DISCUSSION: THUNDER AND TEJAS

[Windows 10]

A year has 8766 hrs for comparison so it is slghly over 4 months

How did you reach to 8766 hrs in a year ? According to mathematics I learnt at my school 365*24=8760 and in case of leap year 366*24=8784.

 

[Nilgiri]

I remember, how my thread https://defence.pk/threads/lca-tejas-versus-yf-16-in-combat-part-i.405787/ was closed, may be by you or some other Mod, but CFT computationally evaluated performance characteristics models is the best way to evaluate the performance characteristics.

The thread, included the YF-16 to show, that how accurate the flightstream software was, since it is using simple PC, and not high power Computing power of the specialized pc to take out the graph needed. Why YF-16 analysis was done, because its graphical analysis was available in the public domain but it was taken as the attempt to create the thread for trolling.

This graph is given to prove the authenticity of the software used for the CFT analysis, not for the readers but the one who is doing analysis himself. But there are many who is simply too interested in the number, a number of substantial and ITR. When the number keep on changing with the different parameter, the graphical representation is the best.

@amardeep mishra is one of the guy, who is capable of doing it, if he has the time.
@Nilgiri -- I am sure he might give the analysis, some day

But there will be always, who will ask for the authentication, so it would be nice, if they them self plot the surface mesh themself with the software of their own choice, put them the data in the computation analysis software of their own choice and present them.

I have been wanting to do a CFD analysis of the crank delta of LCA for some time now to see if I can get some results regarding its flow energizing/detachment characteristics compared to a more conventional canard system. I haven't yet found the time, but maybe sometime this year hopefully.

I also want to see the effect of characteristic reversal (i.e how say a convergent (or divergent) flow reverses its velocity trends across the sonic threshold) and how this manifests in an aircrafts maneuverability across Mach 1.0 as well (i.e the level of how much "mirroring/swapping" there is w.r.t ITR and STR characteristics for a delta and conventional configurations). I think it would play a big role in say an advantage in BVR engagements at supersonic speeds when say there is a disadvantage in WVR engagement (missile or dogfight) ....and could definitely influence doctrine and strategy of the platforms in question. The material source for this is somewhere in my basement and I will have to figure out how best to model it after reading it after all these years. It will take some time for sure.

Changing doctrine to optimise on the advantages of a particular design is actually a very interesting subject.

Some years ago I managed to get a hold of a F-16 XL article that talked about how engagement doctrine was changed to take advantage of its phenomenal ITR and how the training would be impacted for this in simulation against soviet adversaries. I will have to see if I can dig that up too.

 

[SQ8]

Hi @Oscar
I am certainly not the one who did that analysis neither do I fully agree with that article.Dont you think putting me in that same bracket without even going through the details of my posts justified?Anyways,The STR of M2k was never higher than that of f-16-period! However one cant really write off ITR as it is important in evading radar and missile locks.Anyways i need to go,will write elaborately in the evening

You misunderstood, I mentioned that specifically to caution you not to fall for that quick result type analysis.

 

[war&peace]

How did you reach to 8766 hrs in a year ? According to mathematics I learnt at my school 365*24=8760 and in case of leap year 366*24=8784.

The year is not 365 but 365.25 and leap year is just the adjustment for this discrepancy. Try better schools for your children.

 

[SQ8]

I remember, how my thread https://defence.pk/threads/lca-tejas-versus-yf-16-in-combat-part-i.405787/ was closed, may be by you or some other Mod, but CFT computationally evaluated performance characteristics models is the best way to evaluate the performance characteristics.. But there are many who is simply too interested in the number, a number of substantial and ITR.

that is debatable, specifically when all it is looking for it ITR.

 

[zebra7]

I have been wanting to do a CFD analysis of the crank delta of LCA for some time now to see if I can get some results regarding its flow energizing/detachment characteristics compared to a more conventional canard system. I haven't yet found the time, but maybe sometime this year hopefully.

I also want to see the effect of characteristic reversal (i.e how say a convergent (or divergent) flow reverses its velocity trends across the sonic threshold) and how this manifests in an aircrafts maneuverability across Mach 1.0 as well (i.e the level of how much "mirroring/swapping" there is w.r.t ITR and STR characteristics for a delta and conventional configurations). I think it would play a big role in say an advantage in BVR engagements at supersonic speeds when say there is a disadvantage in WVR engagement (missile or dogfight) ....and could definitely influence doctrine and strategy of the platforms in question. The material source for this is somewhere in my basement and I will have to figure out how best to model it after reading it after all these years. It will take some time for sure.

Changing doctrine to optimise on the advantages of a particular design is actually a very interesting subject.

Some years ago I managed to get a hold of a F-16 XL article that talked about how engagement doctrine was changed to take advantage of its phenomenal ITR and how the training would be impacted for this in simulation against soviet adversaries. I will have to see if I can dig that up too.

So much time is needed for that analysis ?

Which tools you have planned to use ?

 

[Stephen Cohen]

The strengths of Tejas that we know so far

1.Low wing loading, Rapid Rate of Climb ; Good ITR

2. Good Thrust to weight ratio ;Relaxed Static Stability

3.Elta 2032 Radar + Derby BVR missile

4. DRFM based ASPJ ; RWR,

5.Lower frontal RCS ;Composite Materials

6. All digital 4 channel fly by wire

7. HMDS enabled close combat high off bore sight R 73 E
Python V combination which is deadly and allows no escape in close combat

 

[Nilgiri]

So much time is needed for that analysis ?

Which tools you have planned to use ?

Probably CFX, its what I have access to. I might experiment with some openfoam solvers too since I need to brush up on that for other work stuff anyway.

The problem is not really setting it up, its refining and optimizing the simulation to get good results.

 

[Windjammer]

@Oscar , perhaps the thread should be put on hold until 2020.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...ion-it-wants-by-2020/articleshow/53019862.cms

 

[Stephen Cohen]

The strengths of Tejas lies in Air to Air close combat

Tejas has Low wing Loading and High TWR

It means it has more lift force per Kg of its weight,
combine it with the Relaxed Static Stability

All digital fly by wire flight control, for excellent agility at Corner speeds & high Instantaneous turn rates to get the best use for its HMDS enabled high off bore missile pack of R 73 E & Python,

All this is very useful
For first lock & fire solution in any dog fight,which is the hall mark of any modern 4+
Generation fighter plane.

 

[Arsalan]

Oscar, Amardeep Mishra gave his views, but your reaction is un needed and over reaction.

It is based on what we have experienced in the past and it is completely appropriate to keep a close eye and check on this thread. Things can get out of hands that is what we wont want, AGAIN!

 

[zebra7]

It is based on what we have experienced in the past and it is completely appropriate to keep a close eye and check on this thread. Things can get out of hands that is what we wont want, AGAIN!

He tried to gave its point with the calculations, though I am also not convinced with the @amardeep mishra but it is 200 times better than the Cheap shot like LCA cannot fly and need trailer. Anyway since this thread is now going for the technical discussion, it better now to keep the discussion with the technical analysis.

 

[Arsalan]

He tried to gave its point with the calculations, though I am also not convinced with the @amardeep mishra but it is 200 times better than the Cheap shot like LCA cannot fly and need trailer. Anyway since this thread is now going for the technical discussion, it better now to keep the discussion with the technical analysis.

If you understand, that was the exactly what @Oscar was asking for and that is what we are hoping to get now.

 

[zebra7]

If you understand, that was the exactly what @Oscar was asking for and that is what we are hoping to get now.

My request to you sir, pls keep your eye on this thread and keep away the Troller and Trailer out of this thread.

 

[Manticore]

Any member who would like to answer the questions in my earlier post
https://defence.pk/threads/discussion-thunder-and-tejas.437724/page-2#post-8436446
is welcome to do so. I am not bashing any member or fighter rather want new members to find out why the designers of the jft and lca went with their respective designs. This will increase the quality of the debate

@ghazi768 @Bilal Khan 777