JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 6]

[Dazzler]

Rd-93 does have a digital electronic control and monitoring system which communicates with the mission computer and keeps the pilot posted on engine health and fuel status. The DEEC falls somewhere between manual monitoring and the full autbority digital engine control (FADEC) system.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,


Just like in a car---HP is nothing without torque----like if you have 300 HP engine with a 150ft/lbs of torque----it ain't going anywhere----.

Similarly---the thrust does not mean much by itself---but need to be kept in mind in relation to the acceleration that it can produce and how fast----the ooomph factor is very important----.

If it was upto me----I would go for the EJ200----remember in the end---the engine is for a ' war machine '---so the cost factor is there---but then look at the advantages as well.

The engine will almost be close to 1.5 to 2 times more efficient than the RD93MA---which means a longer LOITER time---.

A longer loiter time is better than a shorter loiter time any day----it decreases the number of TAKE OFFS & LANDINGS---and that is a massive savings in itself---.

Longer loiter time also means shorter intervals for the enemy attack---.

Also---longer time between overhauls as well---.

If the loiter time is time and a half---a larger oxygen unit could be installed to keep it afloat longer between refuelling.

 

[his5850]

Hi,


Just like in a car---HP is nothing without torque----like if you have 300 HP engine with a 150ft/lbs of torque----it ain't going anywhere----.

Similarly---the thrust does not mean much by itself---but need to be kept in mind in relation to the acceleration that it can produce and how fast----the ooomph factor is very important----.

If it was upto me----I would go for the EJ200----remember in the end---the engine is for a ' war machine '---so the cost factor is there---but then look at the advantages as well.

The engine will almost be close to 1.5 to 2 times more efficient than the RD93MA---which means a longer LOITER time---.

A longer loiter time is better than a shorter loiter time any day----it decreases the number of TAKE OFFS & LANDINGS---and that is a massive savings in itself---.

Longer loiter time also means shorter intervals for the enemy attack---.

Also---longer time between overhauls as well---.

If the loiter time is time and a half---a larger oxygen unit could be installed to keep it afloat longer between refuelling.

What u say is all well and good but problem is Is it section proof the single benefit of RD-93 is we buy this engine from china not from Russia so it has china's protection on it EJ200 is good but unless we can get this engine in transfer of technology arrangement this will be useless to us

 

[PakEye]

By the use of costly EJ200 ( with the western conditions / sanctions) we will lose an affordable, cost effective and competitive alternative v/s more expensive western fighters.

 

[MastanKhan]

What u say is all well and good but problem is Is it section proof the single benefit of RD-93 is we buy this engine from china not from Russia so it has china's protection on it EJ200 is good but unless we can get this engine in transfer of technology arrangement this will be useless to us

Hi,

At first you look at what the engine offers overall---. If it is worth it then buy 2 engines per aircraft---have like a 5-10 years maintenance package available.

Son---you can do nothing with the transfer of technology of this engine---just be glad that you would be able to maintain it and overhaul it.

Does the F16 engine come with TOT or does the RD93 come with TOT?

 

[araz]

I hope you wouldn't let your emotions get the better of you in the future. Condescension never helped anyone's argument. If anything it is a perfect way to make your own argument weaker. We should try to stay unemotional and civil

Naa bhai.
When has civility been such a prized thing on the net? People have always projected their egos as it is simple to hide your insecurities behind a screen and smear all and sundry with one stroke. Ground realities be damned if it can be done anyone is fair game. As someone said it is an opinion blog and a lot of us venture opinions. Some know more than others. Others think they know more than everyone else. So one has to remain calm and expect pot shots from our zealous brethren. I have been here a long time and seen a lot of people coming and going.A lot of good posters and some not so good ones.
As to the poster concerned. Bring out your points. If they are valid they will be admired. But please act maturely and politely at all times.
Regards
A

Hi,

At first you look at what the engine offers overall---. If it is worth it then buy 2 engines per aircraft---have like a 5-10 years maintenance package available.

Son---you can do nothing with the transfer of technology of this engine---just be glad that you would be able to maintain it and overhaul it.

Does the F16 engine come with TOT or does the RD93 come with TOT?

Even if they did you have very rightly pointed out that it would be of no value to us. Our metallurgical knowledge is infantile and jet engines are like post PHD stuff. The best we can achieve is overhauling facilities. The engine is certainly a good one, however we as always stumble at the cost and sanction element of the purchase. The number of ACs needing replacement mean we we have to keep the costs down to the minimum. Our credit rating is now so bad that the EU will no longer lend us money. The other factor that needs to be considered is the multinational face of EU. Will we have to deal with multiple partners? This would be another factor in reckoning.
A6

 

[alimobin memon]

Rd-93 does have a digital electronic control and monitoring system which communicates with the mission computer and keeps the pilot posted on engine health and fuel status. The DEEC falls somewhere between manual monitoring and the full autbority digital engine control (FADEC) system.

I once thought DEEC has something to do with EW... u corrected it for me thanks (Y)

 

[Syed Hussain]

I hope you wouldn't let your emotions get the better of you in the future. Condescension never helped anyone's argument. If anything it is a perfect way to make your own argument weaker. We should try to stay unemotional and civil

You are quite right. However...
You get tired from respecting the majority of "opinions", an example will be that a member once proposed in his "expert view" to fit "WS-15" or "WS-10" to JF-17 because RD-33 was simply less powerful -_-
And please do not misunderstand "Sarcasm" with Condescension.

My earlier comment has stung you indeed but you did not lose your courtesy so I will try to follow you on this one. But guide me on how far can one "respect the views"?
1= EJ-200 has 40%(8 compare to 13) less compressor stages and with no removable parts, total number of modules is 15 and total number of parts is 1800 only which is almost half comparing to the Russian engine, so here is the poles apart difference in the area of reliability and ease of maintenance.
2= Now coming to that other joke of EJ-200 having only 400lbf of extra thrust. Cuz where I see it the difference is of 2,300 lbf between the "dry thrusts" which matter by all means first and the most(13,500 & 11,200). And the increase in "wet thrust" applied to RD-93 on the cost of service life can also be applied to EJ-200 on much greater level of 1,600 lbf of extra "dry thrust" on the cost of comparatively very low sacrifice of service life.
3= EJ-200 is smaller(7 & 5 inches inches in length and width), lighter(by 70kg), efficient(5.1% in dry & 8.1% in wet), and durable(with almost triple the service life), "doesn't smoke cigars", has the tremendous advantage of enjoying a FADEC system, comes with a 30% growth potential.
There are even more tiring details to this topic and having all of it in my mind simply leaves me intolerant to such statements coming with an even more ironical point where they state the ones with legitimate knowledge to be "armchair bandits".

 

[ziaulislam]

lots of people are discussing this and that and even criticizes PAF for not making these improvements but one thing we all forget that even in current form PAF cannot afford 150 thunders with the budget it has ...the production it has been able to maintain is largely due to Chinese assistance and loans

 

[his5850]

Hi,

At first you look at what the engine offers overall---. If it is worth it then buy 2 engines per aircraft---have like a 5-10 years maintenance package available.

Son---you can do nothing with the transfer of technology of this engine---just be glad that you would be able to maintain it and overhaul it.

Does the F16 engine come with TOT or does the RD93 come with TOT?

we do not have TOT for RD93 and F-16 like F-16 we do not to suffer that same problem it was very difficult for pakistan to maintain F-16 in section time and it is difficult for Russia to block the sale of RD-93 because Russian selling it to china not to pakistan even if Russia block it what u think WS-13 would be it would be the same copy of RD-93

 

[JamD]

You are quite right. However...
You get tired from respecting the majority of "opinions", an example will be that a member once proposed in his "expert view" to fit "WS-15" or "WS-10" to JF-17 because RD-33 was simply less powerful -_-
And please do not misunderstand "Sarcasm" with Condescension.
View attachment 295690
My earlier comment has stung you indeed but you did not lose your courtesy so I will try to follow you on this one. But guide me on how far can one "respect the views"?
1= EJ-200 has 40%(8 compare to 13) less compressor stages and with no removable parts, total number of modules is 15 and total number of parts is 1800 only which is almost half comparing to the Russian engine, so here is the poles apart difference in the area of reliability and ease of maintenance.
2= Now coming to that other joke of EJ-200 having only 400lbf of extra thrust. Cuz where I see it the difference is of 2,300 lbf between the "dry thrusts" which matter by all means first and the most(13,500 & 11,200). And the increase in "wet thrust" applied to RD-93 on the cost of service life can also be applied to EJ-200 on much greater level of 1,600 lbf of extra "dry thrust" on the cost of comparatively very low sacrifice of service life.
3= EJ-200 is smaller(7 & 5 inches inches in length and width), lighter(by 70kg), efficient(5.1% in dry & 8.1% in wet), and durable(with almost triple the service life), "doesn't smoke cigars", has the tremendous advantage of enjoying a FADEC system, comes with a 30% growth potential.
There are even more tiring details to this topic and having all of it in my mind simply leaves me intolerant to such statements coming with an even more ironical point where they state the ones with legitimate knowledge to be "armchair bandits".

You did not offend me personally sir. What you had said was not in response to what I had said anyway. The only point I have raised here was about additional structural weight that ought to be considered when increasing the thrust significantly.

I see many things on the forum that seem outright ludicrous to me too but I find it better to inform a well intentioned individual politely rather than insult him or her for their lack of knowledge. Respecting someone goes a long way in winning them over

My earlier observation was about the general decorum of the forum, nothing more. If we offend each other, even if we are right, it is the discussion that dies. That was my point, nothing less, nothing more.

1- Agreed. I would never claim the RD-93 is a better engine than the ej200.
2- Again I agree. More dry thrust means MUCH better economy, better performance overall.
3- Agreed.

My opposition to the ej200 path isn't based upon a premise of it being the inferior engine somehow. I am just of the opinion that in the context of the JF-17 program it would be smarter to stick to RD-93 and its upgrades, at least in the short term. The reasons for this are:
A-Save cost on the cheaper engine ie RD-93
B-Save cost on the structural redesign (however small) that would be needed.
C-Save time that would delay the induction of jets.

 

[MastanKhan]

we do not have TOT for RD93 and F-16 like F-16 we do not to suffer that same problem it was very difficult for pakistan to maintain F-16 in section time and it is difficult for Russia to block the sale of RD-93 because Russian selling it to china not to pakistan even if Russia block it what u think WS-13 would be it would be the same copy of RD-93

Hi,

Welcome to the forum---if one keeps hitting his head against the brick wall---his head will be crushed---if you don't learn how to manipulate sanctions---you will keep getting sanctioned.

You have to keep extra stock at hand---you have to diversify. The problem is not with sanctions---the PROBLEM IS WITH THE LEARNING CURVE OF THE PAKISTANIS.

You do not have the ability to learn and take steps that it does not happen.

The national problem is that it is a nation of ' illeterate ' people led by ' illeterate ' politicians expecting to make literate decisions----it is just like you want to make chicken karahi---but you put chicken poop, oil and all the masalas and after cooking for 20 minutes you expect to have a nice chicken karahi just because somewhere in there was the item ' chicken '---.

My understanding is that the RD93 is directly being sold to pakistan and not thru china anymore---. Russia would be trying very hard to keep pakistan hooked on the RD93 and future RD93 upgrades.

And pakistan might stick with that in promise for other items for export JF17's if push comes to shove----.

WS13 would be a good replacement in times of sanctions----.

 

[Syed Hussain]

You did not offend me personally sir. What you had said was not in response to what I had said anyway. The only point I have raised here was about additional structural weight that ought to be considered when increasing the thrust significantly.

I see many things on the forum that seem outright ludicrous to me too but I find it better to inform a well intentioned individual politely rather than insult him or her for their lack of knowledge. Respecting someone goes a long way in winning them over

My earlier observation was about the general decorum of the forum, nothing more. If we offend each other, even if we are right, it is the discussion that dies. That was my point, nothing less, nothing more.

1- Agreed. I would never claim the RD-93 is a better engine than the ej200.
2- Again I agree. More dry thrust means MUCH better economy, better performance overall.
3- Agreed.

My opposition to the ej200 path isn't based upon a premise of it being the inferior engine somehow. I am just of the opinion that in the context of the JF-17 program it would be smarter to stick to RD-93 and its upgrades, at least in the short term. The reasons for this are:
A-Save cost on the cheaper engine ie RD-93
B-Save cost on the structural redesign (however small) that would be needed.
C-Save time that would delay the induction of jets.

A-If an aircraft has a service life of 6000 hours and is installed with an engine with 2000 hours of service life then wouldn't it need engine replacement? & what will be the status of cost then?
B- The size difference is not big enough to cause structural changes and also because JF-17's engine bay was designed with keeping in mind the engine availability problem. Same was the case with "Al-Khalid".
C- We are producing 16 jets a year. Eurojet has the capacity to produce 150 to 180 EJ-200's per year

 

[araz]

You are quite right. However...
You get tired from respecting the majority of "opinions", an example will be that a member once proposed in his "expert view" to fit "WS-15" or "WS-10" to JF-17 because RD-33 was simply less powerful -_-
And please do not misunderstand "Sarcasm" with Condescension.
View attachment 295690
My earlier comment has stung you indeed but you did not lose your courtesy so I will try to follow you on this one. But guide me on how far can one "respect the views"?
1= EJ-200 has 40%(8 compare to 13) less compressor stages and with no removable parts, total number of modules is 15 and total number of parts is 1800 only which is almost half comparing to the Russian engine, so here is the poles apart difference in the area of reliability and ease of maintenance.
2= Now coming to that other joke of EJ-200 having only 400lbf of extra thrust. Cuz where I see it the difference is of 2,300 lbf between the "dry thrusts" which matter by all means first and the most(13,500 & 11,200). And the increase in "wet thrust" applied to RD-93 on the cost of service life can also be applied to EJ-200 on much greater level of 1,600 lbf of extra "dry thrust" on the cost of comparatively very low sacrifice of service life.
3= EJ-200 is smaller(7 & 5 inches inches in length and width), lighter(by 70kg), efficient(5.1% in dry & 8.1% in wet), and durable(with almost triple the service life), "doesn't smoke cigars", has the tremendous advantage of enjoying a FADEC system, comes with a 30% growth potential.
There are even more tiring details to this topic and having all of it in my mind simply leaves me intolerant to such statements coming with an even more ironical point where they state the ones with legitimate knowledge to be "armchair bandits".

Thank you for a really good post. Can I ask you the cost of the EJ200 series engine and the availability, ie the EU being willing to let PAF use the engine for JFT?
Regards
A

 

[Blue Marlin]

Thank you for a really good post. Can I ask you the cost of the EJ200 series engine and the availability, ie the EU being willing to let PAF use the engine for JFT?
Regards
A

i dont see any problem with it. but do understand its a smaller engine. and will cost more than the rd-93 the stage 2 variant will be around the same as the rd-93.
in term of getting the nod for exporting it. from what i know your guys at paf have already spoken to rolls royce about the possibilities and they would be happy to do it. the politicians in the eu will give the nod. the french may cause a problem. the us lot [the British] and the Italians will say yes, the germans? i'm not so sure. you should look at it for powering the j31 or look at the tfx which will be powered by a variant of the ej-200.