ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[p2prada]

the canard hydraulics add more weight ,and introduce force coupling,and increase rcs, and and ad canard wash problems to the wing in extreme performance range. That's what I meant LEVCONS wont add those penalties that much. Since they work in concert with wing they dont create those problems.That's why ADA wanted to avoid this.

Yeah Right! A day ago you did not know LEVCONS can move and have their own hydraulics systems. Now you are an expert on Canards and LEVCONS.

Keep your assumptions to yourself.

ADA didnot want to penalise the LCA with canards with its problems in all altitudes other than high altitude. As LCA is meant to be a more air to air fighter flying at medium to higher altitude and shooting bvrs which can have more kinematic energy and range on aircrafts below.

But a low flying aircraft cannot shoot the same range BVR on tejas at a high altitude because from a lower altitude bvrs have less than half the range when fired from higher altitudes. So canards are not compatiable with IAF mission profile.

Now whatever happened to your claim of "LCA will fly low" because it is "designed" to. You keep contradicting yourself after every page.

That's what ADA says when its press release states that canards offered no significant performance improvement to LCA when compared to the penalties imposed.

Wrong. Canards were better, ADA only said LCA is not expected to fly low and bomb stuff. So, a twist was more then enough. Also that it is too small for canards to be added. Another fallacy since N-LCA comes with LEVCONS.

The US and russian design of any fighter aircraf avoids canards exactly for the same reason. The russians avoided canards in pakfa, US in F-35 and F-22 for the same reason.There is a whole lot of literature on high aspect ratio canards,low aspect ratio canards, their plu ,minus to the overall aerodynamics all over the net.

Russians did not avoid canards on aircraft that are expected to perform well at low altitudes like MKI and Su-34.

Americans use LERX and Chines depending on aircraft. So, these are just design solutions and not some mad attempt at reducing RCS.

If the canards are so beneficial without any aerodynamics and weight penalties they would have implemented it.

Is that why both EF-2000 and Rafale, let alone Gripen are more agile than any other aircraft in the world? You need a lot of reading to do.

E.R. sakthivel asks,
Then why is US closing the production line for F-22 and still producing FA-18 hornets?

Simple, Robert Gates had this assumption that they have a very dominating position in the world air forces regardless of which aircraft they use, F-15 or F-22. The F-22 program was deemed too advanced. Gates told the military to stick with the cheap stuff and save a lot of money because of the economic downturn. Actually there were chances of more orders coming by 2006, but the economic issues killed the program. The same for a lot of other programs too, like Zumwalt and their next generation BVR missile.

Super Hornet is for the USN, they have no plans of buying F-22. Shs are a stop gap before moving to F-35. Once the F-35 starts coming in most of the SHs will be retired.

Please dont say all the grippens,lcas and mirages ,and sukhois,migs are obsolete.All 5th gen planes use the same 4th gen AESA RADAR and 3rd gen technology BVR missiles to combat.

This is where you are wrong. 5th generation has the ability to make these AESAs and BVRs useless.

AS thsese AESA radars and bvr missiles can easily be taken care of with the help of evolving ew and IRST capability.

IRST offers detection. Detection != Kill.

During exercises like Red Flag, both sides can detect each other. AWACS give target assignments and the fighters go track these aircraft. After a few seconds of tracking along with achieving a fire position, they are accorded a kill. IRST does no such thing.

Why do you keep repeating the same sh!t over and over again?

You still havent answered my queries regarding how 2nd gen P-81 radar 15 years before in the kosova war gave target lock to SA-16(what gen) sams resulting in the shooting down of stealth to x-band F-117(same as 5th gen F-22),and their subsequent withdrawal from the war.Also do you mean tosay the 5th gen J-20 will eat all american awacs plane in the pacific,and americans have no counter measures?

Where the heck did you ask this? Anyway, the F-117A kill was based on luck. Serbian Informers told Air defence that a F-117 had taken off. Due to previous bombing missions, the Serbians could guess where the aircraft was headed to. They aimed long wave radars at an estimated flight path and there were brief cases of detection. The F-117 pilot had no idea all of this was happening. The Serbians fired a lot of missiles in the air at random. One got lucky and hit it. There was no tracking and seeking involved. A pray and spray tactic.

Btw, the missile was a SA-3, SA-16 is something else. At least get some simple facts straight.

The J-20 can eat American AWACS. The counter measures are a F-22. That's why they have one squadron there.

F-22 fighters arrive at Kadena base | The Japan Times Online

Underpowered as per the calculations of you not by global standards all practical twr are calculated with half tank of fuel and a couple of aia to air missiles. No aircraft will have full load fuel when it enters a high G dogfight.

xxxxxxxxxxx. Go check wiki for loaded weight and fuel payload. Check F-15, F-16, EF-2000, Rafale, Gripen, JF-17 and even LCA.

Go figure out what is loaded weight and nominal take off weight first. xxxxxx

At half fuel load and 4 BVRs the F-16s T/W will be 1.24 compared to LCA's 1.07. Go figure!

Global standards are full fuel and 500Kg to 1000Kg weapons. Keep all your frigging nonsense to yourself. Why do you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over and over and over again even after you are told it is nonsense? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Mod:

 

[ersakthivel]

JOIN YOUR COMRADES!

The photographs are stunning.

 

[ersakthivel]

P2Prada says

Yeah Right! A day ago you did not know LEVCONS can move and have their own hydraulics systems. Now you are an expert on Canards and LEVCONS.

Keep your assumptions to yourself.

I know all the hell about levcons without your valuable teachings.Levcons work in concert with wing and don't have that much weight penalty. That was what I said.

 

[ersakthivel]

P2PRADA says,
Now whatever happened to your claim of "LCA will fly low" because it is "designed" to. You keep contradicting yourself after every page.

Lca will fly high well beyond it's RCS detection range. Once it's RCS detection range comes near it will dive low and hide it's missile Rcs, from the opposing fighter, under it's wings and as the bvr launch distance approaches it can again climb up to reach top speeds to give bvr missiles longer range and higher kinematic energy.

No self respecting air superiority fighter pilot will launch his missiles in low altitude and reduce their range by half and reduce it's kinematic energy. So LCA's sea level performance is not as important as it's superior high altitude performance in this scenario.

Since LCA is point defence fighter it is the job of attacking fighter squadron to fight past the TEJAS squadron. So LCA does not have to lose it's fuel in a high drag inducing low altitude flight, and confined to fire it's missiles in lower altitude killing their range and kinematic energy.

it can well afford to fly low even in subsonic flight in low altitude .It's lower wing loading and higher lift per kg wider wing area will excel in this mission profile in vertical plane. That is what I wanted to argue.

Btw are you ready to post the global norms for twr, whether it is with full fuel or half fue? or with full stores weight or with just two how many kg missiles. That will help us all rather than arguing ,what shipone says.what sakthi says, what p2prada says, what chengdu says.

 

[ersakthivel]

p2prada says,

This is where you are wrong. 5th generation has the ability to make these AESAs and BVRs useless.

I am asking again and again what is this ability. Then why this ability was not on display when sebian SA_16 missiles shot down 5th gen with old P-81 radar with some "RADIO FREQUENCY TWEAKING"?

And using this ability will chinese J-20 kill all awacses in the pacific. So US has to pack it's bag in the event of conflict over taiwan straits?

 

[ersakthivel]

P2PRADA says
Simple, Robert Gates had this assumption that they have a very dominating position in the world air forces regardless of which aircraft they use, F-15 or F-22. The F-22 program was deemed too advanced. Gates told the military to stick with the cheap stuff and save a lot of money because of the economic downturn. Actually there were chances of more orders coming by 2006, but the economic issues killed the program. The same for a lot of other programs too, like Zumwalt and their next generation BVR missile.

Super Hornet is for the USN, they have no plans of buying F-22. Shs are a stop gap before moving to F-35. Once the F-35 starts coming in most of the SHs will be retired.

With the arrival of chinese j-20 and pakfa why they have not yet started production again?

 

[ersakthivel]

Where the heck did you ask this? Anyway, the F-117A kill was based on luck. Serbian Informers told Air defence that a F-117 had taken off. Due to previous bombing missions, the Serbians could guess where the aircraft was headed to. They aimed long wave radars at an estimated flight path and there were brief cases of detection. The F-117 pilot had no idea all of this was happening. The Serbians fired a lot of missiles in the air at random. One got lucky and hit it. There was no tracking and seeking involved. A pray and spray tactic.

Btw, the missile was a SA-3, SA-16 is something else. At least get some simple facts straight.

So in tomorrow's war enemies should not have any informers and they should always believe that no 5th gen fighter will enter their airspace.And then based on that belief they should not tweak their radar and go to sleep peace fully. Then 5th gen will come and eat all for breakfast,lunch and dinner perhaps.
people putting 400 million dollar in a plane and it goes down due to pray and spray tactics? What will happen once tomorrow's awacs and ground radars start pray and spray?

 

[ersakthivel]

IRST offers detection. Detection != Kill.

During exercises like Red Flag, both sides can detect each other. AWACS give target assignments and the fighters go track these aircraft. After a few seconds of tracking along with achieving a fire position, they are accorded a kill. IRST does no such thing.

Why do you keep repeating the same sh!t over and over again?

During tomorrow's excercises in red flag they will use dedicated stealth ucavs with higher range and resolution and detect the 300 kn force jet blast and launch heat seeking dual seeker bvrs in a huge volley. That is why I am asking the same shit again.

So tomorrow for 5 th gen to eat us all for breanfast ,dinner and lunch,the makers of all 5th gen planes should hold a meet in geneva to ban the development of IRST technology. The IRST in fighters in redflag you are comparing is like a world war two spitfire. Tomorrows IRST will be as deadly as SUKHOI.

 

[ersakthivel]

Stupid brat. Go check wiki for loaded weight and fuel payload. Check F-15, F-16, EF-2000, Rafale, Gripen, JF-17 and even LCA.

Go figure out what is loaded weight and nominal take off weight first. Idiot.

At half fuel load and 4 BVRs the F-16s T/W will be 1.24 compared to LCA's 1.07. Go figure!

Global standards are full fuel and 500Kg to 1000Kg weapons. Keep all your frigging nonsense to yourself. Why do you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over and over and over again even after you are told it is nonsense? Are you right in the head?

what is that 500 to 1000 kg mean .is that how people calculate global standard?

that is what i am saying LCA has a twr of more than 1. The F-16's higher TWr is not something i am going to refute. And that was what given in wiki also.And that was what ADA has quoted at bangalore air show .Now compare them with all the fighters that are with IAF and you will count atleast 400 young pilots riding dinosuors compared to LCA.

BTW be kind enough to post what was F-16's initial TWR during debut ,a and how they modified it and raised it further upgrades.

that is what LCA too will be doing and I don't really have to call you a stupid at all..

 

[p2prada]

Lca will fly high well beyond it's RCS detection range.

Wtf is that?

Once it's RCS detection range comes near it will dive low and hide it's missile Rcs, from the opposing fighter, under it's wings and as the bvr launch distance approaches it can again climb up to reach top speeds to give bvr missiles longer range and higher kinematic energy.

Why? Why do you make such nonsense assumptions? Please tell me. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Why do you keep assuming things? You know nothing about anything that we are discussing here, even you know that. You haven't ever heard about such maneuvers from anybody ever. You haven't read about these maneuvers in books or from pilots. Then why do you make such assumptions?

No self respecting air superiority fighter pilot will launch his missiles in low altitude and reduce their range by half and reduce it's kinematic energy.

More assumptions.

Btw are you ready to post the global norms for twr, whether it is with full fuel or half fue? or with full stores weight or with just two how many kg missiles. That will help us all rather than arguing ,what shipone says.what sakthi says, what p2prada says, what chengdu says.

Read wiki and figure it out. Read ADA's figure for clean loads. It is clearly given there.

There are only two things happening here. What the world says and what ersakthivel says.

I am asking again and again what is this ability. Then why this ability was not on display when sebian SA_16 missiles shot down 5th gen with old P-81 radar with some "RADIO FREQUENCY TWEAKING"?

Detection isn't tracking. That's all. Using long waves or IRST you can detect a J-20 from long ranges. If you want to kill it, send a F-22 in as close as possible till you get BVR lock. Big radar = higher guarantee in locks to score a kill. Small radar = dead.

I will repeat again, it is not SA-16, it is SA-3.

This is SA-3,

This is SA-16,

Notice the difference.

And using this ability will chinese J-20 kill all awacses in the pacific. So US has to pack it's bag in the event of conflict over taiwan straits?

If F-22s cannot kill J-20s then it is over for the Americans. They will pack their bags and leave.

With the arrival of chinese j-20 and pakfa why they have not yet started production again?

Where have they arrived? They are still in testing. The Americans have a decade to decide and they can always fall back on the F-35 which is equally good if not better.

So in tomorrow's war enemies should not have any informers and they should always believe that no 5th gen fighter will enter their airspace.And then based on that belief they should not tweak their radar and go to sleep peace fully. Then 5th gen will come and eat all for breakfast,lunch and dinner perhaps.
people putting 400 million dollar in a plane and it goes down due to pray and spray tactics? What will happen once tomorrow's awacs and ground radars start pray and spray?

Stop assuming. What you posted here is nonsense.

During tomorrow's excercises in red flag they will use dedicated stealth ucavs with higher range and resolution and detect the 300 kn force jet blast and launch heat seeking dual seeker bvrs in a huge volley. That is why I am asking the same shit again.

That same shit is simply the usual nonsense. Your tomorrow is 30 years away.

So tomorrow for 5 th gen to eat us all for breanfast ,dinner and lunch,the makers of all 5th gen planes should hold a meet in geneva to ban the development of IRST technology. The IRST in fighters in redflag you are comparing is like a world war two spitfire. Tomorrows IRST will be as deadly as SUKHOI.

More and more nonsense. More assumptions = More Nonsense.

Look. You know nothing about what we are discussing. If you have something to say then post it with a link saying the same. If you claim IRST can detect and track aircraft for a BVR kill then post a book or reference to literature from where you got it. If you think LCA will fly low or high for "RCS detection", then post links, if you think T/W is calculated differently from the global norm, then post a link. It is clear you know nothing. Most of what you have said is garbage.

Mod: Cool down guys. It doesn't make sense to post valuable military insight alongside personal buses.
If a decent conversation cannot be held, for sometime please do not engage each other one on one. There are lot of things to talk about and lot of other posters to talk to.

 

[Twinblade]

What I said was that the increase in value of M1 is so small and there is nothing that prevents it from being handled.

A new modified fuel probe is visisble in front for the LSP-7. It's value in M would also have been corrected.
Even the weight of the pilot will vary by 7 or 8 kgs every time.Do you think people will run to wind tunnel and retest it for those few kg increses for the weight of pilot.

Any one who noticed ACM Naik at the FOC would have known how big the M1 would have changed, it will be atleast 15 kgs or so.
Does that mean men like him will not be allowed to enter the cockpit of any modern fCS fighter?

Or when a 50 kg pilot enters the cockpit The M reduces ,what can we do that?

Think about planes like airbus -320 that run on fcs. some times passengers sit in front and some times luggage weight is more, some time there are no passengers in the back. Do they all go to wind tunnel every time for retesting?, before each and every flight?


We dont have to blow it out of proportion.that's what I insisted. In an FCS that controls more than 10 tons with in MTOW it is not an impossibility.

You really cannot comprehend what is being written can you, go ahead and re read my post. It specifically mentions that every FCS is meant to operate in a finite limit. That is more than self explanatory.

Also the weight of external sores of the LCA will be varied and with every release from the pylons the LCA's weight varies dynamically every time.Many Ms will vary simultaneously.
In future new munitions with varying weight will also be introduced.

Do you think LCA will spend 7 years every time a and redistribution of weight and extensive modification to it's weight every time?

The Pylons of any aircraft are situated close to the center of gravity and the flight control system is designed to manage those variations. That is what I implied by using finite limit. Its not my problem if you aren't familiar with how control systems are designed, verified and tested.

As the fuel decrases many Ms change dynamically through out the flight of a craft. Will they make the LCA fail?

Did you know that fuel is compartmentalized and dynamically managed in any aircraft to avoid change in CoG with increasing or depleting fuel levels, you wouldn't be posing such a nincompoop question had you been aware of the fact.

What I wanted to say was that this weight addition is so insignificant that it will fall into the range of factor of safety provided by the FCS and calculations and modifications wont be carried out alone for this parameeter.in any software system a safety margin is left for further software upgradation. Lca will undergo further flight tests for AOA and spin recovery,and further opening of flight envelope, during these tests also some more need for minor modification will be thrown up. Fine tuning is not yet complete as you may know further opening of the envelope is about to be done with EADS.

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/dss/2009/main/2-CEMILAC.pdf
There will be enough redundancy left in any software systems and many error handling routines will be there. I think this would suffice.


the paper further suggests that by co cured bonding of winG surfaces and components and changing slat doors ,casing and mountings of LRUs and rear fuselage bulk heads and pylons into composites to further reduce the weight and increase TWR.
When casing and mountings of LRUs on the front is converted to composites some M2, and M3, will reduce.

By shifting the cockpit, radar, LRU's obog, life support measures, front landing gear forward would be shifting almost one and half tons of weight by half to one meter ahead. Furthermore adding half to one meter of length to the airframe would construe to addition of 500 kilos to a ton of weight in additional fuel LRUs and structure. That sir, is not a minor change for a six and half ton fighter BTW did you know that the Tejas is far too unstable as the FCS is already struggling to achieve design parameters with the current CoG because the components in Tejas are too heavy for what the FCS was designed for (check this link, its just from the last couple of months ), and you are suggesting adding more weight, that too with the current thrust level ? Forget adding additional weight, did you know that current LRU's are being turned all composite just to bring the CoG within the design parameters of the FCS ? Of course you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing about Tejas's FCS having sufficient margins.

Why are you leaving out these parts that are beneficial to the LCA, inconvenient truth perhaps, exposing your argument that LCA NOSE CONE PLUG INSERTION will have to be done on mk-ll

So this nose plug insertion as suggested by CEMILAC test paper by S.K.JEBAKUMAR will result in some increase in M1. So won't they compensate?

Didn't you check the links I gave you ? fuselage extension is being done on mk2. On the other hand you have been claiming that fuselage extension has been incorporated in Mk1 itself with no proof of such (you didn't gave proofs for Cheetah and Kfir having fuselage lengthening via mid life upgrades either when I specifically said that the lengths were added during their design phase from Mirage III and not via an upgrade after induction ).





Rant on/
Respected Mods,
The thread is being derailed by one poster who refuses to give proof for the claims he is making. None, zilch, Nada and shall not back down from making disingenuous posts. This is highly infuriating to posters who actually do. Please take notice before other posters quit posting in this thread and it gets filled with pages after pages of unsubstantiated claims, and nationalistic tripe.

Regards,
Twinblade.

Rant off/

 

[p2prada]

what is that 500 to 1000 kg mean .is that how people calculate global standard?

that is what i am saying LCA has a twr of more than 1. The F-16's higher TWr is not something i am going to refute. And that was what given in wiki also.And that was what ADA has quoted at bangalore air show .

ADA did not quote T/W figures. It was never quoted, it was just calculated by an idiot and posted there. ADA's claim during IOC function was that LCA has not achieved design specs and hence LCA Mk2 will be made. Go google it.

Any Tom, Dick and Harry can divide thrust with the loaded weight and figure out the T/W is less than 1. So, why are you being such a stubborn idiot?

Now compare them with all the fighters that are with IAF and you will count atleast 400 young pilots riding dinosuors compared to LCA.

Everyone of the fighters in IAF inventory is proven. It carries more weight than an unproven aircraft and this includes PAKFA.

LCA is not even close to achieving design specs let alone close to induction. The Russians started PAKFA's design in 2002, finished prototypes between 2007 and 2010 and will induct the aircraft in 2015-16, a new generation aircraft. The 400 pilots will move to such an aircraft and also the Rafale. That's why around 500 will be ordered for both. You don't need to cry for them. The Air force will begin dumping the Bisons in 2014 and pilots will be moved to far better aircraft than just another Mirage-2000.

Figure out why the IAF has ordered only 2 squadrons of Mk1 and 4 squadrons of Mk2. And figure out why the squadron inductions for PAKFA and Rafale are in the region of 10 each, irrespective of the fact that PAKFA and Rafale will be three times as expensive to build and operate compared to LCA.

LCA was designed for a poor country in the 80s with a requirement for a large air force, like how JF-17 is for the PAF. India has far surpassed that wall. Now IAF is planning to become a world class Air force, aircraft like LCA is nothing for them anymore. LCA is and will forever be a poor man's aircraft.

BTW be kind enough to post what was F-16's initial TWR during debut ,a and how they modified it and raised it further upgrades.

Sure,
Empty weight = 6.6 tons
Fuel = 3.1 tons
Engine power = 10.8 tons.

T/W = 1.11(full fuel)
T/W = 1.32(half fuel)

Any doubts?

Similar calculations for LCA Mk1 as it is today, empty = 6.5 tons, fuel = 2.4 tons, thrust = 8.5 tons;
T/W = 0.95(full fuel)
T/W = 1.1(half fuel)

What LCA should have been for Mk1, empty = 5.5 tons, fuel = 2.4 tons, thrust = 8.5 tons;
T/W = 1.07(full fuel)
T/W = 1.27(half fuel)

Notice the difference? Now do you understand where the figure for T/W = 1.07 came from? Now do you understand why the LCA specs on wiki are a kichidi of different aircraft specs? So, now do you understand what IAF wants?

LCA Mk1 was supposed to be at this level. But it is not. Heck ADA could not even manage to reach F-16s 1970 standards.

that is what LCA too will be doing and I don't really have to call you a stupid at all..

Why do you keep bickering about improving LCA when there is nothing that can be done to improve it? LCA Mk2 has instead been redesigned for that very purpose and it will be in full service only in 2018, that is if everything goes according to plan. Even one year of delay means we will be inducting PAKFAs before LCAs true FOC version.

 

[p2prada]

Mod: Cool down guys. It doesn't make sense to post valuable military insight alongside personal buses.
If a decent conversation cannot be held, for sometime please do not engage each other one on one. There are lot of things to talk about and lot of other posters to talk to.

The problem with this guy isn't that I cannot ignore him. But he comes up with so much crap that it is nearly impossible to tolerate his nonsense. Then he starts a mud slinging campaign with more nonsense added.

Like Twinblade said, if we stop posting then he will completely ruin this thread.

 

[ersakthivel]

twin blade says,
By shifting the cockpit, radar, LRU's obog, life support measures, front landing gear forward would be shifting almost one and half tons of weight by half to one meter ahead. Furthermore adding half to one meter of length to the airframe would construe to addition of 500 kilos to a ton of weight in additional fuel LRUs and structure. That sir, is not a minor change for a six and half ton fighter BTW did you know that the Tejas is far too unstable as the FCS is already struggling to achieve design parameters with the current CoG because the components in Tejas are too heavy for what the FCS was designed for (check this link, its just from the last couple of months ), and you are suggesting adding more weight, that too with the current thrust level ? Forget adding additional weight, did you know that current LRU's are being turned all composite just to bring the CoG within the design parameters of the FCS ? Of course you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing about Tejas's FCS having sufficient margins.

The JEBAKUMAR report explicitly mentions nose cone plug? Does nose cone plug extensions come before the cockpit or after the cockpit? if it comes before cockpit what does all this mean, these detailed explanations?it is not he FCS which is struggling acccording to CEILMAC report. What are you saying here are your own conclusions based as usual on your imagination.Not LRUs, LRU mountings. Do you ever comprehend the difference from mountings and LRUs.

 

[ersakthivel]

twinblade says
The Pylons of any aircraft are situated close to the center of gravity and the flight control system is designed to manage those variations. That is what I implied by using finite limit. Its not my problem if you aren't familiar with how control systems are designed, verified and tested.

Do you know how much more the pylons weigh and how insignificantly less nosecone extension weigh?
Then considering the distance from the center for the insignificant increase at a longer distance is same as higher weight change at a lesser distance ,near the center of gravity. It is as per your MD1+M2D2 theory only.

Whatever you are taking here is your own pet theory with no authenticity. You just stated off in a nice way with CEILMAC report and now you are singing your own tune like a parrot.If you like grippen ,That is not my problem.Why are you persistently misinforming the forum about LCA .You cannot counter a few commonsense questions from me. Then how are you passing off as an expert?I have given links to everything I wrote.

 

[ersakthivel]

twin blade says
Did you know that fuel is compartmentalized and dynamically managed in any aircraft to avoid change in CoG with increasing or depleting fuel levels, you wouldn't be posing such a nincompoop question had you been aware of the fact.

I know all that and even more. Why I mentioned is that FCS continuosly adjusts itself to dynamically changing weight with redundancy.So by no stretch of imagination can you argue that modification for a insignificant non variable amount of weight will take 7 years to adjust.
Sinc you yourself admitted that you dont know much about Kfir and mirage-lll nose cone extension, what can I do?

it is this same dynamic management I mentioned as control of center of gravity. The Fcs keeps monitoring this all the time dynamically. When FCS does so many things dynamically on the fly who are you to argue an insignificantly small nose cone plug extension is beyond the scope of FCs alterations?

 

[ersakthivel]

You really cannot comprehend what is being written can you, go ahead and re read my post. It specifically mentions that every FCS is meant to operate in a finite limit. That is more than self explanatory.

What I wanted to ask was if the pilot weight varies how will FCS adjust center of flight. Just one word answer Yes or No.If you cannot answer please admit that you have said nothing concrete like last time regarding the percentage of composites and I will also accept that your self explanationary answer has explained every thing to me. Don't call MOD like "Mummy, PINKU has BITTEN ME."

 

[ersakthivel]

Twin blade says
Didn't you check the links I gave you ? fuselage extension is being done on mk2. On the other hand you have been claiming that fuselage extension has been incorporated in Mk1 itself with no proof of such (you didn't gave proofs for Cheetah and Kfir having fuselage lengthening via mid life upgrades either when I specifically said that the lengths were added during their design phase from Mirage III and not via an upgrade after induction ).

i never said that fuselage is expanded. I said that with increased nose cone plug extension as suggested by CEILMAC report the LCA may measure longer. This length is not fuselage expansion length. ANd read my post again I explicitly said nose cone extension for Kfir and MIrage -III, and not fuselage expansion.

 

[ersakthivel]

twinblade
Rant on/
Respected Mods,
The thread is being derailed by one poster who refuses to give proof for the claims he is making. None, zilch, Nada and shall not back down from making disingenuous posts. This is highly infuriating to posters who actually do. Please take notice before other posters quit posting in this thread and it gets filled with pages after pages of unsubstantiated claims, and nationalistic tripe.

Regards,
Twinblade.

Rant off/

members beware this thread is derailed by one person who doesnot concretely say what he means.
And he doesnot say a word when I say major hydraulic cabling and rear fuselage modification were carried out in LSP-7 and it flew within 7 months with no FCS implications.This is not a newspaper where one reporter writes whatever he likes and wan's t it to be read by millions without any questions.

I havent used a single foul word or never made any personal insults to twinblade in the past three posts.Then what is there to report to the MOD.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Few Rules / Points :

1. If anyone claim something and there is objection, He must provide creditable link / Proof or in the business himself, If NOT should take his word back..

2. Try to Keep thread to LCA at most, This is not 'this vs that' thread ..

3. Avoid foul languages, If there is disagreement discuss it civilized way..

4. There is a Ignore option, Use that if you dislike someone..