibilities and will soon take over their complete operation portfolio, it is only matter of time before we see footage of JF17 taking off from Skardu.

Regards,
Sapper

 

[Imran Khan]

Dear,

I am sorry to inform you that you are mistaken. Kamra is very low altitude area, and the airbase in question is only 1250 feet high from sea level.

The highest airbase is Skardu Forward Operating Base (FOB), which is 7500 feet above sea level, with Quetta Air Base (full fledged airbase) at almost 5500 feet height from sea level.

Rest of all Pakistan's airbases lay between 0 feet to 1500 feet above sea level.

I don't know if JF-17 has ever been tested from Quetta and Skardu, but do keep in mind that A-5 were very routinely operated from Skardu Airbase, and since JF-17 is replacing A-5, their roles-responsibilities and will soon take over their complete operation portfolio, it is only matter of time before we see footage of JF17 taking off from Skardu.

Regards,
Sapper

some time F-16 also there sir?.the pic show paf f-16a at skardu