Go Back   Pakistan Defence Forum > Pakistan Defence & Military Forums > Military Aviation
Donate Pakistan Defence Every Month

Military Aviation Discuss about the Pakistani Air Force capability, induction of fighters, changes in air force, comparison with other air forces of the world.

Pakistan Defence Gallery
by WebMaster
Lal Masjid Operation
by imran khan
Member Galleries
by Joint Fighter
JF-17/FC-1 Thunder
by imran khan
Personnel & Establishments
by imran khan
Personnel & Establishments
by QADRI
Rah-e-Nijat

Advertisement Advertisement
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-02-2009, 02:43 PM   #151 (permalink)
SENIOR MEMBERS
 
Hasnain2009's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Karachi
Posts: 1,160   (View Stats)
Countries:
Thanks: 156
Thanked 385 Times in 226 Posts
Not Ranked  0 score     
Default Re: Quality or Quantity - What's better for PAF?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasnain2009 View Post
TWR = Thrust/(Weight*9.807)

TWR = 81300/(8620*9.807)

TWR = 81300/(84536.34)

TWR= 0.9617



Guys check this out, official web of PAC is showing engine thrust 84.4

Pakistan Aeronautical Complex....

No we should again calculate TWR of JF-17!!


TWR = 84400/(8620*9.807)

TWR = 84400/(84536.34)

TWR= 0.998

My blog!
http://www.fullsoftwaresfree.blogspot.com/
Hasnain2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Hasnain2009 For This Useful Post:
mean_bird (03-02-2009)
Sponsored Links
Old 03-02-2009, 02:53 PM   #152 (permalink)
SENIOR MEMBERS
 
Hasnain2009's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Karachi
Posts: 1,160   (View Stats)
Countries:
Thanks: 156
Thanked 385 Times in 226 Posts
Not Ranked  0 score     
Default Re: Quality or Quantity - What's better for PAF?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironman View Post
let me complete this copied crap....

ie THRUST WEIGHT RATIO = THRUST/WEIGHT X 9.807 satisfied??
Lets calculate the twr of MKI with above formula!!

TWR=THRUST/WEIGHT X 9.807

Weight = 17,700kg +fuel 9400kg = 27,100kg

TWR=262,000/(27,100 X 9.807)

TWR=262,000/(265769.7)

TWR=0.98581591505728455877400621666051

My blog!
http://www.fullsoftwaresfree.blogspot.com/
Hasnain2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2009, 03:36 PM   #153 (permalink)
Banned Members
 
adm_havemercy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: india
Posts: 61   (View Stats)
Countries:
Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts
Not Ranked  0 score     
Default Re: Quality or Quantity - What's better for PAF?

guys plz stick to the topic
adm_havemercy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2009, 03:39 PM   #154 (permalink)
Banned Members
 
adm_havemercy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: india
Posts: 61   (View Stats)
Countries:
Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts
Not Ranked  0 score     
Default Re: Quality or Quantity - What's better for PAF?

what do you think about gripen . does pak has any chance of getting them .
adm_havemercy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2009, 03:51 PM   #155 (permalink)
FULL MEMBERS
 
pakpower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: From Death Valley
Posts: 314   (View Stats)
Countries:
Thanks: 28
Thanked 54 Times in 36 Posts
Not Ranked  0 score     
Default Re: Quality or Quantity - What's better for PAF?

Hi

Why dont you guys discuss the details & Comparison between J-10B & SU 30MKI instead of JF-17.

I think discussion on J-10B & SU-30MKI will be interesting.

Every thing which has a beginning has an End.
pakpower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2009, 04:01 PM   #156 (permalink)
THINK TANK
 
mean_bird's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Europa
Posts: 872   (View Stats)
Countries:
Thanks: 140
Thanked 927 Times in 367 Posts
Not Ranked  0 score     
Default Re: Quality or Quantity - What's better for PAF?

Quote:
Originally Posted by adm_havemercy View Post
what do you think about gripen . does pak has any chance of getting them .
Well Grippen was offered, even with ToT, but PAF didn't go for it...mainly for its US components (engine).

Also, the JF-17 is now in competition with Grippen so I do not see PAF going for Grippen.
mean_bird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2009, 05:50 PM   #157 (permalink)
SENIOR MEMBERS
 
Hasnain2009's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Karachi
Posts: 1,160   (View Stats)
Countries:
Thanks: 156
Thanked 385 Times in 226 Posts
Not Ranked  0 score     
Default Re: Quality or Quantity - What's better for PAF?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pakpower View Post
Hi

Why dont you guys discuss the details & Comparison between J-10B & SU 30MKI instead of JF-17.

I think discussion on J-10B & SU-30MKI will be interesting.
Yeah u are right!!

But we dont know the specification of FC-20, we will start another thread for discussion when we get FC-20!!

My blog!
http://www.fullsoftwaresfree.blogspot.com/
Hasnain2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2009, 06:51 PM   #158 (permalink)
Wiki
 
hj786's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 774   (View Stats)
Countries:
Thanks: 2,345
Thanked 367 Times in 211 Posts
Not Ranked  0 score     
Default Re: Quality or Quantity - What's better for PAF?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironman View Post
Firstly learn some lessons about air to air missiles and ramjet propulsion from elsewhere and post some solid reason why it cant be used as AAM.

hints: MBDA meteor, r-77M1 and read something about IDEAS-2008 and procurement of AAM to PAF.
Hint: first, learn some lessons about REALITY. Your brag-mos is nowhere near an air-to-air missile such as Meteor or R-77M1. Only in your dreams can it shoot down a Saab 2000 flying and manoeuvring at 400 mph while being jammed by an Erieye AESA radar. YOU provide proof that it can be used as AAM, or stop trolling with your imaginary scenarios.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironman View Post
Seems like this Aircraft guru hasn't got a mere knowledge about TWR.
Seems like this aircraft guru hasn't got "a mere knowledge" about
a) the difference between a cruise missile and an air to air missile.
b) how to calculate Thrust to Weight ratio, according to previous posts. Advice: check Newton's Second Law, then learn about algebra.

Mirage 2000C TWR = 0.91 (source http://www.military-heat.com/76/dassault-mirage-2000/)
JF-17 TWR = 0.95 (earlier posts calculate 0.96)

Mirage 2000C combat TWR = 0.89 (source: http://www.airtoaircombat.com/detail.asp?id=3)
JF-17 combat TWR = 0.91 (source: http://www.airtoaircombat.com/detail.asp?id=111)

Ironman thinks JF-17's TWR sucks even though it is better than Mirage 2000, which InAF have ~60
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironman View Post
pls keep your inside information and dont scare me ok..
Please keep your trolling, I will keep my inside information, and don't type bullsh*t to me, ok?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironman View Post
so then... Wanna Join Circus????
I can't join your circus, the positions are filled very nicely by you.

Last edited by hj786; 03-02-2009 at 07:25 PM.
hj786 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 06:05 AM   #159 (permalink)
FULL MEMBERS
 
ironman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: india
Posts: 783   (View Stats)
Countries:
Thanks: 474
Thanked 502 Times in 191 Posts
Not Ranked  0 score     
Default Re: Quality or Quantity - What's better for PAF?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasnain2009 View Post
Guys check this out, official web of PAC is showing engine thrust 84.4

Pakistan Aeronautical Complex....

No we should again calculate TWR of JF-17!!


TWR = 84400/(8620*9.807)

TWR = 84400/(84536.34)

TWR= 0.998
But according to Klimov website its 8300 kgf..
Klimov :: Production :: Aircraft Program :: RD-33 family

So 8300 kgf = 81.395195 knm.
ironman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 07:05 AM   #160 (permalink)
FULL MEMBERS
 
ironman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: india
Posts: 783   (View Stats)
Countries:
Thanks: 474
Thanked 502 Times in 191 Posts
Not Ranked  0 score     
Default Re: Quality or Quantity - What's better for PAF?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hj786 View Post
Hint: first, learn some lessons about REALITY. Your brag-mos is nowhere near an air-to-air missile such as Meteor or R-77M1. Only in your dreams can it shoot down a Saab 2000 flying and manoeuvring at 400 mph while being jammed by an Erieye AESA radar. YOU provide proof that it can be used as AAM, or stop trolling with your imaginary scenarios.
Please give me some time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hj786 View Post
Seems like this aircraft guru hasn't got "a mere knowledge" about
a) the difference between a cruise missile and an air to air missile.
b) how to calculate Thrust to Weight ratio, according to previous posts. Advice: check Newton's Second Law, then learn about algebra.

Mirage 2000C TWR = 0.91 (source Dassault Mirage 2000)
JF-17 TWR = 0.95 (earlier posts calculate 0.96)

Mirage 2000C combat TWR = 0.89 (source: AirToAirCombat.Com: Dassault Mirage 2000-5 in Detail)
JF-17 combat TWR = 0.91 (source: AirToAirCombat.Com: Chengdu FC-1 in Detail)

Ironman thinks JF-17's TWR sucks even though it is better than Mirage 2000, which InAF have ~60
TWR calculation.

Thrust X(Number of Engines/Total Weight of the Aircraf ) X Gravitational Constant.

Is TWR plays a major role to compare combat competency??
so then compare it with LCA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hj786 View Post
Please keep your trolling, I will keep my inside information, and don't type bullsh*t to me, ok?

I can't join your circus, the positions are filled very nicely by you.
If I hurt your feelings in any manner i'm extremely sorry for that. When I doubted about the TWR of Jf-17 you called me a clown instead of checking the reality.. so I have to defend myself..

I just received a mail from my friend:
In a hadith narrated by `Abdullah bin `Amr (pbuh), "Allah's Messenger (pbuh) neither talked in an insulting manner nor did he ever speak evil intentionally. He used to say, 'The most beloved to me among you is the one who has the best character and manners'" (Al-Bukhari).

There are also so many quotes in hindu purana's too about good manners.. Everyone just says I'm proud of being a muslim or being a hindu.. How it can make him proud while not practicing it?? ... so I give up..

Last edited by ironman; 03-03-2009 at 07:29 AM.
ironman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 12:00 PM   #161 (permalink)
Banned Members
 
adm_havemercy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: india
Posts: 61   (View Stats)
Countries:
Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts
Not Ranked  0 score     
Default Re: Quality or Quantity - What's better for PAF?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hj786 View Post
Hint: first, learn some lessons about REALITY. Your brag-mos is nowhere near an air-to-air missile such as Meteor or R-77M1. Only in your dreams can it shoot down a Saab 2000 flying and manoeuvring at 400 mph while being jammed by an Erieye AESA radar. YOU provide proof that it can be used as AAM, or stop trolling with your imaginary scenarios.


Seems like this aircraft guru hasn't got "a mere knowledge" about
a) the difference between a cruise missile and an air to air missile.
b) how to calculate Thrust to Weight ratio, according to previous posts. Advice: check Newton's Second Law, then learn about algebra.

Mirage 2000C TWR = 0.91 (source Dassault Mirage 2000)
JF-17 TWR = 0.95 (earlier posts calculate 0.96)

Mirage 2000C combat TWR = 0.89 (source: AirToAirCombat.Com: Dassault Mirage 2000-5 in Detail)
JF-17 combat TWR = 0.91 (source: AirToAirCombat.Com: Chengdu FC-1 in Detail)

Ironman thinks JF-17's TWR sucks even though it is better than Mirage 2000, which InAF have ~60

Please keep your trolling, I will keep my inside information, and don't type bullsh*t to me, ok?

I can't join your circus, the positions are filled very nicely by you.
t/w ratio below 1 is ok for mirage since its a strike aircraft . but for a dogfighter like jf-17 its not good .
adm_havemercy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 12:40 PM   #162 (permalink)
Banned Members
 
zombie:-)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: ┌∩┐(◣†◢)┌∩┐
Posts: 315   (View Stats)
Countries:
Thanks: 29
Thanked 34 Times in 23 Posts
Not Ranked  0 score     
Default Re: Quality or Quantity - What's better for PAF?

BRAHMOS is not AAM but ASM

after the areal release of brahmos it will lose altitude and when it is very close to the ground then alone it will fire its engine and follow its flight profile

zombie:-) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 06:27 PM   #163 (permalink)
Wiki
 
hj786's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 774   (View Stats)
Countries:
Thanks: 2,345
Thanked 367 Times in 211 Posts
Not Ranked  0 score     
Default Re: Quality or Quantity - What's better for PAF?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironman View Post
If I hurt your feelings in any manner i'm extremely sorry for that.
Really? Are you sorry for coming in here and trolling with your MY BRAHMOS WILL KILL YOUR AWACS claim?
Are you sorry for trolling that JF's TWR without any payload is 0.91? Proof that this is false information:

According to Pakistan Aeronautical Complex webpage Pakistan Aeronautical Complex....
The picture states:
TOGW(2X Tip Missiles) 9100 kg (Take Off Gross Weight?)
Max. Take Off Weight 12700 kg
Internal Fuel Weight 2300 kg
Max.External Stores Weight 3720 kg

Looking at the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex.... page: "Weights: empty 6,411 kg (14,136 lb); Normal Take-Off Weight 9,072 kg (20,000 lb); Max Take-Off Weight 12,474 kg (27,500 lb)"
Some small errors between figures on each page, nevertheless:
Assuming Empty Weight = 6411 kg, internal fuel weight = 2300kg,
Take off weight with no missiles = 6411 + 2300 = 8711 kg, additional weight is 9100 - 8711 = 389kg, 389/2 = 195 kg for each wing-tip missile. AIM-9 weighs about 85kg, PL-9C weighs about 115kg, so this agrees with the statement on the previous page that 9100kg includes full internal fuel and 2 wing-tip missiles. Therefore:
Weight including full internal fuel + 2 missiles = 9100 * 9.81 = 89271 N

Thrust depends on which claim you believe. According to PAC:
RD-93 a/burner thrust = 84.4 kN = 84400 N
According to Klimov website:
"Principal specifications of RD-33: Full afterburning performance...: 8300 kgf"
using google, 8300 kgf = 81 395.195 N

TWR with full internal fuel + 2 missiles = 81395.195/89271 = 0.91 according to Klimov RD-33 principal thrust.
TWR with full internal fuel + 2 missiles = 84400/89271 = 0.945 = 0.95 according to PAC's RD-93 thrust figure.

Either way, ironman you said that 0.91 is with no payload, this post proves that is wrong, that TWR includes two missiles. Even then, you can't be sure what the thrust figure for RD-93 is, the Klimov website only mentions RD-33 "principal" figures.

adm, something that might interest you: http://www.*********************/air...0a-25-252.html (replace stars with "sinodefenceforum")
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tphuang
this is kind of interesting, my translation could be bad here
(Chinese script)
it has a snippet in there that states the goal of 2009 for Guizhou Liyang, is to ensure that development and mass production work needed for the new engine (which I'd assume has to be WS-13) is complete. So, I'm guessing some form of production will start in 2010.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Semi-Lobster
It could also be the WS-12, there was talk a few weeks ago of a major JH-7 upgrade but I guess the WS-13 is a big priority for Guizhou Liyang since I haven't heard of any new RD-93 orders from Russia in awhile.
You probably know WS-13 is JF-17's new engine and it was reported to be undergoing final stages of testing a couple of years ago (somebody correct me if I'm wrong on that). Wasn't it also reported some time ago that Russians were offering RD-93B with 10% greater thrust than RD-93?
TWR of JF with RD-93B = ((81395.195*0.1)+81395.195)/89271 = 1.00295409
If we assume WS-13 will have 10% greater thrust than Klimov RD-33 as well, then a simple engine change gives JF a good TWR for dogfighting, whether the new engine is Russian or Chinese. If we take into account the planned weight reduction through use of carbon composites, TWR increases further.

Last edited by hj786; 03-03-2009 at 07:35 PM.
hj786 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to hj786 For This Useful Post:
Hasnain2009 (03-03-2009)
Old 03-03-2009, 07:50 PM   #164 (permalink)
THINK TANK
 
mean_bird's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Europa
Posts: 872   (View Stats)
Countries:
Thanks: 140
Thanked 927 Times in 367 Posts
Not Ranked  0 score     
Default Re: Quality or Quantity - What's better for PAF?

Gentlemen,

Let me clear this confusion once and for all.

Thrust-to-weight ratio is exactly what it states i.e THRUST / WEIGHT.


THRUST = Force = mass m1 (in kg) and acc. a(m/s²) = m1.a (in Newtons)

WEIGHT = Force = mass m2 (in kg) and acc. due to gravity g = m.g (in Newtons)

According to PAC website,

empty weight of JF-17 = 6,411 kg
Internal Fuel = 2,300 kg

therefore,
Total weight = 8,711 kg

Thrust of the engine = 84.4 N

TWR of JF-17 = 84400/ (8711*9.8066) = 0.99

If you don't want to go into all that, then TWR is simply thrust (in kgs or lbs) / mass (in kg or lbs)

If your TWR ratio (after taking drag into consideration) is greater than one, you can accelerate vertically , otherwise you can't because you will start loosing speed.


For all those doubting and multiply the g instead of dividing, here's the reference. You cannot have a better reference than NASA itself

Thrust to Weight Ratio
mean_bird is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mean_bird For This Useful Post:
hj786 (03-03-2009)
Old 03-03-2009, 08:43 PM   #165 (permalink)
SENIOR MEMBERS
 
Hasnain2009's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Karachi
Posts: 1,160   (View Stats)
Countries:
Thanks: 156
Thanked 385 Times in 226 Posts
Not Ranked  0 score     
Default Re: Quality or Quantity - What's better for PAF?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironman View Post
But according to Klimov website its 8300 kgf..
Klimov :: Production :: Aircraft Program :: RD-33 family

So 8300 kgf = 81.395195 knm.
Yeah but its for RD-33, we got modified RD-93!!

My blog!
http://www.fullsoftwaresfree.blogspot.com/
Hasnain2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Advertisement


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Huge quantity of coal found near Islamkot Neo Economy & Development 0 12-02-2008 09:51 PM
Quality of individuals pkpatriotic Current Events & Social Issues 0 11-08-2008 06:59 AM
Government imports poor quality Atta Asim Aquil Current Events & Social Issues 8 05-11-2008 10:25 AM


All times are GMT +6. The time now is 05:31 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2