Gagan - your horizontal is a bit off - but on correction it is 17 degrees. In the still image in my video link above it looks like 24 degrees but the angle is not side-on in the latter.Gagan wrote:From that video posted by Shiv, of the two mirages flying in formation in High AoA with the HPT-32.
This is a screen grab. I don't have a protractor, can someone use one on his screen and do a rough estimate of the AoA?
Yes. That is the thing that strikes you obviously at first. In addition, the NLCA seems to have a single wheel front nose wheel, while the normal LCA has two. But the oleo sturts and everything seems much thicker, longer and beefed up .shiv wrote:LCA-NLCA undercarriage differences:
Thicker. Longer. Very TFTA Smaller wheel?
Nah.. The Sea Harrier has a totally different undercarriage scheme. It is tandem bogey wheels along the centerline , with wheels at the wingtips. Plus, this is a tailless delta, while the harrier is a conventional layout.chackojoseph wrote:Had the intake not been under the wings it would have been "almost" a sea harrier clone.
Thicker gears are required to sustain higher stress during carrier landings at higher landing angles.shiv wrote:LCA-NLCA undercarriage differences:
Thicker. Longer. Very TFTA Smaller wheel?
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a11/cy ... lca-uc.jpg
Yes sir. One of the problems as expressed to me at Aero India 2009 by the Naval LCA team when I met them was the possibility of "overdesign" of the landing gear. In the absence of any previous Indian experience nobody wants to risk making the gear too weak - but making it too strong increases the weight penalty a great deal. A 10% weight saving in the landing gear translated to far greater weight savings in the main structure itself which has to carry and bear lesser stresses.sameer_shelavale wrote: Thicker gears are required to sustain higher stress during carrier landings at higher landing angles.
Carrier runways are always more smooth so small wheels will do without any problem and will also help reduce the weight a bit.
longer gear is required to maintain enough clearance from ground while landing at higher angles.
The landing gear appears to be fixed in a different area - the original LCA has gear that extends out at an angle from the fuselage. this one seems to be underwing and more vertical.Venu wrote:Looks like this is still work-in-progress.
I wasn't speaking technically. Just a casual look from the side and the intakes etc.vina wrote:Nah.. The Sea Harrier has a totally different undercarriage scheme. It is tandem bogey wheels along the centerline , with wheels at the wingtips. Plus, this is a tailless delta, while the harrier is a conventional layout.
House panel not happy with progress of LCA Tejas project
Special Correspondent
Says problem with engine should be expeditiously sorted out
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence on Thursday strongly recommended that problems with the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) ‘Tejas' project be sorted out to make it operational within the stipulated timeframe, without further cost overruns.
With over Rs.13,000 crore sanctioned for the project during the last 27 years, the Committee, in its latest report tabled in Parliament, said the problem with the engine should be expeditiously sorted out either by importing it or persisting with the existing one.
The project was sanctioned in 1983 with the original cost of Rs.560 crore. Its first phase was completed in April 2004 at a cost of Rs.2,188 crore, including the original sanctioned estimate, it said.
For the second phase, a sum of Rs.3,301.87 crore was sanctioned with a probable date of completion of December 31, 2008. It is now likely to be finished by 2012 with an additional fund of Rs.2,475.78 crore.
In November 2009, the project was accorded sanction to continue full-scale engineering development till December 2018 with an additional cost of Rs.5,302.98 crore.
As regards problem with the engine, the Committee was informed that it had been decided to import a suitable engine to replace Kaveri and technical evaluation of offers received was being conducted. (According to reports, GE 414 and Eurojet were in the race to provide the engine).
“…the Committee concluded that this is a very sorry state of affairs. Even when 27 years have passed since LCA was sanctioned it has still to see the light of the day,'' the report noted.
I thought they are still behind Boeing. Thanks for the update.Kanson wrote:>>Isn't both Sukhoi and MiG doing their own carrier versions? I wonder why ADA can't talk to them about the landing gear.
EADS was roped in as design consultant for this.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence on Thursday strongly recommended that problems with the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) ‘Tejas' project be sorted out to make it operational within the stipulated timeframe, without further cost overruns.
Well Philip, any aircraft will have a max landing weight and it's maximum bring back load will depend on that. It doesn't matter it is an AF version or a Navy version. For eg, a Jaguar IM will not dump a Sea Eagle missile while landing, or for that matter a Mirage 2000 will not dump it's 500kg LGB loads just to land. In such cases, they will make sure that the fuel is used up /dumped so that they come within the bring back load the undercarriage is designed for.Philip wrote:One problem that the naval variant will have is weaponload.The naval version will have to carry anti-ship missiles,most probably air launched versions of Uran,apart from other anti-air missiles.Now it will have to land with these weapons as well as during peacetime exercises,as it cannot dump into the sea such expensive ordnance.Therefore landing with a ful load of weaponry will require the undercarriage to be able to take the extra stress when performing carrier landings unlike the air force vesrion.
The STOVL is an evolutionary dead end. The only reason why it is even happening is because the US has the USMC. Now if the proposal to merge the USMC and USNavy are done for any reason, the USMC carriers will get the chop and with that go the STOVL versions of JSF.The angle of descent when landing will also have to ensure that none of the ordnance hits the deck first too,especially an anti-ship missile!
That is why the Brits were so happy with the Harrier as Harrier vertical landings were tension free and plumped for the STOVL version of the JSF
A STOVL version of PAK_FA doesn't exist, and even if it did, it would be so compromised in performance to be nearly a dud. Just think of it, taking and landing a 30ton beast vertically takes massive engine thrust.. It needs atleast 30ton!. A catapult is a far wiser and proven solution.I wish that the IN also get involved with the PAK-FA 5th-gen fighter and examine the possibility of acquiring a STOVL version of it,which would also be very useful for the Russians who plan to build several carriers in the future.Such a design would obviate the need for a catapult aboard a larger deck.
Philip wrote:One problem that the naval variant will have is weaponload.The naval version will have to carry anti-ship missiles,most probably air launched versions of Uran,apart from other anti-air missiles.Now it will have to land with these weapons as well as during peacetime exercises,as it cannot dump into the sea such expensive ordnance.Therefore landing with a ful load of weaponry will require the undercarriage to be able to take the extra stress when performing carrier landings unlike the air force vesrion.The angle of descent when landing will also have to ensure that none of the ordnance hits the deck first too,especially an anti-ship missile!
That is why the Brits were so happy with the Harrier as Harrier vertical landings were tension free and plumped for the STOVL version of the JSF.I wish that the IN also get involved with the PAK-FA 5th-gen fighter and examine the possibility of acquiring a STOVL version of it,which would also be very useful for the Russians who plan to build several carriers in the future.Such a design would obviate the need for a catapult aboard a larger deck.
it suddenly struck me, I am not aware of any other naval fighter with delta wings! normally deltas need high take off and landing speeds and therefore runway length, so the wing design with all the gadgets is a real technological advanceFlight Control system is augmented with Leading Edge Vortex Controller (LEVCON) aiding reduction in approach speed for Carrier Landing.
Lalmohan wrote: it suddenly struck me, I am not aware of any other naval fighter with delta wings! normally deltas need high take off and landing speeds and therefore runway length, so the wing design with all the gadgets is a real technological advance
Yes, there is. Mirage iiiM variant was for carrier based ops, though it seems it was not put into productionit suddenly struck me, I am not aware of any other naval fighter with delta wings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_IIIThe Mirage IIIM was a carrier-based variant, with catapult spool and arresting hook, for operation with the French Aéronavale
The actual pilot is the last and he is completely overshadowed!nits wrote:
7 people about to sit in cockpit
Longer gear means higher oleo travel as well, which means it can absorb more punishment when it basically is "crashed controllably" onto the carrier deck.sameer_shelavale wrote: Thicker gears are required to sustain higher stress during carrier landings at higher landing angles.
Carrier runways are always more smooth so small wheels will do without any problem and will also help reduce the weight a bit.
longer gear is required to maintain enough clearance from ground while landing at higher angles.
Chacko, even casually speaking, the SHar and the N-LCA share almost no similarity looks wise except maybe for similar physical dimensions of length. the wing planform, the huge "elephant ears" intakes on the SHar are very different from the small under-wing shielded intakes on the N-LCA.chackojoseph wrote:
I wasn't speaking technically. Just a casual look from the side and the intakes etc.
Philip, all fighters, especially naval, have a fixed maximum bring-back load which is a compromise to make between 3 main factors- the more you want as bring-back load, the higher the airframe strength will need to be and hence the higher the corresponding airframe and landing gear weight. This in turn will increase the empty weight and reduce payload so several studies will be done to arrive at a best bring-back load keeping all these factors in mind. Second- the higher the bring back load, the lower the fatigue life of the fighter. And third, the fact that in almost all peacetime scenarios, fighters don't operate with their full up load. When they will need to do so, the pilot will most likely dump fuel as required while approaching the carrier. So, the N-LCA will need a fuel dump system that the IAF version doesn't have.Philip wrote:One problem that the naval variant will have is weaponload.The naval version will have to carry anti-ship missiles,most probably air launched versions of Uran,apart from other anti-air missiles.Now it will have to land with these weapons as well as during peacetime exercises,as it cannot dump into the sea such expensive ordnance.Therefore landing with a ful load of weaponry will require the undercarriage to be able to take the extra stress when performing carrier landings unlike the air force vesrion.The angle of descent when landing will also have to ensure that none of the ordnance hits the deck first too,especially an anti-ship missile!
That is why the Brits were so happy with the Harrier as Harrier vertical landings were tension free and plumped for the STOVL version of the JSF.I wish that the IN also get involved with the PAK-FA 5th-gen fighter and examine the possibility of acquiring a STOVL version of it,which would also be very useful for the Russians who plan to build several carriers in the future.Such a design would obviate the need for a catapult aboard a larger deck.
I think the pilot will have to sit outside of the canopy on the back spine of the jet and try to fly the plane from there.Acharya wrote:The actual pilot is the last and he is completely overshadowed!nits wrote:
7 people about to sit in cockpit
Undoubtedly!! A very beautiful one!!Cybaru wrote:That's a beautiful bird! Congrats to ADA.
