ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[ersakthivel]

TRISHUL

Eventually, in the fullness of time, the IAF will end up with 189 Rafale M-MRCAs. That's a given. But the negotiations had got stuck over the cost of licenced-production of the 108 units.

India was haggling over the labour cost parameters that are graded from 1 to 10. While the Russians had obtained Grade 6 for the Su-30MKI licenced-production programme, the French were asking for 8, while the Indians wanted it to be limited to 7. So, in the end, a compromise was struck under
which India would order 36 Rafales off-the-shelf without any offsets of any kind and the French in turn would tone down their stance & come down to 7.

Therefore, in nett terms, the French have won and India's illogical negotiating shortsightedness (from 2012 till now) has been fully exposed. And NaMo too has realised at last that there are clear technological and human resource limits to how far the 'Make in India' mantra can be flogged. And this deal for 36 Rafales was conceived entirely by Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley and was fully endorsed by the PMO.

Everyone else was in the dark on this issue. If 153 Rafales can be similarly ordered in successive tranches, then that will be the ideal solution. Because paying an exorbitant price for the so-called licenced-production of Rafales just to keep a few thousand employees of HAL gainfully employed for the next 20 years DOES NOT stand up to logic. Nor does such licenced-production lead to self-reliance of any kind anywhere. Far better therefore to utilise the money saved for the Tejas Mk2/LCA (Navy) Mk2 R & D effort, where at least 80% indigenisation can be expected in all domains except for the propulsion system.

If 153 Rafales can be similarly ordered in successive tranches, then that will be the ideal solution. Because paying an exorbitant price for the so-called licenced-production of Rafales just to keep a few thousand employees of HAL gainfully employed for the next 20 years DOES NOT stand up to logic. Nor does such licenced-production lead to self-reliance of any kind anywhere. Far better therefore to utilise the money saved for the Tejas Mk2/LCA (Navy) Mk2 R & D effort, where at least 80% indigenisation can be expected in all domains except for the propulsion system.

With DDM folks like these, who needs enemies?

this lying lizard , who can not even let a few comments exposing his ill concealed motivation on tejas,

is still going on in full swing about 189 rafales and india's illogical negotiating tactics

 

[Khagesh]

TRISHUL


With DDM folks like these, who needs enemies?

this lying lizard , who can not even let a few comments exposing his ill concealed motivation on tejas,

is still going on in full swing about 189 rafales and india's illogical negotiating tactics

While listening to the DefMin minister, I was trying to find a confirmation for the absolute kill of the Rafale negotiations in non-GTG route. I am afraid the confirmation is not there. Instead I got the feeling that they will be open to the idea of ordering full 126 but only if the CNC conditions are met (alongwith keeping open all manner of other options). Unfortunately for Rafale lovers that does not seem likely at all. After all GTG had to be resorted to because the CNC route was stuck for good. And DefMin was very categorically its is going to be GTG. Even mentioned successful GTG with Russians and Americans and Israelis.

There was another good thing in the interview, in that DefMin did mention LCA Mk-2 alongwith Su30MKIs and that means there is no doctrinaire bind to what they are willing to look at. My suspicion is that Mk-2 will move along far far faster than Mk-1.

So while it is still not in the bag, for the ADA-HAL combine but they are certainly in the game and much better placed than the ego-tripping Dassault.

Dassault did go back on its commitments on the contract and that is not going to be okeyed by the CNC come what may. However in the ultimate analysis it is the over all national requirement that is going to determine what the political leadership of the day decides. The GTG route is obviously a clear acknowledgement that the govt. of the day decides what is achievable within its over all vision for the country.

The flip side of GTG being that some of these guys are waiting for the fall of Modi because they know that anybody other than Modi will be easily trapped in the mesh of compromised ex militarymen, frightened and sly baboos, pliable purchasable netas and Kangaroo courts of the Desi Media Trails. Otherwise how the hell can the same Dassault sell the same aircraft in GTG at a rate different from the CNC discovered prices. These people have smelt blood and they are not going to let go of it easily.

The fight is still on from their side. Hell Motabhai just lost the chance to be the David Stark of Indian defence procurement. And Modi is not going to say 'No' to keep them guessing forever, as part of his own tactic to deal with these people. Hence the third party ADA-HAL have to get their act together on the Mk-2 front for us to have what we want ie. more LCAs into the IAF.

Essentially it is the match between the Import happy chamchas vs. ADA-HAL that have to be watched closely now.

I hope our people deliver on the LCA Mk-2, as per the national requirement and in time for the production lines to be established. Only an established production line will give the final message to the Import lobby.

Personally the extent to which DefMin mentioned the possibilities gave me assurance that these people have kept their minds open to virtually everything.

Overall however I am happy with the GTG procurement of 36 Rafale. Balances things till now even while competition looks normalized for the LCA Mk-2. Unlike the lopsided debate earlier.

 

[akshay m]

@Kunal Biswas

things may look bad ,but there are some silver linings

[tweet]587638917572112384[/tweet]

 

[saik]

I hope our people deliver on the LCA Mk-2, as per the national requirement and in time for the production lines to be established. Only an established production line will give the final message to the Import lobby.

r.

nice post.

This is one wish on everyone's wish list. LCA Mk-2 must happen, and Kaveri must be realized in some future state/configuration acceptable and operational. I can't emphasize how much this is important for the nation to realize.

It should not take IITians and IIMities to understand this.

 

[Lions Of Punjab]

MMRCA Comparison graphics from ToI . Brilliant and Informative .

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCmhCaHWEAI19YN.jpg

https://twitter.com/writetake/status/588178292596965376?utm_source=fb&fb_ref=Default&utm_content=588178292596965376&utm_campaign=writetake&utm_medium=fb

 

[cannonfodder]

Can add 6 LCA squadrons in 4-5 years: Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar - The Economic Times

Looks like more LCA aircrafts will be ordered soon....

 

[Punya Pratap]

For LCA Tejas, it’s now about months, not decades - The Times of India

NEW DELHI: India's defence R&D establishment will have to fire on all cylinders to fast-track the meandering Tejas light combat aircraft, which is still not fully operational or combat ready, if it does not want the Narendra Modi government to critically re-examine the entire project.

The Tejas project, in fact, may even get some competition in the light-weight fighter category. Defence minister Manohar Parrikar said "some other single-engine, lighter fighter" other than the home-grown Tejas could also be considered for a "Make in India" project to replace the obsolete MiG-21s.

Restricting the acquisition of expensive twin-engine French Rafale fighters to just 36 for now, instead of the original plan for 126 MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft), Parrikar stressed he was trying to plug operational gaps in airpower by improving serviceability of "heavy-weight" Sukhoi-30MKIs as well as "pushing" the DRDO-HAL combine to deliver Tejas faster.

READ ALSO: Tejas achieves another accomplishment in Ladakh

"Don't compare Rafale, a top-end fighter, to MiG-21s, which we will phase out in about six to 10 years. The replacement for MiG-21s will be Tejas or some other single-engine, lighter aircraft. Tejas ki maar bhi kaafi hai (Tejas packs a punch) and it's much better than a MiG-21, but has certain limitations," said Parrikar.

Though some interpreted this to mean impending doom for the Tejas project, a top official dismissed it by clarifying the government was "just keeping all options open" to make "numbers" with IAF down to just 34 fighter squadrons when 44 are needed. "There could be scope for a single-engine fighter, which would be much cheaper than Rafale, somewhere between the capabilities of Rafale and Tejas," he said.



Incidentally, the original plan was that six squadrons each of MMRCA and Tejas would replace the existing 10 Mig-21 and four MiG-27 squadrons. Parrikar, on his part, said, "In the next four to five years, we can add about six LCA squadrons if we push HAL, which I am doing."

DRDO-HAL will certainly need to be pushed on the Tejas project since it's critical for self-reliance in defence production. The first Tejas was handed over to IAF on January 17 but it was in "initial operational configuration (IOC)", which signifies its airworthy but not combat-ready. The pilot training and maintenance manuals are also still not ready, delaying its actual induction into IAF.

READ ALSO: India finally gets indigenous LCA Tejas

The fighter's final operational clearance (FOC), with integration of all weapons like guns, laser-guided bombs and BVR (beyond visual range) missiles as well mid-air refuelling capability, is likely to be delayed beyond the re-revised deadline of December 2015.

The Tejas Mark-II version which the IAF actually wants — with more powerful engines, airframe changes, weight and drag reduction — will begin to come in only by 2021 or so. So, Parrikar will need to do a lot of pushing if he wants swifter deliveries of the multi-role fighters

 

[Punya Pratap]

I dont know how to react to Times of India articles any more !!

Any takes guys?/

 

[sgarg]

The GOI wants to increase LCA Tejas production. There have been two problems so far - reluctance of IAF to order more, and inability of HAL/ADA combine to deliver. The last year has gone to push HAL/ADA combine to set targets according to operational needs and expedite. Now I believe is the turn of the IAF.

There is no doubt that India needs a lot of light fighters. A look at the map clears the situation. At least 6 light fighter squadrons are required from Srinagar to Naliya in the West. The figure for the east is similar. 4-5 squadrons are needed in South to protect peninsular India.

All eyes on FOC now.

 

[cannonfodder]

I dont know how to react to Times of India articles any more !!

Any takes guys?/

They have to order Tejas... What is the second option they are talking about?? LCA is a necessity for India's aero industry. IAF will be made to order more and HAL/DRDO will have to deliver.

 

[power_monger]

I think we will see additional orders to LCA tejas on FOC. If 6 squadrons are in mind,it would mean we might see a additional order of 60 more planes totalling it to 100.If this is true,I am hap[py with raffale outcome.

 

[uoftotaku]

There has never really been any option to Tejas. IAF has been crying for years about deficiencies in hopes that Govt finally relents and imported the aircraft they actually wanted which has gone from Mirage 2000 to Rafale even though the whole world was scratching their head as to how such aircraft could replace MiG-21. Now with RM putting his foot down IAF is cornered without much option. Yet the inaction of the last decade will now start to bite. Too little has been done and it is too late to avoid an extreme deterioration of combat capability of the IAF between 2017 and 2022. As RM has been saying in various interviews in past couple of days, the amount of money available to the Govt is limited and not likely to grow significantly in the foreseeable future...so even panic imports (which by all the means the Rafale deal is) will be limited by budgetary concerns. Foreign companies will also be driving a hard bargain, well aware of the country's desperate situation. We will be counting the damage done by lungii for decades to come...

So for now..there is no alternative to Tejas. But HAL / ADA have to really stand up and be counted. There is no way that the current labor intensive low rate production techniques can economically put out planes fast enough. They have to automate and bring in industry standard efficiency and productivity to their workforce. A production target of at least 2 planes per month has to be set and hit within a short space of time. Further ramp up to 4 planes a month can be achieved after 2018 as the workforce becomes more used to the new techniques. This is the ONLY way that the Tejas program survives and HAL avoids an embarrassing Govt enforced privatization and / or forced partnership with a company like Saab if RM decides to walk down THAT dark road.

IAF needs at least 10-12 sqds of Tejas by 2022. There is no way this will happen unless drastic changes are enforced on HAL by the MoD NOW

 

[Kunal Biswas]

[video]https://youtu.be/kbLJcQltaE0?t=116[/video]

1. DM said, MIG-21 will be replaced by Tejas and If not Tejas then other single engine fighter ( He did not mention any criteria or even name of MK2 or MK1 )

2. DM Said, If HAL can push MK2 in numbers the remaining 90 / 126 can be filled by MK2 besides filling the MIG-21 gap, If it fails the MK2 will be replacing the place of MIG-21 as planned in next 6-10 years. ( Rafale cannot replace MIG-21 but Tejas MK2 can replace rafale place )

2. DM was comparing Rafale with Tejas MK1, Stating Rafale has combat radius of 1000kms not ferry range, Tejas was not compared with other light fighters with range or payload ..

 

[ersakthivel]

tejas in mk1 itself passed the test,

Now what about the news that four MMRCA contendrs failed high altitude leh test?

typhoons and rafale were short listed, SO they would have certainly passed the tests,


The other four contenders were, gripen,mig-35, F-16, Hornet and nothing else,

SO which among four passed the Leh test or not?

WHy is MOD letting HAL to beg NAVY and IAF fro 450 crore each to fund tejas production line?

How much extra man power and money was sanctioned to HAL in the last three years to speed up tejas?

Answer nothing.

Simply saying that HAL should shape up is foolish. GIve the money and then take it to task. ADA designs tejas , It is not HAL's primary responsibility. And just 40 tejas mk1 order is not going to make tejas a profitable proposition to sink money and experienced man power into it. thats why HAL asked for higher tejas order number to justify putting more money , which was flatly refused by IAF.
Then it turned to MOD to fund the full 1800 crore needed to set up production line for tejas mk1. MOD under UPA said No. Allocate 900 crore from your own funds and approach IAF and Navy for 450 crore each!!!

With this kind of logic it is lunatic to expect HAL to push tejas production.

Also in many key respects like radome dia, higher turn rates at supersonic speeds, typhoons excel rafale,

In ground bombing rafale excels typhoon.

So when both face off for a single tender will you do, will you buy 50 percent each of both the fighters? IS this what Germany,Sweeden , France ,England ,Italy and Spain are doing?

this tejas falls short of some specs is an old trick in the book to push for imports.

Considering the prices we can have three times the number of tejas for any imported fighter single or double engin not withstanding it you take into account total lifecycle and mid life upgrade cost.

SO how can you justify a 5 or 10 percent performance difference to buy one fighter in place of three fighters.

It was IAF which asked for a radome dia bigger than rafale and gripen in tejas. ADA accepted it.

it was IAf which asked ADA to fit tejas into mig-21 foot print.

IAF also periodically upgraded its requirements by issuing more than 250 requests for action to ADA, all but 12 are done.

Even in engine change now tejas can do it in two hours!!!

Now ADA is promising to deliver all the 36 of 40 tejas mk1s in FOC condition opposed to IAf order of 20 FOC and 20 IOC conditions.

So how can you justify the statement that due to lack of 5 or ten percentage points in one dept we should cut tejas numers ?

 

[ersakthivel]

view-source:https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/587979664427094017


Saurav Jha
"@SJha1618
Their work in the face of sanctions and their efforts at growing an aerospace base of small vendors is being pissed upon by dalals.

Saurav Jha "@SJha1618 19h19 hours ago
@DRDO_India 's aerospace cluster is depressed and demoralized. ADA is putting up a brave face.

I am sure HAL can continue to be a Navratna by building the HTT-40 which our own AF won't buy.

The fighter between Tejas Mk-1 and Rafale in capabilities would be the Tejas Mk-2. Where is the scope for anything else, hainji?

Anyway now that the G-lobby is pushing for 100 % FDI and MMRCA is cancelled, I hope HAL will realize how stupid it was to neglect the LCA.

DRDO has been basically headless for 2 months now. How much longer will this situation continue? April 30?

So worried is everybody about the need for aerodynamic refinement of the Tejas platform that it is being used by an opening by the G-lobby.

 

[ersakthivel]

The Beta Coefficient: A preliminary performance review of the Indian Light Combat Aircraft

 

[sgarg]

@ersakthivel, where is second Tejas from series production? How can anybody blame Defence Minister. HAL claims a capacity of 8 per year. That means one LCA should come out every 1.5 months.

The reasons for delay are not apparent to me. Both IOC are done. IOC specs are frozen.

 

[sgarg]

What is there in HAL kitty in terms of product line?? The only viable products it has are variants of Dhruv and LCA Tejas.

 

[Punya Pratap]

Well what do you expect out of an indigenous program where the end user (IAF) never took on the mantle of responsibility and the Lead Production House which is sulking due to it not getting any share in the R&D of the project.

If HAL cannot deliver even an SP 2 on time how the heck will the deliver 6 squads?? I said it earlier and say it again.... get the Pvt Com. second production line up and running other wise the shortfall of fighters will be endemic

 

[ersakthivel]

Since this post is more relevant and deals with tejas, i am posting it here,

As I said, this very discussion is moot. You are not going to get it. But to put it concisely, you are going to invite @p2prada back, all the while keeping the stuff which forced him out in the first place and expect him to not leave again?. Yeah, good luck.



Tirupati temple disagrees

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
His question

can you explain what are those other parameters which need to be same? You keep posting same stuff over and over again without even reading what other members have written. I had also posted the same formula which you copied from google-wiki. You need wiki to know about aerodynamics but I have studied it as a subject for over three decades.
I once again ask you to please list the factors which effect LIFT and where does the wing loading fall into it as the sole criteria. You also need to know that wing loading is used as an explanation for laymen and not for hard core aviation buffs. the entire structure of an aircraft generates Lift but for easy understanding, wing area or wing loading is used as a bench mark. I explained to you that total lift is a combination of wing lift + fuselage lift+ Lift component of thrust.

my answer,

nothing wrong with it, I also know that ,"total lift is a combination of wing lift + fuselage lift+ Lift component of thrust".

but wing lift makes the substantial portion of total lift.

I told you that "the other parameters being the same " is a lay quote by a poster on the forum, which I added to give a balance and fairness to the discussion.

In the formula there are -NO OTHER THINGS.

So if your formula is there wiki it is correct and credible.

but if the set of formula posted by me is also there in Wiki , it is dubious perhaps!!!!

Well for hardcore aviation buffs , the wing loading gets into those critical formulas in the form of wing area in sq meters.

If you are a harcore buff you can easily see by now where wing area is there in those formulae.

just look below,

Lift (N) = CL * area (sq m) * .5 * pressure (kg/cubic m) * velocity (m/s) squared

Coefficient induced drag (CDi) = (CL^2) / (pi * aspect ratio * Oswald efficiency)

Drag = coefficient * area * density *.5 * velocity squared

If you look at the equations, induced drag increases with the square of CL, and proportionately with the increase in wing area. So double wing area = a quarter the CL = half the induced drag.

To plug some figures in, an example aircraft with weight 3000 kg and wing area of 10 m^2, then the same aircraft with 20 m^2 wings. (this assumes weight doesn't increase with the larger wings, of course)

Assuming lift = 4 times weight, sea level density, speed = 400 km/h

117,600 = CL * 10 * .5 * 1.225 * 111^2
CL = 1.56

CDi = (1.56^)/(pi*6*.8) = 0.16

Induced drag = 0.16 * 10 * 1.225 * .5 * 111^2

Induced drag = 12,074 N

Now the same thing but with double the wing area

117,600 = CL * 20 * .5 * 1.225 * 111^2
CL = 0.78

CDi = (0.78^)/(pi*6*.8) = 0.04 (note how doubling the wing area results in a quarter of the CDi, because CL is squared)

Induced drag = 0.04 * 20 * 1.225 * .5 * 111^2

Induced drag = 6,037 N

Of course, parasitic drag increases with a larger wing area, but basically lower wingloading = an increasing advantage the tighter the turn, and the lower the IAS you fly (and IAS of course is lower at high altitudes)

these equations need no explanation as you your self has said that you are very talented in maths and physics.



And take a good look at the formula again,

["‹IMG]

This formula clearly shows that fighters with higher lift(lower wing loading ) can achieve a quicker sustained turn with lesser bank angles.

Also it clearly shows that for the same speed fighters with higher lift (low wing loading) can have a smaller radius of turn.

What is the significace of the above two point in a turning fight?
where:

L is the lift acting on the aircraft
θ is the angle of bank of the aircraft
m is the mass of the aircraft
v is the true airspeed of the aircraft
r is the radius of the turn
In straight level flight, lift is equal to the aircraft weight. In turning flight the lift exceeds the aircraft weight, and is equal to the weight of the aircraft (mg) divided by the cosine of the angle of bank:

["‹IMG]

where g is the gravitational field strength.

The radius of the turn can now be calculated

["‹IMG]
Aircraft with low wing loadings tend to have superior sustained turn performance because they can generate more lift for a given quantity of engine thrust. The immediate bank angle an aircraft can achieve before drag seriously bleeds off airspeed is known as itsinstantaneous turn performance. An aircraft with a small, highly loaded wing may have superior instantaneous turn performance, but poor sustained turn performance: it reacts quickly to control input, but its ability to sustain a tight turn is limited. A classic example is the F-104 Starfighter, which has a very small wing and high wing loading. At the opposite end of the spectrum was the gigantic Convair B-36. Its large wings resulted in a low wing loading, and there are disputed claims[who?] that this made the bomber more agile than contemporary jet fighters (the slightly later Hawker Hunter had a similar wing loading of 250 kg/m2) at high altitude. Whatever the truth in that, the delta winged Avro Vulcan bomber, with a wing loading of 260 kg/m2 could certainly be rolled at low altitudes.[10]

Like any body in circular motion, an aircraft that is fast and strong enough to maintain level flight at speed v in a circle of radius Raccelerates towards the centre at ["‹IMG]. That acceleration is caused by the inward horizontal component of the lift, ["‹IMG], where ["‹IMG] is the banking angle. Then from Newton's second law,

["‹IMG]

Solving for R gives

["‹IMG]

SO higher the wing lift(possible only with low wing loading fighter) lower the turning radius for the same speed V.

that means at any corner velocity speed lower wing loading fighter will turn into a higher wing loading fighter as the radius of turn for lower wing loading fighter will be lower. What is the significance of this?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His question,

ersakthivel, It is for this reason that I had advised you to please read some good books on aerodynamics. If we have two aircraft operating at same density altitude at same speed with same CL value and same weight, the ac with more wing area will produce more lift as it will have lower wing loading. The factors listed here as SAME are the other things being equal.
what is so great about this. I have also written the same formula which you wrote and what has been stated by you but you have grossly misunderstood the meaning of it. Now I had given you the example of F-22, Rafale, Typhoon and others which have higher wing loading than LCA but much higher ITR & STR.
You keep trolling and posting useless stuff just to somehow fool the members. it is not going to succeed here. You can take your theory of low wing loading else where.

My answer,

Lift from the wings is the oxygen of a fighter, not the sweep angle of presence of all those "lift enhancing stuffs" you listed. they help , no doubt , but low wing loading is the primary way to get lift.

A low wing loading fighter like tejas will have much higher horizontal component of thrust in any sustained turn and can pull a smaller turning radius(it can always turn inside the turning circle of the high wing loading fighter it purses in close combat).

Also it can get that higher thrust at lower AOA , meaning lesser induced drag (skin friction drag from the larger wing area is significantly smaller , than the induced drag ) for the same horizontal component of lift achieved in turns . What this means is lower wing loading fighter like tejas can have higher speeds in turns than the high wing loading fighter.

Also the lower stall speeds of low wing loading fighters like tejas makes them excel at slow speed manoeuvres.

And in high altitude were the skin friction drag is even lesser , it helps them to perform more.



The so called "other things being equal" was an ordinary user quote with no formulas to base it , from that forum I posted to give a sense of balance, which was immediately highlighted by some dude to give a completely different meaning!!!! which primarily meant that larger wing area will lead to more fighter weight.

the excess weight added by the larger wing area is doesn't substantially adds to the fighter weight. just look at the empty weight of gripen c and tejas. tejas despite having lower wing loading has lesser empty weight than gripen.

Also tejas which has a substantially lower wing loading than JF-17 has more or less the same empty weight.

but even the conditions "all other things being equal" has been met by designers of tejas.

Why?

because the contribution to fighter weight from wing area portion is significantly smaller compared to other things like engine, fuselage, weapons, fuel , landing gear etc, etc,

So in a turning fight tejas has nothing to fear from any fighter in subcontinent , and once TWR goes up in tejas mk2, it can compare with any fighter in 4.5th gen class.


I am posting stuff , that neither you nor any one else can refute with any authentic stuff. Got it?

this one paragraph you have written doesn't nullify all those equations. Got it?

You just posted two equations and claimed that turn rate has nothing to do with wing loading or wing lift and entirely dependent on bank angle and velocity.

IMHO I haven't misunderstood anything. You can't ignore Newtons second law of motion in real world.

I proved you wrong categorically.

For example , if Tejas gets the same TWR as typhoon and rafale and the same thrust vectoring as F-22 we can talk.

Sure we will talk about it in future because they will be implemented in future tejas versions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My answer,

https://books.google.co.in/books?id...ding affects turn radius of fighters?&f=false

"the low wing loaded fighter's greatest performance advantages are assumed to be,

1. good instantaneous turn performance,
2.tight sustained turning radius,
3.slow minimum speed"

"In some cases the aircraft will also have significant sustained turn rate advantage"

An aircraft travelling at the SAME SPEED and pulling the SAME G and therefore at the SAME BANK ANGLE, will have the SAME RATE OF TURN and SAME RADIUS OF TURN . Doesn't matter if it is a Tiger Moth or a Foxbat.

this link explains it all in clear terms with no sophisticated equations!!!!


But in real world,


My tiger moth, in a 60 degree banked turn will pull 2 gs and whip around through 360 degrees in under a minute. Your Foxbat, travelling at Mach 3 will take a long long time to do 360 degrees in a 2 g turn.

Why?

So while the Gs and speed were the same, the aircraft had the same turning performance. But the low wing loading on the Tiger Moth meant it had plenty of excess angle of attack to use to further increase bank and therefore rate, radius and G.
A rate one turn which is defined as being 360 degrees in two minutes, requires a higher angle of bank, and therefore higher g, the faster you are going. In a light twin, a rate one turn is generally less than 25 degrees bank, in a faster passenger jet, the rate one turn requires more angle of bank, to the point where passenger jets are limited by 25 degrees bank angle during instrument procedures and light twins are limited by rate one. The only reason for this is that the passenger jet is going faster, if it slowed down to the speed of the light twin, the rate would be the same.

SO higher wing loading plane has to fly closer to its peak AOA and closer to its stall speed (with higher drag due to higher AOA),to do the 360 deg turn in 120 seconds. Because of its lower wing area it has to fly faster to get a higher horizontal component of lift that will let it remain at the same altitude.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ersakthivel, iT is no point trying to explain anything to you. Long back my grand father had taught me that it is a sin not to teach a person who wants to learn and it is a bigger sin if you try and teach a person who does not want to learn. You have your mind closed and in each repeating post you contradict yourself to somehow prove your shit theory about low wing loading. You have filled tons of pages in the other forum writing the same shit.
Now it is my last post to make things clear to you.
Tigermoth and b747 will have same radius of turn if their speeds, bank angle and g loading are same-This is a correct statement as we can see that radius of turn is dependent on bank angle and speed only.
BUT
The maximum bank angle that can be pulled is dependent on the load factor which an aircraft can withstand.
AND
The lift gets divided into two parts in a turn, one part is horizontal which creates centripetal force, the other part is the vertical part which balances the weight.
SO
The maximum bank angle which can be sustained by an aircraft is directly dependent on its ability to generate lift and the structural strength to withstand the required G load factor.
THEREFORE
An aircraft which can maintain lowest possible speed during a turn, has highest bank angle and g load compared to the other aircraft will have higher turn rate and smaller radius of turn.
G load is dependent on structural strength, Speed is limited to stall speed, bank angle will get limited by Lift force needed to overcome weight and provide centripetal force.
THE Lift is dependent on CL+Density+Speed+wing area. Any aircraft can play around with these components of the lift to maximize the lift to get the required bank angle to have high turn rate and low radius. Wing area is just one of them and NOT THE ONLY FACTOR.

NOW STOP EATING MY BRAIN AND TAKE YOUR SHITTY THEORY TO A FORUM WHERE IT SELLS. DONT TEACH YOUR POP HOW TO ****.

My answer,

As per your equations,XXX degree bank at ZZ speed would produce the same turn rate regardless of the aircraft weight or wing loading ..

So while the Gs and speed were the same, the aircraft had the same turning performance. But the low wing loading on the Tiger Moth meant it had plenty of excess angle of attack to use to further increase bank and therefore rate, radius and G.

And the low wing loading fighter need not get near stall AOA with huge drag which reduces acceleration in turn approaching stall speeds that makes them loose altitude.

but the high wing loading fighter has to do endure all the above to go neck and neck with low wing loading fighter.


Get things first into your wooden head before abusing me again and again , right.

"An aircraft which can maintain lowest possible speed during a turn, has highest bank angle and g load compared to the other aircraft will have higher turn rate and smaller radius of turn.". the primary means of achieving this is by low wing loading. Please don't repeat the same set of lies that it can be substantially achieved by means other than low wing loading again and again. You can get marginal improvement here and there.

They dont count for anything unless the area of the wing is big enough to sustain high lift at lower AOA (to give higher component of lift force) with low drag and low enough bank angle , well above stall speeds.

Flaps , etc, etc all help. Know one denies it. They too have been used in tejas.

"THE Lift is dependent on CL+Density+Speed+wing area. Any aircraft can play around with these components of the lift to maximize the lift to get the required bank angle to have high turn rate and low radius. Wing area is just one of them and NOT THE ONLY FACTOR.".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this was his question

@ersakthivel, All your knowledge can be gauged from just your reply to this question,

What is the value of V in the equation and how is it calculated. Now don't run to wiki for it?

This was my answer

An aircraft's lift capabilities can be measured from the following formula:
L = (1/2) d v2 s CL

* L = Lift, which must equal the airplane's weight in pounds
* d = density of the air. This will change due to altitude. These values can be found in a I.C.A.O. Standard Atmosphere Table.
* v = velocity of an aircraft expressed in feet per second
* s = the wing area of an aircraft in square feet
* CL = Coefficient of lift , which is determined by the type of airfoil and angle of attack.

So v^2=2L/d*s*CL

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This what decklander asked me

What you call elementary physics seems all Greek and Latin to you. In my response to Professor's article I had written the formula for calculating the Rate of turn and Radius of Turn which I reproduce here also.
Rate of turn T (*/sec)= 1091*tanbank/v
Radius of turn R (ft)=v^2/ 11.26 tanbank
Can you please show me where in these equations you find TWR or wing loading as a component.

You need to study some good books on aerodynamics to educate yourself. Low wing loading does not result in good ITR/STR. had that been the case, gliders wud have been the best fighters in the world.
If you read these equations properly, you will find the mention of velocity and bank angle. The velocity in this case is the stall speed. F-22, Rafale and Typhoon have wings which have much lesser sweep compared to LCA. F-22 has just 42* and that gives it a very high CLmax plus it uses AMF and has negative stability unlike the RSS of LCA. So its tail plane also adds to wing lift.
LCA has a large wing, tailless design with very high sweep outwards of 62.5* which gives it extremely high stall AOA & poor CLmax and a very high power off stall speed. This is the main reason for it not having as good ITR/STR as the ac I mentioned.
Now another question for you.
How do you calculate ITR & STR and what all factors play a part in calculating them?
I will teach you very good things here and you will be able to stop making a fool of yourself over and over again in future.

The following is my answer,

and what is relationship of V ,with horizontal component of lift vector , which in turn relies on wing area to generate that,

what is the impact of bank angle on rate of turn and turn radius,

and how the AOA affects the drag in any given bank angle,

and how fighters with different wing loading pull off different AOAs required to achieve the same lift in varying bank angles,

And how higher wing loading fighters have to totter at the edge of their peak AOAs and stall speeds to produce the same horizontal component of lift facing very high induced drag

in order to keep up with

much lower wing loading fighters which pull off the same horizontal component of lift at much lesser AOA and well above stall speeds with much lesser induced drag,

and what is the effect of lesser and higher AOA on drag and stall speeds,


You will teach me how to run in endless circles!!!!!

Why do we need max bank angle. the key as per Newtons second law is for any given bank angle,
First you understand Newton's second law which gives the following equation

L sin(θ)=mv*2/R

A low wing loading air craft will always bring higher horizontal lift component into sustained turn turn for any given bank angle θ at a lower AOA (which means with lesser drag)and speeds much hihger than stall speeds.

So it naturally transpires the lower wing loading fighter entering sustained turn at any given bank angle will have much higher L sin(θ). So it basically means that either it will have higher speeds or lower turn radius which directly translates into higher sustained turn rate .

On the contrary a higher wing loading fighter entering the same sustained turn at the same bank angle will have to pull a higher AOA , which means it will have higher drag and and lesser horizontal lift component , so it naturally means that it should either have lower speeds or higher turning radius which means inferior turn rate.

A low wing loading air craft will always bring higher horizontal lift component into sustained turn turn for any given bank angle θ at a lower AOA (which means with lesser drag)and speeds much hihger than stall speeds.

So it naturally transpires the lower wing loading fighter entering sustained turn at any given bank angle will have much higher L sin(θ). So it basically means that either it will have higher speeds or lower turn radius which directly translates into higher sustained turn rate .

On the contrary a higher wing loading fighter entering the same sustained turn at the same bank angle will have to pull a higher AOA , which means it will have higher drag and and lesser horizontal lift component , so it naturally means that it should either have lower speeds or higher turning radius which means inferior turn rate.

First you understand Newton's second law which gives the following equation

Lift (N) = CL * area (sq m) * .5 * pressure (kg/cubic m) * velocity (m/s) squared

As per the above equation lift increases with wing surface area .

This means a higher wing loading plane will have lesser lift at speed v.

the lower wing loading plane will have more lift at the same speed v.

use the same v in the following equation

L sin(θ)=mv*2/R

A low wing loading air craft will always bring higher horizontal lift component into sustained turn turn for any given bank angle θ at a lower AOA (which means with lesser drag)and speeds much hihger than stall speeds.

So it naturally transpires the lower wing loading fighter entering sustained turn at any given bank angle will have much higher L sin(θ). So it basically means that either it will have higher speeds or lower turn radius which directly translates into higher sustained turn rate .

On the contrary a higher wing loading fighter entering the same sustained turn at the same bank angle will have to pull a higher AOA , which means it will have higher drag and and lesser horizontal lift component , so it naturally means that it should either have lower speeds or higher turning radius which means inferior turn rate.

If you look at the equations, induced drag increases with the square of CL, and proportionately with the increase in wing area. So double wing area = a quarter the CL = half the induced drag.

Lift (N) = CL * area (sq m) * .5 * pressure (kg/cubic m) * velocity (m/s) squared

Coefficient induced drag (CDi) = (CL^2) / (pi * aspect ratio * Oswald efficiency)

Drag = coefficient * area * density *.5 * velocity squared

If you look at the equations, induced drag increases with the square of CL, and proportionately with the increase in wing area. So double wing area = a quarter the CL = half the induced drag.

As per the above set of formulas Cl reduces when surface area increases,

And the co efficient of induced drag reduces by square of CL ,

SO even though it appears that plain drag increases with directly with surface area , since the co efficient of drag reduce by the square of CL(which reduces further directly with wing surface area )

So v^2=2L/d*s*CL

SO even though v decreases with increase in surface area this is even out by decrease in Cl with surface area which leads to higher v.

And most important of all the L (the all important lift thing which determines the higher v) is always higher for low wing loading fighter at any given bank angle.

Lift (N) = CL * area (sq m) * .5 * pressure (kg/cubic m) * velocity (m/s) squared

To plug some figures in, an example aircraft with weight 3000 kg and wing area of 10 m^2, then the same aircraft with 20 m^2 wings. (this assumes weight doesn't increase with the larger wings, of course)

Assuming lift = 4 times weight, sea level density, speed = 400 km/h

117,600 = CL * 10 * .5 * 1.225 * 111^2
CL = 1.56

CDi = (1.56^)/(pi*6*.8) = 0.16

Induced drag = 0.16 * 10 * 1.225 * .5 * 111^2

Induced drag = 12,074 N

Now the same thing but with double the wing area

117,600 = CL * 20 * .5 * 1.225 * 111^2
CL = 0.78

CDi = (0.78^)/(pi*6*.8) = 0.04 (note how doubling the wing area results in a quarter of the CDi, because CL is squared)

Induced drag = 0.04 * 20 * 1.225 * .5 * 111^2

Induced drag = 6,037 N

Of course, parasitic drag increases with a larger wing area, but basically lower wingloading = an increasing advantage the tighter the turn, and the lower the IAS you fly (and IAS of course is lower at high altitudes)

Lift (N) = CL * area (sq m) * .5 * pressure (kg/cubic m) * velocity (m/s) squared

Coefficient induced drag (CDi) = (CL^2) / (pi * aspect ratio * Oswald efficiency)

Drag = coefficient * area * density *.5 * velocity squared

If you look at the equations, induced drag increases with the square of CL, and proportionately with the increase in wing area. So double wing area = a quarter the CL = half the induced drag.

To plug some figures in, an example aircraft with weight 3000 kg and wing area of 10 m^2, then the same aircraft with 20 m^2 wings. (this assumes weight doesn't increase with the larger wings, of course)

Assuming lift = 4 times weight, sea level density, speed = 400 km/h

117,600 = CL * 10 * .5 * 1.225 * 111^2
CL = 1.56

CDi = (1.56^)/(pi*6*.8) = 0.16

Induced drag = 0.16 * 10 * 1.225 * .5 * 111^2

Induced drag = 12,074 N

Now the same thing but with double the wing area

117,600 = CL * 20 * .5 * 1.225 * 111^2
CL = 0.78

CDi = (0.78^)/(pi*6*.8) = 0.04 (note how doubling the wing area results in a quarter of the CDi, because CL is squared)

Induced drag = 0.04 * 20 * 1.225 * .5 * 111^2

Induced drag = 6,037 N

Of course, parasitic drag increases with a larger wing area, but basically lower wingloading = an increasing advantage the tighter the turn, and the lower the IAS you fly (and IAS of course is lower at high altitudes)
My further posts,

So it may seem larger wing area(lower wing loading airfame) has no advantage over low wing area ( higher wing loading) plane in any sustained turn or Instantaneous turn because Any aircraft travelling at the SAME SPEED and pulling the SAME G and therefore at the SAME BANK ANGLE, will have the SAME RATE and SAME RADIUS. Doesn't matter if it is a low wing loading or high wing loading fighter!!!!

because the above equation use nothing but bank angle and , v(air speed ) to calculate rate of turn and radius of turn.

not as you explained,

What Warren .F. Philips meant was ,"if you want to design a fighter with better turn radius and turn rates , you should lower the wing loading , which is the only thing the designer can control".And during the design of tejas the same low wing loading principle was applied also resulting in larger wings.

Tejas has split-flaperon and elevons. For high lifts, Slats are made use of. Of course you see a flaperon in the flaps position, but those things won't get actuated during take-offs and landings. As I mentioned, the leading edge flaps or simply the "slats" will automatically get actuated during take-offs, landings,at high AOAs and during low speed flights (depending on the speed). Carefully observe some LCA airshow videos available here and some close up shots to know how they work.

The LCA Wing Planform: So, they decided to have a wing which will have both non-slender and slender delta planform to get vortex generation in all AOAs.

That is the reason for the compound delta LCA wing design, with it's both a low-wing-sweep (50deg, so non-slender delta) and high-wing-sweep (~63deg aka in the "slender delta" territory) as you move from inboard (wing root) to outboard of a wing.

Thus for the relatively lower part of the high-AoA flight regime (say from around 18deg to 22deg etc), the outboard slender delta part of the wing would dutifully contribute to the vortex lift while keeping the drag as low as possible.

And with further increase of AoA, as that part of the wing starts to stall due to vortex bursting etc, the inboard non-slender-delta part of the wing will come into play with it's flow-reattachment aspects and keep on further enhancing the lift co-efficient (while still keeping the drag down as low as possible).

So where is the need of any additional control surface like a canard (and thus without the weight and complexity penalty of an additional control surface etc),

Did you know that for the F-16 the horizontal stabilizers come in the wake of the wing at greater than 25 degrees AoA, i.e become ineffective . This is called a deep-stall (or super-stall) and is mostly unrecoverable. Therefore the F-16 is limited by its FBW to 25 degrees AoA. SO not having a tail in tejas is the right thing to do, because with shorter fuselage length than F-16 , it would have created more problems in tejas than the longer f-16.

nothing wrong with it, I also know that ,"total lift is a combination of wing lift + fuselage lift+ Lift component of thrust".

but wing lift makes the substantial portion of total lift.

I told you that "the other parameters being the same " is a lay quote by a poster on the forum, which I added to give a balance and fairness to the discussion.

In the formula there are -NO OTHER THINGS.

So if your formula is there wiki it is correct and credible.

but if the set of formula posted by me is also there in Wiki , it is dubious perhaps!!!!

Well for hardcore aviation buffs , the wing loading gets into those critical formulas in the form of wing area in sq meters.

If you are a harcore buff you can easily see by now where wing area is there in those formulae.

just look below,

Lift (N) = CL * area (sq m) * .5 * pressure (kg/cubic m) * velocity (m/s) squared

Coefficient induced drag (CDi) = (CL^2) / (pi * aspect ratio * Oswald efficiency)

Drag = coefficient * area * density *.5 * velocity squared

If you look at the equations, induced drag increases with the square of CL, and proportionately with the increase in wing area. So double wing area = a quarter the CL = half the induced drag.

To plug some figures in, an example aircraft with weight 3000 kg and wing area of 10 m^2, then the same aircraft with 20 m^2 wings. (this assumes weight doesn't increase with the larger wings, of course)

Assuming lift = 4 times weight, sea level density, speed = 400 km/h

117,600 = CL * 10 * .5 * 1.225 * 111^2
CL = 1.56

CDi = (1.56^)/(pi*6*.8) = 0.16

Induced drag = 0.16 * 10 * 1.225 * .5 * 111^2

Induced drag = 12,074 N

Now the same thing but with double the wing area

117,600 = CL * 20 * .5 * 1.225 * 111^2
CL = 0.78

CDi = (0.78^)/(pi*6*.8) = 0.04 (note how doubling the wing area results in a quarter of the CDi, because CL is squared)

Induced drag = 0.04 * 20 * 1.225 * .5 * 111^2

Induced drag = 6,037 N

Of course, parasitic drag increases with a larger wing area, but basically lower wingloading = an increasing advantage the tighter the turn, and the lower the IAS you fly (and IAS of course is lower at high altitudes)

these equations need no explanation as you your self has said that you are very talented in maths and physics.



And take a good look at the formula again,

["‹IMG]

This formula clearly shows that fighters with higher lift(lower wing loading ) can achieve a quicker sustained turn with lesser bank angles.

Also it clearly shows that for the same speed fighters with higher lift (low wing loading) can have a smaller radius of turn.

What is the significace of the above two point in a turning fight?
where:

L is the lift acting on the aircraft
θ is the angle of bank of the aircraft
m is the mass of the aircraft
v is the true airspeed of the aircraft
r is the radius of the turn
In straight level flight, lift is equal to the aircraft weight. In turning flight the lift exceeds the aircraft weight, and is equal to the weight of the aircraft (mg) divided by the cosine of the angle of bank:

["‹IMG]

where g is the gravitational field strength.

The radius of the turn can now be calculated

["‹IMG]
Aircraft with low wing loadings tend to have superior sustained turn performance because they can generate more lift for a given quantity of engine thrust. The immediate bank angle an aircraft can achieve before drag seriously bleeds off airspeed is known as itsinstantaneous turn performance. An aircraft with a small, highly loaded wing may have superior instantaneous turn performance, but poor sustained turn performance: it reacts quickly to control input, but its ability to sustain a tight turn is limited. A classic example is the F-104 Starfighter, which has a very small wing and high wing loading. At the opposite end of the spectrum was the gigantic Convair B-36. Its large wings resulted in a low wing loading, and there are disputed claims[who?] that this made the bomber more agile than contemporary jet fighters (the slightly later Hawker Hunter had a similar wing loading of 250 kg/m2) at high altitude. Whatever the truth in that, the delta winged Avro Vulcan bomber, with a wing loading of 260 kg/m2 could certainly be rolled at low altitudes.[10]

Like any body in circular motion, an aircraft that is fast and strong enough to maintain level flight at speed v in a circle of radius Raccelerates towards the centre at ["‹IMG]. That acceleration is caused by the inward horizontal component of the lift, ["‹IMG], where ["‹IMG] is the banking angle. Then from Newton's second law,

["‹IMG]

Solving for R gives

["‹IMG]

SO higher the wing lift(possible only with low wing loading fighter) lower the turning radius for the same speed V.

that means at any corner velocity speed lower wing loading fighter will turn into a higher wing loading fighter as the radius of turn for lower wing loading fighter will be lower. What is the significance of this?

finally he admitted

So an ac which generates larger amount of lift at slowest possible speed and has higher bank angle and load limit will have higher turn rate and lower radius.

If you have any problem with the above stuff, you contact any mech eng student and get clarification all by yourself and tell me where I was wrong and abusive.
I am all for inviting p2p, Deck lander And in future I will never reply to any of their posts,

I too will be glad to know where I have gone wrong.

Because I have replied more than thousand times and wont do it even once if they post here.

Okay, that is what you want from Arjun brigade(?!?!?),

because I will be reducing my activity here, getting engaged in a new venture.

I will not engage in arguments with any member here ,

and will not quote both of them and start an argument.

It's a pledge.

So p2p2 and Decklander can be free to post what ever they want.

Lets see how it contributes to the authenticity and credibility of the forum.