Oh, dead brain fan boi, now you maje tedbf a raptor killer.And Aero Expert Hydra how did you calculated.....
Did you put your empty head inside and it got stuck inside....
Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)
- Thread starter Gautam
- Start date
And Aero Expert Hydra how did you calculated.....
Did you put your empty head inside and it got stuck inside....
Calm down guys.
The design of TEDBF is really good. I liked it as it is not based on LCA MK2 and as I can see in the pics, the wing sweepback angle has been reduced. The location of canards and the wing is now perfect and it will do better than Rafale because the engines are going to be much more powerful than the Rafale engines. It appears to me that the wing sweep has been reduced to around 50* and when you go towards higher sweep angles on a canard-delta deisgn you get more benefits from vortices but the vortex drag also increases. I am happy to see this new design however I will still put my money on LERX-Delta-Tail design for a deck based fighter.
I do foresee that we will get to see TEDBF even in IAF service.
I do foresee that we will get to see TEDBF even in IAF service.
It's practically a copy of the Rafale. Extra fuel and 100KN engines will make it a Rafale++.
As for the IAF, unless it can match the Rafale's maintainability standards, like a modular engine for example, it won't pique the IAF's interest even with the additional thrust. The F414 will simply not interest the IAF, it goes entirely opposite to their "avoid all eggs in one basket" principle considering even the massive LCA fleet will depend on GE engines. The K-10 could change the equation though.
I was hoping the trapezoidal design was also showed off, but I guess it's still WIP.
What do you think about a chine-trap-tail design?
would it not make more sense to have twin vertical fins instead of the single?
because JF-17 has, so we also have
Why complicate an aircraft that's not designed for stealth?
A twin fin design will add to the weight, cost more to develop and purchase, make it more complicated to maintain, and will need to carry more sensors due to the additional blind spots, and in exchange the reduction in RCS will not actually add to anything significant.
As green forum guys say. Its answer to everything.because JF-17 has, so we also have
Considering we are going to be getting this plane out, when the F-35s of the world are moving in, wouldn't a slanted twin give better over reduction in rcs compared to a single vertical? Also, my guess would be better control at low speeds, which would be required for a deck based fighter?
The aircraft is being designed as a non stealth aircraft and chine doew not work for a CCC canard design
I wud have loved a twin tail design in which the twin tail also acts as V-tail giving that additional control ability for higher flap angles while landing to reduce the speed and improving forward visibility for deck landings. Lower touch down speeds have lesser airframe fatigue and longer aircraft life.
DSI is because no aircraft in the world has been able to exceed Mach2 till date with external stores. So why create design complications which are not needed based on the performance needs. Even F-15EX which is touted to be Mach 2.5 can do so only as clean aircraft and that too for just 2.5 minutes and with A2A loads, its restricted to below Mach2.
But AMCA is also getting DSI where there is a supercruise requirement.
Thoughts on raised cheeks?
I don't think the RCS benefits will be significant enough since the rest of the aircraft isn't stealth.
Yeah, it would help during landing and takeoff from carriers. But I don't think the extra weight and cost would justify the benefits.
I am not referring to a CCC design. I'm referring to the alternative TEDBF design which has a trapezoidal wing and tail, no canards.
So chines + trapezoidal wing + tail, as an alternative to your LERX + delta + tail design.
AMCA will not be able to supercruise above Mach 1.8.
I agree to your suggestion regarding the alternative design with tail.
The two days of excitement saga begins.
The design concept looks different from the current ADA concepts which are flying, this will add to more complexity in getting it ready to fly. We can't afford that, ADA operates on very limited budget. TEDBF was supposed to be lighter and more powerful LCA navy concept, not a complete new jet.
The design concept looks different from the current ADA concepts which are flying, this will add to more complexity in getting it ready to fly. We can't afford that, ADA operates on very limited budget. TEDBF was supposed to be lighter and more powerful LCA navy concept, not a complete new jet.
I mean, do you have an opinion regarding it? Maybe if there are significant differences between the two.