Have a shocking
, fainting
, LOLing
, ROFLing
weekend
, fainting, LOLing, ROFLing weekendTejas Mk2 (Medium Weight Fighter) - News and discussions
- Thread starter Schwifty
- Start date
That Russian ukrain war thread wants to k ow your locationAlso, congratulations to all. This thread has reached 100 pages mark.
Yes, but can it deploy its landing gear?
Sir,
What I understand from Limited knowledge of Physics is that weight = Mass X Gravitation or W=M X g. Mass remains same so as g increases, weight multiplies in proportion. At 8 g. weight shall increase to 8 times.
The artist & ADA can answer this best.
But i think yes, bcoz MWF will be longer & wider than LCA. So taking LCA as reference in below pics, it is easy to imagine AAM instead of LD pod, dual rack launcher instead of fuel tank & green colored bomb rack.
That is true sir but how to determine load limit? Is it like load to be hanged on particular point X g limit X 1.5? is that true?
The load limit is defined by the capability of an aircraft pylon to load a maximum weight for certain specified limits. Normally the pylon load limit is for about +3g. But if you reduce the weight, the lG-limit associated with that pylon can increase as long as the over all structural load limit is reached. No aircraft has ever been designed for full spectrum G-load limits for its MTOW. Its just not possible as it will make the empty weight too high for any usefull combat capabilities. Bombers have very low G-limits as they are not required to do combat and sustain high G-Loads.
Geometric shaping came out publicly with USAF's ATF project in 1990.
Many documentaries in 1990s shared interviews of their test pilots, chief designers, engineers, program managers, etc who said geometry alone reduces RCS a lot. Some of those videos are still available on Youtube. So in 30-35 years also MWF didn't get geometric shaping, although TEDBF seems to have some, and RAM paint is ready now. How difficult was this to do in 35 years:
Many documentaries in 1990s shared interviews of their test pilots, chief designers, engineers, program managers, etc who said geometry alone reduces RCS a lot. Some of those videos are still available on Youtube. So in 30-35 years also MWF didn't get geometric shaping, although TEDBF seems to have some, and RAM paint is ready now. How difficult was this to do in 35 years:
I'm avoiding DSI due to more stealth hence the only other option is of F-22.
- 1 engine of F414 class or AL-31/41/F-100/110 class initially. If USA gives just the F135 engine then nice
But still F-35 TWR is not like F-22.- 2 side intakes to make some IWB & SWB.
- IWB can carry 4 BVR-AAMs or 2 AGMs. Each SWB can carry 1, may be 2 CCMs, depends on size.
- half length all-moving rudder which can be researched into tail-less or rotating rudder-stab.
- Wing shape & size not determined yet.
- Some people might want canards for Naval model.
The 1st/top one's fuselage outline looks like cousin of Su-75 (F-22 inlet cut half width-wise)
The middle one like child of Su-57 + F-22
(F-22 inlet cut half height-wise)The below one like younger sibling of F-35 (F-22 inlet reduced to 1/4th quadrant)
NOTE: These are notional & not to scale.
Invest heavily on Engine and fast track all the projects with heavy Privatization is the only way out. We must get engine in fast track mode. Purchase rights of manufacturing EJ 200 series. Develop Kaveri 110 KN in collaboration with Safran or Rolls Royce. Give a contract to private players to redesign MWF with frontal stealth and bay either internal or external. That is the only way forward. We have lost more because of indecisiveness rather than any technological challenges. Had we funded Kaveri properly post 2008, we would have a working engine in our hand today. Single minded focus and private public partnership is the only way out. Obviously, current systems have failed to deliver the result. We should quickly move to new system.
the parts-commonality between Mk1A and Mk2 is merely 25-27%
- whereas between Mk2 and AMCA is 75%+ ..
Credits : Maitya BR
Source : S Jha you tube.
@randomradio @Rajput Lion
- whereas between Mk2 and AMCA is 75%+ ..
Credits : Maitya BR
Source : S Jha you tube.
@randomradio @Rajput Lion
Most of the base avionics are similar. That's why MK2 is a must before AMCA and yet some morons want IAF to ditch it in favour of MRFA/AMCA(only).
Just read that forum, I guess some omission s are there in that statement.
I guess it should
25 ℅ commonality with airframe with Mk1
75 ℅ commonality with avionics in Amca mk1
Yep. That's the airframe commonality. The rest are all different; engine, avionics etc. Airframe is 25-30% of an aircraft.