Buddy, I am well aware that we have only 0.5m space available behind but I told you about loading the missile such that it extends forward and not backwards. Most BVRAAMs have their CG nearly at 55% of their length. What I have written allows us to carry two Meteor easily under intake pylons without interfering with main gear.
If Gripen-E has four heavy hard points, I cvan say in such a case MWF will have seven. The addition of another spar to the wing adds to the weight tolerence of every pylon. The inner most go to 1500 kgs, the mid ones to about 1000kgs and the outermost to about 400kgs. provided we have the issues of controllability resolved.Actually 5 in total. And only 4 are usable at any one time.
The 2 inner wing hardpoints. And 3 centerline hardpoints. And all 3 centerline hardpoints are heavy. But only 2 of the points are usable at any one time, where they can put fuel tanks.
Like this:
What's interesting about this loadout is if HAL manages to put 2 BVR missiles on the LCA Mk1A's centre pylon, then Mk1A itself will match Gripen E's configuration.
Have you heard of increased wheel base of MWF and do you know what it means? have a look at what you posted yourself. An aircraft must have a CP and CG so positioned that it should be able to rotate at about 80% of its take off speed. For that the location of Main gear changes everytime you make a change to your length and CG. The formula has something to do with inverse of Tangent of the height of the metacenter and the distance between the main gear oleo and airrcraft CG. The nose wheel location is also decided based on the amount of load which it shopuld carry. And the nose wheel position has to provide a load which is within 10-20% of the total wieght of the aircraft in any configuration. The main wheels will move backwards for MWF. They have to.
somewhat correct but not entirely. The nose gear weight will remain slave to wheel base and location of main gear. we will have more of the aircraft ahead of nose gear than present LCA but the Main gear must move back to stay within the load limits which are extremely crucial with respect to even landing wieght and vertical velocity limitations. The main gear will be farther back from intakes compared to present LCA.
I fully agree with you here. They are going to make a complete hash of this project.
They will fail to deliver. As the design shown in AeroIndia has not even been subjected to wind tunnel teasting and they had three designs for it. One without canards, one with tail plane and one with canards. They don't even know what they want and want to design a fighter. Its complete waste of resources.
But isn't the end user - IAF & the manufacturer - HAL on board? What are they up to? Aren't they supposed to be flying the first prototype by 2022-23? Where's the time to validate the design in such a short timespan?
This is extremely upsetting news. For all we know they may revive the MRCA tender by 2023-24.
Vstol raised serious issues with the design and consequently development and manufacturing. What's your counter? Has the ADA frozen a design with the concurrence of the IAF? Has it been validated by wind tunnel tests , etc?
