PLA-MKIIThanks Trident, that makes more sense, but still not a fully satisfactory answer. Still, if I had to choose an answer I’d choose yours.
PLA-MKIIDo you guys realize that the Russians and the Americans have both lost a plane in (admittedly very broadly) the same area and around the same time? Can you guess what I am thinking?
***not being serious here***
PLA-MKIIThat’s what I guessed but do the exit points make sense?
PLA-MKIIJF-17 Fighters from the Pakistan Air Force Give Stunning Display in China
A bit of writing from yours truly.
JF-17 Fighters from the Pakistan Air Force Give Stunning Display in China
11/19/2010
by Meinhaj Hussain
[email]m.hussain@grandestrategy.com[/email]
The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has given a stunning display of aerobatic maneuvers in China. Flying the newly built JF-17 Thunder, a joint fighter project created as a result of cooperation between the two great Asian nations, the crowd was entertained with a thrilling display of aerobatics. The Airshow China 2010, or China International Aviation & Aerospace Exhibition, held at Zhuhai is the premier Chinese aviation industry event and attracts professionals, manufacturers, governments and enthusiasts from the world over. The JF-17 shared the event with such aviation giants as the Airbus A-380 and Boeing 747-8 (model). The aircraft also shared the show with the larger J-10 and Chinese FLANKERs.
The weather conditions were not ideal and thus the aerobatic display of the JF-17 and J-10 could not be better viewed. As the show progresses, better multimedia is likely to emerge from the next few days.
Following is a coverage on YouTube of the JF-17s aerobatic display:
PAF JF-17 at Zhuhai Air Show 2010 – Part 1
PAF JF-17 at Zhuhai Air Show 2010 – Part 2
PAF JF-17 at Zhuhai Air Show 2010 – Part 3
PAF JF-17 at Zhuhai Air Show 2010 – Part 4
This airshow is proving to be a major leap forward with multiple countries showing interest in the JF-17 and other Chinese products. Rumor has it that Pakistan has been gifted four L-15 LIFT aircraft. A mysterious deal for SAMs has also been signed. This is rumored to be the highest grade HQ-9/FT-2000.
http://www.grandestrategy.com/2010/11/jf-17-fighters-from-pakistan-air-force.html
PLA-MKIIMany Western analysts (myself included) are of the opinion that the ‘TEL’ and ‘Flap Lid’ shown in the Iranian parade are mockups. They do not diisplay the sort of small engineering details that are visible on real-world hardware. Real hardware would have extreme stability issues if mounted on the Iranian chassis used for the parade.
The equivalent hardware seen at the recent North Korean parade looks much more convincing, so it will be interesting to see what subsequent parades in both countries might reveal.
As the Shahab and Nodong missiles show, there are obvious exchanges of technology going on between the two nations. Iran may have started as the junior partner, but a recent report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies concluded, in the ballistic missile field Iranian expertise may have outstripped that of the North Koreans.
Although Iranian plans for impending S-300-clone firings have been widely reported in the press, and IRNA is cited as the source, the only IRNA report I’ve been able to find talks about the S-300 in the headline, but not in the actual text.
Underengineering seems to be an Iranian hallmark. For instance, you can see it in their other systems like missiles and “UCAV” too, not to mention their MBT. This does not mean that they are decoys only. I know of the picture you are talking about where it seems there is nothing to balance the weight. There are two boxes and my opinion is that the latter box that looks like being unbalanced is empty, perhaps a command console. My opinion is that there are real systems albeit under-engineered and have lost significantly on their mobility.
Of course, we are all somewhat talking in the air, as our intel is not there with these systems. I will leave you with a thought: if they can build and improve the entire Hawk system from missiles to radar unit, they are not far from building a bare basic LR-SAM.
Good point about the North Koreans. I would say that anything that NK has, it shares with Iran and vice versa.
PLA-MKII@Corrosion: I would definitely say I agree with the article as its written by me. The statement you are quoting is merely my best guestimate. I surely don’t secret data to confirm that. The Flankers are not 5th gen so not considered in the same breath. The F-35, lets just say not everyone agrees it will be a worthwhile A2A craft against 5th Gen fighters.
@tphuang: What would be China’s incentive to NOT have a partner that has a good grooming on western aircraft types? The same partner that helped the FC-1 be the success that it is, and from the design changes, the J-10B?
Two Indian posters: yes, you are right, 5th gen doesn’t change military balance :D. And yes, GS is my private blog 😀 And yes I just talk about 5th gen being mythical dragons 😀 And while we are at it, the LCA is a great success story too. Please don’t let me stop your party. Anything else you want to add, please feel free – MCA, MRCA, Bollywood movies, IT superpowership.. you guys are truly amazing. Just tell your Indian buddies to stop hounding me and sending me obscene emails.
Seriously, wish you were a bit more confident and stop worrying about what others are saying. As it stands, India is doing great and I sincerely believe that as long as India doesn’t screw it up, and Pakistan continues down the path it is going, in 10 years India would be the reigning power of the Indian ocean with its influence ranging from Vietnam to the shores of Africa and Pakistan at best a malfunctioning country perpetually on the verge of bankruptcy, and a fellow under developed nation to my country of Bangladesh (and we actually may outstrip them). While India will be receiving the first consignments of the PAKFA, Pakistan would not be able to afford a 5th gen. Guys like me are God Willing trying to change that but we barely have a sliver of a shadow of a hope. And Allah knows best.
PLA-MKIIWhat Generation was that?
Where is Flex?
On topic:
Funny how all the arm chair analysts are sure-shot that Pakistan is not contributing to the next Gen. Don’t share the sentiment from my intel.
Delta-canard: Nope, I think its a conventional ala F-22 design.
There may already be something in advanced development but not yet out. recall how long it took the J-10 to be acknowledged or known and accepted as real.
I just want to point that I was one of the first ones to write about the J-10B AESA when even huitong was calling it a PESA. Tired of getting all the ridicule and then none of the glory.
Let me throw in a bone here, there is more than one 5th gen program going on (or so I think, shoot me now but don’t forget to salute me later). UCAV programs are actually of more interest to me, 5th gen is fast becoming passe.
Thats my rhetoric anyways.
The design is a conventional layout in direct similarity to the F-22. The J-XX will be powered by the WS-15, a new generation engine in development. Normal TO weight would roughly measure to 20 tons and thus be in the heavy fighter class.The J-XX would possibly be superior to all but the PAKFA and the F-22, being inferior to the latter.
Source: http://www.grandestrategy.com/2009/04/559695923848203-dragons-new-claws-j-10b.html
The future of the PAF will depend on whether she can again innovate in collaboration with China to build a fifth generation aircraft without breaking the bank. Investments in R&D and a strong commitment from the military and the government would need to start now, if such a project is to succeed. A single engined fifth generation project would also be something that many other smaller powers would be looking for and could be viable in the international arms market. This plane could be built around a WS-15 with a small weapons bay and perhaps built around a high sweep delta. While such a plane may sound impossible now, given that the JF-17 has hardly started production and that China may have little interest in pursuing it for its domestic use, thinking forward could save Pakistan from being threatened again as it was after the Mumbai incident.
http://www.grandestrategy.com/2010/02/russian-are-coming-t-50s-flight-to.html
PLA-MKIInice one cthornburg. that’s the second qualifier after the wright flyer.
anyone want to advise my (imaginary) engineers on what kind of engine to choose for a single engined plane needing 500-1000 hp? need to run it on diesel.
Your choices are:
1. conventional diesel turbo
3. turbo prop
3. turbo fan
Plane will not need to fly at high altitude. Smoke is an issue. (diesels that don’t smoke?? possible). Endurance over speed. basically a low flying CAS aircraft that runs on diesel.
PLA-MKIIsorry for the double post.
I need about 500 hp to 1000 hp and I need it to run on diesel. The aircraft doesn’t need to fly high. What engine would you suggest?
PLA-MKIILook up “Junkers” diesel engines! The Germans developed aero-diesels from the mid-1920’s till the end of the war. They were extremly efficient for their days (less than 160gr/hp/hr) and used for high altitude aircraft, including high altitude photo recon aircraft.
The Centurion engine is based on a Mercedes 2.0 litre diesel used in the C class.
I love this engine. Is it possible to use it as a blue-print for making a turbine-like air-cooled engine (using the hot air as added thrust)
I am not a technical person so I may be completely speaking gibberish here 🙂
PS: Centurian used in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAI_Anka Interesting
PPS: Between about the Gannet: beautiful design, and runs on diesel. Wiki has a picture of it with one engine off – proving the point.
PLA-MKIIGreat Replies!
No other forum has so many knowledgeable people willing to share.
Thanks again Mad Rat. {found it}Moggy C I like the design very much. Reflects my present default design:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lHjnoEO3vOM/RmwMJ4btMJI/AAAAAAAAAAc/jveyKHd0GYE/s1600-h/my+design1.php
I found this about diesel aero engines:
http://www.deltahawkengines.com/
http://www.enginehistory.org/Diesels/CH6.pdf
Look at NASA thinking like me(?):
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs01grc.html
And this German company: http://www.centurion-engines.com/
Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH offers with CENTURION® 2.0 a kerosene piston engine for general aviation with a take off power of 99 kW (135 hp). The CENTURION® 2.0 is a turbo charged 4-cylinder in-line engine which is EASA certified since August 2006 and FAA certified since October 2006. The predecessor CENTURION® 1.7 is certified by the European Aviation Authorities since May 2002 and the FAA certified since October 2003.
The CENTURION® 2.0 surpasses conventional avgas engines in fuel efficiency, handling and quality. It is also safer and more reliable. In addition the CENTURION® 2.0 is equipped with a redundant electronic engine management system, known as FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control). This engine controls and monitors piston engine functions by two independently operating systems health check each other permanently. The advantage is that the healthier one of the two systems takes control automatically. FADEC also enables the use of a single lever control for all operating parameters including propeller pitch control. The FADEC logs all relevant engine data for analysis.
The CENTURION® 2.0 is certified for the use of both kerosene and diesel (DIN EN590) and is running with the two fuels in any mixture ratio.
bug eye in flight!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM85M4blKnA
See this plane in comparison: http://www.seabirdaviation.com.au/pages/
http://www.spyflight.co.uk/images/jpgs/seabird%20seeker/seeker%202.jpg
PLA-MKIIThanks Mad Rat. I’m learning something here. So, your opinion is that a diesel engine cannot make an efficient solution for a low flying airplane. What do you think would be the best option for a low flying, slow flying STOL plane with one engine and with the nose clear for equipment?
PLA-MKIIMadRat, I’m no aeronautical engineer, please help me understand why it won’t be efficient.
Do you mean:
1. Torque would not be efficient (I am thinking of using a diesel engine, high torque, many logistical benefits)
2. Is it because the gearing would cause added mechanical friction?
3. would this be a case where two smaller engines would be more efficient than one large engine (counterintiutive?)
SlipperySam what is a French Belize? Is it a plane or a place?
So far: Mr. Creosote 1, rest of the world 0
PLA-MKIIThanks for the replies!
The Wright Flyer? Really? Wow that’s brilliant! You ARE right (or should I say Wright).
That’s incredible that we cannot think of any others.
I am fascinated with this concept because of the possible efficient solution for a single engined STOL aircraft that leaves the nose free for other purposes. Single engine would make it economically far more viable than twin engines, given parameters of low-cost mass production units.
PLA-MKIIthanks A225HVY. What about two props not located on the same spot? Like perhaps with a gear arrangement..?
Sign In
