LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

[Enquirer]

@Saichand K
I see some wayward comments back on the thread. You should scrutinize the data yourself and learn what BS is being peddled (someone here doesn't know what percentages, initial values etc mean).
Good luck!

 

[Indx TechStyle]

India will focus on 110kN engine which will power both AMCA & MWF. Tejas MK1 is stop gap only and hence the kaveri engine for it will also be stop gap. As a result, new project for making 110kN engines will begin. If I am right, there were already reports that AMCA will need 110kN engines in 2016-17. So, it is likely that the project would have already begun called K10 engine. It is likely to be revealed once Kaveri engine ik tested and then closed.

The news states the formal "close" of Kaveri project and if I'm not wrong, K10 too itself is same project.

or India will go for join venture like did in helicopter engine.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

The news states the formal "close" of Kaveri project and if I'm not wrong, K10 too itself is same project.

or India will go for join venture like did in helicopter engine.

No, K10 is not same as Kaveri. The news also says the closure will be before ' officially ' unveiling new engine project. There is no suitable 110kN engine anywhere to go fo JV. India will have to make a nee engine of 110kN to satisfy 17.5ton MToW. 95-100kN is not going to be enough.

 

[Enquirer]

MK1A has OBOGS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought OBOGS hasn't yet been tested in-flight! Anyways..........
This is really exciting, as not only will this give the aircraft more endurance, it will also reduce the turnaround time (as no oxygen bottles need to be refilled)

http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/...design-evolution-of-an-indian-fighter-part-i/

 

[Enquirer]

MK1A has OBOGS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought OBOGS hasn't yet been tested in-flight! Anyways..........
This is really exciting, as not only will this give the aircraft more endurance, it will also reduce the turnaround time (as no oxygen bottles need to be refilled)

http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/...design-evolution-of-an-indian-fighter-part-i/

I am beginning to think that the article may be incorrect about Mk1A being equipped with OBOGS.
Can anyone confirm this?

 

[patriots]

I am beginning to think that the article may be incorrect about Mk1A being equipped with OBOGS.
Can anyone confirm this?

Indranil has written article........so I think...its ok.........
Bdw I heard about obogs on mk2

 

[Enquirer]

Indranil has written article........so I think...its ok.........
Bdw I heard about obogs on mk2

Yes, it's a definite a Mk2.
But I think he erred in saying that it's available for Mk1A. As of last year, it wasn't even flight tested.
It's a critical instrument unlike other LRUs whose failures maybe tolerable. If OBOGS fails in flight even for few seconds it could lead to pilot blackout & death!
Also, Indranil is close to some insiders and gets to know good info but he does make a few of mistakes in his analysis anyways.

 

[patriots]

Yes, it's a definite a Mk2.
But I think he erred in saying that it's available for Mk1A. As of last year, it wasn't even flight tested.
It's a critical instrument unlike other LRUs whose failures maybe tolerable. If OBOGS fails in flight even for few seconds it could lead to pilot blackout & death!
Also, Indranil is close to some insiders and gets to know good info but he does make a few of mistakes in his analysis anyways.

Last report I knw that...drdo has developed obog.....don't know.whether flight tested or not

 

[Enquirer]

Last report I knw that...drdo has developed obog.....don't know.whether flight tested or not

Here's the full description of the system by the people who developed it. As of Oct, 2017 it was only tested in a lab! Also, none of the brochures in AeroIndia2019 mention OBOGS for Mk1A

http://publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/index.php/dlsj/article/download/12274/6021/

 

[Enquirer]

Hopefully the table below (from DelhiDefenceReview) will help disabuse several folks of the pseudo-science that was peddled on this forum by a certain whackjob .

It was argued relentlessly by that whackjob that 'low wing loading' (meaning a large wing for a given weight of aircraft) of Mk1 was a huge virtue. I had argued that a 'low wing loading' essentially means an overall inefficient aerodynamic design!!

As you can see, both Mk1 & Mk2 have the same 'wing area'; but Mk2 can carry an overall 30% extra weight. So, the 'wing loading' of Mk2 is higher than Mk1. Will the whackjob now say that Mk2 design is inferior to Mk1's???

Folks should beware of nutjobs peddling nonsense. The nutjobs have no real understanding of science or logic, but will belt big words, quote irrelevant sources to substantiate their nonsense! He was absent from the forum for a while, but I see that he's back again peddling more nonsense on other aspects of Tejas!

http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/...ows-a-pair-becomes-the-medium-weight-fighter/

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Hopefully the table below (from DelhiDefenceReview) will help disabuse several folks of the pseudo-science that was peddled on this forum by a certain whackjob .

It was argued relentlessly by that whackjob that 'low wing loading' (meaning a large wing for a given weight of aircraft) of Mk1 was a huge virtue. I had argued that a 'low wing loading' essentially means an overall inefficient aerodynamic design!!

As you can see, both Mk1 & Mk2 have the same 'wing area'; but Mk2 can carry an overall 30% extra weight. So, the 'wing loading' of Mk2 is higher than Mk1. Will the whackjob now say that Mk2 design is inferior to Mk1's???

Folks should beware of nutjobs peddling nonsense. The nutjobs have no real understanding of science or logic, but will belt big words, quote irrelevant sources to substantiate their nonsense! He was absent from the forum for a while, but I see that he's back again peddling more nonsense on other aspects of Tejas!

View attachment 32456

http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/...ows-a-pair-becomes-the-medium-weight-fighter/

MWF has canards which add some additional lift. Also, you have to considered the area of canards as wing. Higher wing loading helps in quicker and shorter take-off which is very important for naval planes.

I would not dismiss lowl wing loading as inefficient

 

[Enquirer]

MWF has canards which add some additional lift. Also, you have to considered the area of canards as wing. Higher wing loading helps in quicker and shorter take-off which is very important for naval planes.

I would not dismiss lowl wing loading as inefficient

You want to run with the mantle of that whack job? Good luck! I am done arguing/educating!
(also, in the naval version lift is provided by the tail fins LOL!!!!)

 

[ersakthivel]

MWF has canards which add some additional lift. Also, you have to considered the area of canards as wing. Higher wing loading helps in quicker and shorter take-off which is very important for naval planes.

I would not dismiss lowl wing loading as inefficient

Some terminology mistakes, in your post.

Wing loading is
fighter weight/ wing area.

You r right in saying canards increasing wing area, giving higher lift & lift to drag coefficient efficient for fighter.

Close coupled Canards,

also acts as another control surface & induces flow energizing vortices over wing, there by increases over all lift.



So increased wing area means lower wing loading.

 

[ersakthivel]

No, K10 is not same as Kaveri. The news also says the closure will be before ' officially ' unveiling new engine project. There is no suitable 110kN engine anywhere to go fo JV. India will have to make a nee engine of 110kN to satisfy 17.5ton MToW. 95-100kN is not going to be enough.

Eventhough K9 variants won't power AMCA or tejas,
If it is flight certified it's dry section can be used for AURA UCAVs.A significant achievement,

 

[Enquirer]

HAHA. Someone's come to terms with reality a little bit by staying away from the forum.
The whackjob pilloried folks who suggested canards can provide some lift, but now is agreeing with others that canards can provide lift.
The good thing is ignorance is not a permanent condition.....it will be if they fight knowledge

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

You want to run with the mantle of that whack job? Good luck! I am done arguing/educating!
(also, in the naval version lift is provided by the tail fins LOL!!!!)

The problem here is that lift & drag are related. More lift also means more drag. So, there is one disadvantage of lower wing loading that maneuvering is difficult due to higher drag

Tail fins indeed provide lift. In naval variant, the tail fins help in adding lift at the rear and hence helping in lower landing speed without the plane crashing. Delta wings without tail has high landing speeds which is a problem on aircraft carrier.

 

[Jackd]

Don't start the feud again, let sleeping dogs lie.

 

[Enquirer]

The problem here is that lift & drag are related. More lift also means more drag. So, there is one advantage of lower wing loading that maneuvering is difficult.

I've gone over this a million times before and don't want to hammer this thing again and again!

Do not assume that higher wing area AUTOMATICALLY provides higher lift. The AERODYNAMIC DESIGN of the wing plays a big role. Any kid can put a LARGE wing, but that doesn't mean it'll provide the best lift!

And your point about lift and drag is not the real problem issue. The bigger issue is a large wing that doesn't provide optimal lift but cannot escape the drag penalty!!

I am not gonna respond any more on this topic. If you care, do search for my previous posts

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

I've gone over this a million times before and don't want to hammer this thing again and again!

Do not assume that higher wing area AUTOMATICALLY provides higher lift. The AERODYNAMIC DESIGN of the wing plays a big role. Any kid can put a LARGE wing, but that doesn't mean it'll provide the best lift!

And your point about lift and drag is not the real problem issue. The bigger issue is a large wing that doesn't provide optimal lift but cannot escape the drag penalty!!

I am not gonna respond any more on this topic. If you care, do search for my previous posts

I agree with you that larger wing doesn't automatically provide higher lift. But when "all other condition are identical", then larger wing does give more lift.

It is important that we consider one factor at a time to evaluate rather than clubbing everything together

 

[Enquirer]

I agree with you that larger wing doesn't automatically provide higher lift. But when "all other condition are identical", then larger wing does give more lift.

It is important that we consider one factor at a time to evaluate rather than clubbing everything together

Exactly! That's why I keep saying that merely comparing 'wing loading' of wings designed by different companies/people makes no sense!! An amateur will always come up with a big wing (as such low wing loading, but high drag) - because he doesn't know how to eke out every bit of aerodynamic lift by employing a smart design! The experts can affix a small wing (high wing loading, but low drag) but extract ALL the lift that's physically possible.