FloggerThe problem is that the poster is an engineer with one speciality. He has copied data and as he sugested… He is not sure about the field he is not specialised in. Anyway. The strange thing I read about it was that the J10-A will be 22% more agile then the J10.
yes but the Eurofighter even the F-14 can do high AoA of more than 30 degs easily but it won`t make them as superior as the J-10A claims is it, it could be possible but in that case the Eurofighter and Su-30MKI are likely more agile and i have never heard such claims for them, the Rafale has more thrust and i have never read a 30deg/sec, the Su-27 is not the most agile fighter in Russian service but the MiG-29 with a 23deg/sec sustained turn and 28 deg/sec instantaneous turn rate and the MiG-29 has more thrust with 36,500lb of thrust while the J-10 is more like in the F-16 block 50 class i feel a +30 deg/s sustained turn rate for the J-10 is unrealistic and totally inaccurate, a 30 deg/sec instantaneous perhaps could be possible
pehaps but in that case it could be as agile as the MiG-29SE
FloggerThey do, but not labeled Kfir.
that is right, israel is one of the best friends in military affairs South america has, for example the AMX of Brazil and Venezuela have Israeli avionics and weaponry, Chile has been helped by IAI in the kfir/Pantera deals, and the Mexican E-2s have Israeli avionics and are quit capable.
FloggerAs far as racism is concerned the Aussies demonstrate little of it – aside from China Threat proponents (parroting US concerns I guess because I have no idea how China EVER threatened Australia.)
As a Chinese I can say I would feel far more comfortable in OZ than Australia’s SE Asia neighbors.
Indonesians killed close to 500,000 Chinese in the 1960s and raped (and murdered) hundreds if not thousands of Chinese women and girls in 1996-8.
Malaysia had periodic pogroms that killed hundreds of Chinese.
Vietnam forced hundreds of thousands of Chinese ethnics into the sea as “boat people.”
It was Australia that took in the boat people. It was Australia that took in tens of thousands of ethnic Chinese fleeing for their lives and hoping for a better future for their children than the racial apartheid that is common in Malaysia and Indonesia.
Only ingrates and hypocrites can ever say that Australia is “racist” compared to what had been done in Asia countries.
What was done to the aborigines is horrible. But Asians from countries like Vietnam, China, etc. have NO reason to complain.
I’m pretty pro-Asian. But I’m not a hypocrite.
So lay off Oz.
all societies in one way or other have some degree of racial discrimination, in some there is apartheid in others feelings of superiority or frankly hostility to any foreign intrusion into a well defined ethnicity but of all anglosaxons i have met, i have found that australians are in average the ones with a higher ego and the English the nicest ones but at the end we all are humans and a single species and in any society there is diversity so generalizations are incorrect ways of sorting people there is good and bad people everywhere as nice and unpolite individuals so only through out interction we find people cool or hostile and there is no generalization that work for sorting people.
FloggerOk, I’m not sure if this is the correct forum. If not, whoever has the power, feel free to move or delete.
I have just finished my MA thesis on MiG. It is a history of the design bureau and four case studies of its aircraft in combat in the Cold War Era. (I dont have a title yet!)
It is still in rough form as it is about get turned in for its intitial read before i defend. I would love some avaition guys to give the once over. If anyone is interested, let me know. It is rather long, 114 pages, so if you’d like to only read a section or so, that would be fine. Thanks alot.
Ethan
you should post some of it ususally many people will disagree and you either can learn more or confirm you thesis.
FloggerHere’s cut and paste of the authors comments
hellow every Pakistani-friends:(a good news)
In 5-10-2004 Chain government agree to sell J10A AirFighter to PAF,
because of a PAF high rank officers mission fiy to Beijin and expressed want
to buy j10A Airfighter. Beijin agree immediately.
Now Pakistan and china are in the detail of the negotiating, the detail aboutPAF J10A will:
use china WS10A engine,
use European avionics,
use European radar,
……….At 2008 years first J10A will fly in PAF.
PAF will buy about 100 J10A airfighter.
J10A at current rate $20 Million a piece for PAF.believe me because I am a engineer in J10 factory.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
first I will tell you WS10A is different with WS10
I have a friend who is a trail-produce engineer, he has trail run WS10A . he told meWS10A thrust rated:
80.00kN dry
146.75KN afterburning
thrust/weight = 7.52the t/w is big than AL31F = 7.1
———————————————————————————————-
the seconde I tell you J-10A is different J-10
The PLAAF require the manoeuvrability of J-10A must improve 21% than J-10,
the RCS will reduce 16% than J-10, so our still improve the aircraft.
the J-10A will fly in 2006 or the end of 2005.
PLAAF require our factory when after J-10A first fly, we will producttive
large quantities for them.
now I don`t say more detail , you know.///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I only tell you:
WS10A thrust rated:
80.00kN (17996 Pounds) dry
146.75KN (33012 Pounds) afterburning
thrust/weight = 7.52
WS10A engine weight = 1990 Kg (4387 Pounds)the WS10A t/w is big than AL31F = 7.1
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1): WS-10A has FADEC
(The FADEC was developed from WS-10 FADEC)2): The overhaul time of WS-10A exceed 400 hours.
3): the formal Edition WS-10A will productive for J-10A in 2005later or 2006,
at that time the overhaul time of WS-10A will be better.4): the PAF J-10A will use European radar and avionics ( if PAF willing ),
but PLAAF J-10A will use china radar and avionics, because J-10A or J-10C are
china`s airfighter. this is the differentiate with J-11 ( china SU-27).
china airfighter hasn`t fear American or European stop supply avionics or radar,
this is very important.
but we want to obtain west techniques, we can improve the techiques,
and we also develop our own techniques./////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
A part of the date (you couldn`t get it form web)
the PLAAF compare J-10A and SU-27/SU-30
1) The radar detective ( bigger is better )
SU-27/SU-30 > J-10A
(because SU-27/SU-30 has a bigger aircraft nose than J-10A)2) the RCS ( lower is better )
the RCS of J-10A is more lower than the RCS of SU-27/SU-30.3) agility: ( J-10A exceed SU-27/SU-30 )
Maximun turn rate ( J-10A ): exceed 30 degrees/second
(the specific date is still secret, I couldn`t tell you)
once I saw the J-10A flew very slow,
the angle of elevation about 60 degrees.4) the manoeuvrability at the supersonic speed ( supersonic speed agility )
J-10A exceed much more than SU-27/SU-30
(this make PLAAF very surprised and very large interest)
(that is the reason why PLAAF have J-11 but they still want to get J-10A)
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
the PLAAF hasn`t got Rafale’s and EF2000s so they couldn`t compare with them.oh, I forgot,
the J-10 is a technology demonstrator ,some techniques in J-10A are from J-10.////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1) : I want to tell you, the WS-10A data has from a jet engineer who has tested
WS-10A, my job is Digital Signal Processing. yes the dry trust was too small
, when I heard this I couldn`t believe it, in the post I am just passing on what
he told me. ( if the data wrong, it`s wrong in the dry thrust )2) : at first I didn`t want to write the WS-10 data, now I write it for you
WS-10 thrust rated:
75.00kN (16203pounds) dry
128.57KN (27778 pounds) afterburningif you doubt the WS-10 date please reply me.
3) : The j-10A confirm to use WS-10A, the AL-31fn only use in J-10/J-11.
I tell you many J-10 use AL-31fn, but now today a small number
of J-10 have used WS-10 in PLAAF.the AL-31fn will large use in J-11 s, today china can production AL-31fn.
4) : the link you give me is a foreign link
I have saw it now I told you: in the linksome photos are very old . The J10 in that photos are old type some fly
in the 1992 some fly in the 1996, today j-10 different with them.some photos are counterfeit photos.
only few photos are ture.
5) why there are too many counterfeit photos in foreign link and even in
china link?
I tell you because J-10/J-10A still in secret.
this is why the china police notice me, you could see the reply post which the
high rank police has wrote to me (use chinese language).first reply EaqleHannan, then reply Eachus
manoeuvrabilit : FC-1 vs F-16
TWR : FC-1 < F-16 (bigger is better)
supersonic speed : FC-1 < F-16 (bigger is better)
maximun sustained turn rate : FC-1 < F-16 (bigger is better)
maximun instantenous ture rate : FC-1 > F-16 (bigger is better)
Rollrate : FC-1 > F-16 (bigger is better)
manoeuvrability ( 0.4 mach to 1.2 mach )
FC-1 > F-16 (bigger is better)
……..omit.1 mach about 1060 kilometers (speed).
Sorry I couldn`t write specific date (for some reason).eachus:
China has buy about 300 AL-31fn jet engines because J-10A use the WS-10A
which fly have encounter few problems. if at the end of 2005 , these problems
are not solve. the first batch even the second batch of J-10A will use AL-31fn
until these problems are solution.I still confused by myself that the J-10A confirm to use the WS-10A,
if these problems are solution.the SailorFlanker`s reply about WS-10A power is approch the WS-10A
recently Max.augmented thrust.
but recently the Max.augmented thrust is bigger than 13,200kg,
(for I hasn`t work in the jet engine field, I get it from my friend who
has tested the engine).EaqleHannan friend :
(later to guys who never work in army factory)
I give you very unhappy info, the RD-93 MAX.aumented trust is less than
20000LBs. the WS-13 which developped from RD-93 by China and Russina engineers can reach 20000LBs. WS-13 will (maybe) use in FC-1 latter 2006.
EaqleHannan friend don`t wait me.To guys who never work in army factory.
make a new airfighter which requires a lot of engineers who are came from
diffrence fields. Only the project director and the project chairman can know
all the information about the new airfighter, other engineers only work in their
own field.
for ect.
The jet engine engineers couldn`t see new aircraft even the airfighter
has flew in the sky use their engin.
A ptogrammer engineer who design control system for airfighter needn`t know the TWR of engine but he must know the TWR of the airfighter……
A engineer who know all the information about the new airfighter maybe
the policeman will check him.thankyou for mindreader,
you has translated article which I post ago.to many friends because J-10/J-10A still in secret so I couldn`t write some secret about J-10/J-10A .
don`t foget what I have wrote about
3) agility: ( J-10A exceed SU-27/SU-30 )
Maximun turn rate ( J-10A ): exceed 30 degrees/second
(the specific date is still secret, I couldn`t tell you)
once I saw the J-10A flew very slow,
the angle of elevation about 60 degrees.4) the manoeuvrability at the supersonic speed ( supersonic speed agility )
J-10A exceed much more than SU-27/SU-30
(this make PLAAF very surprised and very large interest)
(that is the reason why PLAAF have J-11 but they still want to get J-10A)/////////
30 deg/sec turn rate! is not 30 deg AoA? that figure is claiming that the J-10 is superior to the Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen i do not believe that figure
FloggerIt has been produced. (Upgrade or earlier models, not new planes)
what a beautiful aircraft i would like more latin american air Forces would use this wonderful fighter the C10 is really cool
Floggerg (not G) loads as referred to measure airframe stress is caused purely by centrifugal force. ie It is caused by change from the current vector to another vector. Velocity does not effect g load in any way. You will experience g = 1 both in airframes which are parked or in straight/level flight.
But very briefly as it relates to measuring airframe stress : g load (force) is the push or pull on the airframe w.r.t. its interaction with gravity. This interaction is not effected by changes in velocity, for example airframes at a standstill or in straight/level flight both experience gravity and both their interactions with gravity are measured to be 1 OR 1 g. If velocity had anything to do with g load a straight/level flying aircraft would have had a different g load than a parked aircraft.
What actually effects g load is when an airframe changes its orientation from the current vector, (standstill or straight/level flight) its interaction with gravity also changes. This is caused by a change in centrifugal forces and not by a change in velocity.
For example an aircraft in straight/level flight makes a 30 degree turn while maintaining a constant engine power output. At this time its velocity is reduced by the centrifugal force resisting the change in vector, while increasing the stress on the airframe. The same centrifugal force is also known as the g load. If g load was related to velocity in any way you would have also experienced a reduction in g load with the reduction in the velocity of the airframe during the turn. That is not the case hence it can be safely concluded velocity does not in any way effect g load.
Also the same aircraft making a 45 degree turn starting at the same velocity as above will experience greater g load. It is the rate of change in centrifugal force which determines the rapidity of increase in g load not the velocity of change.
=====
****added laterAs an example
– an aircraft making a turn at 30 degrees will experience 1.15g of stress
– an aircraft making a turn at 45 degrees will experience 1.41g of stress
– an aircraft making a turn at 60 degrees will experience 2.00g of stress
– an aircraft making a turn at 75 degrees will experience 3.86g of stressThe velocity of the aircraft can be 100 knots or 1000 knots the g load is effected only by the rate of change in turn angle.
=====Lift does not effect g load.
Turn radius is determined by velocity and turn angle.
Turn angle is determined by the max possible load on the airframe (max g).
Inertia in this instance is what I am describing as centrifugal force.
Lift helps any aircraft while turning you can not disregard it a fighter like the MiG-29 has a fuselage that allows high AoA and therefore tight turns due to a high lift in the whole fuselage wing blending.
The Flogger was reported to be quit a stable fighter so it turned quit hard also the center of Gravity affects the turning capability a mistake the Russians did not make on the MiG-29 and much less in the Flanker which is unstable enoght to provide excellent agility to a bigger jet than the MiG-23
FloggerHonduras Air force is a typical air force of central America only few F-5s, some C-101 aviojets and Dassault Orugan the rest are eiher utility aircraft or obsolete designs in contrast Peru has MiG-29s and Su-25s
FloggerHow many built? oh, just one? well well well.. :rolleyes: 😉 :diablo:
Ok, so it’s maybe the most Mirage-2000 like Mirage III, but it wasn’t produced and therefore I can’t consider him as real fighter plane, and just like the Lavi, it was a fighter plane prototype, that didn’t go too far as it is.Well of course they said that, they were used to the Mirage IIICJ, by no doubt the F-16 of its time, in the IDF/AF. I believe that a more sophisticated fighter with havier weight and weapon load (and adding radar and new engine) will perform less than a Nesher or Mirage IIICJ in dogfights.
About the claims over the Nesher being unbalanced and nose heavy, the facts from YKW speak for themself.
The Kfir served for 20 years of active service in Israel, but since the eighties and nineties is operated by other nations, so it’s about 30 years of service by now. Quite a lot for a small, single engined fighter plane, that also gained a large amount of operational flight hours, attacking in Lebanon and Syria, in at least one war. Somewhere in the early 90s, the IDF/AF had two options:
1) Upgrade the Kfir, using mostly the Lavi’s technology. In a very similar way to how we thought about upgrading the F-4s, there were two plans. One called for upgrading of the avionics, radar, engine replacing and airframe upgrade (Nammer), while second, less costly option called for upgrading of only the avionics and radar (Kfir C10). The IAI started working on these two, but in 1994 the US sent us some ex-USAF F-16s A/Bs, and it was decided to stop the Kfir’s active service, and replacing the last Kfirs with the ‘new’ F-16s. However – some of the improvements of the Kfir-2000 and the Nammer found their way to the Israeli Kfir C7s in 1992, like the wrap around wind shield, and the IAI carried on with the development of the Kfir-2000 (and possibly the Nammer for South Africa as the Cheetah C, I don’t know for sure), that eventually took off and sold.
Again, why should we operate the Kfir as an interceptor, when we got today’s best air superiority fighter, the F-15?
When it was designed (or, redesigned) in the IAI, they thought the US will no permit selling of F-15s to Israel. The IDF/AF came with a demand for a multi role fighter plane, mostly interceptor, for the 70s and 80s. Then the F-15 came, and later the F-16, but the Kfir remained as a striker, and damn good at that too. And today, the Kfir C2 ,C7 or C10, are providing a cost effective solution, whether of older tech (C2), better tech (C7), or state of the art (C10), for many countries that want a good fighter bomber that can also counter fighter planes like the MiG-21, MiG-23 and alike, that their enemys are using, and doing it by also combining state of the art missiles, including the Python-4.
For conclusion, I believe that the best slogan for sellings of the Kfir is:
Kfir – The Wise, Cost Effective Solution :dev2:
The Kfir has been used in two South American wars in the Falknands the Nesher performance was disappointing becasue the English used the AIM-9L and the Harrier; the Ecuadorian used the Kfir with good results against Peru.
do you have good links with pictures more than the typical ones find in google or yahoo?
FloggerBrazilian AMX
FloggerF5M and Flogger, thx for your contribution.
Flogger, I do agree with you about “is self sufficiency in Domestic development and production of high tech and Brazil throughout EMBRAER and the VLS mainly has shown the Importance of high technology and highlighted the need for a well developed aircraft industry to preserve it`s indepence and that has had an eco in Mexico.”
I think the lack of techonology transfer is a most serious handicap to the F-16 in FAB´s F-X program, but this belongs to another thread 😉 .
I think Brazil is in the right path, Brazil is the true leader of Latin America, i am sure Brazil is following the right policies, what Brazil i feel is doing is trying to avoid is a confrontation with the US but Brazil will get the technology transfers throughtout true allies such as Portugal, France, Spain or Italy in few words the EU, Russia or Ukraine also will give to Brazil technology, China or or India can cooperate, but the US now is changing it`s attitude the americans are buying the ERJ-145/R-99 for their defense forces, but it will take a while until the US becomes a true ally but that will not happen if Brazil and Mexico do not become a technology super powers and the the core natiosn of Latin American Brazil-Mexico-Peru-Colombia- Argentina do not ally at least as emerging markets in their fight for justice in the commercial sphere.
But Brazil is developing fast and Mexico is not far behind the US will loose it`s grip in 20-40 years from now in Latin America but the US ia an ally of Latin America but now needs competion to start behaving as an ally and not as a bully.
Floggerthe later is really impressive but the Flogger is not.
Flogger the mig29 turn rate also decrease at mach .9, but the point here is that almost not any dogfight is done at such speeds, the dogfight speeds are between mach 0.5 and mach 0.8 (including corner speed) yes there other tactics,but that is another thread…….
I feel that without a performance Graph is quit impossible to know the result of a dogfight, i feel that only turn rate a roll rate do not tell the whole story if we do not see a speed/turn rate graph it could be that the MiG-23 might have some speed where it is superior to the MiG-29 but tactics can prevent a Mig-23 from achieving the end result.
FloggerHow does the F-111 performance compared to the Su-24
FloggerCrobato
NOT related to th speed of said airframe
read again…..
Hell i have explained that before a looooot of times
Gs are related to speed, Acceleration, Lift, inertia and turn radius is not it?
The MiG-23 if i am not wrong above Mach 0.9 only manages 7Gs at max is not It? and 11.5 deg/sec is nothing the F-15`s is 16 deg/sec and the MiG-29 23 deg/sec the later is really impressive but the Flogger is not.
FloggerWell if you’re talking about the engineers in the IAI, they are mostly unknown. One of the known ones is Ovadia Harari, that later led the Lavi project, and Moshe Keret, the CEO today.
As said before, first we built the Nesher, a 1:1 Mirage V copy. Then it was the ‘Technolog’, a former IDF/AF Mirage IIIBJ, that demonstrated several technologies of the Kfir, then the “Raam” that was a Nesher with a small intake on the vertical stabilizer (not kfir like) that was a testbed for the J-79 engine. It crashed to the sea piloted my Menachem Shmul, today a factory manager in the IAI and the former chief test pilot of the Lavi. Following it the Kfir C1 was designed and produced in limited numbers, and later the serial production of the C2s and 7s, that ended in 1983.
How did we get the machinery?
Well we had experience with the Fuga Magister, and of course repairs and conversions of aircraft. How did they actaully got the machines themself, I don’t know. Either produced here or in France (secretly delierved or bought before the embrago) or the US.
The Kfir performed well in combat (and I’m refering the combat record in Israeli service). The Kfir C1 was produced to be a front line interceptor, but then the F-15 came and the IAI had to adjust the Kfir to strike role, by manufacturing the Kfir C7. In Israeli service, the Kfir shut down only one plane, a Syrian MiG-21. But it’s not because it wasn’t good enough, it’s just that he was never assigned for intercepting and escorting missions, and only carrying AA missiles as self defence.“Kfir” is pronounced the way you read it. Simply Kfir 😉
Thank you Erez how did the Kfir get canards? do you know kfir the roll rates and turn rates? in South america the Ecuadorians and Colombians are quit happy abou their Kfir CEs and Brazil was pondering if to purchase it as an interim fighter, Argentina used the Nesher in the Falkland war and still they are proud of them, i feel the Kfir is the the best Mirage type ever in Venezuela their Mirages NG upgraded are quit similar to the IAI Kfirs, Chile based it`s Pantera on the Kfir with AIA help, South Africa did the same with the Cheetah
Sign In
