JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 6]

[JamD]

MastanKhan, post: 7204317, member: 309"]Hi,

On a take off---a 747-400 would burn about 8000 gals to 16000 gals of fuel---and it can carry around 50000 to 57000 GALS of fuel---which is anywhere from 7% to 25% +++ of the total fuel. The lower figure is of ideal conditions at minimal weight---the higher figure is with a full load.

On the other hand---the fighter aircraft fully loaded would be taking off on AFTERBURNERS---that will suck the fuel out of the fuel tanks within minutes.

For that reason---us air force uses air refueling for its aircraft. An aircraft taking off a carrier---the first thing it does is to refuel and top off----.

If 5% was the fuel consumed at take off---there was no reason to have air to air refueling.

The commercial airliner DON'T USE ALL THEIR FUEL DURING THE FLIGHT---THE RESERVE would be like 15000 gals of fuel.

So if the taxi + take off fuel consumption is 8000 to 12000 gals and total fuel consumed is around 40000 - 45000 gals---we are in the 20% +++-- range.

I don't believe that you are AEROSPACE ENGINEER----

Son-----5% fuel consumption at take off----then you have solved all of NASA's problems-----. Show them how---and you are in for a major reward.


How does flight duration affect the hourly fuel consumption in heavy aircraft? - Aviation Stack Exchange

Copy from the web link

General Answer
The heavier the airplane, the more fuel it will burn in a given amount of time. Therefore, if you takeoff with enough fuel to fly further, you will be burning more fuel in each corresponding hour than if you took off at a lighter weight to fly a shorter distance.
Example
I don't have performance information for the 747, but I can give you an example for a G-IV corporate jet. Instead of comparing a short trip to a longer trip, I planned the same trip with different amounts of fuel in order to make the airplane heavier. I planned the flight for the following conditions:

Flight Conditions

• Fly from Los Angeles to Detroit, using the same route and average Boeing winds for July
• Climb to and maintain the optimum altitude, with step climbs where appropriate
  • Trip 1: Climb initially to FL450 and stay there for the entire flight (the optimum altitude for this weight)
  • Trip 2: Climb initially to FL410 and then climb to FL450 2:32 into the flight (the optimum altitude the weight initially followed by a climb once the optimum altitude has changed)
• Fuel:
  • Trip 1: Takeoff with enough to land with a 1:30 reserve - 59,000 lb. takeoff weight
  • Trip 2: Takeoff with max fuel, landing with a 5:39 reserve - 73,000 lb. takeoff weight
  • Taxi fuel is not included in the first hour burns, but climb fuel is.

Results
Trip 1 Trip 2
Hour Fuel Burn Fuel Burn Diff
1. 4,212 4,844 +13.7 %
2. 2,536 3,088 +21.8 %
3. 2,411 3,123 +29.5 %
4. 2,163 2,103 -2.8 %

Total 11,722 13,558 +15.7 %

So here the pilot states about the hourly fuel consumption.

The first hour is the take off and the climb to the altitude and not considering startup and taxi time.

So---in the first hour he uses around 27% fuel

You dont have to believe that I'm an aerospace engineer or that Raymer is anaerospace eengineer. you are free to believe whatever you want "son".

You know nothing Jon Snow lol. I'm just about done trying to correct an error on the thread. Nahin manna jissay mat maanay

 

[MastanKhan]

I Google a bit on F-16.net and Aerospaceweb.org and it fuel spent on take off for F-16C in strike configuration (two 370 gallon tanks) comes out to be 7% of total fuel. This is from dead stop to 2000 feet height and 350 knots of speed. I don't know how accurate it is but that is what I found.

You can search up these sites (for some reason I am unable to copy links on my browser).

I don't think Russian RD -93 will cost JF -17 anymore than 10% of its fuel on take off.

SnakeHandler
Forum Veteran

• Posts: 650
• Joined: 01 Jul 2007, 18:22

21 Aug 2008, 23:57
We reliably burn about a grand for a burner takeoff in an A-G config. That gets us from a dead stop to 350KTS at 2000 feet. We bring it out of AB usually at 300KTS unless the gear hasn't finished retracting, then we'll bring it out sooner. Both the PW220 in the Block 42 and the GE110 in the Block 40 burned about the same. The most fuel flow I've ever seen on takeoff was around 36K per hour. Why are you asking?

Hi,

If this is what you copied----it says a grand---ie 1000. So if it is a 1000 gals----then it is 3 times that amount of 7%---ie 21% and they normally climb to about 30000 ft and not 2000 ft.

But if 5 to 7 % is all they consume on an after burner take off with a full load and climb to their crusing altitude of around 30000 feet---we got our problems solved----let us get some more of those panes---.

Just a simple example----my Honda civic---give about 34 miles a gallon on regular driving surface streets-----. But when I am climbing up the hill thru Cajon pass at 75 miles and hour at 5000 RPM's in 4th gear---I am getting about 18-20 miles a gallon and still the engine can go up by another 2500 RPM's.

You guys want to try it on your own----just drive your cars in 3rd gear at 4500 rpms and see how these little cars become gas guzzlers---.

The bottom line question is----why would we need refuelers if only 5 to 7% of the fuel is used for take off----

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

rd-93/33 is considered to be more fuel efficient or atleast equivalent to its western contemporary engines like GE f404 or M53P2:.
the real problem is its shorter life cycle and according to some its reliability though its considered the most reliable russain engine

Sir,
No doubt RD-93/33 is far more fuel efficient and it is equivalent to the GE F404 (first ran 1978) or M53P2 but it is still not any where close to the engines manufactured in a similar year.

 

[Arsalan]

The only difference is it's not the first but last of Block-1.

No no sir,
i said,, 1st block,,,,, 50th plane,, So it is the last plane of 1st block.

i always forget this tricky numbering system for JFT. now what the hell is this 13-150? rolled out in 2013, 1st block 50th plane?? Anyone???

 

[Sine Nomine]

No no sir,
i said,, 1st block,,,,, 50th plane,, So it is the last plane of 1st block.

i feel glad to tell you that real number of JFT produced is not known.......

 

[Paksanity]

If this is what you copied----it says a grand---ie 1000. So if it is a 1000 gals----then it is 3 times that amount of 7%---ie 21% and they normally climb to about 30000 ft and not 2000 ft.

1000 pounds as US aircraft measure fuel in pounds. Capacity of F-16C is around 14000 pounds with two tanks as per the second website. Figure of 2000 ft was quoted from the gentleman's post hence given as such.

 

[Zhukov]

Hi,

Supposedly the Rafale deal has yet to be signed---.

Secondly---we don't have assets to defend our skies----it is a lie being told by the paf over and over.

Have you read about the 73 ramzan war----the Israelis decimated the Egyptian air force. The Egyptian mig 21's had a loiter time of 30---40 minutes---facing them were Phantoms with 3 1/2 hours of loiter time----.

The migs would take off and then after a few minutes they would want to land and then the phanotms would pounce on them----.

When the pilot at take off time is worried about landing to refuel---it cannot give any support but to save his arse when on the other side the enemy has aircraft with 2---3 --- 4 hours of loiter time----.

Umm so you know by some divine mean that PAF is run by idiots who lie to nation?
Did PAF ever let the nation down?
With the limited budget it have it is perfectly able to defend our skies from Indian Aggression.
Our current Falcons, If deployed properly are capable to counrer any Indian Plane with AMRAAMS and Sidewinders. Su30 Mig29 or Mirage 2000 Along with air defences and AWACS support.
We are not countering USAF or Russian Air force .
Mirages and older F7s will be gradually replaced by much capable JF17 within 5 years.
PAF guys are smart and they know how to run things in limited budget.
And our future is pretty secure in the form of F-31 from Shenyang or even The Turkish TFX if it materializes

If you have some real concerns regarding PAF you can discuss i will try my best to share what i know.
But if it is plain hatred and inferiority complex then i cannot help you much mate.
And please don't compare Arab Israel war with Indo-Pak conflict. And Pakistan Armed forces are not inefficient Arab forces.
Our aim is to deter india and any possible indian aggression and not to be an invading force. See it that way and we are capable enough to meet that objective

 

[Arsalan]

i feel glad to tell you that real number of JFT produced is not known.......

for some stupid reason
This is not something that should be kept secret. Specially considering the fact that we are very much interested in exporting this plane i think it will be much more beneficial to boast about the numbers PAF have successfully inducted and is using is different roles. This will give other forces confidence.
Unless PAF thinks that if they manage to pull out a few extra JF-17 at time of war from there kitty bag that will be a game changer in war, there is NO NEED TO KEEP SUCH primitive things a secret.

Also please note that the tail number do give a good idea of the numbers we are currently using. The only confusion was when some shitty reporter mentions that PAF is getting that number of planes from China and that confuses us all. apart from that, people do have a good idea of operation JFT give or take two three planes at max.

 

[Sine Nomine]

for some stupid reason
This is not something that should be kept secret. Specially considering the fact that we are very much interested in exporting this plane i think it will be much more beneficial to boast about the numbers PAF have successfully inducted and is using is different roles. This will give other forces confidence.
Unless PAF thinks that if they manage to pull out a few extra JF-17 at time of war from there kitty bag that will be a game changer in war, there is NO NEED TO KEEP SUCH primitive things a secret.

Also please note that the tail number do give a good idea of the numbers we are currently using. The only confusion was when some shitty reporter mentions that PAF is getting that number of planes from China and that confuses us all. apart from that, people do have a good idea of operation JFT give or take two three planes at max.

think you planned to counter 100 BVR equipped fighters but actually when you attack you suddenly are facing over 300, then what would you do?either abort or fight?

 

[Bratva]

think you planned to counter 100 BVR equipped fighters but actually when you attack you suddenly are facing over 300, then what would you do?either abort or fight?

Once you said, JF-17 facing display issues. MODP book confirmed that. As these issues are on going, one shouldn't expect PAF will pull more JF-17 out from hat.

 

[Sine Nomine]

Once you said, JF-17 facing display issues. MODP book confirmed that. As these issues are on going, one shouldn't expect PAF will pull more JF-17 out from hat.

That was not me sir Oscar sir mentioned software glitch i mention Missile launching problem.And for more, sir we have no option other then JFT's so we are producing them at same time many Govt Orgs other then PAC are working to improve electronics.....

 

[Bratva]

That was not me sir Oscar sir mentioned software glitch i mention Missile launching problem.And for more, sir we have no option other then JFT's so we are producing them at same time many Govt Orgs other then PAC are working to improve electronics.....

I don't get it Armament firing occured way back in 2011 on FC-1 and it were successful. but on JF-17 we are facing such issues. Does it mean Software on FC-1 and JF-17 are different ?

 

[Sine Nomine]

I don't get it Armament firing occured way back in 2011 on FC-1 and it were successful. but on JF-17 we are facing such issues. Does it mean Software on FC-1 and JF-17 are different ?

No,sir you know weapons code are different for all weapons i really don't get if were we facing problems on Chinese weapons or western or our own produced weapons but software is same but PAF is updating it's software and mission computer through feed back from pilots, induction into CCS will bring lot more changes in machine after feed back from PAF top guns....

 

[Bratva]

No,sir you know weapons code are different for all weapons i really don't get if were we facing problems on Chinese weapons or western or our own produced weapons but software is same but PAF is updating it's software and mission computer through feed back from pilots, induction into CCS will bring lot more changes in machine after feed back from PAF top guns....

What needs to be changed is flight control systems. Chinese offered full digital FBW for JF-17 which would take 2 years.

 

[S.U.R.B.]

i feel glad to tell you that real number of JFT produced is not known.......

think you planned to counter 100 BVR equipped fighters but actually when you attack you suddenly are facing over 300, then what would you do?either abort or fight?

1-Dude, one must understand that planning is not done upon whims but on some solid information that is being delivered to you by your intelligence agencies ( and it doesn't include anything that is being advertised by your adversary).

2-You can produce as many fighter jets as the number of power plants (here Klimov RD-93) that you have purchased.
The actual number of ACs can either be less than the engines you have got or equal to that, but not more.You can not have spare jets with out an engine.But you can have spare engines for different purposes.

3-So far it's only the RD-93 that has seen most of the action on JF-17.The Chinese option is out of the picture right now.There are no surprises waiting for the enemy if they are smart (which i have to believe that they are).We are not Israel and we haven't got an uncle Sam to guard our secret about the exact number of JFTs.Our equivalent of Uncle Sam i-e China has yet to provide us with a mature alternate for the Russian RD-93.