Rahul M wrote:It's not IAF or ADA but all of them (including MoD, MoF, CCS, DRDO etc) put togather needs to share the blame. It takes years to get approvals and sanctions for projects, by the time sanctions come in projects are already way behind the schedule. It is not possible to put all of the blame on anyone's door.
agree wholeheartedly. just that, the situation is looking up and now is the time for looking forward.
IMO people are going overboard with this 120-130 kN business. the mig-29 will receive a 7% (i.e about 5.7 kN for each engine) increase in thrust after more than 25 years of service life.
something like 95-100 kN should do nicely even for the Mk2 unless it gains substantial weight, which seems unlikely at the moment.inferior instantaneous turn rate due to low wing loading.
are you sure of that ? IIRC low wing loading gives superior performance both in ITR and STR.
"Aircraft with low wing loadings tend to have superior sustained turn performance because they can generate more lift for a given quantity of engine thrust. The immediate bank angle an aircraft can achieve before drag seriously bleeds off airspeed is known as its instantaneous turn performance. An aircraft with a small, highly loaded wing may have superior instantaneous turn performance, but poor sustained turn performance: it reacts quickly to control input, but its ability to sustain a tight turn is limited. A classic example is the F-104 Starfighter, which has a very small wing and high wing loading. At the opposite end of the spectrum was the gigantic Convair B-36. Its large wings resulted in a low wing loading, and there are disputed claims that this made the bomber more agile than contemporary jet fighters "
I think the lower STR is a result of the delta wings bleeding off energy faster rather than wing loading in the LCA. Gurus pls correct me if I am mistaken