First Look: LCA Mk.2 Air Intake Wind-Tunnel Model

[neehar]

"Because air works in the same way as a liquid, wind tunnels can be used to simulate the effects of water on a submarine hull".

a wind turbine and a hydraulic turbine may work based on the same principles but the design features are different for both.they can not be used interchangeably for the efficiency and the actual ground parameters in the ground scenario may differ..

 

[narcon]

It is ONLY the first step; NOT the last word.

NASA may not be wrong, but the USN or IN (or any Naval Design Bureau) would be; it they stopped testing there......

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...r-intake-wind-tunnel-model.html#ixzz2Mb3oAZ3K

Your endorsement just proved my point.

 

[narcon]

a wind turbine and a hydraulic turbine may work based on the same principles but the design features are different for both.they can not be used interchangeably for the efficiency and the actual ground parameters in the ground scenario may differ..

Wind turbine is wrong analogy. Something that remains static, while the submarine has to forge ahead against the fluid, and it is here that the drag factor becomes crucial for testing.

BTW have you heard that people have been testing wind turbines in the wind tunnel against the drag factor?

 

[neehar]

Wind turbine is wrong analogy. Something that remains static, while the submarine has to forge ahead against the fluid, and it is here that the drag factor becomes crucial for testing.

BTW have you heard that people have been testing wind turbines in the wind tunnel against the drag factor?

i knw what r u spkn abt.. im saying that its not best to test the tubine of a submarine through a wind channel..yes wind turbines are tested in a wind tunnel because thats where they're going to work...but u dont test haydraulic turbines with wind for the obvious reasons

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Your endorsement just proved my point.

What endorsement are you speaking about, amigo?
The first step is the least important one and can be entirely dispensed (i.e. done away with) with in the design process.

 

[narcon]

im saying that its not best to test the tubine of a submarine through a wind channel.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...intake-wind-tunnel-model-2.html#ixzz2Mb7cSCcj

Its the hull of the submarine thats in the picture against the drag, and not the turbines.

Go and quarrel with NASA or Australian Navy.

 

[neehar]

Wind turbine is wrong analogy. Something that remains static, while the submarine has to forge ahead against the fluid, and it is here that the drag factor becomes crucial for testing.

BTW have you heard that people have been testing wind turbines in the wind tunnel against the drag factor?

theres no point in testing the turbine with wind..it'll be tested with steam which is when teh actual parameters would be known..even to check the drag wind can not be used..drag produced by the wind will not be equal to the drag produced by steam.reynolds number is not the only criteria to check..several othe non dimensional parameters like nusselt numer,prandtal number,grashoff's number,biot number will be also checked..not just fluid interface behaviour is important but also heat conducting parameters..testing it in wind would not solve the purpose

Its the hull of the submarine thats in the picture against the drag, and not the turbines.

Go and quarrel with NASA or Australian Navy.

where did u find the word 'hull' in my posts i was trying to explain abt testing of turbines..and yes hull may be initially tested with wind for laminar characteristics but the final testing is again done by water

 

[narcon]

What endorsement are you speaking about, amigo?
The first step is the least important one and can be entirely dispensed (i.e. done away with) with in the design process.

If that can be done away with, then why test cars n fighters in a wind tunnel?
Why they can not be done away with too?
If the Wind tunnel can be avoided, I think NASA and Australian defense department people must be stupid!

But above all, here is your post which says the following:

It is ONLY the first step; NOT the last word.

NASA may not be wrong, but the USN or IN (or any Naval Design Bureau) would be; it they stopped testing there.

Respect your own writing and be credible instead of controversial cretin.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

If that can be done away with, then why test cars n fighters in a wind tunnel?
Why they can not be done away with too?
If the Wind tunnel can be avoided, I think NASA and Australian defense department people must be stupid!

But above all, here is your post which says the following:

Respect your own writing and be credible instead of controversial cretin.

Fighters HAVE to be tested in a wind tunnel!
Because that replicates the environment in which they will operate.

Ships and Subs do NOT HAVE to be tested in a windtunnel, but HAVE to be tested in a Wave testing tank!
Because the wave testing tank replicates the environment in which they will operate.

BTW, I happen to have a professional familiarity with 'Naval Architecture' the subject that governs ship design; if that will help to clear your confusion.

End of msg.

 

[The A-5]

Is that a moving LERX/LEVCON I see in the pic in OP?

The white-colored part.

 

[flightlieutenantshikari]

yea black paint makes it look stealthy but the the air frame in the same

Black paint was used to study the effect of airflow much easily.

 

[Badbadman]

When this MK2 gonna fly if it is meant too.

 

[shree835]

When this MK2 gonna fly if it is meant too.

year 2014 end.

 

[Badbadman]

year 2014 end.

What is the big difference in mk1 and mk2.

 

[shree835]

What is the big difference in mk1 and mk2.

Mk2 main Changes over Mk1.
1. Airframe…. Due to engine change.
2. Radar… Hope AESA (Still under development)
3. Engine. (GE-414 with improved thrust).