HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions-[Thread 2]

[Adam_Khan]

Yeah, it's not very suited for big pilots.

View attachment 617769

There is no difference but the two cockpits bro,just that they have covered the central pedestal display in the naval version.

 

[Lord Of Gondor]

 

[MirageBlue]

Yes I understand there are different types of species of human in West and Indian for cockpit design....Yes I mean in terms of market the customer sees only that extra and larger MFD things....wasn't you go to buy a car from a showroom?....Think in that terms....Rafale,Typhoon,Eagle and Gripen have the best HMD but still look at their cockpit and HUD.....
Also look at the HUD of block 3.
Also look at the position of pilot. View attachment 617998
As the sitting of pilot is concerned it is sorry to say a senseless argument....And it is not where you can lie

Look, I'm not here for arguments. But I'll illustrate my point.

Here is a JF-17 pilot in the cockpit and as you can see clearly, the canopy sill comes up right near his shoulder, just a few cm below where his shoulder is. The same thing can also be seen for the front seat JF-17B pilot, although to be fair, the picture is taken from a lower angle and hence it seems worse than in the single seater JF-17.

Here is a Tejas pilot in the cockpit and as you can see clearly, the canopy sill is several inches below his shoulder.

It has to do with the way the contour lines on the JF-17 and Tejas were designed, at the very beginning of the design process.

Here is another view. This time, with the canopy open and here one can see clearly how high the respective pilots sit in the cockpit.

Here is a JF-17 pilot in the cockpit and the cockpit edge (over which the canopy sill sits) is a few inches below his shoulder

Here is a Tejas pilot in the cockpit and the cockpit edge (over which the canopy sill sits) is several inches below his shoulder.

See the difference? Different designs, different outcomes.

Another aspect that also becomes clear with these images is that the Tejas ejection seat is inclined at a greater angle than the JF-17's ejection seat. And why does that matter? Because seat inclination helps the pilot in dealing with high G-forces, generally believed to improve G-force handling by upto +1 G. The higher the inclination the better. Obviously without making the inclination so great that the pilot cannot operate the instruments or see the MFDs. The F-16 has one of the highest seat recline angles- it's 28 degrees I believe.

 

[JohnWick]

Look, I'm not here for arguments. But I'll illustrate my point.

Here is a JF-17 pilot in the cockpit and as you can see clearly, the canopy sill comes up right near his shoulder, just a few cm below where his shoulder is. The same thing can also be seen for the front seat JF-17B pilot, although to be fair, the picture is taken from a lower angle and hence it seems worse than in the single seater JF-17.

Here is a Tejas pilot in the cockpit and as you can see clearly, the canopy sill is several inches below his shoulder.

It has to do with the way the contour lines on the JF-17 and Tejas were designed, at the very beginning of the design process.

Here is another view. This time, with the canopy open and here one can see clearly how high the respective pilots sit in the cockpit.

Here is a JF-17 pilot in the cockpit and the cockpit edge (over which the canopy sill sits) is a few inches below his shoulder

Here is a Tejas pilot in the cockpit and the cockpit edge (over which the canopy sill sits) is several inches below his shoulder.

See the difference? Different designs, different outcomes.

Another aspect that also becomes clear with these images is that the Tejas ejection seat is inclined at a greater angle than the JF-17's ejection seat. And why does that matter? Because seat inclination helps the pilot in dealing with high G-forces, generally believed to improve G-force handling by upto +1 G. The higher the inclination the better. Obviously without making the inclination so great that the pilot cannot operate the instruments or see the MFDs. The F-16 has one of the highest seat recline angles- it's 28 degrees I believe.

Excellent....
But as you know that from Mig-33 To Super 7 then ultimately to JF-17 Thunder it has Russian genes in Simple words....As just in case of mki....Look at the pilot position....
It doesn't Matter where the pilot sits....

What matters is the arsenal and Radar of a plane in real combat but In exports the OTHERS thing matters ....For Example the engine of a plane....No m not taking about the thrust etc etc The matter of concern is availability....price and performance.MAF has air superiority over Bangladeshis air Force cz of there arsenal i.e SD-10....I mean There are very few air forces which can bear a volley of SD-10 direct on face and BAF is certainly not one of them.

 

[anathema]

Look, I'm not here for arguments. But I'll illustrate my point.

Here is a JF-17 pilot in the cockpit and as you can see clearly, the canopy sill comes up right near his shoulder, just a few cm below where his shoulder is. The same thing can also be seen for the front seat JF-17B pilot, although to be fair, the picture is taken from a lower angle and hence it seems worse than in the single seater JF-17.

Here is a Tejas pilot in the cockpit and as you can see clearly, the canopy sill is several inches below his shoulder.

It has to do with the way the contour lines on the JF-17 and Tejas were designed, at the very beginning of the design process.

Here is another view. This time, with the canopy open and here one can see clearly how high the respective pilots sit in the cockpit.

Here is a JF-17 pilot in the cockpit and the cockpit edge (over which the canopy sill sits) is a few inches below his shoulder

Here is a Tejas pilot in the cockpit and the cockpit edge (over which the canopy sill sits) is several inches below his shoulder.

See the difference? Different designs, different outcomes.

Another aspect that also becomes clear with these images is that the Tejas ejection seat is inclined at a greater angle than the JF-17's ejection seat. And why does that matter? Because seat inclination helps the pilot in dealing with high G-forces, generally believed to improve G-force handling by upto +1 G. The higher the inclination the better. Obviously without making the inclination so great that the pilot cannot operate the instruments or see the MFDs. The F-16 has one of the highest seat recline angles- it's 28 degrees I believe.

Extremely well articulated !

 

[MirageBlue]

Excellent....
But as you know that from Mig-33 To Super 7 then ultimately to JF-17 Thunder it has Russian genes in Simple words....As just in case of mki....Look at the pilot position....
It doesn't Matter where the pilot sits....View attachment 621460 View attachment 621459
What matters is the arsenal and Radar of a plane in real combat but In exports the OTHERS thing matters ....For Example the engine of a plane....No m not taking about the thrust etc etc The matter of concern is availability....price and performance.MAF has air superiority over Bangladeshis air Force cz of there arsenal i.e SD-10....I mean There are very few air forces which can bear a volley of SD-10 direct on face and BAF is certainly not one of them.

So u would agree now, the Tejas pilot sits higher in the cockpit.

I was discussing the cockpit design as you claimed that the JF-17 had a better cockpit than the Tejas. Whereas cockpit design has several elements that need to be factored in, not just the size of MFDs.

And I mentioned that the pilot sits higher in the Tejas and has a better view outside, in the front and side quadrants. View out of the rear is not that great in either of the jets, at least as compared to F-16, Rafale or Typhoon.

How does this matter? Well, if you ask pilots they'll tell you. For e.g. F-15 pilots always remarked how the high seating in the F-15 cockpit gave excellent view out of the cockpit, when compared to any other fighter. Which helps greatly in general flying as well as in close combat. Ask any MiG-21 pilot and you'll know that they always had the disadvantage of sitting in a cockpit that gave very poor frontal view and not that great side views either.

I agree that the JF-17's genesis was in the Super-7 project. That Russian cockpit design philosophy is somewhat visible there.

 

[JohnWick]

I was discussing the cockpit design as you claimed that the JF-17 had a better cockpit than the Tejas. Whereas cockpit design has several elements that need to be factored in, not just the size of MFDs.

The place where the pilot sit in Thunder is same as that of Gripen.

Also you can consider the F/A-18 Super Hornet....

And also the cockpit of Thunder is designed in an incline way....I mean the edges of the cockpit lowered as we move to the anterior side of the plane....It is also an illusion for some people in a way.

.

How does this matter? Well, if you ask pilots they'll tell you. For e.g. F-15 pilots always remarked how the high seating in the F-15 cockpit gave excellent view out of the cockpit, when compared to any other fighter. Which helps greatly in general flying as well as in close combat. Ask any MiG-21 pilot and you'll know that they always had the disadvantage of sitting in a cockpit that gave very poor frontal view and not that great side views either.

I agree that the JF-17's genesis was in the Super-7 project. That Russian cockpit design philosophy is somewhat visible there.

So you are saying in way that The Sukhois are just a piece of shit where the pilot sits deep inside cockpit????

The Chinese spent Billions $ on J series flankers and bought Su-35....Are Foolish people or you r smarter enough than them?
I am what kind of difference 2 to 3 inches gonna make?

As far as MFDs r concerened m sure that you never went to bought a even a simple car like Suzuki Alto 800 from a showroom....So you can understand what I meant....That these things really matters....

 

[MirageBlue]

Extremely well articulated !

Thank you.

I had seen some other post here that was criticizing the positioning of the aerial refueling probe on the Tejas. Well, here is my take on it.

The fact is that many of the Tejas' Test Pilots are former Mirage-2000 pilots and as we know, the positioning of the probe is nearly the same on both jets. If pilots flying the Mirage-2000 never complained about the probe blocking the view, then the same applies to the Tejas.

And if you've seen videos of the Mirage-2000 from the cockpit, you'll realise that the probe doesn't really block the view.

But there is a huge advantage to it being positioned in front of the canopy and not on the side.
1) It is right in the eye line of the pilot, looking forward. He doesn't have to look sideways to position the fighter to refuel
2) It avoids the possibility of the drogue basket hitting the canopy when a contact is missed. This is one of the biggest threats to pilots in fighters where the probe is placed on the side. The drogue basket if it swings about, can crack a canopy and no pilot on earth will want that.
3) Very careful CFD and wind tunnel testing and modeling was done to analyse the wake flow and as a result, when the first contact was attempted with the drogue basket, it was done beautifully.
4) the FCS is designed to make the aerial refueling an extremely smooth and safe operation. Once again, according to a Tejas Test Pilot I spoke to, aerial refueling is the easiest on the Tejas compared to all other IAF jets, including the Mirage-2000.

Read this interview with a Gripen pilot

When asked what is his least favorite thing about the Gripen- it was the aerial refueling probe. The reason why it was placed there was because it was retrofitted into an already set fuselage and they didn't want to make all the changes required to put it up front next to the pilot's field of vision.

What is your least favourite thing?

The refuelling probe length and position on the Gripen C/D. Even though I know the reasons behind the placing and length (retrofitted into an already set fuselage) it makes a mission component, that should be easy and predictable, an unnecessarily exciting part of the mission. Anecdote coming up! I’ve been told that when Gripen C/D was certified for air refuelling the subject matter expert pilot said something like: “Gripen has probably the world’s worst probe placement but compensates that with the world’s best flight control system.” I concur with the statement. You can fly to the basket/drogue and stay easily within a meter or so of it, positioning your Gripen with almost centimetre precision with the stick, but when you approach it the wake of the canopy will push it outwards. This means that you’ll have to “go for it” and aim a bit on the outside of the drogue. This is not a good recipe for predictability. You do get good at it after a while and learn how to do it safely, but a longer probe wouldn’t harm.”

The place where the pilot sit in Thunder is same as that of Gripen. View attachment 621600
Also you can consider the F/A-18 Super Hornet....
View attachment 621601
And also the cockpit of Thunder is designed in an incline way....I mean the edges of the cockpit lowered as we move to the anterior side of the plane....It is also an illusion for some people in a way.

So you are saying in way that The Sukhois are just a piece of shit where the pilot sits deep inside cockpit????
View attachment 621602
The Chinese spent Billions $ on J series flankers and bought Su-35....Are Foolish people or you r smarter enough than them?
I am what kind of difference 2 to 3 inches gonna make?

As far as MFDs r concerened m sure that you never went to bought a even a simple car like Suzuki Alto 800 from a showroom....So you can understand what I meant....That these things really matters....View attachment 621607

I can see from the quality of your posts as to what your level of discussion will be.

I won't discuss this anymore with you since it's not worth my time.

 

[Pakistan Space Agency]

How many LCA Flying Rickshaws have been inducted into the Indian Air Force so far (not will be inducted in future)?

 

[anathema]

Thank you.

I had seen some other post here that was criticizing the positioning of the aerial refueling probe on the Tejas. Well, here is my take on it.

The fact is that many of the Tejas' Test Pilots are former Mirage-2000 pilots and as we know, the positioning of the probe is nearly the same on both jets. If pilots flying the Mirage-2000 never complained about the probe blocking the view, then the same applies to the Tejas.

Positioning of refueling probe is an issue that exists only in the imagination of posters of this forum. A term comes to mind 'Criticizing for the sake of criticizing' - since some of the posters are desperate to find faults with Tejas this seems to be one of the stupid items that generally has consensus over here. On the contrary JF17 refuelling probe is actually poor and is a cop out due to design inefficiencies.

View attachment 621607

1st is this JF17 block 3 cockpit ?

2nd LAD is not just about display but is much more than that.

 

[Crixus]

 

[JohnWick]

Thank you.

I had seen some other post here that was criticizing the positioning of the aerial refueling probe on the Tejas. Well, here is my take on it.

The fact is that many of the Tejas' Test Pilots are former Mirage-2000 pilots and as we know, the positioning of the probe is nearly the same on both jets. If pilots flying the Mirage-2000 never complained about the probe blocking the view, then the same applies to the Tejas.

And if you've seen videos of the Mirage-2000 from the cockpit, you'll realise that the probe doesn't really block the view.

But there is a huge advantage to it being positioned in front of the canopy and not on the side.
1) It is right in the eye line of the pilot, looking forward. He doesn't have to look sideways to position the fighter to refuel
2) It avoids the possibility of the drogue basket hitting the canopy when a contact is missed. This is one of the biggest threats to pilots in fighters where the probe is placed on the side. The drogue basket if it swings about, can crack a canopy and no pilot on earth will want that.
3) Very careful CFD and wind tunnel testing and modeling was done to analyse the wake flow and as a result, when the first contact was attempted with the drogue basket, it was done beautifully.
4) the FCS is designed to make the aerial refueling an extremely smooth and safe operation. Once again, according to a Tejas Test Pilot I spoke to, aerial refueling is the easiest on the Tejas compared to all other IAF jets, including the Mirage-2000.

Read this interview with a Gripen pilot

When asked what is his least favorite thing about the Gripen- it was the aerial refueling probe. The reason why it was placed there was because it was retrofitted into an already set fuselage and they didn't want to make all the changes required to put it up front next to the pilot's field of vision.





I can see from the quality of your posts as to what your level of discussion will be.

I won't discuss this anymore with you since it's not worth my time.

Why you can't understand that everyone does not live in your Wizard of Oz....
If that is the case then Why Lookhead Martin developed that kind of aerial refueling probe in their premier
F-22 Raptor?....Where the pilot can't see anything.

Also look at the aerial refueling probe of
F-15 Strike Eagle....Are these premier aircraft companies of the world couldn't put a piece of shit looking probe direct inside the mouth of the plane?

at last for more of your Satisfaction you can also consider the aerial refueling probe of
F-16 Fighting Falcon.

I was only saying that you are just making a fool out of yourself....

Positioning of refueling probe is an issue that exists only in the imagination of posters of this forum. A term comes to mind 'Criticizing for the sake of criticizing' - since some of the posters are desperate to find faults with Tejas this seems to be one of the stupid items that generally has consensus over here. On the contrary JF17 refuelling probe is actually poor and is a cop out due to design inefficiencies.



1st is this JF17 block 3 cockpit ?

2nd LAD is not just about display but is much more than that.

Nahh bud it was the F-35 lightning ll cockpit ....And my point was that if The modren looking cockpit was not the case then the makers of F-35 which are the finest of this world could put 2 to 3 small piece of shit MFDs in their state of art machine....
Anyway thanks for asking.....
As far as the aerial refueling probe of
JF-17 Thunder is concerned it is on the same position as that of F-35 lightning ll
Are you consider CAC and Lookhead Martin
Companies Foolish that they put aerial refueling probe in decent looking way rather putting it like a tumor direct on the face of the airplane as in Tejas?

 

[MirageBlue]

Why you can't understand that everyone does not live in your Wizard of Oz....
If that is the case then Why Lookhead Martin developed that kind of aerial refueling probe in their premier
F-22 Raptor?....Where the pilot can't see anything.View attachment 621776Also look at the aerial refueling probe of
F-15 Strike Eagle....Are these premier aircraft companies of the world couldn't put a piece of shit looking probe direct inside the mouth of the plane?View attachment 621777at last for more of your Satisfaction you can also consider the aerial refueling probe of
F-16 Fighting Falcon. View attachment 621778I was only saying that you are just making a fool out of yourself....

Nahh bud it was the F-35 lightning ll cockpit ....And my point was that if The modren looking cockpit was not the case then the makers of F-35 which are the finest of this world could put 2 to 3 small piece of shit MFDs in their state of art machine....
Anyway thanks for asking.....
As far as the aerial refueling probe of
JF-17 Thunder is concerned it is on the same position as that of F-35 lightning ll
Are you consider CAC and Lookhead Martin
Companies Foolish that they put aerial refueling probe in decent looking way rather putting it like a tumor direct on the face of the airplane as in Tejas?View attachment 621775

Lol..Even your basics are so poor, what can one say?

You don't even understand the difference between probe/drogue refueling and boom refueling and you're arguing with me.

F-22, F-15, F-16, F-35A, etc. ALL are designed for BOOM refueling. In the case of boom refueling, the pilot just has to bring the aircraft close to the tanker and the boom operator on the tanker has the job of connecting the boom and conducting the refueling.

In the case of probe/drogue refueling, the pilot of the fighter needs to position the probe exactly where the drogue is. So the positioning of the probe is of utmost importance. Hence the position of the probe on the Tejas, Mirage-2000, Rafale, etc. is right in front of the canopy. F/A-18 is one of the few American jets that has probe/drogue refueling capability and hence it's probe is positioned as shown below- in front of the pilot. Only good thing for the Hornet is that it is a retractable probe since there is space inside the nose to retract the probe into.

I think for you, it's Tejas, it's Indian, and hence it's bad. Simple. I get that. Such people are best avoided, since I am here to engage in sensible discussions, not the kind of rhetoric you engage in.

As far as the aerial refueling probe of
JF-17 Thunder is concerned it is on the same position as that of F-35 lightning ll
Are you consider CAC and Lookhead Martin
Companies Foolish that they put aerial refueling probe in decent looking way rather putting it like a tumor direct on the face of the airplane as in Tejas?View attachment 621775

You don't get it, do you?

the F-35 has a RETRACTABLE probe. That means you need space in the NOSE (behind the RADOME where the RADAR is), to be able to fit the retracting probe into. the F-35 or ANY fighter that has a Retractable probe, will have to position it away from the nose UNLESS the nose has enough volume to fit the probe into, like in the case of the F/A-18 and Su-30.

On the Typhoon, MiG-29, Jaguar, F-35B, et.all, the retractable probe means that there is simply no option but to position it sideways, NEXT TO the pilot's eye line, where there is volume available in the fuselage to fit it. Understand??

I know all this will fly right over your head, but explaining it nevertheless.

Positioning of refueling probe is an issue that exists only in the imagination of posters of this forum. A term comes to mind 'Criticizing for the sake of criticizing' - since some of the posters are desperate to find faults with Tejas this seems to be one of the stupid items that generally has consensus over here. On the contrary JF17 refuelling probe is actually poor and is a cop out due to design inefficiencies.



1st is this JF17 block 3 cockpit ?

2nd LAD is not just about display but is much more than that.

Yes, I get that. Criticize the Tejas because it's Indian and has been delayed.

Having spoken to the TP, I was told that the probe was positioned with full NFTC Test Pilots' involvement. The entire thing was studied very carefully and a lot of CFD analysis was done before they even began ground fit trials.

The reason the probe is positioned so far forward on the Tejas, Mirage-2000 and Rafale is TO AVOID the aircraft WAKE airflow generated around the canopy. The farther forward you position the probe, the lower is the wake. What the wake does is that it causes turbulent airflow that pushes the Drogue basket away from the probe, meaning the pilot has a difficult time trying to connect to the Drogue basket. The Gripen pilot confirmed that as well in his interview with Hushkit.

Also, the Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter (MWF) will very likely feature a retractable probe as per an ADA interview. That very likely means the probe will be moved to the side as it is in the case of Typhoon, since the nose doesn't have the empty volume to fit the retracting probe into.

 

[Aswaklanta D]

Hello
When is hal lca tejas mk1a going to be inducted?
Some say 2023-24.
And what is news of hal mwf. I saw photos of the aircraft, it is beautiful.we need to produce 100+ mwf in next 5-10 years.
Should we trust ada and hal.

 

[MirageBlue]

Hello
When is hal lca tejas mk1a going to be inducted?
Some say 2023-24.
And what is news of hal mwf. I saw photos of the aircraft, it is beautiful.we need to produce 100+ mwf in next 5-10 years.
Should we trust ada and hal.

3 years from date of signing the contract, as per HAL. That is when the first serial production Tejas Mk1A will roll out of the assembly line and be handed over to the IAF for squadron formation.

Should see the first Mk1A prototype (a modified Tejas Mk1 LSP prototype) fly in 2021. Should give around 2 years of time for trials to achieve IOC. FOC will take more time.

And yeah, the MWF is a really beautiful fighter. Already in detailed design phase, the metal cutting for the first prototype will begin in February 2021. First MWF prototype will be rolled out in 2022 or 2023.

As per the IAF, around 200 MWF will be inducted, to replace the Jaguar, MiG-29 and eventually the Mirage-2000.