JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[Side-Winder]

Zhuhai Airshow - GoPro Video

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10154324939252663

 

[Mughal-Prince]

Is it just me or someone else also notice that engine smoke is reduced. Even at certain throttles specially when it's showing slow manuver in the end it did push out some smoke that is unburnt fuel but most of the times it's much more reduced.
What might be the reason ?? A tweak with engine or may be throttle handling.

 

[Dazzler]

Hi,

Good morning and same to you as well---.

If you had that much intellect and knowledge you would have understood that I stated neither of those things---.

What R&D and what research---you mean to say that in 200 million dollars they did all the R&D and research and built a plane from scratch---?

In that case---I will let you stay in the framework of your knowledge base and won't disturb your apple cart---lest you learn something better.


Are you the new " Bear Hunter "!

That elaborate, eloquent post of yours is empty as usual. You made a claim, now quantify it or acknowledge that you were wrong. Is that so difficult to understand?

 

[Sine Nomine]

But I think if you know the history of RD-93 engines, the cost to operate them on Migs is very high, MTBF, and availability of aircrafts post a few hours long flight operation was very low (some estimates suggest 40%, Indian SU's have some issues like that too).

The MiG-29 Thumansky RD-33 Engine:

The MiG-29 utilizes the RD-33 family of aircraft two-spool bypass turbojet engines that feature air flows mixed in a common afterburner, variable area nozzles, and a modular design which facilitates maintenance. RD-33 engines now serve in 22 nations: Belarus, Bulgaria, Cuba, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Korea DRP, Malaysia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Syria, Ukraine, Yeman, and Yugoslavia. Only South Africa does not use the MiG-29, but has reconfigured the RD-33 in their F-1 Mirages. V. Chernyshev Machine-Building Enterprise literature, builder of the RD-33 engine, discuss engine replacements for the Cheetah and early model Mirage III/V's.

Historically Russian fighter engines have been designed for high performance and short life spans. Since they were designed for real war conditions and not the convenience of peacetime, they had relatively short Mean Time Between Overhauls (MTBO) of a few hundred hours and/or short total life spans. Since aircraft were rotated out of rough forward areas as their limited operating time expired, maintenance was rarely done in these areas and engines were produced in larger quantities thus lowering unit costs. It also kept the engine manufactures closer to war rate production levels as opposed to the slowly responsive, market oriented, peacetime rates. Hence their design quality, manufacturing quality, technology and performance levels, all steadily improved.
The FOD protection doors are controlled automatically from engine start. As soon as hydraulics come on line, from a given engine, the door closes. During start, taxi, and takeoff the door is kept closed by hydraulic pressure and is controlled by a compressed nose gear strut switch. After nosegear unstick during takeoff (around 200 kph), the inlet doors open and are then controlled by airspeed & engine demand for air. The lourves function by gravity and required air being sucked into the inlet. They are made of composite materials, have 887 perforations, and respond to the slightest change of air flow demand. If the engine inlet doors fail closed the aircraft can continue flight but is limited to 0.8 Mach or 800 kph in speed. Once open, the doors become part of the three-ramp variable inlet geometry scheme. Downstream from airflow there are three exits for air from the ramp perforations. The inlet doors, once adapted with nosegear mud-flaps, have actually eliminated the problem of external FOD on Russian airfields. Likewise, they cannot be manually deployed by the pilot. Advanced models use screens as mentioned. The new Sarkisev engines (RD-33K) are equipped with full authority digital electronic engine controls (DEEC). Engine power input has been increased but overall fuel specifics have not been improved.

The two fundamentally different approaches have come together in Malaysia where the Russians are expected to deliver RD-33 engines featuring a considerable longer life span, and much extended MTBO's. MAPO is also offering to provide a test program to assess at what point this western mimic logistics and support approach will not work any more, thus forcing them to reverse course, on behalf of customer, and recover the program in a more traditional Russian style. Malaysia has received two MiG-29's in 1992, for just such testing program as well as maintenance training duties. Malaysia has asked to start with an MTBO of 750 hours. They would be assisted by the Indian Air Force who to date have only been able to maintain their engines at a 200 hour MTBO rate.

RD-33 design history dates back to the early 1970's when Pratt & Whitney and General Electric were working towards the F-15, F-16 and F-18. The Russians selected, what they say, was a similar configuration approach for the RD-33; a two shaft low bypass ratio turbofan (0.4 : 1), with a four stage fan without inlet guide vanes, but with an inlet cruciform supporting structure for the front fan bearing. The high pressure compressor features nine stages, of which the first three have variable geometry stator vanes giving a pressure ratio of 20:1. There is also the annular combustion chamber, two single staged turbines , and an afterburner that burns both fuel and core flow with by-pass air in a mixture. Hydromechanical controls on the engine have built in diagnostics for ease of maintenance. The RD-33 has eleven modules with all HP and LP blades capable of being replaced.

Russian efforts at attaining improved maintainability and reliability were reviewed in a MilTech article (Aug93, pg. 63), produced on the MiG-29 that said the mean time between maintenance operation (MTBO) for the MiG-29 in 1989 was 7.8 hours, by 1990 it rose to 9.4 hours, and at present is tabulated at 18.6 hours. Combat readiness of Russian units was said to be now over 90%. The article goes on to say that because of the militarized economy of that time, the amounts and frequency of inspections as specified in the aircraft manuals were well beyond that required to maintain high readiness and efficiency due to the availability of spares, test equipment, and consumables. This is hard to believe, but with the limited amount of flying there might have been a way to keep ready aircraft on the ground and in a "up" status for long periods of time.

A recent V. Chernyshev (RD-33 manufacturer) add says that the German Air Force has found that the RD-33 MTBO can be held at 700 hours if the engines are properly maintained (MilTech 12/94, pg. 18). With this experience or hype, Mikoyan is confident that they can quickly bring the service life of the MiG-29 up to 4000 hours with mod provisions taking this to 6000 hours. Likewise the overhaul cycle of the RD-33 engine for all customers could be quickly lifted from its original 350 hours to 700 hours to first overhaul and life out to 1400 hours. The new German Air Force has been working together with DASA and V. Chernyshev to set-up modern computer-based MiG-29 supply system that would further increase their engine MTBO to 1200 hours.

In practice however, because of the relatively low total flight hours, under a million hours for all MiG-29's, the RD-33 failed far more often then advertised and the Russian supply system could not keep up to the customer demand and turn around time required, as experienced by the Indian Air Force. Every overhaul began to cost the InAF Force over $480,000 dollars.

Simply put, the original war-based Soviet logistics system pumped completed engines and new aircraft into the forward area at rates consistent with projected utilization that always kept in reserve the hours necessary to fight the NATO war. It was a system of long trains and thousands of aircraft crates and engine coffins, but very few isolated parts and even fewer trained technicians. As you can see this entire system is now transitioning towards a western based concept with very little regard for an exact audit or tracking of component production, refurbishment, inventory, storage, retrieval, and transportation.

When we first learned at Farnborough 1988, that the RD-33 engine weighed 3305 lbs., it bothered many engineers. It was said to be too heavy for a single-engine fighter and too light for a twin. The un-installed thrust-to-weight was 7.47:1 and the installed around 5.53:1, more like a GE J-79 than a F-100. Modern engines were supposed to have eight or nine to one uninstalled thrust-to-weight ratios. But the Russians, while working with older engine technology and manufacturing techniques, were ready to pay a weight penalty because they knew they could use other available high technology in composite manufacturing to make up for it. They were also being hard pressed to get into production a higher performing fighter to counter the F-15 and F-16. Correspondingly that penalty re-directed the weight saving efforts by the design team. The MiG-29, therefore, obtained a high percentage of composite structure because of weight savings needed to offset heavier engines that were uncharacteristically heavy by western standards. The RD-33 then, may have more in common with the J-79 level of technology than the F-100.

Engine Oil Sampling was directed at 100/150 hour level maintenance inspections with an average consumption rate listed at 1.76 lbs/hr (0.8 kg/hr). Oil Level check gauges are located in the left wheel well. There is a high pressure quick dis-connect refueling point located just inside of the left landing gear well. The quick disconnect attachment point immediately splits into two fuel lines, one to the wings and the other to the fuselage tanks. However, all advanced and naval variants of the MiG-29 have been fitted with retractable fuel problems. Just forward of the high pressure refueling point in the landing gear door (remember left side of the aircraft looking forward), is a drop down fastener door that is located just under the strake near the gear well that exposes the computer access panel for the INS Loading and additional maintenance test switches. There is a white matrix of 3 x 3 white keys, and adjacent to the right is another 4 x 4 matrix of black keys. There are other switches there also.

Spool-up from idle to full afterburner takes a flat four seconds, even though the pilot's check list on takeoff requires a mandatory 10 seconds to wait and watch indicators. The "linear" type of throttles, that are power boosted, moved very easily when the boost system is on, but is very hard when off. The transition from MIL to A/B zones is almost un-noticeable, except for a quick knuckle grab "up" to clear the detent stops on the forward side of the throttle grip, which is effortless and smooth.

 

[DJ_Viper]

The MiG-29 Thumansky RD-33 Engine:

The MiG-29 utilizes the RD-33 family of aircraft two-spool bypass turbojet engines that feature air flows mixed in a common afterburner, variable area nozzles, and a modular design which facilitates maintenance. RD-33 engines now serve in 22 nations: Belarus, Bulgaria, Cuba, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Korea DRP, Malaysia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Syria, Ukraine, Yeman, and Yugoslavia. Only South Africa does not use the MiG-29, but has reconfigured the RD-33 in their F-1 Mirages. V. Chernyshev Machine-Building Enterprise literature, builder of the RD-33 engine, discuss engine replacements for the Cheetah and early model Mirage III/V's.

Historically Russian fighter engines have been designed for high performance and short life spans. Since they were designed for real war conditions and not the convenience of peacetime, they had relatively short Mean Time Between Overhauls (MTBO) of a few hundred hours and/or short total life spans. Since aircraft were rotated out of rough forward areas as their limited operating time expired, maintenance was rarely done in these areas and engines were produced in larger quantities thus lowering unit costs. It also kept the engine manufactures closer to war rate production levels as opposed to the slowly responsive, market oriented, peacetime rates. Hence their design quality, manufacturing quality, technology and performance levels, all steadily improved.
The FOD protection doors are controlled automatically from engine start. As soon as hydraulics come on line, from a given engine, the door closes. During start, taxi, and takeoff the door is kept closed by hydraulic pressure and is controlled by a compressed nose gear strut switch. After nosegear unstick during takeoff (around 200 kph), the inlet doors open and are then controlled by airspeed & engine demand for air. The lourves function by gravity and required air being sucked into the inlet. They are made of composite materials, have 887 perforations, and respond to the slightest change of air flow demand. If the engine inlet doors fail closed the aircraft can continue flight but is limited to 0.8 Mach or 800 kph in speed. Once open, the doors become part of the three-ramp variable inlet geometry scheme. Downstream from airflow there are three exits for air from the ramp perforations. The inlet doors, once adapted with nosegear mud-flaps, have actually eliminated the problem of external FOD on Russian airfields. Likewise, they cannot be manually deployed by the pilot. Advanced models use screens as mentioned. The new Sarkisev engines (RD-33K) are equipped with full authority digital electronic engine controls (DEEC). Engine power input has been increased but overall fuel specifics have not been improved.

The two fundamentally different approaches have come together in Malaysia where the Russians are expected to deliver RD-33 engines featuring a considerable longer life span, and much extended MTBO's. MAPO is also offering to provide a test program to assess at what point this western mimic logistics and support approach will not work any more, thus forcing them to reverse course, on behalf of customer, and recover the program in a more traditional Russian style. Malaysia has received two MiG-29's in 1992, for just such testing program as well as maintenance training duties. Malaysia has asked to start with an MTBO of 750 hours. They would be assisted by the Indian Air Force who to date have only been able to maintain their engines at a 200 hour MTBO rate.

RD-33 design history dates back to the early 1970's when Pratt & Whitney and General Electric were working towards the F-15, F-16 and F-18. The Russians selected, what they say, was a similar configuration approach for the RD-33; a two shaft low bypass ratio turbofan (0.4 : 1), with a four stage fan without inlet guide vanes, but with an inlet cruciform supporting structure for the front fan bearing. The high pressure compressor features nine stages, of which the first three have variable geometry stator vanes giving a pressure ratio of 20:1. There is also the annular combustion chamber, two single staged turbines , and an afterburner that burns both fuel and core flow with by-pass air in a mixture. Hydromechanical controls on the engine have built in diagnostics for ease of maintenance. The RD-33 has eleven modules with all HP and LP blades capable of being replaced.

Russian efforts at attaining improved maintainability and reliability were reviewed in a MilTech article (Aug93, pg. 63), produced on the MiG-29 that said the mean time between maintenance operation (MTBO) for the MiG-29 in 1989 was 7.8 hours, by 1990 it rose to 9.4 hours, and at present is tabulated at 18.6 hours. Combat readiness of Russian units was said to be now over 90%. The article goes on to say that because of the militarized economy of that time, the amounts and frequency of inspections as specified in the aircraft manuals were well beyond that required to maintain high readiness and efficiency due to the availability of spares, test equipment, and consumables. This is hard to believe, but with the limited amount of flying there might have been a way to keep ready aircraft on the ground and in a "up" status for long periods of time.

A recent V. Chernyshev (RD-33 manufacturer) add says that the German Air Force has found that the RD-33 MTBO can be held at 700 hours if the engines are properly maintained (MilTech 12/94, pg. 18). With this experience or hype, Mikoyan is confident that they can quickly bring the service life of the MiG-29 up to 4000 hours with mod provisions taking this to 6000 hours. Likewise the overhaul cycle of the RD-33 engine for all customers could be quickly lifted from its original 350 hours to 700 hours to first overhaul and life out to 1400 hours. The new German Air Force has been working together with DASA and V. Chernyshev to set-up modern computer-based MiG-29 supply system that would further increase their engine MTBO to 1200 hours.

In practice however, because of the relatively low total flight hours, under a million hours for all MiG-29's, the RD-33 failed far more often then advertised and the Russian supply system could not keep up to the customer demand and turn around time required, as experienced by the Indian Air Force. Every overhaul began to cost the InAF Force over $480,000 dollars.

Simply put, the original war-based Soviet logistics system pumped completed engines and new aircraft into the forward area at rates consistent with projected utilization that always kept in reserve the hours necessary to fight the NATO war. It was a system of long trains and thousands of aircraft crates and engine coffins, but very few isolated parts and even fewer trained technicians. As you can see this entire system is now transitioning towards a western based concept with very little regard for an exact audit or tracking of component production, refurbishment, inventory, storage, retrieval, and transportation.

When we first learned at Farnborough 1988, that the RD-33 engine weighed 3305 lbs., it bothered many engineers. It was said to be too heavy for a single-engine fighter and too light for a twin. The un-installed thrust-to-weight was 7.47:1 and the installed around 5.53:1, more like a GE J-79 than a F-100. Modern engines were supposed to have eight or nine to one uninstalled thrust-to-weight ratios. But the Russians, while working with older engine technology and manufacturing techniques, were ready to pay a weight penalty because they knew they could use other available high technology in composite manufacturing to make up for it. They were also being hard pressed to get into production a higher performing fighter to counter the F-15 and F-16. Correspondingly that penalty re-directed the weight saving efforts by the design team. The MiG-29, therefore, obtained a high percentage of composite structure because of weight savings needed to offset heavier engines that were uncharacteristically heavy by western standards. The RD-33 then, may have more in common with the J-79 level of technology than the F-100.

Engine Oil Sampling was directed at 100/150 hour level maintenance inspections with an average consumption rate listed at 1.76 lbs/hr (0.8 kg/hr). Oil Level check gauges are located in the left wheel well. There is a high pressure quick dis-connect refueling point located just inside of the left landing gear well. The quick disconnect attachment point immediately splits into two fuel lines, one to the wings and the other to the fuselage tanks. However, all advanced and naval variants of the MiG-29 have been fitted with retractable fuel problems. Just forward of the high pressure refueling point in the landing gear door (remember left side of the aircraft looking forward), is a drop down fastener door that is located just under the strake near the gear well that exposes the computer access panel for the INS Loading and additional maintenance test switches. There is a white matrix of 3 x 3 white keys, and adjacent to the right is another 4 x 4 matrix of black keys. There are other switches there also.

Spool-up from idle to full afterburner takes a flat four seconds, even though the pilot's check list on takeoff requires a mandatory 10 seconds to wait and watch indicators. The "linear" type of throttles, that are power boosted, moved very easily when the boost system is on, but is very hard when off. The transition from MIL to A/B zones is almost un-noticeable, except for a quick knuckle grab "up" to clear the detent stops on the forward side of the throttle grip, which is effortless and smooth.

Sir, 1: Always site your sources so to understand the credibility of it. 2: Mig 29 isn't new to NATO. The Germans have it and everything about this platform, engines (RD-93) and maintenance is an open book. What I wrote, wasn't because I hate the Russians. It was because the logic was based on operational experience and knowledge that people would have if they studied or worked in this area.

Next, read up, the Malaysians "asked" for a higher MTBO. That is the same what the Chinese did for the JF-17 project. They "asked" the Russians to tweak the basic engine for higher MTBO as per the PAF's requirements.

Last but not least, even people from the PAF and IAF (people who are professionals and don't write b.s.) would tell you that India has a huge maintenance issue with their SU-30's. Half or at times more than half the fleet is down for maintenance after a large scale exercise, or extraneous flight time. These are about 1.5 generation better than the Mig-29's. There is a reason why India wants to build a Western fighter internally and induct in numbers. To be frank here, its oxy-moronish for an air-force to make a highly capable fighters like the SU-30 and get used to it and build your entire doctrine around it, but then, start looking for an entirely different platform and tech. Its like the USAF having tried the F-15 and make its strategy around it, but then deciding that they need to buy Mirage 2000-5's. Makes no sense, unless they were tired of the maintenance and operational readiness.

India would've been much better off by starting an SU-30 (upgrade it to SU-35 internally and with top line Israeli avionics and Radars), had this jet not caused so much maintenance headaches. Thanks.

 

[sathya]

For a single Engine aircraft, can't stretch the limits, unless absolutely sure.

 

[MastanKhan]

That elaborate, eloquent post of yours is empty as usual. You made a claim, now quantify it or acknowledge that you were wrong. Is that so difficult to understand?

Son,

Just be grateful that I answer your posts---that maybe one day you might learn something---as you are my pakistani child---.

 

[Sine Nomine]

India would've been much better off by starting an SU-30 (upgrade it to SU-35 internally and with top line Israeli avionics and Radars), had this jet not caused so much maintenance headaches. Thanks

Indian problem is more of sourcing spares then maintenance.After Indian Govt decided to procure spares from multiple sources availability rate of flankers have improved drastically.You can inquire from any Indian member.
RD 33 has improved a lot in past decade.If engine requires more maintenance then usual,them I am sure thousands wouldn't have been airborne.It's always maintenance logistics which have caused nightmares.

 

[Dazzler]

Son,

Just be grateful that I answer your posts---that maybe one day you might learn something---as you are my pakistani child---.

Running in circles will not lead you anywhere, you keep bringing your weird fantasies without knowing the facts. The comparison you made was hilarious to say the least. Thank your lucky stars that people still respond to your imaginative rhetorics.

 

[MastanKhan]

Running in circles will not lead you anywhere, you keep bringing your weird fantasies without knowing the facts. The comparison you made was hilarious to say the least. Thank your lucky stars that people still respond to your imaginative rhetorics.

Hi,

Okay then---thank you for responding---.

Come to think of it---why would anyone respond to what I write---unless and until they have a great love and affection for me.

After my brother Bossman---you are in lead---and you know what---one of these days I will take the time to elaborate more on the issue.

 

[Dazzler]

Hi,

Okay then---thank you for responding---.

Come to think of it---why would anyone respond to what I write---unless and until they have a great love and affection for me.

After my brother Bossman---you are in lead---and you know what---one of these days I will take the time to elaborate more on the issue.

So It came down to this, comparing me with another member sounds a little childish. I dont have a bone to pick with you or anyone, but each time you or anyone try to twist facts, i will counter them to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Blue Marlin]

So It came down to this, comparing me with another member sounds a little childish. I dont have a bone to pick with you or anyone, but each time you or anyone try to twist facts, i will counter them to the best of my knowledge.

why dont you just put him in your naughty (ignore) list and call it day with him?
same applies to you too @MastanKhan

 

[MastanKhan]

So It came down to this, comparing me with another member sounds a little childish. I dont have a bone to pick with you or anyone, but each time you or anyone try to twist facts, i will counter them to the best of my knowledge.

Hi,

What I have been trying to tell you politely is that " you have no knowledge to compete ".

Get out of this pakistani mindset / obsession of countering the claims.

In weapons of war---if you want to bring out your suggestions---put it in a relative context---share historical precedence---.

Also---you do not have a single original article of your own on this board that you have started a thread with---. No original discussion of your own---. Always riding the coattails of others---.

So---at this stage----for me---you are ' worthless '. Bring some substance in your posts---do some real hard work---go to the libraries and read up on some material---do better preparation---and direct it at the audience---.

why dont you just put him in your naughty (ignore) list and call it day with him?
same applies to you too @MastanKhan

Hi,

You remember that---hehn---. I told you how to do it---. Made life easy for you for awhile---for you.

 

[Dazzler]

Hi,

What I have been trying to tell you politely is that " you have no knowledge to compete ".

Get out of this pakistani mindset / obsession of countering the claims.

In weapons of war---if you want to bring out your suggestions---put it in a relative context---share historical precedence---.

Also---you do not have a single original article of your own on this board that you have started a thread with---. No original discussion of your own---. Always riding the coattails of others---.

So---at this stage----for me---you are ' worthless '. Bring some substance in your posts---do some real hard work---go to the libraries and read up on some material---do better preparation---and direct it at the audience---.




Hi,

You remember that---hehn---. Makes life easy.

Until you give me the basis of your claim of comparing jf-17 blk 1 with Mirage F1 and 1970s technology, things will stay stagnated.

You are literally making a joke of yourself by escaping a simple question.

Come on, try it.

 

[DJ_Viper]

Indian problem is more of sourcing spares then maintenance.After Indian Govt decided to procure spares from multiple sources availability rate of flankers have improved drastically.You can inquire from any Indian member.
RD 33 has improved a lot in past decade.If engine requires more maintenance then usual,them I am sure thousands wouldn't have been airborne.It's always maintenance logistics which have caused nightmares.

Sir, with all due respect, I am sure you probably know just as much aviation as I do. But an engine having more maintenance needs doesn't mean that "thousands" can't be air-born. After all, this was Russia's real first attempt to produce a Western Pratt Whitney type engineered system with certain by passed and compact combustion chambers in place.

As I am sure you know, the maintenance, whether a lot or little, is done on a rotational schedule. No country decides to put 75 or 100% of their aircraft into maintenance yards. So thousands can be air-born whether the engine requires more or less maintenance. Thanks