LCA News and Discussions

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 19 Nov 2010 12:12

sameer_shelavale

Please don't use B.E.N.I.S. lingo here

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 19 Nov 2010 12:14

singhaji there have been three night flights
http://www.ada.gov.in/awards.htm

LCA FIRST FLIGHTS

....
FIRST NIGHT FLIGHT
PV3 07 Nov 08

TOTAL FLIGHTS
2001 012
2002 034
2003 095
2004 180
2005 159
2006 105
2007 213
2008 191(3)
2009 280
2010 183
Total 1452(3)
* Night Flights

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 19 Nov 2010 12:15

Singha wrote:is LSP-5 the final IOC config ? there is no more time left until Dec end IOC.

does it sport radar ?

has any of the LSP/PV done night flying tests yet to check the cockpit lighting or only LSP5+ will have it?

I think one of the LSP did do night flying

ShivaS · Post by **ShivaS** » 19 Nov 2010 12:25

In addition to what Kartik said about composites, please note the drawing should stipulate "build the composite layer by layer in one axis orientation " then as good PSU workers would do they will lay them criss cross (unlike Narial or coco nut fibre in one axis ways). This will further strenghten the composite part, like a Tire Ply matrial which is cris cross layer after layer...

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 19 Nov 2010 12:41

krishnan wrote:
Singha wrote:is LSP-5 the final IOC config ? there is no more time left until Dec end IOC.
does it sport radar ?
has any of the LSP/PV done night flying tests yet to check the cockpit lighting or only LSP5+ will have it?
I think one of the LSP did do night flying

yeh but that was old cockpit right ?
as they have upgraded the cockpit now, there should be some night flight again as per my opinion.

vina · Post by **vina** » 19 Nov 2010 12:49

Singha wrote:is LSP-5 the final IOC config ? there is no more time left until Dec end IOC.

does it sport radar ?

has any of the LSP/PV done night flying tests yet to check the cockpit lighting or only LSP5+ will have it?

Yes, Yes & Yes. I think that this is the final IOC config. All the parts would have been tested at a component/individual level in various platforms /prototypes and I think the LSP 5 is the version in which it is all brought together in one platform.

pali · Post by **pali** » 19 Nov 2010 13:04

If a LSP has flown before in night than it must've had cockpit night light. So why is often said that LSP-5 is the first aircraft with cockpit night lights?? Also any news on LSP-6?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Nov 2010 13:05

mashallah, its time to plan for IOC induction in Sulur then. will be proud day to see the whole lineup in IAF colours finally.

maybe the night lighting thing is special NVG compatible lights that pilots need to test out for NVG wearing strike missions. apart from RAF tornadoes I have yet to hear of any strike a/c pilots wearing NVG on missions though....helicopter gunships do use them.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 19 Nov 2010 13:47

yes I heard the roar and correctly guessed.

Couldnt see since I was in meetings from morning

TGIF

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 19 Nov 2010 13:52

Great news ... was waiting for it since a long time .... be force with you

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 19 Nov 2010 14:58

Rahul M wrote:
nachiket wrote: While 2080 may be an exaggeration, with wet dreams like Fly By Light, Helmet displays eliminating HUDs etc., etc. included in the AMCA configuration, do you expect to see the AMCA flying around in the next 20-25 years?
I really think this is a very silly way of going about AMCA. they should have focused on getting AMCA Mk1 with mostly existing items with the space age thingies planned for Mk2 and onwards. develop those as separate projects and integrate them with AMCA when mature. that way the aircraft will not get held up for a few 'good to have' items.

unless they know something we have no inkling about there is a very real danger that we will see serious delays on account of these uber sophisticated tech.

Second we must realise that our engineering and manfactering base is limited therefore IAF should have realistic aims. The aims and specifications for AMCA seem toooo demanding, hence IAF should set the bar lower, production figure and budget higher!
if aroor's previous reports are correct IAF didn't ask for a death star, they asked something within capabilities that would come on time.
this time it is DRDO that is guilty of over-specification.
* again, assuming aroor's reports are correct.

Hi Rahul, I do know this is not appreciated here. But considering the situation, i'm quoting the material to bring the matter so we may increase our understanding - only in good spirit.

When he first put this open, there was not much concrete information. Now as we are going to sign MoU with Russia on this project and we are much into this project and with some specs of AMCA out thanks to Aroor and similarly the published information of tech sharing between FGFA and home grown AMCA project, i felt very tempting to rehash this information which came long back.

This is from P***** sen gupta, from his blog with the title fgfa-conundrum-explained published in Oct 2008
http://preview.tinyurl.com/22s57hw

As for the distributed avionics suite of the MFS/FGFA, Russia has given the DRDO and HAL a free hand to define and design the open-architecture cockpit and mission avionics suites and an integrated self-defence suite. The quadruplex fly-by-light flight control system (yes, the IAF has insisted on it, while the Russian version of the MFS/FGFA will use fly-by-wire flight controls) will be jointly developed by the DRDO and Embraer,

As the specs of Aroor talk about fly-by-light for AMCA, can be we able to verify this information?

1. Will FGFA( Indian PAKFA) supports fly-by-light ?
2. Is this a requirement from AF or atleast HAL/DRDO considered meaningful to implement this within the time frame if this true ?

With Aero India 2011 around the corner, we will be more informed about both these projects. Thanks.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 19 Nov 2010 15:15

RamaY wrote:A newbie question.

I thought DRDO/HAL developed the fabricating machines for the composite parts, and they kind of make these parts layer by layer, like a printer (for lack of better word).

How difficult it would be to change the fab machines, if HAL decides to make a different fighter parts (need not be LCA)? This question came up in NJ-Jirga meeting and I am curious to know that whatever DRDO/HAL learned/developed in the process can be reused >50% in any new fighter

I understand that the new assembly has to be tested for thousands of hours.

In addition to earlier fine replies, afaik, we are using injection moulding technique, so i think, the size depends on mould which can be custom made and more particularly the workspace size of autoclave. This is most automated process in composite manufacturing. As i guess, you are probably under the impression that we need to import different fabs machines than the one already we have for manufacturing bigger composite structures and needed foreign help to do so, the given link below clears such apprehension.

http://www.nal.res.in/pages/ipoct10.htm

Unique Chemoplant Equipments (UCE), Mumbai, will market autoclaves developed by one of the premier R&D institution of the country, the National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL) of Council & Scientific Industrial Research (CSIR).

When autoclaves were in embargo list of exporting countries, CSIR-NAL has started development of indigenous autoclaves for aerospace applications, i.e. for manufacture of advanced polymer composite structural components of aircraft such as LCA. Over the years, it has developed several autoclaves meeting different requirements. While Mark-IV is the latest and largest indigenous autoclave ever built in the country with a working space as big as 4.4 m (D)x9m(L), the Mark-III is specially built for ever growing R&D needs for high temperature composites.

The technology has matured and the autoclaves developed have been highly reliable, demonstrated by the fact that one of the autoclaves as large as 4m(D)x8m(L), supplied by CSIR-NAL, has been functioning very effectively as work-horse at one of the premier PSUs, over the last decade.

In line with the character of CSIR, NAL has established long term collaborative tie-ups with private industry. While, M/s Unique Chemoplants will manufacture all mechanical hardware, in addition to marketing; M/s DATASOL, Bangalore, would fabricate all electrical & electronics hardware. These will operate as back to back arrangements, so as to deliver the autoclaves with out any loss of time, avoiding the usual sub-contracting procedures. The main impetus of this exercise is not only to mitigate imports, but to foster private public participation on a firm basis. Prospective buyers can see the functioning of these autoclaves at CSIR-NAL.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 19 Nov 2010 21:47

You guys already know

She Flew

This is the IOC config. Bit late though.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Nov 2010 22:36

Actually the first flight of LSP-5 is good news for my boss ... I can concentrate on my work now

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Nov 2010 22:55

Biradar log, where is the phutva of the long awaited birdie finally flexing its wings? With the recent glut of JF-17 Bandar pics, it will be a welcome sight to see our Tejas instead.

Regarding the night lighting for cockpit I too feel that it is actually regarding NVG compatible cockpit lighting. Basically the brightness of all displays and lights have to be capable of being toned down to within the limits of the NVG, otherwise pilots would get blinded by bright LCD screens when wearing NVG goggles over their helmets during night attack sorties.

Does anyone know which NVG goggles the IAF uses?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Nov 2010 23:07

Also does anybody else here thinks that putting the auxiliary air intakes at the bottom of the air intakes makes more sense than at the side? ( I must agree that it is as fabrication night mare because of the curvature).

Or else can somebody prove that it is a stupid idea in first place?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Nov 2010 01:56

I guess gurus will confirm the following for you-
1. Sideways are perfect for high AoA, less drag and vortex issues.
2. Good for Supercruise as well.
3. The Y duct does everything for RCS for you already, in addition to composite stealthy LCA.
4. Too late in the game even think about it.

Enjoy the LSP5 pics.. where are they? BTW, this carry the Elta 2052 right?

It is time to get the high definition pics for the jingos.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 20 Nov 2010 02:07

high res pics from tarmak007
lsp5 pics

Btw, why this question whether it flew with radar, arent all lsps after 3 supposed to have radar ?

Tamang · Post by **Tamang** » 20 Nov 2010 02:13

Tejas' debut flight in operational configuration

Bangalore: India's light combat aircraft Tejas, in its march towards operational status, achieved an important milestone today when it made its first flight.

The fifth Limited Series Production (LSP5) aircraft, the first LCA in the operational configuration for the Indian Air Force, was piloted by test pilot Lt Cdr Ankur Jain from the Indian Navy.

The aircraft took off at 1054 hours and achieved a maximum speed of 0.8 Mach, 4G turns and an altitude of 11 km during the 40-minute flight.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 Nov 2010 02:21

Sai sahab.

I think I conveyed the wrong question. I mean auxiliary intakes rather than intakes. I have corrected my post.

The auxiliary air intake door at the bottom makes perfect sense for AoA, much like Su-30s/PAKFA's auxiliary intake slits.

.

As I said, I can see that the intake being more roundish at the bottom, it is more difficult to fabricate. I can't think of how to hinge the door. However at the sides of the intake which are much more flat, the hinge is very simple to make.

can you/other gurus see any other reasons for not implementing the aux intake door at the bottom? Or do any of think that the placement of the door at the bottom will not make a difference in first place, so why bother.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Nov 2010 02:56

thanks for the pics suryag.

indranilroy, comparing the two pics one on the ground and in the air, the camouflage if you are planning should suit for both these shots.

Just in case if you are still interested. btw, how is that going?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 Nov 2010 03:24

^^^ Completely lost you sir

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 20 Nov 2010 03:50

indranilroy wrote:Sai sahab.

I think I conveyed the wrong question. I mean auxiliary intakes rather than intakes. I have corrected my post.

The auxiliary air intake door at the bottom makes perfect sense for AoA, much like Su-30s/PAKFA's auxiliary intake slits.

.

As I said, I can see that the intake being more roundish at the bottom, it is more difficult to fabricate. I can't think of how to hinge the door. However at the sides of the intake which are much more flat, the hinge is very simple to make.

can you/other gurus see any other reasons for not implementing the aux intake door at the bottom? Or do any of think that the placement of the door at the bottom will not make a difference in first place, so why bother.

It can be done if it is needed that way so manufacturing or hinge design will not be an issue. On the 747 there is a "burp" door that acts in a slightly different manner but the essential aspect is that it's opening and closing is controlled by a spring- and it is at the bottom of the airplane. When the cavity pressure increases, the door automatically is pushed outwards thus releasing the pressure. This particular door can be designed in the opposite way, to open up inwards when pressure acts on it. Even the existing LCA's auxiliary intake doors are spring loaded.

One reason I can think of for not placing the auxiliary door at the bottom will be a higher likelihood of FOD ingestion during take-off phase and also higher likelihood of gun-gas ingestion since the GSh-23 is placed somewhat slightly aft of the intake on the LCA.

Besides, the auxiliary door on the side of the intake is a tried and tested approach so the designers know that it works. A new approach may be riskier and the benefits highly questionable.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 20 Nov 2010 03:55

And where is the question of the Elta 2052 being raised now ? Its been disclosed a long time ago that the Tejas Mk1 will fly with the Elta-2032/MMR hybrid.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 Nov 2010 04:15

Kartik, thanks for the reply.

Kartik wrote: On the 747 there is a "burp" door

Thanks ... didn't know about this. Besides, I was wondering about the Jaguar. Its intakes are flat at the bottom and yet it didn't place the aux. door there. So there must be some reason.

Kartik wrote: One reason I can think of for not placing the auxiliary door at the bottom will be a higher likelihood of FOD ingestion during take-off phase and also higher likelihood of gun-gas ingestion since the GSh-23 is placed somewhat slightly forward of the intake on the LCA.

Very possible explanation. FOD can still be stopped with a permanent grill fitted on the outside. But the gas ingestion would be a real problem.

Kartik wrote: Besides, the auxiliary door on the side of the intake is a tried and tested approach so the designers know that it works. A new approach may be riskier and the benefits highly questionable.

Agreed ... I have to read more about this. Especially the effects when the intake is serpentine. Can't express well enough how much I would like LSP 6 to show that the present intakes are sufficient for high AoA. If it is not, the changes made in LSP-6 and Tejas Mark II for the intakes are one of my biggest itch

.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Nov 2010 05:33

indranilroy wrote: I can't think of how to hinge the door.

Have a sliding door?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 Nov 2010 06:14

Shivji, a good idea. But the sliding door would need an additional mechanism to open and close the door. Whereas the spring-hinged door doesn't. What's more the amount of opening in the hinged door is self regulatory.

Besides, a sliding door is much more maintenance intensive and has to be housed.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Nov 2010 07:18

shiv erroor got a good pic. check it out. Of course, it is pathetic of him to quote sad news along with this LSP5 report.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 20 Nov 2010 07:57

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... C_6570.jpg

from Shiv aroor blog.

One can see the opening of aux intake door during take off. And the aircraft was not doing any high AoA. Its pretty a decent climb as one can see from the pic.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 20 Nov 2010 07:58

I just noticed that they've added a small strake near the top of the fin..this seems like a new feature since it wasn't even there on PV-5 but on further looking, I found that it started off after LSP-2. is this is an anti-spin feature or to improve longitudinal control at high alpha ?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 20 Nov 2010 08:00

^ No it is the same swiveling small T-tail to solve the pitch-up problem that we discussed sometime back.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 20 Nov 2010 08:07

The question now to Shri PS would be to find out when lsp7 and 8 would be inducted, also LSP1&2 need to be upgraded considerably and LSP3 & 4 marginally to LSP 5 standards. What is the plan for that ?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 20 Nov 2010 08:24

suryag wrote:The question now to Shri PS would be to find out when lsp7 and 8 would be inducted, also LSP1&2 need to be upgraded considerably and LSP3 & 4 marginally to LSP 5 standards. What is the plan for that ?

They better concentrate on the next version than going back and try upgrade. There is no time for IOC left to pull out models for upgrades.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 20 Nov 2010 08:32

Kanson wrote:^ No it is the same swiveling small T-tail to solve the pitch-up problem that we discussed sometime back.

http://nal-ir.nal.res.in/8836/

A new concept for pitch-up alleviation on LCA was investigated. The concept involves introduction of a small swiveling Fin mounted Tail Plane (FTP) mounted above the rudder and through an active control system vary the tail plane angle to mitigate the pitch-up effect. To demonstrate the concept, a simple flat plate delta FTP was designed to fit on to an existing 1:20 scale LCA model and limited wind tunnel tests were carried out. Since simulation of varying FTP angle during wind tunnel tests was not possible, tests were conducted at discrete FTP angles of -5 deg, 0 deg, and 5 deg covering a Mach number range from 0.5 to 1.2 and a beta range of -5 deg. to 5 deg. A few tests were conducted to study the effect of FTP on rudder effectiveness and on lateral characteristics. An assessment of the supersonic drag rise due to FTP was also made at a Mach number of 1.2. Results indicated that a control system operated FTP can successfully mitigate the pitch-up problem at all transonic Mach numbers. The FTP at a fixed angle of 0 deg is found to produce a winglet type of effect and reduced the drag at subsonic and transonic Mach numbers. FTP is found to produce minimal effect on rudder and lateral characteristics. Supersonic drag rise due to FTP is also found to be minimal. While the concept is demonstrated, there is still scope for further improvements in FTP design to obtain better characteristics.

It wont be seen in LCA-Navy as it has LEVCON.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 20 Nov 2010 08:41

Thanks Kanson ! I totally forgot about that although I had read it right here on BRF..didn't realise back then that they had already implemented it.

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 20 Nov 2010 10:55

Couple of questions to the gurus...

1) Do you see IRST and other sensors being integrated into the Mk2? How easy/difficult is that? Would that delay things still further? Or do you think they'll concentrate simply on getting the engine and final radar integrated and not worry about new tech for the time being? The IAF has a worrying tendency to not look at blocks or versions, but to wait for a full and final product.

2) Why don't we offer the LCA (1 or 2) to Vietnam? We're seeing Vietnam more and more as a key ally, they only have F-5s, and they'll be very much in the front-line if China decides to make a play for the Spratlys. Also, even if we offer say 40 planes at a very reasonable rate, it would still help pay for a second production line, which we very badly need.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 20 Nov 2010 14:13

^^^Brilliant man. Yesterday was thinking about the same. Vietnam needs about 200+ aircraft to replace their obsolete aircraft. The only hindrance seems the engine. If that can also be sorted out, then surely Vietnam air force can fly the Tejas.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 20 Nov 2010 14:16

or may be there is chance for about 345 Tejas in Vietnamese air force.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Nov 2010 14:21

US will be more than happy to supply used F-solah to vietnam.

unless we have our own engine , there is little chance of exports either in planes or helicopters because the suppliers home countries have similar lucrative products and the decades long service contracts.

or we have to use an engine from a country that does not make finished products - does not exist.

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 20 Nov 2010 17:39

abhik wrote:
shiv wrote: In my view this is not bad news. It is old news. What is bad news is the plan to build AMCA aor FGFA with all those fancy technologies that WE DO NOT HAVE without having a back-up plan to build a 3 plus gen aircraft that is completely sanctions free and can be produced at short notice by India in large numbers.
So What use are those 3 plus generation planes going to be of when the Chinese do a "plane-a-day" with their 5th (5 minus if you may) generation on us?

May be for Target Practice for the Puke-y Rookies flying the JF-17 Bandar.