vivek_ahuja wrote:So, the discrepancy with the Mirage-2000C numbers in the previous analysis also leads to other repercussions.
The issue of sustained-turn-rate (STR) was raised earlier on this page. Well, when you account for the aerodynamic characteristics as evaluated from the previous analysis I did, the numbers for the LCA versus the Mirage-2000C in a horizontal sustained turn at empty weight looks like this:
Note: I put in the LCA Mk-2 as a basic analysis by replacing the engine with the newer F414 and left the aerodynamics as they have been reported by the ADA. So that's just a rough estimation of the LCA Mk-2 performance to show what a better engine can provide.
So yeah, unless someone finds me a way to refute the Mirage-2000C's outstanding performance numbers from the simulations, the picture looks "interesting" for the LCA, to say the least.
Anyway, this is an ongoing investigation from my side, but I thought you all needed to appreciate why I am worried about the earlier analysis on range performance for the two aircraft.
Bottom line: Range/Endurance and STR/ITR analysis are not decoupled. The aerodynamics binds both of them together for each aircraft. So an aircraft having very poor range on account of its aerodynamics is also going to have other effects visible in its maneuvering performance.
P.S.: I would like to see this spreadsheet analysis done years ago on BRF, if anyone has it. Perhaps it will yield some clues as it why my predictions are so much at odds with generally accepted wisdom for the LCA.
I am hoping/I know that the work they are doing to reduce the drag will help with the aero inefficiencies of the LCA design. There are obvious things they missed when it came to drag, and since they are so obvious, I am sure its inexperience with building TFTA fighters...the Mk2 will leverage the lessons learnt with Mk1 and I am sure will show significantly improved characteristics - the quantitative improvement remains to be seen.