Farnborough International Airshow 2010 (19th - 25th July)

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 02 Jul 2010 16:51

Hi All,
Please post here information related to Farnborough Air Show this year.

Official Site:
http://www.farnborough.com/Site/Content ... fault.aspx

Static Air Craft Listings :--
http://www.farnborough.com/Site/Content ... aspx?Z=284

Daily flying displays :--
http://www.farnborough.com/Site/Content ... aspx?Z=283

Is anybody is planning to visit the airshow ?

Thanks,
Avinandan

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 06 Jul 2010 12:39

Two JF-17 would be among Static display among other aircrafts.

Catic
2x JF-17

Earlier there were rumors that JF-17s would be giving flying display.
Wonder why China is not displaying J-10 in the airshow.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2010 14:55

Avinandan wrote:Two JF-17 would be among Static display among other aircrafts.

Please get good photos of that one.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 08 Jul 2010 04:04

PAF’s JF-17 Thunder Fly in Farnborough Air Show

karthik · Post by **karthik** » 12 Jul 2010 20:07

I can't find HAL in their Website. HAL is not displaying any aircraft this year in Farnborough?

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 16 Jul 2010 01:23

I am going to the show. Let me know if there is anything in particular someone wants me to check.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 16 Jul 2010 04:42

Rishirishi wrote:I am going to the show. Let me know if there is anything in particular someone wants me to check.

Photos Photos Photos Photos
Preferably using an SLR.

Don · Post by **Don** » 16 Jul 2010 20:27

JF-17 arrived in Farnborough :

Serial # 10-113
Serial # 10-114

ManuT · Post by **ManuT** » 17 Jul 2010 07:14

F35 JSF videos

Inside F35-JSF
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10648250

JSF Eye in the sky
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10652020

Landing JSF
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10652019

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Jul 2010 08:37

I am sure the BBC and brit media will give it excellent coverage showing how moderate and scientific muslim nations beats the terrorist stereotype

very shrouded and low-rcs air intake and build quality looks far better than older sino-russian kits.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Jul 2010 09:15

Don wrote:JF-17 arrived in Farnborough :

http://www.globalaviationresource.com/b ... ages/2.jpg

Many thanks

Any comments on the intakes boys? Or is that for ellceeyay onlee?

sawant · Post by **sawant** » 17 Jul 2010 09:18

Singha wrote:I am sure the BBC and brit media will give it excellent coverage showing how moderate and scientific muslim nations beats the terrorist stereotype

It's their illegitimate baby after all... wot better time to mollycoddle it and help Brit troops get out...

sawant · Post by **sawant** » 17 Jul 2010 09:21

shiv wrote:Any comments on the intakes boys? Or is that for ellceeyay onlee?

Don't they look constricted... seems the engine will start panting after climbing a few thousand feet...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Jul 2010 09:26

the things that strikes you most is how small the vertical tailfin is compared to the aircraft, wonder how nimble it will be.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Jul 2010 10:36

In that cammo the JF-17 is a nice looking bird , if the Chinese play their card well the JF-17 can effectively replace the Mig-21 in global market in price/cost effectiveness factor.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 17 Jul 2010 13:09

My 400% humble opinion onlee so bliss to not shoot me down:

The Thundaar is what you would get if the Mirage III/V and The Yef Solah had a tryst after a few too many at the bar...look at the wings, tail, rudder, cockpit from the nose right up to the end....

naird · Post by **naird** » 17 Jul 2010 14:01

^ Thunder just looks too bulky with all the fuel tanks loaded !! Just doesnt look agile -- but i guess looks hardly matter.

The intakes seems excruciatingly small !! Its like they designed the entire air frame but forgot the 'intake' part of the engine-- they later pulled a huge knife and made slits for the intakes --

I guess it may be a result of photo angle.

vishnu.nv · Post by **vishnu.nv** » 17 Jul 2010 14:47

The Drop tanks of JF-17 seems to be well designed. Appears to be more stealthy than LCA drop tanks. Whats the purpose of fins on the drop tanks?
Overall the plane looks neat and a great improvement over the Mig-21.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Jul 2010 15:18

There is a bulge in the rear fuselage just ahead of the tailpipe where the engine sits and that engine is at a higher level than the intakes. The intakes seem to have ducts that curve up and back to form a "Y" - because the main gear bay sits just behind the intakes where the duct would have been if it went straight back.

The fin does not appear small or anything to me. Technically that bulgy bit at the base is also tailfin and is about 20-25% of the visible area. There are also two ventral fins in any case. Theer are other unstealthy things sticking out of the nose behind the cone.

It's not clear to me how drop tanks can look "more stealthy" or "less stealthy". Fins are unstealthy but if I close my eyes the entire plane is invisible.

vina · Post by **vina** » 17 Jul 2010 15:22

The Drop tanks of JF-17 seems to be well designed. Appears to be more stealthy than LCA drop tanks. Whats the purpose of fins on the drop tanks?
Overall the plane looks neat and a great improvement over the Mig-21.

Those are standard 800 liter drop tanks. Nothing great or special about them in any case, this way or that. The fins are to make sure that when they are dropped that they remain "dropped" and dont fly back and hit the wing of the aircraft or another flying higher and close by. Basically to make sure that when dropped,the tank drops nose first and not Musharraf first.

vina · Post by **vina** » 17 Jul 2010 15:36

Overall, there is something odd about this plane that I cant put my finger on . It does not "look" good. Maybe it is the ungainly looking tail (an unsightly copy of the much sleeker F-16 tail, that seems too upright and the large fuselage end to engine nozzle change (the gray reducing angle part). Suggests to me that the RD-93 is just an "interim" engine and allowances are built into the fuselage design to drop in a Chinese copy / Chinese engine with a higher overall engine diameter and mass flow rates. This probably means that the fuselage barrel is "fatter" than it should ideally be I think.

The F16 A/B/C/D smashingly good, and very "fighterish" . The Thunder/Bandar's tail looks like the Nimrod/deHavilland Comet kind of tail mounted on a F16 kind of tail mounting surface.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Jul 2010 16:13

vina wrote: the large fuselage end to engine nozzle change (the gray reducing angle part). Suggests to me that the RD-93 is just an "interim" engine and allowances are built into the fuselage design to drop in a Chinese copy / Chinese engine with a higher overall engine diameter and mass flow rates. This probably means that the fuselage barrel is "fatter" than it should ideally be I think.

There is a very definite bulge in the fuselage beneath the tail - visible when you enlagre the second photo from top.

I was intrigued by the afterburner nozzle but I am no expert. Most aircraft, while landing have the nozzles converging indicating a non afterburner setting. Here the nozzle looks like it's open.

Don · Post by **Don** » 17 Jul 2010 16:40

Here are some more pics for you guys :

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Jul 2010 17:05

Thanks for the pics

Possible GSh 23 twin barrel under port intake.

There appear to be 2 small airbrakes ventrally inboard of the ventral fins apart from 2 more small airbrakes on the sides of the rear fuselage. All moving tailplane.

Slender looking undercarriage.

Does any guru want to comment on those 1/4 oval (does that shape have a name - ogival??) leading edge root extensions?

Bihanga · Post by **Bihanga** » 17 Jul 2010 17:26

Yes JF-17 does look very cool and might be a good addition to the airforce which has been suffering from the absence of modern fighter jet.

gogna · Post by **gogna** » 17 Jul 2010 18:56

Kudos to PAF,at least bandar is at international air show half way around the world, while we are still begging for a decent engine, radar for our INDIGENOUS Langoor.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 17 Jul 2010 19:40

Bihanga wrote:Yes JF-17 does look very cool and might be a good addition to the airforce which has been suffering from the absence of modern fighter jet.

You mean in addition to the spanking new F-16's for their dedication in fighting Talibuns right? Sorry OT.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 17 Jul 2010 19:55

Thanks for the good pictures; JF-17 looks like a cross between Mig-21 and F-16.
Like it or not you have to give them credit to PAF for getting the plane to one of the
prestigious air shows in the world. This gives PAF a chance to show off plus
proves that JF-17 is fully operational with PAF.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Jul 2010 20:05

it looks like a M2k that had a bit too many nights of naan and nihari and lose the slim wasp waist fuselage.

the bulge in rear fuselage below engine maybe to accomodate the engine gearbox - afaik gearboxes are either on top or bottom. jf17 is
on bottom per this pic
http://www.jf-17.com/rd93-2.jpg

imo it will primarily be a strike plane and replace all the 150+ mirageIII/V in due course.
the 70 upgraded and new F-solah and J-7 will handle a2a role. possibly J-10 at some stage.

negi · Post by **negi** » 17 Jul 2010 21:50

Well the LERXs are more F-18SH like albeit without the 'twist'. The tailplane is very similar to that on the Flanker family.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 17 Jul 2010 22:07

>>Thanks for the good pictures; JF-17 looks like a cross between Mig-21 and F-16.
you can add F-35 to it which has gone wrong. Instead of appearing like smoothened bump with a dimple, the so called DSI looks like a pimple. I think its going to increase the RCS.

Reduction in vertical tail fin size maybe due to impart stealth.

Overall it looks clean, i think it can do a dash but nimbleness is doubtful. If the normal configuration is going to be with fuel tank even the dash is doubtful.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Jul 2010 22:49

VinodTK wrote:Thanks for the good pictures; JF-17 looks like a cross between Mig-21 and F-16.
Like it or not you have to give them credit to PAF for getting the plane to one of the
prestigious air shows in the world. This gives PAF a chance to show off plus
proves that JF-17 is fully operational with PAF.

it's a development of a single engined mig-29 derivative called mig-33 (not to be confused with mig-29M which was also unofficially given that designation for sometime), which was offered to India for license production but we refused (because there was a pre-condition that LCA project had to be scrapped). like the FC-1 it was supposed to be powered by rd-33 engine and looked quite a bit like the F-16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-33
this is probably how it looked like

after the SU broke up, china bought the complete engineering design of the aircraft along with the services of some of mig's engineers. coupled with their experience with the mig-21 this finally led to the birth of FC-1 or JF-17.

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 17 Jul 2010 23:08

Why are people merrily jumping around to give credit to the Pakbarians for painting their baksheesh green and then displaying it around the world. People seem to forget that the Bandar is an unproven fighter. An appropriate analogy would be Chinese peasant parents abandoning their child with congenital malformations at the nearest yatheemkhana. Comparisons between the LCA and this junk are uncalled for.
Wait for the first Bandar to lose its step and fall out of the sky,hopefully during the airshow(minus any casualties ) that's when the real fun will begin.

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 18 Jul 2010 02:10

Whoa, this thread is soon becoming JF-17 Thunder thread

.

Wait for the first Bandar to lose its step and fall out of the sky,hopefully during the airshow(minus any casualties ) that's when the real fun will begin

At least give credit to Pakistan in getting JF-17 in due time.

Overall it looks clean, i think it can do a dash but nimbleness is doubtful.

I guess it is nimble enough.. below is the youtube video that compares the turnrates of JF-17 with F16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5aUGum2EiM

The Pakistan flag is reversed in the vertical tail fin (starboard side), is that correct ?
The Radar cone seems to be smaller in the new camo now.

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 18 Jul 2010 02:33

Very short Youtube video of JF-17 landing in Farnborough ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT9WpHtom9o

Most of the pics above are from the below link, a PAF C-130 has also come for supporting the JF-17s.
http://www.globalaviationresource.com/b ... 100715.php courtesy:globalaviationresource.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Jul 2010 05:01

avinandan, why should we give credit to pakistan ? it's a purely chinese product with significant russian input, read up its history. what is pakistan's contribution other than buying it ?

niran · Post by **niran** » 18 Jul 2010 05:23

avinandan, why should we give credit to pakistan ? it's a purely chinese product with significant russian input, read up its history. what is pakistan's contribution other than buying it ?

they are painting it Green no? that makes it pindgenious no?
it is obese now if LCA was this fat am sure there would have been dharana
and hnger strike to close down DRDO HAL vagera.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jul 2010 06:00

Mahendra wrote:Why are people merrily jumping around to give credit to the Pakbarians for painting their baksheesh green and then displaying it around the world.

Reverse self flagellation.
Two ways you can prove you are bullshit:
1) Put the other guy higher
2) Put yourself lower

A variant of "khud ko jai karein"

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Jul 2010 07:48

has been discussed before, but apart from the Mig-33 design and data (plus probably downsized engineers from mikoyan), the Romanian IAR-95 design is the one which bears closest resemblance to the present Bandar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IAR-S.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAR_95

during the chaotic years around the breakup of soviet union, when everything was for sale due to desperate financial situation in eastern europe, there is no doubt PRC teams went in and "shopped" around for any kind of remotely useful technology or people they could snap up.

they were not alone in this, US corporations like US-DOD, boeing and MSFT also did that to snap up high level people. I believe one illyushin design shop in moscow became a unit of boeing. certain areas like physics, optics, cryptography, computer theory, aerospace, maths had a surplus of brillant and proven people which the "west" and china
were only too happy to snap up with instant green cards and high salaries.

vina · Post by **vina** » 18 Jul 2010 09:40

Hmm. You guys are right. Now I can sort of put my finger on what is out of whack with the Bandar.

It is basically the fuselage seems a straight from the Mig 21, a perfect full barrel without any area ruling (when the Mig21 came out, there Mr Whitcomb probably had not published his work I think yet back then).

Hmm a Mig 21 with side inlets, a clipped delta wing with the tail plane and elevators "kicked" out , along with LERX , all lifted from F-16 . It is basically a more evolved version of the mods that the Chinese did on the Mig21s, including ones with side inlets (J-8 I think) and twin R-25 engines .

So it is basically a "technology infused" Mig21 with better radar a more rudimentary FBW, areo lessons incorporated in the 70s from F-16 and a newer gen engine with better t:w ratio (the RD-93).

Folks, to those advocating India do a similar thing, well this is what we would have ended up with..A bandar equivalent more or less.