I was refuting your statements and all you could answer was some bullcrap. You have the slightest idea of what are the advantages and disadvantages of pure delta, delta canards and a cranked delta and cropped delta.
The point I was making is why did all of those major aircraft manufacturers whose previous generation were using pure deltas evolve into canard delta. Explain it. You can claim more RCS with canards, but I explained to you the irrelevance. You can claim LCA is cranked delta. I asked how do you define cranked delta? No one is answering me yet.
As quoted by the cheif of DRDO the LCA has opened up only 85% of it's flight envelope. And you have started comparing with an in-service aircraft with export orders made by a company that hass aready designed and deployed 2 succesful aircrafts earlier.
Well, I just said it was copied from Mirage 2000 base on two known facts.
1) It looks like a Mirage.
2) Dassault was involved.
Again, this is circumstantial evidence. Can you prove otherwise? This is your national plane here, you need to defend it. =)
Performance wise, how should I know. M2K had been in service for so long, LCA is not even inducted. It could be worse than a 40 year old plane? No one knows. Read my statements properly. I never ever once said it had the same performance as M2K.
Again, just because M2K crashed, you still went along with a pure delta design anyway. You get my point? Just because Gripen crash, you could still go along and develop better controls.
The M2K also has canards albeit small ones but was sufficient to increase the AoA. The M2K uses a pure delta configuration with the M-53-P2 engine that delivers a 95 KN thust.
OO, now we have baby canards. Can you provide me with a picture showing where it is?
Yes those factors mentioned above was the major reasons that the ADA decided to not go with canards. LCA was envisaged to be a PDF not a multi-role fighter. By reducing the sweep of the leading edge of the wing the surface area can be increased thus giving the aircraft better lift and a lower stall speed and also decreasing the wing-loadingand increase the wing area.
Did you just admit that ADA didn't have the capability nor confidence to 'design' canard based aircraft. This is all I wanted to hear. Thank You. I don't care about the function, what I want to know is why you didn't go with canards. Your friend gave all super duper characteristics for pure deltas vs canards but the real reason is ability isn't it? LOL
Your friend just said LCA had same function as Gripen and Gripen is a Multirole aircraft. Again, answer my two questions. Why if pure deltas are so good, NONE of the majors which includes Russia, America and Europe are using it except LCA? You see any new development with pure deltas?
THe LCA was a low cost aircraft and the lo end of the IAF. It performs everything that it was supposed to perform better than what was required in the first ASQR. So why dont you read some basic physics before tyou come and start talking aerodynamics to me...starting with Bernoulli's effect would be a good yard stick.
Your other bhais seem to think it was a gen 4.5 aircraft. You call that lo end? No point getting personal. I am again just dissecting your statements. Let me restate my questions:
1) Why did major delta users change to canards? Example Dassault/Saab?
2) Why is LCA termed a Mig-21+ aircraft by your ACM when your bhais call it a modern super duper gen 4.5 aircraft?
3) IF it indigenous, what was Dassault doing there?
Answer it. Defend you nation my dear jawans. Your reputation is at stake. LOL
