“Fuselage” a cylinder fuselage might have been choosen due to aerodynamic purposes, not due to being Mig 21 inspired. Also when you closely inspect fuselage you will see differences.

BTW a while back I said JF 17 and F 16 share a similiar wing layout, when you took a bird eye view of plane, thus JF 17 must be inspired by F 16. Certain members pointed out you cannot judge a plane by looking at it. 🙂

yes of course the area ruling that defines the exact contours of the fuselage will mean that the fuselage shape will not be exactly the same as the MiG-21’s. After all the chord at the wing root on the FC-1 design is longer, so the shape of the fuselage there will be slightly different and since the diameter of the engine is different, the vertical tail shape is different to keep the area ruling good- but, it still inherits the basic Super-7 fuselage and general layout (such as the intakes which define how the fuselage will taper from there on in) as clearly illustrated in the picture I posted earlier. I don’t think that even you would dispute that.

What that picture showed clearly is that even though the Super-7 was abandoned, whatever preliminary aerodynamic design work had gone into it clearly influenced the layout and shape of the FC-1. As more requirements evolved and CATIC got Russian and Pakistani involvement into the program, the shape and design evolved.

And I don’t deny that the F-16’s wing clearly had an influence on the FC-1’s wing shape. Nor that the Super Hornet’s LERX design influenced those on the JF-17 after it went through a re-design process.

Lets see..

Image Source: JF-17 history
The wings are different, the landing gear is at different positions, the nose is different, the fuselage is different, LERX different, the intakes are different, specifications are different….if you’re talking about ‘being influenced’ or ‘similar’ then using that logic, one could argue the intakes are influenced from F-35s, the LERX from F-18s, and so on, I’m sure we could all make a circle and connect Mig-21 to F-20 and JF-17 somewhere in between, heard later mig-21 varients very agile. Anyway, being ‘similar’ is honestly a vague statement and you know it too.

I don’t know what crappy scale model’s picture you’re showing as the Super-7but there are better pictures available and that too from more authentic sources like Flight International

As mentioned in the article on the Super-7, it was meant to have a new engine in the RD-33 class, a new wing with increased span, beefed up landing gear, lengthened fuselage and glass cockpit with bubble canopy. The nose that you talk about is quite similar in the picture shown in the link. Everything that you’re describing as differences between Super-7 (based on some child’s model) and the JF-17 were actually MEANT to be on the Super-7 itself.

Even looking at the position of the air intakes on the Super-7 concept and JF-17, they are nearly the same. The front fuselage looks very similar as well. But there are clear differences in the vertical tail and the fuselage appears beefier too.

This portion describes all the changes that were planned for the J-7 Airguard to make it into the Super-7.

The annular nose intake will be replaced by sidemounted, bifurcated intakes.

The 13,5001b-thrust Wopen 7 turbojet will be replaced by a self-starting Western turbofan, either a variant of the Turbo- Union RB.199 rated at 17,0001b thrust or the 18,0001b-thrust RM12 derivative of General Electric’s F404, developed for the Swedish JAS39 Gripen.
[b]
The wing area will be enlarged by increasing span (from 23 • 5ft to 26ft) and chord. Leading-edge slats and combat flaps will be fitted.

Two additional hardpoints will be incorporated for Sidewinder-class air-to-air missiles. The higher thrust and lower wing loading will increase manoeuvrability, while the longer fuselage (stretched from 45-8ft to 49-3ft) will give an 1,1001b increase in fuel capacity and single-point refuelling. The extra fuel and more-efficient turbofan will enhance range and endurance.

The main landing gear will be beefed up, and larger wheels fitted. The nose gear will also be redesigned, and will incorporate nosewheel steering. An arrester hook will be fitted, and the ventral strake will be reshaped. The cockpit will be changed completely, with a Northrop F-20 Tigershark windscreen and canopy, F-16-type displays and instrumentation, and a new ejection seat. The gaseous oxygen system will be replaced by a higher-capacity liquid oxygen system. Grumman and Catic anticipate a 200-aircraft market for the Super-7, which is intended to have a, maximum flyaway unit cost of $10 million.

Looking at the comparison picture below, the whole tale is there to see. If someone says that the Super-7 didn’t influence the JF-17’s design (and influence doesn’t mean that its the same) then they may need to get their eyes checked.

No secret sauce probably just a middle man sitting pretty.

:rolleyes:

I haven’t said that JF-17 can’t pose a threat, it sure can. Especially when fitted with datalinks an operating with more capable aircrafts as a part of the system (like Indian MiG-21bison with Su-30MKI and A-50 with Phalcon).

But JF-17 is inferior to Gripen in any aspect and it is hard to consider it a full featured fighter this days.

I may only regret we can’t compare the flight envelopes of both aircrafts.

I think your last point is very valid. The Gripen is a full-fledged 9G/-3.5G fighter with very high roll and turn rates. I mean just looking at its flight displays and comparing with the JF-17 whose full envelope has been explored, the difference in actual flying performance is visible.

cross-over picture of Sarang team Dhruv’s from Tarmak blog. Flying really low.

Didn’t Belgium refuse to sell F-16s to Pakistan rather than Pakistan evaluating them and find them not suitable for their needs?

The author of that article is the same person in the pic here. Admiral (retd.) Arun Prakash, after an evaluation flight on the Rafale M, back when the IN evaluated the Rafale M.