FC-1/JF-17 Thunder Thread

Discussion in 'Pakistan' started by Tailchopper, Jul 8, 2010.

  1. Picdelamirand-oil
    Online

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel STRATEGIST

    Messages:
    6,790
    Likes Received:
    4,075
    Country Flag:
    France
    ToT France => India => Russia =>China=>Pakistan, and a beautiful M88 is on JF17 [​IMG]
     
    sunny6611 likes this.
  2. sunny6611
    Offline

    sunny6611 Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    90
    Country Flag:
    India
    approx. cost of rd 93 is 2.5 million
    approx.cost of rd 93 M is 2.8 million
    approx.cost of f 404 is 2.7 million
    approx.cost of f 414 is 3.7 million
    approx.cost of m 88 is 3.5 million
    approx. cost of f 135 is 12.5 million

    the wt.,dimensions, CG, air flow... etc ; all also r way difference for all of these.

    none can be fitted in place of the other without some or major changes in the a/c. be it be rd 93 to rd 93 m or f 404 to f 414.

    @Vritra.. every 1 has the right to fancy the best engine for the fighter they "may" buy or have. so y not M 88-2 or may be it can be M 88 -4 E or even F135 !!!!!!!

    well even a owner of TATA nano can "think" of a V12 engine in his car !!!!!

    1 of JF 17 quality is its cost... by changing the engine to M 88-2 (french must be desperate to gift the tech. to china !!) ... the cost will go up by atleast a few millions with all changes put together.
     
  3. vstol jockey
    Offline

    vstol jockey Colonel STRATEGIST

    Messages:
    10,470
    Likes Received:
    8,729
    Country Flag:
    India
    The airflow reqt for M88-2 and RD93 are same-65kgs/sec. RD-33MK needs 77kgs/sec airflow.
     
  4. sunny6611
    Offline

    sunny6611 Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    90
    Country Flag:
    India
    great thanks.

    & what about other parameters ....

    say do u have all the comparative parameters for F 404 & F414 ...will ya put it in the tejas thread ?
     
  5. vstol jockey
    Offline

    vstol jockey Colonel STRATEGIST

    Messages:
    10,470
    Likes Received:
    8,729
    Country Flag:
    India
    M-88 is 80 cms lesser in length and also has lesser diameter than RD-93 besides being lighter by over 200 kgs.
     
  6. Picdelamirand-oil
    Online

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel STRATEGIST

    Messages:
    6,790
    Likes Received:
    4,075
    Country Flag:
    France
    So it's easy to replace RD-93 by M88 because it's smaller and the shorter lenth make you free to place it in order to do not modify the gravity center of the plane. So you keep the same FCS!
     
  7. vstol jockey
    Offline

    vstol jockey Colonel STRATEGIST

    Messages:
    10,470
    Likes Received:
    8,729
    Country Flag:
    India
    yes and it also helps you create space for second cockpit without having to increase the length of the aircraft.
     
  8. kiduva21
    Offline

    kiduva21 Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    169
    Country Flag:
    India
    M88-2 vs f404 vs f414 i am thinking it for the tejas, GE says ge414 has same foot print of 404 so that they can be used instead of 404. but HAL says it tejas need airframe modification to accommodate ge414 and here china planning to use m88-2 in j17 so easily?

    why snecma not combated in tejas engine tender?
     
  9. Vritra
    Offline

    Vritra Major THINK TANK

    Messages:
    2,109
    Likes Received:
    906
    Because Tejas requires a higher thrust engine. With 80+ kN thrust F404, it is considered under-powered: same scenario would persist with 75kN M88. F414 as an increased thrust derivative of F404 is already operational, with further improvements already in development. M88-2 thrust increase has been deemed "viable", but not officially sanctioned yet.

    Also, validity of the claim that France/Snecma are selling M88 engines to China and Pakistan for use on JF-17 is clearly bullcrap.
     
    sunny6611 likes this.
  10. Picdelamirand-oil
    Online

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel STRATEGIST

    Messages:
    6,790
    Likes Received:
    4,075
    Country Flag:
    France
    I disagree with your analysis! I think there is a major problem in the Tejas design related to air inlet. They are too small so the F404 cannot give all the power needed. To put F414 will increase the problem except if a redesign is done:
    A bird in the hand | Business Standard Column
    But the redesign will be relatively strong (to compensate the initial default and the increase of needed air flow) and the benefit could be very small!
    To replace F404 by M88 could improve the situation because the bypass ratio is 0.3 compare to 0.34 for F 404 so it will use better the available air and have more thrust than the F404!
     
  11. vstol jockey
    Offline

    vstol jockey Colonel STRATEGIST

    Messages:
    10,470
    Likes Received:
    8,729
    Country Flag:
    India
    M88-2 is of no use for LCA. LCA needs an engine with higher dry power. The present intakes are optimized for 77kgs.sec airflow is just right for EJ-200 which needs 75 kgs/sec. Higher dry thrust will solve all the problems of LCA but they have gone wrong once again by selecting F414INS6 engine which will have just about 62KN dry thrust. EJ-230 with 72Kn dry thrust wud have been the best engine for LCA MK2.
     
  12. Picdelamirand-oil
    Online

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel STRATEGIST

    Messages:
    6,790
    Likes Received:
    4,075
    Country Flag:
    France
    My answer was to improve LCA Mk1 not LCA Mk2.
     
  13. vstol jockey
    Offline

    vstol jockey Colonel STRATEGIST

    Messages:
    10,470
    Likes Received:
    8,729
    Country Flag:
    India
    Even for MK1, M88-2 is not an option considering that EJ-200 has more dry and wet thrust compared to both M88-2 and F404. While EJ-200 has slightly lower airflow reqt compared to F404. M88-2 needs just about 65kgs/sec.
     
  14. Picdelamirand-oil
    Online

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel STRATEGIST

    Messages:
    6,790
    Likes Received:
    4,075
    Country Flag:
    France
    If it is for Tejas Mk1 your information of the intake optimised for 77 kg/s is contracditory with "longstanding design flaw in the Tejas air intake".
     
  15. Vritra
    Offline

    Vritra Major THINK TANK

    Messages:
    2,109
    Likes Received:
    906
    There are conflicting reports on the intake design of the Tejas.

    Ajay Sukla, in the article you've posted, has written that the intakes are barely large enough for the F404. But Saurav Jha writes:

    To clarify, Tejas was designed for the Kaveri Engine. The GTRE designed Kaveri engine has an airflow intake of 172 lb/s (78.0 kg/s), while the GE F404 IN20 has an airflow of 153 lb/s (70 kg/s).

    Next, Prasun Sengupta reported the following in 2011:

    This conflicts with the earlier suggestion that the current intakes on Tejas will permit enough air for even F414. According to General Electric's own documentation, the F414 engine takes in 170 lb/s (77.1 kg/s). However, people (including vstol jockey) have stated that the GE F414 INS6 variant will generate more thrust than previous F414 variants: they have also suggested that INS6 will be based on the GE F414 EPE project, which is stated to generate maximum thrust of 115-120kN, so the airflow of the engine will be higher than currently stated. Perhaps the intake will be redesigned to permit this higher airflow requirement.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2015

Share This Page