dark light

emile

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 226 through 240 (of 525 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 16 #2320342
    emile
    Participant

    😀

    Someone knew the size of J-20 accurately now and to prove my no less than 21 meter is absolutely correct:cool:

    in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 16 #2321584
    emile
    Participant

    The JH-7 has a max wing-load of ~550 kg/m² and the Jaguar of ~650 kg/m².
    Both have high by-path ratio Tfs of 0,7 and 0,8 giving a dry sfc in military of 0,68 and 0,75 each. I have to agree that the max wing-load of the JH-7 is on the lower side and by that less ideal for high-speed low level flight behavior compared to the Jaguar and the Su-24 with up to 800 kg/m².

    The theoretical comparison is supposed to be established on empty weight.

    in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 16 #2322080
    emile
    Participant

    Something I felt terrible after the “high wing-load” was seen.
    The JH-7 was not a high wing-load aircraft indeed and was not “same type engine” as well as SEPECAT Jaguar used.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon News & Discussions VI #2323634
    emile
    Participant

    It seems that 1500L external droppable fuel tank will never be carried by Typhoon.

    in reply to: Q-5 Fantan #2328995
    emile
    Participant

    For same class, the Q-5 got the fastest top speed, the amount of pylons at most, even maybe the most maneuverable for air-combat.
    http://i43.tinypic.com/2rcybzs.jpg

    in reply to: Q-5 Fantan #2329017
    emile
    Participant

    In my view, the Nanchang Q-5 was the most successful light attacker bein its era.
    Perhaps, Douglas A-4 Skyhawk would be a considerable rival, but there was no comparison ever made.

    in reply to: Pak-Fa news thread part 20 #2335853
    emile
    Participant

    not what’s called project-129?

    in reply to: Draken vs F-104 #2335886
    emile
    Participant

    It was known as 175m/s for J35’s climb rate, considered 49m^2 wing are for its 7 ton class empty weight, its turn rate would overwhelm MiG-21 and F-104 to both.

    in reply to: Draken vs F-104 #2335928
    emile
    Participant

    Now the conclusion is the avionics (esp. its radar with continuous pules) of J35 would be much better than F-104 or MiG-21, and I am so confident that maneuverability of J35 wouldn’t be worse than any contemporary fighter, although lacking detailed data

    in reply to: AVIC JF-17 Thunder versus SAAB JAS-39 Gripen #2336290
    emile
    Participant

    I tend to introduce the F-20 and Mirage IIIC for your comparison and extrapolation.

    in reply to: AVIC JF-17 Thunder versus SAAB JAS-39 Gripen #2339477
    emile
    Participant

    Good point. Canada doesn’t always use American equipment. Leopard 1 and 2 tanks are cases in point 🙂 back on the topic. it looks like Gripen NG’s combat radius is only a bit less than that of JF-17 which is currently near twice that of Gripen’s

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gripen

    The 1352 km for JF-17’s combat radius contains three dropped tank.
    And if we talk about NG version for JAS-39, which combat radius will be much greater than JF-17.
    You can see the ferryrange for JAS-39 and JF-17 is pretty similar.

    in reply to: AVIC JF-17 Thunder versus SAAB JAS-39 Gripen #2340756
    emile
    Participant

    Yes indeed JSLL4 is back with a new username. Just too obvious. He did stay away for 1 week though.

    Fortunately, not a Chinese at least, most of Chinese are wise more than me.

    in reply to: AVIC JF-17 Thunder versus SAAB JAS-39 Gripen #2340973
    emile
    Participant

    JF-17 block2?
    Why don’t you just buy our J-10? ^.^
    Oh, and the J-20 may be the one you like very much than others?

    in reply to: AVIC JF-17 Thunder versus SAAB JAS-39 Gripen #2343847
    emile
    Participant

    As long as we stay in discussion about dogfight, pay attention to each single letter, the 10G is for NG version of Gripen.
    Certainly, since PLA and Pakistan claimed JF-17 is a sort of fighter being close to F-16 very much on maneuverability, the 18~20 for STR and 22~24 for ITR may be expected, a higher data will be a fantasy.
    A roll followed back flip without pitch angle changed done by Gripen

    in reply to: AVIC JF-17 Thunder versus SAAB JAS-39 Gripen #2344662
    emile
    Participant

    No, actually it wouldn’t, they are in different
    J-10: 9750

    May I ask where is the source for this 9750?

    is contract signed with manufacturing schedule. Meteor is best missile out there? and will it be best missile for ever. as so little is manufactured.
    for some reason Gripen Nose from side profile looks thinner.

    If my memory works well, the top speed for initial version of JF-17 was supposed to be M1.8, whereas the recent version was down to M.1.6 by DSI’s contribution.
    The climb rate for JAS-39 is no less than 250m/s and any great data out of JF-17?
    The ITR and STR for JAS-39 officially claimed as 30d/s and 20d/s, what about JF-17?
    And there is an assurance for one who claimed advantage on JF-17’s side lacking confidence of roll rate comparison between JF-17 and JAS-39.

Viewing 15 posts - 226 through 240 (of 525 total)