LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

Satish Sharma

New Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2023
Messages
2,001
Likes
5,490
Country flag
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

New Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2023
Messages
2,001
Likes
5,490
Country flag
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

New Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2016
Messages
521
Likes
1,985
Country flag
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

New Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
3,529
Likes
16,572
Country flag
When was MK1 empty weight was 7250 KG?
I thought it was 6600 KG only.
 

MirageBlue

New Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2020
Messages
669
Likes
3,723
Country flag
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

New Member
Joined
May 15, 2023
Messages
417
Likes
618
Country flag
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
 

Narasimh

New Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2016
Messages
1,132
Likes
3,856
Country flag

Satish Sharma

New Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2023
Messages
2,001
Likes
5,490
Country flag
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)
Screenshot_2024-03-27-22-48-16-82_40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b12.jpg

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.
 

Articles

Top