1. It has been some time since I have seen a military trainer with so many control rods sticking outside. These days one sees them only for trim tabs.
So many? Where are you seeing them? I don't see them for the rudder, but only to the trim tabs..something similar is visible on the AT-6 II Texan as well..
2. It looks like they stitched together the canopy from some existing line. This allowed them to get to the flying prototype ASAP. A fantastic decision, if you ask me, but it robs the canopy of a smooth continuous curve. In terms of performance, it will probably not matter much, especially that of a BTT. However, it will be interesting to see if the production models have this.
yes, it does appear to be a little dis-jointed and not a flowing curve indicating that it was probably made in 2 pieces and joined at the frame. Later prototypes may see a one piece canopy with the support frame. But it will make almost no difference to the aerodynamics/drag.
3. I am sure that MLG and NLGs doors will come soon. HAL has stuck to the layout of the wheels placed inside of the MLG strut, same as in the HF-24, Kiran and the IJT. This layout requires shallower wells in the wing to store the retracted struts, but deeper wells in the fuselage for the retracted wheel. It makes sense in an HF-24 with thin wings, but not so much on a HTT-40 with thick wings.
Interesting observation..I did notice the wheels were placed inside but didn't relate it to existing HAL designs. If they used something similar on the Kiran and IJT and found no issue with it causing the wheel well being a little deeper, they most likely won't change anything on HTT-40 either.
This layout also removes the option of the wheel with a hubcap forming the conforming surface (like in the 737s or the Grob G120) and its accompanying weight savings.
But then, the Kirans seem to have done fine with this layout and no covers for the wheel well at all.
On the 737, the hub cap forming the wheel door is only because it is absolutely flush with the rest of the wing. Otherwise, this is a definite drag riser. On the Kiran I was initially surprised that they haven't bothered to put a hinged wheel well cover door to completely close the gap. Negligible weight increase but a definite drag reduction is what I thought, till I found another pic of the Kiran that shows that the wheel well into which the tyre fits upon retraction, is very shallow.
The strut itself is covered by a panel that is attached to it and covers it upon retraction.
We're likely to see some changes on this aspect of the HTT-40.
4. Another adverse effect of this layout is that it decreases the distance between the two MLG wheels which is unfavourable for austere field and cross wind performance.
5. On the other hand, the NLG hinged near the nose increases the distance between the NLG and the MLG wheels which positively affects the performance in the aforementioned criteria. This is also a welcome change in layout from the preliminary design.
MLG wheel base (distance between MLG tires) must have been calculated keeping in mind the inside half placement of the wheels. Not sure if the additional inches of wheel base one would gain by placing the wheels on the outside of the strut would make any major difference to the stability of ground ops and cross wind performance.
Agreed on the wheel track improvement with the placement of the nose gear further forward and retracting backwards into the fuselage.
6. The landing gears are also long providing the aircraft a higher stance useful for austere field performance, ease of maintenance and weapon loading.
Agreed. Definitely to allow for centerline and wing drop tanks and weapons to be loaded.