Pakistan to stick with RD-93 engine for JF-17, say PAF officials

[MastanKhan]

I think GB6's planer edges have more to do with lower radar signature.
rectangular tanks could work, but will need very precise placement on jet . if airflow on one side of tank can be reduced by little gap between jet & tank.
WE NEED EXPERT's opinion.

Hi,

It is simple engineering---if it works for the goose---it will work for the gander as well. If the design works on the GB6----there is no reason that it won't work on the fuel tank

I think this might need some structure modifications as well. If you look closely at the Gripen, it has a flatter belly which naturally provides for more surface area to house two fuels tanks in contrast to the round bellied JF-17 . With a round belly there isn't much space available for two tanks let alone all the piping needed to connect it to the main tanks and fuel pumps.
Also keep in mind that retractable drogues could not be installednbecause of the very same reason.

Look at the above picture of the JF17---it has enough space----you can kep the same width---you can increase the width slightly as well and reduce the height----.

There is enough space on the JF 17----comparing it to the Gripen----there is similar space available----.

Just by looking at the two---I am pretty sure that this would be the least expensive modification with the best results.

 

[pkd]

Hi,

Look at the above picture of the JF17---it has enough space----you can kep the same width---you can increase the width slightly as well and reduce the height----.

There is enough space on the JF 17----comparing it to the Gripen----there is similar space available----.

Just by looking at the two---I am pretty sure that this would be the least expensive modification with the best results.

Sir Just look at the picture below and try to visualize what you are saying. You cannot bore holes and attach the pylons on the part near the intakes.

 

[MastanKhan]

Sir Just look at the picture below and try to visualize what you are saying. You cannot bore holes and attach the pylons on the part near the intakes.

Hi,

I apologize if I was not clear---I am not talking about changing the position of the tanks---but the shape of the tanks----. The location is what it is-----.

 

[My-Analogous]

The focus seems to be more in interesting the Russians to open a maintenance facility so that Russia can be pulled closer...besides..I doubt there are any other deliverable options available..The ej200 ..The Europeans aren't going to let chinese engineers anywhere close to thier product. ..and for the chinese engines. .hmm.

The funny part on this article was that pac designed the plane and that they "worked" extensively with the Russian engineers from klimov.

What make you think that Chinese don't have hands in EJ200? and they even have know how of F35 and US accept that.

 

[My-Analogous]

I dont blame the Pakistanis. I blame the ultra conservative Chinese leadership. They have too many fear and wanted everything to be safe and perfect. Not willing to take risk. In advance of technology, casualties and mistakes are part and parcel for advancement for higher technology. You dont take risk, you have no advancement.

Actually they think like a perfectionist, but in this world nothing is perfect and that is why we upgrade them.

This is a stupid statement to make.

In case engine of an aircraft is changed, it need a redesign. Pakistan does not have money to pay China to redesign JF-17.

Thanks but no thanks

 

[Mr.WetPants]

Rd-93 is not a good engine.
It might have decent thrust.
But just look at the smoke screen.
From 1.07

heres dalymotion.
From 1.15

 

[Basel]

Hi,

I apologize if I was not clear---I am not talking about changing the position of the tanks---but the shape of the tanks----. The location is what it is-----.

Well designed CFTs will be much better option.

 

[MastanKhan]

Well designed CFTs will be much better option.

Hi,

It is too small for that---. Could lose its utility.

 

[Basel]

Hi,

It is too small for that---. Could lose its utility.

Nope its not, if F-6 could have it then with better tech available we can built light weight low drag CFTs for JFTs.

F-6 gondola CFT made in Pakistan.

Here is PhotoShoped image how CFT may look on JFT.

Here are few teen series jets with CFTs as per their body design.

F-15.

F-18.

F-16.

Now, why JFT can not have CFTs??

 

[MastanKhan]

Nope its not, if F-6 could have it then with better tech available we can built light weight low drag CFTs for JFTs.

F-6 gondola CFT made in Pakistan.

View attachment 273829

Here is PhotoShoped image how CFT may look on JFT.

View attachment 273830

Here are few teen series jets with CFTs as per their body design.

F-15.

View attachment 273832

F-18.
View attachment 273833

F-16.

View attachment 273834

Now, why JFT can not have CFTs??

Hi,

Nothing is impossible----. Everything is doable---but with certain sacrifices.

 

[MastanKhan]

Now, why JFT can not have CFTs? ?

Hi,

So---what do you think---would you recommend a CFT for F35.

If paf was getting the F16's with CFT a few years ago---then why did it not go for the CFT on the thunder right from gitgo----.

You just simply don't bulldoze thru with 20 pictures of aircrafts and say why not----you have to think why they did not---this is a newly manufactured aircraft---why did they not come up with a CFT---what was the reasoning---what was the thinking behind it---tactical issues or stupidity by design of paf.

 

[Viper0011.]

Rd-93 is not a good engine.
It might have decent thrust.
But just look at the smoke screen.
From 1.15

There is nothing wrong with the engine or the thrust. The smoke is due to Fuel Spooler-Thrust timing and associated combustion, as the engine has a quicker thrust ratio using slightly older technologies. During quick thrust changes, more fuel is dumped into the combustion chamber to achieve the desired thrust instantaneously.

As a result, more burnt carbon is discharged. This is an older way to achieve quicker thrust. But its probably much cost effective to be used on the JFT, than using expensive new engines. This engine does the job just fine.

When Pakistan ever starts building $ 40 million a piece jets, they can then put more money in using digital thrust and spool management systems and the little Carbon discharge won't be there

 

[Basel]

Hi,

So---what do you think---would you recommend a CFT for F35.

If paf was getting the F16's with CFT a few years ago---then why did it not go for the CFT on the thunder right from gitgo----.

You just simply don't bulldoze thru with 20 pictures of aircrafts and say why not----you have to think why they did not---this is a newly manufactured aircraft---why did they not come up with a CFT---what was the reasoning---what was the thinking behind it---tactical issues or stupidity by design of paf.

CFTs will be there for JFT, let PAF fully familiarize and understand them, then they will work with AVIC to make those for JFT.

Ask PAF pilots who have flown with CFTs and EFTs they will tell you the difference.

Here @gambit can help to explain it.

 

[Viper0011.]

CFTs will be there for JFT, let PAF fully familiarize and understand them, then they will work with AVIC to make those for JFT.

The CFT's will come for the JFT. It may not happen with the Block I and II, but probably from the Block III. If the Shape / Design isn't changed, they might do air frame modifications in Block III, to carry these.

For Block I's, if you put the CFT's, you can limit the weight carrying capability by a large margin. So these will have to go from Block II onward with a more powerful engine. OR, if retro'd back to Block I's, then you'd only be using those jets for CAP's and interception as the plane could only carry SD-10's and SRAAMs.

 

[gambit]

Now, why JFT can not have CFTs??

It is not 'cannot' but more likely it is financial. If you fiddle with the airframe hard enough, you can plumb any fighter for CFTs.

The main advantage with CFTs is that they free up hard points for weapons. The main disadvantage is that -- for now -- CFTs cannot be jettisoned. Again, if there is enough money, that obstacle can be conquered.

There are aerodynamics advantages CFTs have over conventional underwing external fuel tanks (EFT) but those advantages are not great enough to justify using aerodynamics as sole or even main justification. Flight characteristics wise, with the F-16's flexible flight control laws, especially in the digital computers, a pilot may note some differences, but those differences are not negative and even if there are any negatives, they would not be great enough to disqualify the CFTs as standard fuel additions.

In sum, there are really no credible engineering and/or tactical disqualifying factors for a CFT program on the JF-17. Just my opinion.