AMCA News and Discussions

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 01 Feb 2013 22:30

singha ji, the saturn wala is 196-154" longer and 50-35" wider compared to GE wala

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7322
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby nachiket » 01 Feb 2013 22:33

AL-31 and 117S will be too big and powerful. Using derated versions means you will be carrying around useless weight. We need a lighter and smaller engine with more power than the F414/EJ200. Something in the 110kn range should be more than enough. The 414 EPE seems like the only game in town for now. A higher thrust EJ200 seems unlikely at this point, because the Typhoon doesn't need it.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Austin » 01 Feb 2013 22:44

Most likely as is the case the prototype will go with a proven engine likely GE404-IN/GE414 90 - 96 kn of thrust ........if relations with GE do not stumble likely we will go for the same engine that is opted for Tejas Mk2 but a pair of it.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 01 Feb 2013 22:46

I wish they work secretly somewhere on the Kaveri 100kN wala and surprise us just like other labs folks did for the sagarika. We can give them 5 more years.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2997
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Kanson » 01 Feb 2013 23:00

SaiK wrote:I am blown away! that single canopy front looks is killing and terrorizing.

Maybe, it can be said, the pic is comparable to what was released as next Gen fighter from Boeing. Whereas Boeing 6th gen concept is very much similar to the first iteration of (A)MCA and AMCA looks much like the depiction of the bird Raptor in Jurassic Park motion flick and there are statements/reports addressing it as 6th generation. So I think your expression is acceptable! :)

tushar_m

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby tushar_m » 01 Feb 2013 23:01

Singha wrote:the AL31FP (MKI) is closest to the value of 120kn. perhaps fitting with 5th gen materials will improve its fuel burn and durabilty with retaining the same thrust...coupled with AMCA being a lot smaller than MKI, it might work out ... without a totally new engine which as you say is not a simple effort.

we also get tvc for free.



AL31FP maybe the best engine for AMCA because we are already using , maintaining & manufacturing the engine

but provided the weight & size of the engine the Advance Medium combat aircraft (AMCA) will get close to PAK-FA weight category which is not required.

the two engines with the TVR of 95+KN will do the job for AMCA .(engine close to ge414)

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 01 Feb 2013 23:04

yeah! terror-saurs (Pterosaur)

raptor can't fly - he he .. :twisted:

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 01 Feb 2013 23:23

Per tarmak's AMCA menu, it needs TVC. so which one? Get it from Klimov!? would be very interesting. GE-Klimov. And the most interesting part is super-cruise.

So, the GE version that went into JAAS Gripen would definitely be the baseline for the IN version + TVC.
THE AMCA MENU: Stealth | Internal weapon bay | Serpentine air intake | Super-cruise | Super-maneuverability and thrust vectoring | Advanced avionics based on IMA (Integrated Modular Architecture) | Pilot associate to reduce pilot workload | New generation display systems with touch panels | Advanced sensors like AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar and IRST (Infra Red Search and Track) | Net-Centric Warfare capability | Comprehensive EW (Electronic Warfare) suite comprising RWR (Radar Warning Receiver), SPJ (Self Protection Jammer) and MAWS (Missile Approach Warning System) | Precision weapons.

shaunb
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 30
Joined: 22 Oct 2009 01:42

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby shaunb » 01 Feb 2013 23:35

The shape of the nose and cockpit resembles that of the Su-34. Could this be a tandem seat configuration?

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11573
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Aditya_V » 01 Feb 2013 23:41

SaiK wrote:http://www.geaviation.com/press/military/military_20101001.html John Flannery, President & CEO, GE India said, "The LCA selection is a big step forward for GE and demonstrates our strong commitment to India. GE Aviation will supply the initial batch of F414-GE-INS6 engines and the rest will be manufactured in India under transfer of technology arrangement."


Good to hear, thanks for correcting me

Bharadwaj
BRFite
Posts: 302
Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Bharadwaj » 02 Feb 2013 00:31

shaunb wrote:The shape of the nose and cockpit resembles that of the Su-34. Could this be a tandem seat configuration?


Look at the head on cad drawings.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5681
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby vishvak » 02 Feb 2013 02:37

As far as engines are concerned, there could be many ways of looking at possibilities.

It is our own plane so it is an issue to handle well, and not a 'problem' as a criteria perhaps.

About weight: What is the affect of difference of 1000kg overall-during a war v/s advantages of more power. Are there some examples of overpowered jets doing well as per experience of IAF, especially a workhorse?

About size: There is enough space for length for sure perhaps.

In future, if engines' weight could be reduced - that will help all jets using such engines, as also logistics etc. Plus that could be an added RnD knowledge on its own.

There are perhaps much more advantages to use an overpowered engine over time and range(range during battles) then deciding out an exact match now. Plus all the features of AMCA menu - need to be checked too in case future developments need additional power etc.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 02 Feb 2013 05:57

1000kg of additional weapon is welcome. 1000kg of useless weight is not.
deep strikes needs to reach even beijing and return back./refueller needed..[retractable perhaps]

shaunb
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 30
Joined: 22 Oct 2009 01:42

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby shaunb » 02 Feb 2013 06:41

Bharadwaj wrote:
shaunb wrote:The shape of the nose and cockpit resembles that of the Su-34. Could this be a tandem seat configuration?


Look at the head on cad drawings.


Tarmak007 mentions "Pilot associate to reduce pilot workload' in the AMCA Menu. The current configuration of the cockpit has no room behind, so tandem seat seems more likely. Unless Pilot Associate means some super duper computer based assistance.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7984
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 02 Feb 2013 07:04

It is a single seater boss

SagarAg
BRFite
Posts: 1164
Joined: 12 May 2011 15:51

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SagarAg » 02 Feb 2013 07:07

What is the budget allotted for AMCA project by our MoD?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 02 Feb 2013 07:58

>> will get close to PAK-FA weight category which is not required.

imo just having a medium range a/c in the Tejas/M2K mould is not enough ... we need to think big and make sure the AMCA can match the PAKFA in deep strike range though not in raw payload. kind of like a A330 can match the 787 in range albeit smaller.

remember tibet and yunnan is a 1000km wide "wall" cheen has before we even reach anything remotely important to the beijing regime. this is a unfortunate reality we face.

rafale, AMCA, MKI and PAKFA all need to play their role in giving us a wider canvas to play in. bigger the internal fuel better the chances of avoiding the kind of bulky external drop tanks that make rafale look like a pregnant spider, plus more drag and rcs.

plus FGFA is scrapped and there is no parallel heavy fighter. if we are ever to make a 5th gen heavy this is it. we cannot wait until 2030 to complete a medium and then start on a heavy. make the jump now and solve the problem. its easier to scale down once you have the big kit in place...that way more of parts and tech from PAKFA/MKI/Su35 will also be directly transferable rather than needing special downsizing mods and adaptations.

I would go with Saturn engines on AMCA for thrust rating and more chances of local manufacture in parts. Khan is always going to talk big and deliver much less on knowledge sharing...
Last edited by Singha on 02 Feb 2013 08:02, edited 2 times in total.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby vasu raya » 02 Feb 2013 07:59

Most of the technologies they are aiming for can be tried on the Tejas series as block upgrades as and when they are available otherwise 2017 is too far out

Anyways, my fav technologies are

body conformal antennae with shared aperture
Pilot associate to reduce pilot workload


and yup the latter is a super dooper computer which means it will be forever in revision

Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Misraji » 02 Feb 2013 08:39

As a multi-role fighter, the aircraft will also have adequate strike capability with emphasis on critical opening day missions like SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense), DEAD (Destruction of Enemy Air Defense) and precision strike,” sources said.


With a top speed of Mach 1.8 and stealth, I think the emphasis is on being ground-attack aircraft with SEAD + DEAD as its primary mission with the ability to self-escort as its secondary capability.

The two-seater FGFA would potentially have taken taken on a stealth strike role.
But the fact that its been cancelled may further indicate that AMCA would assume dedicated strike roles while
single seater FGFA would be the the primary air-dominance aircraft.

Austin wrote:Most likely as is the case the prototype will go with a proven engine likely GE404-IN/GE414 90 - 96 kn of thrust ........if relations with GE do not stumble likely we will go for the same engine that is opted for Tejas Mk2 but a pair of it.


That probably is the correct approach. Engines are not our strength. Let alone 5th generation engines.
Buying a new 5th Gen engine would entail its own series of hassles and probably delay in availability
Proceed with proven engines. Have better engines as a Mk2 feature.

--Ashish

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Austin » 02 Feb 2013 08:51

AW&ST Neweest Issue has "Aerospace India Special" Enjoy

http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416252612&e=true

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 02 Feb 2013 12:27

for folks salivating over that galaxy note2 type single piece canopy in the AMCA model, here are some details on how the (smaller) single piece on Ef is done...sounds like a complex piece of work....just an example of how even making a suitable chair or bolt for aerospace isnt as simple as it looks.

Canopies for the Eurofighter
A polished Eurofighter Typhoon canopy was completed by Aerospace Composite Technologies.

The 2.7-m long single-piece canopy for the two-seat version of the Eurofighter Typhoon is one of the largest produced for a military aircraft.

UK company Aerospace Composite Technologies (ACT) has delivered the first production standard canopy to Eurofighter partner BAE Systems. The company is the sole source supplier of cockpit windshields and canopies to the Eurofighter. The four participating nations are expected to take 620 aircraft. ACT also produces canopies and windshields for the Tornado, Harrier, Jaguar, Gripen, and the Shorts-built Tucano aircraft. The company describes the cell for manufacturing the Eurofighter canopy as having "state-of-the-art" handling, machining, product inspection, and test equipment, which enables it to achieve high levels of repeatability. ACT says the production standard canopy is the first of a number of twin- and single-seat examples to undergo qualification testing for pressure, fatigue, birdstrike, and crew escape.

One of the key design changes in the Typhoon canopy is that transparencies now play more of a structural role in absorbing high aerodynamic loading, said ACT, a GKN Westland Aerospace Company. It added that production canopies will have low-observable coatings applied, using proprietary manufacturing technology and processes developed by ACT, which screen electronic emissions generated in the cockpit. The Eurofighter transparencies have established a "significant change" in the standard methods of design and manufacture of military canopies, utilizing the computer-generated skin data to develop the canopy design, tooling, and inspection criteria without the need to build a single physical master model. The canopy for the single-seat Typhoon is only marginally shorter than the two-seater, at 2.6 m.



GKN Westland Aerospace has released details of the process it uses to manufacture the Typhoon canopies. Billets of modified as-cast acrylic measuring some 2 m square by 50 mm are heated in an oven before being placed in a bi-axial stretching machine. The material is then clamped around its edges and stretched to a finished size of approximately 3 m. The process modifies the material's properties to make it more resilient. Both sides of the resultant acrylic sheet are then ground and polished to obtain an accurate optical finish. The sheet is then inspected for any optical distortion and any internal material inclusions such as voids or fibers. Next, the sheets are prepared for forming, a proprietary process developed by ACT. The prepared sheet is formed into the three-dimensional shape of the Eurofighter canopy using specialized tooling also developed by ACT. Following an initial edge profile, the canopy is inspected for optical clarity using an optical collimator. The equipment uses a number of lasers projected through the canopy onto photo-optic cells that measure its optical properties for both monocular and binocular deviation – typically over 800,000 recorded points across the critical optical zones of the front windshield and rear canopies. The company said that the optical collimator, installed last year, performs this process in hours instead of the days needed when using previous conventional methods.

The canopy is then moved to a 5-axis, twin-table CNC (computer numerically controlled) machine, which performs detailed machining and edge profiling operations. On completion, the canopy is moved to a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) to inspect the machined hole locations and correct edge profile/tongue thickness, ultimately qualifying the product's interchangeability. From there the canopy enters the polishing bay where it is also given a precoating clean. It enters a clean room for the crucial stages in which ACT's proprietary, low-observable coating system is applied. To maintain an ultra-clean, dust-free environment, ACT has created a clean room within the clean room, housing a coating vacuum chamber and other facilities crucial to maintain the canopy's high optical performance. Once coated, the canopy undergoes final inspection.
Stuart Birch

Aerospace Engineering June 2000

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 02 Feb 2013 17:54

We should have the technology mastered in 2 years or go for an interim canopy design., while work towards an architecture/design that can quickly changed to single canopy system.


Similarly, we need to freeze fast on scoping the deliverables, like engine 414 IN version replaced by Kaveri in some eon years later., but plan ahead for replacement, in terms design/interfaces/controls and fixtures - plugability and portability.

Same would be story line for replaceables, especially in the stores managment.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20452
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 03 Feb 2013 17:19

The designers of the AMCA must take note of the serious defect in the JSF,that it is less close combat capable than an F-16! This is because too much of an emphasis has been placed upon stealth,as anti-stealth sensors and tactics are steadily improving.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 03 Feb 2013 22:46

I am envisaging the canopy design would be very similar to raptor: {not shape, but other technical aspects}

Image

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby vina » 04 Feb 2013 10:47

Philip wrote:The designers of the AMCA must take note of the serious defect in the JSF,that it is less close combat capable than an F-16! This is because too much of an emphasis has been placed upon stealth,as anti-stealth sensors and tactics are steadily improving.


I am not sure it is a "defect" . The F-16 is right at top in terms of field performance as one of the all time greatest fighters. Few can come close to it (Mig 29 in certain regimes maybe, M2K in others). That is a pretty high benchmark to beat and will require huge compromises in stealth kind of areas to even achieve it with a "fatter" airframe that stealth requires (even with higher t:w ratio next gen engines).

So, I guess some design compromise is necessary for the F-35 and has been made , to take it to the stealth era. If you don't you will be fighting yesterday's war in the next fight .. sort of like bringing a knife to a gun fight!

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby member_20292 » 04 Feb 2013 11:09

^^^^

vina ji. I have in my records , posts by an ex HAF (greek) AF pilot (greece operated BOTH the f 16 and the m2000) which emphatically says that m2K>f16 because of ITR.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7984
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 04 Feb 2013 12:27

vina wrote:
Philip wrote:The designers of the AMCA must take note of the serious defect in the JSF,that it is less close combat capable than an F-16! This is because too much of an emphasis has been placed upon stealth,as anti-stealth sensors and tactics are steadily improving.


I am not sure it is a "defect" . The F-16 is right at top in terms of field performance as one of the all time greatest fighters. Few can come close to it (Mig 29 in certain regimes maybe, M2K in others). That is a pretty high benchmark to beat and will require huge compromises in stealth kind of areas to even achieve it with a "fatter" airframe that stealth requires (even with higher t:w ratio next gen engines).

So, I guess some design compromise is necessary for the F-35 and has been made , to take it to the stealth era. If you don't you will be fighting yesterday's war in the next fight .. sort of like bringing a knife to a gun fight!

Well said.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20452
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 04 Feb 2013 13:13

Great fighter of the 20th century it might've been,but it has been outclassed by TVC fighters like the Flanker and Fulcrum,not to mention the Eurocanards.What is even more startling with the JSF-and AMCA designers must take note here especially,is that (AWST) the small size of the internal weapons bay makes it difficult to accommodate large ordnance,so small diameter bombs and smaller missiles are being planned for it,which have not yet been tested from a JSF.Moreover,these weapons can mainly be launched in "level flight",a constraint on the aircraft as at higher angles of attack,it loses its full stealth capability! carrying underwing weaponry of course defeats the objective of stealth.

With these severe constraints upon aircraft design for stealth and ordnance payload,one must go back to the drawing board.The flying wing concept which is being used successfully for the B-2,many UCAVs,etc.,is the best option.Even the AMCA will be constrained with regard to available ordnance.Remember how war gaming in the Pacific theatre found that superior numbers of PLAAF Flankers would overwhelm US F-22s based out of Guam,as range and amount of AAMs that could be carried tilted the balance in favour of the red forces.A fatter flying wing with a large,wide weapoins bay carrying th entire payload would hence be able to carry larger diameter munitions,needed for UG bunker-busting,and longer-ranged BVR AAMs which can shoot down enemy AWACS too.I have stressed before that the IAF is sorely wanting in the strategic long-range bomber capability.Our super-secret UCAV will take time to develop.Designing a large manned strike aircraft/bomber without the handicaps of the JSF type stealth fighters would be a great asset for the IAF.

I have not fully understood why we are developing what appears to be a similar-though smaller sized FGFA in the AMCA project,and how it is going to be superior to the FGFA (where we are full partners) which appears to also have similar requirements/capabilities.Is the AMCA meant to be a "6th-gen" aircraft like the proposed Japanese fighter or what? What synergy can we obtain from the FGFA? Most analysts have maintained that in air combat,once you lose the BVR battle-getting the first shot off before detected (with your superior radar),the next phase is close combat if you have successfully evaded the incoming BVRs.Here the aircraft's aerial combat characteristics,dogfighting missiles and as most conflicts that the Israelis have been in,eventually it ends up in a "gunfight",which is why the IsAF retain guns/cannon on their fighters.Given the enormous cost of a stealth fighter,it is inevitable that a healthy,holistic mix of cutting edge fighters and "bomb trucks",as the USN chief spoke of recently,are required.Are we simply duplicating the US in developing two stealth fighters or what?

Perhaps these Qs can best be answered at Aero-India where both programmes are to be displayed in considerable details and where many doubts and queries may be answered.Therefore guys,don't miss the air show,be there!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7984
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 04 Feb 2013 13:46

Philip saab,

1. Aren't you making a generalization of the flying characteristics of all stealth aircrafts based on F-35s? F-22 for example is not a slouch couch, neither is PAKFA. What happens when F-22s meet equal number of Su-30s?
2. If you can see logic in a Mig-29/Su-30 mix, then I don't understand what problem you have with a AMCA/FGFA mix!
3. I agree with you on the bomber part. I have always wondered why we have never invested in bomber development. We have never overtly bought bombers either.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby vina » 04 Feb 2013 13:51

Philip wrote:Moreover,these weapons can mainly be launched in "level flight",a constraint on the aircraft as at higher angles of attack,it loses its full stealth capability! carrying underwing weaponry of course defeats the objective of stealth.


Watch this video. Singha had posted the link for this earlier.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 05 Feb 2013 20:19

Image

so no moveable LERX.. any air flow experts on this inlet design blended with the wing /AoA need?.

Image

are these for mach 2 angles?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4929
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Kartik » 05 Feb 2013 20:31

Am loving the new reworked AMCA design. When I first saw it on Tarmak blog I was aghast but the new pics reveal it to be quite a looker and seemingly better designed as far as stealth considerations than even the PAK-FA. The slender long fuselage ( fineness ratio is high) may be a result of supercruise requirements, to keep drag down in the transonic regime. The inlet design is reminiscent of the LCA with splitter plate and channel for spilling boundary layer air onto the wing, helping attach airflow to the wing at higher alpha angles. Wing design is quite different from earlier models with significant trailing edge sweep forward, which reminds me of the gorgeous YF-23 prototypes. All in all, a stunner IMHO.

Bharadwaj
BRFite
Posts: 302
Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Bharadwaj » 05 Feb 2013 20:51

Wow just wow !!!.....AMCA may take time to become reality but psy value of this early progress cannot be underestimated. Maybe stopping mmrca at 126 and pouring more dough into this bird wont be a bad idea.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 05 Feb 2013 21:41

It is important to stage the technologies.. get the AMCA to an LCA mk3 equivalent with twin engine and skin designs as the first phase.. Get it FoC-ed as Mk.1. Then advanced versions can be taken up on user feedback on a more agile mode, with fully driven by specifications and capability that matches requirements and schedule constraints.

rgsrini
BRFite
Posts: 738
Joined: 17 Sep 2005 18:00

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby rgsrini » 05 Feb 2013 21:42

Awesomeness dripping all around!!! The only thing I don't like about the AMCA is its font! I would have preferred it to be a no-nonsense business like Arial font.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 05 Feb 2013 21:54

rgsrini wrote: no-nonsense business like Arial font.
and how would that look like? any pics?

SagarAg
BRFite
Posts: 1164
Joined: 12 May 2011 15:51

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SagarAg » 05 Feb 2013 21:59

SaiK wrote:
rgsrini wrote: no-nonsense business like Arial font.
and how would that look like? any pics?

Like Tarmak007 below it :mrgreen:

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7984
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 05 Feb 2013 22:23

I don't know why the leading and the trailing edges of the horizontal stabilizer, vertical stabilizer and the wing do not match.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 05 Feb 2013 22:26

may be there is still more than one model, leaving the fgfa out.

Bharadwaj
BRFite
Posts: 302
Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Bharadwaj » 05 Feb 2013 22:50

indranilroy wrote:I don't know why the leading and the trailing edges of the horizontal stabilizer, vertical stabilizer and the wing do not match.


Eh? I guess you mean they do not match with each other? They look the same to me. Perhaps the angle of the fotos is messing things up.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests