Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
F/A-50 Is a 'fighter' air craft.
Both F/A-50 and and Tejas are 'LCAs'
Other jets that i mentioned are 'Medium Weight' fighter air crafts.
EDAS once wanted to build an LCA called MAKO.
@HariPrasad
More 'fairer' comparison would be Tejas VS F/A-50 Golden eagle, which is the fighter version of the trainer golden eagle.
IMHO Gripens are in the same weight class as the Mirage 2000, JF-17s, J-10s and F-16s.
If you want to debate the 'wing' and flight characteristics then further argument can be made since both jets have a 'simmilarish' delta wing.
@HariPrasad
More 'fairer' comparison would be Tejas VS F/A-50 Golden eagle, which is the fighter version of the trainer golden eagle.
IMHO Gripens are in the same weight class as the Mirage 2000, JF-17s, J-10s and F-16s.
If you want to debate the 'wing' and flight characteristics then further argument can be made since both jets have a 'simmilarish' delta wing.
F/A-50 Is a 'fighter' air craft.
Both F/A-50 and and Tejas are 'LCAs'
Other jets that i mentioned are 'Medium Weight' fighter air crafts.
EDAS once wanted to build an LCA called MAKO.
We have 3 fighters here of around 13000kg MTOW,and how can one be Light & other two (gripen & JF 17 ) be Medium Weight fighters?
A ' Medium weight aircraft ' is like J 10,F 16 ,Mig 29,Rafale,hornet etc
You are wrongly stuck on MTOW alone. Please go and check other critical capabilities of the air crafts you have been comparing, ie ferry range, combat radius etc - Classifications are not done on weight, loaded, empty or both , alone.
@Dash @HariPrasad
As i stated before. The question of 'air frame' shouldn't be discussed if this thread is to end in some fruitful result.
We can safely discuss about the 'wing', aerodynamics, flight performance, electronics and weapon systems, their capabilities vis a vis cost-benefit ratio.
Please keep in mind that the two air crafts in question are DIFFERENT, like apples and oranges. Gripen's design philosophy was to build an alternative for Mirage-2000s and the F-16s.
Gripens were DESIGNED to be 'frontline' truly multirole air crafts. The Tejas's design philosophy is similar to K/A-50, which was to build a complementory 'force multiplier'.
@Dash l Wings, flight performance, sub systems yes, otherwise this debate is not getting anywhere.
Please keep in mind that the two air crafts in question are DIFFERENT, like apples and oranges. Gripen's design philosophy was to build an alternative for Mirage-2000s and the F-16s.
@HariPrasad
You must Understnd that the design/operational philosophy outlines the technical requirements, for any program.
Some air crafts sacrifice certain elements for some other advantages because they have been designed to serve a specified role.
In flight performance, the Tejas is modeled after the Mirage-III design family leading up to Mirage-2000 design, with certain elements of SAAB Viggen's wing cropped delta wing design.
The Tejas has its wings mounted on the upper fusalage with wing intakes beneath, instead of wings mounted in the middle of the fusalage with 'integrated' inlets, like the Mirage-III/V/2000.
Its because Tejas sacrifices high speed normally associated to the delta wings for a better load carrying capability vis a vis its air frame's stress levels.
Canard delta wings fly under a different set of flight control laws than singluar deltas. If Tejas was to be compared to any other cropped delta wing air craft of the modern day, for the argument's sake.
If you remove the forward mounted Canards on Rafale, you might get close to a 'similarish' flight performance to that of the Tejas, due to Rafale's lower mounted inlets, its cropped delta wing and a single tail.
However, I wouldn't compare the flight performance of Tejas and other deltas like the J-10 family, SAAB JAS-39 GRIPEN, EF Typhoons and F-16V for that matter. Its because they fly under different flight laws and have a different center of gravity.
It would have made a big difference if Canards was introduced to the Tejas air frame, however it will require a total redesign of Tejas's current aerodynamics layout.
@HariPrasad
You must Understnd that the design/operational philosophy outlines the technical requirements, for any program.
Some air crafts sacrifice certain elements for some other advantages because they have been designed to serve a specified role.
In flight performance, the Tejas is modeled after the Mirage-III design family leading up to Mirage-2000 design, with certain elements of SAAB Viggen's wing cropped delta wing design.
The Tejas has its wings mounted on the upper fusalage with wing intakes beneath, instead of wings mounted in the middle of the fusalage with 'integrated' inlets, like the Mirage-III/V/2000.
Its because Tejas sacrifices high speed normally associated to the delta wings for a better load carrying capability vis a vis its air frame's stress levels.
Canard delta wings fly under a different set of flight control laws than singluar deltas. If Tejas was to be compared to any other cropped delta wing air craft of the modern day, for the argument's sake.
If you remove the forward mounted Canards on Rafale, you might get close to a 'similarish' flight performance to that of the Tejas, due to Rafale's lower mounted inlets, its cropped delta wing and a single tail.
However, I wouldn't compare the flight performance of Tejas and other deltas like the J-10 family, SAAB JAS-39 GRIPEN, EF Typhoons and F-16V for that matter. Its because they fly under different flight laws and have a different center of gravity.
It would have made a big difference if Canards was introduced to the Tejas air frame, however it will require a total redesign of Tejas's current aerodynamics layout.