Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 18 Dec 2014 21:03

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4018 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 ... 101  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 02 Apr 2012 16:13 
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 7091
Great News, LSP-7 has had its 2nd flight

From ADA website

LCA-Tejas has completed 1816 Test Flights successfully. (31-Mar-2012).
TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-219,PV3-336,LSP1-70,LSP2-205,PV5-36,LSP3-47,LSP4-47,LSP5-74,LSP7-2)

LCA-Tejas has completed 1813 Test Flights successfully. (29-Mar-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-219,PV3-335,LSP1-70,LSP2-205,PV5-36,LSP3-47,LSP4-47,LSP5-73,LSP7-1)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Apr 2012 17:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00
Posts: 2415
I agree that we should work on

LCA Mark-3 advanced single engined semi stealth LCA like MAKO apart from AMCA to prevent too many eggs in AMCA basket


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Apr 2012 18:04 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00
Posts: 2415
Any news on PV-6 and LSP-6, they seem to have fallen off the radar??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Apr 2012 21:44 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
Abhibhushan wrote:


Thank you. Reading it was half an hour well spent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2012 05:50 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2535
LCA NP1 problems :((

Govt appoints committee to probe LCA-Navy landing gear problems
Quote:


committee has been set up to fix the problem delaying the debut flight of the home-made Light Combat Aircraft-Navy (LCA-Navy). The committee has been set up by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and the Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification (CEMILAC) to fix the aircraft's heavy landing gear which is causing problems to the aircraft.

Usually, the world over, naval planes carry an extra weight of about 600 kg, because of their landing gear, also called the under-carriage. But the Indian LCA's (Navy) weight is about a 1,000 kg extra, the reason for which has been given as extra safety. The US Navy, which is being consulted by the ADA, has said that the safety margin taken by India is five times than what is required and needs to be decreased to the level the world over. The aircraft is being to land because of its heavy under-carriage and has not done even one test-flight.

The aircraft, which lands on runways, follows a speed of three metres per second while descending. The ones landing on ship decks (aircraft carriers) have a speed of seven metres per second during descent. It is for this reason that a heavy under-carriage is required — to absorb shock. For runways, a flared landing is done, which is when a fighter aircraft lifts up its nose a little before the final touchdown, unlike a deck landing which is "unflared". A deck landing is precise because of the scarcity of space. An unflared landing also gives the aircraft the momentum to take off again in case of an emergency. The naval aircraft are supposed to land with a "thud", thereby stopping there and then, because of the shortage of space. This is achieved by the arresting wires hooking the tail of the aircraft. There are three hooks for safety purposes, and usually Indian aircraft aim for the middle one.

One of the possible changes that the committee might make is changing the composite material of the aircraft, which has made it heavier than required. A source told this newspaper, "Since it's an indigenous effort, even if the material is changed, it will be Indian."

Meanwhile, Defence Minister A.K. Antony informed Parliament this week that the probable date of the completion of the aircraft is now December 2014, four years after the original date of March 2010. The original cost of the programme has also gone up from Rs 948.90 cr to Rs 1,714.98 cr.

Antony said that the probable date of completion has been extended within the sanctioned cost and scope. He attributed the delay to technical complexities, non-availability of infrastructure and critical components and technology denial regimes. Other reasons cited were the increase in the scope of work, the extended user trials and the failure of some of the components during testing.

The minister assured Parliament that the project would be completed without any further delay, for which a consortium approach has been used for the design, development and fabrication of critical components. A three-tier project monitoring approach is also being followed.

By 2014 the aircraft would attain compatibility with the aircraft carrier after its mandatory trials. It would be a part of the fleet onboard India's first indigenous aircraft carrier.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2012 07:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31
Posts: 2628
suryag wrote:
LCA NP1 problems :((

Govt appoints committee to probe LCA-Navy landing gear problems
Quote:


committee has been set up to fix the problem delaying the debut flight of the home-made Light Combat Aircraft-Navy (LCA-Navy). The committee has been set up by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and the Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification (CEMILAC) to fix the aircraft's heavy landing gear which is causing problems to the aircraft.

Usually, the world over, naval planes carry an extra weight of about 600 kg, because of their landing gear, also called the under-carriage. But the Indian LCA's (Navy) weight is about a 1,000 kg extra, the reason for which has been given as extra safety. The US Navy, which is being consulted by the ADA, has said that the safety margin taken by India is five times than what is required and needs to be decreased to the level the world over. The aircraft is being to land because of its heavy under-carriage and has not done even one test-flight.

The aircraft, which lands on runways, follows a speed of three metres per second while descending. The ones landing on ship decks (aircraft carriers) have a speed of seven metres per second during descent. It is for this reason that a heavy under-carriage is required — to absorb shock. For runways, a flared landing is done, which is when a fighter aircraft lifts up its nose a little before the final touchdown, unlike a deck landing which is "unflared". A deck landing is precise because of the scarcity of space. An unflared landing also gives the aircraft the momentum to take off again in case of an emergency. The naval aircraft are supposed to land with a "thud", thereby stopping there and then, because of the shortage of space. This is achieved by the arresting wires hooking the tail of the aircraft. There are three hooks for safety purposes, and usually Indian aircraft aim for the middle one.

One of the possible changes that the committee might make is changing the composite material of the aircraft, which has made it heavier than required. A source told this newspaper, "Since it's an indigenous effort, even if the material is changed, it will be Indian."

Meanwhile, Defence Minister A.K. Antony informed Parliament this week that the probable date of the completion of the aircraft is now December 2014, four years after the original date of March 2010. The original cost of the programme has also gone up from Rs 948.90 cr to Rs 1,714.98 cr.

Antony said that the probable date of completion has been extended within the sanctioned cost and scope. He attributed the delay to technical complexities, non-availability of infrastructure and critical components and technology denial regimes. Other reasons cited were the increase in the scope of work, the extended user trials and the failure of some of the components during testing.

The minister assured Parliament that the project would be completed without any further delay, for which a consortium approach has been used for the design, development and fabrication of critical components. A three-tier project monitoring approach is also being followed.

By 2014 the aircraft would attain compatibility with the aircraft carrier after its mandatory trials. It would be a part of the fleet onboard India's first indigenous aircraft carrier.



This rather lousy article was written by none other than Suman Sharma..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2012 13:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2535
Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 1817 Test Flights successfully. (02-April-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-219,PV3-336,LSP1-70,LSP2-205,PV5-36,LSP3-47,LSP4-47,LSP5-75,LSP7-2)

from

LCA-Tejas has completed 1816 Test Flights successfully. (31-Mar-2012).
TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-219,PV3-336,LSP1-70,LSP2-205,PV5-36,LSP3-47,LSP4-47,LSP5-74,LSP7-2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2012 19:24 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26791
Location: NowHere
almonds? :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2012 19:34 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 14158
Location: General Error : Bhery Phamous General !
:roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2012 19:46 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Mar 2012 00:03
Posts: 149
Location: Swacch Bharat
Hello,

I would like to know the opinion on something. Our Tejas is not supposed to be a frontline aircraft in the IAF, more like the defensive bird on CAP, etc. Also, it seems it will be cheaper to operate [single engine, light weight] Also, our immediate neighbours have nothing that completely outguns the LCA [J-10's, Bandar, and assorted obsolete models]

So when the media crows on the failures of the LCA, it is with respect to bigger and more advanced planes like the EF and Rafale. Not in terms of aircraft the Tejas will most likely face.

Hence ......... we can order more planes for now right? 100-150 of them? We can safely wait for the AMCA and PAKFA that way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2012 20:47 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Posts: 313
Location: Bharatvarsha
Its high time we had some guidelines/ minimum qualifications for journalists to write articles/ report news on defence. Its a no brainer to compare LCA with F22. Yet to see a single article in the national newspapers that compares LCA with J-10 or the FC-10.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2012 21:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 May 2011 15:51
Posts: 993
Location: satta ke galiyare
More than comparing the aircraft....they try to compare the technological gap.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Apr 2012 00:29 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26791
Location: NowHere
for all we know, they (journos) may be just reporting as they hear it. We have no idea who they contact and what has been said. given that their knowledge of advanced technology, what else one would expect.

now, there is another way to get this straightened up. have drdo/mod/orgs its reuter/pti interface kind of service.. and all journos need not leave their office to get news! anything outside such an interface, is bogus! and people trash it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Apr 2012 06:41 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23774
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
Prasobh wrote:
Hello,

I would like to know the opinion on something. Our Tejas is not supposed to be a frontline aircraft in the IAF, more like the defensive bird on CAP, etc. Also, it seems it will be cheaper to operate [single engine, light weight] Also, our immediate neighbours have nothing that completely outguns the LCA [J-10's, Bandar, and assorted obsolete models]

So when the media crows on the failures of the LCA, it is with respect to bigger and more advanced planes like the EF and Rafale. Not in terms of aircraft the Tejas will most likely face.

Hence ......... we can order more planes for now right? 100-150 of them? We can safely wait for the AMCA and PAKFA that way.



In my view you have combined history, technology and geopolitics in one question.

The MiG 21 was a point defence interceptor and about two decades ago the Tejas was aimed as a MiG 21 replacement. Even back then the Tejas was never viewed as being an exact replacement but, as the Air Chief put it, a MiG 21 plus which could do more than the MiG 21. That is greater attack capability and range (over and above the planned tech advances) But over the decades of development views on Air Warfare and aircraft changed. Some concepts went out the door and others came in making the LCA program relatively aimless as a fighter, but well intentioned as a tech development platform.

The biggest changes since the LCA was conceived was the development of avionics leading to the concept of swing role aircraft that could perform both attack and defence roles, smart munitions making 1 smart bomb=10 unsmart ones, and advances in engines that made them more powerful and efficient. Because of this the requirements from a Tejas type aircraft began to creep up.

The Tejas has turned out to be what seems to be a decent aircraft which will not be limited to a defensive CAP role. Since one PGM is all that is needed for many targets, the attack role, even with a relatively light load is not ruled out and the Tejas is small and stealthy. So the idea that it cannot serve as a "front line aircraft" is wrong. It will be front line all right, but for a specific range of roles that match its capability.

Ordering 150 planes right now assumes three things. One is that the development is complete enough to "freeze" the design and fix a price for the order, second, that the assembly line and the manufacturing chain is ready to absorb that order and third, that the IAF can quickly figure out the roles that the Tejas would excel in and gradually remove other aircraft from those roles. I think that sort of situation is some years away yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Apr 2012 12:43 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 10160
Location: Kali blessing station No 5, Mleccha Defence Tower No 34, Harshavardhan Line - Western Sector
^^^ one way to look at the history of Tejas is that DRDO/HAL set out to build a 'Mig21+ clone' but ended up building a 'Mirage 2000+ clone'. the benefit of the programme is more about the mil-eng-complex development rather than the aircraft itself.

(I am using the term clone in a very loose sense, before jingos get their dhotis in a twist)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Apr 2012 13:11 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2535
Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 1818 Test Flights successfully. (03-April-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-219,PV3-336,LSP1-71,LSP2-205,PV5-36,LSP3-47,LSP4-47,LSP5-75,LSP7-2)

from

LCA-Tejas has completed 1817 Test Flights successfully. (02-April-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-219,PV3-336,LSP1-70,LSP2-205,PV5-36,LSP3-47,LSP4-47,LSP5-75,LSP7-2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Apr 2012 13:40 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Posts: 1636
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
I just noticed in the above test flight updates that the LSP6 is not included in the logs at all. Any knows why??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Apr 2012 13:51 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 May 2011 15:51
Posts: 993
Location: satta ke galiyare
I think it is still being manufactured


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Apr 2012 13:59 
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 7091
Bala Vignesh wrote:
I just noticed in the above test flight updates that the LSP6 is not included in the logs at all. Any knows why??


As noted in previous thread, LSP-6 is an experimental aircraft which will take to the skies later.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2012 13:18 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Posts: 1636
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Aditya_V wrote:
As noted in previous thread, LSP-6 is an experimental aircraft which will take to the skies later.

Thanks Aditya_Vji. Any Idea on what is being experimented on it???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2012 13:39 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Mar 2012 00:03
Posts: 149
Location: Swacch Bharat
shiv wrote:
Prasobh wrote:
Hello,

I would like to know the opinion on something. Our Tejas is not supposed to be a frontline aircraft in the IAF, more like the defensive bird on CAP, etc. Also, it seems it will be cheaper to operate [single engine, light weight] Also, our immediate neighbours have nothing that completely outguns the LCA [J-10's, Bandar, and assorted obsolete models]

So when the media crows on the failures of the LCA, it is with respect to bigger and more advanced planes like the EF and Rafale. Not in terms of aircraft the Tejas will most likely face.

Hence ......... we can order more planes for now right? 100-150 of them? We can safely wait for the AMCA and PAKFA that way.



In my view you have combined history, technology and geopolitics in one question.

The MiG 21 was a point defence interceptor and about two decades ago the Tejas was aimed as a MiG 21 replacement. Even back then the Tejas was never viewed as being an exact replacement but, as the Air Chief put it, a MiG 21 plus which could do more than the MiG 21. That is greater attack capability and range (over and above the planned tech advances) But over the decades of development views on Air Warfare and aircraft changed. Some concepts went out the door and others came in making the LCA program relatively aimless as a fighter, but well intentioned as a tech development platform.

The biggest changes since the LCA was conceived was the development of avionics leading to the concept of swing role aircraft that could perform both attack and defence roles, smart munitions making 1 smart bomb=10 unsmart ones, and advances in engines that made them more powerful and efficient. Because of this the requirements from a Tejas type aircraft began to creep up.

The Tejas has turned out to be what seems to be a decent aircraft which will not be limited to a defensive CAP role. Since one PGM is all that is needed for many targets, the attack role, even with a relatively light load is not ruled out and the Tejas is small and stealthy. So the idea that it cannot serve as a "front line aircraft" is wrong. It will be front line all right, but for a specific range of roles that match its capability.

Ordering 150 planes right now assumes three things. One is that the development is complete enough to "freeze" the design and fix a price for the order, second, that the assembly line and the manufacturing chain is ready to absorb that order and third, that the IAF can quickly figure out the roles that the Tejas would excel in and gradually remove other aircraft from those roles. I think that sort of situation is some years away yet.


Thank you for the post, very insightful.

Indeed, my question was very broadly put. As an arm chair general, I just find that the Tejas not being supported as well as it should have been. My weak heart cannot but feel fearful of the PAKFA/Su 30/Rafale dominating the airforce for the foreseeable future [Not a bad thing .. just .... a nitpick in my mind, fearful of Indian tech getting sidelined] Without the Tejas having sufficient bulk, how can we expect the AMCA to fight its way in numbers into the air force?

Again sorry for the rant/OT post ..... Fingers crossed for everything to work out fine :-?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2012 13:58 
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 7091
Bala Vignesh wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:
As noted in previous thread, LSP-6 is an experimental aircraft which will take to the skies later.

Thanks Aditya_Vji. Any Idea on what is being experimented on it???


Per discussion, AOA which I think right now is restricted 24 degrees, to increase it by a few degrees.

My secret wish, Kaveri and LRDE AESA is being fitted on it. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2012 14:40 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 04 Aug 2011 11:34
Posts: 159
Location: Pune
Aditya_V wrote:
My secret wish, Kaveri and LRDE AESA is being fitted on it. :D


my 2 cents: Since kaveri and tejas are divorced before marriage i am not having much hopes here but aesa, yes that might be done. however i am keeping my all my 20 fingers crossed for "Kaveri weds Tejas" :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2012 19:21 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Posts: 464
Location: Troposphere
Aditya_V wrote:
Bala Vignesh wrote:
Thanks Aditya_Vji. Any Idea on what is being experimented on it???


Per discussion, AOA which I think right now is restricted 24 degrees, to increase it by a few degrees.

My secret wish, Kaveri and LRDE AESA is being fitted on it. :D


LSP 6 will be/ is being (?) fitted with a spin recovery parachute which will then enable it to perform High alpha and high G testing to expand the flight envelope.

IMHO these are very critical tests, the likes of which have not been performed in India before. So, they will try to keep as much of the plane standard as possible to concentrate on tasks at hand.

Having said that IIRC i read somewhere that once LSP6 finishes high alpha/high G testing, it will be fitted with Kaveri (if Kaveri is ready by then).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2012 20:00 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26791
Location: NowHere
Prasobh wrote:
.. Without the Tejas having sufficient bulk, how can we expect the AMCA to fight its way in numbers into the air force?

Again sorry for the rant/OT post ..... Fingers crossed for everything to work out fine :-?


This a 95% fear or insecurity feeling that is common when products are not in use. The reason for staging success is make the user, use the product and feedback into development process. As of now, from test pilots report, it is A+. That should give you some factors to reduce that fear factor to 75%.

Usability is very important.. and once that is experienced, then make the development cycle close loop from user feedbacks. It is important to not ignore the user at all [especially, when the user has options].

It is very important for ADA and DRDO to stage plan their growth to AMCA. This has been said 1008 times. Staging LCA into multiple blocks to AMCA is the only way to make user realize AMCA.

LCA-mk-2 must be in the services before AMCA project charter makes sense.

LCA-mk-3 a twin engined mock of crude AMCA [if we follow the french, then just like M4K they did], is the best option.

To best put, just blindly follow France in the process of engineering and setup. /minimum requirement


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2012 20:56 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 808
Prasobh wrote:
[qThank you for the post, very insightful.

Indeed, my question was very broadly put. As an arm chair general, I just find that the Tejas not being supported as well as it should have been. My weak heart cannot but feel fearful of the PAKFA/Su 30/Rafale dominating the airforce for the foreseeable future [Not a bad thing .. just .... a nitpick in my mind, fearful of Indian tech getting sidelined] Without the Tejas having sufficient bulk, how can we expect the AMCA to fight its way in numbers into the air force?

Again sorry for the rant/OT post ..... Fingers crossed for everything to work out fine :-?


Prasobh,

You probably know all this, but anways, the air campaign won't be fought like in 65/71. We are adding force multipliers for a reason.

The initial wave will clean out the front line radars/missiles as much as possible giving clean ranges/locations for other CAS planes to do their work. So once the area is clear from heavy duty ground to air stuff, cas will start and so will ground forces. Awacs will provide top cover for all CAS crafts doing their work. Not every plane needs to be gold plated or have gizmos coming out of its cute butt. LCA/Jaguar/Mig-27 will have to deal with hand held G2A missilies like cortale or stingers for sure, but they don't need to carry every eletronic wizardy carried by MKI/Rafale.

Even a updated Canberra which can drop Glonass based jdam type munitions will fit the profile just fine. LCA is miles ahead of that game. So I don't think there is much to worry about. We are now working to get a system in place . We are moving away from Mano-a-Mano kind of game. That game of chess is over. No longer are we just going to field the same number of pieces that our enemy will. Wars are won by having effective logistics, support and transport arms.We are doing well on all those. So every single day we continue on the path we are on, we are unlikely to lose.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2012 23:04 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Mar 2012 00:03
Posts: 149
Location: Swacch Bharat
@ Saik : Did not know about the Mirage 4000, thank you for the gyan. Definitely see the resemblance to the Rafale!

@ Cybaru : True, I have considered that actual numbers of aircrafts/tanks/ships cannot vary during wartime from peacetime because of the great amount of time it takes a modern weapon system to built. Months for planes, years for ships, etc. Indeed, modern war will be about utilizing and protecting your assets during war than attrition based wars like WWII.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Apr 2012 15:54 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 May 2011 15:51
Posts: 993
Location: satta ke galiyare
Flight test update
LCA-Tejas has completed 1821 Test Flights successfully. (09-April-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-219,PV3-336,LSP1-71,LSP2-205,PV5-36,LSP3-47,LSP4-48,LSP5-77,LSP7-2)

from

LCA-Tejas has completed 1818 Test Flights successfully. (03-April-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-219,PV3-336,LSP1-71,LSP2-205,PV5-36,LSP3-47,LSP4-47,LSP5-75,LSP7-2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Apr 2012 00:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Posts: 1494
^^^

My guess would be FOC at 2,500 flights with full IOC happening at around 2,000 flights.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Apr 2012 07:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11350
Location: India
"Marriages are made in heaven".Kaveri and Tejas were never meant to be mated and they never will! Most of the time that Kaveri wass tested in the air she blew up,according to reports.She was never fated to fly but must look for another more suitable environment to find a mate.Kaveri's best chance of finding a mate will be one of the IN's corvettes or missile boats of the future,after all the Tarantula class PGG engines are derived from aero GTs.The matchmakers spoke of this option some years ago,but unless they too get off their backsides and start looking at horror-scopes fast,Kaveri will be left on the shelf!

PS:Forget about inviting French beauticians to doll up Kaveri.They will steal Kaveris fiancee from under the noses of her parents,with or without their permission.

PPS:The most difficult thing to do in almost any discipline is to make something smaller,perform better and more tasks.This was predicted by a famous French philosopher about 100 years ago ,who said that concerted and continuing "miniaturisation" of material manufactured objects would prevail and that the globe would be surrounded with a kind of "...sphere",I think he called it the "oosphere", linking minds across continents.Today we call it the Internet!

This has characterised scientific development particularly during the 20th century.Therefore,the concept of Tejas,should be a serious philosophic and scientific study for the simple reason that globally,while many other similar projects have arrived (like the Gripen),Tejas has yet to evolve into as perfect as possible a functioning product as envisaged.Surely the march of human progress and miniaturisation of material components would've helped Tejas to achieve its goal of being the "smallest,lightest,multi-role fighter",.But the very opposite is seeming to appear,a new heavier engine needed to power a larger more powerful bird,Why?
The foll. paper is worth reading to understand the philosophy of change in human civilisation,before we set ourselves the task of rescuing Tejas or morphing it into something else! I'm being serious.

http://www.accelerationwatch.com/history_brief.html
Brief History of Intellectual Discussion of Accelerating Change
Accelerating Universal Phases of Physical-Computational Change

© 1999-2008, John Smart. Reproduction, review and quotation encouraged with attribution.

Grmmph!Phllistines!


Last edited by Philip on 10 Apr 2012 15:01, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Apr 2012 08:14 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 20 Feb 2011 21:42
Posts: 26
^^^
BS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Apr 2012 09:01 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 28 Jun 2010 02:43
Posts: 54
Location: 27°42′09″N 88°08′54″E
Indaruta wrote:
^^^
BS


Plus one ....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Apr 2012 14:40 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 2155
Location: NullPointerException
Aditya_V wrote:
Per discussion, AOA which I think right now is restricted 24 degrees, to increase it by a few degrees.


AoA is 22 deg. to be increased to 24 deg. as per plans for the LSP-6.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Apr 2012 10:52 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2535
Flight test update
LCA-Tejas has completed 1822 Test Flights successfully. (10-April-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-219,PV3-336,LSP1-71,LSP2-205,PV5-36,LSP3-47,LSP4-48,LSP5-78,LSP7-2)

LCA-Tejas has completed 1821 Test Flights successfully. (09-April-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-219,PV3-336,LSP1-71,LSP2-205,PV5-36,LSP3-47,LSP4-48,LSP5-77,LSP7-2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Apr 2012 14:11 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 01 May 2011 07:49
Posts: 55
Quote:
AoA is 22 deg. to be increased to 24 deg. as per plans for the LSP-6.


This seems to be a very big issue with LCA. Question to Gurus.

What significant advantage does an additional 2 degrees of AoA provide


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Apr 2012 14:24 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 May 2011 15:51
Posts: 993
Location: satta ke galiyare
^http://www.insideracingtechnology.com/tech103anglattack.htm
Thought it might be helpful. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2012 00:19 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 14 Jan 2003 12:31
Posts: 231
Laymans interpretation.. Higher the AOA the better it is for Aircraft to do STOL's ie short takeoff's and landings. Good for those carrier based landings that the NLCA is supposed to do.. Also though not so evident higher AOA is better during recovery from steep dives causing the aircraft to handle high speed stall better and recover at a steeper angle than otherwise... so overall sharper handling..
Caveat All knowledge from Wiki so generic only...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2012 00:49 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 5041
A higher max AoA should also improve the sustained turn rate if I'm not mistaken. Since the aircraft is basically climbing in the direction of the turn, at a constant bank angle the only way to improve the rate of turn would be to increase the lift generated by the wings. This can be done by increasing airspeed (which is limited by the engine power available) and increasing the angle of attack (which is limited by the max angle of attack beyond which the aircraft will stall).
Aero gurus, bliss to forgive if I made mess of things in the above explanation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2012 06:11 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23774
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
Well I have yet another theory. The aim is not just 2 degrees more of AoA. The 2 degrees is only to meet what the Air Force wanted IIRC. But even for that there will have to be plenty of testing with a stall recovery chute. Each degree of AoA will have to be tested at all speeds and attitudes before the flight control software can be modified to allow a pilot to get there freely (I'm guessing). But it won't stop at that they will go beyond those two degrees and take it to the limit, whatever that limit might be. Hopefully those 2 degrees more will not be the limit. It may be possible to achieve much higher AoA. I heard that the Gripen AoA testing continued for thousands of tests long after it went into service. I am guessing the same thing will happen here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2012 11:33 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 2155
Location: NullPointerException
Yes, 2 more degrees may be just to achieve design specs. They may use the testbeds for more later once FOC is done.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4018 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 ... 101  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dilbu, prasannasimha, ritesh, saip, SBajwa, Supratik and 29 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group