JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[Thorough Pro]

Why are you assuming that both will not be fired simultaneously or in quick succession?

Hi,

Son---please read---read some books---. Bombs are dropped from opposite racks at the same time---. Fuel tanks are jettisoned from opposite racks at the same time---.

It may not be a problem carrying an 1100 KG missile on inner pylons---the problem occurs when one missile is launched and the other stays on the wing---and as the aircraft is really small---such a large weight displacement from one side---creates a massive imbalance in the stability of the aircraft---.

 

[syed_yusuf]

i havenno doubt in my mind that KFT can carry 2 raad in one go on inner HP of each wing or one under the fuselage

 

[gambit]

Ok I'm curious, I shared links which I think you didnt even bother to check but are still claiming I'm completely in the wrong. Please share some reading material and tell me why fuel tank cross feed systems to adjust aircraft center of gravity is flawed.
Explaination should not be the usual excuse that Chinese technology is inferior.

That is where you are wrong. I read your links. I understand the info contained within. Now, I will explain why your post is either incomplete, meaning you have inadequate information, or straight out wrong.

Reference...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/jf-1...ighter-thread-7.427560/page-314#post-10445120

Here we go...

Even on a commercial aircraft the fuel management system can be used to balance out both wings of an aircraft.

This is true. However, while the apple and the orange are fruits, that is as far as they go in relation to each other. Likewise, while the airliner and the fighter are heavier than air powered vehicles, there are many differences between them, one of them is the fuel storage and management systems that we are talking about at this time.

To start off, this is an airliner...

As we can see, there is not much for fuel storage in an airliner's structure. As much as possible, an airliner's airframe is dedicated for cargo -- money makers -- over other considerations. The result is that fuel storage is...

...Biased in the wings with some in the fuselage.

So while your statement that fuel management is used to 'balance out both wings' are technically correct, it is INAPPLICABLE to a fighter aircraft. Like how certain things about the apple is inapplicable to the orange.

This is what fuel storage on a jet fighter look like...A high level virtual view...

In a fighter, and I was on the F-111 and F-16, here is how the automatic fuel management system feeds the engine(s):

1- Fuselage tanks feeds the engine(s)
2- Wing tanks feeds the fuselage tanks
3- External understore fuel tanks feeds the wing tanks

As 1-2-3 goes, the fuselage tanks are always full, that means the first tanks to be emptied are the externals, then wings, last are the fuselage.

This is why I asked that ignorant Chinese guy -- posts 4705 and 4707 -- as to which fuel storage and management system is more difficult to design. It is no state secret: the jet fighter.

The airliner's fuel storage and management system is larger and that poses its own unique issues, but in terms of complexities of storage, pumps, fuel flow rate, plumbing diameters, and assorted sundries, the small size of the jet fighter and the demand for maximum internal volume utilization make the smaller jet fighter the greater headache.

So one thing about your comment of fuel storage and management is already wrong.

Next...

Since most modern aircraft are designed unstable, its the job of the FBW to continuously manage the aircraft without pilot input in order to fly it straight.

Yes, that is correct. No issues there.,

Look at the picture below.

That would be this picture...

https://defence.pk/pdf/attachments/thunder-loaded-jpg.469378/

One wing has a C-802 which is ~750KG, on the other wing it is carrying a 800litre fuel tank to balance it out. The aircraft fuel management system and FBW will have to work together.

For the highlighted, where is the technical supporting doc?

If missile not fired the aircraft computer will manage fuel via pumps so that the the opposite wing has similar weight. Once missile fired, the fuel management system will pump out fuel from the wing with the tank and balance rest of the aircraft.

In the absence of supporting technical doc for the previous statement, this following one is flat out wrong.

We -- meaning US military aviation -- have plenty of test data on asymmetric load on any aircraft in our inventory. I will not speak for other air forces, but we can safely assume they have done their tests as well.

There are two main types of asymmetric loads in flight:

- Asymmetric drag
- Asymmetric weight/mass

Each produces different behaviors, especially under maneuvers, on the aircraft.

Asymmetric drag can come from many sources. One source is when an engine is out and the propeller is idle, for example. In this case, we have asymmetric drag and asymmetric thrust.

The wider the spacing of the engines (plural), the greater the asymmetric drag/thrust component. So if one engine on the F-14 is out and one engine on the F-15 is out, the F-14 would experience a higher factor of asymmetric thrust because its engines are spaced wider apart.

Another source of asymmetric drag is 'hung ordnance', as in bombs/missiles that failed to leave the jet on one wing.

Asymmetric weight/mass can come from hung ordnance, but also from TRAPPED FUEL, such as fuel that failed to transfer from outward to inward.

It is easy to see how the worst type of asymmetric loading is from hung ordnance -- weight/mass and drag.

The flight control system (FLCS) do not compensate for asymmetric load. It is the pilot's responsibility to MANUALLY trim the aircraft to compensate. In the cockpit with the fuel instrument cluster, there is an indicator of a fuel imbalance condition.

In the older airliner, the flight engineer, who is usually a non-pilot, will MANUALLY transfer fuel from tank to tank to maintain balance. Today's airliners do not have flight engineers so it falls upon the automatic fuel transfer system or the first officer (co-pilot) to respond to any fuel imbalance condition.

In a jet fighter, even with two pilots, the automatic fuel management system maintains fuel balancing.

You do not want the FLCS to automatically countering the effects of a fuel imbalance because the behaviors of a maneuver and an asymmetric load are very similar. The FLCS, even the most advanced today, can mistake an asymmetric load with a pilot command. In essence, you are asking the flight control computer (FLCC) to second guess the aircrew.

I learned to fly when I was in high school, before I got my driver's license. I knew how to take off and land an aircraft before I learned how to parallel park a car. I took my girlfriend on airplane rides but we rode the bus to restaurants and movies. In the air, if I put right foot to rudder pedal, I would be creating an asymmetric drag, no different than flying with a hung bomb. So by the time I joined the USAF, it was clear we do not want the jet to guess what the cockpit is doing and countermanding what the pilot want. If there is an asymmetric load from whatever source, we want the aircrew to manually compensate for that because they are supposed to be aware of what is happening.

If missile not fired the aircraft computer will manage fuel via pumps so that the the opposite wing has similar weight. Once missile fired, the fuel management system will pump out fuel from the wing with the tank and balance rest of the aircraft.

I would like to see supporting technical doc for the J-17 on that. Or on any fighter for that matter.

Once a jet released a weapon, there is an INSTANTANEOUS loss of weight/mass and drag. Internal fuel transfer are not that fast, unless we are talking about 'Chinese physics'?

If the J-17's fuel storage and management system is conceptually the same as the F-16, and I am confident they are the same, then by the time the bomb/missile is released over a target, most likely all J-17's externals and wing tanks are empty. That means once the bomb/missile is released, the J-17 as pictured above will be flying with an asymmetric drag condition with nothing to balance it out, except pilot's wheel trim input. So where are the supporting sources for your assertion?

My suggestion for you is this...

You are treading into a highly technical area that no computer game has all the information. Do your research -- a lot of it -- before you post.

 

[volatile]

Very rightly said the rouble will always be with Strategic CM or RAAD for else I think it will be calculated by Computers for proper load management . Correct me FBW solves many problems which are related to flying characteristics

 

[MastanKhan]

ok lets ignore the videos that are available with dissimilar payloads on thunder..i think they are photo shop
this isnt 1960s with old systems, its era of fly by wire

Hi,

What dissimilar load are you talking about---. Can you present one video please.

You should have your answer in Gambit's post.

 

[Basel]

It will be disaster just for one platform whole tot or prodcution will be done


There is no debate on it can carry in future roles or not point here is that sooner or later Mirages role Infact some squadrons are already started to get thunder ,Now increasing the height of thunder in design phase was miscalculated or not envisioned .In its current form there are challenges

View attachment 469288

PS increase wheel height

SOM-J is ideal to have as it is build to be fitted in F-35 weapons bay, PAF could ask for its own version which could be deployed with its 5th gen bird.

 

[MastanKhan]

Why are you assuming that both will not be fired simultaneously or in quick succession?

Hi,

It would be a good idea for some of you gentlemen to ask the AVM who stated one heavy AShM on the aircraft---.

If one of you can contact him and find out the answer---.

 

[Shabi1]

That is where you are wrong. I read your links. I understand the info contained within. Now, I will explain why your post is either incomplete, meaning you have inadequate information, or straight out wrong.

Reference...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/jf-17-thunder-multirole-fighter-thread-7.427560/page-314#post-10445120

Here we go...


This is true. However, while the apple and the orange are fruits, that is as far as they go in relation to each other. Likewise, while the airliner and the fighter are heavier than air powered vehicles, there are many differences between them, one of them is the fuel storage and management systems that we are talking about at this time.

To start off, this is an airliner...

As we can see, there is not much for fuel storage in an airliner's structure. As much as possible, an airliner's airframe is dedicated for cargo -- money makers -- over other considerations. The result is that fuel storage is...

...Biased in the wings with some in the fuselage.

So while your statement that fuel management is used to 'balance out both wings' are technically correct, it is INAPPLICABLE to a fighter aircraft. Like how certain things about the apple is inapplicable to the orange.

This is what fuel storage on a jet fighter look like...A high level virtual view...

In a fighter, and I was on the F-111 and F-16, here is how the automatic fuel management system feeds the engine(s):

1- Fuselage tanks feeds the engine(s)
2- Wing tanks feeds the fuselage tanks
3- External understore fuel tanks feeds the wing tanks

As 1-2-3 goes, the fuselage tanks are always full, that means the first tanks to be emptied are the externals, then wings, last are the fuselage.

This is why I asked that ignorant Chinese guy -- posts 4705 and 4707 -- as to which fuel storage and management system is more difficult to design. It is no state secret: the jet fighter.

The airliner's fuel storage and management system is larger and that poses its own unique issues, but in terms of complexities of storage, pumps, fuel flow rate, plumbing diameters, and assorted sundries, the small size of the jet fighter and the demand for maximum internal volume utilization make the smaller jet fighter the greater headache.

So one thing about your comment of fuel storage and management is already wrong.

Next...


Yes, that is correct. No issues there.,


That would be this picture...

https://defence.pk/pdf/attachments/thunder-loaded-jpg.469378/


For the highlighted, where is the technical supporting doc?


In the absence of supporting technical doc for the previous statement, this following one is flat out wrong.

We -- meaning US military aviation -- have plenty of test data on asymmetric load on any aircraft in our inventory. I will not speak for other air forces, but we can safely assume they have done their tests as well.

There are two main types of asymmetric loads in flight:

- Asymmetric drag
- Asymmetric weight/mass

Each produces different behaviors, especially under maneuvers, on the aircraft.

Asymmetric drag can come from many sources. One source is when an engine is out and the propeller is idle, for example. In this case, we have asymmetric drag and asymmetric thrust.

The wider the spacing of the engines (plural), the greater the asymmetric drag/thrust component. So if one engine on the F-14 is out and one engine on the F-15 is out, the F-14 would experience a higher factor of asymmetric thrust because its engines are spaced wider apart.

Another source of asymmetric drag is 'hung ordnance', as in bombs/missiles that failed to leave the jet on one wing.

Asymmetric weight/mass can come from hung ordnance, but also from TRAPPED FUEL, such as fuel that failed to transfer from outward to inward.

It is easy to see how the worst type of asymmetric loading is from hung ordnance -- weight/mass and drag.

The flight control system (FLCS) do not compensate for asymmetric load. It is the pilot's responsibility to MANUALLY trim the aircraft to compensate. In the cockpit with the fuel instrument cluster, there is an indicator of a fuel imbalance condition.

In the older airliner, the flight engineer, who is usually a non-pilot, will MANUALLY transfer fuel from tank to tank to maintain balance. Today's airliners do not have flight engineers so it falls upon the automatic fuel transfer system or the first officer (co-pilot) to respond to any fuel imbalance condition.

In a jet fighter, even with two pilots, the automatic fuel management system maintains fuel balancing.

You do not want the FLCS to automatically countering the effects of a fuel imbalance because the behaviors of a maneuver and an asymmetric load are very similar. The FLCS, even the most advanced today, can mistake an asymmetric load with a pilot command. In essence, you are asking the flight control computer (FLCC) to second guess the aircrew.

I learned to fly when I was in high school, before I got my driver's license. I knew how to take off and land an aircraft before I learned how to parallel park a car. I took my girlfriend on airplane rides but we rode the bus to restaurants and movies. In the air, if I put right foot to rudder pedal, I would be creating an asymmetric drag, no different than flying with a hung bomb. So by the time I joined the USAF, it was clear we do not want the jet to guess what the cockpit is doing and countermanding what the pilot want. If there is an asymmetric load from whatever source, we want the aircrew to manually compensate for that because they are supposed to be aware of what is happening.


I would like to see supporting technical doc for the J-17 on that. Or on any fighter for that matter.

Once a jet released a weapon, there is an INSTANTANEOUS loss of weight/mass and drag. Internal fuel transfer are not that fast, unless we are talking about 'Chinese physics'?

If the J-17's fuel storage and management system is conceptually the same as the F-16, and I am confident they are the same, then by the time the bomb/missile is released over a target, most likely all J-17's externals and wing tanks are empty. That means once the bomb/missile is released, the J-17 as pictured above will be flying with an asymmetric drag condition with nothing to balance it out, except pilot's wheel trim input. So where are the supporting sources for your assertion?

My suggestion for you is this...

You are treading into a highly technical area that no computer game has all the information. Do your research -- a lot of it -- before you post.

The main argument is
1. Aircraft CG can be altered by re distributing fuel. Which you've also agreed.
2. It can be automated by FCS (FBW and fuel management system) which you say is not desirable.
3. You want proof that JF-17 has such a system.
4. Not your query. It's regarding Raad load out. Will answer later, don't have the time to answer that right now.

I'm very disappointed in the explanation you gave, you had me worried that I was going to be proved wrong. That was really arrogant of you. And infact did some further reading on the topic to to confirm my hypothesis.

No matter how much experience you have you should always be receptive to new ways of getting something done. Doesnt matter if he's Chinese Pakistan, Indian or any XYZ nationality he might point out something new. Your nationality or experience does not give youre IQ any advantage.

You say you've worked on F-16 and F-111. F-111 is a dinosour won't go there but the F-16 fuel management system details are available online. In the F-16 you can manually shift between front and aft tank to shift CG.

Yes normally there is sequential transfer of fuel between tanks but the system can be controlled via cross feed pumps to manage a mismatch or alter CG manually. And in more modern jets it can be managed by the flight control system. This is the thing you are not agreeing to and that the JF-17 doesnt have such a system, you want proof.

I'm sharing extract from a book please read last four lines of extract to confirm FCS and fuel system can work together and such systems exist on F-35 and Eurofighter.
Aircraft Systems: Mechanical, Electrical, and Avionics Subsystems Integration
https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=Hcgh8SturJQC&pg=PT157&lpg=PT157&dq=eurofighter+fuel+crossfeed&source=bl&ots=x3vXr8p_fg&sig=7tjigkW8GuInxEndCiAN7bOeb1I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLlqy4_draAhULso8KHSSAD54Q6AEISDAF#v=onepage&q=eurofighter fuel crossfeed&f=false

Now coming to JF-17, while searching on fuel management systems came across a English translation of the Mig-29 handbook it states if equipped with fuel tanks both sides must have equal fuel. And the sequential system pumps fuel from those external tanks to wing and then the main tanks. Same likely holds for most jets you see carrying equal amount of fuel both wings. Likely why F-16 only uses aft and front load to manage CG and not wing load as it can't handle asymmetric fuel loads on the wings.

Reason why I'm saying JF-17 must have a automated mechanism to balance fuel and resultantly alter CG is because otherwise this loadout configuration in the picture is not possible.

It's carrying a asymmetric fuel load and if flight in this configuration is possible it's FCS must be managing fuel transfer on wings.

Now coming to aircraft fuel tank configuration. For combat aircraft and commercial there is a difference. Combat aircraft have more smaller tanks whereas large commercial planes have fewer number of larger tanks.

For imbalance of wing load since wings on a fighter are smaller wing loading imbalance does not have too much impact and can usually be controlled by trim setting. In large commercial planes fuel transfer is used since the size of the tanks makes a bigger impact on CG.

But this does not mean the same technique cannot be used on a fighter jet as well. If the imbalance is too large since everything is now electronically controlled its not too far fetched to believe fuel crossfeed can be used to augment the trim setting. Down side of using trim is it creates unwanted drag and affects range. Since electronic systems are advanced enough the CG method (eg front, aft, left right) has benefits if enough fuel still on board.

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/3853/why-do-planes-have-cross-feed-switches-or-circuits
"To keep the plane balanced, both wing tanks should have about the same amount of fuel. However, for various reasons, they could become unbalanced. The crossfeed valve allows fuel to flow from the tank with too much fuel to the tank with less fuel."
777 fuel system

JF-17 Fuel system similar to Eurofighter and airbus managed system. One on F-16 is a manual knob.

 

[MastanKhan]

The main argument is
1. Aircraft CG can be altered by re distributing fuel. Which you've also agreed.
2. It can be automated by FCS (FBW and fuel management system) which you say is not desirable.
3. You want proof that JF-17 has such a system.
4. Not your query. It's regarding Raad load out. Will answer later, don't have the time to answer that right now.

I'm very disappointed in the explanation you gave, you had me worried that I was going to be proved wrong. That was really arrogant of you. And infact did some further reading on the topic to to confirm my hypothesis.

No matter how much experience you have you should always be receptive to new ways of getting something done. Doesnt matter if he's Chinese Pakistan, Indian or any XYZ nationality he might point out something new. Your nationality or experience does not give youre IQ any advantage.

You say you've worked on F-16 and F-111. F-111 is a dinosour won't go there but the F-16 fuel management system details are available online. In the F-16 you can manually shift between front and aft tank to shift CG.

Yes normally there is sequential transfer of fuel between tanks but the system can be controlled via cross feed pumps to manage a mismatch or alter CG manually. And in more modern jets it can be managed by the flight control system. This is the thing you are not agreeing to and that the JF-17 doesnt have such a system, you want proof.

I'm sharing extract from a book please read last four lines of extract to confirm FCS and fuel system can work together and such systems exist on F-35 and Eurofighter.
Aircraft Systems: Mechanical, Electrical, and Avionics Subsystems Integration
https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=Hcgh8SturJQC&pg=PT157&lpg=PT157&dq=eurofighter+fuel+crossfeed&source=bl&ots=x3vXr8p_fg&sig=7tjigkW8GuInxEndCiAN7bOeb1I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLlqy4_draAhULso8KHSSAD54Q6AEISDAF#v=onepage&q=eurofighter fuel crossfeed&f=false
View attachment 469827

Now coming to JF-17, while searching on fuel management systems came across a English translation of the Mig-29 handbook it states if equipped with fuel tanks both sides must have equal fuel. And the sequential system pumps fuel from those external tanks to wing and then the main tanks. Same likely holds for most jets you see carrying equal amount of fuel both wings. Likely why F-16 only uses aft and front load to manage CG and not wing load as it can't handle asymmetric fuel loads on the wings.

Reason why I'm saying JF-17 must have a automated mechanism to balance fuel and resultantly alter CG is because otherwise this loadout configuration in the picture is not possible.
View attachment 469837
It's carrying a asymmetric fuel load and if flight in this configuration is possible it's FCS must be managing fuel transfer on wings.

Now coming to aircraft fuel tank configuration. For combat aircraft and commercial there is a difference. Combat aircraft have more smaller tanks whereas large commercial planes have fewer number of larger tanks.

For imbalance of wing load since wings on a fighter are smaller wing loading imbalance does not have too much impact and can usually be controlled by trim setting. In large commercial planes fuel transfer is used since the size of the tanks makes a bigger impact on CG.

But this does not mean the same technique cannot be used on a fighter jet as well. If the imbalance is too large since everything is now electronically controlled its not too far fetched to believe fuel crossfeed can be used to augment the trim setting.

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/3853/why-do-planes-have-cross-feed-switches-or-circuits
"To keep the plane balanced, both wing tanks should have about the same amount of fuel. However, for various reasons, they could become unbalanced. The crossfeed valve allows fuel to flow from the tank with too much fuel to the tank with less fuel."
777 fuel system

JF-17 Fuel system similar to Eurofighter and airbus managed system. One on F-16 is a manual knob.
View attachment 469862 View attachment 469863

Hi,

You are talking to a professional---unless you have similar credentials to back your claims---it is better to take a step back and accept the verdict---.

 

[volatile]

SOM-J is ideal to have as it is build to be fitted in F-35 weapons bay, PAF could ask for its own version which could be deployed with its 5th gen bird.

Sir please check F35 programe cost and owner of this project has more then Trillion dollars of luxury we dont

 

[Armchair]

The asymmetric loaded JF-17 pic that @Shabi1 has shared is evidence enough of fuel management between wings. @gambit may be a professional but doesn't mean he is right on every thing. He is making the ethnocentric mistake of thinking the JF-17's fuel management cannot be better than the F-16s, which is unable to do the same.

 

[MastanKhan]

The asymmetric loaded JF-17 pic that @Shabi1 has shared is evidence enough of fuel management between wings. @gambit may be a professional but doesn't mean he is right on every thing. He is making the ethnocentric mistake of thinking the JF-17's fuel management cannot be better than the F-16s, which is unable to do the same.

Hi,

Before talking big---you and Shabi need to introduce yourself and your profession---because the discussion is too professional at this stage---.

Gambit gave his background and experience in his post---waiting for the PAKISTANI to do the same---.

So PAKS---prove yourself---show us who you are----but if you don't have professional credentials---work experience---then please shut---listen and learn---.

By the way---how many pakistanis know that the U2 was a build up from the Starfighter F104---was it---or was it not---.

 

[Shabi1]

Hi,

You are talking to a professional---unless you have similar credentials to back your claims---it is better to take a step back and accept the verdict---.

Says the person who thinks it's viable to give the JF-17 a 25% size increase. Wouldnt it save time and money to buy J-10 instead.

Hi,

Before talking big---you and Shabi need to introduce yourself and your profession---because the discussion is too professional at this stage---.

Gambit gave his background and experience in his post---waiting for the PAKISTANI to do the same---.

So PAKS---prove yourself---show us who you are----but if you don't have professional credentials---work experience---then please shut---listen and learn---.

By the way---how many pakistanis know that the U2 was a build up from the Starfighter F104---was it---or was it not---.

I laid out my points with sources and picture proofs if you don't think they are enough its ok. No hard feelings lets agree to disagree and stop this topic here.

By the way I knew about the U2/ Starfighter thing, used to watch Wings on Discovery channel .

For a long time was a guest visitor on this forum and it caught my eye because I was interested in JF-17 development and official information was rare. Only lately have I started posting with more frequency as a hobby when I have free time.

FYI, I remember in 1999 there was news clipping in Dawn hard copy that JF-17 which was Super-7 back then has gone through wind tunnel testing with Mikoyan assistance and the airframe is max tested for Mach 2.8. Couldnt find it again as Dawn was not available in electronic form, so havnt mentioned before.

I have a Degree in Electronic Engineering, several certifications in Telecom, Project Management and a MBA. Sort of a jack of all trades and a tech geek also contributing to solve issues in Pakistan using technical expertise. Spent my childhood in Turkey and Pakistani community was not too much there back then, we used to have good interaction with the PAF pilots who came on yearly rotations with their families. Take interest in aviation because I went to airforce school after return.

My final engineering project was a low power radar type system which could be used for low power robotics or as a training simulator. Started my career in PIA engineering and spent quite a bit of time in line maintenance, moving between avionic repair workshops. Decided to switch as it was apparent from looking at my senior colleagues that this is not where I want to see myself working 10yrs down the line. Aircraft technology is so rapidly evolving and completely new things come up so often that you need to continuously get certifications else risk becoming replaced by new comers. Seniority doesn't matter for stagnant technical people much when the technology keeps evolving. When Fokkers were made transistor wasnt invented, when 747 and Airbus A300/310s came there were single layer PCBs everything hydraulic and when the 777s came you had multi layer PCBs which were basically non repairable if faulty. And out of observation safe to say whatever technology available commercially its available in advance on combat aircraft as they are the pinnacles of technology to whatever era they were developed in.

From there moved to SITA "Société Internationale de Télécommunications Aéronautiques" a Geneva based society with presence wherever there is a international airport, now switched to telecom and technology integration field. Worked on communication systems for airports/airlines including installing repairing Aircom systems (system used for data link of aircraft with ground maintenance). Since foreign companies wanted to avoid sending their nationals for their projects in Pakistan yet maintain a presence here. SITA in agreement with Orange, lent out it's service for Telecom IT infrastructure in Pakistan. So ended up implementing IT and secure communication projects for fortune 500 companies as well as UN, Mastercard, VISA. Gained experience working on VSAT and fiber optic communication links as well as VPNs. While there on avg had 40hrs a month of trainings so was really hectic with traveling and long out of normal business hour work.

Was ambitious and after couple years made the decision that I need to move to management and once my MBA was complete which I might add I did in service and is from IBA which is the oldest business school outside of North America took the decision to become a Entrepreneur.

Started a security surveillance and automation solutions company, it's going well. Reverse engineered a quadcopter industrial drone and improved configuration for 50min flight time along with 40km range with realtime video feed for law enforcement use for when they go for hostage rescue. Then started a real estate consultation and construction company, Alhamdullilah its doing extremely well and is my primary bread earner which I re invest in R&D. 2yrs ago started a power generation company and that too is going well. So a Director in three companies.

Despite being in management I'm still sort of a tech geek and I'm doing R&D projects for very affordable solar conversion projects suited to Pakistan in prototype phases. Electric conversion kits for Rickshaws in pipeline along with proposals for converting existing street lights to solar for which manufacturing will be done in Pakistan. Latest venture is in RO water treatment. We've deduced RO plants in rural areas dont work well because of electricity shortage their membranes get damaged and it's too expensive to purify high salt water in Gwadar area and no off the shelf solutions available so we are replacing normal pumps with solar DC pumps and its in prototype phase as well.

One observation or a problem I would like to share, it's easier to convince clients to buy European products as they have good reputation and in high end solutions Chinese products were bought where price was a constraint but in the last 1.5-2 yrs Chinese not only have they done catching up they are now often the most efficient technology providers since heavily investing in R&D. In surveillance, power, solar and sensors it's now a problem for me that I have to put in extra effort to convince clients that US/EU options are sometimes not the best route.

And Inshallaha much more to come, I'm still very young

 

[Mrc]

Says the person who thinks it's viable to give the JF-17 a 25% size increase. Wouldnt it save time and money to buy J-10 instead.


I laid out my points with sources and picture proofs if you don't think they are enough its ok. No hard feelings lets agree to disagree and stop this topic here.

By the way I knew about the U2/ Starfighter thing, used to watch Wings on Discovery channel .

For a long time was a guest visitor on this forum and it caught my eye because I was interested in JF-17 development and official information was rare. Only lately have I started posting with more frequency as a hobby when I have free time.

FYI, I remember in 1999 there was news clipping in Dawn hard copy that JF-17 which was Super-7 back then has gone through wind tunnel testing with Mikoyan assistance and the airframe is max tested for Mach 2.8. Couldnt find it again as Dawn was not available in electronic form, so havnt mentioned before.

I have a Degree in Electronic Engineering, several certifications in Telecom, Project Management and a MBA. Sort of a jack of all trades and a tech geek also contributing to solve issues in Pakistan using technical expertise. Spent my childhood in Turkey and Pakistani community was not too much there back then, we used to have good interaction with the PAF pilots who came on yearly rotations with their families. Take interest in aviation because I went to airforce school after return.

My final engineering project was a low power radar type system which could be used for low power robotics or as a training simulator. Started my career in PIA engineering and spent quite a bit of time in line maintenance, moving between avionic repair workshops. Decided to switch as it was apparent from looking at my senior colleagues that this is not where I want to see myself working 10yrs down the line. Aircraft technology is so rapidly evolving and completely new things come up so often that you need to continuously get certifications else risk becoming replaced by new comers. Seniority doesn't matter for stagnant technical people much when the technology keeps evolving. When Fokkers were made transistor wasnt invented, when 747 and Airbus A300/310s came there were single layer PCBs everything hydraulic and when the 777s came you had multi layer PCBs which were basically non repairable if faulty. And out of observation safe to say whatever technology available commercially its available in advance on combat aircraft as they are the pinnacles of technology to whatever era they were developed in.

From there moved to SITA "Société Internationale de Télécommunications Aéronautiques" a Geneva based society with presence wherever there is a international airport, now switched to telecom and technology integration field. Worked on communication systems for airports/airlines including installing repairing Aircom systems (system used for data link of aircraft with ground maintenance). Since foreign companies wanted to avoid sending their nationals for their projects in Pakistan yet maintain a presence here. SITA in agreement with Orange, lent out it's service for Telecom IT infrastructure in Pakistan. So ended up implementing IT and secure communication projects for fortune 500 companies as well as UN, Mastercard, VISA. Gained experience working on VSAT and fiber optic communication links as well as VPNs. While there on avg had 40hrs a month of trainings so was really hectic with traveling and long out of normal business hour work.

Was ambitious and after couple years made the decision that I need to move to management and once my MBA was complete which I might add I did in service and is from IBA which is the oldest business school outside of North America took the decision to become a Entrepreneur.

Started a security surveillance and automation solutions company, it's going well. Reverse engineered a quadcopter industrial drone and improved configuration for 50min flight time along with 40km range with realtime video feed for law enforcement use for when they go for hostage rescue. Then started a real estate consultation and construction company, Alhamdullilah its doing extremely well and is my primary bread earner which I re invest in R&D. 2yrs ago started a power generation company and that too is going well. So a Director in three companies.

Despite being in management I'm still sort of a tech geek and I'm doing R&D projects for very affordable solar conversion projects suited to Pakistan in prototype phases. Electric conversion kits for Rickshaws in pipeline along with proposals for converting existing street lights to solar for which manufacturing will be done in Pakistan. Latest venture is in RO water treatment. We've deduced RO plants in rural areas dont work well because of electricity shortage their membranes get damaged and it's too expensive to purify high salt water in Gwadar area and no off the shelf solutions available so we are replacing normal pumps with solar DC pumps and its in prototype phase as well.

One observation or a problem I would like to share, it's easier to convince clients to buy European products as they have good reputation and in high end solutions Chinese products were bought where price was a constraint but in the last 1.5-2 yrs Chinese not only have they done catching up they are now often the most efficient technology providers since heavily investing in R&D. In surveillance, power, solar and sensors it's now a problem for me that I have to put in extra effort to convince clients that US/EU options are sometimes not the best route.

And Inshallaha much more to come, I'm still very young

And the one asking for credentials is a car sales man in USA... just to make sure every one understands credentialing process here

 

[ghazi768]

Why are we having this discussion of asymmetric loads on wings again?

the gentleman who had started this now, had done so earlier as well, at that time he did not even know about trimming. At that time I think he had watched some video of JF-17 dropping a bomb/missile from one wing. And its behaviour right after the drop made him have some 'ideas'.

Technically, you can jettison all payload on one wing and it will still be flight worthy.

How an aircraft behaves in such a situation depends upon nature of its flight control system. If you drop/jettison from one wing than that fighter will get effected, mostly, by drag and weight. In manual, hydraulic/analog systems, a pilot will use his stick and pedals to control roll and yaw immediately and than once out of that manoeuvre he will use trim functions to achieve straight flight. How quickly he adjusts (so that some idiot watching a video of it do not end up having ideas) depends upon his skill. In F-16, at-least roll gets taken care of by FLCS. This has nothing to do with its aerodynamic design but with the way its FBW and stick input works. F-16's stick input has a very different 'feel' from a hydraulic/analog based system and require roll to be assisted by FLCS.