In the USSR/In Russia, by the weight of an empty aircraft, they usually mean the weight of an Empty equipped aircraft, that is, + (the weight of the pilot / full ammunition for the built-in cannon / the weight of the Pylons, APU without weapons / non-spilled fuel residue / weight of technical liquids and oils)…
The dry weight of an empty aircraft can only be found in the operating instructions or in the Sukhoi Design Bureau…
standar difference is a hard issue, already happened once in engine empty weight.
China did tests with J15 to land on the aircraft carrier, so they removed most things with 3 tonnes of fuel for safety reasons and then increased each time to obtain this data, so from what seem to be suggested, it is around 1 tonne lighter than su33. Fuel carried is also 9 tonnes and the maximum takeoff measured with long runway is 31 tonnes, short runway is 28.
Weight decrease is a good thing and all, but I’m more interested in the radar/avionics and how Gaijin will model them.
J-16 with PL-17 and PL-12
1 Like
Excuse me but the missile on wing tip pylon aren’t PL-10?
Also if u could provide a source link would be great, as i have seen more than 2 fake PL-17 photos.
Nice, but that may be fake, if it is it’s really hard to tell so I won’t make any calls right now.
But the shadow right here is very weird, if it eclipses part of the missile there’s no reason it shouldn’t eclipse it fully. Especially looking at the shadows in between the engines those are consistent so it’s not angle.
If it is real that’s very cool.
PL-10 yea, missclick
Tried image search, but can’t find any “original” image.
1 Like
Either J-11B(S) or J-16. I ain’t good identifying them.
It looks like J-16, cuz IRST on side, not on centerline.
Its a J-16 as J-11BS cant mount PL-17.
The pl-17 look comical, anyone know how maneuverable they are? No way those fins provide enough turning capability
They are more maneuverable than conventional winged designs. The competitors to AMRAAM had a similar design, AIM-260 has a similar design, ASRAAM is a similar design.
don’t forget that vectoring engines are used for new generation missiles, I don’t know if the Pl17 has one but it’s the most logical way
The AIM-260 probably doesn’t use one, the ASRAAM doesn’t use one, the AIM-120D doesn’t use one, the R-77M doesn’t use one, the PL-12 and PL-15 do not use one. Thrust vectoring engines are not really worth the added weight or complexity except for a short range HOBS type missile.
I have seen nothing to suggest the PL-17 will use a thrust vectoring engine design.
7 Likes
You let the body of the missile do the work. The fins pitch it in the desired direction a little bit and the airflow pushing against the body of the missile will do the rest. That’s why it is so thick
Earlier missiles without dual pulse motors would find themselves running out of energy trying to maneuver to hit a defensive target if they had such a design. Body-lift missiles like ASRAAM bleed excessive energy by maneuvering like that as it requires quite a bit of AoA.
With dual pulse motors, this is less of a problem. It is only launched against targets at ranges where both pulses are required if the target is something large and incapable of out-maneuvering it - like AWACS and such.
2 Likes