ziaulislam
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- Messages
- 23,621
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
gripen thrust itself isnt too high and it is slightly heavier too
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.
1909 km/h makes Mach 1.8?
Global Aircraft Speed Converter
But at many information boards, maximum speed of JFT is written as Mach 1.6 now which one to trust?
I dont believe it is a typo.
It was an international marketing event and they will have taken a lot of time to prepare. The preparation would have been checked and agreed by several people on what is appropriate to publish including the PAF.
You are ignoring that Klimov have already published the RD-93 with 96kN max output. I dont buy the argument from some people that the 96kN RD-93 is not for the FC-1/JF17 when the RD-93 is specifically an FC-1/JF-17 engine. You want to think that is another mistake?
JF-17 has a maximum ferry range of 2037km and a maximum combat radius of 1352km with speed of Mach 1.8. It has a service ceiling of 54000 ft with the climb rate of 154 m/sec.
there are some other confusing figures about payload and engine output and range etc. klimov's poster says RD93 has 96KN thrust but PAC is still showing the 10 years old figures, in the information pool thread tempest II has posted some snaps which claim weapon load is >4000. It was 3600 then 3800 and now >4000, confusion confusion confusion
when will PAC update its website??????
Offtopic, but ZDK-03s will arrive any time in early December.
Found this old picture, which was made by me, someone on the hard drive of my laptop and hence thought to share it. A PAF JF-17 (10-113) shooting down a Su-30MKI with SD-10A.
The missile has been released, MKI counter measure can duck it using different mechanism...
I dont believe it is a typo.
It was an international marketing event and they will have taken a lot of time to prepare. The preparation would have been checked and agreed by several people on what is appropriate to publish including the PAF.
You are ignoring that Klimov have already published the RD-93 with 96kN max output. I dont buy the argument from some people that the 96kN RD-93 is not for the FC-1/JF17 when the RD-93 is specifically an FC-1/JF-17 engine. You want to think that is another mistake?
we need some more dots.
More dots than the chief designer ... the engine manufacturer ... and the squadron leader of a unit operating the plane?
The both PAC and AVIC websites don’t get updated regularly. What I have noticed though is that the info gets confirmed slowly and in trickles. We should try to connect the dots – yes sometimes that is not easy and we might disagree on which dots to connect but as long as we have a healthy debate that is good.
Concerning the power of the RD-93’s improved performance, my first “dot” was none other than the late Sqn Ldr Hussain saying the JFT has a TWR of more than 1.01! Next “dot” was the Klimov poster of 96kN. Then we have the Dubai presentation of 249m/s climb which surpasses the Gripen E/F and the EF-2000. … … And of course we don’t question the power of the Gripen E/F or the EF-2000 … … for the simple and sad reason that they are Western and not cheap Chinese fighters!!.
I could be wrong but I believe that the max climb rate is more from the engine thrust than the wings. Yes wings still provide some lift. The other climb rate is the optimal where you try to burn less fuel and rely less on the engine but more on the wings …???
We also have sources saying the Chinese were asking the Russians to improve the engine. So, should we be surprised or be shocked that there is a more powerful engine out there. When we know the “sister” RD-33K has got a lot more power anyway.
Another possible hint for the improved engine is the >4,000kg (4,600kg) external stores.
In all these “dots” I can see a pattern and some consistency that point to an RD-93 that delivers more that the original 84kN.