The SAAF Forum
http://www.saairforce.co.za/forum/

Chengdu JF-17 vs Gripen
http://www.saairforce.co.za/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1293		 Page 5 of 14
Author:  W407594F [ 15 May 2009, 10:11 ]
Post subject:  Re: Chengdu JF-17 vs Gripen
Have forgotten were I read it, book, web site ????

But the Russians or to be PC the then USSR helmet is a copy of the SA produced helmet or near as.
Author:  Roger the Dodger [ 15 May 2009, 11:51 ]
Post subject:  Re: Chengdu JF-17 vs Gripen
Every village has to have an idiot.
Author:  skyhawk77 [ 15 May 2009, 14:35 ]
Post subject:  Re: Chengdu JF-17 vs Gripen
for more infromation on the grin generating fighter (thunder grin) http://www.defence.pk/forums/

dean i appreciate your advice but are you not being too far fetched. anonymous websites doesnt mean the information is biased it could simply mean the person responsible for the site will be prosecuted if he is to get caught. in some countries its publish and perish, not all people can setup unofficial websites of their airforce away . i refuse to accept that the f16 was never shot down by an mig25( i never mentioned dog fighting) what about detection, vectoring etc.and also it could be false that the f15 was never shot down by any fighter. why .because some people claim so and their claims are sensible.
on weather ballons i think its what literature students call irony i m not sure if its dramatic,situational or whatever but the ballons were seen in border towns.

rodger the dodger it now seems that your are not only dodging facts but common sense as well. whats your problem. tell me someting which you think i dont know dont tell lies.
how far is your project with fan jockey the one of building a fighter which will go for its test flight in 2036 just the two of you. you rock guys
Author:  Grizzly [ 17 May 2009, 11:03 ]
Post subject:  Re: Chengdu JF-17 vs Gripen
Quote:
three unmanned weather balloons that can be set on fire near enemy aircraft

Where does the 800km range come into this fighting technique? If they supposed to catch on fire why would any plane fly near it, and it the blast of the helium exploding has a range of 800km, then why doesn’t America use weather balloons as an excuse to invade countries, as with that type of blast radius, weather balloons are more dangerous than many weapons of mass destruction. :D

Quote:
Zimbabwean scientists had proved that Heaven started at 1,000 meters,

Well guys it sounds like Joburg and most of populated South Africa is already in heaven then, so lets eat drink and be merry boys \:D/

Quote:
Basically if you fly above 1,000 meters you will explode against Heaven's celestial Vibrocrete wall

Wow, how did the Americans get to the moon :shock:

Quote:
on weather ballons i think its what literature students call irony i m not sure if its dramatic,situational or whatever but the ballons were seen in border towns.

The weather balloons aren’t armed with any weapons of any kind according to the article and are not propelled by anything, so how the heck is a flaming balloon supposed to catch a gripen or any plane for that fact that can go faster than the wind which is blowing the balloon around. Just a thought :?

Ps skyhawk, try doing a spell check on your posts, makes them sound more credible :smt023
Author:  LoveSAAF [ 18 May 2009, 16:55 ]
Post subject:  Re: Chengdu JF-17 vs Gripen
Just to correct your science there....

The reason why helium is used nowadays, is because it is a lot safer than H, that was used in beginning of the 20th Century. There was more than enough tragedies with these types of ballons for me to even mention it.

When H and O2 gets together, they make a lethal mixture - as the Germans and British found out in their early days of balloon attempts.
Author:  W407594F [ 19 May 2009, 10:31 ]
Post subject:  Re: Chengdu JF-17 vs Gripen
Hydrogen was not the first choice for Airships, Helium was. Hydrogen gives better lift but is highly flameable. Helium is an inert gas so is safer.

But due to Helium being very scarce and expensive, that is until the finds in the US, Hydrogen was used. The US would not sell Helim easily and embargoed its export.

The Airship/Zepplin Hindenburg was supposed to have been used with Helium but the US would not sell to the Germans so Hydrogen was used.

Forms of Hydrogen were and are used for rocket fuel, good examples are the Me 163 Komet and the Space Shuttle
Author:  H1017412 [ 19 May 2009, 12:44 ]
Post subject:  Re: Chengdu JF-17 vs Gripen
W407594F wrote:
Hydrogen was not the first choice for Airships, Helium was. Hydrogen gives better lift but is highly flameable. Helium is an inert gas so is safer.

But due to Helium being very scarce and expensive, that is until the finds in the US, Hydrogen was used. The US would not sell Helim easily and embargoed its export.

The Airship/Zepplin Hindenburg was supposed to have been used with Helium but the US would not sell to the Germans so Hydrogen was used.

Forms of Hydrogen were and are used for rocket fuel, good examples are the Me 163 Komet and the Space Shuttle


Did Johannes Steinhof fly Me-163?
Author:  W407594F [ 19 May 2009, 13:34 ]
Post subject:  Re: Chengdu JF-17 vs Gripen
Johannes Steinhoff flew the jet engined Me 262

No one else has been stupid or brave enough to strap on a rocket powered aircraft with no wheels to land on since the Me 163.

The Allied pilots who tested it after the war, only flew it as a glider, which it was once the rocket fuel was spent.

The British were going to put into service an aircraft that was both jet and rocket powered. Was to fly on jet power and fight with rocket assistance for more speed.
Author:  Grizzly [ 19 May 2009, 18:40 ]
Post subject:  Re: Chengdu JF-17 vs Gripen
Hey guys, does anyone else recognise this picture :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Barra ... a35100.jpg
Author:  H1017412 [ 21 May 2009, 03:55 ]
Post subject:  Re: Chengdu JF-17 vs Gripen
W407594F wrote:
Johannes Steinhoff flew the jet engined Me 262

No one else has been stupid or brave enough to strap on a rocket powered aircraft with no wheels to land on since the Me 163.

The Allied pilots who tested it after the war, only flew it as a glider, which it was once the rocket fuel was spent.

The British were going to put into service an aircraft that was both jet and rocket powered. Was to fly on jet power and fight with rocket assistance for more speed.


Johannes Steinhoff was The Man in my opinion, pretty hardcore to come back from those sort of injuries and still serve one's country. Had massive influence in the creation of the "new" Luftwaffe. This guy is the very embodyment of "Service before Self" - certainly someone I respect.
Author:  pngwerume [ 07 Jun 2009, 00:24 ]
Post subject:  Re: Chengdu JF-17 vs Gripen
Image

Image

FC-1 Project Status and Future
-an interview with Li Pei, Head of Aviation R&D Division, CATIC
Upgrades are being carried out in:

(1) avionics, including radar, censors, e-warfare systems and more sophisticated datalink;

(2) engine, with TVC and increased thrust from 81.3kN to 91.1kN; and

(3) payload capacity from 3.6 tons to 5-6 tons.

Further to the interview with Li Pei, Head of Aviation R&D Division, CATIC ... ... "General performance is comparable with F16A/B, avionics is comparable to F16C/D Block 50, with basic datalink capability." ... ... Block 50 radar is AN/APG-68 (150km?).
Author:  Robban [ 09 Jun 2009, 22:18 ]
Post subject:  Re: Chengdu JF-17 vs Gripen
A size comparison between the Gripen and the Thunder. These drawings were made by me so please don't use this pic in another forum. The Gripen three view will be used in a book(together with other jet propelled creations made by Saab) that me and a friend is working on. I made the JF-17 drawing using another three view as base, but made several "modifications" to it.

Enjoy. :)

Image
Author:  pngwerume [ 09 Jun 2009, 22:21 ]
Post subject:  Re: Chengdu JF-17 vs Gripen
Great job Robban. =D> =D> =D> . Very informative for somebody like me who follows both fighters.

Thanks.
Author:  Robban [ 09 Jun 2009, 22:40 ]
Post subject:  Re: Chengdu JF-17 vs Gripen
Thanks pngwerume! Glad you like it! :D
Author:  skyhawk77 [ 15 Jun 2009, 10:58 ]
Post subject:  Re: Chengdu JF-17 vs Gripen
Robban wrote:
A size comparison between the Gripen and the Thunder. These drawings were made by me so please don't use this pic in another forum. The Gripen three view will be used in a book(together with other jet propelled creations made by Saab) that me and a friend is working on. I made the JF-17 drawing using another three view as base, but made several "modifications" to it.



sorry i copied your diagrams before i read the instruction which clearly states that they are to be used in a book and are not to be copied. i m sorry i posted them on other forums like this one and i received lots of praises like you received. i also printed a few for my "book" its not going to be published kind of study notes but who knows in this world of uncertainity
. i m sorry. what do you use/ i reckon its photoshop. i use turbo CAD 2d/3d. sorry mate
Page 5 of 14 All times are UTC + 2 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/