NLCA NPI completes first ski-jump successfully from SBTF.

[sathya]

take off seemed to happen at a slower speed..

NP1 has GE-F404-IN20 engine.

GE 414 will have even more power, can t wait to see NP3

 

[HariPrasad]

I can witness so many features in N LCA which may go in LCA mk2 which includes Landing gears, canards, down nosecone etc

 

[kṣamā]

If that's not beautiful, I donn what else will please you.
OT: Slowly but steadily we are achieving what we set out to achieve.

 

[sathya]

Front wheel appears higher..

 

[jaiind]

Nice, but is it a fighter jet and a passenger plane.

 

[Krate M]

@sathya landing gear for naval version is entirely different, bigger hydraulics for the stress of carrier landing. So of course it looks different.

 

[SQ8]

That run up seemed quite long for the length of an A/C carrier.

 

[HariPrasad]

It would be interesting to know the opinion of the pilots on handling of both the planes who have flown the planes.

 

[MehrotraPrince]

That run up seemed quite long for the length of an A/C carrier.

Nice observation, I too think that run up is longer but my assumption is that they are playing safe, its their first attempt.

As the development progress they will surely but gradually shorten the run up as well as in later stages add some dummy weapons to aircraft to check various parameters at various loads.

 

[SQ8]

I can witness so many features in N LCA which may go in LCA mk2 which includes Landing gears, canards, down nosecone etc

The Manoeuvring frontal leading edge might go, but the Landing gears have no use on a land based variant as the extra reinforcement and weight is useless for the land based variant. The Nosecone itself is also due to the need for the dual seat.

As for any ideas why it is unsuited for carrier operations if it were a pure delta comes from previous iterations of delta's on aircraft carriers. However the LEVCONs provide the exact workaround for this problem of low speed handling.

 

[HariPrasad]

The Manoeuvring frontal leading edge might go, but the Landing gears have no use on a land based variant as the extra reinforcement and weight is useless for the land based variant. The Nosecone itself is also due to the need for the dual seat.

i am talking about the position of Landing gear. In MK 2 version, they are planned to shift to wing root like saab grippen what i witnessed on NAVAL Version of MK1.

As for any ideas why it is unsuited for carrier operations if it were a pure delta comes from previous iterations of delta's on aircraft carriers. However the LEVCONs provide the exact workaround for this problem of low speed handling.

May be but if they can add to some maneuverability than IAF will have a choice to compromise some low speed handling against maneuverability.

 

[SQ8]

i am talking about the position of Landing gear. In MK 2 version, they are planned to shift to wing root like saab grippen what i witnessed on NAVAL Version of MK1.





May be but if they can add to some maneuverability than IAF will have a choice to compromise some low speed handling against maneuverability.

That all depends on what ancillary equipment is going to go into Mk.2 The LEVCONs may be needed to give the Mk.2 some better sustained turning capability..

 

[HariPrasad]

That all depends on what ancillary equipment is going to go into Mk.2 The LEVCONs may be needed to give the Mk.2 some better sustained turning capability..

That is what I wanted to say. In a canard less design, MK1 has witnessed some STR (Horizantal) problem with poor timing. Lavcon may help to overcome that.

 

[Trawllu]

Next step

NLCA MkII

lets go for CATOBAR (steam/EMALS) capability

 

[Krate M]

A carrier based takeoff will have greater capacity due to
1 the speed of the carrier itself, like flying kite from motorcycle.
2 ability of the carrier to turn allowing favorable winds to fly.
The negative is obviously short runway and the risk of fall in the sea.