JSR-when you make claims on specific performance parameters you should provide a source otherwise we could all make all sorts of claims with nothing but hot air to back us up and things like IRST,BARS and SU-35 have nothing to do with the claim you have made.

I showed you the picture of MIG-29KUB. how big is the cockpit and front fuselage. you think an engine with RD-33MK stated specification can provide the level of performance and short take off distance to this weight of plane assuming it is made most of it with traditional materials.

Rafale is very small relative to MIG-29K. and 70% of surface area of Rafale is composite materials. and M88 is light weight small engine. and still this thing weighs 10 tons.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here and don’t see how it is relevant to the discussion of the RD-93 and F414’s power to weight ratios.

It is entirely relevant. you cannot compare an aircraft made of obsolete materials like JF-17 with Gripen. similar case is MIG-29 and F-18E. it is airplane materials that hide real engine performance.

Even if your assertion (as I understand it) that all Russian systems out-perform their advertised specs, that wouldn’t do much to prove the RD-93’s power to weight ratio is better than that of the F414. The F414 exceeds the best available figures for the RD-93 by a large enough margin that even if the RD-93’s actual performance exceeded its spec sheet, (which if true should be easy enough to substantiate given that there are literally thousands of RD-93s in service with dozens of countries…) that still wouldn’t allow you to argue that the RD-93 out-performs the F414.

If A > B, and C > B … what does that say about how A relates to C?

They are underrated by wide margin. you can pretty much ignore the figures and concentrate on the airplanes. Gripen NG price is approaching $100m and it will still have more weight than JF-17. and I highly doubt about its 5 wet stations capability.

No, the original discussion is about their power to weight ratio. You started trying to muddy things by introducing “installed power to weight ratios” later. (not that you have provided even a single source for that either…)

power to weight ratio in real airplane. not some paper specification.

Videos of air shows do not allow an observer to determine the power to weight ratio of the engines powering the aircraft in the video.

You have yet to provide a single legitimate source.

so you can eyeball an engine on stand and observe power to weight ratio. Aicraft performance is end result of engine power to weight ration. put too heavy engine into aircraft the airframe has to be redesigned to deal with such heavy and it all adds up considerable weight.
MIG-29K is very beef up plane. you can see the pilot helmet size relative to the cockpit . this thing will be heavy. It is its engine tremendous thrust that allow it fly from small carriers with 5 wet stations load. It has no problem in maintain higher top speed and climb rates.

So let me get this straight, you think you can gauge an engine’s power to weight ratio by watching a jet fly at an air show… :stupid:

Airshow is very clear indication of aircraft power delivery. and it has been proven beyond doubt on MIG-29K trials on small aircraft carrier like Viki. All those indications were already there from MIG-29OVT performance a decade ago.

…again, you wish to believe all Russian products’ performance is somehow under stated. What is your source? No source, don’t bother typing.

I gave you example of largest fighter radar manufacturer in Russia. Is that not enough? or you want largest IRST manufacturer source also.

No, it really doesn’t. Air show performances use a very small portion of a fighter’s total envelope, and then only with extremely lightly loaded jets. Nobody, especially you, can estimate an engine’s power to weight ratio based on an air show performance.

if some thing cannot beat in airshow performance there is 100% certainity you cannot beat in the rest of flight altitude. See the short takeoff distance of Su-35 in paris airshow. engine is very underrated.
It is like German car engines very underrated for there performance.

Vnomad has sources, you don’t. This isn’t even a discussion until you can find a source to support yourself. (and no, your opinion of air show routines is not a suitable source)

he has sources but I also has sources of real videos on youtube about performance.

As for economics… you have it all screwed up but I am going to stick with the engine thing for now. :highly_amused:
Go find a source that supports your assertion that the RD-93 has a greater power to weight ratio and we can talk. Otherwise act like an adult and admit you were wrong.

so you have sources to the contrary.

I have been hearing about this engine for very long time. Chinese usually show things half baked ahead of time. see Y-20 flight example. An overweight/draggier plane with small engines. whats the point of flying it. there is another example of ARJ-21 that flew ahead of time.

there is no evidence either WS13 is more powerful maybe on paper and there is whole lot of reliability and fighter characteristics of engine that need to be considered.

Lets see your numbers, and your sources. :rolleyes:

no need to look at numbers. look at behavior of planes and the material they are manufactured from give enough indication of the relevant characteristics of engines.

The F414 will also power the Tejas MkII so I don’t really see any reason to be concerned about maintaining the production line. (and I suspect it would also form the basis of at least LM’s entry into the USAF’s next generation trainer contract. (which is based on the LM/KAI T-50) )

Teja MK11 is barely 5 planes a year production rate and that is not certain it can be certified in reasonable time. add another 5 or 10 engines per year for JAS-39NG. this figures are way below the over 100 engines a year that GE is used to produce on solid multi year contracts. They will not go below certain quantity in a year. see C-17 and Boeing example. 8 was I think the minimum. the rest is uncertain speculation.

Do you really?

GE-F414-400

Thrust – 98,000N
Weight – 1,150kg

Klimov RD-33MK

Thrust – 88,000N
Weight – 1100-1200kg (http://klimov.ru/files/main/klimov_katalog.pdf)

Don’t put too much stock on this data. different companies measure differently. what matter is installed weight and its impact on airplane weight and the real behavior of plane from that engine thrust. even the older RD-93 gives very decent climb rate to JF-17. RD-33MKM is two class above that engine.

I guess I’ll have to take your word for it. :rolleyes:

there is no fundamental capability difference between metal JF-17 and JAS-39C. both have 3 wet stations. It does not matter maximum theoretical carrying capacity. unless JAS-39NG shows 5 wet stations capability along with all other loads than we consider it level above. but problem with JAS-39NG is that F-18E production is coming to an end. So in post 2018 period GE may have to raise F414 price a lot. this will make the plane uncompetitive .

It’s not the reliability of the engine rather its origin. T-50 is designed to piggy back on to the success of American combat aviation industry. Anyone who operates F-16/18 and is interested in F-35 could use a trainer, and now it’s a race between the South Koreans and Italians. There are fewer operators of Russian or Chinese combat aircraft and the two countries don’t have a coherent partnership when it comes to products they both have a hand in, unlike the Americans and South Koreans. At the end of the day T-50 is guaranteed a role in the ROKAF and will compete for contract with USAF.

now that is incorrect. apart from JF-17 there is Ukriane diesel engines for tanks and engine for K-8. a lot of Ukranian steel mills have Russian ownership along with a lot of cooperation in industrial supply chain for defence products.

Devaluation of the rupee doesn’t change the life-cycle costs associated with aircraft (determined in dollars).

so you think there is no inflation in dollars?. when you sit on selection for 3 years. it is highly likely that original price become invalid.