JF-17 THUNDER - Ready To Tear The World Asunder!

[IND151]

If the claims of Antibody sir is true then RD-93 has thrust of 9177 kkg to 9381 kg

 

[razgriz19]

That would mean a massive redesign...I would rather start a new project. Like the F-414.

What i know from my experience is that now everyone's making engines on which you can "plug and play"
in other words, civilian engines like GE-90 has a thrust range from 70k lbs to 117k lbs. And that's achieved just by having different compressors. The main design of the engine is basically the same.

I'm sure the russians can figure out a way to tweak the compressors to increase the output.

 

[Manticore]

@ANTIBODY With the news in this thread:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...-force-development-plan-2025-says-report.html

can we assume that Block II and a more powerful engine will be delayed for the foreseeable future?

please see my signature depicting my dismay

 

[bigzgvr4]

Well I spoke with Klimov officials and all they say is the 8,700 KgF thrust is only for take off...using it will lessen the engine life drastically. RD-93 is only a derivative of RD 33. They are not even mentioned in the site if you see.

JSC "Klimov" - Aircraft programm

So other than that poster there is nothing credible. Even in their 2007 brouchure of future products there was no mention of any thrust increase planned other than the RD 33 MK engine. If there was such increase in thrust as mentioned they would have already found their way into the MiG 29 UPG. Which obviously did not happen.

If a redesign of RD 93 were to happen to yield more than 10,000 KgF thrust, it would be akin to the evolution of GE-F-404 to the GE-F-414 because the size of the engine and the design simply makes it impossible to do so.

the rd-93 is different in size then the rd-33, Take example of the al series engine which china uses in the j-11 and then uses the same origin engine but with more thrust in j-10 in single config so j-11 use dual config of the al series to achieve desired thrust and j-10 uses the same al origin engine but in in single config to achive desired thrust

and about you talking to the kilmov official may be you guys were lost in transition as both you and russia English is not a mother tounge
no pun intended

PLUs it shows you lack the basic concept of purpolsion 2 engines will burn fuel faster then one engine if they both had same THrust and specs

So mig 29 is designed with 2 engines with less thrust on each engine but when combined produce more thrust so that they dont burn fuel faster

and rd-93 is used in single config because only one engine will be burning the fuel

 

[satishkumarcsc]

the rd-93 is different in size then the rd-33, Take example of the al series engine which china uses in the j-11 and then uses the same origin engine but with more thrust in j-10 in single config so j-11 use dual config of the al series to achieve desired thrust and j-10 uses the same al origin engine but in in single config to achive desired thrust

and about you talking to the kilmov official may be you guys were lost in transition as both you and russia English is not a mother tounge
no pun intended

PLUs it shows you lack the basic concept of purpolsion 2 engines will burn fuel faster then one engine if they both had same THrust and specs

So mig 29 is designed with 2 engines with less thrust on each engine but when combined produce more thrust so that they dont burn fuel faster

and rd-93 is used in single config because only one engine will be burning the fuel

Well I don't see it on the website or their brochures. Nor the guys from Klimov say anything about increased thrust. So it made me a lot more skeptical. The AL 31 used in J 11 is the baseline model and the AL 31F in J 10 is a well documented improvement which led to the development of the AL 31 FN engine found in the Su 30 MKI.

But the Klimov RD 93 is the baseline RD 33 with a repositioned gearbox and reduced weight and nothing more (Thats what the guys from Klimov told). So the drastic thrust increase to 10,000KgF is almost impossible unless there is a massive redesign.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

What i know from my experience is that now everyone's making engines on which you can "plug and play"
in other words, civilian engines like GE-90 has a thrust range from 70k lbs to 117k lbs. And that's achieved just by having different compressors. The main design of the engine is basically the same.

I'm sure the russians can figure out a way to tweak the compressors to increase the output.

The GE 90 is a high by-pass ratio turbofan without an afterburner. Comparing it with a low by-pass ratio RD 33 with after burner is futile. We are discussing about the thrust delivered in afterburner. BTW the dry thrust of RD 33 is 51KN. And increase in compressor blades will lead to drastic increase in weight...which I dont think anyone will be happy about.

 

[bigzgvr4]

Well I don't see it on the website or their brochures. Nor the guys from Klimov say anything about increased thrust. So it made me a lot more skeptical. The AL 31 used in J 11 is the baseline model and the AL 31F in J 10 is a well documented improvement which led to the development of the AL 31 FN engine found in the Su 30 MKI.

But the Klimov RD 93 is the baseline RD 33 with a repositioned gearbox and reduced weight and nothing more (Thats what the guys from Klimov told). So the drastic thrust increase to 10,000KgF is almost impossible unless there is a massive redesign.

Alright bro every one on this thread knows that the engine is a rd-93 which has more thrust then a single rd-33 But Mig 29 has more thrust because of two rd-33 config, Now I see you are the only one that is hell Bent and are distorting Facts and are arguing with a false fact.... SO please quite it..... Even the proffesional Printed Brochure says it is a rd-93 with more thrust then a single Rd-33, and J-10b single engine Produce more thrust then a single engine of MKI...............

so your saying that the development of j-10b engine led to an inferior Design because single engine of mki has less thrust..........................

wowser


ENJOY LIFE ......................

 

[bigzgvr4]

The GE 90 is a high by-pass ratio turbofan without an afterburner. Comparing it with a low by-pass ratio RD 33 with after burner is futile. We are discussing about the thrust delivered in afterburner. BTW the dry thrust of RD 33 is 51KN. And increase in compressor blades will lead to drastic increase in weight...which I dont think anyone will be happy about.

weight gain due to increase in compressor blades will still be less then the 2 config rd-33 setup

its not RD-33 and it is not the same as Mig 29 engine..............................

 

[satishkumarcsc]

weight gain due to increase in compressor blades will still be less then the 2 config rd-33 setup

its not RD-33 and it is not the same as Mig 29 engine..............................

sorry that was my mistake I mixed up AL 31 FP and the AL 31 FN for J 10

Alright bro every one on this thread knows that the engine is a rd-93 which has more thrust then a single rd-33 But Mig 29 has more thrust because of two rd-33 config, Now I see you are the only one that is hell Bent and are distorting Facts and are arguing with a false fact.... SO please quite it..... Even the proffesional Printed Brochure says it is a rd-93 with more thrust then a single Rd-33, and J-10b single engine Produce more thrust then a single engine of MKI...............

so your saying that the development of j-10b engine led to an inferior Design because single engine of mki has less thrust..........................

wowser


ENJOY LIFE ......................

Can you show be the brochure other than tat poster from the chinese airshow which shows that RD 93 has more thrust compared to the RD 33

 

[Manticore]

when I posted this article, the non tweaked official figures with the basic rd93 were

84.5/ 9.8 = 8622

6411+2300 = 8711

8622 / 8711 = 0.99


However I posted the ratio as 'one' as I dont take paf pilots' comments for granted
You can judge whatever you want but I stand by my statement

 

[Argus Panoptes]

when I posted this article, the non tweaked official figures were

84.5/ 9.8 = 8622

6411+2300 = 8711

8622 / 8711 = 0.99


However I posted the ratio greater than one as I dont take paf pilots' comments for granted
You can judge whatever you want but I stand by my statement

Please see this post by @Najam Khan :

I doubt there is any video with Thunder going vertical after takeoff...some similar videos from Izmir/Zhuhai are on youtube, but those have sharps hi-G turns after takeoff. Its T:W ratio is somewhere between 0.8-0.85.

An actual T:W ratio of around 0.8 would also explain the lack of any known demonstrations of a vertical climb after takeoff, as has been pointed out earlier by @VCheng.

 

[Crypto]

Please see this post by @Najam Khan :



An actual T:W ratio of around 0.8 would also explain the lack of any known demonstrations of a vertical climb after takeoff, as has been pointed out earlier by @VCheng.

T:W greater than 1 will be the jewel in the crown of JF17

 

[Argus Panoptes]

T:W greater than 1 will be the jewel in the crown of JF17

I agree with that. A better engine will make the aircraft perform much better. The only tradeoff will perhaps be due to the limited internal fuel capacity if the more powerful engine increases the fuel burn rate significantly.

 

[Crypto]

I agree with that. A better engine will make the aircraft perform much better. The only tradeoff will perhaps be due to the limited internal fuel capacity if the more powerful engine increases the fuel burn rate significantly.

Given the financial situation and other circumstances, i don't think we will see engine being changed anytime soon.
On a brighter side, JF17 being highly modular will not require lot of structural changes to adapt a new one.

Even less combat range with better engine is a critical issue and may prohibit the above wish unless we can somehow increase the internal fuel capacity - don't think that will work.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Given the financial situation and other circumstances, i don't think we will see engine being changed anytime soon.
On a brighter side, JF17 being highly modular will not require lot of structural changes to adapt a new one.

Even less combat range with better engine is a critical issue and may prohibit the above wish unless we can somehow increase the internal fuel capacity - don't think that will work.

Any aircraft is a set of compromises flying in close proximity, right?