This is going to be fun...
Yes, I did.
What 'can be' done does not equate to proof. You do not need a law degree to understand that. Even in a court of public opinion.
We all do.
You sounds like a smart guy. Then you should know that a hypothesis does not equate to proof, let alone a solidified theory.
You mean this: "This mean that the fuel system and FCS must exchange information with appropriate integrity and this can significantly affect the design of each system. Examples of where this is implemented are highly agile aircraft such as Eurofighter Typhoon and F-35." ?
Sorry, but that still does not constitute proof. I advised you to do lots of basic research, did I not?
Center of Gravity (CG)...Here is the kicker...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_gravity_of_an_aircraft
The highlighted is where you cannot apply what you think happens on an airliner onto a smaller jet fighter.
On an airliner, the bulk of the fuel load is in the wings, which means the lateral off-balance condition is a high possibility.
But on a jet fighter, the bulk of the fuel load is in the fuselage, which means the fore/aft off-balance condition is a high possibility. So high the fore-aft off balance condition that an asymmetric wing fuel load is considered normal -- within certain specs for each fighter, of course.
So what the book source you brought on really mean is in reference to the fore-aft off balance condition that the fuel system can communicate to the FLCS so that the jet can auto correct itself.
This is what an aviation fuel quantity probe (sensor) looks like...
http://liquidmeasurement.com/products/fuel-probes/
Each probe is a tube-within-a-tube construct to form a capacitor. The fuel level --
ON LEVEL FLIGHT -- covers the length of the probe. A high fuel level means a virtual large capacitor. The fuel serves as the dielectric. As fuel is used, this virtual capacitor gets smaller and smaller. The capacitor method is the most reliable in terms of durability and precision. The type of fuel quantity measured is weight and the unit is 'pound' or lb.
http://www.industrial-electronics.com/aircraft_11.html
Even on a fighter, a fuselage tank probe can be nearly one meter length. But on a wing tank -- probe length is less than the width of your palm. And as we move towards the wing tip, the fuel tank at that position, if there is one, have no probe at all.
http://www.aerospace2000.com/Products-18.html
Do you see the length of the fuel quantity probe in that source? Yes, it is that short. The holes on the bottom allows fuel to be inside the tube to form the capacitor.
So for a jet fighter to be so worry about asymmetric wing fuel load is absurd. It is a waste of resources to design a compensator for that condition.
What this mean is that on a jet fighter, we are not going to be transferring fuel across the wings to automatically compensate for any type of asymmetric load on the wings, be it from asymmetric weapons or fuel. The wing tanks will feed the fuselage tanks until the wing tanks are empty. The externals will feed the wings until the externals are empty. If there are any lateral asymmetric load, it will be up to the pilot to
MANUALLY compensate for that condition via the trim wheel/knob.
Just because you must have equal wing fuel load on the fighter does not mean you are transferring fuel across the wings like the airliner does it. Am not going to research the J-17's wing thickness. You can do that for yourself and see if it is financially acceptable to build such a system.
Wrong...!!!
Even when I was on the F-111, we often flew with asymmetric wing stores. We simply MANUALLY trim the jet. Even on civilian aircrafts, one of the most important thing you learn is trimming. Flying out of trim cost fuel. Flying is actually more mentally taxing than driving. On the road, if your car's suspension is properly aligned, the pavement is a contributor to you bearing fairly straight ahead. But in the air, you have nothing to assist you. The aircraft could be flying out of trim and you would not even know it. So by the time you earned your pilot's license, you would have -- or should have -- been fully trained on how to properly trim the aircraft.
Fine. Let us get to the details...
- Pump size?
- Fuel line diameter?
- Fuel flow rate?
- What is the unit of communication to the flight control computer (FLCC)? Meaning, do you want to go with the unit of weight on each wing?
- What are your ranges of tolerance? Meaning do you want to trigger lateral fuel transfer upon 1 lb or 10 lbs or 100 lbs of difference?
- What if a fuel quantity probe failed in flight? How would the FLCC deals with a sudden loss of quantity info from one wing? Immediately? Delayed by how long? Cockpit alert level? Or do you think a fuel quantity probe last forever? So if you have an asymmetric weapons load on the port wing, but during flight two fuel quantity probes on the starboard wing failed, now what?
All these are general questions that I doubt you have considered. You think these questions are free, as in money free? No, each time you want to compensate for something, it cost money, and in aviation, it adds weight. So now your per jet cost and per jet weight went up.
You have nothing but your own speculations and faith that the J-17 is equipped with an automatic asymmetric load compensator via lateral fuel transfer.
How about someone in this forum, living in Pakistan, contact an active duty J-17 pilot and ask if there is such a system on the J-17?
Have
YOU even consider the possibility of a 'No' answer before you post your assertion that resulted in this debate? If there is such a system, surely the Pakistani pilot would be well trained in it. All he has to say is 'Yea' or 'Nay'. That is not classified information.
By the way, I know what 9g feels like in the F-16. And the view of the planet and of the horizon from the F-16's bubble canopy is magnificent.
Of course the jet would be able to compensate, but thru trimming, as in a small deflection of the appropriate flight control surface(s).
On an airliner, an asymmetric load means trapped fuel which means a asymmetric weight, not drag. The engine dropped from the wing would mean both asymmetric weight and drag. But that radical condition is beyond the scope of this debate.
What Mr. Shabi does not understand is the behaviors of an asymmetric drag condition on the jet fighter, like carrying weapons load.
An asymmetric load, notably of drag, tends to produce a rolling motion, as if an aileron or horizontal stab is deflected.
http://www.amaflightschool.org/diy/trimming-ground-directional-controllability
The solution for the non-airliner aircraft is to deflect the other (opposite) flight control surface(s), not by transferring fuel back and forth.
Here is what non-flyers usually do not understand...
Fuel that is not sent to the engine(s) is the equivalent of having no fuel at all.
Using rough figures to illustrate my point...
Say my aircraft have two fuel tanks, A and B, and each holds 50 lbs for a total of 100 lbs. With that quantity, I will be able to travel 100 miles.
When a pilot says he has X fuel load, he really means he has X fuel quantity
TO BURN. Not how much he carries.
If fuel tank B is shut off, will I still be able to travel that 100 miles? Of course not. My total fuel weight is still the same, but not my capable flight distance, which is now 50 miles.
Ergo...
TRAPPED OR CAPTIVE FUEL IS THE SAME AS NO FUEL.
So for the J-17 or F-16 to keep constant fuel in the wings just to transfer them back and forth to compensate for an asymmetric load condition is absurd. You are cutting short your combat range.