470 replies to this topic

[lanc]

Have a close look, doesn’t look like the trainer taking off anywhere.

Its been flying since November last year.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/38145/...kes-smooth.html
http://sify.com/news/Tejas-39-s-trainer-ve...l0ukfadfih.html


Reference to the PV-5's flight today.

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/02/today...display-at.html

http://www.business-standard.com/india/new...antony/84724/on

[parker]

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/02/exclu...ner-and_02.html

Beautiful Pictures indeed. Thanks. By the way do you know what is the RCS of tejas. It is rumored to be 1/3 of mirage 2000. But I am not sure of its RCS either. Or even Gripen. Tejas is similliar to Gripen in dimension so perhaps RCS of tejas might be somewwhere around Gripen???

[Aliph Ahmed]

By the way do you know what is the RCS of tejas. It is rumored to be 1/3 of mirage 2000. But I am not sure of its RCS either.

Does anyone know what is the RCS of LCA?

LCA is rumored to have an RCS 10 times bigger than MKI because it is of flawed design with only two control surfaces.......... But I am not sure either.

Edited later: Very ugly pictures of LCA when compared to K8 trainer's pictures.   

[parker]

Does anyone know what is the RCS of LCA?

Edited later: Very ugly pictures of LCA when compared to K8 trainer's pictures.   

K who???

Watch this...

National Geographic clip about Tejas

LCA tejas develpment- part 1

LCA Tejas Development- part 2

[Aliph Ahmed]

K who???

Watch this...

National Geographic clip about Tejas

LCA tejas develpment- part 1

LCA Tejas Development- part 2

The fact remains -- As of today even after 28 years in development :

LCA can not do more than 6 gs

LCA can not achieve higher than 20 degree AoA

LCA can not carry full weopons load.

LCA is not suitable for combat.

LCA is flying with empty fuel tanks.

LCA is flying with no radar.

LCA has not completed 550 hours in air.

    

[lanc]

[color="#2E8B57"][b]The fact remains -- As of today even after 28 years in development :

LCA can not do more than 6 gs

That's incorrect. Your source of information is from early 2008.

LCA can not achieve higher than 20 degree AoA

Same as above.

LCA can not carry full weopons load.

It can perform an air-to-air role adequately. Which sufficient for the first two squadrons.

LCA is not suitable for combat.

Its not attained IOC as yet. Its not meant to be suitable for combat.

LCA is flying with empty fuel tanks.

It has flown with full fuel tanks and still does on ferry missions.

LCA is flying with no radar.

When certified with IOC at the years end it will have been tested with the radar.

LCA has not completed 550 hours in air.

Incorrect again. It had done 530 hours in Jan 2009. And it was flown extensively in trials in 2009.

[Aliph Ahmed]

That's incorrect. Your source of information is from early 2008.
Same as above.
It can perform an air-to-air role adequately. Which sufficient for the first two squadrons.
Its not attained IOC as yet. Its not meant to be suitable for combat.
It has flown with full fuel tanks and still does on ferry missions.
When certified with IOC at the years end it will have been tested with the radar.
Incorrect again. It had done 530 hours in Jan 2009. And it was flown extensively in trials in 2009.

  I am fed up with the non ADA sources' crappy articles without mentioning the name of sources going as far back as 1990s on how super duper LCA " WILL" be.

You are doing the same. Prove your claims with links from ADA directly mentioning the source by name. Otherwise, it is just cheap talk I have been reading since 1990s !!

[lanc]

  I am fed up with the non ADA sources' crappy articles without mentioning the name of sources going as far back as 1990s on how super duper LCA " WILL" be.

You are doing the same. Prove your claims with links from ADA directly mentioning the source by name. Otherwise, it is just cheap talk I have been reading since 1990s !!

The ADA's director hasn't been speaking to the press with specific figures (something the average journalist doesn't comprehend and therefore doesn't ask).


With respect to your claims, can you post any links from the ADA that state the LSP-2's performance is the same as the prototype aircraft(which your link referred to)?
Especially after the flight envelope expansion in trials last year.

[lanc]

LCA is rumored to have an RCS 10 times bigger than MKI because it is of flawed design with only two control surfaces.......... But I am not sure either.

???

Three section slats on each wing's leading edge, elevons on the trailing edge, rudder and two airbrakes. Also, the naval version features Levcons to improve low speed handling, which is crucial for carrier landings.

[Aliph Ahmed]

The ADA's director hasn't been speaking to the press with specific figures (something the average journalist doesn't comprehend and therefore doesn't ask).

No.

ADA director has not been speaking to press because there is nothing new to tell about any change in LCA's status from 2008.

[lanc]

No.

ADA director has not been speaking to press because there is nothing new to tell about any change in LCA's status from 2008.

He has been speaking to the press. He's just not been asked for specific figures.

[Aliph Ahmed]

He has been speaking to the press. He's just not been asked for specific figures.

The ADA director probably begged the journalists not to ask him for specific figures before the press conference.

[lanc]

The ADA director probably begged the journalists not to ask him for specific figures before the press conference.

Resorting to rhetoric?



BTW what made you think the Tejas had only two control surfaces?

[Aliph Ahmed]

BTW what made you think the Tejas had only two control surfaces?

Do you even know what control surfaces mean? Just goes to show your lack of knowledge.

All modern aircrafts have THREE (3) control surfaces:

1. Elevators
2. Rudder
3. Ailerons

What the dumb Indian scientists did with piece of junk LCA is that they combined Ailerons and Elevators and came up with one surface called Elevons.

Now if you see any modern delta wing aircraft ( Rafale, Eurofighter, Grippen, J-10) they all have three control surfaces :

1. Rudder
2. Elevon
3. Canards

LCA is the only piece of junk plane with only two control surfaces:

1. Rudder
2. Elevon
   
   Heck, even the upgraded 1960' Mirages of Israel and South Africa added third control surface in the shape of Canards.

  

Edited later: Even K8 trainer has Three (3) control surfaces.  

[lanc]

Do you even know what control surfaces mean? Just goes to show your lack of knowledge.

Look up your information again. Slat, elevon, air brake, rudder, flap, aileron, elevator etc are all flight control surfaces.

Six slats, four elevons, two airbrakes and a rudder equals 13 control surfaces.

All modern aircrafts have THREE (3) control surfaces:

1. Elevators
2. Rudder
3. Ailerons

Look up your information again.

What the dumb Indian scientists did with piece of junk LCA is that they combined Ailerons and Elevators and came up with one surface called Elevons.

Again check your information. Most tailless aircraft incorporate elevons, including the Rafale, Mirage-2000 etc. Its not something peculiar to the Tejas.

1. Rudder
2. Elevon
3. Canards

While increasing maneuverability, employing a canard causes penalties in drag as well the radar cross-section. It is not a must, which is why unlike the Su-30MKI/MKM, the Su-35 does not feature canards.

Now if you see any modern delta wing aircraft ( Rafale, Eurofighter, Grippen, J-10) they all have three control surfaces :

Rudder
Elevon
Canards

What about the Mirage-2000?

[Aliph Ahmed]

LCA Tejas is a piece of junk in its current form as of today after 28 years in development with performance even lesser then that of K8 trainer.

That is exactly what was concluded by Harry (May he rot in hell) from Keymag and we all know what happenned.

[lanc]

Finally, IAF will fly a ‘made in India’ fighter

February 3rd, 2010
By Our Correspondent
  

Bengaluru, Feb. 2: The IAF, long ridiculed as one of the world’s biggest air forces that has never flown its own indigenous fighters, could be flying a squadron of Tejas Light Combat Aircraft by the end of the year.

The defence minister, Mr A.K. Anthony, declared on Tuesday that the indigenous aircraft, the world’s smallest multi-role fighter “will certainly get the Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) by the end of 2010”.

In January, the Cabinet Committee on Security allocated Rs 8,000 crore for production of the air force version of the LCA and for the development of the naval version and the trainer, clearly indicating that there was now no doubt at the highest decision-making levels about the success of the project.
Tejas — long criticised as being too late, too expensive – was first conceived some 27 years ago. It began as a technology demonstrator project in 1993 and was subsequently cleared for development as a multi-role fighter in 2001. Nearly, all trials have been completed in some 1,290 flights.

Mr P. S. Subramanyam(director of ADA), the man spearheading the development of Tejas, said, “Only the Multi-Mode Radar needs to be flown on Tejas, and that we will do this month”.

Mr Antony’s championship of the indigenous military technology has also seen DRDO notch up a Rs 4,000 crore IAF order to supply it six squadrons of Akash air defence missile systems, in addition to the two squadrons it already has and against stiff competition from the Israeli Spyder system.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/national/fi...39;-fighter-194

[Aliph Ahmed]

^^^

Made in India plane has:

1. American Engine
2. Israeli avionics
3. French Avionics
4. Italian wings
5. Russian AAM
6. Israeli radar

So much so for Made in India plane who'se performance by the way even after 28 years in development is still lesser than a K8 trainer.

Mr P. S. Subramanyam(director of ADA), the man spearheading the development of Tejas, said, “Only the Multi-Mode Radar needs to be flown on Tejas, and that we will do this month”.

This proves what I have been saying all along that as of today even after 28 years in development LCA is flying with out a radar.

[lanc]

^^^

Made in India plane has:

1. American Engine
2. Israeli avionics
3. French Avionics
   
4. Italian wings
5. Russian AAM
6. Israeli radar

The airframe is completely indigenous. It doesn't have Italian wings. And the avionics were never intended to be completely domestic.

And having some components imported doesn't stop the aircraft from being an indigenous product. The initial units of the Rafale flew with an American engine, the Gripen still flies with an American engine.

Both the JF-17 and J-10 fly with Russian engines. Also with regard to avionics, the PAF has been evaluating European suppliers too; Grifo-7, RC-400, Vixen-500E.

The radar is a hybrid Indian-Israeli system with the software and signal/data processing units being Israeli. The Elta EL/M-2052 AESA is still an available option that will be considered for further production versions(IAF's prerogative). There isn't any reason why even a Tejas equipped with a Israeli radar should stop being an Indian fighter.

The same applies to munitions. The Gripen and Eurofighter both fly with an American MRAAM. The PAF too is looking at the Darter series and MICA as options for the JF-17.

So much so for Made in India plane who'se performance by the way even after 28 years in development is still lesser than a K8 trainer.

You're yet to substantiate your 'performance less than K-8' hyperbole.

[color="#2E8B57"]This proves what I have been saying all along that as of today even after 28 years in development LCA is flying with out a radar.

It wasn't a state secret. The radar was to be integrated on the LSP-3 and once the radar trials are over, the aircraft will be inducted into the IAF.


BTW you've also being saying all along that the LCA has only two control surfaces. I take it you've abandoned that theory?

[safdar]

Look up your information again. Slat, elevon, air brake, rudder, flap, aileron, elevator etc are all flight control surfaces.
Six slats, four elevons, two airbrakes and a rudder equals 13 control surfaces.

You forgot brake chute, two wings, vertical fin and of course landing gears. That makes it 20 flight control surfaces.

Funny they still cant get it to pass IOC!

Again check your information. Most tailless aircraft incorporate elevons, including the Rafale, Mirage-2000 etc. Its not something peculiar to the Tejas.

most tailless fighters incorporate canards, even the Mirage-2000 has fixed canards,dassault rafale has close coupled canards. tejas is the only modern fighter with no canards. because it would take a complete redesign of the whole fighter.  

While increasing maneuverability, employing a canard causes penalties in drag as well the radar cross-section. It is not a must, which is why unlike the Su-30MKI/MKM, the Su-35 does not feature canards.

Su-30 MKI SU-35 have horizontal stabalisers, they do not require canards. JF-17 has a horizontal stabalisers for pitch control. J-10 has canards for pitch control. this one is the most moronic of all you're posts.

What about the Mirage-2000?

look closely!!

[lanc]

You forgot brake chute, two wings, vertical fin and of course landing gears. That makes it 20 flight control surfaces.

Point still stands. The Tejas has 13 control surfaces as opposed to the 2 claimed.

Funny they still cant get it to pass IOC!

The integration of the radar is independent of the type or number of control surfaces. And the IOC is just pending the radar testing on the LSP-3.

most tailless fighters incorporate canards, even the Mirage-2000 has fixed canards,dassault rafale has close coupled canards. tejas is the only modern fighter with no canards. because it would take a complete redesign of the whole fighter.

The canards are still under consideration for the aircraft deliveries third squadron onwards. The prevailing thought is the increase in thrust after installation of the new engine(F414/EJ-200) makes the canards unnecessary.

Su-30 MKI SU-35 have horizontal stabalisers, they do not require canards. JF-17 has a horizontal stabalisers for pitch control. J-10 has canards for pitch control. this one is the most moronic of all you're posts.

Difference is the Tejas' wingloading is 2/3rds that of the Mirage-2000/Rafale/JF-17/J-10/Gripen and half that of the Su-30MKI/Su-35. The elevons provide both roll and pitch control.

look closely!!

The stubs behind the air intake? Well those notwithstanding, the Mirage-2000's design is for all practical purposes closer to the Tejas than it is to the Rafale or J-10.

[safdar]

Point still stands. The Tejas has 13 control surfaces as opposed to the 2 claimed.

no!! its got 20 control surfaces... NOT 13.  only the tejas has more then 3 axes of rotation.

The integration of the radar is independent of the type or number of control surfaces. And the IOC is just pending the radar testing on the LSP-3.

????. radar?? IOC???? what you talking about?

The canards are still under consideration for the aircraft deliveries third squadron onwards. The prevailing thought is the increase in thrust after installation of the new engine(F414/EJ-200) makes the canards unnecessary.

only after they learned from PAKISTANIDEFENCEFORUM, that they require canards.

Difference is the Tejas' wingloading is 2/3rds that of the Mirage-2000/Rafale/JF-17/J-10/Gripen and half that of the Su-30MKI/Su-35. The elevons provide both roll and pitch control.

wingloading??? prove that mathematically. (inbold) thankyou! most fighters with canards can provide pitch control and classed as having three separate flight controls for all three axes of rotation. the tejas does not, the only fighter in the world.    

The stubs behind the air intake? Well those notwithstanding, the Mirage-2000's design is for all practical purposes closer to the Tejas than it is to the Rafale or J-10.

not stubs, fixed canards re-read you link. or provide a link that says they are called stubs.



moron's galore here in PDF!!!

[parker]

[Aliph Ahmed]

^^

This ugly unsuitable for combat plane reminds me of a man with no dick.  

[Saeed Khan]

Why do we even bother with such endless debates? Test of time will validate our claims. If it sells like hot cakes locally and internationally then it is a good plane not otherwise; irrespective of all 'fanboy' fantasies and claims.

[lanc]

no!! its got 20 control surfaces... NOT 13.  only the tejas has more then 3 axes of rotation.

??? I don't see what the surprising part is. The Rafale has 17 control surfaces and the Mirage-2000 has 9. Why the hoopla? The number of control surfaces has nothing to do with the axes of rotation.

????. radar?? IOC???? what you talking about?

Well you stated 'its funny they still can't get it to pass the IOC'.

From recent news; the Tejas' flight trials are over, only the testing of the MMR remains for the IOC.

only after they learned from PAKISTANIDEFENCEFORUM, that they require canards.

The Tejas was initially designed with canards which were abandoned when it was found handling improvement with it wasn't significant.

wingloading??? prove that mathematically. (inbold) thankyou!

Sure. I've taken the empty weight of the aircraft (for simplicity) and divided it by the wing area. Should give a rough idea of the wing loading. Units in kg/m^2.

Mirage-2000: 7500/42 = 179
Rafale: 9500/46 = 207
JF-17: 6400/24.5 = 261
Gripen = 6000/25.5 = 235
Su-30MKI = 18400/62 = 297
Su-35BM = 18400/62 = 297
Tejas = 6000/38.5 = 156

The Tejas' empty weight is unclear. The eventual aim is to get it to 5500-5800kg while the its trial variant's weight(with telemetry equipment) was around 6500kg. I've assumed 6000kg.

most fighters with canards can provide pitch control and classed as having three separate flight controls for all three axes of rotation. the tejas does not, the only fighter in the world.

  

Yes, the Tejas uses the just the elevons for pitch control while most tailess deltas use both elevons and canards. Its lower wing-loading makes canards unnecessary.

not stubs, fixed canards re-read you link. or provide a link that says they are called stubs.

I'm not debating the stubs are classified under canards, though most sources refer to them as strakes. Point was that they are two small to effectively increase maneuverability. The main function AFAIK is to increase stability (yaw control specifically) at high AoA.

[safdar]

??? I don't see what the surprising part is. The Rafale has 17 control surfaces and the Mirage-2000 has 9. Why the hoopla? The number of control surfaces has nothing to do with the axes of rotation.

hoopla in this thread is coming from you,  who claims that the issue raised isn't very important , but you continue to post against it with all you're HOOPLA added!!

Well if you’re going to include every trim tab and control surface as a primary mechanism to steer a aircraft on it 3 axes of rotation then why not include every thing ! Including the landing gears as well! so you can have 20 control surfaces for tejas. don’t make much difference even then does it?  

Well you stated 'its funny they still can't get it to pass the IOC'.
From recent news; the Tejas' flight trials are over, only the testing of the MMR remains for the IOC.

well it hasnt reached IOC only "would be cleared for limited flights by the end of 2010". news
untill then...stupid plane hasnt reached IOC has it?

The Tejas was initially designed with canards which were abandoned when it was found handling improvement with it wasn't significant.

I've never seen a picture of a Tejas prototype with canards! so youre claim is totally baseless and rubbish. but I think you understand the necessity of canards and are just saying just trying to rationalise you're argument by saying anything. carry-on!  

Sure. I've taken the empty weight of the aircraft (for simplicity) and divided it by the wing area. Should give a rough idea of the wing loading. Units in kg/m^2.

Exactly! Now tell me where doe it say that increasing the area of the wing or lower the weight of the aircraft negates the requirement of canards? Aren’t canards  used to enhance flight control and maneuverability.  
  

Yes, the Tejas uses the just the elevons for pitch control while most tailess deltas use both elevons and canards.

NO! tejas uses elevons for pitch AND ROLL! it uses one control surface to perform two axes of rotations. hence maneuverability is compromised.  

that picture of F-16 is not even a production variant. one could pull many unconventional designs pictures of fighters that never entered full production, and that just about tells you why.

I'm not debating the stubs are classified under canards, though most sources refer to them as strakes. Point was that they are two small to effectively increase maneuverability. The main function AFAIK is to increase stability (yaw control specifically) at high AoA.

dassault Mirage-2000 has small fixed canards because its impossible to have movable canards on the air intake! where would the mechanics fit! they are not for YAW they would be at the wrong angle for that purpose. they are for pitch enhancement or to re-energise the main airfoil at high AOA.

[Aliph Ahmed]

Well if you’re going to include every trim tab and control surface as a primary mechanism to steer a aircraft on it 3 axes of rotation then why not include every thing ! Including the landing gears as well! so you can have 20 control surfaces for tejas. don’t make much difference even then does it?

K8 trainer has three (3) primary control surface over piece of junk LCA Tejas' two (2).  

Only other modern delta wing plane I can think of with only two control surfaces (Elevon and Rudder) was F117 which was retired before even it completed its anticipated half life!)

[Aliph Ahmed]

LCA Tejas even after 28 years in development can only pull 6gs as of today.  Link

Whereas

K8 trainer is pulling more then 7gs as of today. Link

[safdar]

K8 trainer has three (3) primary control surface over piece of junk LCA Tejas' two (2).  

Only other modern delta wing plane I can think of with only two control surfaces (Elevon and Rudder) was F117 which was retired before even it completed its anticipated half life!)

The French designed and perfected the tailless delta design because they could manufacture engines specifically for the fighter's requirements. Hence they could play around with the conventional design  and come up with something that has inspired the world, the mirage fighter. India on the other hand is many many years behind , only due to the keveri engine that has put a big black hole in their indigenous fighter plan dreams.

[Aliph Ahmed]

The French designed and perfected the tailless delta design because they could manufacture engines specifically for the fighter's requirements. Hence they could play around with the conventional design  and come up with something that has inspired the world, the mirage fighter. India on the other hand is many many years behind , only due to the keveri engine that has put a big black hole in their indigenous fighter plan dreams.

Lol. Yes. Another reminder to Indians about ground reality of what their knowelge base and expertise really is:

Under development for almost 30 years and still not completed, The Kaveri engine burnt more dollars then the fuel.

[M_ZEE32]

What's the point of useless debate ?  your arguing for what is never goin to be produced !

[lanc]

hoopla in this thread is coming from you,  who claims that the issue raised isn't very important , but you continue to post against it with all you're HOOPLA added!!

I didn't bring the number of control surfaces up. Aliph did.

Well if you’re going to include every trim tab and control surface as a primary mechanism to steer a aircraft on it 3 axes of rotation then why not include every thing ! Including the landing gears as well! so you can have 20 control surfaces for tejas. don’t make much difference even then does it?

Because landing gears or brake chutes don't influence flight control. Slats, elevons, rudder etc do.

well it hasnt reached IOC only "would be cleared for limited flights by the end of 2010". news
untill then...stupid plane hasnt reached IOC has it?

Well the reporter is referred to the period between IOC and FOC as limited flights. Its again a question of semantics since the Full Operational Capability is aimed for 2012.

I've never seen a picture of a Tejas prototype with canards! so youre claim is totally baseless and rubbish. but I think you understand the necessity of canards and are just saying just trying to rationalise you're argument by saying anything. carry-on!

It was a part of the initial design. And the flight characteristics can be and were simulated without actual flight testing. The design of the airframe had been finalized long before the construction of the prototype started.

Exactly! Now tell me where doe it say that increasing the area of the wing or lower the weight of the aircraft negates the requirement of canards? Aren’t canards  used to enhance flight control and maneuverability.

  
Where does it say that canards are essential? Yes they increase maneuverability but so does reducing wing loading.

NO! tejas uses elevons for pitch AND ROLL! it uses one control surface to perform two axes of rotations. hence maneuverability is compromised.

It uses one type of control surface; it has four elevons, same as the Mirage-2000.

that picture of F-16 is not even a production variant. one could pull many unconventional designs pictures of fighters that never entered full production, and that just about tells you why.

It wasn't an experimental aircraft unlike others. It was the General Dynamics entry to the Enhanced Tactical Fighter competition to replace the F-111. It lost to the F-15E, because it was simply an upgrade of the F-15D while the F-16XL was required more time and money to productionalize. Also, the F-15's twin engine redundancy worked in its favour.

dassault Mirage-2000 has small fixed canards because its impossible to have movable canards on the air intake! where would the mechanics fit! they are not for YAW they would be at the wrong angle for that purpose. they are for pitch enhancement or to re-energise the main airfoil at high AOA.

The lift induced with energize airflow over the wing but its too small(span) to make much of a difference. With regard to the yaw, (I don't recall the source) the strakes improved the air flow on the vertical fin improving yaw control, particularly at high AoA.

Point was that the strakes on the Mirage-2000 can't substitute large movable canards of the kind on the EF/Rafale/J-10 etc. Yet even its worst critic would concede the Mirage-2000 is a modern high-threat fighter.

[Aliph Ahmed]

LCA Tejas even after 28 years in development has been flying an average time of only 33.5 minutes per flight.  Link

Whereas

K8 trainer can stay air borne for 3.2 hours (192 minutes) without fuel tanks and 4.2 hours (252 minutes) with fuel tanks. Link

[lanc]

K8 trainer has three (3) primary control surface over piece of junk LCA Tejas' two (2).  

Somewhat more accurate than the previous post; primary control surface instead of control surface.

Changing it to 'three types of primary control surfaces' would make it more accurate still.

Only other modern delta wing plane I can think of with only two control surfaces (Elevon and Rudder) was F117 which was retired before even it completed its anticipated half life!)

Strakes notwithstanding... the Mirage-2000.

BTW you're wrong about the F-117 too. They were originally intended to retire in 2011-12 and were retired in 2008. That's 27 years after the first flight, instead of 30.

[lanc]

LCA Tejas even after 28 years in development has been flying an average time of only 33.5 minutes per flight.  Link

LCA Tejas even after 28 years in development can only pull 6gs as of today.  
http://www.drdo.com/dpi/ADA.pdf

As of today your link is over one and a half years old.

[safdar]

I didn't bring it up. Aliph did.

So what! This is our forum we bring up what ever we want! so why so much hoopla over 13 control surfaces that have very little to do with the primary flight rotations, which is only based on three rotations pitch yaw roll, for that you need three primary control surfaces rudder for yaw elevators for pitch and ailerons for roll, which are all separately under the pilot control not the slats hence they don't count as a separate primary function of flight control. Most modern next generation tailless delta wings  use canards for pitch control to enhance manoeuvrability. Most cropped delta wings (jf-17) use horizontal tail as pitch control. LCA has none! Manoeuvrability is compromised.

Because landing gears or brake chutes don't influence flight control. Slats, elevons, rudder etc do.

Well you even included air brakes and slats as primary flight control surfaces, so I  helped you and included landing gears as a flight enhancement for LCA's benefit! According to your logic having 13 movable control surfaces is beneficial, but due to you're ignorance you fail to see that the point is to have three separate control surfaces that are of the primary importance, rudder for yaw, ailerons on the airfoil for roll and tailerons on the horizontal tail for pitch.     Observe!    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_dynamics

For tailless delta's, canards are included for pitch as the horizontal tail is missing.

Well the reporter is referred to the period between IOC and FOC as limited flights. Its again a question of semantics since the Full Operational Capability is aimed for 2012.

No I think you should read that gain FOC is 2020 and IOC is end of 2010!

my semantics are that the Stupid plane has not reached IOC as of yet ! Right ?

It was a part of the initial design. And the flight characteristics can be and were simulated without actual flight testing. The design of the airframe had been finalized long before the construction of the prototype started.

No! you said  in you're earlier post that:

"canards which were abandoned when it was found handling improvement with it wasn't significant."

How can handling be simulated effectively in a wind tunnel or by CFD only? And not a prototype produced before a significant part of a design could be rendered insignificant? If Indian wind tunnel and CFDs are so effective why has LCA not passed IOC yet and continues to do flight test?


  

Where does it say that canards are essential? Yes they increase maneuverability but so does reducing wing loading.

everywhere! have a look around an tell me any modern tailless delta flying with out canards! isnt that enough proof? gliders have less wingloading does not make them better then fighters!

It uses one type of control surface; it has four elevons, same as the Mirage-2000.

it has 1 surface on the trailing edge of the airfoil performing two separate jobs! hence maneuverability is compromised. only Dassault effectively managed to counter this and came up with a awe inspiring design as the mirage fighter.

LCA is not mirage-2000, also mirage-2000 production has been closed. Not many countries would buy that fighter anymore. Its about Dassault Rafale, canards galore on that! I wonder why!

It wasn't an experimental aircraft unlike others. It was the General Dynamics entry to the Enhanced Tactical Fighter competition to replace the F-111. It lost to the F-15E, because it was simply an upgrade of the F-15D while the F-16XL was required more time and money to productionalize. Also, the F-15's twin engine redundancy worked in its favour.

No! because F-15 has three primary flight control surfaces, it won! you still fail to see this!!

The lift induced with energize airflow over the wing but its too small(span) to make much of a difference. With regard to the yaw, (I don't recall the source) the strakes improved the air flow on the vertical fin improving yaw control, particularly at high AoA.
Point was that the strakes on the Mirage-2000 can't substitute large movable canards of the kind on the EF/Rafale/J-10 etc. Yet even its worst critic would concede the Mirage-2000 is a modern high-threat fighter.

No! anything in that position is regarded as a canard and doing the job  what a canard is suppose to only its fixed on mirage-2000! For example  Anything aft of the fuselage placed vertically is regarded as a fin  stabiliser anything placed horizontally is regarded as a horizontal  stabiliser. Anything placed span wise (starboard side) aft of the  centre of gravity of a aircraft is regarded as a airfoil. anything in  those positions will perform the job as intended by nature.


don't just make up facts.

[must7]

LCA has brought nothing but shame to India. Tsk tsk tsk.

Hahaha .. meray bhai .. yah baray dheet loog hain .. 28 years in development and still there are defenders ! Have you seen national sentiments like this anywhere in the world !

[Aliph Ahmed]

As of today your link is over one and a half years old.

Feel free to provide link from the same source with updated information IF things have improved.

No one is stopping you.  

[lanc]

so why so much hoopla over 13 control surfaces that have very little to do with the primary flight rotations, which is only based on three rotations pitch yaw roll, for that you need three primary control surfaces rudder for yaw elevators for pitch and ailerons for roll, which are all separately under the pilot control not the slats hence they don't count as a separate primary function of flight control.

I didn't say anywhere that slats were a primary flight control surface.

Most modern next generation tailless delta wings  use canards for pitch control to enhance manoeuvrability. Most cropped delta wings (jf-17) use horizontal tail as pitch control. LCA has none! Manoeuvrability is compromised.

Again that fact applies equally to the Tejas and Mirage-2000.

Well you even included air brakes and slats as primary flight control surfaces, so I  helped you and included landing gears as a flight enhancement for LCA's benefit!

No I think you should read that gain FOC is 2020 and IOC is end of 2010!

I didn't say anything about the air brakes or slats being primary control surfaces.

With regard to the news articles; I did read it again. Quoting from it:-

"The minister said the aircraft, powered by engines supplied by US-based General Electrics, would be ready for full induction into the military by 2012."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...GpBef1olKqMIXDQ

my semantics are that the Stupid plane has not reached IOC as of yet ! Right ?

Its not a question of your, mine or someone else's semantics. Its how the reporter chooses to state it. He's thinking of the period between IOC and FOC as limited operational capability. Nothing wrong with that.

No! you said  in you're earlier post that:

"canards which were abandoned when it was found handling improvement with it wasn't significant."

How can handling be simulated effectively in a wind tunnel or by CFD only?

Simulations aren't a complete substitute for real world tests but general figures for flight characteristics can be obtained. And the canards weren't found to make a significant difference to the cranked delta design.

And not a prototype produced before a significant part of a design could be rendered insignificant? If Indian wind tunnel and CFDs are so effective why has LCA not passed IOC yet and continues to do flight test?

everywhere! have a look around an tell me any modern tailless delta flying with out canards! isnt that enough proof? gliders have less wingloading does not make them better then fighters!

The IOC certification is only pending the MMR's flight testing.  

There's no modern tailess delta flying that has a wing loading comparable to the Tejas, and wing loading is a very crucial contributor to maneuverability.

it has 1 surface on the trailing edge of the airfoil performing two separate jobs! hence maneuverability is compromised. only Dassault effectively managed to counter this and came up with a awe inspiring design as the mirage fighter.

Well the Mirage-2000 was the IAF's favourite aircraft and Dassault was a consultant during the initial stages of the program.

LCA is not mirage-2000, also mirage-2000 production has been closed. Not many countries would buy that fighter anymore. Its about Dassault Rafale, canards galore on that! I wonder why!

I'm not disputing the fact that the Rafale has better flight characteristics than the Tejas.

No! because F-15 has three primary flight control surfaces, it won! you still fail to see this!!

No! anything in that position is regarded as a canard and doing the job  what a canard is suppose to only its fixed on mirage-2000! For example  Anything aft of the fuselage placed vertically is regarded as a fin  stabiliser anything placed horizontally is regarded as a horizontal  stabiliser. Anything placed span wise (starboard side) aft of the  centre of gravity of a aircraft is regarded as a airfoil. anything in  those positions will perform the job as intended by nature.

don't just make up facts.

??? General Dynamics designed the F-16XL and decided canards weren't necessary. Nothing I've read on the ETF competition evenly remotely suggests that the F-16XL had a flawed design. The main reason was the F-15E had a 40% lower development cost and twin engine redundancy.

John G. Williams, lead engineer on the XL: "The XL is a marvelous airplane, but was a victim of the USAF wanting to continue to produce the F-15, which is understandable. Sometimes you win these political games, sometimes not. In most ways, the XL was superior to the F-15 as a ground attack airplane, but the F-15 was good enough."

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article1.html

With regard to the Mirage-2000's strakes, I didn't find any specifications but from looks of it, it seem to be about two feet long and six inches across. Hardly comparable to the Eurocanards.