LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

[Vilander]

Wonder how I should rebut such nonsense next time

By not giving a fleeting f. I lurk here reading many of your posts there are lots like me, just keep the info flowing when wver you find time.

 

[lcafanboy]

This is simply AWESOME....

Awesome climb and performance by Tejas and awesome photography by cameraman..,.

 

[ersakthivel]

Most ridiculous statement.

What you have read or not doesn't matter fact does.

Python have higher off bore sight and can lock on to the target even at 100 degrees.

R-73 isn't LOAL either unlike modern missiles.

And IIR on python gives more probability of hitting target than R-73 IR seeker.

Even Russia is replacing them and IAF too is moving on from R-73 .

Now coming on to Tejas can do that and this so does other fighter jet but there are limitations of a delta wing in comparison to conventional one which needs to be compensated with higher thrust and canards like control surface. It's been discussed numerous times here and I don't want to bleed my energy to repeat it for you as I don't think it matters you are going to copy paste and repeat your fiction.

So just agree to disagree.

"but there are limitations of a delta wing

in comparison to conventional one

which needs to be compensated with

higher thrust and canards like control surface.

It's been discussed numerous times here and

I don't want to bleed my energy to repeat it for you

as I don't think it matters you are going to copy paste and repeat your fiction.".

Of course I don't write original fiction like above.

I can only give info from credible links, since I don't want to look like a fool later.

If the magical "canards" can rescue dreary "energy bleeding" delta wing,

Adding those canards to super duper energy saving

high wing loading "non delta wings" will result in even more agile fighters ,

Isn't it?

Tragic that fighter designers world over can't get such simple things straight,


Why don't you pass your info

on "shortcomings" of delta wings

to all MNC fighter makers,

It can save them lot of trouble,

they can easily start with f18 ,f16 like museum type high wing loading wings coupled with canards next time.

Su57, F22 ,F35 designs can't benefit from your insights on "short comments of pure delta wings" is really bothering me.

Also AMCA guys seems to be rolling down the wrong way.

First stop learning from trolls

 

[ersakthivel]

Relaxed Static Stability digital fly by wire tech, has changed the fighter aerodynamic games forever,

High wing loading non Delta's gave way to low wing loading Delta's once RSS fly by wire was perfected,

Mirage2000 testifies to that.

After RSS tech , ITR took over as tip notch spec from STR,

Leading to all fighters sporting Delta's,

In tejas mk1 mig21 type length

didn't give any benefit from canards over cranked Delta,(over the weight penalty it imposed Infront of CG)
Found out through NAL wind tunnel testings

So canards were not added.

Mk2 free from mig21 like length restrictions sports canards.

Even USAF plots complain that it is due to high wing loading that F35 suffers some lack of agility.

 

[ersakthivel]

Most ridiculous statement.

What you have read or not doesn't matter fact does.

Python have higher off bore sight and can lock on to the target even at 100 degrees.

R-73 isn't LOAL either unlike modern missiles.

And IIR on python gives more probability of hitting target than R-73 IR seeker.

Even Russia is replacing them and IAF too is moving on from R-73 .

Now coming on to Tejas can do that and this so does other fighter jet but there are limitations of a delta wing in comparison to conventional one which needs to be compensated with higher thrust and canards like control surface. It's been discussed numerous times here and I don't want to bleed my energy to repeat it for you as I don't think it matters you are going to copy paste and repeat your fiction.

So just agree to disagree.

May be redoing JF17with AL Engine & canards will solve most of PAF's problems,

A light high wing loading non Delta fighter,

Are you sure?

If that is so why did PLAF is not replacing Delta type wings in J10 with JF17 type wings?

Python is modern.
No one disputes that,

But IAF has good enough tactics with R73E is my view,

ASRAAM , Probably MICA and python(in future) are addition to Tejas capabilities over R73E

 

[Flying Dagger]

May be redoing JF17with AL Engine & canards will solve most of PAF's problems,

A light high wing loading non Delta fighter,

Are you sure?

If that is so why did PLAF is not replacing Delta type wings in J10 with JF17 type wings?

Python is modern.
No one disputes that,

But IAF has good enough tactics with R73E is my view,

ASRAAM , Probably MICA and python(in future) are addition to Tejas capabilities over R73E

Jf 17 blah blah PAF J 10 blah blah.. why apple is not orange?

Did you read yourself what you said... and if it makes any sense ?

Apparently R-73 missed target in IAF exercise so devise your strategy around it in your "view."

Don't quote with senseless rubbish again.

 

[ersakthivel]

Jf 17 blah blah PAF J 10 blah blah.. why apple is not orange?

Did you read yourself what you said... and if it makes any sense ?

Apparently R-73 missed target in IAF exercise so devise your strategy around it in your "view."

Don't quote with senseless rubbish again.

Delta wings bleeding energy in Positive stability flight profile days were the gripe during Rip Van Winkle times,



With the advent of control laws for negative stability flight profile coded in digital era fly by wire software

Delta's are the norm , not exception in wing design.

No amount of typing ,"blah blah" is going to change that.

Read up before typing tit fr tat stuff that makes no sense.

Delta's shift to leading edge vortex induced lift in high AOA flight aided by canards (rafael)
or cranked delta(tejas)

These plane forms produce max lift at high AOAs,

Giving very high instantaneous turn rate ,

Which is exploited with high off bore visually cued HMDS slaved WVR missiles.

High wing loading non delta plane forms ,

Cart wheeling in horizontal circles aiming fr gun kill is spit fire era fighter tactic .

High ITR turns giving first mover advantage

to lock and shoot high off bore missiles, using HMDS ,
Is the low wing loading plane form fighter tactic of modern era,

 

[Flying Dagger]

Delta wings were bleeding energy in Positive stability flight profile days during Rip Van Winkle times,

With the advent of control laws for negative stability flight profile coded in digital era fly by wire software

Delta's are the norm , not exception in wing design.

No amount of typing ,"blah blah" is going to change that.
Read up before typing tit fr tat stuff that makes no sense

Its your job to blabber nonsense. Aren't you a veteran in that dept.?

Did i said Delta wings need not be used at all ?

But they are a norm ?

May be Sukhoi F-16 F-18 designers should have consulted with you. Better you be the design expert for all of them.

May be you know more than IAF pilots who have said the same abt Delta wing Mirage fighter.

If the current Tejas was so good they would have continued with it. But they didn't Now it will have Canards and higher thrust engine.

Though high drag and energy bleeding during manuever and turns doesn't really matter for you it does matter to IAF.

AMCA design have moved on from Pure delta wing to trapezoidal wing you should see it before bringing it up.


Bullocks.

 

[ersakthivel]

Its your job to blabber nonsense. Aren't you a veteran in that dept.?

Did i said Delta wings need not be used at all ?

But they are a norm ?

May be Sukhoi F-16 F-18 designers should have consulted with you. Better you be the design expert for all of them.

May be you know more than IAF pilots who have said the same abt Delta wing Mirage fighter.

If the current Tejas was so good they would have continued with it. But they didn't Now it will have Canards and higher thrust engine.

Though high drag and energy bleeding during manuever and turns doesn't really matter for you it does matter to IAF.

AMCA design have moved on from Pure delta wing to trapezoidal wing you should see it before bringing it up.


Bullocks.

Trapezoidal is fr reducing RCS.
Trapezoidal wings too hv large area low wing loading characteristic like delta wings.

They hv no "known " ene uprgy saving feature , to mitigate energy bleed.

If they hv any please post.

And all.available info suggests AMCA and Tejas Mk2 hv the same wing loading of Tejas mk1.

Try to make sense of it, if teja mk1.wing was so wrong ,

Why similar ball park wing loading is carried on to AMCA, MK2?

 

[ersakthivel]

Delta 's large surface area drag will make it sub optimal compared to jf17 wing shape in sea level , pure Sustained Turn rate gun only fight ,

In high altitude where atmospheric pressure is low, delta wings hv superiority over non delta.

The large area delta wing allows more variety of PGM & air to air missile carriage,

And high take off weight due to high wing lift during take off.

Along with high internal fuel.

That's why mig21 sized Tejas mk1 ,

can land take off with 3 + ton weapon load from high altitude leh base in summers ,

While carrying a bigger radar dia than Gripen C and even Rafale.

From mirage 2000 times energy is bleeding from deltas,

But that hadn't stopped IAF from spending 50 million dollar per plane fr Mirage2000 upgrade (upgrade has no "energy saving feature")

And sending them over to balakot.

Because Deltas have

high G onset rates,

High roll rates,

High Instantaneous Turning Rate,

That enable them to excel in high off bore sight WVR missile fight.

The high lift allows more number of missile carriage as well
Vertical scissors, barrel rolls tactics allow Delta to score over other wings in most WVR engagements.

At high AOA huge surface area of delta produces drag that reduces air speed,

But huge vortices forming over delta wing pr produce enough lift to rescue it.

the low angle wingsweep at root (cranked delta of Tejas mk1) allows even more vortices to mitigate drag.

Tejas mk 1 has 3 section slats to deploy fr better flight characteristics



Close coupled Canards too do the same job while giving some actuator type input as well

 

[ersakthivel]

Tejas (not Texas)

 

[Flying Dagger]

Trapezoidal is fr reducing RCS.
Trapezoidal wings too hv large area low wing loading characteristic like delta wings.

They hv no "known " ene uprgy saving feature , to mitigate energy bleed.

If they hv any please post.

And all.available info suggests AMCA and Tejas Mk2 hv the same wing loading of Tejas mk1.

Try to make sense of it, if teja mk1.wing was so wrong ,

Why similar ball park wing loading is carried on to AMCA, MK2?

The answer to your why ...

Why didn't they made Tejas stealthy and use trapezoidal ?

Why F-16 is the most produced jet and still in production and not Mirage 2k.

You said AMCA is continuing the delta design from Tejas. Not true

Wingloading depends on mass of jet / wing surface area. ( Not design Directly)

Trapezoidal wings design aren't meant just for stealth but provide lower drag.

Now since you have been referring to IAF did this and that.. let's go back to original post as you have habit of frog jumping.

If Tejas mk1 was as good as Mirage 2k why IAF is spending 50 mn on their upgrade?

You must be really burnt seeing Rafale in IAF color.

Why are they even opting for Tejas mk2 with canards and higher thrust engine and be happy with producing 300 mk1 configuration?

There are pros and cons of diff design configuration which are hedged through diff control surface and design tweeks canards levcon cranked delta unstable configuration etc all are mastered over years of experience. Tejas mk1 is delta wing so it's better than F-16s?

Veteran of BS you may continue you are ignored.

 

[Steven Rogers]

Trapezoidal is fr reducing RCS.
Trapezoidal wings too hv large area low wing loading characteristic like delta wings.

They hv no "known " ene uprgy saving feature , to mitigate energy bleed.

If they hv any please post.

And all.available info suggests AMCA and Tejas Mk2 hv the same wing loading of Tejas mk1.

Try to make sense of it, if teja mk1.wing was so wrong ,

Why similar ball park wing loading is carried on to AMCA, MK2?

Trapezoidal wings have high wing loading and slightly better aspect ratio for better takeoff and landing ..

 

[Steven Rogers]

Its your job to blabber nonsense. Aren't you a veteran in that dept.?

Did i said Delta wings need not be used at all ?

But they are a norm ?

May be Sukhoi F-16 F-18 designers should have consulted with you. Better you be the design expert for all of them.

May be you know more than IAF pilots who have said the same abt Delta wing Mirage fighter.

If the current Tejas was so good they would have continued with it. But they didn't Now it will have Canards and higher thrust engine.

Though high drag and energy bleeding during manuever and turns doesn't really matter for you it does matter to IAF.

AMCA design have moved on from Pure delta wing to trapezoidal wing you should see it before bringing it up.


Bullocks.

Sukhoi,F16s,F18s were designed before the or when the digital flight controls just came in existence,all the capabilities of delta was known even since the ww2.
Their is no problem with the mirages of india but there surely is of Pakistan due to later's lack of any digital flight control,so they are unable to reduce the trim drag which makes their mirage rather obsolete in terms of flight maneuvering.
Current Tejas is good enough for the size it has but the heavier LRUs made it overweight in the prototypes,the LCA was meant to be around 5.5 tons dry as per 1998 revised ASQR,LSP7 was around 6.7 tons thus it was needed a high thrust engine for any change in the internal design,future variant is lengthened with the same wing which shifts the center of gravity as well as center of lift,which makes the aircraft rather stable,that's why they introduced the forewings to compensate for the centre of lift and center gravity....AMCA design was earlier a pure trapezoidal,now it's not...

 

[Steven Rogers]

Delta 's large surface area drag will make it sub optimal compared to jf17 wing shape in sea level , pure Sustained Turn rate gun only fight ,

In high altitude where atmospheric pressure is low, delta wings hv superiority over non delta.

The large area delta wing allows more variety of PGM & air to air missile carriage,

And high take off weight due to high wing lift during take off.

Along with high internal fuel.

That's why mig21 sized Tejas mk1 ,

can land take off with 3 + ton weapon load from high altitude leh base in summers ,

While carrying a bigger radar dia than Gripen C and even Rafale.

From mirage 2000 times energy is bleeding from deltas,

But that hadn't stopped IAF from spending 50 million dollar per plane fr Mirage2000 upgrade (upgrade has no "energy saving feature")

And sending them over to balakot.

Because Deltas have

high G onset rates,

High roll rates,

High Instantaneous Turning Rate,

That enable them to excel in high off bore sight WVR missile fight.

The high lift allows more number of missile carriage as well
Vertical scissors, barrel rolls tactics allow Delta to score over other wings in most WVR engagements.

At high AOA huge surface area of delta produces drag that reduces air speed,

But huge vortices forming over delta wing pr produce enough lift to rescue it.

the low angle wingsweep at root (cranked delta of Tejas mk1) allows even more vortices to mitigate drag.

Tejas mk 1 has 3 section slats to deploy fr better flight characteristics



Close coupled Canards too do the same job while giving some actuator type input as well

Sustained energy fighting is outdated and that's too at low altitude,what is the use of my high alpha,HMDS and highoffbore missile if I choose to fight in the enemy's hand,one thing even the PAF pilot said in some interview that one should fight on their terms and strengths rather than playing in the hands of enemy...

 

[ersakthivel]

The answer to your why ...

Why didn't they made Tejas stealthy and use trapezoidal ?

Why F-16 is the most produced jet and still in production and not Mirage 2k.

You said AMCA is continuing the delta design from Tejas. Not true

Wingloading depends on mass of jet / wing surface area. ( Not design Directly)

Trapezoidal wings design aren't meant just for stealth but provide lower drag.

Now since you have been referring to IAF did this and that.. let's go back to original post as you have habit of frog jumping.

If Tejas mk1 was as good as Mirage 2k why IAF is spending 50 mn on their upgrade?

You must be really burnt seeing Rafale in IAF color.

Why are they even opting for Tejas mk2 with canards and higher thrust engine and be happy with producing 300 mk1 configuration?

There are pros and cons of diff design configuration which are hedged through diff control surface and design tweeks canards levcon cranked delta unstable configuration etc all are mas totered over years of experience. Tejas mk1 is delta wing so it's better than F-16s?

Veteran of BS you may continue you are ignored.

I bow to your aerodynamic wisdom boss

Please explain to me,

What are the major components of drag in fighter aircraft?
&

Drag vs lift characteristics of

1.High aspect ratio wing

2.Low aspect ratio wing,

How the sweep angle of leading edge affects flight performance?

And classify whether the following wings are low aspect ratio
Or
High aspect ratio,


1.f16,
2.TejasMk1
3.F22(trapezoidal)

From your explanations

Please let me learn how trapezoidal wing gives lower drag,

Thanks,

Now I regard you as aerodynamic guru

And hoping to learn something from you,

This will improve my knowledge as well.

I apologize to the hurt caused to you and anyone here, in case I hv posted any offensive stuff.

Please be my guru

And give me knowledge
Thanks in advance

 

[ersakthivel]

The answer to your why ...

Why didn't they made Tejas stealthy and use trapezoidal ?

Why F-16 is the most produced jet and still in prod euction and not Mirage 2k.

You said AMCA is continuing the delta design from Tejas. Not true

Wingloading depends on mass of jet / wing surface area. ( Not design Directly)

Trapezoidal wings design aren't meant just for stealth but provide lower drag.

Now since you have been referring to IAF did this and that.. let's go back to original post as you have habit of frog jumping.

If Tejas mk1 was as good as Mirage 2k why IAF is spending 50 mn on their upgrade?

You must be really burnt seeing Rafale in IAF color.

Why are they even opting for Tejas mk2 with canards and higher thrust engine and be happy with producing 300 mk1 configuration?

There are pros and cons of diff design configuration which are hedged through diff control surface and design tweeks canards levcon cranked delta unstable configuration etc all are mastered over years of experience. Tejas mk1 is delta wing so it's better than F-16s?

Veteran of BS you may continue you are ignored.

I am not burning over IAF getting rafale.

My earlier opposition to 114+64(optional) MMRCA deal fr rafale was based on

Huge cost, that will kill all other IAF acquisition

Will finish off tejas developmental e
effort

as there won't be any money or need after 160 plus MMRCA buy,

And it will lead to reduction of IAF fleet strength fr any given budget,
There won't be any money fr

5th gen buy or local build of AMCA
simultaneously,

All of the above are vindicated.

2 squadrons of rafales with 2 or 3 more as follow on is fine fr IAF.

It will do the tip of spear job strategic missions in stand alone formations

And will be a huge force multiplier,
While flying in mix with Su30(to be upgraded)
Tejas mk1A
Tejas mk2.

I am all fr that

 

[Karthi]

Simulator for training on Tejas maintenance.

Cockpit trainer , touch screen based helpful in familiarizing cockpit switch's and interfaces

I manual for technical details of Tejas.

Tejas Tutoring Simulator.

Tejas Verbo Visual Simulator mainly for self - studying

 

[Bleh]

Apparently we could have had pur own LCA right from the '60s.

 

[Flying Dagger]

Apparently we could have had pur own LCA right from the '60s.

Marut was LCA of HAL just lacked engine then. They even scored victory against PAF Sabre and could fly at tree topheight as per IAF pilots.