ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

MirageBlue

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2020
Messages
111
Likes
527
Country flag
For Christ sake google f16 specs and check about the nose cone at the inlet of mirage 2000.
cant serve everything to you on a platter ๐Ÿ˜…๐Ÿ™๐Ÿป
Nose cone at the inlet of a Mirage-2000? lol.. ok, educate me, what's that for?

And no I want you to google it and show that the F-16 has a T/W ratio of better than 1 with full internal fuel and air to air weapons load.

Just posting a table that doesn't go into the specifics of what all is included in the weight calculation, while complaining that 98 kN is not enough for the Tejas Mk2 MWF is simply disingenous.

What you don't seem to get is that just having a T/W ratio near 1 without accounting for a decent weapons load is mostly for airshows and of no particular concern in a real mission. It is then just an indicator of performance in a lightly loaded condition.
 

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
7,694
Likes
14,550
Country flag
Then why did your say "EPE has same fuel consumption as GE 414 with about 10% higher dry and after burner thrust"..? ๐Ÿคจ๐Ÿ˜

And modern engines are drastically different in design, that's why they are more fuel-efficient. Because they are better in technology not just any upgrade... Mere ko bol rha hai ignorance is bliss.
Because I have read it. These sort of news are very difficult to find after pasaage of time.

So upgrade of engines come without better technology is so.ething you want to say?
 

Ar.gaurav28

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2021
Messages
153
Likes
447
Country flag
And no I want you to google it and show that the F-16 has a T/W ratio of better than 1 with full internal fuel and air to air weapons load.
Who is calculating it with air to air weapons load?
the concept of checking if the platform is able to perform upto itโ€™s potential is with full fuel capacity which gives it the maximum time in air and bigger combat radius.
&
We need T/W ratio 1 or more because the thrust-to-weight ratio of a combat aircraft is a good indicator of the maneuverability of the aircraft. Aircraft with a high thrust to weight ratio will also have a high value of excess thrust. High excess thrust results in a high rate of climb. If the thrust to weight ratio is greater than one and the drag is small, the aircraft can accelerate straight up!

Nose cone at the inlet of a Mirage-2000? lol.. ok, educate me, what's that for?
If u canโ€™t even educate yourself about it on your own that shows how dumb you are thus I wouldnโ€™t waste my time by replying to you further !!๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿป

Here to converse with Intellects & thus having a sincere discussions!!๐Ÿ™๐Ÿป
 

Okabe Rintarou

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
758
Likes
2,973
Country flag
GE 414 EPE has same fuel consumption as GE 414 with about 10% higher dry and after burner thrust.
Suck it physics. ๐Ÿ–•๐Ÿ˜š๐Ÿ–•
What is wrong with what he said? Higher thrust with same SFC can be achieved by increasing TET and Pressure ratio. Nothing wrong with the physics of it.
EDIT: I am dumb, SFC is per unit of thrust, I think @HariPrasad-1 meant lower SFC or same fuel consumption.
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
5,244
Likes
20,272
Country flag
What is wrong with what he said? Higher thrust with same SFC can be achieved by increasing TET and Pressure ratio. Nothing wrong with the physics of it.
EDIT: I am dumb, SFC is per unit of thrust, I think @HariPrasad-1 meant lower SFC or same fuel consumption.
You're on point, you can't increase that without drastically changing the mechanism. What you can do is do minor tweaks to boost the overall thrust.. something like what was done in M-53-2 (layman explanation: like adding turbocharger to combustion engines)

But that will disproportionately increase fuel consumption, due to likelihood of lowered efficiency.
 

Okabe Rintarou

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
758
Likes
2,973
Country flag
Yeah, you can't increase that without drastically changing the mechanism. What you can do is do minor tweaks to boost the overall thrust.. something like what was done in M-53-2 (layman explanation: like adding turbocharger to combustion engines)

But that will disproportionately increase fuel consumption, due to likelihood of lowered efficiency.
What do you mean drastically changing the mechanism? Didn't they replace the entire hot section for EPE? It has CMC instead of nickel superalloys, right? So higher TET=> better thrust at same fuel consumption.

P.S. @HariPrasad-1 did say "same fuel consumption". I misread it as same SFC. But the point still stands. He is not wrong.
 

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
7,694
Likes
14,550
Country flag
What do you mean drastically changing the mechanism? Didn't they replace the entire hot section for EPE? It has CMC instead of nickel superalloys, right? So higher TET=> better thrust at same fuel consumption.

P.S. @HariPrasad-1 did say "same fuel consumption". I misread it as same SFC. But the point still stands. He is not wrong.
Change in design and better alloys holds the key. If you can make an alloy which can sustain 100 degree more than you can operate the engine at higher compression ratio. By design change, you can make more air passing through the engine which generates better thrust. India has designed new fan whiich will increase air velocity in engine by about 10%. New thermal coating and new scb can help us to improve compression ratio of Kaveri. If I am not wrong, Kaveri operates on T/W ratio of 24:1 against GE404's ratio of 27:1 and GE 414's compression ratio of 30:1. Better metallurgy allows aggressive deign to be made. New ceramic blades under devrlopment will allow the engines to be operated above 2000* C and those engines will be highly powerful with same fuel consumption. This is pure physics and physics sucks nowhere. GE 404 and GE 414 are almost same in dimension yet later produces 10% higher power with same fuel consumption. GE 414 EPE produces 18 pc higher power with same fuel consmption. It is about design and blade tdchnology.

This is true with car engines as well. When Tata launched Sumo, it had 2 liter of engine with 60 hp. Now Tata safar has 2 liter engine which generates 170 hp and yet gives higher fuel efficiency. Physics sucks nowhere.
 
Last edited:

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
5,244
Likes
20,272
Country flag
What do you mean drastically changing the mechanism? Didn't they replace the entire hot section for EPE? It has CMC instead of nickel superalloys, right? So higher TET=> better thrust at same fuel consumption.

P.S. @HariPrasad-1 did say "same fuel consumption". I misread it as same SFC. But the point still stands. He is not wrong.
EPE doesn't exist outside pamphlets.. So no, noone achieve any miracle yet.

If the duo then it's gonna be a marvellous achievement. But for now it's remains a near impossible task. That's the reason 115kN class engines don't exist.
 

swapcv

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
28
Likes
88
Country flag
EPE doesn't exist outside pamphlets.. So no, noone achieve any miracle yet.

If the duo then it's gonna be a marvellous achievement. But for now it's remains a near impossible task. That's the reason 115kN class engines don't exist.
There are already engines that exceed 190kN thrust, don't know what led you to believe otherwise.
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
5,244
Likes
20,272
Country flag
There are already engines that exceed 190kN thrust, don't know what led you to believe otherwise.
Read before replying.

115kN class... Target weight 1000-1200kg.
Our 110kN will be 1st if the F414 EPE continues to not exist, the nonexistent 105kN EJ upgrade similar too.
 

Spitfire9

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
276
Likes
717
Country flag
Read before replying.

115kN class... Target weight 1000-1200kg.
Our 110kN will be 1st if the F414 EPE continues to not exist, the nonexistent 105kN EJ upgrade similar too.
EJ200 brief was IIRC a 90kN engine designed with the potential to upgrade 20% (I presume that means without major redesign being necessary) and still more if required. As far as I know none of the Eurofighter consortium asked for the upgrade to be developed. Same thing with vectored thrust - nobody asked for it although a developmental/experimental system was demonstrated.

If India was really worried about security of supply of US engines, Eurojet might be an alternative, given time and money.
 

Okabe Rintarou

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
758
Likes
2,973
Country flag
EPE doesn't exist outside pamphlets.. So no, noone achieve any miracle yet.

If the duo then it's gonna be a marvellous achievement. But for now it's remains a near impossible task. That's the reason 115kN class engines don't exist.
Not what I am contending. My point is that EPE is not outside the realm of physics. Its an engineering challenge, but theoretically, you can look at a Brayton cycle and conclude that EPE will have higher thrust at same fuel consumption. So the physics of it is sound, just as @HariPrasad-1 says.

I know that EPE is still not fully developed yet, they are looking for a launch customer to fun the development. But I do remember reading that they had tested the CMC based HPT prototypes, so its not only on paper. Even if it was just on paper, I do believe that the Americans can make it happen, although I've been scratching my own head on how CMC blades would even work, I can bet my top dollar that a certain someone by the name of Stewart from Sandia National Laboratories is indirectly involved in that major leap in turbine blade design.
 

gutenmorgen

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2021
Messages
79
Likes
159
Country flag
Amca = baby F22 ?

Correct?
The more i look at amca models, the more it feels like we are building another fat amy, rather than a mini raptor. Kf21 looks more raptor-ish.
I hope i am wrong. Waiting for some more official renders/models or the actual prototype role out.
 

SavageKing456

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2020
Messages
1,061
Likes
4,770
Country flag
The more i look at amca models, the more it feels like we are building another fat amy, rather than a mini raptor. Kf21 looks more raptor-ish.
I hope i am wrong. Waiting for some more official renders/models or the actual prototype role out.
Shows you have no idea about designs
Just making exact raptor design won't make your aircraft have similar RCS
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
5,244
Likes
20,272
Country flag
Not what I am contending. My point is that EPE is not outside the realm of physics. Its an engineering challenge, but theoretically, you can look at a Brayton cycle and conclude that EPE will have higher thrust at same fuel consumption. So the physics of it is sound, just as @HariPrasad-1 says.

I know that EPE is still not fully developed yet, they are looking for a launch customer to fun the development. But I do remember reading that they had tested the CMC based HPT prototypes, so its not only on paper. Even if it was just on paper, I do believe that the Americans can make it happen, although I've been scratching my own head on how CMC blades would even work, I can bet my top dollar that a certain someone by the name of Stewart from Sandia National Laboratories is indirectly involved in that major leap in turbine blade design.
Ok @HariPrasad-1 I take back what I said. There's a chance.. but like, a veeeeerry slim one.

The more i look at amca models, the more it feels like we are building another fat amy, rather than a mini raptor. Kf21 looks more raptor-ish.
I hope i am wrong. Waiting for some more official renders/models or the actual prototype role out.
Beta. Tu looks pe mat ja re!.. Both Kf-X & Raptor have shit aerodynamics, not even area ruled.

AMCA is much more efficient design... It doesn't look slick because of that (same as MWF). Someday I'll find the CFD & drag analysis data, but by looking through naked eyes one can still tell they've been refining for better area-rule coefficients. At similar weight & T/W of Mig-29 it'll significantly outperform by sheer aerodynamic superiority.
 
Last edited:

Lonewolf

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
3,933
Likes
11,365
Country flag
Ok @HariPrasad-1 I take back what I said. There's a chance.. but like, a veeeeerry slim one.



Beta. Tu looks pe mat ja re!.. Both Kf-X & Raptor have shit aerodynamics, not even area ruled.

AMCA is much more efficient design... It doesn't look slick because of that (same as MWF). Someday I'll find the CFD & drag analysis data, but by looking through naked eyes one can still tell they've been refining for better area-rule coefficients. At similar weight & T/W of Mig-29 it'll significantly outperform by sheer aerodynamic superiority.
F 22 is more of good due to its stealth and engine thrust is used to make up for any aerodynamic shortcomings , and to make up for that nozzle which sacrifice thrust due to its shape , some people argue that some odd 15 20 % thrust is sacrificed

Only thing to be seen is sensors in amca , rest assured it is good .


If we consider European design we will have about 75 kn dry thrust for 110+kn engine which will give us f 22 like performance
 

Flying Dagger

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
2,361
Likes
5,979
Country flag
The canards of MWF, are not what you thought they'd be like. View attachment 87848



Hindsight 20/20.. Safran fucked Rafale with undepowerd engines. They have a bad rep for that in France. Their high power engines are huge like M-53-2 & GE is far ahead of them on basis od weight-size efficiency.
They didn't fcuked anything but did what was asked for... They can upgrade the same engine further which will happen for Rafale next upgrade probably. They were expecting us to pay for it and they get to milk royalty too from it.

M88 is ahead of the Mirage engine in tech and with so many customers lined up now they have the money to fund too.

GE is definitely ahead But UK RR could be the only country willing to part more should we join them. We have lots of engineer working for RR too in UK as well in India.

We should have gone with anyone of them in 2010 around and we would have an engine by now the delay in negotiations is only hurting us more.
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
5,244
Likes
20,272
Country flag
F 22 is more of good due to its stealth and engine thrust is used to make up for any aerodynamic shortcomings , and to make up for that nozzle which sacrifice thrust due to its shape , some people argue that some odd 15 20 % thrust is sacrificed

Only thing to be seen is sensors in amca , rest assured it is good .


If we consider European design we will have about 75 kn dry thrust for 110+kn engine which will give us f 22 like performance
Yeah the Murican-muscle style... But our AMCA is differently designed.
Although without TVC it'll be slightly limited. That's why I compared the expected agility to Mig-29 (operationals). Not F22like yet. For that you'll have to wait for the thrust vectored 110kN on Mark2 & reengined MWF.
 
Last edited:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top