JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[Safriz]

where is the chinese engine?

 

[Mitro]

Jf-17 is very good platform to play with ,RD-93 is good engine .
If JF-17 can carry
2 WVR 148kg (PL-5B, PL-5C), 83kg (PL-5E) 148 X 2 = 296 OR 83 X 2 =166
4 BVR PL-10 (Multirail) 220 X 4 = 880
2 C803A 715 X = 1430 (In NAVAL role)
1 Raad 1100kg (in land attack role)
1 KG-300G OR WMD-7 on chin
Load like this is around 3000 kgs way below the MTOW ,
Wow Better than F-16 no need to worry about sanction ,quantity,quality and cheap .
Win Win situation for PAF .

 

[Thorough Pro]

where is the chinese engine?

I would prefer RD-93M (advanced version), it will take lesser time to develop.

 

[Mitro]

where is the chinese engine?

Officials at the Farnborough International Airshow in August 2010 stated that a JF-17 development aircraft is flying with a Chinese engine, which is most likely to be the WS-13.

Guizhou WS-13 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Thorough Pro]

We all know that, he is probabling asking why is it not yet inducted? or when will it be inducted?

Officials at the Farnborough International Airshow in August 2010 stated that a JF-17 development aircraft is flying with a Chinese engine, which is most likely to be the WS-13.

Guizhou WS-13 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Manticore]

¼ß20¶þºÅ»úÔÙ´ÎÊÔ·É£¬èÉÁú06ºÅ»úºÍ¼ß10Ë«×ùÐÍ»ú°é·É--roomxµÄ²©¿Í
http://bbs.news.qq.com/t-1167940-1.htm

 

[SQ8]

where is the chinese engine?

Currently not mature enough to be termed as better than the RD-93 in all aspects including reliability.
And the PAF already has its inventory of RD-93s ordered for its current 150 aircraft

 

[Arsalan]

Arsalan you are forgetting RD-93 issues with such load configuration.

Not forgetting brother, just didn't mentioned it because there are no ISSUES that can create any problem.
We have completed load testing, the wing strength and load bearing was tested at 200% configuration and was OK. So the weapon load i mentioned wont be much of an issue.


Regards!

Just found Nabil have already answered!

all the load/ stress testing (200% with wing bend and twist verification) has been done with RD-93 onboard, the aircraft is now qualified to carry additional payloads.

This also support what most of us know so RD93 wont be a problem carrying this load that will be around 3200Kg!

regards!

 

[fatman17]

JF-17 Project Milestones

• February 1992 - First Proposal for a Joint Venture by CATIC
• January 1994 - PAF acceptance of Proposal
• January 1995 - Memorandum of Understanding signed
• June 1999 - Contract signed for development of Super-7 aircraft
• January 2003 - Avionics contracted for prototype aircraft
• July 2003 - Aircraft renamed JF-17 Thunder
• August 2003 - First un-official flight of JF-17
• September 2003 - First Official flight of JF-17 prototype No PT-1
• April 2004 - Maiden Flight of JF-17 prototype No PT3
• June 2004 - Avionics contract for JF-17 prototype aircraft
• April 2005 - Ground breaking ceremony for JF-17 Co-production at PAC Kamra
• May 2006 - Maiden flight of JF-17 Prototype No PT-4
• September 2006 - Maiden flight of JF-17 Prototype No PT-6
• March 2007 - Arrival of Serial batch Production (SBP) 1-2 aircraft in Pakistan
• March 2007 - Commissioning of Avionics Integration Capability at Kamra Avionics Repair Factory at PAC Kamra
• January 2008 - Start of JF-17 sub assembly at AMF PAC
• February 2008 - Arrival in Pakistan of three SBP aircraft
• March 2008 - Arrival in Pakistan of three more SBP aircraft
• June 2009 - Start of JF-17 Final Assembly and flight testing at AMF PAC
• November 2009 - First JF-17 rolled out from PAC Kamra

and the rest is 'history' as they say!

 

[Last Hope]

Currently not mature enough to be termed as better than the RD-93 in all aspects including reliability.
And the PAF already has its inventory of RD-93s ordered for its current 150 aircraft

Not mention that the reason J-11 was dropped is due to it's engine's output. The J-10 was also facing problems with WS-10 which might delay the project.

 

[khanasifm]

rd-93 is a good engine compared to f7 and mirage engines (aircraft its replacing), the problem lies with thrust and ab thrust which is GReater then 2 lb for each lb of thrust generated, compared to western engines like ge or even al-31 (1.7 or 1.8 lb/lb in an wand .67lb /lb in dry thrust)which is less then 2 lb per lb of thrust. Tbo has been improved but not near western engines, but its 1/2 the prices of any western engine too. So cannot have it both ways. I think best way is to improve internal fuel capacity of if-17 from current 2330 kg to say 2700-2800 kg like mirage 5 or other fighters in the class if it is some how possible, ie better fuel fraction, with external tanks it fuel load is good.

 

[khanasifm]

rd-93 is a good engine compared to f7 and mirage engines (aircraft its replacing), the problem lies with thrust and ab thrust which is GReater then 2 lb for each lb of thrust generated, compared to western engines like ge or even al-31 (1.7 or 1.8 lb/lb in ab wand .67lb /lb in dry thrust)which is less then 2 lb per lb of thrust. Tbo has been improved but not near western engines, but its 1/2 the prices of any western engine too. So cannot have it both ways. I think best way is to improve internal fuel capacity of if-17 from current 2330 kg to say 2700-2800 kg like mirage 5 or other fighters in the class if it is some how possible, ie better fuel fraction, with external tanks it fuel load is good.

 

[Manticore]

rd-93 is a good engine compared to f7 and mirage engines (aircraft its replacing), the problem lies with thrust and ab thrust which is GReater then 2 lb for each lb of thrust generated, compared to western engines like ge or even al-31 (1.7 or 1.8 lb/lb in ab wand .67lb /lb in dry thrust)which is less then 2 lb per lb of thrust. Tbo has been improved but not near western engines, but its 1/2 the prices of any western engine too. So cannot have it both ways. I think best way is to improve internal fuel capacity of if-17 from current 2330 kg to say 2700-2800 kg like mirage 5 or other fighters in the class if it is some how possible, ie better fuel fraction, with external tanks it fuel load is good.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/jf-17-thunder/71435-jf-17-thunder-information-pool-26.html#post2989503

what about improving dry thrust and decreasing the weight of the fighter

 

[sancho]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/jf-17-thunder/71435-jf-17-thunder-information-pool-26.html#post2989503

what about improving dry thrust and decreasing the weight of the fighter

True, but improving the fuel capacity is important as well, because with every upgrade more weight will be added, be it the RAM coatings, the refuelling probe, more avionics...
When you then have a thursty engine and lower internal fuel capacity, your range and endurance will be limited automatically. The solutions are more external fuel tanks (increase of drag and RCS), CFTs (increase of emptyweight and drag compared to a clean fighter), or additional internal fuel tanks.
At least with the Block 3 version, JF 17 will need such an improvement as well, not only more weapons and thrust.

 

[mylovepakistan]

SELF DELETED