LCA News and Discussions

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Cain Marko »

adarshp wrote:http://www.deccanherald.com/content/226 ... ge-99.html

I did not realize this was still outstanding. I thought all these formalities were already over. I don't have a link to hand now, but I remember reading earlier that it was planned for the first set of engines to be available before end 2012 to enable integration into the airframe and therefore first flight of Mk2 by 2014. Eagerly waiting for confirmation that this remains the case. Can someone please confirm or has there already been news to the contrary that I missed? Thanks!
Interesting indeed. They were just sitting on it all this time - no wonder the poor Tejas has become late in coming aircraft! GE has some gall (no brainer then that the f-18/16 were ditched for the MRCA):
Two other important issues that were dealt with by the committee were, GE wanted India to sign the deal with one of its subsidiaries and not with it, citing various reasons and GE wanted India to agree to pay liabilities in case the IAF used aircraft powered by these engines to carry nuclear weapons and in case that crashed in Pakistan.
I say abhi der nahi hui - ditch GE, aim for Snecma Kaveri (9 ton engines) on every batch after the initial 40 that are being powered by the IN20s. Trim the LCA a bit - and let the mk2 be without IFR (its range as it is, is rather good). :evil:
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4040
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by suryag »

CM ji on one hand you crib about the wasted time and now you are asking for Snecma Kaveri to be made the mainstay for MK2 wouldnt that mean an additional delay ?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

GE engine nego took 15 months!!!!!

France expects the Rafale deal to take six months?

IF we ditch GE ................................

When are the 18 GE engines supposed to come?
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Philip »

Add the cost of cats as well,($800m) per carrier according to some UK estimates.Just for the record,whatever happened to the Vikrant's cats?
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Cain Marko »

suryag wrote:CM ji on one hand you crib about the wasted time and now you are asking for Snecma Kaveri to be made the mainstay for MK2 wouldnt that mean an additional delay ?
Not if (and I know if it is a BIG if) they keep the LCA modest and slim - no better than a M2k-5 sensor/avionics wise, and without the ability to carry as much. Sort of Gripen A or just stick to Mk1 standards. MMR, Derby/Astra BVRAAM and R73/Python SRAAM with the Dash V kit.

What that means is that we can have a finalized version of the LCA by mid 2013 - use the initial 40 GE engines to power at least 1-2 sqds, and by the time these are brought online (2016-17?), get the Kaveri 9 ton version working with the help of Snecma (in a worst case scenario, if the kaveri with the Snecma core is not ready, use the M88.4). Yes, the bird probly won't be as capable as a 414 powered version, but it'll be good enough to be ordered in large numbers and form the inexpensive base for the IAF.

This might actually be a faster route considering that the currently planned mk2 version is hardly off the ground as yet, and will require pretty distinct structural changes to get it up and running - I think AM Rajkumar had mentioned making the mk2 entailed at least a 25% change from the mk1, and the bird would optimistically operational only by 2018-20.

With a smaller engine, pumping just about 90kN, the current LCA mk1 might not need as many changes and be ready faster. The aims should be modest - slightly lighter (~ 6000kg) and some increase in thrust over the IN20. Perhaps the IAF may have to compromise on some parameters such as payload, but this might work as a low end fighter that can be ordered in bulk.

IIRC, the F-404 was replaced by the M88 on the Rafale, so the French might have some experience and their consultancy could be used. But seriously, the US vendor's shenanigans do not inspire confidence. What if they decide on sanctioning the F414 in 2015, its a risk that cant be risked if the program has to be taken forward.
Badar
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 23 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Badar »

Cain Marko wrote:GE wanted India to agree to pay liabilities in case the IAF used aircraft powered by these engines to carry nuclear weapons and in case that crashed in Pakistan.
I say abhi der nahi hui - ditch GE, aim for Snecma Kaveri (9 ton engines) on every batch after the initial 40 that are being powered by the IN20s. Trim the LCA a bit - and let the mk2 be without IFR (its range as it is, is rather good). :evil:
Defense business with US is rife with all this and more. Their defense trade is setup on a base of predatory legislation. India has to consider the US as the seller of last resort, approached only when all other alternatives have proved to be unpleasant or nonviable. There are plenty of other places in which to foster close relations with the US. Defense in not amongst them.
me experience and their consultancy could be used. But seriously, the US vendor's shenanigans do not inspire confidence. What if they decide on sanctioning the F414 in 2015, its a risk that cant be risked if the program has to be taken forward.
Sanction is a drastic case. What about the routine change of rules that impact our development time lines. Remember the Shivalik case?
Last edited by Badar on 12 Feb 2012 11:58, edited 1 time in total.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Cain Marko »

^^ What I don't get is why they keep going to the US time after time, jhatka after chatka! That too for a program that so critical to self sufficiency. Its like the LCA decisionmakers have some serious victim mentality/addiction and can't get out of an abusive relationship.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Cain Marko »

suryag wrote:My "realistic" wishlist for 2012
3. LSP7/8 having capabilities to fire radar guided R-73, LGBs, Counter measures, AoA of 24deg, fully integrated Auto pilot, day/night all weather capability, wake penetration issues resolved, HMS guided missile cuing, cannon firing, ability to withstand G forces of 8/-3
Not happening I think. iirc, LSP 7 is to be used for further envelope expansion so AoA of 24 deg+ will be achieved wonlee after bird is built!
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by nachiket »

Cain Marko wrote: Not happening I think. iirc, LSP 7 is to be used for further envelope expansion so AoA of 24 deg+ will be achieved wonlee after bird is built!
That is LSP-6.
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4040
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by suryag »

IIRC the current achieved AoA is 22deg. PS in an interview said they can open to 24deg with the current set of LSPs. LSP6 will be used to open it beyond 24deg
Gurneesh
BRFite
Posts: 465
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Location: Troposphere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Gurneesh »

Cain Marko wrote:
suryag wrote:My "realistic" wishlist for 2012
3. LSP7/8 having capabilities to fire radar guided R-73, LGBs, Counter measures, AoA of 24deg, fully integrated Auto pilot, day/night all weather capability, wake penetration issues resolved, HMS guided missile cuing, cannon firing, ability to withstand G forces of 8/-3
Not happening I think. iirc, LSP 7 is to be used for further envelope expansion so AoA of 24 deg+ will be achieved wonlee after bird is built!
LSP7/8 are meant for IAF pilots to fly and form doctrines before the Sp's arrive.

How exactly does a radar guide a IR missile ?
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Cain Marko »

THanks Gurneesh and Nachiket, was under the impression that lsp 7 was set for flight envelope expansion. Btw, I thought LSP 6 was the trainer?
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4040
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by suryag »

Gurneesh ji - from wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_homing
Rather, the pilot or operator points the seeker at the target using radar, a helmet-mounted sight, an optical sight or possibly by pointing the nose of the aircraft or missile launcher directly at the target. Once the seeker sees and recognises the target, it indicates this to the operator who then typically "uncages" the seeker (which is allowed to follow the target).
Gurneesh
BRFite
Posts: 465
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Location: Troposphere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Gurneesh »

^^^ Thanks
Badar
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 23 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Badar »

Gurneesh, For longer ranged missiles (like variants of Mica or R-27) the radar might be needed to setup a shot or to provide MCU.
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4040
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by suryag »

I hope with the Gripen NG not making the cut it remains a prototype and fades away, Tejas MK2 should be marketed heavily for all f-16/mig21 replacements and mainly to Vietnam
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Indranil »

Raghu,

I had a long pending question about the LCA. I would be very grateful if you or your ex-roommate could answer it. Obviously avoid replying if the answer is classified in any manner.

Observation:
While there is beautiful blending of the wing with the fuselage on the upper side, the lower side of the wing is completely at right angles to the body. The MK II models displayed at AI-11 did not show any lower-wing-body blending.

The advantages of the wing body blending with respect to lower drag and RCS is well known. Also the wing body blending should provide space for the main landing gear and hence free up more internal space.

Question:
Is the lower wing body blending being avoided in order to stick to timelines or is there some aerodynamic/structural reason(s)?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by shiv »

Badar wrote:Gurneesh, For longer ranged missiles (like variants of Mica or R-27) the radar might be needed to setup a shot or to provide MCU.
I think there are two types of missiles. - LOBL (Lock on before launch) and LOAL (Lock on after launch). Some do both, like Mica. The old K-13 had to have the MiG 21 pointed at the target and the missile head had to lock on before launch. Other missiles can have their seekers slaved to the HMS to lock on before launch. But some newer missiles have a lock on after launch capability where the missile is launched on the basis of target detection by some other entity, uses inertial guidance initially, and is given mid course updates/guidance but finally locks on to the target using IR (or something else) on its own for terminal guidance. A Vayu article listed which does which. This is a very informative keeper of an article.

http://www.vayuaerospace.in/images1/M-M ... ssiles.pdf
member_20617
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by member_20617 »

Cain Marko wrote:^^ What I don't get is why they keep going to the US time after time, jhatka after chatka! That too for a program that so critical to self sufficiency. Its like the LCA decisionmakers have some serious victim mentality/addiction and can't get out of an abusive relationship.
Correct.

Why not French/Russian engines?

I know it is too late now as the deal with GE signed.

PS: Ultimately we need to develop our own engines - Kaveri Zindabad!
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4040
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by suryag »

Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 1777 Test Flights successfully. (10-Feb-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-212,PV3-330,LSP1-67,LSP2-198,PV5-36,LSP3-46,LSP4-44,LSP5-64)

from

LCA-Tejas has completed 1776 Test Flights successfully. (08-Feb-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-212,PV3-330,LSP1-67,LSP2-198,PV5-36,LSP3-46,LSP4-44,LSP5-63)
member_22710
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by member_22710 »

Few questions regarding GE 404 engines for LCA Mk1:-
1.When did GE deliver all 40 engines.
2.What is the long term storage procedure for such military power packs.
3.Considering 11 ready aircraft and LSP 7 & 8 , there will be around 27 engines still in some ware house, how does HAL fair in critical systems storage.
4.Does long shelf life reduces engine life (for eg. Turbine Blades, Power Unit and Electronics).
5.Is GE support required for start up & integration of engine with airframe

My point is can long terms storage cause any hiccups during operation service, for example in normal production air frame and powerpack will be around same age :roll:
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

the reason I bayed blood for ge, when ej-200s were introduced.. sometimes, politics and strategy does not go along with l1 and l2 business setups... very bad decision later on.. with having nothing gained. wtf agreements with unkil against using weapons on pakistan is in itself a pathetic understanding of strategic relationships. it is the fault of GoI/MoD. I hope GoI just don't keep quite, and ensure such stupidity is not uttered by nation on the planet. boot them out before they even think about talking business.

btw:
Responding to questions, Saraswat said the naval version of the Light Combat Aircraft should take to the skies on its maiden flight in a month's time. "Already, taxiing trials are underway.

There are differences between the naval and air force versions of the LCA. So, before going to the flight, we have to ensure that those differences (systems, equipment) are working. So we are now testing all the different systems," he said.
Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Hitesh »

With the N-LCA plane, have they redesign the air intakes as to increase the efficiency of thrust. On another forum, somebody says that the main flaw of LCA was its air intake design. He alleged that It is not getting enough thrust despite the Gripen using the same engine getting more thrust even though it is heavier than the the LCA and getting a better flight performance profile.

If the DRDO wants to overcome the flaw, it must come with a more powerful engine or redesign the airflow intakes which will push back the program another 3-5 years. If that's the case, why not do the most obvious thing? Use the N-LCA programme as a cover to redesign the air intake flow and after the N-LCA flies, use the redesigned N-LCA as LCA mk. 2. Problem solved. In the intervening years of 3-5 years, HAL can produce the 40 Tejas and improve the avionics and other parts of the plane as a parallel development course while the N-LCA gets the air intake flow design flaw fixed.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Singha »

dont know about the air intakes, but the gripen is apparently also a less draggy design and the Tejas is more stubby than needed. so in Mk2 they were planning to make the fuselage 1m longer to give it a more tapering less draggy shape...nose section and aft section of cockpit will be stretched to accomodate more avionic and perhaps a bigger radar area (for aesa radar). height would increase by 20cm due to bigger vertical tail but same wingspan with some increased wing area.

the airflow of original mk1 was definitely less than needed. they tried to mitigate it to extent possible without airframe redesign but using those jaguar style side air intakes that are spring loaded and deploy as needed.

and one of core deficiencies in Mk1 is the lack of a IFR probe...that will be fixed.
Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Hitesh »

What is spring loaded and what are LEXCONs? I tried looking at the pictures of LCA and N-LCAs and cannot figure out what are LEVCONs or LEXCONS whatever they are called. I am not an aeronautical engineer, just a layman. If possible, is there a picture with a diagram that shows exactly where the LEXCONs are so I can easily identify them?
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4040
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by suryag »

No news on the horizon, hope they dont wait until monsoons in blore :(( and blame the monsoons for the delay
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Singha »

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/T ... ut+(6).jpg

in this pic, that small canard type thing where the leading edge of wing joins fuselage is moveable. I believe at high AoA it will bend down and redirect more air into the engine intakes (?) the PAKFA has it too. those are the levcons.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... 03-Mar.jpg

in this pic look for the small vertical slit type intake a couple feet behind the main intake on the side. it a door that can open and close when the engine needs more air.

the Jags have two on each side
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2278/236 ... f16c54.jpg
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

At higher AoA, the lift is increased while the trailing edge ailerons provides the drag, iirc... that is when the levcon is facing at 0 angle [zero to flow direction] compared AoA [correction needed].. so, the stabilized lift/control can be given. without which or without canards, it would be difficult to reach higher AoA without perhaps a TVC.

so it helps, especially for landing on the carrier, with an extra AoA, and higher stability of flow control as the levcon redirects and provides the additional lift, and without which a potential stall can happen. Also, at higher AoA, it is easier for the arresters to latch on, or if it fails, a few more wet thrust is all needed to continue ahead for a second landing.

sometime back, some guru explained it more clearer here.
Snehashis
BRFite
Posts: 200
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Snehashis »

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Philip »

I am serious! Tejas at Singapore has tremednous export potential,in model form.There are zillions of aircraft enthusiasts around the globe who collect aircraft models amd collecting an authentic numbered Tejas models,"signed" by HAL,would become collector's items.The same can be mass produced in plastic/composites for the mases,"Airfix" style kits too.I'm sure that Hamley's would be interested as one sees so many Yindian shoppers in its flagship London establishment.I"m sure this can help cut down the hotel/travel bills for HAL's worthies, and the cost of the stall at the Sing air show!

As they say one must first walk before we can run.Let's export Tejas models first and then the bird when it evetually arrives!
Raman
BRFite
Posts: 304
Joined: 06 Mar 2001 12:31
Location: Niyar kampootar onlee

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Raman »

indranilroy wrote:Raghu,

I had a long pending question about the LCA. I would be very grateful if you or your ex-roommate could answer it. Obviously avoid replying if the answer is classified in any manner.

Observation:
While there is beautiful blending of the wing with the fuselage on the upper side, the lower side of the wing is completely at right angles to the body. The MK II models displayed at AI-11 did not show any lower-wing-body blending.

The advantages of the wing body blending with respect to lower drag and RCS is well known. Also the wing body blending should provide space for the main landing gear and hence free up more internal space.

Question:
Is the lower wing body blending being avoided in order to stick to timelines or is there some aerodynamic/structural reason(s)?
indranilroy,

First, In all wings, flow over the upper surface is much more critical than the lower surface. This is the reason why you can suspend pylons, weapons, fuel tanks, engine mounts, etc. on the bottom of the wings and yet not affect the essential lift capability of the wing. The wing-body blending on the upper surface essentially creates a larger upper wing surface for lift to act. This is not critical on the lower surface.

Second, while blending in the lower surface may marginally reduce interference drag it will either (a) increase the cross-sectional area in the fuselage section where cross sectional area is very critical (i.e., wing-fuselage junction) thereby increasing wave drag and hampering trans/supersonic performance, or (b) if the fuselage is tapered to maintain the same cross sectional area, reduce the volume available in the fuselage, which is a critical commodity in a small aircraft.

My guess is that the designers concluded that the tradeoff wasn't worth it.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Indranil »

I like your answer :). My answers inline (in blue).
Raman wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Raghu,

I had a long pending question about the LCA. I would be very grateful if you or your ex-roommate could answer it. Obviously avoid replying if the answer is classified in any manner.

Observation:
While there is beautiful blending of the wing with the fuselage on the upper side, the lower side of the wing is completely at right angles to the body. The MK II models displayed at AI-11 did not show any lower-wing-body blending.

The advantages of the wing body blending with respect to lower drag and RCS is well known. Also the wing body blending should provide space for the main landing gear and hence free up more internal space.

Question:
Is the lower wing body blending being avoided in order to stick to timelines or is there some aerodynamic/structural reason(s)?
indranilroy,

First, In all wings, flow over the upper surface is much more critical than the lower surface. This is the reason why you can suspend pylons, weapons, fuel tanks, engine mounts, etc. on the bottom of the wings and yet not affect the essential lift capability of the wing. The wing-body blending on the upper surface essentially creates a larger upper wing surface for lift to act. This is not critical on the lower surface.
This is beyond the point. On the question of lift coefficient of the wing, I can simply ask the question. Does adding a smoothening adversely affect lift coefficient? For most aircrafts it doesn't. However for LCA it is interesting as the wing root itself has a huge twist. after making this observation, one might say, why not a symmetrically twisted smoothening?


Second, while blending in the lower surface may marginally reduce interference drag it will either (a) increase the cross-sectional area in the fuselage section where cross sectional area is very critical (i.e., wing-fuselage junction) thereby increasing wave drag and hampering trans/supersonic performance, or (b) if the fuselage is tapered to maintain the same cross sectional area, reduce the volume available in the fuselage, which is a critical commodity in a small aircraft.

My guess is that the designers concluded that the tradeoff wasn't worth it.
You mean that the critical mach number for the plane would be lowered. But by how much? The wing body blend is essentially very smooth! By carefully choosing the wing body blend one could maintain a very smooth curve for the area curve, thus minimizing wave drag. There is no need of narrowing the fuselage. I had seen area curve of LCA, it is very smooth along the chord of the wing. There are steep rises before the wing and after the wing, which they are working on smoothening.

Also correct me if I am wrong here. the tradeoff between interference drag and wave drag has been well settled in favour of having a blended wing? This is the basis of the all blended wing designs from the Junkers G.38 to the X-48 and Be-2500 etc. and fourth generation planes except EF
Anyways, it is nice discussion. As an aerodynamics enthusiast, I would love to know why certain choices were made. Probably that would not happen in public space. Will have to befriend some LCA guys or get employed there! Problem is why would they hire me :|
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4040
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by suryag »

Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 1778 Test Flights successfully. (14-Feb-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-212,PV3-330,LSP1-67,LSP2-198,PV5-36,LSP3-46,LSP4-44,LSP5-65)

from

LCA-Tejas has completed 1777 Test Flights successfully. (10-Feb-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-212,PV3-330,LSP1-67,LSP2-198,PV5-36,LSP3-46,LSP4-44,LSP5-64)
Raman
BRFite
Posts: 304
Joined: 06 Mar 2001 12:31
Location: Niyar kampootar onlee

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Raman »

indranilroy,
Does adding a smoothening adversely affect lift coefficient? For most aircrafts it doesn't. However for LCA it is interesting as the wing root itself has a huge twist. after making this observation, one might say, why not a symmetrically twisted smoothening?
I think you are talking about different things in the same breath.

First: Does "smoothening" the lower surface affect lift coefficient? Yes, anything that affects the airfoil profile will affect the lift coefficient. Second: Does it *adversely* affect lift coefficient? Probably. You are essentially tending towards a symmetric airfoil, which have lower lift coefficients than cambered airfoils for a given angle-of-attack.
Third: LCA wing has a huge "twist" at the root. Yes. This is for two reasons: first to ensure that the entire wing doesn't stall at once. Second, a lot of that "twist" at the root is to control the oblique shocks for the inlet to operate at supersonic speeds.

The issue I was trying to highlight in my first statement is that there are good reasons to wing-body blend the upper surface; not so for the lower surface.
You mean that the critical mach number for the plane would be lowered. But by how much? The wing body blend is essentially very smooth! By carefully choosing the wing body blend one could maintain a very smooth curve for the area curve, thus minimizing wave drag. There is no need of narrowing the fuselage. I had seen area curve of LCA, it is very smooth along the chord of the wing. There are steep rises before the wing and after the wing, which they are working on smoothening.

Also correct me if I am wrong here. the tradeoff between interference drag and wave drag has been well settled in favour of having a blended wing? This is the basis of the all blended wing designs from the Junkers G.38 to the X-48 and Be-2500 etc. and fourth generation planes except EF
I was not referring to critical mach at all. The point is blending the lower surface will increase the cross sectional area of the airplane. Increasing/decreasing the cross sectional area smoothly is not enough. I think this is the point you are missing. The CS area distribution must match the Sears-Haack distribution closely to minimize wave drag. Just blending without paying attention to the Sears-Haack distribution will increase wave drag unless the fuselage volume is correspondingly reduced, which we cannot do for reasons of packaging/estate management.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Indranil »

Raman sir, probably you are right!

You are right ... if we have to retain the sharp edge of the leading edge of the wing and trailing edge of the supersonic wing, then the smoothening will be a bulge and that will lower the camber and hence the CL. That is a good point.

I remember the wonderful discussion of the LCA wing a couple of years back. So I do understand the basics and reasons behinds its shape. I was very interested to know ... I thought some of the posts there should have been made sticky :D.

Coming now to the tradeoff between the wave drag and the interference drag. I will try to dig up the area curve of LCA Tejas (Kartik could you help me find the pdf which discussed the planned refinements in LCA) ... may be we can do some back of the envelop calculations for increase in wave drag ... Alas we can't do anything to find the approximate decrease in interference drag.

Once again it was a good discussion for me :)
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Indranil »

Okay found the paper which had the area curve: http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/dss/200 ... EMILAC.pdf (pg. 9).

Question is whether it is acceptable to increase the area between stations 6 to 11 or so?

Most probably they would have done CFD analysis and found that it is not! Ah, but the itch to know ...
member_22866
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 6
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by member_22866 »

Hi All,
This is my first post although I have been lurking on BR for almost 11 years.
Am SDRE IT guy from Bangalore.

Yesterday around 2 pm show LCA with IFR probe. Are there any of them LSP or PV flying with IFR attached? Or was it LSP 6/7
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Aditya_V »

Flight Test News


LCA-Tejas has completed 1779 Test Flights successfully. (16-Feb-2012).

(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-212,PV3-330,LSP1-67,LSP2-198,PV5-36,LSP3-46,LSP4-45,LSP5-65)


LCA-Tejas has completed 1778 Test Flights successfully. (14-Feb-2012).

(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-212,PV3-330,LSP1-67,LSP2-198,PV5-36,LSP3-46,LSP4-44,LSP5-65)

Based on ADA website no LSP6/7 in the Air, only 1 flight in the last 2 days.
Last edited by Aditya_V on 17 Feb 2012 11:26, edited 1 time in total.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Aditya_V »

Ok, Sorry copy posted from ADA website. Corrected my post, continuing from Suryag's post
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Post by Cain Marko »

ketan.sojitra wrote:Hi All,
This is my first post although I have been lurking on BR for almost 11 years.
Am SDRE IT guy from Bangalore.

Yesterday around 2 pm show LCA with IFR probe. Are there any of them LSP or PV flying with IFR attached? Or was it LSP 6/7
Very, very interesting Ketan, welcome to the board - you come bearing good/interesting news. Can any jingos with inside clearances to sensitive areas such as golf courses or roof tops confirm this development?

CM
Post Reply