Search results

It was not a flamebait. @WARREN SS was sharing his knowledge of propulsion with us. Don’t you think he is very knowledgable person.

It’s theoretical. There are multiple hidden variables, which may affect the outcome. That’s why they say paper design. My simple suggestion is don’t youse the future modifications which are not yet implemented, to compare with the present or past . There is a good possibility that by the time...

So which weight is used calculate TWR? MEW, MTOW, MLW or gross wt ? Have you ever heard dozens of TWR for different weight configurations for any aircraft? If yes , please mention (link)

Empty weight of what ? Internal fuel? How much? If it doesn’t include drop tank and ammunition’s then how it is affecting TWR in case of LCA? So you want to say TWR s not standardised across platforms. Also an aircraft can have dozens of twr figures depending upon the weight load it is carrying...

You understood quickly What I was trying to say. For some it’s a tough task. But LCA will not go down without a fight. It’s not a dud, far from it.

Drop tanks are included in the empty weight nowadays I guess. How many drop tanks are included wale calculating the twr? Or filled up or 50% any any othe new criteria? Do ammunition like lgbs and ugbs are also included? If yes how many?

@HariPrasad-1 lets hope for the best. But don’t expect too much. I learn new things on this forum every day. New ways to boost TWR using drop tanks is the newest.:biggrin2:

Curious to know if you are using different formula that used conventionally for TWR calculations. I have seen that catchphrase multiple times on paki forums . Does that mean we have enhanced the thrust rating of GE404 ? Or we reduced the weight of LCA drastically. I cant find evidences of any of...

We have different engine in FOC? Just curious to know from where the 1.07 figure came from???

Most probably in MWF not in Mk1A. Anyway change will be marginal at best. Even different variants of LCA have different canopy. Just compare them. What Question? Anyway your bogus forumer is quoting LCA TWR 0.87 which is way lower than official figures. And Mig 29 have several drawbacks against...

DIY. . It’s too easy to bother me PS: PDF link or any crap forum like F16. net, or IDR is :bs:

Are you Porki? I’m not porki neither is this forum. I will not take that data as face value. Wiki is ok when baked by link. OEM data sheet will be better.

A forum as a source. ? IMO data is not reliable at all Rd93 is a fuel guzzler. And you have two of those in Mig 29. So in real world scenario it more or less acts like point defence rather than interceptor or air superiority. Expecting it to go half filled is quite unrealistic...

That was a metaphor. A philosophical POV.

It’s a wish list. Not requirement.

Source link ?.....................

lol, we spent millions and millions for what is essentially a MCQ questionnaires. Hilarious :biggrin2: Also can you provide a link to back up your claim regarding LM or Boeing corp.

Again you are not paying attention. Mig 29 TWR is 1.09 which is lower than F16 newer blocks. (1.095 to 1.24) and I never said that TWR is the only factor otherwise commercial airliners win hands down.

so you think ADA is stupider than what I thaugh? I mean WTH who consult for something like that. So our scientists were in nursery school?:biggrin2: These theoretical stuff is taught in Bachelor level. So Dassault designs are perfect. :facepalm: (BtwIAF wanted our own Gnats not M2000 so...

Check TWR of both.............. Read my earlier post, I have mentioned that.