Doesn't matter. In any case I don't see the Mk-2 entering production before 2030. I only hope it isn't delayed beyond that.
Tejas Mk2 (Medium Weight Fighter) - News and discussions
- Thread starter Schwifty
- Start date
And what would be the use if the prototype needs design modifications? Whatever computer modelling, wind tunnel testing are done are no replacement for actual testing with a real bird.
Atleast if the production capacity of 16 / year is maintained after mk1A without any break would be fine. .
Hoping to see the roll out in 2022-23..
Before I used to look for Mk1A number increase in case mk2 is delayed.
After learning about how bigger nose cone is under utilized paying drag penalty..
How power is not sufficient..
How pylons were not sufficient.. ( for SPJ )
I ve shifted my goal post to Mk2.
Don't know why they cancelled Nose cone RFP..
Can we test fly with dummy nose cone?
There's a desi alternative, so that will definitely be used. The problem will come in testing and integration of radar with the desi one. We need to develop a desi equivalent of what we import.
But regarding the initial testing for the 100 or so hours , the focus is airframe. That shouldn't be delayed by this.
They still have not showcased their EW suite and completed CDR without that, but they are ahead. Hmmmm.
It is not going to test all avionics from the get-go, it going to need 400-500 hours worth of flight to validate and certify the flight control system. Only after that the certification of the rest of the avionics start.
Must've developed the indigenous version or some other procedural issue.
Yes. We could use the old version too. It's not as big a deal as is being made out .
That wouldn't take too much time. As the sensors would be developed and tested on different platforms, only the integration task will be left. Service by 2030 is realistic and good enough.
Prof. Prodyut Das 2
Developing the Tejas Mk 2 –a technical assessment Prof. Prodyut Das There were two interesting interviews related to ...
prodyut7.blogspot.com
A contrarian view to the design of the Mk-2 . You may be interested. @vstol Jockey
Prof. Prodyut Das 2
Developing the Tejas Mk 2 –a technical assessment Prof. Prodyut Das There were two interesting interviews related to ...
A contrarian view to the design of the Mk-2 . You may be interested. @vstol Jockey
Last edited:
I have posted the same things manytimes here. The canards as an after thought with no changes to the wing location and shape will not give the required performance enhancement. It will not help much.Prof. Prodyut Das 2
Developing the Tejas Mk 2 –a technical assessment Prof. Prodyut Das There were two interesting interviews related to ...
A contrarian view to the design of the Mk-2 . You may be interested. @vstol Jockey
It cleared the IAF's CDR though.
Interestingly he believes ADA has to get the weight down on Mk1A, but it's being done by HAL.
@Picdelamirand-oil
Any thoughts about the article in 1089?
You've the most annoying habit of intervening when it's not required . You've done it plenty of times before too , in my case . If I've posted that tweet from the Professor , you think I wasn't aware of what Indranil has to say on the issue .
I wanted vstol Jockey to comment on what Prof Das wrote with an unbiased mind & not be influenced by what Indranil & the rest have to say on the matter .
If you want to learn , how are you going to figure out what exactly is the design all about , why was it chosen , is it optimum , etc ? It's thru articles & crtiques like this . That's how you learn, verify & cross verify . Unless you're completely well versed in the art of aerodynamics & fighter design . Are you ?
Unlike vstol jockey I am for canards but I would try to optimise their position after removing Levcons. It is also true that the weight of the aircraft is a very important factor influencing its performance, and that the approach of increasing engine power to compensate for too much weight is an easy way out with far inferior results.
Look, Rafale from very onset was supposed to be a canard design and so DA designed the airtcraft for most optimum performance. It is not so in case of LCA MK2. Canards on LCA MK2 are more of a concotion than part of the design.
LCA Mk2 has to be re design, it's a new plane, not an evolution.
Could you elaborate on it? Aren't the addition of canards a sort of redesign instead of evolution? After all the Mk1 was criticised for not having them which ADA in it's defense said they didn't want to unnecessarily complicate the design for they were themselves on a learning curve & wanted to keep things simple in spite of lack canards affecting the aerodynamic performance of the Mk1.
There's no LEVCON though, it's only a LERX.
Tracking The Evolution of TEJAS Medium Weight Fighter (MWF)
Image: Nilesh Rane Tracking The Tejas: How The Tejas Mk2 Design Became The Medium Weight Fighter by Indranil Roy & Niles...
@vstol Jockey
That's not being done on Mk2. In fact there is a slight weight increase compared to the original design. It was definitely a problem for the original Mk2 designed in 2014.
If you want to get the maximum benefit from canards, their development must be done at the same time as the aircraft and the FCS.
For example, on the Rafale, instability is dynamic and controlled by the FCS, which uses the canards for this purpose. This allows a great deal of freedom in the placement of loads under the aircraft and allows heavy loads to be dropped without destabilising the aircraft. This level of control is not achieved by the Typhoon and Gripen and if you want to have it on the TEDBF you may have to take a step up to the LCA Mk2 (because Dassault doesn't do a ToT on this point).
I don't know very well the LCA and I took the descriptions in the proposed text for analysis at face value.
That's okay. I doubt ToT will reach the aerodynamics portion of AMCA or TEDBF.
Would you still suggest removing it?