MonaLazy
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2019
- Messages
- 1,321
- Likes
- 7,898
This IDR article seems to suggest the LEVCONs were over engineered and consequently the plane got stuck in the high weight - low thrust spiral.sometimes I wish they cd have taken this as baseline for mk1A development, with extra control surface in the form of LEVCONs
only draw back is a bit excess weight, due to extra length , whether that wd hv been mitigated by better compliance to area rule with reduced drag??? Only experts know
Why Navy’s rejection of Naval LCA is wrong
Former Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Arun Prakash recently published an article severely critical of the Naval Light Combat Aircraft program (“Navy’s rejection is a lesson, failure of DRDO”, Economic Times, 8 February 2017). He attributed Navy’s exercising the foreclosure option to, what he...
www.indiandefencereview.com
a new leading edge control surface, viz., LEVCON was introduced to facilitate reduction in approach speeds for deck recovery. Due to this being a first-time effort to design and develop a carrier borne fighter aircraft, there was conservatism in the plan-form leading to a mass increase by about 400 to 500 kg. This is why the thrust available for deck take-off fell short of mission objectives. It was thus decided that the LCA Navy Mk1 would be only a ‘Technology Demonstrator’ and utilized to conduct carrier suitability tests and demonstration.
Due to the introduction of a new structure, LEVCON, a dedicated test rig was built and tested to assess failure. There was a failure at 135% loading, and the aircraft structure was duly strengthened. Further, when the thrust shortfall was encountered, ADA went back to the Cabinet Committee on Security in Dec 2009, with Navy in the loop, to seek a configuration with a higher thrust engine. This was the genesis of the LCA Navy Mk2.