Bharat Rakshak

actually the indian environment might have been a saving grace - because we have enough smoke and crap floating around

But this smokes so bad that it is visible even in Indian conditions.

I have been at a airbase in the East where a few Mig 29s were transiting through.

It was a one of those hazy winter days and in spite of that you could see the dark smoky trail of the 29s.

for the 21s and 27s going against it - it was good as they got a little headstart in picking it out.

The headstart may not eventually matter against a thoroughly outmatched competitor like the 21, but against a closely matched adversary like an F-16 it could be the difference between victory and defeat. I cannot figure out why the IAF did not go in for the RD-33MK engine used on the navy's 29s. That engine doesn't seem to smoke this bad.

^^^ size. sea wasp is bigger.

^^Wiki aunty says that the Sea Wasp retains the same length and max diameter.

that is indeed strange. my memory keeps telling me MK can't be retrofitted on older fulcrums due to a size problem but can't find the relevant articles.

the klimov site carefully avoids mentioning the dimensions of the MK and mentions only the mig-29K and mig-35. http://en.klimov.ru/production/aircraft/RD-33MK/

if it could be done, won't the russians have offered it as part of the upg package ?

Well the MK uses new materials (SCB possibly) to improve thrust. It has FADEC as well. So the price difference could be substantial. Maybe the IAF though the extra money wasn't worth it.

nachiket

you are probably right -I do not know how much of a problem it is or not. And of course if i do come to know - probably not something that can be told here.

I can only assume the IAF is well aware of it and has taken appropriate steps to minimise the disadvantage

boss I understand that. but that's hardly their (russian's) headache. while they keep offering every probable and improbable kit, RD-33mk was not offered on the IAF mig-29. neither have they offered any general upg package with that engine to the international market AFAIK. that is very unlike how the russians approach the upg business.

moreover I keep having this distinct memory of having read something about the mismatch b/w rd-33mk and older migs. will keep looking.

Click for higher resolution:



Just saw this pic by Ajai Shukla ji's blog. I just love the An-32s. Just goes to show why it is IAF's work horse. They are filling in the belly of the beast even as the engines keep humming ... speaks volumes about the uptime and the turn-around time of the beast in India. Just love it!

About smoky RD-33s, some quick questions:

1) In what regimes do these birds smoke? I notice it at slower speeds when sudden acceleration is required, esp. when coming out of a turn. Dunno (doubt) if it will happen during cruise. Might not be such a great issue once maneuvering starts in close range - they've done well in most DACT exercises and they've fought against M2ks, F-16s, the entire lot of them - the IAF still considers this bird a premier air superiority fighter. My point is that this weakness it seems is a problem at a particular flight regime and does not degrade performance decisively, especially with the availability of the latest OLS, which can probly allow pilots to "see" much further than eyeball mk1. Further, I have always noticed this at lower altitudes (take off-landing or airshows), what about higher altitudes? Here is an interesting dog fight between the fulcrum and falcon (SwAF), the fulcrum does smoke but not all the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKDjwcH3aHg

2) Do we know that the RD-33s in the original video were upgraded/new engines?

Here is another video of VVS MiG-29SMTs with the RD 33.3 engine, it does smoke BUT nothing overthetop like we saw in the earlier vid.http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/Radetzky/5192/

3) RD 33MKs are not iirc possible on the SMT - Rahul has a point, they have never been offered or advertised as such, although the TVC is available.

article appeared in an IDST Newsletter

Innovations in Military Operations [Indian Air Force]

http://www.aame.in/2012/03/innovations- ... tions.html

yinjineers on board, ADA is looking for a few good men to recruit, both experienced and not. check it out.

Yeah i have applied for it

So the source of smoke is just like good old smoke --> incomplete combustion? If I am not wrong incomplete combustion means reduced thrust from engine in those altitude regimes where engines get smoky?

at high alt, would the unburnt fuel residue result in formation of contrails in certain weather conditions like moist air?

Don't worry about reduced power ... the amount of fuel these engines burn, this amount of smoke is nothing ... The smoke is a concern for other things ... ease of tracking the plane and its maneuvers.

I think CM sahab you are right, the smoke seems to increase at higher AOA. This could be easily explained on the basis of airflow into the intakes being most constricted at these regimes

Don't need unburnt fuel residue for that. Contrails are formed by condensation of water vapor as the engine exhaust cools down. All that is needed are hot exhaust gases and moisture in the air. Sometimes the contrails are formed even at the center of wingtip vortices.

Got a Q:
In his comment here, Prasun says "By the way, your desperate prayers in another blog for the ‘kabutar/panchi’ to take flight (for the NP-1) may also be required for the HJT-35 ‘Sitara’ IJT, since A K Antony yesterday in Parliament virtually confirmed that the IJT is for all intents and purposes now a dead duck. What a gigantic waste of R & D effort!!!"

Is this true? I havent seen it anywhere else. Why would they kill the IJT project?

^^^A gentle reminder - articles and other associated nonsense from Prasun Chor Gupta are not welcome on BRF. Please take care. Thanks.

While that may be so, updates on the IJT are far and few between. IMHO, here HAL has truly screwed the pooch.

I was hoping that this one project - IJT - would leverage the learning in LCA program and we'll be able to showcase results in aviation domain. Sigh!!!

Rohit. Betting one bottle of Hundred Pipers the next time we meet. Chorgupta is wrong and gassing as usual. No proof. No "inside info" Just a hunch.

Haven't seen this onBRF. It has some of the most beautiful pics of Migs and other mojor IAF birds.
Russian Magazine

Added: Other Mags from the archives:Link

Well, I think Gupta might be well off the mark on this one too - in the Takeoff issue linked by Koti (many thanks), there is a nice spread on the IJT, which states that a LRIP batch of 12 is on order and 73 more have been approved, pg. 13.

India readies to select mid-air refueler
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/transportation/airlines-/-aviation/india-readies-to-select-mid-air-refueler/articleshow/12357075.cms

A330 vs IL76 is a somewhat strange contest. the 330 is much bigger and hence will fly longer and offload more fuel. whether we need that or not is debatable, but I guess with stuff like Phalcons, CABS AEW, future GMTI planes, P8s, MKI fighter screens increasing a single plane able to feed more birds does add some value.

Get 12-14 used 330's for 100 million dollars each; refurb them. They have a long life and are used to landing and taking off 5 days a week. IAF would never be able to use it to its fullest life anyways. This will serve well for the next 20-25 years and will be a cheaper option.

Cybaruji,
While your suggestion might be good for getting transport planes, to convert them into tankers we would have to go back to Airbus, especially the boom..
Another option that could be looked into is getting refurbed B767 and approaching Israel to convert them to a Tanker-Transport..

Would C-27Js be a good replacement for An-32s?

On paper, yes..

Didn't see this posted here before..

NAL outlines weight savings made to Saras prototype

IAI has exp of converting B707 and B767 into tankers. there must be plenty of 767 lightly used and lying in boneyards. in any case even ex-airline ones are good for cargo fleets which => good enough for tanker use. Boeing likely provides OEM support to a bunch of conversion cos like IAI.

imo its a far cheaper option to convert used planes to tankers than buy new A330...prolly half the cost.

33 % composite by weight is quite good even by todays modern standards , 500 Kg weight savings will compensate weight issue that it has faced in its early development.

They should work in parallel with the low cost carrier and begin pitching Saras as means for short distance regional transport which needs minimum airport infrastructure to operate .....commercial sale would add value to the aircraft and boost confidence of HAL and End Customer.

proposal by lockheed to customers: could be useful for MRMP.

The Sea Hercules would incorporate P-3C Orion capabilities into a C-130 airframe and be optimised for maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare duties."

They have done a LRMP version of Hercules before, viz the PC-130.

not able to find PC130 details but us coast guard operates a fleet
http://www.squidoo.com/coast-guard-c-130-aircraft

with our footprint expanding in IOR, makes sense to supplement the dorniers with MRMP C130...nicely common with the IAF fleet and future buys.

The article mentions that both aircraft qualified in the technical parameters. But will also be evaluated on the lifetime costs.

These are 2 key differences between the 2 tenders. I think IL-78MLI has an edge given the lower upfront cost which is the deciding factor.

Nowadays the USCG's favorite is the HC-144 or C-295 as it is commonly known.

No. You can find AF officials calling the RD-33 engine as such. Series 3 engine is the same as Series 1&2 engine with new materials involving no design changes. Becoz of new materials, it offers higher TTL and TBO, otherwise the engine design is old. This engine is not considered for future applications like MiG-35. So this gives an indirect message that the design is not modern.