ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Enquirer]

A guy who didn't even know the significance of low wing loading for 4.5th gen RSS fly by wire delta wing fighters,

Is expounding on ,"AERODYNAMICS" NOW.

ROFL.


When , guys who claim to be ,"examiners", don't even know abc of the subject,
Answer sheet may look like martian language.

That I can't help it.

The "AUTOLAY" software ADA developed for fabrication of composite parts in Tejas is now being licensed BOEING.


Plus the mission computer , radar computer & weapon release software developed for su 30 mki has its origins from Tejas effort.

Just remember the brahmos launch from su 30 mki , to know what I am talking.

Russians were so impressed by it, they ordered 64 sets of mission computers, weapon release store software for their su 30 SM fighters.


So if you want to any credible info about tejas read my posts & learn.

Endless whinning is of no use to any one.

Nothing here proves that I was unaware of 'wing loading' - it's just an f'ing ratio! However there's much here that proves you know nothing beyond the names. You have absolutely no idea about the 'interplay' of various aspects. You've no idea about what 'design' means in the first place. I can tell you've haven't built anything in your life - not even a wooden cupboard!!!

It's pretty obvious you failed or got a passing score all through your school, and somehow got introduced to few terms! You have absolutely no understanding of the FIRST PRINCIPLES! I can bet that you cannot explain a single damn thing using first principles. All you can do is just yak and yak and yak about abbreviations and terms without building a cohesive argument!

I am getting bored dealing with you. Just feel sorry for other folks who might actually get taken in by your BS - just because it appears long ( faking with double line spacing, every phrase into a new paragraph - desperate attention seeker!!!)

But, I think you're exposed enough now for people to put up a guard against your BS!

 

[ersakthivel]

Nothing here proves that I was unaware of 'wing loading' - it's just an f'ing ratio! However there's much here that proves you know nothing beyond the names. You have absolutely no idea about the 'interplay' of various aspects. You've no idea about what 'design' means in the first place. I can tell you've haven't built anything in your life - not even a wooden cupboard!!!

It's pretty obvious you failed or got a passing score all through your school, and somehow got introduced to few terms! You have absolutely no understanding of the FIRST PRINCIPLES! I can bet that you cannot explain a single damn thing using first principles. All you can do is just yak and yak and yak about abbreviations and terms without building a cohesive argument!

I am getting bored dealing with you. Just feel sorry for other folks who might actually get taken in by your BS - just because it appears long ( faking with double line spacing, every phrase into a new paragraph - desperate attention seeker!!!)

But, I think you're exposed enough now for people to put up a guard against your BS!

You didn't even know ,that Whitcomb'' area rule cones into effect primarily in supersonic flight regime , just a couple of minutes before.

After I rebutted, you can't give links to disprove me.

After I hv said tejas now has the same sea level top speed as that of su 30 mki,

You can't refute,

Will you also say su 30 mki is a draggy ,"first time , sub optimal design " now??

ROFL.


I can also bet,

If some one wants to learn the art of ,"winning endlessly" he can read your posts & become an expert,

If some one wants to know actual info on tejas, that can't be refuted , he can read my posts & get informed.

What's the wager?

 

[Enquirer]

I can also bet,

If some one wants to learn the art of ,"winning endlessly" he can read your posts & become an expert,

If some one wants to know actual info on tejas, that can't be refuted , he can read my posts & get informed.

What's the wager?

Anyone who 'believes' in your posts will end up 'losing' anyways!
You only have 'wrong' info!
My preference is never to deal with you. As such my posts are NOT directed to you, it's supposed to be informative/cautionary/educational for others. BUT YOU BUTT IN ALL THE TIME!!!!

 

[ersakthivel]

Anyone who 'believes' in your posts will end up 'losing' anyways!
You only have 'wrong' info!
My preference is never to deal with you. As such my posts are NOT directed to you, it's supposed to be informative/cautionary/educational for others. BUT YOU BUTT IN ALL THE TIME!!!!

Okay,

Just prove one instance in our long convo,

Where you gave authentic info to rebut my post,

Just now you cited Whitcomb area rule , which deals with DRAG IN SUPERSONIC FLIGHT REGIME,

Cemilac report cited Whitcomb rule in connection with Tejas's inability to go supersonic at sea level & nothing else.

Now tejas has the SAME top sea level speed as that of su 30 mKi in ,"INDIAN CONDITIONS",

Which is a fact.

So the sudden increase(opposed to gradual increase as per Whitcomb),

in cross section along the fuselage between 4 to 5 meters,in Tejas airframe ,

hasn't hampered tejas at all in overcoming trans sonic drag in attaining sea level top speed as per ASR spec.

That proves there is enough stuff in Tejas design that can punch through trans sonic drag

&

attain the same top sea level speed as that of su 30 mki.

So where ,"drag" hampers tejas?

Can you cite any source , to imply ,Whitcomb's area rule applies in sub sonic flight regime also ?

So that tejas '' shorrtfalls in subsonic specs in STR,ITR, etc are due to sudden increase in cross section after 4 meters length along fuselage.





You hv nt given any link to disprove me, if you give & prove me wrong, I will gladly accept my mistake.


Even that sudden increase in cross section is due to the requirement of porting larger than rafale sized radome on a fighter the size of mig 21 is my opinion.

That's why a sudden cross section increae had to be made is my guess.

ADA is not unaware of Whitcomb's rule as you claim

ROFL.

Tejas was the first fighter in the world to be designed in IIT Delhi computer lab, using advanced software,

Implying Whitcomb's area rule was not factored in that design process is childish.

All design efforts hv compromises to achieve higher priority design goals , compromising somewhere.

So who is advancing wrong argument?

Who is whinning?

 

[Enquirer]

Okay,

Just prove one instance in our long convo,

Where you gave authentic info to rebut my post,

Just now you cited Whitcomb area rule , which deals with DRAG IN SUPERSONIC FLIGHT REGIME,

To imply that temas has shorrtfalls in subsonic specs in STR,ITR, etc.

After I corrected you,

You hv nt given any link to disprove me.

So who is advancing wrong argument?

Who is whinning?

You've corrected me squat shit!

Your read of the Whitcomb area rule is again simplistic and superficial! A cumulative streamlined body helps reduce drag in all flight regimes. It's effect happens to be more pronounced in supersonic realm!!!
That's what happens when you don't understand basics, but grab few terms & abbreviations from hear&there to show off!!!

The problem with arguing with you is that you don't understand the very basics. To cover that weakness you mumble nonstop irrelevant stuff!

 

[ersakthivel]

You've corrected me squat shit!

Your read of the Whitcomb area rule is again simplistic and superficial! A cumulative streamlined body helps reduce drag in all flight regimes. It's effect happens to be more pronounced in supersonic realm!!!
That's what happens when you don't understand basics, but grab few terms & abbreviations from hear&there to show off!!!

The problem with arguing with you is that you don't understand the very basics. To cover that weakness you mumble nonstop irrelevant stuff!

Just don't bluff.

The need for complying with Whitcomb's rule arose only

after advanced jet engine tech made super sonic flight possible.

Thats area rule from Whitcomb advocated COKE BOTTLE shaped cross section for punching through trans sonic drag & achieving super sonic flight.

This ,"cumulative" word is you own bluff , that will be called in seconds here.

Go somewhere else to show off your prejudiced opinion as ,"AERODYNAMICS"

ROFL

Just read kid,

"The Whitcomb area rule, also called the transonic area rule, is a design technique used to reduce an aircraft's drag at transonic and supersonic speeds, particularly between Mach 0.75 and 1.2."

STR,ITR,AOA, max Gs pulled are all done CORNER SPEEDS far lower than TRANS SONIC SPEEDS.

Go to wiki grandpa,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki


Even here TEJAS DOESN'T VIOLATE WHITCOMB'S rule.

It has lax COMPLIANCE of Whitcomb's rule between 4 to 5 meters length along fuselage, behind nose cone.

Still tejas has pulls it's max supersonic spee d at high drag punishing sealevel flight shows ,
It is neither under powered , or over weight or hampered by drag.

As simple as that.

From nose to tail TEJAS COMPLIES WITH WHITCOMB's rule , is an undeniable fact.

Nowhere along tejas fuselage, cross section increase VIOLATES WHITCOMB'S area rules

 

[Enquirer]

Just don't bluff.

The need for complying with Whitcomb's rule arose only

after advanced jet engine tech made super sonic flight possible.

Thats area rule from Whitcomb advocated COKE BOTTLE shaped cross section for punching through trans sonic drag & achieving super sonic flight.

This ,"cumulative" word is you own bluff , that will be called in seconds here.

Again you show your ignorance of the basics of physics!!!
Drag increases as the SQUARE of the velocity; (TRANSONIC drag is worse than supersonic drag!)
As such the effects get more and more pronounced at higher velocities! Fighter jets flying at mach 0.8 will also pay the price for not conforming with the Area rule!!!

 

[Enquirer]

Just don't bluff.

The need for complying with Whitcomb's rule arose only

after advanced jet engine tech made super sonic flight possible.

Thats area rule from Whitcomb advocated COKE BOTTLE shaped cross section for punching through trans sonic drag & achieving super sonic flight.

This ,"cumulative" word is you own bluff , that will be called in seconds here.

Again you show your ignorance of the basics of physics!!!
Drag increases as the SQUARE of the velocity; (TRANSONIC drag is worse than supersonic drag!)
As such the effects get more and more pronounced at higher velocities! Fighter jets flying at mach 0.8 will also pay the price for not conforming with the Area rule!!!

Whitcomb happened to discover the Area rule while trying to get to the supersonic realm; that doesn't mean it applies only to the supersonic travel!

That's the issue with someone not understanding first principles. Whatever you read under a particular heading, you think that's the only scope for that phenomenon!!

If you're intuitive you would understand (even though it's rarely stated as such) that what Area rule is essentially saying is - having a particular drag coefficient for individual components does not guarantee that the drag coefficient for the system would be the same!!

If you're flying at only mach 0.3 then the drag (as a function of the square of velocity) is not that pronounced! A higher 'cumulative' drag coefficient is not that fatal!

 

[ersakthivel]

Again you show your ignorance of the basics of physics!!!
Drag increases as the SQUARE of the velocity; (TRANSONIC drag is worse than supersonic drag!)
As such the effects get more and more pronounced at higher velocities! Fighter jets flying at mach 0.8 will also pay the price for not conforming with the Area rule!!!

Whitcomb happened to discover the Area rule while trying to get to the supersonic realm; that doesn't mean it applies only to the supersonic travel!

That's the issue with someone not understanding first principles. Whatever you read under a particular heading, you think that's the only scope for that phenomenon!!

If you're intuitive you would understand (even though it's rarely stated as such) that what Area rule is essentially saying is - having a particular drag coefficient for individual components does not guarantee that the drag coefficient for the system would be the same!!

If you're flying at only mach 0.3 then the drag (as a function of the square of velocity) is not that pronounced!

"Drag increases as the SQUARE of the velocity; (TRANSONIC drag is worse than supersonic drag!)"

Cite me proof to show , this increased drag can be SUBSTANTIALLY reduced by complying with whitcomb rule in subsonic flights BELOW Mach 0.7.

Do you even comprehend what I am saying??
Tejas COMPLIES WITH &
DOESN'T VIOLATES WHITCOMB'S Rule all along the fuselage.

If cross section increase is a bit more gradual between 4 & 5 meters along fuselage, it would be a BIT BETTER. THATS ALL.

In all other areas on tejas fuselage Whitcomb's rule in perfectly complied with.

Compliance is not SO perfect between 4 to 5 meters length along fuselage.
Still it is a MINOR matter which hadn't stopped tejas from reaching design super sonic top speed in sea level flight.

This is a favorite ploy of GRIPEN Trolls to beat tejas on countless threads on forums.

But if pointedly asked these questions, citing links & facts,

They just vanish.

You too are going to do the same VANISHing act here as far WHITCOMb rule.

ROFL.

 

[Enquirer]

"Drag increases as the SQUARE of the velocity; (TRANSONIC drag is worse than supersonic drag!)"

Cite me proof to show , this increased drag can be SUBSTANTIALLY reduced by complying with whitcomb rule in subsonic flights BELOW Mach 0.7.

Do you even comprehend what I am saying??
Tejas COMPLIES WITH &
DOESN'T VIOLATES WHITCOMB'S Rule all along the fuselage.

If cross section increase is a bit more gradual between 4 & 5 meters along fuselage, it would be a BIT BETTER. THATS ALL.

In all other areas on tejas fuselage Whitcomb's rule in perfectly complied with.

Compliance is not SO perfect between 4 to 5 meters length along fuselage.
Still it is a MINOR matter which hadn't stopped tejas from reaching design super sonic top speed in sea level flight.

This is a favorite ploy of GRIPEN Trolls to beat tejas on countless threads on forums.

But if pointedly asked these questions, citing links & facts,

They just vanish.

You too are going to do the same VANISHing act here as far WHITCOMb rule.

ROFL.

Boy!! Oh Boy!!!
I don't care what the mods think but I have to call you a COMPLETE IDIOT here!!

YOU HAVE NO IDEA AS TO WHAT WHITCOMB AREA RULE IS!!

Your commentary on Whitcomb rule is so stupid that I don't even want to waste my time debating with you.

Any one else on the forum who knows Whitcomb Area rule, please educate this IDIOT.

If you have any decency or a genuine desire to learn then stop posting for an hour - go read up on Whitcomb Area rule (watch a video if that's your thing). Then come back and apologize to me!

I am bored dealing with this nuisance.

 

[Flame Thrower]

Your read of the Whitcomb area rule is again simplistic and superficial! A cumulative streamlined body helps reduce drag in all flight regimes. It's effect happens to be more pronounced in supersonic realm!!!

A quick question....

Are you saying Whitcomb area rule applies in all flight regimes!?

Can you be more specific on cumulative streamlined body.

 

[Prashant12]

The Uttam AESA radar has been integrated with LCA LSP2 for trials.

 

[Enquirer]

A quick question....

Are you saying Whitcomb area rule applies in all flight regimes!?

Can you be more specific on cumulative streamlined body.

Absolutely. The lack of it may not be that deleterious at lower speeds though.

Why do you think commercial airlines (not supersonic) have swept back wings?
Why do you think the engine nacelles protrude so far ahead of the wings?

The crux of the Whitcomb rule is that it's not enough if the fuselage, engine nacelle (for commercial aircraft), wings or missiles carried under wings etc are individually streamlined bodies. What matters (especially at higher speeds as drag increases as the square of velocity) is that the cumulative areas (of fuselage, wings, nacelle, missiles etc) along the length of the body of the aircraft be streamlined.

As such, you can have a perfectly streamlined fuselage, but hanging two perfectly streamlined engine nacelle actually changes the very drag coefficient of the whole aircraft. That's why the wing area is RATIONED along the length of the aircraft body by 'sweeping' it back (or front).

I would love to go into more details....but I was hoping someone else would jump in and teach that moron some basics about aerodynamics.

 

[Flame Thrower]

The Uttam AESA radar has been integrated with LCA LSP2 for trials.

If all goes well, then 2 more years and we might see Uttam in operational aircraft.

 

[Enquirer]

Cite me proof to show , this increased drag can be SUBSTANTIALLY reduced by complying with whitcomb rule in subsonic flights BELOW Mach 0.7.

What a sorry picture you paint of yourself with your burgeoning ignorance!!!

All commercial aircraft (flying at mach 0.7) try to comply with Whitcomb Area rule !!!
Have you ever read the basics of aircraft design????

 

[ersakthivel]

https://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/ada-tejas-lca-news-and-discussions

This page has more on whitcomb's rules.

 

[ersakthivel]

What a sorry picture you paint of yourself with your burgeoning ignorance!!!

All commercial aircraft (flying at mach 0.7) try to comply with Whitcomb Area rule !!!
Have you ever read the basics of aircraft design????

Who told you tejas doesn't comply with whitcombs rule?

 

[Enquirer]

Who told you tejas doesn't comply with whitcombs rule?

ADA chief - Balaji!!
They'll fix it in Mk2.
Now will you please shut up???

(also compliance is not a binary - there're degrees. Mk2 will try to conform more closely to the Area rule)

 

[ersakthivel]

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/dss/2009/main/2-CEMILAC.pdf

U
For deceitful arguments on whitcomb's rules relationship with tejas, above link is as official as it gets,




One of the major out come of sea level trial of Tejas
is that the drag of the aircraft is high ,

such that the aircraft
could not reach the supersonic Mach number at sea level.


The components contributing for the maximum drag rise
has been identified and improvement methods were worked
out.
Nose cone extension using a Plug: The major component
of drag at higher speed is the wave drag. This can be
minimized by following the Whitcomb's Area rule for the
aerodynamic configuration design. The cross sectional area
variation of LCA along the length of fuselage is shown
in Fig 12. Between station X = 5000mm & 6000mm there
is a sudden increase in area. By smoothing this sudden
rise, the wave drag can be minimized. A possible solution
proposed is the extension of nose cone by introducing a
Plug.

The detailed analysis of this design and its implementation
plan is being worked out.



The above is official quote.

Where does it says Tejas "doesn't COMPLY WITH WHITCOMB'S RULE"?

All fighters hv room for improvement & drag reduction.

The reason for this above analysis is , due to earlier difficulties in tejas reaching "super sonic speeds at sea level."

But now tejas for supersonic at sea level, with same top speed as that of su 30 mki.

Of course smoothening of cross section will Reduce drag by a few percentage points &
Improve specs by A FEW PERCENTAGE POINTS.

But deceitful guys using it as some show stopping mistake in tejas , is just plain mischievous.

Even without nose cone plug tejas mk1 has same top speed as Su 30 mki at sea level.

The same deceitful guy won't answer how??

ROFL.

 

[ersakthivel]

E

ADA chief - Balaji!!
They'll fix it in Mk2.
Now will you please shut up???

(also compliance is not a binary - there're degrees. Mk2 will try to conform more closely to the Area rule)

Eggspurts should know tejas mk1 too complies with Whitcomb rule.

Mk2 will do better, doesn't mean mk1 has VIOLATED that rule.

Mk1 achieved the same top sea level speed of su 30 mki in indian condition.

That's not possible without mk1 complying with Area rule Whitcomb.