- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 7,029
- Likes
- 8,764
p2prada
Actually I used to think the same. But a LM official pointed it out to me, like a decade back.
That the MKI is a typical Delta-canard configuration like the Eurocanards. When I asked him the reason for it, he pointed out the wing tip station.
I don't really mind if I am wrong with this though. But this was told to me by someone reliable.
Sorry for not noticing the tail on the 6teen. Completely forgot. The same for JF-17.
@Satish
All modern aircraft have swept wings, most have backward sweep while Su-47 has forward sweep. Wing Sweep is just the angle between the fuselage and wing when you look from the top. Also, Triplane means canards+wing+tail.
@Shiphone
About the TWR...
If we take F-16's empty weight to be 8.5 tons, internal fuel at 1.5 tons and 2 100Kg missiles. With a thrust of 12.9tons(127KN) we will get T/W of 1.26. If we take empty weight of 8.5t, full internal fuel at 3 tons and 200Kg of missiles we get 1.1. More realistic and much closer to the wiki figure even after taking full internal fuel.
With the same config, LCA will give a T/W of 0.91.
Mirage-2000 has the disadvantage of being underpowered, but I guess there are other aspects like drag and lift which were better managed. So, it will have to rely on extra AB time and burn more fuel as compared to 6teen and 29. 2000 isn't as good as the Mig-29 in the same flight envelope. 29 vs 6teen in dog fights was one sided whenever Archer was used. Otherwise, 6teen had the energy advantage as usual. With the Aim-9x even that advantage is gone, but the 29's design improved in other ways. All 3 aircraft have reduced thrust in our conditions, but the Mirage-2000 will perform the best over the Himalayas with F-16 being the worst.
Half fuel load almost always applies to heavier aircraft like Flankers, Eagles and Raptors.
Actually I used to think the same. But a LM official pointed it out to me, like a decade back.
That the MKI is a typical Delta-canard configuration like the Eurocanards. When I asked him the reason for it, he pointed out the wing tip station.
I don't really mind if I am wrong with this though. But this was told to me by someone reliable.
Sorry for not noticing the tail on the 6teen. Completely forgot. The same for JF-17.
@Satish
All modern aircraft have swept wings, most have backward sweep while Su-47 has forward sweep. Wing Sweep is just the angle between the fuselage and wing when you look from the top. Also, Triplane means canards+wing+tail.
@Shiphone
About the TWR...
If we take F-16's empty weight to be 8.5 tons, internal fuel at 1.5 tons and 2 100Kg missiles. With a thrust of 12.9tons(127KN) we will get T/W of 1.26. If we take empty weight of 8.5t, full internal fuel at 3 tons and 200Kg of missiles we get 1.1. More realistic and much closer to the wiki figure even after taking full internal fuel.
With the same config, LCA will give a T/W of 0.91.
Half internal fuel on such small aircraft is utterly useless. Let's not forget that during CAP, they will "ALWAYS" carry drop tanks. So before engagements, tanks are dropped and the small fighters always try to get into fights with full fuel. Without full fuel the fight won't go in their favour, especially with heavier aircraft around like the Flanker. It is the same for J-10/Mirage-2000/Rafale/EF etc and the reason for some of them lugging around heavy drop tanks for extra fuel.
E.R.sakthivel says
IF YOU APPLY THE SAME YARDSTICK TO LCA THEN YOU CAN EASILY REALIZE THAT YOU ARE ONCE AGAIN MISCALCULATING LCA'S TWR, LET ME CORRECT IT.
The Lca's empty weight is 6560 kgs and its half internal fuel capacity is 1228 kgs. Two 100 kg air to air missiles add another two hundred kgs .The total weight is 7988 kgs the thrust is 85 kn The t/w ratio is (85/7988 kgs) is actualy 1.064. that's what was quoted BY ad IN BANGALORE AIRSHOW IN 2011 AND CARRIED in wiki.SO IT IS ABSOLUTE TRUTH i HOPE YOU WILL ACCEPT IT NOW.
So when IAF is happy to upgrade mirages( with the twr of 0.91 ofcourse) and use them in service for another 20 years with 1.5 billion dollar upgrade why are they showing bee stung faces to LCA.That too all its eleven test pilots have openly said that LCA handles better than mirage through out the tested flight envelope and they say it is a very sharp turner and cornering craft and they praise whole heartedly ADA's fully digital fly by wire software, what is the fuss the ACM is making about?tHE MIRAGE HAS A TWR OF 0.91 ONLY AND NONE OTHE THAN THE GREEK AIRFORCE CHIEF HAS SAID IN F-16.NET
lamoey
Posted: Apr 05, 2005 - 07:01 PM
Forum Veteran
Joined: Apr 25, 2004 - 06:44 PM
Posts: 609
Status: Offline
Read an article in the magazine "Illustrated Aircraft" from March 2005 where a HAF MIRA 330 squadron commander states the following:
"I'm very satisfied with the F-16 - in fact, I love it. In particular I love the Block 30."
He also states about the Mirage 2000 used mainly for Air to Air:
"It's an effective fighter, which the f-16 can't beat in a dogfight."
He ends by saying:
"The F-16 is much better multi-roll combat jet... it really is the complete package..."
To me this captures it in a nutshell.
Did you add pilots weight and lubricating oil weight as shipon said. Empty weight always includes lubricating oil weight. They dont fill lubricating oil in varying quantities for every mission.
Also since you yourself has said the LCA is a high altitude interceptor and it need not fly more than 300 kms to meet its adversary and need not comeback to same home base as attacking F-16s( since they can always land in any nearby border airbase from pakistan has to go to the same home base .It can even afford to reduce a bit of fuel and carry more missiles. So in a defending battle the LCA is on even strongerr ground.No one can dispute that.
Mirage-2000 has the disadvantage of being underpowered, but I guess there are other aspects like drag and lift which were better managed. So, it will have to rely on extra AB time and burn more fuel as compared to 6teen and 29. 2000 isn't as good as the Mig-29 in the same flight envelope. 29 vs 6teen in dog fights was one sided whenever Archer was used. Otherwise, 6teen had the energy advantage as usual. With the Aim-9x even that advantage is gone, but the 29's design improved in other ways. All 3 aircraft have reduced thrust in our conditions, but the Mirage-2000 will perform the best over the Himalayas with F-16 being the worst.
Half fuel load almost always applies to heavier aircraft like Flankers, Eagles and Raptors.
The greek airforce chief implies with higher instataneous turn rates mirage can shake off F-16 and with lower speeds in low altitude high ITR specs it can get behind an F-16 , and even though the F-16 in front can do a higher sustained turn rate , The mirages with high ITR can use their superior nose turning authority and get a lock with mica missiles and get a kill. Note that new gen heat seeking missiles will use the surface heat of F-16 for targeting so it is very difficult to survive with flares as no EW will help here.
Last edited: