senor you also seem to have very little knowledge in aviation.you just cant say tejas is no match for jf-17 justify your argument.lca has a very unstable delta wing,4channel flyby wire,composites,it has so much western influence,good avionics,radar(elta-2052) of course under powered but the path looks clear for new engine.you have any link for f-16 blk40 vs jf-17.if it is so good then why you go for f-16(sorry begging),i dint expect this from you being a think tank,that reply of mine is just a move to stoke up argument ,but didnt expect you.jf-17 has metal airframe,2channel flyby wire which is bad for maneuvrability,jf-17 has higher wingloading than tejas.
please reply
Bro, I am sorry to say but after reading your comments I could conclude that you dont have the slightest of idea that how FBW works or what are the parameters by which an aircrafts performance is judged
So let me make an attempt here
But, before we discuss your point regarding
fly by wire (FBW) , please bare with me for few more lines so that I can clarify you on some little things and give you some background that how FBW evolved
When we speak about aircrafts maneuvering, we are talking about 3 axes: Roll, Pitch , Yaw
.Roll is provided by ailerons, Pitch by elevator and Yaw by rudder
Until few decades back, the movement of all fight controls was either manual or they were hydraulically powered and operated
.BUT remember that aircrafts were still very much maneuverable and controllable in all axes
.What FBW did was, take away all the mechanical rods, jacks, servos, lubricants, pulleys bla bla out and replaced it with wires and computers
So lots of weight saving and enhanced operational capabilities
AND the aircrafts were still maneuverable too !!!
FBW increased the aircrafts maneuverability by letting them fly in the maneuvering envelops of speed instability range or shall I call it as the unstable range
Computers assist pilots to fly at those critical edges and each channel controls the all 3 axes of the flight
Now as your point of 4 channels versus 2 channels, it has absolutely nothing to do with aircrafts control or maneuverability but with
Safety and Redundancy
.
Aircrafts can even perfectly fly on a Single channel and can be controlled in yaw/roll/pitch
.The four channels (quadruple) are in order to prevent loss of complete control signals in the case of failure of one or even two channels
While it is always advantageous to have more channels but do note that aircrafts can perfectly fly and perform all maneuvers on a single channel also
If you still think that number of channels has anything to do with maneuverability, then please explain it here
I am sure that PAC,Kamra and Chengdu will also benefit from it..
OK, onto the
Wing Loading (WL)
for our hon readers who dont know whats it, WL is achieved by dividing aircrafts weight by the wing area , or it can also be termed as weight per unit area of wing
..Lesser the WL , better it is
Higher WL means lesser rate of climb, lesser payload carrying ability, poor turn performance and poor engine-out performance
..Aircraft designers do attempt to cater poor WL by improving other parameters like t/w ratio or lowering overall aircraft weight etc
However, when comparing aircrafts, there are 100s of parameters that should be taken into consideration, few of the major ones being, T/W ratio, engine thrust, aircraft ceiling, speed, WL, wing aspect, weight etc etc
.
One should never pick one parameter in isolation to make any comparison
all factors need due importance
.so just being better in WL, doesnt mean anything
try to see the bigger pic..Check the following data regarding WLs, do you make anything out of it or guess which aircraft is better than other
Does the below numbers prove anything in isolation????:-
Mirage-2000-------84.92 lb. per Sq. ft
F-16C--------141.03 lb. per Sq. ft
Su-30------ 71.43ib per Sq. ft.
F-22 Raptor -----43 lb. per Sq. ft.
BTW, on papers, F-86 Sabre was far inferior to its nemesis Hawker Hunter
But history has shown the real comparison
This thread specifically relates to JF-17II (concept), please dont turn into another
my willy is bigger than your willy thread
.And if you have nothing to add to the JF-17II concept or you dont like the plane, then you are welcome to move on buddy
.
P.S : As far as for Murad K, he has probably flown more hours than you have driven anything with wheels
so do not challenge his experience with Aviation
i am sceptical.and i never said that it is going to be abandoned,jf-17 is a proven platform and paf will try to buil its strength around it till the next decade but a completely new aircraft on its own seems economically not viable but a jv with china is,150 may be produced with the plane evolving in every batch and it will continue to evolve and the last batch may have very advanced 5th gen tech(like gripen NG) but the plane cannot be called fifth gen and after that paf can make a transition to next generation platform by 2018-20.correct me if i am wrong.
lol:
.
