HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

[kingdurgaking]

Lemme correct my self .. . the GE F404 and F414 have same dimension ,, so my arguments are on stand by

and one question ,, does there is need to work on size fuselage and air intake just because F414 engine alone ,,,

As far as the reports are considered.. We are going to increase the length and width of fuselage to accommodate more internal fuel, Increased wingspan to carry more weapons.. To compensate this ADA will work reducing the weight of the aircraft . And my guess is FBW will impacted only here...
Secondly air intake has to be increased to give more air flow to the engine...

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Come on, doc! It's like saying Le Forte I or Le Forte II.......it isn't the matter!



I can totally empathize with you!


Fun apart, I totally agree with you about the difficulties and the time penalty for changing LCA mk2 intakes. Size increase is much more probable!

@ kish


There is no need to tamper with the design of a product variant if you want to test rectangular/parallelogram air intake. One craft can do the job!

In fact, L.S.P. 6 of the LCA mk1 has been desiganted for experimental purposes. This craft can be used for the said purpose.

Here is F16 testbed testing the DSI Intakes.

As they say the Le Forte 1 and Le Forte II are fractures...but the treatment protocol and the time for healing of the two varies vastly... Thus you must also know the same applies for the LCA mods....

 

[ganimi kawa]

As they say the Le Forte 1 and Le Forte II are fractures...but the treatment protocol and the time for healing of the two varies vastly... Thus you must also know the same applies for the LCA mods....

I know! And thus the statement....

Fun apart, I totally agree with you about the difficulties and the time penalty for changing LCA mk2 intakes. Size increase is much more probable!

Though, you can't write Le Forte I on the case file when you meant Le Forte II as the diagnosis. Typing difficulty won't be a very good defence in the MLC that will follow!

It's a pleasure to meet someone from my branch of the tree, though!

 

[sudhir007]

VAYU: Wisdom & Courage: An Assessment Of The LCA Tejas

for lca reader

 

[kish]

As far as the reports are considered.. We are going to increase the length and width of fuselage to accommodate more internal fuel, Increased wingspan to carry more weapons.. To compensate this ADA will work reducing the weight of the aircraft . And my guess is FBW will impacted only here...
Secondly air intake has to be increased to give more air flow to the engine...

in that case we should go for new air intake .. may be lil stealthier LCA will look more nice ... my one vote

 

[kish]

VAYU: Wisdom & Courage: An Assessment Of The LCA Tejas

for lca reader

same that benny posted today ,, i thought he scan a book and paste here,,

anyway thanks to both ,,, will give some time to read it

 

[sudhir007]

same that benny posted today ,, i thought he scan a book and paste here,,

anyway thanks to both ,,, will give some time to read it

Sorry for re-post i try to call images from the site but it not work that why i only post link

 

[MAFIAN GOD]

ACTUALLY BENNY POSTED PICTURES AND YOU GAVE THE LINK.
THANXXX ANYWAYS.

 

[kish]

Sorry for re-post i try to call images from the site but it not work that why i only post link

No sorry dude . . . That is good work by u . . I have to give some time to read that whole article . . Busy somewhere . Will click ur thank butten after i will read it.

 

[CONNAN]

Fine dude... You are just saying rectangular is not mandatory.. accepted ...we are not saying it is rectangular.. we are just foreseeing that Rectangular intake can be an option because it is there on a plane which is hosing the same engine...

And from where did you get that dimensions are different.. can we have your source?.. I have couple of source saying dimensions are same.. do you want me to post it?? let me see your source first

i was actually replied this to satish to explain him regarding the article he posted. and you are right regarding your comment i agree with you. i just want to tell satish that there is no need to change the design of the exhaust if we redesign the intakes but some redesigning is necessary as far as fuselage is concerned

 

[CONNAN]

Fine dude... You are just saying rectangular is not mandatory.. accepted ...we are not saying it is rectangular.. we are just foreseeing that Rectangular intake can be an option because it is there on a plane which is hosing the same engine...

And from where did you get that dimensions are different.. can we have your source?.. I have couple of source saying dimensions are same.. do you want me to post it?? let me see your source first

in post no 12 in the below link thread it was posted by one of the member but not the link i just quoted it from his comment but as you said there is no exact source quoting that it will be a rectangular but there will be a redesign in the air intakes to provide more inflow of air to the new engine for more thrust

http://www.defence.pk/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1214848

 

[kingdurgaking]

i was actually replied this to satish to explain him regarding the article he posted. and you are right regarding your comment i agree with you. i just want to tell satish that there is no need to change the design of the exhaust if we redesign the intakes but some redesigning is necessary as far as fuselage is concerned

When lot of people have the right to speculate why not we also do that?... There is nothing wrong in expressing our views even though it turns out to be wrong at the end...

 

[CONNAN]

When lot of people have the right to speculate why not we also do that?... There is nothing wrong in expressing our views even though it turns out to be wrong at the end...

yup and i hope our guys in HAL pull out the MK2 in time

 

[ganimi kawa]

Guys, I've come across this interview from the force magazine of Director ADA, Dr. P.S. Subramanyam, hope this clears up some confusion surrounding MkII.

1.What is the current status of the LCA programme?

----We have developed 2 technology demonstrators TD-1 and TD-2; we have the four prototypes PV-1, PV-2, PV-3 and PV-4. The Limited Series Production aircraft ranging from LSP-1 to LSP-4 are all flying.

TD-1, TD-2 and PV-1 have now become outdated and are used for ground testing or testing of equipment that needs to be developed for the Tejas. All the aircraft from PV-2 onwards are participating in the flying test campaign.

LSP-5 is currently the final ‘Standard of Preparation’ that we will deliver to the Indian Air Force (IAF) and this aircraft is expected to fly this month. LSP-6 and LSP-7 will follow and have been earmarked for the user evaluation by pilots belonging to the Aircraft Systems and Testing Establishment (ASTE).

Both the IAF and the Indian Navy have committed some money for the Tejas Mk-2 which will be equipped with a higher performing engine. We now have a concurrent programme to develop the Tejas Mk-2 version for the IAF and the Indian Navy.

The PV-5 which is a trainer version of the Tejas’ is flying and another aircraft PV-6 is expected to fly by the end of this year.

The maiden flight of the Tejas Mk-2 is expected to take place in December 2014 and production will begin in December 2016.

2.What is the current order book for the Tejas and what orders can be expected in the future?


----Based on the progress observed by the IAF an order for 20 ‘Tejas’ fighters was placed by the IAF in 2006. Further developments in the LCA programme have resulted in order for another 20 aircraft.

There exists a requirement on paper for 100 fighters (five squadrons) for the IAF and a 50 for the Indian Navy, which has been put up to the government of India. The technology growth in engines has been so rapid that is has been very difficult to keep pace with the technology. As a result, the Kaveri engine which we began with in the early Nineties is now unable to match the performance requirements demanded by the user.

We are confident that the Tejas equipped with the alternate engine will provide the IAF with a fighter which offers contemporary performance over a decade of service.

Shall be posting the second part in just a while.

 

[ganimi kawa]

Here are the juicy details

What is the configuration of the LSP versions and what changes will Mk-2 versions entail?

---Equipment-fit LSP-wise is in the final standard of preparation for the IAF. All the sensors, communication equipment and weapons required for the current Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) are present.

Also since we were designing a fighter of this class for the first time, we were very conservative in the design. Especially when it came to structural strength characteristics and this has lead to an increase in weight.

Weight optimisation will be undertaken for the Tejas Mk-2 variant to reduce its weight. The Mk-2 version will also have better Centre of Gravity (CG) management and maintainability features. Within the programme feasibility, we will be revamping the cockpit electronics to bring it more up to date with technologies that will be prevalent around 2016. There will be advanced electronics, improved cockpit displays and interfaces which will remain contemporary even in the 2020’s.

The Tejas Mk-2 will feature an alternate engine which will offer a performance increase of about 10 per cent.

The engine change for Mk-2 will result in the rear fuselage being changed and intakes having to be redesigned. All these structural changes will also reflect in drawing changes and parts fabrication.

The digital Fly by Wire (FBW) Flight Control System (FCS) will not change.

We do not see much impact when it comes to hydraulics, electronics and undercarriage, etc. With regards to the developmental programme this will not be a major impact.

What is the update on the LCA Naval version?



---The ‘Power On’ for the Navy version has to take place where we test all the functions; this will be followed by four to six weeks of exhaustive testing.

If we are able to demonstrate the naval variant at the Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF) in Goa, then the navy may consider orders for the Mk-1 variant of Tejas itself, to fill the gap for light fighters to operate off its careers.

We also expect the navy to order around 2 squadrons of the Mk-2 variant. Initial funding of about Rs 900 crore was obtained for the Naval variant in 2003, as we went along there were many challenges and we found that a major portion of the structure had to be strengthened, nose droop was required, extra control surfaces and the flight control system of Naval variant differs from the IAF variant because of the low speed landing requirements of the LCA Navy.

In hindsight, it would have been easier to design the naval variant first and then quickly move onto the air force variant and not the other way around. Our initial estimates on the amount of work required on the Naval variant were not quite accurate and the programme gave us some surprises.