LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

[Satish Sharma]

How was 1 ton empty weight cut off from FOC to Mk1A? Mk1A had additional equipments and enhancements which means weight should increase or at least remain same (if ballast & older components were replaced)

I have argued with him he says cag reported mk1 weights 7.5 tons. & Mk1a 6.56tons

 

[Satish Sharma]

I meant this is already present in foc standard aircrafts... Dubai or LIMA demos you can see it.. so it's not something coming new with mk1a or am I missing something

i mean its a must to have feature these days (main reason for abhinandan's case) and mk1a which is truly a very good aircraft is getting it thats the only reason i pointed it out

Is that a indigeneous sdr or Israeli?

 

[kamaal]

How was 1 ton empty weight cut off from FOC to Mk1A? Mk1A had additional equipments and enhancements which means weight should increase or at least remain same (if ballast & older components were replaced)

He is yet to answer this question.

 

[tsunami]

When was MK1 empty weight was 7250 KG?
I thought it was 6600 KG only.

 

[NoobWannaLearn]

People are saying something took off in bangaluru hopefully it's not a hoax again

 

[MirageBlue]

How was 1 ton empty weight cut off from FOC to Mk1A? Mk1A had additional equipments and enhancements which means weight should increase or at least remain same (if ballast & older components were replaced)

If there was empty weight reduction, then it would've happened as a result of the wealth of data that HAL and ADA have on the Tejas Mk1 after thousands of hours of flying.

They will now have pretty good data on a spectrum of Tejas missions and based on that will be able to have a good idea where they were too conservative with the Factors of Safety used to design structures and parts on the Tejas Mk1.

For e.g. I know for a fact, that high FoS was used for many primary structures just because Indian engineers and designers were quite conservative and did not want any failure of structures. That resulted in a structure that is more robust and strong than it needs to be.

In aerospace, that doesn't give you any benefit- all it leads to is extra weight being carried around. Yes, you'll find the structures to be probably in quite a good shape even with fatigue loads (and the LCA MAST will confirm this), but on the Tejas Mk1A they've had the chance to optimize structures, reduce ballast.

All that could've led to the structural weight loss.

This is ALSO the reason that the LCA Navy is so important a program. With all the loads data that the IN and ADA are getting from the LCA Navy test flights, they will now have a very good idea of what types and what levels of loads to expect from carrier landing.

This will lead to a much more optimized TEDBF whose landing gear won't be as bulky or over-designed and the strengthening will be done as needed, instead of just doing it all over just to be on the safe side.

 

[Samej Jangir]

If there was empty weight reduction, then it would've happened as a result of the wealth of data that HAL and ADA have on the Tejas Mk1 after thousands of hours of flying.

They will now have pretty good data on a spectrum of Tejas missions and based on that will be able to have a good idea where they were too conservative with the Factors of Safety used to design structures and parts on the Tejas Mk1.

For e.g. I know for a fact, that high FoS was used for many primary structures just because Indian engineers and designers were quite conservative and did not want any failure of structures. That resulted in a structure that is more robust and strong than it needs to be.

In aerospace, that doesn't give you any benefit- all it leads to is extra weight being carried around. Yes, you'll find the structures to be probably in quite a good shape even with fatigue loads (and the LCA MAST will confirm this), but on the Tejas Mk1A they've had the chance to optimize structures, reduce ballast.

All that could've led to the structural weight loss.

This is ALSO the reason that the LCA Navy is so important a program. With all the loads data that the IN and ADA are getting from the LCA Navy test flights, they will now have a very good idea of what types and what levels of loads to expect from carrier landing.

This will lead to a much more optimized TEDBF whose landing gear won't be as bulky or over-designed and the strengthening will be done as needed, instead of just doing it all over just to be on the safe side.

Interesting. As for as ballasts are concerned, I don't see it as a necessity for any safety reasons except when one is accounting for an additional equipment/system to be integrated in the future. If LCA did have unnecessary ballasts merely to correct centre of gravity or aerodynamics, it simply meant the design was poor. One could just split the LRUs or introduced battery or sensors etc to cover the weight balance instead of ballasts.

As for reduction in the strength of the structure, I am not sure of that reduction could be to the tune of 1ton! Anyways, thanks for the perspective

 

[NoobWannaLearn]

Their you go folks

 

[NoobWannaLearn]

Their you go folks

View attachment 245821

View attachment 245822

View attachment 245823

People are saying it got new canopy

 

[slayingheaven]

Their you go folks

View attachment 245821

View attachment 245822

View attachment 245823

So HAL is on time as stated although later by a month.

 

[jai jaganath]

Their you go folks

View attachment 245821

View attachment 245822

View attachment 245823

It seems hstt has been performed from 1st pic(drag chute)
FF hasn't taken place until now or that drag chute may be of ff

 

[NoobWannaLearn]

So HAL is on time as stated although later by a month.

Delivery date in Contract was 31 March and it might just go in April so just 1 one month delay in these big projects one month delay isn't big so W HAL

 

[NoobWannaLearn]

It seems hstt has been performed from 1st pic(drag chute)
FF hasn't taken place until now or that drag chute may be of ff

No FF has been performed for MK1A but a new trainer might have taken off today

 

[NoobWannaLearn]

Add canopy too and these are some of the changes Observed so far

 

[NoobWannaLearn]

First flight tomorrow if everything goes well

 

[Narasimh]

Their you go folks

View attachment 245821

View attachment 245822

View attachment 245823

can spot some differences here from the mk1 test bed for mk1a:

1. Canopy is more bulbous
2. some smaller antennas removed and larger one made larger.. probably merged?
3. pics not very high res but looks like the rwr antennas seem to be missing on wings
4. not sure what antenna that is but is missing

 

[jai jaganath]

Nice try anyways

 

[Satish Sharma]

When was MK1 empty weight was 7250 KG?
I thought it was 6600 KG only.

6560kg weight is of latest tejas mk1A.
I have heard 7-7.2 ton number for Tejas mk1.
However this same.guy had said CAG reported Tejas mk1 weights 7560kg.
Even 6560kg is more for smallest aircraft which has 45% composites, Tejas is 13.2M. Gripen is longer by 15m in length and has 25% composites still it weights 6800kg..
(He had said this)

Hal can improve in later orders..

Interesting. As for as ballasts are concerned, I don't see it as a necessity for any safety reasons except when one is accounting for an additional equipment/system to be integrated in the future. If LCA did have unnecessary ballasts merely to correct centre of gravity or aerodynamics, it simply meant the design was poor. One could just split the LRUs or introduced battery or sensors etc to cover the weight balance instead of ballasts.

As for reduction in the strength of the structure, I am not sure of that reduction could be to the tune of 1ton! Anyways, thanks for the perspective

Iaf has changed it requirements many times. Which had caused such issues..
Reduction in weight, what is the weight of mk1 as we know mk1A weights 6560kg.
Some say mk1 weights 7560kg. I have heard people saying mostly 7070kg for mk1.
7.5t could be for ioc, & 7t for FOC.

 

[NoobWannaLearn]

All changes

 

[Smoothbore125mm]

upscaled images of mk1a (ai fcks up every letter sry for that)

View attachment 245844

View attachment GJsZINOagAEkMOm.jpeg