The Eagle
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 24,239
- Reaction score
- 258
- Country
- Location
@Indos @RadarGudumluMuhimmat brothers! can we keep it to Azm discussion only? Plese.
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.
Well there is nothing wrong using proven design like C 212 as a base, but it doesnt mean we copy C 212 design, we just try to make it even a better design. It is wrong to say N 219 is a ready made aircraft though.
Just look on KFX/IFX, it also has relatively similar design like F 22 Raptor, but why it needs about 9 years to finalize KFX/IFX design ?
Here is C 212-400 designed by CASA.
N 219
Cessna Skycourier developed by Textron USA also looks relatively similar
Just made first flight this year
Cessna Skycourier
N 219 during wind tunnel testing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C 212-400
Specifications (Series 400)
Data from Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1989–90[51][52]
General characteristics
7,700 kg (16,976 lb) standard
- Crew: 2
- Capacity: 26 passengers / 25 paratroops / 2,820 kg (6,217 lb) military payload / 2,700 kg (5,952 lb) cargo payload
- Length: 16.15 m (53 ft 0 in)
- Wingspan: 20.28 m (66 ft 6 in)
- Height: 6.6 m (21 ft 8 in)
- Wing area: 41 m2 (440 sq ft)
- Aspect ratio: 10
- Airfoil: NACA 653-218[53]
- Empty weight: 3,780 kg (8,333 lb)
- Max takeoff weight: 8,000 kg (17,637 lb) military
Performance
- Max Landing weight: 7,450 kg (16,424 lb)
3,380 m (11,089 ft) on one engine
- Maximum speed: 370 km/h (230 mph, 200 kn) VMO (maximum operating speed) at MTOW
- Cruise speed: 354 km/h (220 mph, 191 kn) (max cruise) at 3,050 m (10,007 ft)
- Economical cruise speed: 300 km/h (190 mph; 160 kn) at 3,050 m (10,007 ft)
- Stall speed: 145 km/h (90 mph, 78 kn) in take-off configuration
- Range: 835 km (519 mi, 451 nmi) with full military payload
- Ferry range: 2,680 km (1,670 mi, 1,450 nmi) with maximum fuel and 1,192 kg (2,628 lb) payload
- Service ceiling: 7,925 m (26,001 ft)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rate of climb: 8.283 m/s (1,630.5 ft/min)
- Take-off distance to 15 m (49 ft): 610 m (2,001 ft) (MIL-7700C)
- Landing distance from 15 m (49 ft): 462 m (1,516 ft) (MIL-7700C)
- Landing run: 285 m (935 ft) (MIL-7700C)
N 219
Specifications
Data from Manufacturer[24]
General characteristics
- Crew: 2
- Capacity: 19 passengers
- Length: 16.49 m (54 ft 1 in)
- Wingspan: 19.5 m (64 ft 0 in)
- Height: 6.18 m (20 ft 3 in)
- Empty weight: 4,309 kg (9,500 lb)
- Max takeoff weight: 7,030 kg (15,498 lb)
- Fuel capacity: 1,600 kg
- Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-42 turboprop engines, 630 kW (850 shp) each
- Propellers: 4-bladed Hartzell Propeller
Performance
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Maximum speed: 390 km/h (240 mph, 210 kn)
- Cruise speed: 310 km/h (200 mph, 170 kn) Economical
- Stall speed: 109 km/h (68 mph, 59 kn)
- Range: 890 km (550 mi, 480 nmi) with 19 pax
- Ferry range: 1,533 km (953 mi, 828 nmi)
- Service ceiling: 3,000 m (10,000 ft) operating altitude, max altitude 24,000 feet (7,315 m)
- Rate of climb: 9.85 m/s (1,938 ft/min)
Cessna Skycourier
Specifications
Data from Cessna[12]
General characteristics
Performance
- Capacity: 19 passengers/5,000 lb (2,268 kg) payload (commuter) or 3×LD3s/6,000 lb (2,722 kg) payload (cargo)
- Length: 54 ft 10 in (16.71 m)
- Wingspan: 72 ft 0 in (21.95 m)
- Height: 19 ft 9 in (6.02 m)
- Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-65SC turboprop, 1,100 hp (820 kW) each
- Propellers: 4-bladed McCauley
- Cruise speed: 230 mph (370 km/h, 200 kn) maximum
- Range: 460 mi (740 km, 400 nmi) Cargo Range (with 5,000 lb payload)
- Ferry range: 1,000 mi (1,700 km, 900 nmi)
- Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,600 m)
- Takeoff Distance : 3,300 ft (1,006 m)
PAF leadership in the past has mentioned "stealthy version of JF17" during its participation in different airshows.
so the harping is not without merit.
generally PAF seems to run away from twin engine fighter like a plague
so they might change mind from ywtwin in to single and back to twin.
@Indos @RadarGudumluMuhimmat brothers! can we keep it to Azm discussion only? Plese.
But if & when the design comes to fruition, it will kick serious ***. And precisely it is the nature of the design that makes me skeptical of it being manageable. There is one advanced feature, not found in any currently flying 5th Gen, that makes me pessimistic of it being possibly handled by Pakistan's own technical resources.I agree. Moreover, we literally just had the CAS himself say the ASR is for a twin-engine jet, and that we are open to working in a consortium. He wouldn't bring up the consortium point if it wasn't on the table.
In fact, even if we had the engineering expertise and technology base (which we don't, but let's assume we do) the tighter timelines (induction in the 2030s) would still force us to work in a consortium. Why? We lack fiscal resources and will need partners to carry out key development work in parallel to us to cut timelines and control cost.
But we lack all of the critical inputs. So, in all likelihood, we're going to pull on existing inputs, and with that in mind, the PAF will likely just join a working project instead of try piecing inputs together on its own.
If it wants to recreate the wheel, then it should learn how to make it on its own (which is why I, @JamD etc support the idea of a parallel NGFA project to develop critical tech without pressing deadlines).
Be it China or Turkey, we're probably going to roll into a consortium.
But if & when the design comes to fruition, it will kick serious ***. And precisely it is the nature of the design that makes me skeptical of it being manageable. There is one advanced feature, not found in any currently flying 5th Gen, that makes me pessimistic of it being possibly handled by Pakistan's own technical resources.
Aside from the above post, I am sure the design would be widely known in the next few months (I came across it, didn't I?) and we can discuss it to death. Naysayers and skeptics can hold their peace until then.
No Comments. I'll immediately point it out when the pics start trickling in.And what would that be?
Yes, it is true, there have been references to a "stealthy" JF-17, but that was before project Azm was announced, and in that regards, it has been clear from the outset that it will be a twin engine design. In any case, there's only so far the JF-17 design can be taken in terms of airframe, and to push the JF-17 to become a true fifth gen platform would mean so much redesign work, that it would effectively be no different to a clean sheet design. And for that, a twin engine design would be far more capable and flexible in terms of capability.
No vertical stabilizers like one painted picture on the tale of C-130??No Comments. I'll immediately point it out when the pics start trickling in.
Not familiar with that. However, do not expect a response even if you show it to me.No vertical stabilizers like one painted picture on the tale of C-130??
@JamD the parts that are missing like FCS can be borrowed or taken from other parties (China / Turkey, most likely China). Remember, the F-117 had FCS that was borrowed from the F-16 program, and they slapped the same FCS on all three axis, creating the "wobbling goblin".
What our brother saw was very possibly a wind tunnel model, as he chanced upon it. This means that the design stage is complete. Since he could clearly identify it as a cleansheet design, it definitely isn't the J-31 or a similar layout - meaning not a twin engined conventional design. Either a conventional design with a single engine, or a twin engined delta canard.
Since Pak doesn't have the FCS for a delta canard, it therefore is most likely a single engined conventional design. Or so I would deduce.
Just thinking aloud, please don't release your attack dogs.
The unsatisfying answer is it depends - on several things:According to you why is so expensive to build STEALTH fighter ? Even KFX/IFX who is not fully STEALTH need 10 billion USD. I dont know where the money actually being spent since the design will be done with their own engineers (KAI+PTDI+ADD) and testing facility have already been there. Most money IMO is spent on building 6 prototypes, flying test, and there are some avionics development cost like AESA radar and others but most subsystems will be imported like engine.
For comparison, Indonesia aerospace (PTDI) only need less than 100 million dollar to develop N 219.
I own no hounds, I am a humble student.@JamD the parts that are missing like FCS can be borrowed or taken from other parties (China / Turkey, most likely China). Remember, the F-117 had FCS that was borrowed from the F-16 program, and they slapped the same FCS on all three axis, creating the "wobbling goblin".
What our brother saw was very possibly a wind tunnel model, as he chanced upon it. This means that the design stage is complete. Since he could clearly identify it as a cleansheet design, it definitely isn't the J-31 or a similar layout - meaning not a twin engined conventional design. Either a conventional design with a single engine, or a twin engined delta canard.
Since Pak doesn't have the FCS for a delta canard, it therefore is most likely a single engined conventional design. Or so I would deduce.
Just thinking aloud, please don't release your attack dogs.
I was literally afraid of this as I wrote that post. That is why I added the disclaimer at the end lol.
@JamD just provided the pics and u just provided the script for some ill informed attention seeking teenager to bust out a YouTube video...with excessive use of words like "دوستوں".
There's no shortage of jahazes sir...Lahore ja ke dekhiye...bohat jahaz nazar aaein geI was literally afraid of this as I wrote that post. That is why I added the disclaimer at the end lol.
Bonus Chooran: You can sell the two types of "stealthy" aircraft being refueled as Azm prototypes themselves. In reality I just made some nice looking jahazes in an hour to be refueled for the pictures lol.
View attachment 655858
I am not trying to show off. I am trying to show how easy it is to make designs that look good and impressive. It doesn't mean I have Lockheed Martin in my bedroom lol.