Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
FBW in one axis and "augmented ¥£_€=#@×%" in the other two.I was under the impression that the JF17 already had FBW in all axis, it was just a combination of digital and analogue. In the B version, they are probably implementing an all digital control.
Experts,
Is two seater version of a fighter only made for trainer purpose
Or does it have a war fighting use as well?
I imagine the main gains of expanded FBW might be in weight reduction and/or freeing internal volume, which in turn can be used for fuel and/or other electronics.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/jf-17-thunder-multirole-fighter-thread-7.427560/page-117#post-9362655
@messiach "Block-B completed static test & eval. last week."
I am assuming that this is at PAC Kamra, but that is just a guess.
We knew they were increasing the wingspan but I always assumed that was to maintain the "A" model wing-loading (by compensating for the increased weight). But this is certainly welcome news. Can you say whether the LERX has been enlarged as well or not? Or just the wingspan increase?Not PAC. Version B has low wing loading compared to standard ver - reducing takeoff & landing distances enhancing flight envelope and maneuverability @ lower speeds. It should have a better climb rate, cruise performance with higher-end static instability technically speaking.
I am assuming that this is at PAC Kamra, but that is just a guess.
B version was under development in in China .... we had pictures at this very forum for the inauguration ceremony of the first manufacturing of dual seat JF-17B
Very good news to hear. Would it be reasonable to expect these changes to carry over to the Block-III?Not PAC. Version B has low wing loading compared to standard ver - reducing takeoff & landing distances enhancing flight envelope and maneuverability @ lower speeds. It should have a better climb rate, cruise performance with higher-end static instability technically speaking.
I have zero information on this but this would make a lot of sense. Why waste the R&D we are doing for jf17B. Better to have a JF17B and a single seater JF17B, as opposed to a JF17A and a twinseater JF17AVery good news to hear. Would it be reasonable to expect these changes to carry over to the Block-III?
We knew they were increasing the wingspan but I always assumed that was to maintain the "A" model wing-loading (by compensating for the increased weight). But this is certainly welcome news. Can you say whether the LERX has been enlarged as well or not? Or just the wingspan increase?
Very good news to hear. Would it be reasonable to expect these changes to carry over to the Block-III?
what does "low wing loading compared to standard ver" mean?Not PAC. Version B has low wing loading compared to standard ver - reducing takeoff & landing distances enhancing flight envelope and maneuverability @ lower speeds. It should have a better climb rate, cruise performance with higher-end static instability technically speaking.
Yes I understand they are fixed devices, I was just curious whether they too were enlarged for the JF-17B. I guess I am just getting impatient and we should just wait and see the actual aircraft soon.Leading edge root extensions are fixed devices.
More wing/lifting-surface per weight. From what I understand, even though the weight would go up on the B model, they've increased the wing/lifting-surface area to compensate, and then some, to get a net lowering of wing-loading.what does "low wing loading compared to standard ver" mean?