LCA News and Discussions

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Jul 2010 18:03

the canopy is blown away first in any ejection sequence.

ShivaS · Post by **ShivaS** » 24 Jul 2010 18:48

To make rivet free skins you need Hi tech extrusion. forming methods with very good control on tolerances other wise instead of Dream girl Hema malini (ok Hema mami) we end up like Nanacy Polosi speaker of the house with a stiff face(lift).
So using Riemann integral method make chota pannel rivet maro and polish karo

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jul 2010 20:02

Actually the helmet is attached to the canopy and when the canopy opens during eject the helmet is removed so that fresh air can come in.

Let's move on

kvraghav · Post by **kvraghav** » 25 Jul 2010 00:08

Some LCA trainer pics from militaryphotos.net

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/at ... 1279982743
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/at ... 1279982742
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/at ... 1279982744

Sorry if it is repost.

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 25 Jul 2010 01:08

The ventral portion (underside) of the aircraft gets tapered off from the centre pylon towards the engine exhaust.
This line could be kept simply straight (similar to Mirage/Eurofighter Typhoon) in Tejas MkII to accomodate a bigger engine say more than 100 KN thrust. Offcourse the fuselage of that portion would have to be tweaked to incorporate the bigger diameter.

This is phenomenon is with Rafale as well....

LCA line drawing :--
http://img329.imageshack.us/i/800pxtejas3viewbom4.gif/
Rafale Line drawing:--
http://img478.imageshack.us/i/novi13ot.jpg/

Eurofighter line drawing :--
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ng.svg.png

Vikram W · Post by **Vikram W** » 25 Jul 2010 01:13

KrishG wrote:

Clearly shows the auxiliary intakes.

the video says its a maiden flight but don't they usually leave the under carriage un-retracted on maiden flights ? ...just curious

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 25 Jul 2010 02:00

Avinandan wrote: Rafale Line drawing:--
http://img478.imageshack.us/i/novi13ot.jpg/

That is not the Rafale. That's the Yugoslavian Novi Avion. The single engine should have alerted you methinks.

naird · Post by **naird** » 25 Jul 2010 03:16

enqyoob wrote:Move over, Dileep.I have a much stoopider question. How come the canopy when fully open, has a nice I-beam sticking out right above the pilot's helmet? What happens if the ejection button is pressed, to that beam?

Looks like a handle to me -- also it seems that its not directly overhead -- more of sideways. The angle of the video makes it look like directly overhead.

naird · Post by **naird** » 25 Jul 2010 03:17

One chota wish list -- i wish LCA had a bubble canopy !!!

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 25 Jul 2010 06:00

During HF-24 testing, unintended canopy separation killed one or two pilots. So bubbles etc. may have been replaced by technology from solid KSRTC bus cockpit.
But hey, that is one hefty I-beam, and it looks like it is straight above the helmet.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 25 Jul 2010 06:08

one want's a bubble canopy, the IAF want's a better engine/avionics, and I want a modern cockpit a la 5 generation) a massive screen with IPad like Touchscreen interface, and Pixel Qi Hi-def Screen!!! Phew, it's a good think WE don't write up the ASR's or else, LCA will never reach MKII design specs!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Jul 2010 07:03

enqyoob wrote: But hey, that is one hefty I-beam, and it looks like it is straight above the helmet.

There are 3 types of air combat
1) BVR
2) WVR
3) Hand to hand

In the last type the enemy pilot will try to prise open the canopy with a knife/screwdriver and put a hand inside to stab the pilot or remove the ignition key. At that time a hefty I-beam is handy. At the press of a button the canopy clamps down and cuts off the enemy pilot's hand.

More seriously I believe enqyoob is merely pointing out things which might make a future lighter LCA

"From Ellseeyay to Yellellseeyay"

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jul 2010 07:50

Check these pictures, the "I_beam" is way to the right of the pilot's head placement:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... t.jpg.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... s.jpg.html

In this, if the pilot were to raise his left hand it would not touch the I-beam:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... A.jpg.html

Look at the MiG-29/35, it is right above his head:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... t.jpg.html

MKI, the rear pilot is toast per the argument:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... 4.JPG.html

In none of them it is an issue. The canopy should blow off first.

kit · Post by **kit** » 25 Jul 2010 08:53

can the LCA mark 2 be designed with internal bomb bays and more stealth features similar to the silent Eagle, and a more powerful engine, which i guess is already on the way.The RCS would probably be one the lowest !

kit · Post by **kit** » 25 Jul 2010 09:03

Craig Alpert wrote:one want's a bubble canopy, the IAF want's a better engine/avionics, and I want a modern cockpit a la 5 generation) a massive screen with IPad like Touchscreen interface, and Pixel Qi Hi-def Screen!!! Phew, it's a good think WE don't write up the ASR's or else, LCA will never reach MKII design specs!

I guess Elbit systems new display is the answer to your question ! It looks like the IPAD of cockpit displays !

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Elbit_S ... G_999.html

"Advanced data and sensor fusion, a smart electronic flight bag and a 3D vector map including embedded video and highway-in-the-sky (HITS) representation are fully integrated into the solution."

source : spacedaily.com

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 25 Jul 2010 09:09

kit wrote:can the LCA mark 2 be designed with internal bomb bays and more stealth features similar to the silent Eagle, and a more powerful engine, which i guess is already on the way.The RCS would probably be one the lowest !

I think it can be LCA mark 3

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 25 Jul 2010 10:09

vic wrote: Did you read the news about Turbomca blackmailing HAL over the cost of 'integrating' engine & gearbox for LoH. Now the engine, gearbox and Helo is supposed to be JV or indigenous or being manufactured in India itself. Inspite thereof...... The reason is that technology absorbtion is very very low. No funds at all are spent for Labs, evolutionary technolgoy or modification research at all. Now days even R&D is being outsourced to like israeli and russians using indian tax payers money

this is why I get sick whenever I hear some idiot yelling "WE ARE GETTING TOT!!!" as if its anything other screw driver technology.

All one is getting is a big bill to subsidize the R&D base of a foreign country.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 25 Jul 2010 10:18

doesn't the 2 seater LCA look so much nicer than the Eurofighter?

it looks like an F-16 crossed with a Mirage 2000.

Eurofighter : http://img7.abload.de/img/2776aw.jpg

LCA : http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/at ... 1279982742

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 25 Jul 2010 10:24

enqyoob wrote:During HF-24 testing, unintended canopy separation .

More of an inadvertant canopy opening - but seperation did not follow - so the canopy was stuck at 90 degree angle in open position at a critical take off stage - creating immense drag and more importantly failing to arm the ejection seat - which would happen only if the canopy seperated.. This was the Suranjan Das Accident.

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 25 Jul 2010 11:49

nachiket wrote:
Avinandan wrote: Rafale Line drawing:--
http://img478.imageshack.us/i/novi13ot.jpg/
That is not the Rafale. That's the Yugoslavian Novi Avion. The single engine should have alerted you methinks.

My bad

, I never knew about the existense of this aircraft. From frontal section, you wont be able to make out whether its a Rafale or Avion. Upon reading about the history of Novi Avion, I found out that it was shelved. How come no body tried to pursue it, from the looks of it, it would have become quite a good fighter plane..

Sorry for being OT this once.

Vikram W · Post by **Vikram W** » 25 Jul 2010 12:18

whats a TFTA take off though ? couldnt find it on google

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 25 Jul 2010 12:28

Vikram W wrote:whats a TFTA take off though ? couldnt find it on google

In ze words of the Grand Puba Ul Turbiny a TFTA take off can only be performed by those jets whose creators are tall and fair...and uber special like our taller than mountain neighbours to the west...an Indian jet is inherently incapable of such a feat because its creators are SDRE small dark rice eating....thus it can only take off using the whole the runway and more....

Anshul · Post by **Anshul** » 25 Jul 2010 12:39

andy B wrote:
Vikram W wrote:whats a TFTA take off though ? couldnt find it on google
In ze words of the Grand Puba Ul Turbiny a TFTA take off can only be performed by those jets whose creators are tall and fair...and uber special like our taller than mountain neighbours to the west...an Indian jet is inherently incapable of such a feat because its creators are SDRE small dark rice eating....thus it can only take off using the whole the runway and more....

Al Ladeni Mazaaki...! All TFTA aslaat has a flight path which is aligned to fly westwards before vectoring towards the actual target direction.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 25 Jul 2010 13:47

Very good video. At least no nava mujahid is complaining about chappal clad SDRE HAL employees using the LCA's wing as an umbrella.

Gp. Capt. Krishna looks much younger than the other test pilots in that programme, no?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Jul 2010 14:02

NRao wrote:Check these pictures, the "I_beam" is way to the right of the pilot's head placement:

Just wondering if enqyoob means something different. Is it really necessary to have such a thick I- beam? If it was slimmer - just thick enough to hold the transparent canopy maybe 15-20 Kg could be shaved off the weight if you include the reduced weight of actuators to lift the canopy.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 25 Jul 2010 16:27

Sorry to interject in the discussion, but that is NOT called an I-beam. Enqyood called it an I-beam because it just looks kind like an I-beam from one angle in the video. That is just the canopy frame and it is thick and sturdy because the canopy is quite thick (strength is important to withstand birdstrikes etc).

An I-beam is what they use in construction to support heavy loads due to its excellent longitudinal load bearing ability (on the flanges of I) and it is made from rolled steel-something that not many designers like to add to their airplanes due to its high specific weight compared to things like Aluminium - which is probably what the frame of the canopy is actually made of.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Jul 2010 16:53

Brando wrote:Sorry to interject in the discussion, but that is NOT called an I-beam. Enqyood called it an I-beam because it just looks kind like an I-beam from one angle in the video.

Well thanks for the clarification - but I was guessing what enqyoob meant and the only common factor I could find between his 3 comments was weight. I think even the fourth grader enqyoob can see that the left "I Beam (or whatever) " sits directly above the right "I beam (or whatever)" and out of way of the pilots head in the fully open position. In the half open position all bets are off.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 25 Jul 2010 18:09

Well, I shouldn't even DREAM about misunderestimating a kindergartner, especially when he was known to have scribbled flow calculations on the midwife's hand. Being said that, apart from the obvious points a) it is NOT above the head in reality and b) it gets blown away during ejection, It doesn't look too thick or heavy given the size of the canopy to my SDRE ITVty myopitic eyes.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 25 Jul 2010 19:43

Saar log, if the canopy opens sideways, does it mean that it needs to be blown away in the same fashion during an ejection? IMVVHO, the canopy jettisions the same way i.e. front part goes up and the wind shears the rest whether the canopy opens sideways or backwards.

Cheers....

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 25 Jul 2010 23:26

What is this I-Beam, hain? My SDRE vision cannot spot it

Is it referring to the underside of the canopy frame? I thought in case of a successful blow out during ejection, the side opening canopies get blown out up and way off to the side and rest taken care of by nature? In case of unsuccessful blow out, it will be anybody's guess depending on where the canopy is stuck.

Telang · Post by **Telang** » 26 Jul 2010 03:43

Please close this I beam discusiion. We are making a mountain out of the mole hill.

Vikram W · Post by **Vikram W** » 26 Jul 2010 12:29

Anshul wrote:
andy B wrote:whats a TFTA take off though ? couldnt find it on google

In ze words of the Grand Puba Ul Turbiny a TFTA take off can only be performed by those jets whose creators are tall and fair...and uber special like our taller than mountain neighbours to the west...an Indian jet is inherently incapable of such a feat because its creators are SDRE small dark rice eating....thus it can only take off using the whole the runway and more....
Al Ladeni Mazaaki...! All TFTA aslaat has a flight path which is aligned to fly westwards before vectoring towards the actual target direction.

The qoostion kinda still remains unanswered

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 26 Jul 2010 12:49

^^^^ http://sites.google.com/site/brfdictionary/glossary/t/tfta

A TFTA take-off would be one that has a rapid increase in the angle-of-attack, owing to the tremendous thrust-to-weight ratio than one can stereotypically expect in aircraft from uber-advanced TFTA nations.

A SDRE take-off would, stereotypically, be more gradual / graceful owing to a lower thrust-to-weight ratio, national inability to tolerate a crash, lower fuel budgets, bindaas attitude, etc. etc.

Mods please castigate if incorrect.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 26 Jul 2010 22:58

shiv wrote: Is it really necessary to have such a thick I- beam? If it was slimmer - just thick enough to hold the transparent canopy maybe 15-20 Kg could be shaved off the weight if you include the reduced weight of actuators to lift the canopy.

My Holy Kitab-e-Bania says "more metal, better resale"

(explains those metal fasteners too)

baithavay, wont the entire canopy be blown off the hinges and the pilot majestically soars up like an MP during Sansad Zero hour?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Jul 2010 23:34

OT

Vikram W wrote: The qoostion kinda still remains unanswered

this is the original definition. http://sites.google.com/site/brfdiction ... ary/t/tfta
in BRspeak the term is also used as a stand-in for a superlative e.g http://sites.google.com/site/brfdiction ... -madarassa

so, a TFTA take-off means a high performance take-off i.e one that uses a relatively small take off run.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 27 Jul 2010 00:11

shiv wrote:
NRao wrote:Check these pictures, the "I_beam" is way to the right of the pilot's head placement:
Just wondering if enqyoob means something different. Is it really necessary to have such a thick I- beam? If it was slimmer - just thick enough to hold the transparent canopy maybe 15-20 Kg could be shaved off the weight if you include the reduced weight of actuators to lift the canopy.

It is not a great leap of faith to assume that ADA designers are quite competent, and they are quite aware that their aircraft is overweight. As such it is reasonable to assume that they have already looked at obvious places to reduce weight and gain efficiencies. I would think that if a BRF poster can think of reducing weight by just looking at a picture, for sure the ADA designers that work with the aircraft day in and day out, and have weights of each component listed, would have thought of it as well and would have taken corrective measures already?

PS: I am aware of enqyoob and his association with Guggenheim.

Mr_Li · Post by **Mr_Li** » 27 Jul 2010 01:37

Tanaji,
good choice of words. from someone else it'd be called flame-b'ting.
BTW LCA is looking better every day. A good design normally is a good looking design as well. It will surely kick butt. They should induct min 250 + another 100 naval LCA

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 27 Jul 2010 05:01

Gee! Thanks for all the speculation about why I asked what I asked, and the deeper magical powers and Classified Info behind the question. Actually I was asked by the PAF to post that and show how inferior the sdre ell cee yay is compared to the F17 Bandar where the pilot sits facing backwards.

Here is why I asked: Last time I forgot that I was sitting under something, and got up, I bonked my head badly. So I was wondering from looking at the video whether the thing shown above the pilot's head as he is putting on his helmet, is something attached above the seat, that will get blasted off with the canopy during an ejection sequence, or is the pilot expected to reach up, grab it and do a Tarzan swing out of the aircraft. What is that thing anyway? Is it the bottom edge of the left side of the canopy?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jul 2010 07:58

enqyoob wrote: Is it the bottom edge of the left side of the canopy?

Yes that is the I beam

But now that my interest has been aroused

here i a pic of an F-16 canopy. No I beam. But the transparent part is held by hajaar rivets. What gets blasted off in an ejection? The whole metal frame or something less than that?

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft ... con_17.jpg

negi · Post by **negi** » 27 Jul 2010 08:12

^ Google chacha says the entire frame is blown off however for some reason if it fails to go off the next event in ejection sequence shatters the canopy before the seat is actually ejected.