You can check from the top of the page to see how the gearbox is installed on the standard AL-31F.

http://www.salut.ru/eng/Publication/eng_club_23_10_03.html

The wing-profil of the Zipper is optimised in lift for high-speed and high-up!!!!
The high wing-load did not allow to fly slow and prevent horizontal turning at slow speed. The other side of that coin shows, that the F-104 is the ideal platform for low-level high-speed flight. The severe bouncing what limited other fighters to very brief periods there was not so for the Zipper, it could stay there for the whole flight.
To get an idea about the accelleration capability of a Zipper, when clean the initial climb-rate is 254 m/sec.
A MiG-21BIS in overboost comes to 225 m/sec.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-104_Starfighter
http://web.tiscalinet.it/F104-Starfighter/Mach2.htm

The wing aspect is pretty low. It’s good for high speed but high up, it’s not going to produce much lift and won’t turn much. You want high up performance you need wings with a higher aspect and span. The Starfighter’s performance and flight dynamics are more akin to a missile.

The Russians had headaches because in the late 1960s there was no way how they could intercept a low-level intruder like the Starfighter. So the MiG-23 got (simple) look-down shot-down capability.

Look down was something inevitably the Russians would have to have…sooner or later. I don’t think the MiG-23 was the first Russian fighter to have look down radar, probably one of the dedicated interceptors instead. The thing about the Starfighter, payload and fuel range, isn’t exactly tops, which is why the USAF look at other fighter bombers mostly for low level penetrator missions. As such there was a whole other host of US and European fighters acting as low level interdictors the Russians have to worry about.

Given the speed and acceleration of the Starfighter, the MiGs shouldn’t get a chance if the F104s are not surprised. Of course, a dogfight is the complete wrong thing for a Starfighter. As fighter in general I think it is better than often anticipated.

Not really sure about that, considering the incidents of F-104s shot down by MiGs, including a reconnaissance version shot down by a J-6. But then a J-6 just happens to have tremendous acceleration in its own right. Maybe against MiG-17s, you can run away, but against Farmers and Fishbeds it may not be that easy.

Because of the small wings, the F-104 has a high wing loading. That makes it blow when it comes to medium and high altitude turns. But on low altitudes, small wings give the least resistance, so an F-104 can turn the best here, and achieve better sustained turn rates. The high wing loading also reduces buffeting of the plane at low heights, giving the plane a solid, smooth and stable ride, which makes it idea for a bombing or gun strafing platform. However, the small wings also increases the length of the runaway the plane has to take off, seriously enough, to have other take off procedures considered.

I think the plane’s length compared to the wingspan gives the plane problems in yaw stability when it does a roll, like a tendency to twirl around the midpoint like a top. Nasty.

Credibility? Talk about your credibility. SMR-95 is not the RD-93. The website is new. Details are recent. Page mentions updating 3rd generation Mirages specifically, not the FC-1. Engines may have been sized, accessories added to make them fit the Mirages. RD-93 was never mentioned as a candidate for updating Mirages.

Strange examples? PW F100 and GE F110 are two of the best examples of engines with single and double use. Why don’t you show me that the engines for the F-16s are heavier than the ones for the F-15s?

The people in Interfax mixed data? They mentioned the FN specifically. This sounds like they talked to a Salut official who gave some details of the engines but deliberate tried to deny J-10 existance. Entry for AL-31F in MAKS website says 1570kg. Not the same engine.

To install two engines does not mean double equipment to both. If one engine is lost, that fighter can still fly. Not the same by single-engine use. The engine-loss means the loose of that fighter, so safety considerations could not be shared and something have to have a back-up or to be built sturdier. When a double engine fighter has a single transmission for both engines, the single engine-one has to use one alone and the related penalty in weight, to show just one example. The F and FN are not interchangeable.

LOL. There goes your credibility. What makes you think the engines share the same transmission huh? Each engine has their gearbox either in the top (RD-33, AL-31F) or on the bottom (GE F110, PW F100). There is no way they share transmissions. Each engine has their own set of gearboxes, engine controls and plumbing. That’s why double engined planes also give a second layer of redudancy—related components to the engines also break down.

In a stable figher you are in need of bigger surfaces to overcome that stabilizing momentum. Smaller surfaces will reduce power = control from that and your are right.
An unstable fighter is different from that, at least when highly unstable.
Without FBW it will change direction alone in an unpredictable way. So you are in need of controlsurfaces to keep control of intended flight movement only. FBW allows a constant interaction of all that at hand. Without that that ones have to be bigger, when initiated alone and still have to produce higher forces to overcome natural-stability from the design = related moments.
Despite your claim, I can not see, where the ~250 kg of weight savings do come from, technology in mind. Please give a source about that.

Despite my claim? That was the figures of the AL-31F engine in their listing for the MAKS exhibition. I showed you the interfax article too. And the weight savings is 20kg not 250kg. I also cannot see where the 2000kg vs. 1570kg difference is coming from just because you have a TVC nozzle. I also like to see your source claiming the weight of the RD-93 at 1200kg.

By the way, changes in direction are indeed predictable, and that’s why the FBW knows how to counter them. With a type of aircraft like the J-10, you are countering the tendency for the plane to pitch up, or negative stability. And no, its not smaller surfaces, the FBW has to control those canards.

Yes, Lavi and F-16 both have fixed inlets, and the J-10 has variable inlets. So in a way, the thrust isn’t as comparable. Variable inlet will add some weight. MiG-23 variable inlet vs. MiG-27 fix inlet has a total of 300kg for the difference of both inlets combined, so the difference of adding variable ramp for each inlet alone is about 150kg.

So far I have learned that the FC-1 is designed with a future installation of FBW in mind. So Pakistan will get the FBW variant from the start?!
All correct.
FBW is still something more. It reduces the size of control-surfaces too. Such surfaces create extra drag, when in need in every fighter. FBW is so fast, that it generates a smooth flight with minimum use of control-surfaces under all freed load-conditions.
A true FBW-fighter is unable to fly without. All for channels lost, the pilot has to bail out.
A Gripen is faster to initiate a manouver and the pilot has not to care and is freed for fighting alone. I remember about the MiG-29M (9-15) from the 90s, which had to get a full FBW too. The MiG-29s before had an ordinary augementor-system.

Yes, they will get the FBW too. The original prototype had an FBW on pitch only, the next prototypes added roll axis. I don’t think it has quadruplex redundancy for cost reasons, probably a triplex or duplex system.

Reducing the size of control surfaces is never a good idea, even with FBW. You reduce control authority, and that affects your maneuverability in the bottom line. Can’t roll as fast, can’t pitch as fast…

Gripen can turn faster thanks to its canards contributing to a strong pitch authority and a layout that is more negatively unstable with more of the CG towards the rear. Active delta canards tend to have a high CG in the rear. The FBW is there to manage all these elements and make them controllable.

FYI, the standard AL-31F has a weight of 1570kg. The standard AL-31FN is 1547 and is slightly lighter.

More questions I thought of.

First off, targeting pods…..

I know the MiG-23 never carried any A/G missiles aside from the Kh-23 on the MiG-23B series, but the MiG-27 by contrast was quite well-equipped with a variety of weapons.

The Kh-31P and Kh-25 anti-radar missiles come to mind…….

How are these weapons guided? Did they require some type of targeting pod?

If so, where was this pod carried?

Although Su-30MKKs don’t use any pods to fire the Kh-31P, the JH-7A does, and I assume this might also apply to the MiG-27.

http://mil.jschina.com.cn/huitong/q-5_jh-7_h-6.htm

“An instrument pod (Russian AKR-8?) is seen carried under the starboard engine intake which will provide enemy radar emission parameters to the Kh-31P anti-radiation missile.”

Likewise the location of the pod when installed on the MiG-27 might be similar to the description above.

As for the Kh-35, which is an antiship missile, different matter. I don’t know if you can do this with the MiG-27 with a lack of a nose radar. You need a radar with air to sea search to do this. Might be more feasible with a Zhuk upgraded MiG-23 than a MiG-27.