JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 4]

[DARKY]

I don't know why people on forums are so interested in engine only. May be its just a point of discussion for you guys. The current engine is doing great, PAF is happy with it. Plus, some tweaking with their basic design has increased their performance and reliability. The current needs of JF-17 is full filled by the current engine. It generates enough power to perform well even with greater weapon load. New engine discussion would be required when Block-III will commence, till then necessary tweaking and refinement in current engine is enough for PAF.

Such rights rests with the manufacturer neither China or Pakistan can do any such tweaking, squeaking... and whatever king... with the engine... there aren't facilities in Pakistan for that... neither would Russia allow tampering with their engines as to give up with valuable information on light-medium weight(1100-1200kg) engine which China has been struggling to come up with.

On the contrary the fact is that even a slightest FOD damage to the engine would require it to be sent to Russia for repairs... of which it is most vulnerable among all operational turbofan engines without a doubt.

 

[DARKY]

double..............

 

[Najam Khan]

Such rights rests with the manufacturer neither China or Pakistan can do any such tweaking, squeaking... and whatever king... with the engine... there aren't facilities in Pakistan for that... neither would Russia allow tampering with their engines as to give up with valuable information on light-medium weight(1100-1200kg) engine which China has been struggling to come up with.

On the contrary the fact is that even a slightest FOD damage to the engine would require it to be sent to Russia for repairs... of which it is most vulnerable among all operational turbofan engines without a doubt.

Most of such modifications are done within the given set of guidelines by the manufacturer. Its not that Pakistan is recreating another engine from these, all they are doing is refining its current working, if that increases its performance even by some fraction would that be illegal?

PAC's contribution in creation of smokeless chamber and some modifications in fan module are some examples of their work with RD93. Plus they have over two decades of experience of working with ATAR-9c and PW F100 engines, RD93 has nothing new.

 

[Safriz]

^^^ and i dont think Russians have such strict terms and conditions as americans.....who send their hardware with sensors and seals to instantly notify them if a 'forbidden' part has been opened.

 

[MastanKhan]

Most of such modifications are done within the given set of guidelines by the manufacturer. Its not that Pakistan is recreating another engine from these, all they are doing is refining its current working, if that increases its performance even by some fraction would that be illegal?

PAC's contribution in creation of smokeless chamber and some modifications in fan module are some examples of their work with RD93. Plus they have over two decades of experience of working with ATAR-9c and PW F100 engines, RD93 has nothing new.

Hi,

And those modifications are extremely important inputs---you have to look at it this way---the manufacturer has a smoke issue---it says that it is within its design parameters---the end user says that if we can use these modifications it will take care of the smoke issue---the manufacturer has no issues---it is happy to oblige---.

The manufacturers are always looking forward for input from end users---regardless what field it is.

 

[TaimiKhan]

^^^ and i dont think Russians have such strict terms and conditions as americans.....who send their hardware with sensors and seals to instantly notify them if a 'forbidden' part has been opened.

Engines don't come with seals, other electronic / avionics equipment comes with some kind of seals and Russian equipment has protection systems in place against tampering too.

Engines are a different thing.

 

[Armstrong]

A noob question : I read some place that the JF-17 is comparable to earlier blocks F-16s. I've also read that earlier block F-16s were pretty darn good dog fighters (more so than those belonging to latter blocks). My question is - Is the JF-17 as good a dogfighter too ? I'm of course asking this question in the context of what I read in the 'How does PAF counter the Su-30 MKIs thread' where a US Airforce Colonel was quoted as asserting that the age of dogfighting is far from being over & that WVR battles are indeed going to be fought !

 

[mosu]

again and again same debate same rumors over and over no evidance no result so for

 

[TaimiKhan]

A noob question : I read some place that the JF-17 is comparable to earlier blocks F-16s. I've also read that earlier block F-16s were pretty darn good dog fighters (more so than those belonging to latter blocks). My question is - Is the JF-17 as good a dogfighter too ? I'm of course asking this question in the context of what I read in the 'How does PAF counter the Su-30 MKIs thread' where a US Airforce Colonel was quoted as asserting that the age of dogfighting is far from being over & that WVR battles are indeed going to be fought !

In simulated dogfights against the existing F-16 A / B models, JF-17 was very good, impressive and took down its adversary in dog fights. JF-17 has very good dog fighting capability and it was designed by keeping that in mind, that is why you see lot of resemblance to F-16s in the wing design area. F-16s were studied and its design / capabilities were kept in mind whole designing JF-17.

JF-17 is as good as it can be in dog fighting capability, but the superior engine thrust of F-16 gives it an edge in certain areas, that is where JF-17 is weak.

 

[DARKY]

Most of such modifications are done within the given set of guidelines by the manufacturer. Its not that Pakistan is recreating another engine from these, all they are doing is refining its current working, if that increases its performance even by some fraction would that be illegal?

PAC's contribution in creation of smokeless chamber and some modifications in fan module are some examples of their work with RD93. Plus they have over two decades of experience of working with ATAR-9c and PW F100 engines, RD93 has nothing new.

Emphasis.... PAC's contribution.
RD-33-block 2 Already smokeless much before RD-93 sold to Pakistan/China.
Smokeless chamber ?.. If you are pointing at the reduced black half /un burnt fuel emissions then that is due to the increasing in the core temperature... which is even higher on the RD-33MK.
There has been no changes in the fan-module and I doubt weather any one in PAC has any metallurgical data on what material the fan-blades are made of in order to purpose any such modification whatsoever.

Still in spite of decades of experiences they have to import such engines shows their value.. not forgetting the fact that they are as old as well and behind many modern engines such as M-88 in the same class... and even Kilmov the orginal manufacturer could not come up with a next gen. product.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Emphasis.... PAC's contribution.
RD-33-block 2 Already smokeless much before RD-93 sold to Pakistan/China.
Smokeless chamber ?.. If you are pointing at the reduced black half /un burnt fuel emissions then that is due to the increasing in the core temperature... which is even higher on the RD-33MK.
There has been no changes in the fan-module and I doubt weather any one in PAC has any metallurgical data on what material the fan-blades are made of in order to purpose any such modification whatsoever.

Still in spite of decades of experiences they have to import such engines shows their value.. not forgetting the fact that they are as old as well and behind many modern engines such as M-88 in the same class... and even Kilmov the orginal manufacturer could not come up with a next gen. product.

I believe you are not understanding what the poster tried to say. For us the PAC contribution is important, as we did not receive the smoking-less RD-33MK version of the engine, rather we received the more smoking engine version, thus PAC doing its part with no Russian help in reducing the smokiness of the engine, is itself an achievement. And that is what is being discussed. PAC doing things which make the engine less smoky with no manufacturer help is something itself.

And again, we did not said we had anything to do with the metallurgy part of the engine, he just said some modification was done in the fan module section which had to do something with the engine performance, and since we have no more details, we can't say what kind of modification it was, did they changed parts or did they do something to the existing parts and made it perform better when required.

 

[sancho]

Hi,

Sir, that is not a good analysis---seems like another ignorant assessment of the situation.

Feel free to explain that!

 

[niaz]

Design and manufacturing of aircraft engines involves very sophisticated industrial base & highly skilled manpower. Any attempt by countries such as Pakistan at reverse engineering won’t be successful. For example, PIA has been overhauling Boeing engines for decades, but can Pakistan copy even a 20 year old Pratt & Whitney engine?

Despite a 10 year effort Chinese have so far not been able to develop an indigenously designed engine comparable in performance, durability & weight to the Russian or US engines. Indian LCA has been languishing in doldrums due lack of a decent power plant.

JF-17 is indeed very good and agile fighter and nearly (say 95%) as good as earlier F1-6 models in dogfight. Main difference is that T/W ratio of early F-16 was 1.1 versus 0.95 of JF-17. In bomb carrying capacity F-16A wins hands down.

More powerful engine with TVC and with BVR capability and improved RADAR would make JF-17 a formidable fighter. Because of its small size; it would still not be at par with Rafael, Typhoon in capability but in the Pak versus India scenario; when used as air defence fighter; JF -17 should be able to give SU-30 Mk1 a tough fight.

 

[DARKY]

I believe you are not understanding what the poster tried to say. For us the PAC contribution is important, as we did not receive the smoking-less RD-33MK version of the engine, rather we received the more smoking engine version, thus PAC doing its part with no Russian help in reducing the smokiness of the engine, is itself an achievement. And that is what is being discussed. PAC doing things which make the engine less smoky with no manufacturer help is something itself.

And again, we did not said we had anything to do with the metallurgy part of the engine, he just said some modification was done in the fan module section which had to do something with the engine performance, and since we have no more details, we can't say what kind of modification it was, did they changed parts or did they do something to the existing parts and made it perform better when required.

RD-93 is RD-33-block2... for single engine planes.. at best modification in gear box, fuel probes, and electronics to make it compatible with a single engine plane... with some what increase in weight and decreasing T/W ratio.

Again I repeat there is no modification in fan blades... irrespective of what PAC wanted or suggested(which is audacious).... changes in fan blade would require extensive re-engineering and testing of engine for at least another 5-8 years before being considered worthy for a combat plane... and that would result in an entirely new engine.... too much for the modification.

you can take the example of Item 117C it has a remodeled fan blade on a Al-31 resulting in an entirely different engine... with different properties.

RD-33MK is the 3rd modification of the engine for Naval Mig29K and Mig-35.... RD-33-2 were already smokeless unlike RD-33-1 basic.

 

[TaimiKhan]

RD-93 is RD-33-block2... for single engine planes.. at best modification in gear box, fuel probes, and electronics to make it compatible with a single engine plane... with some what increase in weight and decreasing T/W ratio.

Again I repeat there is no modification in fan blades... irrespective of what PAC wanted or suggested(which is audacious).... changes in fan blade would require extensive re-engineering and testing of engine for at least another 5-8 years before being considered worthy for a combat plane... and that would result in an entirely new engine.... too much for the modification.

you can take the example of Item 117C it has a remodeled fan blade on a Al-31 resulting in an entirely different engine... with different properties.

RD-33MK is the 3rd modification of the engine for Naval Mig29K and Mig-35.... RD-33-2 were already smokeless unlike RD-33-1 basic.

When i read your post, the first thought came in my mind, to ban you. As you did not read the post clearly or may be i spoke in Persian.

I said modification was done in the fan module, not fan blades, can't you differentiate ??? fan blades are one part of the fan module, fan module comprises of different items.

And the RD-93s which we got are still smokey, i every 2nd day see atleast 2 JF-17s taking off while on my way to office, and they smoke big time, just like a diesel engine. But when they reach a certain altitude and turn off their after burner that is when they start smoking the most but it vanishes after a few secs and then normal light black smoke is seen and sometimes nothing whatsoever.

So if RD-93 is RD-33-2 or not, ours still smoke but at certain thrust levels, and when seeing JF-17s perform at airshows, you can hardly see them smoking, which clearly means, some modification is done in them for the airshows and thus less smoking. Do search out the video of JF-17s leaving farnbrough air show and see how much smoke they left after their departure.

And again, PAC has done inhouse small level modifications in the engines to make them less-smokey and something in the fan module for some better performance level, no fan blades have been added or new fan blades added to them, just some modification in the existing hardware, to perform better when required.

If you can't accept the fact, then plz don't argue anymore as it would be useless.