Indranil wrote:Actually, this study is a few years old now. This shape was great for transonic and supersonic performance but was detrimental to high AoA performance as the AoA at which the pitch-up happens came down. So, as we have been saying, it is not so easy to say whether a taller tail will help with AoA.
This study was presented in August 2015. So yes, its been 2.5 years since then, plenty of time to look at it more deeply and figure out whether it was feasible from all aspects or not. Is your info on this shape not being good from a pitch-up alpha pov relatively recent?
So, what I can gather based on what you've said is that the refined canopy shape shown here is not what is being tested now in the wind tunnel. If the canards are part of the new config that went through CFD analysis, then we would see a canopy optimized for that canard Mk2 design, which will then have to be more or less like the existing shape but with a smoother curvature, since the canards will most likely be placed just aft of the canopy and below it. The increase in the cross-sectional area as a result will mean that the canopy will need to taper off much more than in the proposed canopy shape below..so more or less like the existing design. the smoothening out of the cross-sectional area as a result of the canards will then be the contributing factor towards drag reduction.
Indranil wrote:Cleared for WT testing. All CFD analysis done.Canards almost always help with the area ruling. In this case, it really helps to smooth out the kink after the canopy.
When these analysis are made public, you will some other nice touches too.
What is going to be most interesting will be to see how the design is changed to accomodate the canards. the reason for that is that space will be needed to be made available for embedding the actuators for the all-moving canards; assuming the Mk2 gets all-moving canards and not fixed ones like those on various Mirage and Kfir jets.
So the 0.5m plug aft of the canopy will likely be where the canard will be attached to the fuselage (still hoping for it to be a 1m plug).. Will a small new "cheek" be added to the design, sort of how it was for the LCA Navy Mk2 to fit the actuators or will it be flush with the fuselage? Access to the cockpit must not be impeded either.
Might it look more like the LCA Navy Mk2 minus the LEVCON with the canards placed just below the cockpit? the LCA Navy Mk2 was 1m longer than the Tejas Mk1.