ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[Snowcat]

Let me put my 2 cents out here. I think the whole TVC hoopla is a bit overrated. As far as I have heard, TVC surely does help with the maneuvering but not to the extent it's made out to be, it's got more of a airshow application rather than combat, it's only allowed to be used in certain maneuvers and I am just basing it on the comments of an American f-18 navy pilot and instructor who has done his fair share of dogfights with the RMAFs Su 30s. Somehow I agree with him.

 

[Bleh]

So after several years of toil we want MWF to be at par with the Gripen E/F, when the C/D model was beaten hands down by the Su-27- of which we have a better version locally. Hope E/F is miles ahead of C/D, or that MWF is so good it does not have to ever engage in WVR, scoring kills in BVR.

MWF is much different. It has so high aspect-ratio, its ITR should match Su-27 & Rafale... 30°/sec atleast. The STR should be low, but maybe the aerodynamic improvements will make up for it. Can't say without CFD analysis.

Overall it's more made to bleed energy & get into slow speed maneuvering, where it'll again beat pretty much anything else.

Awesome! Amazing stuff comes out of the design hangars of DFI! On a lighter note, that thing looks like it will take to air any moment like the humble house fly!

On a humbling note, can it do this:

Looks way more than 30 degrees- probably closer to 50-60 degrees. Not sure what advantage higher degree of movement allows but could help with improving turn rates in conjunction with other control surfaces, vital in WVR combat.

No because we won't use it as air-brake.. I asked around. Su-30 canards too do ±30°.

 

[MirageBlue]

So after several years of toil we want MWF to be at par with the Gripen E/F, when the C/D model was beaten hands down by the Su-27- of which we have a better version locally. Hope E/F is miles ahead of C/D, or that MWF is so good it does not have to ever engage in WVR, scoring kills in BVR.



Awesome! Amazing stuff comes out of the design hangars of DFI! On a lighter note, that thing looks like it will take to air any moment like the humble house fly!

On a humbling note, can it do this:

Looks way more than 30 degrees- probably closer to 50-60 degrees. Not sure what advantage higher degree of movement allows but could help with improving turn rates in conjunction with other control surfaces, vital in WVR combat.

If I'm not wrong, this much deflection in the canards is only likely to be seen when the actuators that power the canards are powered down. Once the actuators are powered up, the canards move to a neutral position for taxiing.

Rafale start up

Since it now appears that a notch has been provided for the MWF's canards as well, this may well be the reason.

 

[MirageBlue]

If I'm not wrong, this much deflection in the canards is only likely to be seen when the actuators that power the canards are powered down. Once the actuators are powered up, the canards move to a neutral position for taxiing.

Rafale start up

Since it now appears that a notch has been provided for the MWF's canards as well, this may well be the reason.

P.s: Rafales do not use the canards for braking the way the Gripen does, with nearly 90 deg movement. At least I have not seen any video confirming that it does use massive canard deflections for air brakes during landing.

 

[Snowcat]

P.s: Rafales do not use the canards for braking the way the Gripen does, with nearly 90 deg movement. At least I have not seen any video confirming that it does use massive canard deflections for air brakes during landing.

 

[Lonewolf]

View attachment 90682

Not 90 like gripen , it's almost 30 45

 

[Snowcat]

Not 90 like gripen , it's almost 30 45

Okay thanks, I misunderstood.
Yes gripen use it as a wing and then as an airbrake after touchdown while rafale just use it to provide lift during the approach.

 

[MonaLazy]

TVC hoopla .. basing it on the comments of an American

A Russian pilot would be an immensely more credible source of all things TVC.

 

[MonaLazy]

Rafales do not use the canards for braking

They do infact- I just learnt. Here is a landing video:


& here is some info: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/...ake-function-performed-on-the-dassault-rafale

 

[MirageBlue]

They do infact- I just learnt. Here is a landing video:


& here is some info: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/...ake-function-performed-on-the-dassault-rafale

View attachment 90709

I didn't see any major deflection from the canards after it had landed. It seemed to be deflected to the degree required to generate maximum lift during the landing approach.

 

[MonaLazy]

I didn't see any major deflection from the canards after it had landed. It seemed to be deflected to the degree required to generate maximum lift during the landing approach.

This site is linked in that stack exchange article: https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/dassault-rafale-analysis/

& this going into a vertically climbing loop, popping out landing gear at the top of the loop for drag & braking, then continuing the loop to land land seems to be a standard air show maneuver. Before landing you'll see the canards deflected to act as brakes. It makes sense to slow the plane down in the air to reduce stresses on the frame post touch down. Secondly, after landing canards and elevons both do a shimmy to add further air drag and the plane comes to a stop without deploying drag-chutes. Fact: The Rafale has no dedicated air brakes, so something else is performing that function- it is the canard+elevons+landing gear. An eminently better solution than having dedicated air brakes.

 

[MonaLazy]

has so high aspect-ratio, its ITR

But is high aspect ratio in a canard optimum?

As of right now, I think Rafale's got the better solution to air-braking than MWF (with dedicated air brakes). Additional braking surface on MWF seems redundant, adds weight, maintenance & reduces payload. Makes sense to have as less moving parts on the plane as possible.

Second beef I have with the design is around the shaping of the canards (again trusting my eyes only with no specific measurements). Reference: https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/302-wing-aspect-ratio

So MWF canards shaped like Su-30's (long & thin) vs Rafale's (short & stubby). IMHO Rafale's choice of canard shape is better as it will give more maneuverability at the cost of more drag- (but you do need the friction from drag to be able to change direction fast mid-air).

 

[Bleh]

But is high aspect ratio in a canard optimum?

As of right now, I think Rafale's got the better solution to air-braking than MWF (with dedicated air brakes). Additional braking surface on MWF seems redundant, adds weight, maintenance & reduces payload.

Second beef I have with the design is around the shaping of the canards (again trusting my eyes only with no specific measurements). Reference: https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/302-wing-aspect-ratio

So MWF canards shaped like Su-30's (long & thin) vs Rafale's (short & stubby). IMHO Rafale's choice of canard shape is better as it will give more maneuverability at the cost of more drag- (but you do need the friction from drag to be able to change direction fast mid-air).

Yeah.. none of it is that simple.

Neither of us are qualified to eyeball opinions on what took more qualified people a decade of work.

 

[MonaLazy]

more qualified people

Of course, every choice is a trade-off- that's what makes fighter design so interesting.

Generally, high aspect ratio wings give slightly more lift and enable sustained, endurance flight, while low aspect ratio wings are best for swift maneuverability.

ADA+IAF by going for high aspect ratio canard prioritized payload and range over agility. If IAF is happy with that choice I am certainly not competent enough to question it. But the whole point of forums such as this awesome space is to answer the what if..

 

[Bleh]

Of course, every choice is a trade-off- that's what makes fighter design so interesting.



ADA+IAF by going for high aspect ratio canard prioritized payload and range over agility. If IAF is happy with that choice I am certainly not competent enough to question it. But the whole point of forums such as this awesome space is to answer the what if..

What I meant is you were oversimplifying the comparison factors.. There's are hundreds intertwined with each other to achieve desired performance parameters.

 

[Bleh]

Wing Commander Shortypants (5'6") & MWF.

 

[MonaLazy]

Wing Commander Shortypants (5'6") & MWF.
View attachment 90781

He's gonna have to do high jumps on a trampoline just to inspect the engine pre-flight!

 

[Bleh]

He's gonna have to do high jumps on a trampoline just to inspect the engine pre-flight!

Standing on toes will do..

 

[MonaLazy]

Standing on toes will do..

.. only if each toe is about one foot long. Test Pilot Shorty Pants will have to grow taller by about half his present height for the top of his head to touch the base of the main wing. Some shots of Mk1 for comparison:

also, I didn't know up until now, Tejas uses a key to start..

 

[FalconZero]

Wing Commander Shortypants (5'6") & MWF.
View attachment 90781

Damn nig*a you guys got HVT to volunteer for his 3d self.