LCA News and Discussions

[srai]

^^^

Looks like Derby BVR on the wings. At least now we know which BVR is going to get integrated with the LCA.

[Indranil]

Actually if you notice very carefully the undercarriage in this has been moved outboard (not into the wing but wider apart).

You can see that the undercarriage portion is almost as wide as the intakes.


Now compare it with the MK1


I think this is what was being hinted at to KrishG-ji

I am impatiently waiting for KrishG ji's pictures and post.

[Drishyaman]

Capt Maolanker's presentation talked about changing the air intakes so that the engine doesn't get starved at sea level. He also talked about the undercarraige moving outboard, presumably in the wings. however, I don't see the changed air intakes in the Mk-2 model, nor is the undercarraige present in this model. Is this really the final iteration of mk-II?

You seem to have caught the right note.
If Capt Maolanker's presentation is taken into consideration along with Vina ji's analysis and present model of Naval Tejas MK-II.
That model doesn't seem to be final iteration.

Indranil Da,
That model does show the legs were spread but it needs to spread at little bit further and wing roots needs to be Strengthened further. What do you say ?

[SaiK]

Did you guys already talked about LEVCONs? any possible reason for the exclusion?

--

on the nose, right click, copy the picture. paste it into word 2010., then select the picture format and change the 3d rotation on z axis to 22*.

not mucho though!.. but it does droop.

[putnanja]

Hmm, it looks like the same to me. if you look at the portion where the model is fixed to the stand, and compare it to the similar undercarraige portion in the mk-I LCA, it appears to be the same to me

[Karan M]

Capt Maolanker's presentation talked about changing the air intakes so that the engine doesn't get starved at sea level.

The thing is there is a difference between IAF requirements and IN requirements.

For IAF requirements, every bit of thrust at sea level, ie, engine operating at peak efficiency is good to have given the current engine was not really meant for the 6.4-6.5T LCA MK1, so it helps. This would help STR etc. But remember, the current weight of the MK1 is over what was originally planned, by 18%. So while the intakes may have been ok for the original weight, now every bit counts for MK1, hence the talk of aux flaps etc.

But otherwise it works fine - note the LCA Naval pilots contention, its designed for buzz free (distortion free) performance till 1.8 M or thereabouts. So, with minor tweaks eg resizing for higher airflow, it should work fine even for LCA MK-2, where now, we are getting a much more powerful engine. Hence the models dont show much (if any) change, bar the inlet size. The overall design would remain the same.

But the Navy has a different set of conditions, where every bit of thrust matters.

So what are those conditions, that are critical for the Navy?

Where the intake design was not originally optimized for, was high alpha at low speed. Remember the Navy joined the AF program, not vice versa. The AF would have got an intake which works better across the most general parts of the flight envelope, plus keeping other issues such as signature reduction, FOD etc in mind (IAF bases at wartime).

But high alpha, low speed thrust is critical for the Navy, versus not such a big deal for the IAF (ie whats the point of very high alpha maneuvers at low speed at sea level), because this is where the engine is NOT getting enough air to get every bit of thrust, and the Navy wants to increase the intake size to the maximum possible, even adopting tried and tested intakes such as those on the Sea Harriers.

Why this is critical for the Navy, is because it intends to use the LCA as a ski jump ready naval aircraft, which puts severe stress on the engine to develop maximum thrust in the shortest possible time and at time of take off, you have high alpha at (relatively) lower speed.

Another thing the Navy is actively working on with the ADA guys is a software, as he mentions, which shows how important this issue is for the Navy, to predict the thrust available at any given time, so that before the pilot goes for the ski jump assisted take off, he knows, how much thrust he has, displayed on his HUD, which becomes critical when the aircraft is loaded, with fuel and weapons.

So to summarize, high alpha at low speed, Indian Navy wants large intakes, so that installed thrust is optimal, and every bit of those 60-70 KN dry, or whatever proportion is available at sea level, is available to the pilot. Naval LCA MK2, may hence have larger intakes, even including ones adopted from/similar to the Sea Harrier.

The IAF LCA MK2, will only adopt these, if it really adds value & the IAF feels they do vis a vis the cons, really different larger intakes like those on the Harrier come with the consequent issues of vulnerability to FOD & more RCS.

Note that the Naval LCA has LEVCONs for instance, again a naval requirement - the IAF version does not. A drooped nose, as on the Naval LCA MK1, increases drag - no guarantee that the IAF will go for that either. But for carrier landings and take offs, the drooped nose is critical for visibility.

Even the avionics fits for the NLCA and LCA AF version may differ.

[Karan M]

^^^

Looks like Derby BVR on the wings. At least now we know which BVR is going to get integrated with the LCA.

For the Navy - the Indian Navy has chosen the Derby as its BVR for the Naval LCA. The IAF has not made it clear which BVR they will use, but logically, the R77 should be integrated, and the Astra is also being developed with the LCA as its primary carrier.

[Indranil]

Hmm, it looks like the same to me. if you look at the portion where the model is fixed to the stand, and compare it to the similar undercarraige portion in the mk-I LCA, it appears to be the same to me

That is exactly the point where I want you to notice. Now see the contour of the body at that point. Do you see a bulge. That is not present on the MK1.


Okay, I will help you further, Notice very carefully.
How does the curve of the fuselage go. In the Mk1, it is a straight line from the maximum width of the air intake to the engine nozzle.

In the Mk2, it is not.


What is not clear from the model is whether the wheels will retract into the wing. If that is the case, it will give a lot of room. Presently the wheel retracts vertically into the body. It is a safety feature and is generally encouraged in the book. If the something fails, the wind will try to put the undercarriage in the right position. What Vina ji is saying is have only the landing gear arm at the fuselage body join. The wheel actually swivels and is packed horizontally in the wing.

That arrangement will give enormous volume increase. But needs more work.

[putnanja]

Karan, I was talking about LCA-navy only, sorry about the misunderstanding there.

LiveFist has the LCA Mk-II navy model. This does have the undercarraige spread apart, but it looks pretty weird.



There is no image from the front though, so can't make out if the air intakes have changed on LCA Navy Mk-II

[Karan M]

Karan, I was talking about LCA-navy only, sorry about the misunderstanding there.

No problem, using your statement, I managed to write a long write up about the intakes which many others seems to be a bit confused/curious about. I spent a fair bit of time trying to figure out the thing, just thought I'd share it.

IMO, while a large intake like on the Harrier, as mentioned by Captain Maolankar, would be a "one size fits all" approach to the AF & Navy, I wonder whether the ADA/AF will adopt it, if it impacts other considerations, weight/RCS/FOD issues.

About the LCA Navy pics - IMO, these models are too early to tell us about how the definitive Navy MK-II will looks. The Naval program is far behind the AF one and more challenging from the point of view of structures, etc. IMO, it will see several revisions and changes, even later into the program, based on the plethora of tests, the Navy wants, including those ship based ones etc.

[Indranil]

Okay, I have question. What is that bulge on the aft right side of the LCA Navy MkII. Not seeing it on any other model. It is just aft of right MLG and in front and left of the arrestor hook assembly.

[srai]

^^^

Looks like Derby BVR on the wings. At least now we know which BVR is going to get integrated with the LCA.

For the Navy - the Indian Navy has chosen the Derby as its BVR for the Naval LCA. The IAF has not made it clear which BVR they will use, but logically, the R77 should be integrated, and the Astra is also being developed with the LCA as its primary carrier.

Given that the IAF is inducting the Spyder LLQRM SAM systems, which use the Derby BVR AAM (without any changes between SAM and AAM versions), IAF could as well just use the Derby since it will already have those missiles in stock. Less effort this way (one for both Navy and IAF).

When Astra is ready, it can be integrated with the LCA.

[Karan M]

I do think there would be changes between the GL derby and the AL one. Not major ones, but they will be there, such as seekers optimized for certain aspects, some airframe modifications etc. Just minor enough to be not significant enough in the big scheme of things, but they'll probably be there.

So I'd say its not an issue of logistics commonality - something the IAF seems to be rather less worried about anyhow.

Jokes apart, they wouldn't induct something that's less punch than their existing inventory. Just take the Astra-MK1, even though its MK1, its range has been specified as 80 Km & speed as Mach 2.5. The existing R77 also has a similar range, and marginally more speed at 3M. The other details are also pretty similar. So the IAF clearly didnt settle for a less capable missile in the Astra.

The Derby on the other hand, is a lightweight missile, with a range of around 50 km or thereabouts per some reports. Hence my point that the IAF will ask for R-77 integration, followed by Astra. Plus the IAF has an inventory of a thousand plus R-77s per SIPRI, and will probably receive even more for the MiG-29 upgrade, and PAK-FA, probably newer variants as well.

[srai]

I do think there would be changes between the GL derby and the AL one. Not major ones, but they will be there, such as seekers optimized for certain aspects, some airframe modifications etc. Just minor enough to be not significant enough in the big scheme of things, but they'll probably be there.

...

According to the Rafael brochure on the SPYDER ADS-SR: Short Range Air Defense System

State-of-the-Art Missiles
The Spyder systems incorporate the most advanced, proven performance air-to-air-missiles: the Python-5 dual waveband imaging infra red (IIR) missile and the Derby active radar beyond visual range (BVR) missile. In the Spyder-MR the missiles are equipped with a booster assembly. The same missiles can also be used for air-to-air missions.

[Karan M]

Yeah but thats a marketing brochure, and details are often omitted..eg can be used with modification is not necessarily a big difference from can be used as is, for a brief description on the site. Similar stuff has been done elsewhere as well. In Balkan conflict, Serbians put R73E missiles on trucks and used them as SAMs.

Others as well
http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=18648

But the bigger point is, the IAF would want decent ranged BVR missiles, plus it has shown no indications of ordering extra Derby. Derby, P-5 stocks for SAM would be separate, P-5 purchase vs ASRAAM for Jag is also separate.

[srai]

Yeah but thats a marketing brochure, and details are often omitted..eg can be used with modification is not necessarily a big difference from can be used as is, for a brief description on the site. ...

I am fine with your assertion (that the Python 5/Derby AAM missiles have been modified for Spyder SAM) if you can point me to some documents/articles that validates your assertion.

[vina]

Hmm. This picture is interesting. I don't know how accurate the Mk2 model is wrt to the actual. If it is remotely accurate ,some pretty interesting differences are obvious. The thing that jumps out straight from this high resolution shot of the ventral side of the fuselage is the bulge/fairing/shaping resulting in a slightly thicker wing section between the intake trunking and the inboard pylon (the shaping is clearly visible in the pic in the port side , between the inboard pylon and the intake)and that extends all the way from the leading edge. (I think it is the stingray/whisper ultra wings tanks showing up as the shaping i the bottom).So obviously some serious aerodynamic work was done in the Mk2 and very pretty looking and minimal changes made to fix the "problems" and also increase internal fuel massively.

Of course that bulge/fairing will be great place to stow the undercarriage like in Mig29/SU30 and F-14.

[uddu]

Spot the Jaguar contest
http://www.pib.nic.in/release/phsmall.asp?phid=33666
An IAF Jaguar takes off at Aero India 2011, in Bangalore on February 11, 2011.

[Kanson]

Jags are going to be retired from 2020 onwards. MiG-27 lasts till 2020. Life extension of MiG-29 is 15 years. Same way Mirage-2000 will be 15+.

So in 2025 - 2030, you are left with only LCA, MMRCA, Su-30 and PAK-FA. In order to maintain the numbers, you wont have the luxury of retiring them when they have to be retired and have to manage them keeping in the mind the time line of Induction. You are currently at the level of 33 Sqdn. You are at the burden of not only increase the strength to 39.5 or whatever and to manage the replacement for retiring a/c to keep the strength. This situation is very much reminiscent of the earlier decades which see the reduction in Sqdn strength due to slippages in the induction timeframe of new aircraft. To keep the stregnth at the time frame of 2025-2030, we are very much dependent on the PAK-FA. Is it not? And we see the same tamasha repeating again.

I think you have better convincing answer here from Indian Mil thread....http://www.deccanherald.com/content/136 ... -more.html

Using the BR's Aircraft Fleet Strength as baseline ...

Retiring squadrons by 2022:

• 5 x MiG-21 M/MF
• 2 x MiG-21Bis
• 6 x MiG-21 Bison
• 3.5 x MiG-27 ML
• 2 x MiG-27 UPG

Total (retiring 2022): 18.5 squadrons

Current Squadrons (2010) still in place by 2022:

• 3 x MiG-29UPG
• 3 x Mirage 2000UPG
• 6 x Sukhoi-30 MKI
• 5 x Jaguar IS
• 1 x Jaguar IM

Total (remaining 2022): 18 squadrons
Note: All listed here, except MKI, will be retiring between 2022 and 2030.

Planned Squadrons in place by 2022:

• 2 x LCA Mk.1
• 5 x LCA Mk.2
• 9 x Sukhoi-30 MKI
• 7 x MRCA
• 2 x PAK-FA/FGFA

Total (induction 2022): 25 squadrons

This means in 2022:
Total (remaining + induction): 18 + 25 = 43 squadrons in 2022

From 2022 to 2030, there will be 12 squadrons (3 x MiG-29UPG, 3 x Mirage 2000UPG, 5 x Jaguar IS, 1 x Jaguar IM) being retired (as shown above). The production lines for the LCA, MRCA, and FGFA will be available during that period. AMCA will come online in the later half of this (closer to 2030).

Thanks for split-up in Sqdn. But my take is bit different, do correct me if I went wrong.

1. I got to the understanding that MiG-27 completes the retirement by 2020. Then by 2020 Jags retirement starts. Its is planned in such a way that both retirements happens one after another and not in parallel.
2. All we heard about PAK-FA timelines are from the russians. We have not still heard anything concrete from Indian on their FGFA. And from our side we have just started the PD phase. As per Russians their induction timeline is in 2018. Our requriements are much stiffer than russians. So how this induction going to materialize I dont know. So i gave a optimistic start at 2020.
3. Reg. MMRCA, if we start by 2012 as announced, we complete the production run by 2022 if we go by the same rate at which HAL is currently producing Su-30. If there is delay in finalizing and materializing the contract, then the best bet for completion is around 2025.
4. Same with LCA, If Mk2, completes its testing by Dec 2016, then LCA might be in full service by 2022. Since it is entirely within our hands, i think we can manage this.

I guess,(do correct me) you have gone by this report.

http://www.india-defence.com/reports-4230

Defence Minister A K Antony today said that by the end of the 13th Plan period, Indian Air Force's combat fleet would be of 42 squadrons, which is more than the strength sanctioned by the Government.

"During the period 2007-2022, the strength at the end of 11th, 12th and 13th Plan periods is expected to increase to 35.5, 35 and 42 squadrons respectively," Antony said in a written reply to a query in Rajya Sabha. Government has sanctioned the IAF to have a total of 39.5 squadrons of fighter aircraft.

We are now at the end of 11th plan, what is our strength ?

IAF fleet strength is about 33 squadrons (594 aircraft); optimum level is 45 squadrons (810 aircraft).

While we are adding Su-30, simultaneously we are retiring MiG-21. What is our actual strength ~33 or 35.5? He has not quantified how we are going to achieve that, i.e. 35 in 2017 and 42 in 2022.

He said that the air force will reach the peak of strength with the induction of Su-30 MKIs, Jaguars, Medium Multi-role Combat Aircraft (M-MRCA), Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) and the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). Antony said at the beginning of the 11th Plan period, the force had only 32 squadrons.

Jaguars are not getting inducted in 13th plan, how true is that, do correct me. But given that we have not still finalized the MMRCA or FGFA, these figures are just ball park figures and the reality could be otherwise. So in my view, we are going to repeat the same tamasha in managing the Combat strength as we done in previous decade.

Only way we can increase the strength is by increasing numbers and the production rate. As per IAF plan, we are supposed to have 45 or so Sqdn strength by 2020. Not surprised when IAF asked for increase in Sqdn numbers.

My Question is all about what is the chance of LCA seeing the rise in numbers from the current order.

[suryag]

No 45 Flying Daggers to be the first squadron to sport LCA (on tarmak) the pic is however not that of the tejas

[Kartik]

Capt Maolanker's presentation talked about changing the air intakes so that the engine doesn't get starved at sea level. He also talked about the undercarraige moving outboard, presumably in the wings. however, I don't see the changed air intakes in the Mk-2 model, nor is the undercarraige present in this model. Is this really the final iteration of mk-II?

you may not be able to see the enlarged air intakes because they will be increased only slightly for the additional airflow required. Even on the Gripen C-to-NG, the intake size increase is so small as to be only noticeable when looked at carefully.

Or, they may have just kept similar sized intakes on the model and when all the CFD and wind tunnel work is complete, they'll know the actual increase that is required.

But it is for sure that the intake size will increase and they will work on engine starvation issues at low speed and high alpha.

[Kartik]

Okay, I have question. What is that bulge on the aft right side of the LCA Navy MkII. Not seeing it on any other model. It is just aft of right MLG and in front and left of the arrestor hook assembly.

possibly fairing bulges for the MLG. They will be moved out further towards the wing root with attachment points changed.

[KrishG]

Spoke with Mr. Vinod Kumar, Navy Mk-2 Program director.

* There is 5% increase in the intake in the Mk-2. I cannot remember whether he said it was increase in area or diameter. There will be no major changes in the intake shapes for the Mk-2.

* The empty weight of Mk-1 is 6550 kg. He said he expects the Mk-2 empty weight to be
around 125-150 kg more than that of Mk-1. That gives a figure of ~6700 kg

* AESA is NOT included in the Mk-2. He said that LRDE is working on a AESA and was optmistic that they could put it on Mk-2 as a future upgrade. He expects the Mk-2 to have the MMR during the initial batches.

* On the design optimization on Mk-2, he told me to take pictures of the Mk-1 model undercarriage and Mk-2 model's undecarriage and compare them. I'll post the picture I took.

Mk-1 undercarriage


Mk-2 undercarriage


The two bulges on the M-2 undercarriage are indeed MLG housings. He was saying something about the MLG being moved further back in Mk-2 to increase stability (This one point I can't remember properly)

* He did say that the Mk-2 would have additional fuel capacity but didn't mention the exact number of litres.

* I asked why weren't any wingtip pylons added on Mk-2 to which he said that that would require strengthening the wing structure, which has it's own set of complications, and reiterated that the focus of Mk-2 is to optimize the design.

* I thought I noticed an increase in the tail canting. I didn't ask him about this.

[Rahul M]

Capt Maolanker's presentation talked about changing the air intakes so that the engine doesn't get starved at sea level. He also talked about the undercarraige moving outboard, presumably in the wings. however, I don't see the changed air intakes in the Mk-2 model, nor is the undercarraige present in this model. Is this really the final iteration of mk-II?

you may not be able to see the enlarged air intakes because they will be increased only slightly for the additional airflow required. Even on the Gripen C-to-NG, the intake size increase is so small as to be only noticeable when looked at carefully.

if I remember the estimate from my aero engn friend, LCA required a ~ 10% increase in inlet area, which translates to less than 5% increase in radius of the inlet, considering it to be a perfect semi circle.

hardly noticeable in such a small model.
edit : just saw #1 of krish' post above. so my friend was right on target.

[Kanson]

Spoke with Mr. Vinod Kumar, Navy Mk-2 Program director.

* There is 5% increase in the intake in the Mk-2. I cannot remember whether he said it was increase in area or diameter. There will be no major changes in the intake shapes for the Mk-2.

* The empty weight of Mk-1 is 6550 kg. He said he expects the Mk-2 empty weight to be
around 125-150 kg more than that of Mk-1. That gives a figure of ~6700 kg

If this denotes the empty weight of Naval-LCA what about Airforce LCA ?

With the figure of around 6700 kg and that amounts to TOW clean as ~ 10,000 kg and with GE-414-INS6, can LCA supercruise ?

[adarshp]

Still some confusion around the dry weight of the LCA. Shiv has quoted 6950 whereas KrishG is quoting 6550. Can we please get a definitive answer before the AI 2011 is over. 6950 may explain some of the payload limitations being discussed earlier.

Thank you....

[merlin]

Spoke with Mr. Vinod Kumar, Navy Mk-2 Program director.

* There is 5% increase in the intake in the Mk-2. I cannot remember whether he said it was increase in area or diameter. There will be no major changes in the intake shapes for the Mk-2.

* The empty weight of Mk-1 is 6550 kg. He said he expects the Mk-2 empty weight to be
around 125-150 kg more than that of Mk-1. That gives a figure of ~6700 kg

* AESA is NOT included in the Mk-2. He said that LRDE is working on a AESA and was optmistic that they could put it on Mk-2 as a future upgrade. He expects the Mk-2 to have the MMR during the initial batches.

* On the design optimization on Mk-2, he told me to take pictures of the Mk-1 model undercarriage and Mk-2 model's undecarriage and compare them. I'll post the picture I took.

The two bulges on the M-2 undercarriage are indeed MLG housings. He was saying something about the MLG being moved further back in Mk-2 to increase stability (This one point I can't remember properly)

* He did say that the Mk-2 would have additional fuel capacity but didn't mention the exact number of litres.

* I asked why weren't any wingtip pylons added on Mk-2 to which he said that that would require strengthening the wing structure, which has it's own set of complications, and reiterated that the focus of Mk-2 is to optimize the design.

* I thought I noticed an increase in the tail canting. I didn't ask him about this.

Ok, there is some confusion here. Are the figures you quote for the Navy version.

Here's the information I have

Tejas Mk1 AF version - empty weight 6560 kgs.
Tentative target Tejas Mk2 AF version - empty weight 6000 kgs (from the structural guys so I would give them some weight). I'm expecting target empty weight to increase once design is finalized by end of this year.

So all discussions on the Mk2 model are a little premature I think. Design has not been frozen yet.

Another few tidbits

1. Mk2 plan is to have 3 6"x8" AMLCD MFD instead of the 5 now (2xSSID, 3 MFD). With all of the MFDs from Samtel. Currently the centre 3 MFDs are imported with the 2 standby units Indian (hardware and software). Again only a plan.
2. 500 mm length increase behind cockpit will give more room for avionics, its jam packed now and difficult to replace LRUs. DFCC optimization will be done with an all new DFCC with new hardware. FCS will be changed a little.
3. Tejas Mk1 officially cleared to +6G, unofficially reached +6.9G, at AI11
4. There are a total of 750 odd combinations of all stores grouped into 30. The most important ones are tested. Nobody does all combinations.
5. Some changes for lightening protection use BARC developed Shape memory alloys. Shrink when heated instead of expanding. Got some gyan here which went over my head, was already saturated with info by this time and I had only moved 3 stalls in 1.5 hours.
6. 20 Tejas on deck + 17 in hanger below for IAC-1. 5 + 10 helos. IAC-1 can take both Mig-29 and Tejas.
7. Flutter tests done with both combat clean configuration and with heavy stores.
8. FCS does asymmetric loads with ease.
9. Twin firing of R-73 done which means after both were fired, the wing was totally clean (without the safety R-60/R-73 missiles)
10. Claimed AF is fine with +8G
11. Flys without the gun

[Cain Marko]

Can some kind person post that poster board for the MK2. What is the expected payload for mk2?

CM

[palash_kol]

A question for the gurus -

Can we have 4 pylons in each wing area of Tejas??? Since in todays scenario total 7 hardpoints is very less I think.

[Rahul M]

palash, not at all, 90% of fighter's flight profile even in war scenario would not ask for more. for emergencies they can always use dual rack pylons.

merlin sahab, you are a sadist. you spent 180 min there and you give us 10 sec worth of reading material ? we want a detailed sitrep.

info boards for Mk2 ?

[Drishyaman]

A question for the gurus -

Can we have 4 pylons in each wing area of Tejas??? Since in todays scenario total 7 hardpoints is very less I think.

What !! you want Tejas to be a Su - 30 MKI ?
Remember, Tejas is a Light Combat Aircraft. Any aircraft would loose its Agility if it is loaded more. If Tejas MK – II carries 4000 kg of bombs it will be more than enough. Heard that Tejas MK - II is being designed for 5000 kg. Mind you even Jaguar carried less than 4000 kgs.

[KrishG]

[Kartik]

Spoke with Mr. Vinod Kumar, Navy Mk-2 Program director.

The two bulges on the M-2 undercarriage are indeed MLG housings. He was saying something about the MLG being moved further back in Mk-2 to increase stability (This one point I can't remember properly)

Thanks Krish. That confirms what I said about those bulges being fairings.

Could you please collate all the info you gather on the IAF Mk2 and Navy Mk2 and post it ?

[Kartik]

Thanks for these !

[Kanson]

IAF fleet strength is about 33 squadrons (594 aircraft); optimum level is 45 squadrons (810 aircraft).

Is the number of 594 aircraft as current strength correct?

For sure we have

Mirage-2k - 51
MiG-29 - 63

What is the numbers for

1. Su-30
2. MiG-27
3. Jaguar
4. MiG-21

[Indranil]

Thanks a lot. I would be very grateful if you could post a hi-res pic of the LCA CAD drawing on the above page.

[Indranil]

Spoke with Mr. Vinod Kumar, Navy Mk-2 Program director.

The two bulges on the M-2 undercarriage are indeed MLG housings. He was saying something about the MLG being moved further back in Mk-2 to increase stability (This one point I can't remember properly)

Thanks Krish. That confirms what I said about those bulges being fairings.

Could you please collate all the info you gather on the IAF Mk2 and Navy Mk2 and post it ?

This makes sense. I had not seen the bulge on the left for some reason. I thought it was an asymmetry on one side which I couldn't understand.

1. I think this means that they are not moving the MLG bay to the wing. Since it is in the fuselage it sits vertically. They will still gain some volume with this configuration but not as much.

2. The other thing that comes to mind is using the MLG primary door as the air brake. With the MLG pushed back, it will lo longer be at CG, though it will still be quite close. Will they enlarge that door and hinge it near the CG and do away with the current airbrakes altogether? It will be interesting to see what they do.

[Indranil]

Though I have never been to a flight test center, my personal experience with speaking to test pilots is very similar.

Men and their flying machine: a day at the National Flight Test Centre with the pilots who test fly the Tejas

[Indranil]

People, it will be very useful to analyze if we could pool together as many CAD drawings of the LCA Mk2. as possible. There seem to be a few floating around. The more the angles, the better the clarity we will have.

[shiv]

Though I have never been to a flight test center, my personal experience with speaking to test pilots is very similar.

Men and their flying machine: a day at the National Flight Test Centre with the pilots who test fly the Tejas

10 on 10 for that article.