What's new

Round One JF17 - Poor Display By Tejas Took 10 more sec Than JF17 To Go Up

Actually Tejas is 6 seconds faster than Jf17. :enjoy:

Tejas Take off in 14 seconds in both Iron fist 2013 and Bahrain.

0:48 to 1:02 from Iron fist 2013

Now see JF17 take off in 20 seconds

~At Paris 0:0 to 0:20

~at Farnborough England 6:31 to 6:51
 
Last edited:
No it isnt, please find me the aerodynamics to prove it. Delta's offer a lower profile that assists transonic and supersonic acceleration but they lose a LOT more energy in turns at high speeds when compared to conventional designs. Their planform when mated with an unstable movement allows for rapid nose pointing ability but that also creates massive drag. The M2K has excellent instaneous turn rate but when it comes to sustaining a turn, it cant hold its own against a conventional mechanical F-15. The Tejas is at the end a pocket M2K.
Deltas perform very well at low speeds and high alphas but anywhere else they are in trouble against a conventional design.

Pappy,

They won't want to hear that----.
 
Your points are pertinent for a traditional "naked" delta with no canards or compound geometry (which is effectively a canard attached to a delta for tejas) due to the excessive drag caused by flow separation in high alpha (and hence also high STR) regimes. So quite true for the mirage series and Mig 21.

However with the addition of canards and compound geometries like in the Eurofighter, Gripen and Tejas etc.., this issue has been mitigated quite considerably through flow direct re-energisation and/or higher spanwise flow from the greater incidence angle. The exact specs given their maximum STR is therefore something we cannot automatically to be inferior to regular conventional layouts...while they keep their superior ITR parameters because of their relatively lower wing loading (ceterus paribus). The exact trade-offs and balances are of course quite hush hush, high quality turn performance data is only really released for aircraft that have already been retired or are currently/close to ending their service lives.

Maybe in my free time I will attempt to do some CFD modelling using the geometries of canards and compound deltas as opposed to regular simple deltas so we can all have some layman data as to what the possible improvements might entail in rough % terms.....since gaining access to this online is quite difficult from what I have seen.
Yes you are right. They are mitigated. That is of course the whole point of these modifications to a pure delta. But they are only mitigated not completely solved. A well designed high sweep delta will still bleed more energy than a well designed swept wing/cropped delta etc. There is NO getting around the fact that flying at a higher alpha incurs higher drag losses. And flying at a higher alpha is something a delta must do to maintain the same amount of lift, especially in a turn where lift demands increase. But you knew that. I'm just making the point that even with a well designed high sweep delta you will bleed considerable energy in turns. Less than mirage 3, more than jf17. This is not such a bad thing. All designs are compromises. This is just one aspect.
 
Impressive performance indeed.

35 years of hard work is behind this performance that looks like exceeding F-35. India should be proud of the hard work of her scientists who (with the help of foreign consultants) were able to fit and utilize different equipment into its air frame.

This performance (better than F-35 and other fifth generation fighters) comes in a price that is several, several times cheaper than its counterparts.

Some sources are saying that different air forces (including those of Russia and US) have started communicating with HAL to procure this fighter in large numbers, however, despite Indian assurances to them of delivering an squadron per month, Air Forces are only worried if the suppliers of following equipment will be able to deliver their parts on time:

Engine (GE, US) US believes that GE is capable of providing 16 engines per month.
Radar (Israel)
Avionics (Israel)
Litening Pod (Israel)
NVG: (Israel)
HMD: (Israel)
Glass cockpit (Israel/ France)
Ejection Seat (UK)
Flight control (France)
Navigation (France)
Ring-laser gyroscope (Israel)
Quartz Radome (UK)
Inflight refueling (UK)
BVR missiles (Israel/ France/ Russia)
WVR missiles (Israel/ France/ Russia)
Main canon (Russia)

Also these air forces fear that the sale might face embargoes from different countries but even then, they are trying hard to get the deal finalized.

But again impressive performance.

Per Dil (IPR) hai Hindustani.. :D

 
But they are only mitigated not completely solved.

Yes but how much is the amount of mitigation? From what I have heard its quite a favourable amount all things considered, or the design concept would not be continuing in militaries/companies that have a long heritage in military aerospace like that found in Europe....especially combined with the combat doctrine that is more relevant for modern jets armed with the weaponry they have today. I mean reading the discussion that General Dynamics put forth for their F-16 XL regarding ITR doctrine as opposed to traditional STR doctrine is quite an eye-opener to begin with. We simply cannot look at any performance envelope in complete black and white....especially when we go supersonic and many subsonic aerodynamic "rules" actually start to reverse given how fundamental ideal gas compression and expansion characteristics change across the mach threshold. There's a reason why the Eurofighter has such excellent STR at supersonic regimes...surpassed maybe only by the F-22 (because of TVC).

A well designed high sweep delta will still bleed more energy than a well designed swept wing/cropped delta etc.

Sure (holding everything else constant and assuming strictly subsonic only - which is a big assumption since pilots would be aware of the favourable engagement parameters). But comparing just one profile of performance (STR) while having no idea about just how close the actual LCA STR is to any non-delta while potentially being surperior in various other parameters (which may also be mitigated/improved from the traditional vanilla baseline in the opponents platform as well) is really beyond the scope of just verbal forum discussion.

We will need to input the geometries and do a CFD analysis really....which I am prepared to do if/when I get some time and share here. Till that happens, we really have nothing that solid to go on concerning full fledged overall combat aerodynamics of the platforms. Airshow demonstrations mean next to nothing other than material for the regular fanboys of both sides to cheer/discredit....i.e. see what you want to see for the most part.

This is not such a bad thing. All designs are compromises. This is just one aspect.

Yah basically. Calculating/determining just what the levels of compromise are is what I am getting at. For instance I wonder what the exact change is from using a full fledged canard compared to using a compound delta to a naked delta is (in all iterations). Then we can start giving a combat "character" to both platforms. I'm sure pilots on both sides are already engaged in the beginnings of that already.
 
Yes but how much is the amount of mitigation? From what I have heard its quite a favourable amount all things considered, or the design concept would not be continuing in militaries/companies that have a long heritage in military aerospace like that found in Europe....especially combined with the combat doctrine that is more relevant for modern jets armed with the weaponry they have today. I mean reading the discussion that General Dynamics put forth for their F-16 XL regarding ITR doctrine as opposed to traditional STR doctrine is quite an eye-opener to begin with. We simply cannot look at any performance envelope in complete black and white....especially when we go supersonic and many subsonic aerodynamic "rules" actually start to reverse given how fundamental ideal gas compression and expansion characteristics change across the mach threshold. There's a reason why the Eurofighter has such excellent STR at supersonic regimes...surpassed maybe only by the F-22 (because of TVC).



Sure (holding everything else constant and assuming strictly subsonic only - which is a big assumption since pilots would be aware of the favourable engagement parameters). But comparing just one profile of performance (STR) while having no idea about just how close the actual LCA STR is to any non-delta while potentially being surperior in various other parameters (which may also be mitigated/improved from the traditional vanilla baseline in the opponents platform as well) is really beyond the scope of just verbal forum discussion.

We will need to input the geometries and do a CFD analysis really....which I am prepared to do if/when I get some time and share here. Till that happens, we really have nothing that solid to go on concerning full fledged overall combat aerodynamics of the platforms. Airshow demonstrations mean next to nothing other than material for the regular fanboys of both sides to cheer/discredit....i.e. see what you want to see for the most part.



Yah basically. Calculating/determining just what the levels of compromise are is what I am getting at. For instance I wonder what the exact change is from using a full fledged canard compared to using a compound delta to a naked delta is (in all iterations). Then we can start giving a combat "character" to both platforms. I'm sure pilots on both sides are already engaged in the beginnings of that already.
I don't see how we are in disagreement. I was just making the point about the turns the Tejas made in the airshow. Yes its stupid to look at just that but that is one tiny thing that will hold it back in that envelope, by however small of an amount. I would be very very surprised if the tejas can turn as hard as a JF-17 ...and this caveat is important...WHILE MAINTAINING speed (low subsonic regime of course). I agree with everything you have said. I am not claiming to talk about the whole design strategy of the Tejas. Just pointing out one tiny thing for people who might not know it.

Also I will be wildly impressed if you are able to do a CFD with confidence of such a complex flow. I am looking forward to the results :)
 
I don't see how we are in disagreement. I was just making the point about the turns the Tejas made in the airshow. Yes its stupid to look at just that but that is one tiny thing that will hold it back in that envelope, by however small of an amount. I would be very very surprised if the tejas can turn as hard as a JF-17 ...and this caveat is important...WHILE MAINTAINING speed (low subsonic regime of course). I agree with everything you have said. I am not claiming to talk about the whole design strategy of the Tejas. Just pointing out one tiny thing for people who might not know it.

Also I will be wildly impressed if you are able to do a CFD with confidence of such a complex flow. I am looking forward to the results :)

Yah hence when I get some free time hehe. It's been a while since I have touched something at this fundamental kind of way, it may take time for me to unrust, but I do remember a lot of the fun I had back in the day some years back...and I don't think I have forgotten the basic and important stuff (I hope). I will probably start with some very basic modelling and then if the results are decent, I will use a better software package to refine it. Let's see! Stay tuned!
 
Actually Tejas is 6 seconds faster than Jf17. :enjoy:

Tejas Take off in 14 seconds in both Iron fist 2013 and Bahrain.

0:48 to 1:02 from Iron fist 2013

Now see JF17 take off in 20 seconds

~At Paris 0:0 to 0:20

~at Farnborough England 6:31 to 6:51

If you look closely, JFT at Paris was normal confirguration while the one at Farnborough England had external fuel tanks attached. Still both took 18 to 20 sec to fly.
 
For non technical Fanboys here to understand what prominent posters @Oscar and @Nilgiri are in discussion here

Let me make simple matter for Fanboys

DELTA WING:
It is one of the most common wing planform that resembles a Triangle or Δ structure.

There are mainly 4 variations of Delta wing configuration.
1. Tail-less Delta (LCA)
2. Tailed Delta (Mig-21)
3. Compound Delta (LCA)
4. Cropped Delta (F-16)

Tailed-Delta has better handling where as Cropped-Delta has better AoA. Compound Delta is used to create high-lift vortex and reduce drag. Although use of canards and control surfaces like Dassault Rafale and EF Typhoon can provide other variations too.

At the beginning Delta wing is experimented on high speed supersonic aircraft to achieve more stability during supersonic flight. But this causes instability in subsonic speed i.e below MacH.Generally Pure Delta configuration is preferred for designing Aircraft with supersonic Interceptor role. But as generation advanced Interceptors are no more required and what we call as Multi-role or Swing-role fighter comes into view. So pure Delta configuration idea is dropped out instead Compound delta and Canard-delta is used now-a-days.

ADVANTAGES:
-The Delta wing reduces the shock wave produced during the transition from subsonic to supersonic mach thus reducing the drag at higher mach. So now aircraft doesn't have to sacrifice any internal energy to compensate for the air drag.
-The delta planform gives the largest total wing area (generating useful lift) for the wing shape, with very low wing per-unit loading, permitting high maneuverability in the airframe at higher mach.
-Also Delta wing aircrafts can carry more internal fuel and ammunition because they are more stronger than swept wing planform as their fuselage Centre of gravity is far in front.
-In delta wing, at higher AoA the leading edge of wing creates a vortex which gives a high stall angle.
-As the delta wing is simple, it can be made very robust, and relatively inexpensive to build as well as simple to manufacture. That's why we see so many aircraft with Delta wing configuration. Mig-21, Typhoon, Rafale, Tejas.

LIMITATION:
-The tail-less delta doesn't provide enough lift and sufficient stability at lower mach or subsonic speed which is very important in dogfight. But it can be compensated by providing a compound delta configuration. The best example is HAL Tejas, which is a tail-less delta but with compound delta configuration.
-In canard-delta i.e EF.Typhoon or D.Rafale as the mach number increases so as the centre of lift shifts. But this is a minor drawback which can be compensated with skilled pilot.
- In T-tail delta configuration it gives rise to deep stall condition as airflow over the wing is reduced


The Tejas is a tailless, compound delta planform. This planform is designed to keep the Tejas small and lightweight. The use of this planform also minimises the control surfaces needed (no tailplanes or fore planes, just a single vertical tailfin), permits carriage of a wider range of external stores, and confers better close-combat, high-speed, and high-alpha performance characteristics than conventional wing designs. Extensive wind tunnel testing on scale models and complex computational fluid dynamics analyses have optimised the aerodynamic configuration of the LCA, giving it minimum supersonic drag, a low wing-loading, and high rates of roll and pitch
 
Last edited:
If you look closely, JFT at Paris was normal confirguration while the one at Farnborough England had external fuel tanks attached. Still both took 18 to 20 sec to fly.

And if u look closely,Tejas at Iron fist had external tanks and in Bahrain in normal configuration.Still both took 13 to 14 seconds to fly.

Now how about that !
 
Man you just peed on their fireworks........LOL



Hi,


What a joke this display is---the aircraft releases brake at 5:29---wheels up at 5:41---sticks its wheels in at 5:49---and keeps on flying low to gain speed till 5:59---ie is 10 seconds and when it gathers speed---and when it has enough energy buildup---it goes up---.

30 seconds---half a minute-----

What a chicken sh-it lack of power display----

@Viper0011. @Irfan Baloch @Zarvan @Manticore and everyone else----check this out bud----you would like the info

Now look at the take of of the JF 17 at paris

Brake release at 00:57 second-----the moment the wheels are off the ground--it takes a steep climb at 1:17 second and shoots up-----and still the wheels are down and not tucked in---which means a massive drag on the aircraft---.

The wheels go in at around 1:30---.

So---basically---it is up at close to 4000 feet elevation whereas the Tejas is just about lifitng off the runway to put its nose up in the air.

Guys---just check the vidoes out----. Pakistani guys---I told you many months ago---there was a reason for the wheels out take off and the hanging wheels----. They don't want to show the actual power of the aircraft.

PAF's JF-17 Thunder Flying over Paris Air Show 2015 - Video Dailymotion

Source: Bahrain Airshow 2016 : Light Combat Aircraft Tejas in action | Page 8

you are so dumb, tejas is a delta wing...

JFT :-
Starting :- 56 Sec Start time
Off ground :- 1:16 Sec leaving ground Time

20 Sec on RUN WAY time required to leave the ground
.


Tejas:-
Break off : 5:29
Take off : 5:43
Total Time : - 14 Sec required for take Off.

@MastanKhan Where is the power lies ??? 20 Sec for take off oH man what a humiliation.
 
Man you just peed on their fireworks........LOL





you are so dumb, tejas is a delta wing...
No you kiddish LCA is tailless compound delta wing aircraft

Even more sophisticated New gen fighters like. Eurofighter & Gripen and Rafale are delta wing fighters

Kid do not try to comprehensive in matters where you don't have skills.

If you wan't to educate yourself go through my above Post
 
For Your Kind Refernace :

Compund Delta Wing - Technology | Tejas - India's Light Combat Aircraft

Extensive wind tunnel testing on scale models and complex computational fluid dynamics analyses have optimised the aerodynamic configuration of the LCA, giving it minimum supersonic drag, a low wing-loading, and high rates of roll and pitch.

Plus,

During that summer, at the Farnborough Airshow, this machine ( Mirage ) displayed not only excellent handling capabilities, but also a full control at 204 km/h and 26 degree angle of attack. This was totally unexpected in a delta-wing fighter, and proved how computer controlled dynamic (CCD) controls were capable of overcoming the delta wing shortcomings related to poor low-speed control, while retaining the advantages, such as low-drag, low radar cross section, ideal high speed aerodynamics, and large internal volume, as well as simplicity, provided by the absence of horizontal tail surfaces
Thank you, that is EXACTLY what I have stated.

Pappy,

They won't want to hear that----.
That is because it's theirs. The type and intensity of responses may vary but most will try to defend their state's achievement; much more so by those that have lesser knowledge. Hence the splattering of wikipedia links and everything they can find.

That is not to say that the platform is bad, but each platform has its strengths and weaknesses, and my dissappointment is not with the Tejas itself but really how the program management and primary customer has made its utmost effort to screw the gem of a platform and the human resource they have.
 
Back
Top Bottom