PAF J-10CE News, Updates and Discussion

[Metal 0-1]

sir in my opinion- as someone with experience in aerospace engineering.

we can make jf-17 heavy fighter.

if we look at j36, we can take triple engine also and apply to JF-17. This will make it more powerful than rafael.

it is possible sir, we must take one engine in the tail and two under the wings. it has been done before.

this will make jf-17 large heavy fighter like su35...

just my expert opinion sir.

"expert" opinion

 

[Mohid Afzal]

sir in my opinion- as someone with experience in aerospace engineering.

we can make jf-17 heavy fighter.

if we look at j36, we can take triple engine also and apply to JF-17. This will make it more powerful than rafael.

it is possible sir, we must take one engine in the tail and two under the wings. it has been done before.

this will make jf-17 large heavy fighter like su35...

just my expert opinion sir.

you can't just make the JF-17 a heavy fighter by simply giving it a second engine, that's just impossible. You basically need to redesign the whole jet from scratch

 

[Huzaifa]

sir in my opinion- as someone with experience in aerospace engineering.

we can make jf-17 heavy fighter.

if we look at j36, we can take triple engine also and apply to JF-17. This will make it more powerful than rafael.

it is possible sir, we must take one engine in the tail and two under the wings. it has been done before.

this will make jf-17 large heavy fighter like su35...

just my expert opinion sir.

I can see why you’re Deewana of Imran khan.

 

[meh_analysis]

you can't just make the JF-17 a heavy fighter by simply giving it a second engine, that's just impossible. You basically need to redesign the whole jet from scratch

Actually, don't wanna sound super pseudo intellectual but you can make a fighter have a second engine easily. You don't have to redesign the entire fighter, just add another engine. One of the reasons why the double engine F-35 program was even considered was because it would be the cheapest way to make a twin engine multirole fighter. Why? Because airframe design is quite easy, rather than designing a new fighter. You can easily can airframe characteristics to have another engine with elongation/widening of the body. This was told by Lockheed Martin as means to upgrade the fighter. Though for the JF-17 it is quite meh. I mean for that we would need to design a new radar cuz the KJ-7A is shit for the body we use, not to mention new sensors and data to make the cost more reasonable. The best we could do is get some J-15 or J-16 radar, while using China's help to design the electronic suite of the jet ourselves. Which is possible and easier, had we designed the JF-17 alone. So yeah, stupid idea but in the realms of possibility. Though the chances are below 1% cuz the JF-17 was not supposed to do any of these roles. I mean it's still good enough to carry enough ordinance and good enough range to defend against immediate threats. It was not designed for extended strikes nor was it design to carry heavy payloads.

 

[Mohid Afzal]

Actually, don't wanna sound super pseudo intellectual but you can make a fighter have a second engine easily. You don't have to redesign the entire fighter, just add another engine. One of the reasons why the double engine F-35 program was even considered was because it would be the cheapest way to make a twin engine multirole fighter. Why? Because airframe design is quite easy, rather than designing a new fighter. You can easily can airframe characteristics to have another engine with elongation/widening of the body. This was told by Lockheed Martin as means to upgrade the fighter. Though for the JF-17 it is quite meh. I mean for that we would need to design a new radar cuz the KJ-7A is shit for the body we use, not to mention new sensors and data to make the cost more reasonable. The best we could do is get some J-15 or J-16 radar, while using China's help to design the electronic suite of the jet ourselves. Which is possible and easier, had we designed the JF-17 alone. So yeah, stupid idea but in the realms of possibility. Though the chances are below 1% cuz the JF-17 was not supposed to do any of these roles. I mean it's still good enough to carry enough ordinance and good enough range to defend against immediate threats. It was not designed for extended strikes nor was it design to carry heavy payloads.

Adding another engine means that you have redesign the rear fuselage, re-write the FCS, reset the aircraft's centre of gravity and do a long list of things that I don't know about, ask @JamD, @Oscar or @Quwa, they can answer better then me

 

[Oscar]

Adding another engine means that you have redesign the rear fuselage, re-write the FCS, reset the aircraft's centre of gravity and do a long list of things that I don't know about, ask @JamD, @Oscar or @Quwa, they can answer better then me

I can assure you - that just adding a second engine on a simple piston airplane take years of work and testing - let alone a complex fighter aircraft

 

[ImranKaDeewana786]

"expert" opinion

yes sir, i have done aerodynamics course in respected college.

 

[Mohid Afzal]

I can assure you - that just adding a second engine on a simple piston airplane take years of work and testing - let alone a complex fighter aircraft

Sir, please tell that to @ImranKaDeewana786

 

[hussain0216]

sir, you are correct. this is why i suggest adding 3 engines to make heavy fighter.

regards

Fcuk it,.let's go for 6

 

[maxpane]

Sir, please tell that to @ImranKaDeewana786

brother he is ashiq dnt disturb him.

 

[Metal 0-1]

yes sir, i have done aerodynamics course in respected college.

Real crazy dude, but do you know I'm qualified enough to be doctor in New Jersey.

 

[Metal 0-1]

Actually, don't wanna sound super pseudo intellectual but you can make a fighter have a second engine easily. You don't have to redesign the entire fighter, just add another engine. One of the reasons why the double engine F-35 program was even considered was because it would be the cheapest way to make a twin engine multirole fighter. Why? Because airframe design is quite easy, rather than designing a new fighter. You can easily can airframe characteristics to have another engine with elongation/widening of the body. This was told by Lockheed Martin as means to upgrade the fighter. Though for the JF-17 it is quite meh. I mean for that we would need to design a new radar cuz the KJ-7A is shit for the body we use, not to mention new sensors and data to make the cost more reasonable. The best we could do is get some J-15 or J-16 radar, while using China's help to design the electronic suite of the jet ourselves. Which is possible and easier, had we designed the JF-17 alone. So yeah, stupid idea but in the realms of possibility. Though the chances are below 1% cuz the JF-17 was not supposed to do any of these roles. I mean it's still good enough to carry enough ordinance and good enough range to defend against immediate threats. It was not designed for extended strikes nor was it design to carry heavy payloads.

Alt account isn't it??

 

[RAMPAGE]

Another raja baja enters the arena.

You need to chill. How long have you been on PDF? The number of delusional members is at a record low. And that guy is a troll.

 

[NGAD IS THE BEST]

sir maybe you are doctor for humans... but i am doctor for planes.... i studied course.

thanks,

another self praising/ self pro-claimed So called DOCTOR FOR THE PLANES comes in lol

 

[HRK]

Dear all a humble advise please refrain yourselves to engage new troll accounts which may be are created by a multiple account troll