Tejas FOC : Miles to go

[Nishan_101]

Honestly! I take LCA as French Lab product that India had bought and I am sure all of the senior members would agree with that.

Still experts say its not a good plane at all. IAF is depending more and more M-2000s, Jaguars and SU-30MKIs.

 

[kurup]

Honestly! I take LCA as French Lab product that India had bought and I am sure all of the senior members would agree with that.

Still experts say its not a good plane at all. IAF is depending more and more M-2000s, Jaguars and SU-30MKIs.

No wonder nobody takes you seriously .

 

[jarves]

Honestly! I take LCA as French Lab product that India had bought and I am sure all of the senior members would agree with that.

Still experts say its not a good plane at all. IAF is depending more and more M-2000s, Jaguars and SU-30MKIs.

And i take your post good for entertainment.

 

[kaykay]

Honestly! I take LCA as French Lab product that India had bought and I am sure all of the senior members would agree with that.

Still experts say its not a good plane at all. IAF is depending more and more M-2000s, Jaguars and SU-30MKIs.

Well if you are talking about Tejas in current IOC-2 form then definitely It is less capable but we are bound to improve this aircraft in FOC.

 

[Lil Mathew]

Because the UCAVs in question are flying wing designs.

BAE TARANIS-

RQ-170:-

A flying wing design does not necessitate a vertical stabilizer.


UCAVs which don't belong to the flying wing family have vertical stabilizers.

Oh and the above design choice always leads to sacrificing maneuverability, forget high-g combat or instantaneous turn rate figures which make a jet a true fighter.

Flying wing does want a vertical stabilizer bcos the design contributes a little for vertical stability of plane but gives horizontal stability.....
Flying wing design and Vertical stabilizers( or directional stability) are not much related... Because the flying wings are mainly used to attain horizontal stability (mainly longitudinal stability in pitch axis) and stealth.... That is a tailless plane (both forward and aft) can achieve horizontal stability by flying wings....

So the main requirement of a flying wing aircraft is to attain vertical stability by some other means... Flying wing designs not use large FIN or simply FIN as it negate the advantages of flying wing like stealth, low drag etc....
the best methods used are...
1.sweepback- a little effect in vertical stability but can be used...
2.crank the wing tip sections downward with significant anhedral...
3.wash out, together with a swept-back wing planform and a suitable airfoil section.

Also for controlling yaw axis (bcos no rudder in vertical fin)
1.Split ailerons. The top surface moves up while the lower surface moves down, to create an air brake effect.
2.Spoilers.
3.Spoilerons

Lets set the record straight. There is no Tejas Mk.3, planned or thought upon, nor will there be any. The Tejas's core design is that of a light fighter with limited real estate for fuel and ordinance, the Mk.2 has already pushed that envelope to the absolute limit. Any notion of a heavier, longer legged fighter will call for an ab-initio design which would then make it a whole new platform.

ANY FURTHER TINKERING WITH THE TEJAS WILL LEAD TO DIMINISHING RETURNS (COMMIT THIS STATEMENT TO YOUR MEMORY).


SO LET US REITERATE:-

1) IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO "STEALTHIFY" THE TEJAS.

2) NO, ITS SMALL SIZE AND Y-SHAPED INTAKES DO NOT MAKE IT A CANDIDATE FOR "STEALTHIFYING". EVERYTHING FROM FSS RADOMES TO FLUSH DATA SENSORS TO VLO/LO RATED APERTURES WILL BE REQUIRED AND THE TEJAS JUST DOES NOT HAVE WHAT IT TAKES. MOST SIGNIFICANTLY IT LACKS THE REAL-ESTATE FOR AN INTERNAL WEAPONS BAY- FITTING ONE CENTER LINE FUEL TANK WAS HARD ENOUGH.

3) ITS STATED "LOW" RCS IS JUST THAT- LOW- NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH LO MUCH LESS VLO AND SUCH A FIGHTER WHICH HAS BEEN DESIGNED WITH MINIMAL AVENUES OF GROWTH CANNOT BE UPGRADED AD INFINATUM.

IN SUMMATION, NO STEALTH TEJAS EXISTS ON PAPER OR WILL EVER EXIST OTHERWISE AND WITH GOOD REASON. MOVE ON.

If former Director General DRDO or Chief Scientific Advisor to the Minister of Defence can discuss it in Aerospace forum in Sweden... Why can't we bro (provided the things seems impossible though)???

 

[WAB]

that's what i was saying, their deadline is just

2025 along time to go.

 

[Dillinger]

Flying wing does want a vertical stabilizer bcos the design contributes a little for vertical stability of plane but gives horizontal stability.....
Flying wing design and Vertical stabilizers( or directional stability) are not much related... Because the flying wings are mainly used to attain horizontal stability (mainly longitudinal stability in pitch axis) and stealth.... That is a tailless plane (both forward and aft) can achieve horizontal stability by flying wings....

So the main requirement of a flying wing aircraft is to attain vertical stability by some other means... Flying wing designs not use large FIN or simply FIN as it negate the advantages of flying wing like stealth, low drag etc....
the best methods used are...
1.sweepback- a little effect in vertical stability but can be used...
2.crank the wing tip sections downward with significant anhedral...
3.wash out, together with a swept-back wing planform and a suitable airfoil section.

Also for controlling yaw axis (bcos no rudder in vertical fin)
1.Split ailerons. The top surface moves up while the lower surface moves down, to create an air brake effect.
2.Spoilers.
3.Spoilerons




If former Director General DRDO or Chief Scientific Advisor to the Minister of Defence can discuss it in Aerospace forum in Sweden... Why can't we bro (provided the things seems impossible though)???

Quite right about the flying wing, a nice elucidation on the compensatory measures for vertical stability. BUT we were referring to the conventional vertical stabilizer and how the flying wing design compensates for its absence in a more simpler manner than say a cranked delta wing, where said compensation becomes rather complex and ergo a prohibitive venture.

It is not about doing what is possible but that which is feasible. There is a reason why we opted for the AMCA when we decided to venture into a LO platform design. That is what we were trying to convey to @Bhasad Singh Mundi. Let me quote from my own previous post- " 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."

The X-31A test vehicle that seems to have caught his eye is just that, a X-plane by Phantom works meant to push the envelope of aerodynamics and vector tech to the limit. It never was and so far is not even being thought of as a front line fighter. Not to mention that the primary thrust area of said project was not to lay emphasis on a design absent a "fin" but rather STOL and using vector tech to achieve post-stall maneuvering without using conventional aerodynamic surfaces.


Again the point from the very first post (as mentioned explicitly, as in with the exact words) has been of feasibility and utility and the issue of diminishing returns.

 

[OrionHunter]

that's what i was saying, their deadline is just

First Tejas Mk-2 Squadron only by 2025??? You gotta be joking, right? I'd be dead and gone by then! Jeeez!

 

[Armstrong]

First Tejas Mk-2 Squadron only by 2025??? You gotta be joking, right? I'd be dead and gone by then! Jeeez!

Bhai aap key battery change kar va lein ga aur Terminator Bhabi bhi find kar leiiin geiii - Don't worry you'd be here in 2025 !

 

[jarves]

First Tejas Mk-2 Squadron only by 2025??? You gotta be joking, right? I'd be dead and gone by then! Jeeez!

This is not an authentic source.

 

[Dillinger]

Bhai aap key battery change kar va lein ga aur Terminator Bhabi bhi find kar leiiin geiii - Don't worry you'd be here in 2025 !

You haven't been following dear old Zarvi's posts right?

 

[Armstrong]

You haven't been following dear old Zarvi's posts right?

I haven't been following anyone's post !

 

[Dillinger]

I haven't been following anyone's post !

Oh perfect! Forget I ever said anything. Carry on Buttsy.

 

[Armstrong]

Oh perfect! Forget I ever said anything. Carry on Buttsy.

I'm curious now !

 

[Dillinger]

I'm curious now !

Come now, you can always trust the wise Lemur to inform you of any pertinent details. Btw Rampi is taking a headcount of the virgins on PDF on his thread..please report there.