Specifications of JF-17

[Mughal-Prince]

See the underlined part in that image.

Just noticed it ... Oscar brother you didn't read my post read the second line

Please read from fourth line that begins after period. "The engine has ......."

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/specifications-of-jf-17.297636/page-5#ixzz4ML8HLIem

Bilkul Dada Jan your underlined sustain turn rate is too much for both airframe and the pilot

Daikho munnay mian tum nay bhi wohi ghalti keri jo tumharay Per Dada aur mairay Dada @Oscar nay ki ... You directly goes to the image but you didn't read my post carefully ... go and read 2nd line of my post and then follow the instructions from there to read from image ... I don't want to open Photoshop that's why asking for it or else I would have underlined it

 

[SQ8]

Just noticed it ... Oscar brother you didn't read my post read the second line

Please read from fourth line that begins after period. "The engine has ......."

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/specifications-of-jf-17.297636/page-5#ixzz4ML8HLIem

Turn rate of 32 deg a sec would tear the aircraft apart at its current rated G limit. 160 degree a second is too much.
The article itself was pretty inaccurate.

 

[Mughal-Prince]

Turn rate of 32 deg a sec would tear the aircraft apart at its current rated G limit. 160 degree a second is too much.
The article itself was pretty inaccurate.

Ok that's what is understandable but as it says

"The engine has a fast spool up time from idle to full military in 3 seconds and a long life cycle time of maximum 1800hrs and a low specific fuel consumption."

This is what I was referring to it is from line 4. I don't care what it says about aircraft's turn rate as i am actually concerned with the engine as it is my part of interest now a days. So what you says about it ?

 

[SQ8]

Ok that's what is understandable but as it says

"The engine has a fast spool up time from idle to full military in 3 seconds and a long life cycle time of maximum 1800hrs and a low specific fuel consumption."

This is what I was referring to it is from line 4. I don't care what it says about aircraft's turn rate as i am actually concerned with the engine as it is my part of interest now a days. So what you says about it ?

That spool up time is based on the engine operational and in flight. That is also dependant upon altitude.

The time that matters is from a dead aircraft to airborne.

 

[Mughal-Prince]

That spool up time is based on the engine operational and in flight. That is also dependant upon altitude.

The time that matters is from a dead aircraft to airborne.

Hmmm indeed that's right!! But does it makes any difference in a combat situation ? I mean the spool up time!

 

[The Eagle]

Sorry I tried to quote this post earlier but its slipped somehow I am attaching the image below.

Please read from fourth line that begins after period. "The engine has ......."

The source is Aerospace International and article is from 2010 and now its been 6 years so I firmly believe that RD-93MA
would be having spool up time better than 3 seconds which could be between 1.5 to 2 seconds as MA is a much improved version has FADEC (more or less a FADEC if not Full Authority) more life hours better performance and less turnaround time.

Must be a typo, underlined part be read as STR 16°/sec and ITR 19°/sec respectively. The sign ° is typed as 0 by mistake. Just saying. @Oscar Sir.

 

[SQ8]

Must be a typo, underlined part be read as STR 16°/sec and ITR 19°/sec respectively. The sign ° is typed as 0 by mistake. Just saying. @Oscar Sir.

Those too are misleading. We dont know at what altitude that rate is calculated?
What would be useful is to have the JF-17s EM chart on hand. Something that was said in an interview was that the JF-17 does not lose airspeed as much as the F-16 in a turn. What that refers to is that the Ps curves of the JF-17; that is the plot line on something like this is higher at certain points than the F-16.

To explain, the Ps-0 curve you see means that for any point on that curve.. the F-16 can keep going at that turn rate and that speed until it runs out of fuel. E.G The F-16 can turn(theoretically with constant fuel at 50%) around 12.1 degrees a second at 0.6 mach at 15000 feet within a 3000ft radius continuously without losing speed or altitude.

 

[The SC]

The above specs in the pictures show that:
JF-17B is shorter than JF-17A (14.93 vs 14.5m)
JF-17B height is less than JF-17A (4.6 vs 4.72m)
Payload is better (4500 vs 3600kg(Blk I))

Aren't these strange parameters? They could keep the same length to accommodate more fuel? Any expert here?

@MastanKhan @Viper0011. @Tempest II

Note: the parameters for JF-17A are taken from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder

JF-17B is shorter than JF-17A (14.93 vs 14.5m)
JF-17B height is less than JF-17A (4.6 vs 4.72m)

According to this, the J-17B is longer by 43 cm than the J-17A
&
Lower by 12 cm

 

[Hamza913]

I'm a simple man, my knowledge on fighter jets is limited (although I like reading about them), I'm lazy, don't have enough time, and I want these questions answered if someone could please do so I would be happy:

1. Is the JF-17 block 1 really 4th gen or more like 3.5th gen?

2. What's the most advanced fighter the JF-17 block 1 could handle if both pilots were of equal skill?

3. Is the JF-17 block 2 as capable as the F-16 block 40? If not, what block would you compare it to?

4. Could block 3 potentially take on a Su-30MKI or even a Rafale (I'm not expecting it to take on the latter, but maybe the former)?

 

[MastanKhan]

Hmmm indeed that's right!! But does it makes any difference in a combat situation ? I mean the spool up time!

Hi,

It does---. The shorter the spool up time is---the quicker in can take off---. It could be striking certain enemy bases even before the enemy planes could take off.

I'm a simple man, my knowledge on fighter jets is limited (although I like reading about them), I'm lazy, don't have enough time, and I want these questions answered if someone could please do so I would be happy:

1. Is the JF-17 block 1 really 4th gen or more like 3.5th gen?

2. What's the most advanced fighter the JF-17 block 1 could handle if both pilots were of equal skill?

3. Is the JF-17 block 2 as capable as the F-16 block 40? If not, what block would you compare it to?

4. Could block 3 potentially take on a Su-30MKI or even a Rafale (I'm not expecting it to take on the latter, but maybe the former)?

Hi,

It will depend upon the POTENCY of your EW suite and missiles---the BVR's and the WVR's.

The machine itself is more of a conduit to take you into the combat arena---. Your gadgets and weapons will make the difference upto a certain level.

 

[khanasifm]

No news on dual seater taxi trials at least ???

 

[IHK_PK]

No news on dual seater taxi trials at least ???

At last it happened on 21st April at CATIC. happy now?

 

[Ultima Thule]

At last it happened on 21st April at CATIC. happy now?

source?

 

[Deino]

At last it happened on 21st April at CATIC. happy now?

NO ... esp. since we still don't have seen any images !!

That alone is not only annoying since it hurts my impatience, but even more it is surprising since the JF-17B is in comparison to the Type 001A, the J-20 and s on more or less an unimportant issue. But probably that's the point...

 

[Tempest II]

Were we not expecting the B to appear from PAC? Am I mistake?