JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[Tempest II]

Another consideration is that, with FBW and augmented (FBW in most planes), the structural factor of safety might be reduced as the computer systems limit manoeuvres and keep them within the safe region. I.e. the is less possibility of pilot error and with a validated software, the machine can fly with less risk of overstressing and structural failure

 

[VCheng]

Another consideration is that, with FBW and augmented (FBW in most planes), the structural factor of safety might be reduced as the computer systems limit manoeuvres and keep them within the safe region. I.e. the is less possibility of pilot error and with a validated software, the machine can fly with less risk of overstressing and structural failure

You make a great point. However, FBW systems with current software give their best results on inherently unstable platforms. The advantage of using them on older designs is that it frees up the pilot for other more important tasks.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Before you get all bent out of shape, would you like to compare the three planes: F-20, JF-17 and Gripen, to see what the figures actually show? Telling things like they actually are takes only a bit of moral courage, that is all.

And that is your reference to show that JF-17 is a second or third generation air-frame?

Or, since you are a Mod and I am only a (the most?) hated member, may be I should just concede?

This has nothing to do with my being a mod. You need not worry on that count. By all means do not concede and continue arguing - but please do so with facts and references instead of impressions.

 

[VCheng]

And that is your reference to show that JF-17 is a second or third generation air-frame?

Or may be it is the fact that the JF-17 airframe was designed in the 70s using the technology of its day, and remains the same basic design, with modern avionics, and is confirmed by its performance?

 

[Chak Bamu]

Or may be it is the fact that the JF-17 airframe was designed in the 70s using the technology of its day, and remains the same basic design, with modern avionics, and is confirmed by its performance?

Another unfounded claim! Can you substantiate this new assertion of yours? Baba JF-17 airframe was designed in 50s because it is nothing more than a glorified Mig-21 - or so the Indian story goes. You wish to be taken seriously like this?

As far as design elements influenced by F-16 (wings) / F-18 (LEREx), are concerned you could say that it is 70s design philosophy. But how can you say that JF-17 was designed in 70s? Did China even possess the capability to do that in 70s?

You make a great point. However, FBW systems with current software give their best results on inherently unstable platforms. The advantage of using them on older designs is that it frees up the pilot for other more important tasks.

Now that is a very stealth way of insinuating that JF-17 is an 'older' design. That is a very teflon way of putting things.

I did not think that you were going to come up with any fresh gems, because you did not wish to argue any more. But your two posts quoted above are just too much.

 

[nomi007]

 

[VCheng]

Another unfounded claim! Can you substantiate this new assertion of yours? Baba JF-17 airframe was designed in 50s because it is nothing more than a glorified Mig-21 - or so the Indian story goes. You wish to be taken seriously like this?

Would you believe Jane's All the World's Aircraft if it confirmed what I have said? Mikoyan designed the airframe in the early 80s based on the techniques at that time, with an RD-33 engine. That design became the FC-1 with the RD-93 and repositioned air intakes, plus a few detail changes.

Or perhaps would it pacify you more if I said that the JF-17 is a Gen 4 design that performs as well as a Gen 2 design?

 

[Bilal.]

Or perhaps would it pacify you more if I said that the JF-17 is a Gen 4 design that performs as well as a Gen 2 design?

JFT performance is at par with Gen2 fighter aircrafts?

 

[VCheng]

JFT performance is at par with Gen2 aircrafts?

You can compare the JF-17 with the F-20 Tigershark if you want to see for yourself.

 

[Bratva]

The proof is in the performance figures, which can be seen to be clearly inferior to other aircraft of its size, particularly the Gripen. The JF-17 is a modern day F-20, arriving a quarter century too late. The RD-93 is the same basic engine as the RD-33 with some re-positioning of components. Sprinkling holy water on it does not reduce its fuel consumption. The JF-17 airframe was designed in the 70s using the technology of its day, and remains the same basic design, with modern avionics.

Before you get all bent out of shape, would you like to compare the three planes: F-20, JF-17 and Gripen, to see what the figures actually show? Telling things like they actually are takes only a bit of moral courage, that is all.

Or, since you are a Mod and I am only a (the most?) hated member, may be I should just concede?

Yeah, that is better: I accept that the JF-17 is a 4/4.5/5th generation jet fighter that is so over-engineered that it will be developed to carry far more payload.

There, I said it. Ramadan is coming up and I do NOT wish to fight with you or anyone.

Peace!

Are DSI and LERX technologies of 70's

 

[Bilal.]

You can compare the JF-17 with the F-20 Tigershark if you want to see for yourself.

F-20 was a gen2 fighter?

 

[Chak Bamu]

Would you believe Jane's All the World's Aircraft if it confirmed what I have said? Mikoyan designed the airframe in the early 80s based on the techniques at that time, with an RD-33 engine. That design became the FC-1 with the RD-93 and repositioned air intakes, plus a few detail changes.

Or perhaps would it pacify you more if I said that the JF-17 is a Gen 4 design that performs as well as a Gen 2 design?

More jugglery. Now we have jumped into 80s and are talking about Mig-33 being designed before Mig 29 was unveiled. There are *some* similarities as well as serious differences between purported Mig-33 and JF-17.

You can compare the JF-17 with the F-20 Tigershark if you want to see for yourself.

So what generation does F-20 belong to? Is that supposed to be the smoking you've been hiding all along?

Are DSI and LERX technologies of 70's

Those are probably like buttons sewn onto clothes. Some people will still insist that JF-17 is a 50s design.

 

[Bilal.]

More jugglery. Now we have jumped into 80s and are talking about Mig-33 being designed before Mig 29 was unveiled. There are *some* similarities as well as serious differences between purported Mig-33 and JF-17

So what generation does F-20 belong to? Is that supposed to be the smoking you've been hiding all along?

Neither was the proposed mig-33 a Gen 2 design. Even if we take the assertion that JFT is basically a Mig-33.

 

[Bratva]

More jugglery. Now we have jumped into 80s and are talking about Mig-33 being designed before Mig 29 was unveiled. There are *some* similarities as well as serious differences between purported Mig-33 and JF-17.



So what generation does F-20 belong to? Is that supposed to be the smoking you've been hiding all along?

Bamu Sahab,,, Na larra karay majzoobou kai sath.

 

[SBD-3]

Post JF-17 Block 1 in yellow primer and compare with what you are calling Block II.

The comparison you are making with J-10B does not prove much in my view. Sorry.

You spoiled their little tea party