ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[Filtercoffee]

The MWF canopy is shaped likea bubble canopy like the latest one from Tejas Mark 1... The canards are placed in a piston where the won't hinder side-rear visibility, unless bent.View attachment 34650 View attachment 34651

yes thats why its a problem. The rear view is completely blocked and the canards will come in the way during maneuvers. There are a lot of blind spots during close ACM.

 

[Bleh]

yes thats why its a problem. The rear view is completely blocked and the canards will come in the way during maneuvers. There are a lot of blind spots during close ACM.

If pilot tries to look back during high G manoeuvres, he would get career-ending neck injury... If done its likely to be done during level flight before breaking/pulling.

From Mig-21 to Mig-29 UPG to F-35, i don't think looking directly backwards is mandatory requirement anymore.
Even Su-30 has similar canopy, while Su-35 & Su-57 have their cockpit canopies bulged ahead to increase frontal visibility.

But making the canards out of a transparent material would be interesting.

 

[no smoking]

I think ADA has already tested the Mark 2 in simulations. The control laws are ready.

Simulation is a must for every plane design in the world. But it can't replace the major part of actual flying test of prototype.

Let's have a look of 2 examples:
1. Japanese F2, first maiden flight in 1995, entered in service in 2000;
2. Chinese J-10B, prototype first came out 2009, the production started in 2014.
Both planes have less modification on aerodynamic shape than MWF.

 

[garg_bharat]

Simulation is a must for every plane design in the world. But it can't replace the major part of actual flying test of prototype.

Let's have a look of 2 examples:
1. Japanese F2, first maiden flight in 1995, entered in service in 2000;
2. Chinese J-10B, prototype first came out 2009, the production started in 2014.
Both planes have less modification on aerodynamic shape than MWF.

I guess you are looking at a new energized India which can turn per-conceived notions on its head.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Simulation is a must for every plane design in the world. But it can't replace the major part of actual flying test of prototype.

Let's have a look of 2 examples:
1. Japanese F2, first maiden flight in 1995, entered in service in 2000;
2. Chinese J-10B, prototype first came out 2009, the production started in 2014.
Both planes have less modification on aerodynamic shape than MWF.

Adding canard is not a big modifications. We have seen how our Su30 MKI was added a canard and yet it entered service quickly. Also, the power of computation has increased massively in the meantime. Even the processor on planes have improved to 180nm - 90nm lithography (India only has upto 180nm) whereas in 2005, the best plane had some 800nm chip.

So, all these improvements have resulted in mich faster software development time too.

 

[Filtercoffee]

If pilot tries to look back during high G manoeuvres, he would get career-ending neck injury... If done its likely to be done during level flight before breaking/pulling.

From Mig-21 to Mig-29 UPG to F-35, i don't think looking directly backwards is mandatory requirement anymore.
Even Su-30 has similar canopy, while Su-35 & Su-57 have their cockpit canopies bulged ahead to increase frontal visibility.View attachment 34658 View attachment 34656 But making the canards out of a transparent material would be interesting.

I would rather have a full bubble canopy like the F 22. About the high G rates I know its an additional benefit psychologically and physically, for my Imagination. Its a total washout due though to the reason put fort by you, it seems it is true.

The P 51 mustang had a canopy just like what I prefer, the complete view was better then the BF 109's squared canopy. The pilots who transitioned from other type of fighters to the Mustang were thrilled to have a bubble canopy as vision obstruction makes it a habit of dissatisfied flying compared to a bubble, and sometimes a complete downer.

The bubble is a morale and vision booster in my opinion.The Mig 21 Fl compared to the Mig 21 Bison can be called as a lower visibility fighter to the Mig 21 Bison's Mig 29 canopy which by the way looks awesome. It now has pilots look up at the HUD without thinking of a structural visual obstruction of the old canopy of the Mig 21 FL.

So they even did it due to the same problem. I just hope they continue pilot friendly designs always in the future. These changes matter for a better result. About rear vision again I just hope they make it like the Tejas MK 2 Navy. It Looks better too.

 

[Bleh]

About rear vision again I just hope they make it like the Tejas MK 2 Navy. It Looks better too.

The Navy one has its belly & air-intakes buldged outwards to make room for extra fuel. I don't know why they didn't do that on AF version... priorities, i guess.

Adding canard is not a big modifications. We have seen how our Su30 MKI was added a canard and yet it entered service quickly.

Mark 2 canopy shape modification from Mark 1 is comparable with Su-27 to Su-30 too...

 

[IndianHawk]

The Navy one has its belly & air-intakes buldged outwards to make room for extra fuel. I don't know why they didn't do that on AF version... priorities, i guess.

Mark 2 canopy shape modification from Mark 1 is comparable with Su-27 to Su-30 too...

Do we have any number for navy mk2 internal fuel. For airforce mwf internal fuel will increase to 3400kg from 2500kg in mk1.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[Bleh]

Do we have any number for navy mk2 internal fuel. For airforce mwf internal fuel will increase to 3400kg from 2500kg in mk1.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

Nothing i know of... Most info given out was for AF version. But the buldged midsection of Navy Mark 2 is known.

As multiple sources have inferred, the Navy design is more mature... I think if any future stealthier versions of Tejas are developed, it should be based on this.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Nothing i know of... Most info given out was for AF version. But the buldged midsection of Navy Mark 2 is known.View attachment 34740
As multiple sources have inferred, the Navy design is more mature... I think if any future stealthier versions of Tejas are developed, it should be based on this.View attachment 34739

Your second image is incompatible with the first. There are no tails in the second image

 

[Bleh]

Your second image is incompatible with the first. There are no tails in the second image

Yes. It's the old design from last Defexpo... Personally, i hate the new tailed one with enlarged, simple delta wings.
Maybe a Navy-specific requirement.

 

[IndianHawk]

As multiple sources have inferred, the Navy design is more mature... I think if any future stealthier versions of Tejas are developed, it should be based on this.View attachment 34739

It's more mature in the sense that it was already in working before mwf design.
Stealth design will follow amca frame. That is the minimum size required for functional internal bays.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[gryphus-scarface]

Your second image is incompatible with the first. There are no tails in the second image

The final config has "stabilators" or tails as you called them. They are supposedly to help reduce landing speeds and increase manoeuvrability.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Yes. It's the old design from last Defexpo... Personally, i hate the new tailed one with enlarged, simple delta wings.
Maybe a Navy-specific requirement.

This is because delta wing has high landing speed and hence is dangerous on a carrier. So, we will be getting the tail stabiliser to slow it down. It is quite a reasonable modification

 

[no smoking]

Adding canard is not a big modifications. We have seen how our Su30 MKI was added a canard and yet it entered service quickly.

Really?
First Su-30MKI prototype flied in 1995. The first pre-production Su-30MKI flied in 2000. 5 years.
Moreover, Su-30MKI was designed and modified by Russians not India. Russians had been studying Canards since 1970s and their achievements were seen on their demonstrators of Mig-1.44 and S-37. In other words, they had accumulated plenty of actual data of canards even before Su-30MKI. What India has now is just wind tunnel simulation results.

Also, the power of computation has increased massively in the meantime. Even the processor on planes have improved to 180nm - 90nm lithography (India only has upto 180nm) whereas in 2005, the best plane had some 800nm chip.

So, all these improvements have resulted in mich faster software development time too.

Computer simulation doesn't help much in your R&D on aerodynamic and flying control.

 

[garg_bharat]

Really?
First Su-30MKI prototype flied in 1995. The first pre-production Su-30MKI flied in 2000. 5 years.
Moreover, Su-30MKI was designed and modified by Russians not India. Russians had been studying Canards since 1970s and their achievements were seen on their demonstrators of Mig-1.44 and S-37. In other words, they had accumulated plenty of actual data of canards even before Su-30MKI. What India has now is just wind tunnel simulation results.
Computer simulation doesn't help much in your R&D on aerodynamic and flying control.

Well India produces the most Maths PHDs now. I can say that India has superior skills in simulation compared to Russians.

I believe that if execution remains at current speed, 2027 is firm for flying of Tejas Mark 2.

 

[gryphus-scarface]

Really?
First Su-30MKI prototype flied in 1995. The first pre-production Su-30MKI flied in 2000. 5 years.
Moreover, Su-30MKI was designed and modified by Russians not India. Russians had been studying Canards since 1970s and their achievements were seen on their demonstrators of Mig-1.44 and S-37. In other words, they had accumulated plenty of actual data of canards even before Su-30MKI. What India has now is just wind tunnel simulation results.

This is an unfair comparison. The Su-30 MKI has a lot more upgrades than just canards. They also needed 3D thrust vectoring, and newer avionics, along with the canards. We can't say for sure that the delay was due to canards.

QUOTE="no smoking, post: 1525184, member: 766"]
Computer simulation doesn't help much in your R&D on aerodynamic and flying control.[/QUOTE]
It does. The Tejas Flight Control Laws were extensively tested in simulations first. We have had better computers than the Russians for ages now. We have ISI which is one of the premier statistics institutes. We have much better computers today than those from the 90s. And a much better understanding of aerodynamics. Considering the first flight for MWF is in 2021, it isn't a stretch to believe it will be ready by 2025 for at least limited series production.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Really?
First Su-30MKI prototype flied in 1995. The first pre-production Su-30MKI flied in 2000. 5 years.
Moreover, Su-30MKI was designed and modified by Russians not India. Russians had been studying Canards since 1970s and their achievements were seen on their demonstrators of Mig-1.44 and S-37. In other words, they had accumulated plenty of actual data of canards even before Su-30MKI. What India has now is just wind tunnel simulation results.

Do you know how much the computation power has increased? This alone is enough to overcome all the problem with manual calculations. Also, Russia got canards on insistence of India which was funding the project. The first funding of India started in 1994-5 and Su30 going into production by 2000 shows how quickly canards and other upgrades could be added. The so called data of canards are now even ore easily available due to availability of advanced test equipment and softwares to measure details more quickly than before.

Computer simulation doesn't help much in your R&D on aerodynamic and flying control.

There is also the wind tunnel. Simulations are not based on fantasy but data from wind tunnel are also used to verify

 

[Trololo]

This is an unfair comparison. The Su-30 MKI has a lot more upgrades than just canards. They also needed 3D thrust vectoring, and newer avionics, along with the canards. We can't say for sure that the delay was due to canards.

QUOTE="no smoking, post: 1525184, member: 766"]
Computer simulation doesn't help much in your R&D on aerodynamic and flying control.

It does. The Tejas Flight Control Laws were extensively tested in simulations first. We have had better computers than the Russians for ages now. We have ISI which is one of the premier statistics institutes. We have much better computers today than those from the 90s. And a much better understanding of aerodynamics. Considering the first flight for MWF is in 2021, it isn't a stretch to believe it will be ready by 2025 for at least limited series production.[/QUOTE]
Sorry to break your bubble but all the ISIs put together do not match one TsAGI. The latter has made fundamental contributions to aerodynamics and hydrodynamics. And that experience is what makes Russian aircraft so good in the air at least in terms of aerodynamics. Its still going to be a while before we can reach to that level. Till then we should shut up and soldier on relentlessly.

AFAIK LCA Mk2 is concerned I believe first flight can happen in 3-4 years time, with another 3 years or so needed for FOC with a limited critical set of weapons. From there on it will be rapid progressive upgrades.

 

[garg_bharat]

ISI (Indian Statistical Institute) is not involved in Tejas or MWF.

Tejas is developed by ADA. (Aeronautical Development Agency).