The TWR at full load of 17.5ton may be worse than Mk1 but if the MToW is 16.5 ton vs 14 tons, then TWR of MCA will be same as Tejas MK1. That is still good enough.
LCA Tejas Mk1 & Mk1A - News and discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indian defence forum
MCA will have a higher empty weight and larger fuel volume while the increase in thrust is not proportionate. So at combat weight, It will be worst.
Total increase in empty weight + fuel will be 2 tons (6.7 + 2.5 = 9.2ton to 8 + 3.2 = 11.2ton). The increase in dry thrust (which matters the most) is from 52kN in F404 to Kaveri 62kN. So, I would say that the increase is also proportional at 20%.
The small shortfall in performance is compensated by increased range and endurance. At the end of day, it is a trade-off
How about drag due to larger size? AND HOW WILL THAT EFFECT THE RANGE AND ENDURANCE?
The larger wing area and the lift generated due to increase in length of wings will compensate drag. Less amount of fuel is needed to keep MCA afloat while more fuel is needed to push forward. It may harm maneuverability but the addition of canards can again compensate that too.
I think you should read about drag of an aircraft first. Tailless delta aircraft are extremely efficient in cruise and worst in combat.
You are right about delta being bad in combat maneuvering. But I was comparing MCA with LCA, not with swept wing ones. Delta planes have their own advantage and disadvantage over swept wing and that holds even for LCA.
If I have my way, i will give a twin tail to LCA MK1 and that will remove the need for levcons and larger size. The V-Tail will allow better pitch authority to lower the flaperons further and reduce landing speed and attitude. Also it will add to the stealth of the aircraft. I am also of the opinion that we should have wet fins as that will help us shift CG back without the need of using control surfaces.
i dont expect the JF-17 to ever reach south India with a Pakistani flying it
<banter>
maybe a captured JF-17 as a junk metal recycling for some of the steel mills
</banter>
The problem here is that the design of tejas has already been done. There is extensive FBW written for it too. Suddenly changing it drastically and adding tails will change a lot of design parameters. That will cause delays. It is best to make minor adjustments without changing much of parameters to maintain most of the FBW and FCS softwares and make only minor modifications
V-Tail is a very minor adjustment compared to redesigning a new airframe or adding Levcons.
i dont expect the JF-17 to ever reach south India with a Pakistani flying it
<banter>
maybe a captured JF-17 as a junk metal recycling for some of the steel mills
</banter>
on a very serious note- I actually have a similar opinion. All that aluminium literally makes it look like it's incredibly heavy. In airshows it literally drags itself into the air. Consider the following scenarios:a) Aircraft has to take off...lands but since it has no hot refuelling so has to completely shut down engines and exit pilot to start refuelling. I'm guessing this whole process might take 45 mins to 1 hr by the time the dude is back into the jet and starting it up.
b) The first 100 jets don't have refuelling probe I believe and I don't know if this is true but they also seem to have some other limitations like night landing (and the obvious FBW limitations which should affect overall maneuverability).
With the above two limitations only one question is obvious---why the hell did they induct this jet? Sure block 2 and 3 aren't any great shakes but they'll at least be better than this strange lot that can't be effectively airborne half the time.
None of JF17 has full FBW, not even latest block
a) Aircraft has to take off...lands but since it has no hot refuelling so has to completely shut down engines and exit pilot to start refuelling. I'm guessing this whole process might take 45 mins to 1 hr by the time the dude is back into the jet and starting it up.
b) The first 100 jets don't have refuelling probe I believe and I don't know if this is true but they also seem to have some other limitations like night landing (and the obvious FBW limitations which should affect overall maneuverability).
With the above two limitations only one question is obvious---why the hell did they induct this jet? Sure block 2 and 3 aren't any great shakes but they'll at least be better than this strange lot that can't be effectively airborne half the time.
a) Aircraft has to take off...lands but since it has no hot refuelling so has to completely shut down engines and exit pilot to start refuelling. I'm guessing this whole process might take 45 mins to 1 hr by the time the dude is back into the jet and starting it up.
b) The first 100 jets don't have refuelling probe I believe and I don't know if this is true but they also seem to have some other limitations like night landing (and the obvious FBW limitations which should affect overall maneuverability).
With the above two limitations only one question is obvious---why the hell did they induct this jet? Sure block 2 and 3 aren't any great shakes but they'll at least be better than this strange lot that can't be effectively airborne half the time.
Roohani Fighter hai, janaab. Jinn mooththa hai usmein aur woh petrol ban jaata hai. That is stealthy wet refueling.
Have you done a review of LCA from aero-dynamic perspective? It will be great to hear your opinion on it, if you are inclined to do so that is.
Lot of stuff has already been posted by many people about it. Infact one Mr. Ahuja even did a detailed study on it. I had also written about it earlier. i will try and reproduce that later.
It seems that IAF think that Rafale is powerfull enough to to used for deterrence....
Tejas Mk2 .... for the moment it is a dream, when rafale is a fact. actual Tejas is not finished and far from initial spec, so be humble about a potential Mk2 (say without thoughts).
Rafale with 2 fuel tanks : if these 2 (or 3) are 1200 liters one, no problem to be supersonnic and highly agile. And in this case, (2 or 3 supersonic tanks), no Tejas in the area because too short legs with or without tanks.
Tejas Mk2 and even more, MCA are humid dreams.
Wake me up when Tejas will have similar perf than F16. It will be a nice news, but it will take time.
Comparing wing area between 2 so different plan forms than Delta and tailed plane is absolutely useless. It's like apple and strawberry.
It's a too short and bad conclusion !
Why do you think all 3 newer european fighter are tailess Delta? All 3 are among the best in dog fight.
They have a superior instantaneous turn rate. And thanks to a good T/W ration (Gripen is shorter there) have also a very good sustained turn rate.
The Mirage 3 performances are no more true. Mirage 2000 was a first answer, but handicaped in STR with a lach of engine power. Rafale thanks to coupled canards and Eurofighter thanks to a higher power are a second answer.
F16 which was a reference was beaten by M2000 if the pilot can used the STR at the beginning of a figh. After... M2000 loss too much energy and F16 win.
The same F16 is beaten from the beginning to the end by EF or Rafale.
what is a full FBW ? It doesn't mean that the plane is full unstable. It's just the way to control an instable plane. But you can use FBW on a stable platform.
Himmate Marda Mad-E-Khuda.
But need Khuda for such delivery bhai, my feeling, when the only target, and discussion gonna be Election only.