JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[Thorough Pro]

You need to read the original post I responded to

so the big question is what is the normal take off weight of B model vs A model, assuming weight went up by 800 kg for dual seater how much was reduced due to composites and all digital fly by wire , was it enough to negate the gains ?

Don't forget additional lift from bigger wings too

And drag. You can't just have one and not the other

Yes, but comparatively lift is way more than the drag, that is why all the planes fly

Drag DOES NOT cause the aircraft to 'not fly'. Loss of airspeed does, which can happen due to many causes.

and Drag is one cause loss of air speed

No we are not. I have quoted your original post below. The sentence 'lift is way more than drag' implies that lift and drag are opposing forces, and the net force makes the plane fly. That is wrong. They are not opposing forces. If you read books on aerodynamics, there is s component of drag that is caused due to the process of creating lift - you can't produce lift without experiencing drag. But at supersonic speeds drag is also caused by things such as wave shock. The overall ratio of lift to drag is used in various computations of aerodynamic parameters.

 

[CriticalThought]

You need to read the original post I responded to

Just let me add one more piece of information to this. An aircraft will fly, even if the force of drag is greater than the force of lift, IF the lift is greater than weight. It is entirely possible to have W < L < D and the aircraft will still fly. It would be aerodynamically inefficient, but it would still fly.

 

[razgriz19]

Yes, but comparatively lift is way more than the drag, that is why all the planes fly

Sure, but that's not what i meant. Speed will take a hit. Something has to give

 

[gambit]

Lift vs Gravity

Thrust vs Drag

The rocket and the aerostat ( balloon ) are extremes of airborne vehicles, so we will dispense with them.

With winged and powered vehicles, we use the combination of lift and thrust to become airborne. Precisely because we chose to use aerodynamic exploitation, unlike the rocket and the aerostat, we have no choice but to have this combination.

Believe it or not, there is no such thing as a 'balance' between thrust and lift. There is a ratio between thrust and lift based upon the airframe design.

Take the F-104 Starfighter, for example...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter

Long fuselage with relatively short wingspan in comparison to the fuselage. For this configuration, we need higher thrust to become airborne. This ratio does not mean the overall design if 'bad' or 'flawed'. Aerodynamic laws simply state that the more 'stuff' you have protruding into the airstream, the higher the drag. So if you want to minimize that factor and still need a pair of wings, you design the correct combination ( ratio ) of available thrust to wing area to create the fastest interceptor aircraft possible. The shorter the wings, the closer you approach the rocket -- that one extreme end of airborne vehicle.

On the other hand, the U-2 with its long wingspan to fuselage ratio...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2

...Gave this aircraft higher lift ratio in comparison to thrust than the F-104. The U-2's engine has just enough thrust to get the aircraft airborne and overcome the higher wing drag, but no more. The U-2's design specified endurance over all else so the straight wing planform is necessary. Just like the F-104, there are no flaws here. Just the correct ratio.

 

[Jammer]

Hahaha! @CriticalThought and @Thorough Pro, you guys are killing me. Saying the same thing both of you.

 

[My-Analogous]

Hahaha! @CriticalThought and @Thorough Pro, you guys are killing me. Saying the same thing both of you.

No brother. One have Packer and another using Sheaffer.

 

[CriticalThought]

Hahaha! @CriticalThought and @Thorough Pro, you guys are killing me. Saying the same thing both of you.

Nopes, not really

 

[blinder]

Any chance of the JF-17B attending this year's Paris salon aeronautique at Le Bourget; or is that too soon?

 

[Thorough Pro]

Maybe just the static display for the "B", while "A" goes up in the air

Any chance of the JF-17B attending this year's Paris salon aeronautique at Le Bourget; or is that too soon?

 

[Silver Fox XN]

The load out I would say
@Windjammer

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

CATIC officials told Alan Warnes that the PAF is unlikely to choose the Vixen 1000E AESA radar because both Leonardo and AVIC (SD-10) would be reluctant to share their respective source codes. However, the Turks are going to reveal their own BVRAAM in the BOZDOĞAN at IDEF. Would there be a problem with Leonardo and the Turks sharing their respective codes (for integrating the B-GAN to the Vixen)? @Tank131 @Bratva @cabatli_53

@Oscar I don't know about the PAF, but this would basically round out the Westernized JF-17 option for prospective export customers.

https://www.dailysabah.com/defense/...-to-air-missiles-to-be-showcased-at-idef-2017

 

[SQ8]

CATIC officials told Alan Warnes that the PAF is unlikely to choose the Vixen 1000E AESA radar because both Leonardo and AVIC (SD-10) would be reluctant to share their respective source codes. However, the Turks are going to reveal their own BVRAAM in the BOZDOĞAN at IDEF. Would there be a problem with Leonardo and the Turks sharing their respective codes (for integrating the B-GAN to the Vixen)? @Tank131 @Bratva @cabatli_53

@Oscar I don't know about the PAF, but this would basically round out the Westernized JF-17 option for prospective export customers.

https://www.dailysabah.com/defense/...-to-air-missiles-to-be-showcased-at-idef-2017

The turks will have to reveal it to the Chinese and that wont happen.

The JF-17 may be out of it, but as an additonal stock for the F-16 or another asset may not be too far fetched.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

The turks will have to reveal it to the Chinese and that wont happen.

The JF-17 may be out of it, but as an additonal stock for the F-16 or another asset may not be too far fetched.

If you don't mind me asking, why would the Turks have to reveal it to the Chinese? I understand this would be the case in the use of the KLJ-7A, but would this really be necessary if the JF-17 (e.g. a prototype for export) is equipped with the Vixen 1000E?

 

[Tank131]

The turks wouldnt have to reveal anything to the Chinese, but would likely need to share their codes with the Italians/Brits if Vixen were chosen. That being said, it is a moot point for foreign sales as anybody who wants and can get western weapons would be able to acquire Meteor, AMRAAM, MICA, ASRAAM, and Sidewinder which the Vixen would already be integrated with. So they could still choose Vixen and western weapons. That being said, for PAF, all would hinge on Leonardo sharing the codes or allowing Pakistan to do local integration (both could share their codes with Pakistan and they could perform integration in-house). I dont see this happening from the Italians at least, but we will have to wait and see. I also dont see Pakistan going for a 3rd BVR missile. It already operates SD-10 and AMRAAM and doesnt need the logistical challenge of adding yet another weapon.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

The turks wouldnt have to reveal anything to the Chinese, but would likely need to share their codes with the Italians/Brits if Vixen were chosen. That being said, it is a moot point for foreign sales as anybody who wants and can get western weapons would be able to acquire Meteor, AMRAAM, MICA, ASRAAM, and Sidewinder which the Vixen would already be integrated with. So they could still choose Vixen and western weapons. That being said, for PAF, all would hinge on Leonardo sharing the codes or allowing Pakistan to do local integration (both could share their codes with Pakistan and they could perform integration in-house). I dont see this happening from the Italians at least, but we will have to wait and see. I also dont see Pakistan going for a 3rd BVR missile. It already operates SD-10 and AMRAAM and doesnt need the logistical challenge of adding yet another weapon.

...what if said weapon is built locally? (note: I'm not referring to the Turkish AAMs here).