MilSpec
ELITE MEMBER
![](/styles/default/xenforo/ranks/airchiefmarshal.jpg)
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Messages
- 12,931
- Reaction score
- 38
- Country
- Location
If maneuverability of Ucav's is what we desire, then god help us...How do you think UCAVs fly without vertical stabilizers?
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.
If maneuverability of Ucav's is what we desire, then god help us...How do you think UCAVs fly without vertical stabilizers?
for Mig-21s, It was 7g for early models and 8.5g for latest models.IMO Tejas and JF-17 are very agile planes given their relaxed stability design due to for example relatively small vertical stabilizers. 8g is not bad, but 9g would have been optimal. Anyone know the g numbers of say F-5 and MiG-21?![]()
And you missed the point. Let me clarify for your benefit. A single engined platform does not lend itself to a complex and hitherto un-tested (non-operational) design ergo under "real world" conditions (that is to say while keeping the operational realities faced by the IAF in mind) such a design choice would only be remotely feasible on a more robust twin-engined fighter. That having been said even then the novelty of the design will still not provide any spectacular return as opposed to the costs imposed. I ventured to address two different yet inter-connected facets in two separate posts in order to aid comprehension and to further furnish my assertion in the face of your post. Collating the data provided in both my posts and thereby constructing a cogent narrative could not have been that difficult.
Now do me a favor, exhibit a cranked delta wing UCAV design sans vertical stabilizers.
algorithms to schedule the pitch and yaw vectoring to provide control in the absence of fin or vertical stabilizers
The issue here being that much like a spoiler on a car.. i.e.
Being turned into this
makes the Tejas transformation just as easy.
The F-16 is an example of an aircraft that has literally been pushed to its very limits in terms of design change and weight..Yet, apart from the XL(which was essentially a fairly expensive upgrade) the other F-16s have stuck close to the basic planform and have ended up sacrificing a small amount of agility(while tripling in cost) for their upgrade.
The Best that could possibility be done with the Tejas is the Mk2, upgrades of which may one day bring better weapons or improved fuel tanks. Anything else drives its cost into an unacceptable range which essentially negates its very idea.
Its a fine spade... but lets call it a spade I¬¬D ..not an excavator.
@sandy_3126 I think the issue here is that we are not being able to communicate properly. Its not that what he's saying is impossible given the laws of physics and what the science of aerodynamics and aeronautical engineering dictate but rather that it is not feasible given the target platform in question and targeted operational requirements, and ergo not going to be pursued.
Theoretically we can do a lot of things, doesn't mean we need to. We can turn tejas into a Bat, but we wont.
Now if we could go back to the FOC issue where this started, My understanding differs from that of idrw people
FOC will also include IOM and training for BRD's, along with supply chain for spares and parts. Operational Approval will arrive before FOC happens and the milestones listed are for the same. Once the infrastructre at BRD's are generated, IOM's are released that is when the craft will reach FOC.
The reason for MK-2 coming into existence is because of Navy as the aircraft is too heavy to fly and need more power to wrroom in the short run path... other wise Tejas in current form is more potent aircraft ... When IAF saw the navy requirement they to jumped in and said we want the same ... Other wise MK-1 order would have definitely an follow on order once the 40 aircrafts are delivered and an operation plan was set up around it..
Some of it is correct, some of it is conjecture, for the wroom, weight reduction could have been an option, FG414 specs were released by GE, to IAF, as it wanted to move to a better product as the bypass is less leaky.
Next IAF also changed quite a few requirement's not just the engine, whatever the reasons might have been, it looks like it worked in our favor.
But the biggest saving grace for LCA mk2 may turnout to be economic slowdown, not performance or agility...
IMO Tejas and JF-17 are very agile planes given their relaxed stability design due to for example relatively small vertical stabilizers. 8g is not bad, but 9g would have been optimal. Anyone know the g numbers of say F-5 and MiG-21?![]()
LCA Tejas evolution in the distant future (2030+)
![]()
![]()