HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions
- Thread starter EagleEyes
- Start date
- Status
Shabz Nist
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2011
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
I don't remember the weight ever being a problem.
source ?
That Guy
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Messages
- 14,553
- Reaction score
- 52
- Country
- Location
It was apparently, something to do with the LCA being overweight. I can't remember properly, but the last time I asked in the indian section, the weight problem came up.
Anony
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2012
- Messages
- 677
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
That Guy
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Messages
- 14,553
- Reaction score
- 52
- Country
- Location
cool, how'd the engineering team manage to pull that off? Did they remove some of the plating or something?
Anony
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2012
- Messages
- 677
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
No idea on that dude. But I know in 2011 LCA mk-1 was close to 5.7 ton. After that they planned to make certain changes in production which will need them to drill only 2000 holes instead of 10,000 at that point of time.
S-DUCT
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2013
- Messages
- 619
- Reaction score
- 0
IIRC,LCA navy has weight problem and it's being fixed with help from EADS.
sancho
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
True, but mainly wrt the landinging gear, which ADA/DRDO designed too massive. The LCA as a whole never had weight problems, since it's still comparable to similar fighters in it's class, but the original goal of the project was 1t lower.
The weight definitely is not below 6t like Anony thinks, in fact all officials specs still hints to around 6.5t emptyweight, but the real problem seems to be drag, since all modifications in the recent LSP version had gone in that direction.
vsdave2302
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
- Messages
- 1,870
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
When LCA was grounded for 3 months, I recall an official statement that there were some changes in ejection seat and replacement of some heavy LRUS with light ones. The extensive use of Composite should make it light in weight. 6.5 T was the weight of 2003 model. I remember some member providing a link stating that weight is 5.8 T. Can somebody tell that to what extent the Drag problem is resolved?
Ajay shukla had written in his famous article that it flies at Mach 1.6. Has the speed been increased? (Either because of Drag reduction or opening up of flight envelope?)
Ajay shukla had written in his famous article that it flies at Mach 1.6. Has the speed been increased? (Either because of Drag reduction or opening up of flight envelope?)
sancho
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
The official website still shows Mach 1.6:
LCA Tejas - Specifications: Leading Particulars and Performance
vsdave2302
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
- Messages
- 1,870
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Thank you Sancho but do not you think that it is too low & should be at least Mach 1.8. Our Jaguar & Mig 27 has much higher speed with a comparatively less powerful engine. Is it because of Drag? I heard that LCA MK2 will have more refined aerodynamic & 3 % performance improvement will come from It. isn't 3% too low? Can LCA Mach 1 will ever touch Mach 1.8? I also see LCA take some more time to get air born compare to grippen though It gains speed rapidly. Is it because of lack of Canard?
One more question. Will LCA be able to match the performance go Grippen?
SRP
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages
- 2,460
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
LCA-Tejas has completed 2270 Test Flights Successfully. (15-July-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-366,LSP1-74,LSP2-275,PV5-36,LSP3-155,LSP4-90,LSP5-198,LSP7-51,NP1-4,LSP8-19)
From
LCA-Tejas has completed 2267 Test Flights Successfully. (10-July-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-366,LSP1-74,LSP2-275,PV5-36,LSP3-154,LSP4-90,LSP5-198,LSP7-51,NP1-4,LSP8-17)
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-366,LSP1-74,LSP2-275,PV5-36,LSP3-155,LSP4-90,LSP5-198,LSP7-51,NP1-4,LSP8-19)
From
LCA-Tejas has completed 2267 Test Flights Successfully. (10-July-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-366,LSP1-74,LSP2-275,PV5-36,LSP3-154,LSP4-90,LSP5-198,LSP7-51,NP1-4,LSP8-17)
vsdave2302
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
- Messages
- 1,870
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Self deleted
sancho
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
Mach 1.8 was the goal, but they didn't seemed to reach it yet, some reports suggested the small but rather thick wings as a possible problem. Most of the drag reduction features that the MK2 will have, are already implemented in the latest LSP version, like the new APU coverings, or some changes at air intakes. Drag is sadly a general problem for our designs as it seems, since most of our aircrafts are facing the same problems (see the latest changes of LCH for example). So finding thigs to counter that, next to weight reductions and increased thrust will be important to reach the initial goals.
LCA MK2 will have several capabilities that are similar to Gripen NG, be it the same engine, AESA radar, but the Gripen NG is meant to be a medium class 4.5 gen fighter and therfor includes changes to carry higher loads too. LCA MK2 will be a 4.5 gen fighter too, but still aimed on the light class. Without additional hardpoints, or more internal fuel carriage, it won't be able to have similar loads like the Gripen. But then again, it don't have to, since IAF has way better platforms for these roles. As an interceptor with CAS capabilities, it will be very comparable to the Gripen again, but we will have to wait for all details of the MK2 till we can say more.
vsdave2302
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
- Messages
- 1,870
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Sancho Ji Thank you very much once again. I had read that wings are draggy. Are they going to redesign them in MK2? Actual MK 2 is also not the design the scientist want. But major redesign will delay the project further so they want a minimum changes. For example optimum fuselage extension is 1 to 1.5 m but they are increasing it only by 0.5 m in order to avoid long testing cycle.
Sancho don't you think that wing is too large for the aircraft of this size? isn't the large wing a main hurdle in achieving good sustained turn rate?
I see a major difference in wing root in old white prototype and LSPs in which the wing take a dip in angle near fuselage? can Sancho or any body explain why? I see that MK2 is once again going to have the same wings as PV. Can MK 1's wing can be redesign and updated later on?
Will Mk2 cross Mach 2?
Sancho don't you think that wing is too large for the aircraft of this size? isn't the large wing a main hurdle in achieving good sustained turn rate?
I see a major difference in wing root in old white prototype and LSPs in which the wing take a dip in angle near fuselage? can Sancho or any body explain why? I see that MK2 is once again going to have the same wings as PV. Can MK 1's wing can be redesign and updated later on?
Will Mk2 cross Mach 2?
- Status
Similar threads
