LCA News and Discussions

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Feb 2013 06:37

Damn! The have changed the color of the tail chute cover from lovely hi vis orange to dull grey
-1

Raman · Post by **Raman** » 26 Feb 2013 06:46

I think they are moving from a detachable chute cover to one that is hinged to the airframe. People therefore won't have to search for it after the chute deploys and detaches, and therefore it doesn't have to be in highviz dayglo colors any more. Back to boring old Tipnis grey.

rgsrini · Post by **rgsrini** » 26 Feb 2013 07:10

^^Raman,
There is no "searching" involved. The orange cap is attached to the parachute and doesn't fall off in the runway (like it used to in TDs).

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/352 ... -chute.jpg

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Feb 2013 07:49

why not they go for reverse thrusters like in tornado?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kjD5bL3UGE

any disadvantage?

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 26 Feb 2013 08:46

Do all our fighters have tail chutes ? Are there scenarios in which, those that do, don't use them ? Like say if the runway's long enough.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Feb 2013 09:35

SaiK wrote:why not they go for reverse thrusters like in tornado?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kjD5bL3UGE

any disadvantage?

Weight.

SidSom · Post by **SidSom** » 26 Feb 2013 09:39

What is the news on LSP8. Did see an LCA with Gear down in the morning (from a distance). Isnt it supposed to be flying some time now.?

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 26 Feb 2013 11:09

Vishal Jolapara wrote:My Photo:
Commodore Jaideep Maolankar blasting-off
(click for the Larger Image)

Spectacular shot - su vaat che!

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 28 Feb 2013 20:28

Flight test update

From

LCA-Tejas has completed 2046 Test Flights Successfully. (20-Feb-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-350,LSP1-74,LSP2-253,PV5-36,LSP3-103,LSP4-65,LSP5-134,LSP7-25,NP1-4)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2059 Test Flights Successfully. (27-Feb-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-351,LSP1-74,LSP2-257,PV5-36,LSP3-105,LSP4-66,LSP5-137,LSP7-27,NP1-4)

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 28 Feb 2013 23:28

KrishnaK wrote:Do all our fighters have tail chutes ? Are there scenarios in which, those that do, don't use them ? Like say if the runway's long enough.

Yes tail chutes(Drogue parachute) helps the aircrafts to land on short runways especially in India where only few runways are long enough. Like you said if the runway is long they don't use them. For instance check out the SU-30 MKI recovery at Nellis AFB for Red Flag exercise:

and then check out this Su-30 MKi landing at Aero India 2011:

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 28 Feb 2013 23:55

rgsrini wrote: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/352 ... -chute.jpg

cool.. haven't seen many pics of tejas with air brakes on!

here is an old one -

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 01 Mar 2013 00:04

KrishnaK wrote:Do all our fighters have tail chutes ? Are there scenarios in which, those that do, don't use them ? Like say if the runway's long enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drogue_parachute

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Mar 2013 02:27

Speaking of aribrakes.

Mk-1 had the following problems. The deploying of the airbrakes created a pitch up moment. The strake from the wing body join had an abrupt end leading to high wave drag (now they are being smoothened out and the drogue-chute cover being elongated) .

I am sure that the Tejas developers considered the airbrake configurations on the T-50. Would solve both the problems in one go.

Any reasons why they did not adopt it? I can think of two:
1. The strake is not symmetric (that is a relatively easy problem to solve)
2. The strake is not wide enough (that can be changed in the MK2. Because the wing roots are going to be moved outwards to accommodate the wider engine inlet and the landing gear being housed in the wing root)

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Mar 2013 07:15

why T50, even the world famous F-solah have those type of duckbill airbrakes.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 01 Mar 2013 09:12

indranilroy wrote:Speaking of aribrakes.

Mk-1 had the following problems. The deploying of the airbrakes created a pitch up moment. The strake from the wing body join had an abrupt end leading to high wave drag (now they are being smoothened out and the drogue-chute cover being elongated) .

The Mig-29ovt should have the same problem as well.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 01 Mar 2013 09:46

Tarmak007 on FB has this image on LCA undergoing soaking to simulate rain ...

TO BEAT THE HEAT!

India's pet fighter jet Tejas spotted taking shower at one of the HAL facilities in Bangalore. Technically, this is known as a rain-test!

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 01 Mar 2013 10:23

Flight test update

from

LCA-Tejas has completed 2059 Test Flights Successfully. (27-Feb-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-351,LSP1-74,LSP2-257,PV5-36,LSP3-105,LSP4-66,LSP5-137,LSP7-27,NP1-4)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2061 Test Flights Successfully. (28-Feb-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-351,LSP1-74,LSP2-257,PV5-36,LSP3-105,LSP4-66,LSP5-139,LSP7-27,NP1-4)

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 01 Mar 2013 10:44

Jaldi udo LSP8

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 02 Mar 2013 03:19

merlin wrote:
Vishal Jolapara wrote:My Photo:
Commodore Jaideep Maolankar blasting-off

Spectacular shot - su vaat che!

Thanks Merlin

Boreas wrote:cool.. haven't seen many pics of tejas with air brakes on!

I'm surprised to hear that

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 02 Mar 2013 10:57

Straight from the horse's mouth: Mag report on NLCA delays & more...

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 Mar 2013 12:36

thoda enjoy karlo

.

http://gallery.tejas.gov.in/Gallery/Tej ... b&lb=1&s=A

vic · Post by **vic** » 02 Mar 2013 17:00

We we cancel both MRCA and PAKFA and instead we can order 2000 LCA; the point is what would be better "indigenous" solution. Ordering 2000 LCA and thereafter follow up with AMCA or pay for MRCA and PAKFA for (fake) ToT??? Life cycle costs (excluding fuel) of PAKFA & MRCA would be USD 300 million each which is around USD 100 Billion dollars.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Mar 2013 20:35

indranilroy wrote:thoda enjoy karlo .

http://gallery.tejas.gov.in/Gallery/Tej ... b&lb=1&s=A

pure joy at 1080p with similar monitor.

@00:07, 12.1kg/5ltr/70psig is what OBOGs will replace. the space there could be JSF-ized for side panel AESA t/rs.!?!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Mar 2013 20:57

vic wrote:We we cancel both MRCA and PAKFA and instead we can order 2000 LCA; the point is what would be better "indigenous" solution. Ordering 2000 LCA and thereafter follow up with AMCA or pay for MRCA and PAKFA for (fake) ToT??? Life cycle costs (excluding fuel) of PAKFA & MRCA would be USD 300 million each which is around USD 100 Billion dollars.

rather than pakfa, amca and perhaps mrca, we should look at traches of lca become mca.

1. sustaining the product line
2. augmenting the production line
3. continued development
4. focused engineering group
5. localized test facilities
6. advanced engineering ++ kavere etc.

After lca mk.2
mk.3 : twin engine delta wing.
mk.4 : twin engine amca wing.
mk.5 : mk.4 + kaveri
mk.6 : mk.5 + ganga (la jsf-vtol - turbofan)
mk.7 : mk++ stealth

Just look at the job oppty.. technology base alone. we can be exporting to all nations on the planet.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 03 Mar 2013 11:04

The next variant is the stealth variant MK-III
http://www.aame.in/2012/06/stealth-vers ... ombat.html

Snehashis · Post by **Snehashis** » 05 Mar 2013 00:20

1:7.645 Wind tunnel model of IAF LCA Mk2 via Shiv Aroor

rgsrini · Post by **rgsrini** » 05 Mar 2013 01:01

^^May be it is the angle or the photoshop they did to cut out the background. That looks like a "LCA" pen. I like it.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Mar 2013 01:08

why not a full sized mock up rather the frontal for wind tunnel? what parameters they study & measure without the rear?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Mar 2013 02:01

SaiK wrote:why not a full sized mock up rather the frontal for wind tunnel? what parameters they study & measure without the rear?

You mean complete windtunnel model, right?

Well they use this to study the flow of air inside the air intake at different airspeeds, pitch and yaw angles.

P.S. I like the louvers instead of the spring loaded doors.

koti · Post by **koti** » 05 Mar 2013 02:37

I was expecting a bigger radome. Can anyone scale this to see if there is any change in radome size?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Mar 2013 02:40

indranilroy wrote:
ramana wrote:Indranil, What do they have in mind for the 1200kg hardpoints on the LCA?
I did not understand your question. You mean when those hardpoints are not being used for drop tanks?

For the Naval variants they can be used to carry KH-31/KH-35/KH59 missiles. For the AF version, it can definitely carry 1 LGB. It would be very interesting to see if it has space for a rack of 2 LGBs. I have not seen it yet, but I am assuming that it can hold two 450 kg unguided bombs in an inline fashion.

I was right about the inline arrangement of two 450 kg unguided bombs.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Mar 2013 02:41

koti wrote:I was expecting a bigger radome. Can anyone scale this to see if there is any change in radome size?

What for?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Mar 2013 03:53

A 600 - 800 array GaN t/r module is quite good enough to tackle most a/cs in our neighborhood including our own @200 +/- 50 km range.. again we need to first get our 2032 to 2052ish radar ready first.

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Mar 2013 03:59

indranilroy wrote:...

I was right about the inline arrangement of two 450 kg unguided bombs.

Are you sure about them being 450kg bombs? They could be 250kg bombs.

If you look at this old loadout diagram, only the centerline and the two innermost pylons would be able to carry 900kg+ payload. Other two outer ones are rated 800kg or less.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Mar 2013 06:11

srai wrote: If you look at this old loadout diagram, only the centerline and the two innermost pylons would be able to carry 900kg+ payload. Other two outer ones are rated 800kg or less.

We were speaking of weapon stations 3,4 and 5.

indranilroy wrote:
ramana wrote:Indranil, What do they have in mind for the 1200kg hardpoints on the LCA?

srai wrote: Are you sure about them being 450kg bombs? They could be 250kg bombs.

I do not know for sure. I was judging by the relative size to the drop tanks. Besides there are two kinds of bombs shown in the picture, one in the Sears–Haack shape and the other in the teardrop shop. The one's in the teardrop shape look bigger to me.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 05 Mar 2013 08:55

uddu wrote:The next variant is the stealth variant MK-III
http://www.aame.in/2012/06/stealth-vers ... ombat.html

Stealth is already incorporatred in Mk1s (there's a squadron in service but they're undetectable).

What is the problem with building 100 Mk1s on a war footing? They seem to doing well in A2G and A2A. Why waste so much money on M2K upgrade? They say a fool and his money are easily parted.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 05 Mar 2013 11:07

Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 2061 Test Flights Successfully. (28-Feb-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-351,LSP1-74,LSP2-257,PV5-36,LSP3-105,LSP4-66,LSP5-139,LSP7-27,NP1-4)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2068 Test Flights Successfully. (04-Mar-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-351,LSP1-74,LSP2-257,PV5-36,LSP3-107,LSP4-67,LSP5-142,LSP7-27,NP1-4)

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 05 Mar 2013 12:21

indranilroy wrote:P.S. I like the louvers instead of the spring loaded doors.

Sir, any advantages of louvers over spring loaded doors? Less complex & better maintainability? Would this increase drag?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Mar 2013 22:15

No "sir" please.

They would do the same work of energizing the air at low speed high engine thrust regime. Also it is easier to maintain. I don't think that the doors on LCA Tejas are spring loaded. Because if they were you would see them closed when Tejas is parked. This is not the case.

I think the set up might be like that on a Harrier. I was reading the accounts of a Harrier maintenance crews experience about the same.

Finally, the doors are in no way spring loaded. they are mounted on very simple pin and receiver hinges, with the pins a structural part of each door and the receivers mounted to the intake structure by means of two bolts that are wire locked to each other and then sealed with PRC (a commmon aircraft sealing compound).

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 05 Mar 2013 22:25

Nick_S wrote:
indranilroy wrote:P.S. I like the louvers instead of the spring loaded doors.
Sir, any advantages of louvers over spring loaded doors? Less complex & better maintainability? Would this increase drag?

Less number of components
Less chances of failure
Last but not least easy to manufacture with a die on a press or press brake
Ease of manufacture...... In case of Louvere over door

Think of your Railway RAC reservation against cancellation window seat in third class two tier compartment, your louver window sucks in air with out opening the window to keep you cool and awake