Bharat Rakshak

My guesstimate is just about 750-800 mts based on the runway markings and google earth.

^^ looking at the big size of screw, in the middle of that plate, there are low changes that it is housing any LRU.

but everything is speculation until any chai wala drops in with some more info.

We should look at right sizing the mig-29 retractable wala.. that would be awesome!

retraction could be both on the horizontal and vertical plane, perhaps telescopic enough on the hz extension.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--0xvLdXKWZs/T ... 600/l6.jpg

What is the probe that is jutting out?
The riveted plate it sits on, is not in smooth conformity with the neighbouring plates. Looks like panel gaps & quality fit issue

This one does not have any indication of hidden refuel probe add-on as someone proposed

boss, what you are seeing is on pilot's right side, whereas the L plate is on the left.

That's a Pitot tube

raptor cleverly keeps it under the front belly

someone said it is on both sides

air refueling probe was just a guess. But this location is not far from where it will be in future.

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/4728/lcacomp4.jpg

AOA Birathers...dont thank me thank the good soul that put that vid up on u tube onlee.

When NP1 flies my wish is to have a collection of drums like the ones we have for Ganapati procession and start them up just the bird starts to taxi!

I wanted to ask a question is there a specific reason the pilot is wearing a half g suit here?

I have seen in the past pics of Rambha pilots wearing half g suits as well...saw a docco a few weeks back on Ruskie flanker pilots also doing the same thing regularly with half g suits...dunno if there is any specific reason for this.

Karthik...can i please have your email cheers.

Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 1801 Test Flights successfully. (15-Mar-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-217,PV3-334,LSP1-70,LSP2-201,PV5-36,LSP3-46,LSP4-46,LSP5-70,LSP7-1)

from

LCA-Tejas has completed 1800 Test Flights successfully. (14-Mar-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-216,PV3-334,LSP1-70,LSP2-201,PV5-36,LSP3-46,LSP4-46,LSP5-70,LSP7-1)


Go guys go test more

Pics of LSP7 on tejas.gov.in - the first one is a keeper

http://gallery.tejas.gov.in/Other/LSP-7-First-Flight/21947782_7qzgCd#!i=1750575254&k=MWSwN95

It is a small bird that reminds me of the IDF fighter developed by Taiwanese in the late 1980s and early 1990s, although a little bit bigger with two small engines. Of course, the IDF shows very clear American influence while the LCA looks more French to me.

The report for LSP-7 says that HUD was also tested and is present in this aircraft. Is the LCA Mark-I going to have a Helmet Mounted Sight for cuing the R-73 or Python-V missiles? Also will be LSP-8 have air to air refueling probe?

Thanks

It does look like a French Mirage somewhat in pictures from the side. However, if you look at the wings from the top or bottom angle, the difference in the wing shape from the Mirage is obvious. The LCA has a compound delta wing, whereas a Mirage has a traditional triangle shaped delta wing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas has a good picture of the LCA banking and the compound delta wing is clearly shown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mirage_III-5_Risszeichnung.png Compare that wing with the wing of a Mirage jet and you can see the difference in wing shapes.

Engine intakes are also completely different shaped, as are the engine itself, avionics, size etc.

M2k has the moveable shock cone inside inlet for Mach1.8+ flight. also mini canards.

Tejas has Rafale style intake with no supersonic cone so both are restricted to around Mach1.8

French!!
Of course, lets see. Frenchmen Here

and More Frenchmen here

I didn't mean LCA a French bird but it showing some clear influence of Mirage designing concept. Considering the Indian experience with all the generations of French fighters after the WWII, it would be strange to me that LCA got no such influence. There is no offending intention here.

I think apart from french influence it has more of a British influence
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Vulcan

on second thoughts it has swedish influence see the saab 37 viggen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_37_Viggen

thinking more i think it has russian influence see tu 144 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144

mark me words boys, the PAKDA will be a stealth version of the basic Avro vulcan shape.

From Wiki:
The Gripen was a contender for the Indian MRCA competition for 126 multirole combat aircraft.[123] In April 2008, Gripen International offered the Next Generation Gripen for India's tender[124] and opened an office in New Delhi in order to support its efforts in the Indian market.[125] On 4 February 2009, Saab announced that it had partnered with India's Tata Group to develop the new Gripen variant to fit India's needs.[126]

The Indian Air Force (IAF) conducted extensive field trials and evaluated Gripen's flight performance, logistics capability, weapons systems, advanced sensors and weapons firing.[127] In April 2011, the IAF rejected Gripen's bid in favour of Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale.[128] Senior Indian Air Force officials while happy with the improved capabilities of Gripen NG, identified its high reliance on US-supplied hardware, including electronics, weaponry, and GE F414 engine as a factor that may hamper its export potential.[129]

Gurus, if GE414 engine was an impeding factor then how come we are buying 100 GE414 engines for Tejas?

^^ we are surprised that you are surprised on this info.

well I am clearly not a guru but,
we are buying GE414 for LCA directly from the OEM.
but in case of Gripen, the OEM(SAAB) will have to procure from US.

But, I don't think the "third party engine and components" were only reasons for Gripen's elimination, there must be technical parameters as well.
btw, I never felt like Gripen had a chance to win MMRCA. :

^^ we are surprised that you are surprised on this info.

Sid -Who are 'we'?

I am also surprised that 'we' (whoever they are!) have a lot more faith in me than myself!

Sameer - I was only curious about GE engines; I did not imply anywhere that Gripen should win the contest

I know that GE engines are more powerful than Kaveri but I thought we have reservations about US sanctions and/or the limits USA would put on us.

The calculation is simple

v=at where v=nose up velocity (240 kmph) and t=15 seconds to get nose up as per the video gives the acceleration as 4.4 meters per sec squared

Using a=4.4 and the formula s=(distance)=(a x t x t)/2 = (4.4 x 15 x 15)/2 = 495 meters for nose up.

One second later it's in the air - so about 560 meters. Assuming no headwind/tailwind.

At some point, I was thinking that EJ200 would be better choice in terms of TOT.
But i think it would have compromised the project goals.
we have screwed(delayed) up the LCA MK1, by building it around in-development/non-existing Kaveri Engine(it did not exist when the designed ). and it would not be wise to do the same mistake again with LCA MK2.

Engine gurus, a question. This 2007 news from the GE website says that


That value is more than the 78kN max thrust mentioned on the wiki page for the GE-F404 vanilla variant. But they are careful to mention "uninstalled thrust". How much would the thrust be lowered when the engine is actually inside an LCA? Is it only affected by the amount of airflow available or are there other factors involved in determining how much thrust an engine can produce when it is actually fitted inside an aircraft?

I'm afraid your estimate is a bit far off...

You do realize that equation is meant only for constant acceleration... Aircraft during takeoff roll DON'T have constant acceleration... Its indeed pretty complicated to calculate liftoff distance.

Where is the 4.4m/s^2 value mentioned?

assuming a ∆ less for tail/head wind, then it would be the take-off (560m approx) less ∆. So an average of 500 meters to take off is not a bad guess.

nLCA needs to achieve this in less than 1000ft or less. right?

EDIT: Repeated post. Sorry!

EDIT: Repeated post. Sorry!

There was a ton of sanctionable items with the Gripen but also th e aircraft was (excluding price considerations) clearly inferior to the Rafale and Typhoon. The F1414-IN purchase is only a temporizing measure for the Tejas Mk1 powerplant. The mk2 will hopefully be powered by a SNECMA-GTRE revamped "Kaveri" engine with a french core and GTRE cold parts.

I don't see much fault in Shivji's calculations (Assuming uniform acceleration). He is just using the basic mechanical equations and back of the envelop calculations which are not way off.

But we have an easier way to calculate this. Please notice the 1000 ft distance markers. The nose-wheel is up at (roughly) 2000 ft marker and the plane takes off. The think the MLG becomes airborne is 200 more feet.

So that translates to 610 mtrs for nose-wheel up and 670 mtrs for MLG up.

indranil, if you agree/disagree once is enough.

This was my first post and only post on the LSP 7 takeoff run ... anyways, point taken ... will follow henceforth.

Indranil, your post appeared 3 times, that's all.

SaiK sahab and Pratik sahab,

Ijust noticed it what had happened ... I don't know how that happened ... anyways I extend my apologies ... I have my posts ... thank you for pointing them out

it must be the evil microsoft background process, that sent your three clicks.