Round One JF17 - Poor Display By Tejas Took 10 more sec Than JF17 To Go Up

[MastanKhan]

This shows that plane is not proper tested in all environment. World best Selling plane F-16 failed in Leh while Tejas is passed with flying colour.

This difference tells a lot isn't ? This is gauge......parameter need to be covered in testing before passing the plane.

Hi,

Well---I am glad that the F 16 did not pass at Leh----.

That was one aircraft the F 16 IN version that we would not have an answer for---for awhile.

 

[The Eagle]

??? The gist of my question is that we should not say Tejas is a failure bad plane blah blah because it took decades to come up with what we have....similarly the criticism should be on the product like JF-17 needs to be criticized for its capabilities not on how long/quickly that plane was developed...no???

The gesture i intend towards LCA was like it should have proven much better after a decade of work rather being just a routine plane that disappointed everyone and the reason is HAL though delays are another story. Capabilities proven by JFT are beyond our expectations or more than what we expect rather claimed to be the super 4++ fighter.

Well I was their in this from last few years , not New, I am probable very old but most of time I busy for couple months and forget my passwords, that's why new ID.

IAF do not take planes which do not drop bombs , may be PAF can , but IAF standards are different. So difficult even F-16 failed to passing those. Glad Tejas passed those. Plane came out with Flying colour armed with latest technology.

Well my old friend, you should consider your health condition while intending to brought such news like payment for parking lots, half baked and what planes may PAF induct etc....

However, as you admitted i will let you know that PAF inducts the plane as per her requirement so does IAF so hopefully people will not come up with that half baked theory. The fully baked plane ought to be fully tested and that's all though updates can be done time to time but there felt disappointed where it comes to the HAL for LCA which couldn't even baked it quarterly and if it is going to be the criteria for IAF induction than it is more disappointing.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Here is an interesting post from NDTV

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/despite-flaws-india-to-induct-tejas-mark-1a-fighter-1224355


and just a part of the news----for full news click on the link


112COMMENTS

Each squadron of the Tejas Mark-1A will have about 16 to 18 aircraft.

NEW DELHI: The government has decided to induct at least seven squadrons of the made-in-India Tejas Mark 1-A Light Combat Aircraft or LCA into the Indian Air Force, to make up for a shortage of fighters.

The Tejas Mark 1-A is slightly more proficient than the first-cut home-made LCA, the Tejas, but the aircraft still has some flaws. For one, there are doubts about its ability to carry the required payload of weapons. Also, its Indian-made radar needs to be replaced with an Israeli radar.

The IAF has agreed to induct the Tejas Mark 1-A as it urgently needs more than 120 lightweight fighters to be used for air defence and to intercept enemy aircraft. A squadron has about 16 to 18 aircraft each.


It had earlier agreed to induct 40 Tejas', an aircraft that India's national auditor CAG said had severe flaws with "shortfalls in meeting the engine thrust and other parameters such as weight of the aircraft, fuel capacity, pilot protection from front against 7.62 mm bullets."

The IAF agreed to induct the flawed aircraft to keep the Tejas programme alive.

 

[The Eagle]

I wouldn’t go into indigenous aspects nor as what is going to happen in future but seeing the present a few things I observed and thought to share. It has been discussed to all depths that what exactly LCA has and lacks so the the later and 1st Int’l air show for LCA proves the claims of critics to be true though claims of the owners proved to be flop. The Tejas was expected with something indeed which it has claimed, not more than claimed but at least what it has been told in past while it was on test bed. The much disappointment faced when the plane was about to show the power that it can do easily but by comparison of such take off and going vertical only was not delighted but disappointment.


JFT has given us more than expected in that cost and I bet if LCA be cut to that cost it wouldn’t even make on taxi bay and we all know that despite our flags being impartial. JFT shouldn’t be compared with LCA while looking at in first of cost, maintenance and trust of force that both do not resemble at all.


LCA was supposed to be something worth debating but it ended with amusement of critics. HAL should have done more than it. Indeed the HAL has sabotaged the LCA program and not just the aircraft but the time and money as well. The recent Boeing decision to leave the HAL can be analyzed in context of HAL credibility and capabilities.


We all know that initially the program was supposed to be develop a potent aircraft and the same was claimed to be inducted in IAF though IAF rejected to fly this unproven bird till today just because they knew what they are going to deal with.


On other hands, some of our Indian friends were arguing the same decision of IAF as they are biased and love to have 4.5++ aircrafts like Rafale and kick backs of top brass. Opposing the HAL and her well wishers, the few claimed the same decision as to choose the best for IAF and as LCA lacks a lot, therefore, it cannot fit into equation.


It also comes into arguments that IAF was forced to swallow the LCA. However, if we come up with claim that LCA lacks a lot hence not good enough to be inducted by IAF then HAL should have done more than this and the modification and production of the aircraft which it promised but never fulfilled which was the requirement of her own IAF. LCA should have been something more, something worth loving for its capabilities rather being just pulled off the ground and do some regular stunts despite being praised like the one and only in its class. Being aircraft lovers, we all were expecting the LCA as a potent, active and intelligent aircraft yet it just flew and does some normal things even less to par with 3rd Generation. The future as claimed about LCA is indeed very interesting and full of hopes like it would be proven much in tech, reliability and performance so also will be inducted by IAF in large numbers though nobody knows what would be the next but the best can be suggested by present which tells a lot about future.


Even if the comparison is needed then I will go on only singly thing about take off which proves a lot about power and performance. Tejas left breaks, moved ahead on ground, left the ground little earlier than JFT but still needed the low fly to attain the speed to go vertical or climb which is hell lot of story that can tell what this bird lacks in power and performance category. On other hand, JFT is on the run way little late than Tejas but as left the ground went straight to vertical and most interesting part was, still the landing gear is down which indeed causes the more drag as Mastan Khan also mentioned and if a pilot want it a quick climb would have pulled the gear up as soon as left the ground to attain the speed and power but JFT did not and still gone vertical with gear down so apparently JFT still possess the more power that not showed yet.


The Bahrain attempt was only to shift the LCA off the ventilator as it was almost pushed to death by HAL due to her negligence and incompetence. The fighter craft lovers including me, were expecting it to be excellent not normal, not just enough, not like just OK but indeed excellent just because of the all that wait, claims and the cost expenditure against the money of Indian Tax Payers yet HAL not just failed as usual but caused embarrassment. IAF still rejects what is made in India by HAL but agreed what is going to be built in future which is not currently the credibility of HAL LCA at all.


And in last, as stated by @MastanKhan , JFT has been subject of criticism by Indians since it flew for the first time so we do have the right to speak as well though it is just a start.
@Oscar @Manticore

 

[calmDown@all]

I wouldn’t go into indigenous aspects nor as what is going to happen in future but seeing the present a few things I observed and thought to share. It has been discussed to all depths that what exactly LCA has and lacks so the the later and 1st Int’l air show for LCA proves the claims of critics to be true though claims of the owners proved to be flop. The Tejas was expected with something indeed which it has claimed, not more than claimed but at least what it has been told in past while it was on test bed. The much disappointment faced when the plane was about to show the power that it can do easily but by comparison of such take off and going vertical only was not delighted but disappointment.


JFT has given us more than expected in that cost and I bet if LCA be cut to that cost it wouldn’t even make on taxi bay and we all know that despite our flags being impartial. JFT shouldn’t be compared with LCA while looking at in first of cost, maintenance and trust of force that both do not resemble at all.


LCA was supposed to be something worth debating but it ended with amusement of critics. HAL should have done more than it. Indeed the HAL has sabotaged the LCA program and not just the aircraft but the time and money as well. The recent Boeing decision to leave the HAL can be analyzed in context of HAL credibility and capabilities.


We all know that initially the program was supposed to be develop a potent aircraft and the same was claimed to be inducted in IAF though IAF rejected to fly this unproven bird till today just because they knew what they are going to deal with.


On other hands, some of our Indian friends were arguing the same decision of IAF as they are biased and love to have 4.5++ aircrafts like Rafale and kick backs of top brass. Opposing the HAL and her well wishers, the few claimed the same decision as to choose the best for IAF and as LCA lacks a lot, therefore, it cannot fit into equation.


It also comes into arguments that IAF was forced to swallow the LCA. However, if we come up with claim that LCA lacks a lot hence not good enough to be inducted by IAF then HAL should have done more than this and the modification and production of the aircraft which it promised but never fulfilled which was the requirement of her own IAF. LCA should have been something more, something worth loving for its capabilities rather being just pulled off the ground and do some regular stunts despite being praised like the one and only in its class. Being aircraft lovers, we all were expecting the LCA as a potent, active and intelligent aircraft yet it just flew and does some normal things even less to par with 3rd Generation. The future as claimed about LCA is indeed very interesting and full of hopes like it would be proven much in tech, reliability and performance so also will be inducted by IAF in large numbers though nobody knows what would be the next but the best can be suggested by present which tells a lot about future.


Even if the comparison is needed then I will go on only singly thing about take off which proves a lot about power and performance. Tejas left breaks, moved ahead on ground, left the ground little earlier than JFT but still needed the low fly to attain the speed to go vertical or climb which is hell lot of story that can tell what this bird lacks in power and performance category. On other hand, JFT is on the run way little late than Tejas but as left the ground went straight to vertical and most interesting part was, still the landing gear is down which indeed causes the more drag as Mastan Khan also mentioned and if a pilot want it a quick climb would have pulled the gear up as soon as left the ground to attain the speed and power but JFT did not and still gone vertical with gear down so apparently JFT still possess the more power that not showed yet.


The Bahrain attempt was only to shift the LCA off the ventilator as it was almost pushed to death by HAL due to her negligence and incompetence. The fighter craft lovers including me, were expecting it to be excellent not normal, not just enough, not like just OK but indeed excellent just because of the all that wait, claims and the cost expenditure against the money of Indian Tax Payers yet HAL not just failed as usual but caused embarrassment. IAF still rejects what is made in India by HAL but agreed what is going to be built in future which is not currently the credibility of HAL LCA at all.


And in last, as stated by @MastanKhan , JFT has been subject of criticism by Indians since it flew for the first time so we do have the right to speak as well though it is just a start.

Respected sir,
this is is for ur thoughts
There are two main geometrical characteristics that affect the airflow in the situation mentioned. From one side you have a cylinder with wheels at the end; on the other side during the transition you have an open cavity.

Let's talk about the first one. You actually have a cylinder flying perpendicular to the air speed. This is kind of canonical problem in fluid dynamics, there is a lot of literature about this problem, but to explain the effect I would like to take a simple example that I took from the website, the infinite 2D cylinder. For that, I include this picture of flow over a cylinder:

Note for fluid dynamics experts: This is not relevant if Reynolds Number (Re) is around 10,000, but for understanding the concept is good enough.

So, imagine that we are cutting landing gear perpendicular to its length and we visualize the flow.

What do we see?

Two main things....

• Looking at the flow lines, they are almost not affected at 3-4 diameters of distance from the cylinder perpendicular to the flow direction there is a very local influence of the existence of the landing gear.
  
  • However we see that down the flow there is a big influence with the creation of chaotic structures. That is creating a big increase in drag downstream of the landing gear and any surface behind.

Basically... low influence on the red direction and significant influence on blue. Answering your question, influences the wing in a local area.

The influence anyhow is negative on the lift, as the flow is accelerated locally, reducing the static pressure below the wing, having a lift reduction, but is a local effect. This also have an influence on the wing lift distribution and a small effect on drag... lower than the one directly produced by the landing gear itself.

Now.... the cavities, they have a bigger influence, firstly because they have bigger extension parallel to the airplane surface (the landing gear goes perpendicular to the airplane the cavity goes along the surface). Secondly, their flow behaviour is different, goes in and outside the cavity.

I found several flows similar to the second one, but depends on the airplane. You can see that flow will enter and go outside and will have a big influence.

Finally, the biggest influence is found when the airplane is deploying or retracting the landing gears when you have changing conditions, difficult to predict and affecting the airplane dynamics. Usually you can notice it when landing or taking off, when landing gear is deployed you fell significant vibration on the airplane.

Concerning your questions:

• How does the landing gear affect aerodynamics when deployed and when deploying?

There is a significant drag increase, slightly the lift, but also creates some unsteady behaviour affecting overall airplane mechanics creating vibrations (anyhow, nothing not already taken into account).

• Is it different for aircraft whose landing gear do not retract into the wing?

I understand that you refer to airplane with non retractable landing gear. The effect is similar but usually the configuration tries to avoid having the landing gear close to the wing, as finally they don't need to retract them back.

• Does this modify performance critical when taking off or landing such as stall speed, optimal climb speed?

Well, stall speed is usually defined by wing lift curve, and not so much affected by the landing gear. Usually the limitation is on the upper side due to separation. Climb speed is basically engine thrust minus drag, the drag increases the climb speed is lower. That's why airplanes retract the landing gear as soon as possible.

 

[kaykay]

Hi,

Here is an interesting post from NDTV

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/despite-flaws-india-to-induct-tejas-mark-1a-fighter-1224355


and just a part of the news----for full news click on the link


112COMMENTS

Each squadron of the Tejas Mark-1A will have about 16 to 18 aircraft.

NEW DELHI: The government has decided to induct at least seven squadrons of the made-in-India Tejas Mark 1-A Light Combat Aircraft or LCA into the Indian Air Force, to make up for a shortage of fighters.

The Tejas Mark 1-A is slightly more proficient than the first-cut home-made LCA, the Tejas, but the aircraft still has some flaws. For one, there are doubts about its ability to carry the required payload of weapons. Also, its Indian-made radar needs to be replaced with an Israeli radar.

The IAF has agreed to induct the Tejas Mark 1-A as it urgently needs more than 120 lightweight fighters to be used for air defence and to intercept enemy aircraft. A squadron has about 16 to 18 aircraft each.


It had earlier agreed to induct 40 Tejas', an aircraft that India's national auditor CAG said had severe flaws with "shortfalls in meeting the engine thrust and other parameters such as weight of the aircraft, fuel capacity, pilot protection from front against 7.62 mm bullets."

The IAF agreed to induct the flawed aircraft to keep the Tejas programme alive.

Depends on what you are looking at as 'flaw'. Here one 'flaw' is that it needed an Indian AESA but instead will carry Israeli AESA initially. To me, Its rather an 'punch' but again as per Indian doctrine, Its so called 'flaw'. lol

 

[calmDown@all]

Also, its Indian-made radar needs to be replaced with an Israeli radar.

also there is no such indian made radar since how come development of an aesa radar be so simple that it can be done in 6-7 months without even doing r&d
http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories3767_HAL_developing_LCA-1P_with_AESA_Radar.html
http://www.business-standard.com/ar...pproval-for-tejas-fighter-115102500749_1.html

meeting the engine thrust and other parameters such as weight of the aircraft, fuel capacity,

for thrust u can look up here for
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F404
Performance

• Maximum thrust:
  
• 11,000 lbf (48.9 kN) military thrust
• 17,700 lbf (78.7 kN) with afterburner
• Overall pressure ratio: 26:1
• Bypass ratio: 0.34:1
• Specific fuel consumption:
  
• Military thrust: 0.81 lb/(lbf·h) (82.6 kg/(kN·h))
• Full afterburner: 1.74 lb/(lbf·h) (177.5 kg/(kN·h))
• Thrust-to-weight ratio: 4.8:1 (dry), 7.8:1 (wet/afterburning) (76.0 N/kg)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F414
Performance

• Maximum thrust:
  
• 13,000 lbf (57.8 kN) military thrust
• 22,000 lbf (97.9 kN) with afterburner
• Overall pressure ratio: 30:1
• Thrust-to-weight ratio: 9:1[27]

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighterplanes/texts/articles/twr.html

• Max. takeoff weight: 13,200 kg(29,100 lb)

• Internal fuel capacity: 2,458 kg
• External fuel capacity: 2 x 1,200-litre drop tank at inboard, 1 x 725-litre drop tank under fuselage
  
  

 

[kaykay]

PS: I remember when JF-17s were inducted, even BVR were not tested let alone AESA radars while here we'll get AESA radar( even if Israeli as termed 'flaw' lol) on mk1A itself.

 

[The Eagle]

Respected sir,
this is is for ur thoughts
There are two main geometrical characteristics that affect the airflow in the situation mentioned. From one side you have a cylinder with wheels at the end; on the other side during the transition you have an open cavity.

Let's talk about the first one. You actually have a cylinder flying perpendicular to the air speed. This is kind of canonical problem in fluid dynamics, there is a lot of literature about this problem, but to explain the effect I would like to take a simple example that I took from the website, the infinite 2D cylinder. For that, I include this picture of flow over a cylinder:

Note for fluid dynamics experts: This is not relevant if Reynolds Number (Re) is around 10,000, but for understanding the concept is good enough.

So, imagine that we are cutting landing gear perpendicular to its length and we visualize the flow.

What do we see?

Two main things....

• Looking at the flow lines, they are almost not affected at 3-4 diameters of distance from the cylinder perpendicular to the flow direction there is a very local influence of the existence of the landing gear.
  • However we see that down the flow there is a big influence with the creation of chaotic structures. That is creating a big increase in drag downstream of the landing gear and any surface behind.

Basically... low influence on the red direction and significant influence on blue. Answering your question, influences the wing in a local area.

The influence anyhow is negative on the lift, as the flow is accelerated locally, reducing the static pressure below the wing, having a lift reduction, but is a local effect. This also have an influence on the wing lift distribution and a small effect on drag... lower than the one directly produced by the landing gear itself.

Now.... the cavities, they have a bigger influence, firstly because they have bigger extension parallel to the airplane surface (the landing gear goes perpendicular to the airplane the cavity goes along the surface). Secondly, their flow behaviour is different, goes in and outside the cavity.

I found several flows similar to the second one, but depends on the airplane. You can see that flow will enter and go outside and will have a big influence.

Finally, the biggest influence is found when the airplane is deploying or retracting the landing gears when you have changing conditions, difficult to predict and affecting the airplane dynamics. Usually you can notice it when landing or taking off, when landing gear is deployed you fell significant vibration on the airplane.

Concerning your questions:

• How does the landing gear affect aerodynamics when deployed and when deploying?

There is a significant drag increase, slightly the lift, but also creates some unsteady behaviour affecting overall airplane mechanics creating vibrations (anyhow, nothing not already taken into account).

• Is it different for aircraft whose landing gear do not retract into the wing?

I understand that you refer to airplane with non retractable landing gear. The effect is similar but usually the configuration tries to avoid having the landing gear close to the wing, as finally they don't need to retract them back.

• Does this modify performance critical when taking off or landing such as stall speed, optimal climb speed?

Well, stall speed is usually defined by wing lift curve, and not so much affected by the landing gear. Usually the limitation is on the upper side due to separation. Climb speed is basically engine thrust minus drag, the drag increases the climb speed is lower. That's why airplanes retract the landing gear as soon as possible.

Sir......If i am not mistaken, down landing gears affects speed as much as like an air brake and usually airplanes practices the same in case of emergency which slower downs the aircraft. While looking at JFT going vertical right after take off, it was almost assumed that JFT may stall but what is actually proven that down landing gear even causing drag and less speed, wasn't the issue to JFT at all but pushed successfully towards climb with power in thrust of engine. So now imagine, JFT pulling up the landing gear immediately right after leaving the ground, would have went in vertical or climbing in short span of time with less drag resulting in more power. The point was only highlighted that indeed JFT still posses more power that it has shown yet while taking off.

While looking at Tejas as per later airshow performance, Tejas left the ground little earlier but still fly low to gain speed to go vertical or climb even pulled landing gear immediately which in result took more time and proven less power or performance.

 

[calmDown@all]

PS: I remember when JF-17s were inducted, even BVR were not tested let alone AESA radars while here we'll get AESA radar( even if Israeli as termed 'flaw' lol) on mk1A itself.

well i think i need to tag myself for u @calmDown@all buddy

Sir......If i am not mistaken, down landing gears affects speed as much as like an air brake and usually airplanes practices the same in case of emergency which slower downs the aircraft. While looking at JFT going vertical right after take off, it was almost assumed that JFT may stall but what is actually proven that down landing gear even causing drag and less speed, wasn't the issue to JFT at all but pushed successfully towards climb with power in thrust of engine. So now imagine, JFT pulling up the landing gear immediately right after leaving the ground, would have went in vertical or climbing in short span of time with less drag resulting in more power. The point was only highlighted that indeed JFT still posses more power that it has shown yet while taking off.

While looking at Tejas as per later airshow performance, Tejas left the ground little earlier but still fly low to gain speed to go vertical or climb even pulled landing gear immediately which in result took more time and proven less power or performance.

For me the main part of this question is about the effect on wing lifting performance, not drag. I don't know the answer to this technically, but I could offer the following thoughts: The area taken by the wheels is a small percentage (perhaps 2-5% at a guess) of overall wing surface. Even on heavy aircraft, each square foot of wing only lifts a small amount of the overall weight of the aircraft. This is defined as an aircraft's wing loading.

So even if putting the gear down totally destroyed the lift of that area of the wing (which it won't because its not like a hole in the wing - the wing is still there just not the optimal shape) it would only be like adding a few pounds in weight to the aircraft and having to fly at a slightly larger angle of attack as a result of that.
sir this is my end i can't go beyond this point !!

 

[knight11]

Hi,

Here is an interesting post from NDTV

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/despite-flaws-india-to-induct-tejas-mark-1a-fighter-1224355


and just a part of the news----for full news click on the link


112COMMENTS

Each squadron of the Tejas Mark-1A will have about 16 to 18 aircraft.

NEW DELHI: The government has decided to induct at least seven squadrons of the made-in-India Tejas Mark 1-A Light Combat Aircraft or LCA into the Indian Air Force, to make up for a shortage of fighters.

The Tejas Mark 1-A is slightly more proficient than the first-cut home-made LCA, the Tejas, but the aircraft still has some flaws. For one, there are doubts about its ability to carry the required payload of weapons. Also, its Indian-made radar needs to be replaced with an Israeli radar.

The IAF has agreed to induct the Tejas Mark 1-A as it urgently needs more than 120 lightweight fighters to be used for air defence and to intercept enemy aircraft. A squadron has about 16 to 18 aircraft each.


It had earlier agreed to induct 40 Tejas', an aircraft that India's national auditor CAG said had severe flaws with "shortfalls in meeting the engine thrust and other parameters such as weight of the aircraft, fuel capacity, pilot protection from front against 7.62 mm bullets."

The IAF agreed to induct the flawed aircraft to keep the Tejas programme alive.

Mastan Bhai you are such a senior member with different angle approach and still beating the bush. Its called paid media, because just google the same phrase IAF induct lca with flaws and you will find ten's of news and article almost same, with slight variation, because it was the article written by some paid jurno for the Reuter. A good hint is that SAAB still have office in New Delhi and still trying hard to kill LCA Tejas MK-2 by
1. Offering SAAB for make in India
2. Offering help in AMCA design.
3. Offering help in Naval LCA, but finding hard for the SEA Grippen, because don't have any carrier or carrier operation test field.

I think it has been discussed in details in PDF and you are posting old news.

1. There is a difference between the Flaws and Shortfall
2. The report is based on the CAG Report, which is just an audition authority, and not any technical authority.
3. Just one example of the flaws -- Lack of countermeasures to protect from the enemy. Which means the lack of Internal Jammer. -- Now for the gignos its ok, but for detail and clear explaination -- No fighter aircraft in the whole IAF except Mig-29UPG have internal Jammer including the Air Superiority fighter jet Su-30MKI. And at the time of the designing the LCA the technology do not permits the size of the jammer to be fitted inside the LCA, and it does not means it won't have any jammer, rather in the shape of POD, and when IAF argue, that the use of POD will use one of the hardpoint, than ADA offered Twin Arm Pylon.

Another example, the lack of AESA Radar -- So which Aircraft in IAF inventory have AESA at the moment ?

So what is the Fuss all about.

LCA was supposed to be something worth debating but it ended with amusement of critics. HAL should have done more than it. Indeed the HAL has sabotaged the LCA program and not just the aircraft but the time and money as well. The recent Boeing decision to leave the HAL can be analyzed in context of HAL credibility and capabilities.

LCA ended with amusement of critics or you are making yourself the laughing stock by saying such things.
First do go to the LCA thread and read the subject before commenting and fear you have zero and I say zero knowledge of aeronautics or any fighter plane. For you its the ADA who have designed, certified by CELEMAC the LCA TEJAS not the HAL. Hal is just the manufacturing entity for the LCA Tejas and presently manufacturing SU-30MKI at the rate of 19-20 per year, developed and manufacturing Dhruva, Sitara, Hawk IJT, LCH, Rudra etc etc.
The performance of LCA Tejas SP-7 was great, and was able to showcase many of its abilities like short take off and landing, easeless handling capabilities with FBW, slow flight pass, quick 360 turn with 350m and around agility.
The maneuver shown in the Airshow is different than the tactical maneuver and only the jignos chest thumps or compares the capabilities on the basis of airshow performance.

Your worth mentioning of the Boeing decision to leave HAL have a flawed why you didn't mentioned it was given to the TATA Aerospace again Indian, the idea of the LCA project was not to build this fighter plane, rather build the whole ecosystem.

We all know that initially the program was supposed to be develop a potent aircraft and the same was claimed to be inducted in IAF though IAF rejected to fly this unproven bird till today just because they knew what they are going to deal with.

The initial idea was proposed by ADA to build the sucesson of Folk GNAT Sucessor, but MOD give the authority and responsibility to the ADA, for you knowledge the ADA have to first do the premilinary present the report, that the technology exists in the country to develop the fighter plane, which was intended to replace the MIG-21. However due to delay caused by various factors including the economical recession time, and the sanctions led on the India aftermath of the nuclear tests, India upgraded MIG-21 and bis to BISON standard, which will be going to retire starting from 2019. Now for the IAF rejected to fly this bird till today question stands are you still sleeping or want to live in illusion. LCA Tejas MK1 have been officially inducted in IAF, and presently the IAF pilot are getting training on the single LCA Tejas MK1 of the IOC-2 standard. Pls provide source for IAF rejecting LCA Tejas, because we all know the facts such as

1. IAF have given the order for 20 IOC-2 standard
2. IAF is ready to induct 100 MK-1A with AESA, Aerial refuel , and BVR capabilities in short fully BVR capable + LGB for CAS capable from the 1st day of FOC.

On other hands, some of our Indian friends were arguing the same decision of IAF as they are biased and love to have 4.5++ aircrafts like Rafale and kick backs of top brass. Opposing the HAL and her well wishers, the few claimed the same decision as to choose the best for IAF and as LCA lacks a lot, therefore, it cannot fit into equation.

Again question comes are you blind or trying to act like that who cannot see that Rafale is Medium wt category, which by virtue of its long range, and combat radius is meant for the deap strike role, SEAD and DEAD role, in short to breach the enemy airspace, when all its air defence forces are intact, and LCA Tejas is not for that role. LCA tejas role is Interceptor, point defence and CAS for which it is replacing MIG-21Bison. For Airsuperiority India already have two very potent bird Su-30MKI, and Mig 29UPG of SMT standard, and for Multirole Mirrage 2000 UPG.

It also comes into arguments that IAF was forced to swallow the LCA. However, if we come up with claim that LCA lacks a lot hence not good enough to be inducted by IAF then HAL should have done more than this and the modification and production of the aircraft which it promised but never fulfilled which was the requirement of her own IAF. LCA should have been something more, something worth loving for its capabilities rather being just pulled off the ground and do some regular stunts despite being praised like the one and only in its class. Being aircraft lovers, we all were expecting the LCA as a potent, active and intelligent aircraft yet it just flew and does some normal things even less to par with 3rd Generation. The future as claimed about LCA is indeed very interesting and full of hopes like it would be proven much in tech, reliability and performance so also will be inducted by IAF in large numbers though nobody knows what would be the next but the best can be suggested by present which tells a lot about future.

For your argument that IAF was forced to swallow the LCA all three i.e ADA, MOD, and IAF have zeroed on one conclussion 120 LCA MK1, so keep reading the yellow gerno articles but for your sake LCA MK2 with F-414INS engine with superior thrust, more refined aerodynamics, better armament, sensors and its fusion is been worked upon. And in all its not just the end of the LCA, even if we consider the indegenous order, then 120 MK1A plus MK2 order for IAF, 40 MK-2 Naval for INAf and 80+ trainer order its a huge potential in india alone. So don't live in any illusion its a fact, that LCA will be inducted in numbers for its second tier defence. and for the future we have AMCA project. Let things keep accelerating, then you will definately say UH AH WALLAH.

Even if the comparison is needed then I will go on only singly thing about take off which proves a lot about power and performance. Tejas left breaks, moved ahead on ground, left the ground little earlier than JFT but still needed the low fly to attain the speed to go vertical or climb which is hell lot of story that can tell what this bird lacks in power and performance category. On other hand, JFT is on the run way little late than Tejas but as left the ground went straight to vertical and most interesting part was, still the landing gear is down which indeed causes the more drag as Mastan Khan also mentioned and if a pilot want it a quick climb would have pulled the gear up as soon as left the ground to attain the speed and power but JFT did not and still gone vertical with gear down so apparently JFT still possess the more power that not showed yet.

He He for the T/W ratio the short take off within 10 Sec is more than enough to say and for the low fly to attain the speed, lolz its called low fly pass, but for you as I said earlier its just the airshow, and LCA have already proven when she was able to fly with full load, even when the critics says its still over wt so total MTOW of 13.5 Tons from the short runway of the high altitude airstrip of LEH, where F-16, F-18, Grippen fails.

The Bahrain attempt was only to shift the LCA off the ventilator as it was almost pushed to death by HAL due to her negligence and incompetence. The fighter craft lovers including me, were expecting it to be excellent not normal, not just enough, not like just OK but indeed excellent just because of the all that wait, claims and the cost expenditure against the money of Indian Tax Payers yet HAL not just failed as usual but caused embarrassment. IAF still rejects what is made in India by HAL but agreed what is going to be built in future which is not currently the credibility of HAL LCA at all.

LOLZ thats the great comment of the Indian Tax payer. Bhai mere HAL is only manufacturing and its the ADA which is the designing agency, So can you name the country who was able to build the 4th gen fighter plane with 100+ Institutions setup + Aerospace ecosystem with the parallel development of Turbofan engine plus the prototype building with the budget of mere 1.2 + 2 Billion. Check for instance China with superior industrial base the pumping of 100 billion for the Indegenous turbofan Engine or the Dassault with the decades of experience of fighter plane building and Thales for the Engine design and building took 20 years for the Rafale plus 10 billion for the Turbofan engine. Its the self reliance and the indegenous product like LCA which will safe the tax payer rather than the import house in defence sector.

 

[Alpha Fighter]

The gesture i intend towards LCA was like it should have proven much better after a decade of work rather being just a routine plane that disappointed everyone and the reason is HAL though delays are another story. Capabilities proven by JFT are beyond our expectations or more than what we expect rather claimed to be the super 4++ fighter.



Well my old friend, you should consider your health condition while intending to brought such news like payment for parking lots, half baked and what planes may PAF induct etc....

However, as you admitted i will let you know that PAF inducts the plane as per her requirement so does IAF so hopefully people will not come up with that half baked theory. The fully baked plane ought to be fully tested and that's all though updates can be done time to time but there felt disappointed where it comes to the HAL for LCA which couldn't even baked it quarterly and if it is going to be the criteria for IAF induction than it is more disappointing.

Well .... when you inducted the JFT , the same capability the Tejas had, but the IAF want plane which can drop bombs and fire BVR's and VR's unlike JFT when inducted in PAF it cannot fly in night , forget about dropping LGW's.

So their is different standard of induction we talking about . Take an example , PAF now want Fuel rods , which IAF want from the very first plane. this tells lot.

Hi,

Well---I am glad that the F 16 did not pass at Leh----.

That was one aircraft the F 16 IN version that we would not have an answer for---for awhile.

Well F16 IN is ahead what PAF had... now you will what block 62 had ,.. It has everything new other then design frame from f-16,
New Engine./ Radar/ EW etc ... everything is new inside that plane.

 

[knight11]

Sir......If i am not mistaken, down landing gears affects speed as much as like an air brake and usually airplanes practices the same in case of emergency which slower downs the aircraft. While looking at JFT going vertical right after take off, it was almost assumed that JFT may stall but what is actually proven that down landing gear even causing drag and less speed, wasn't the issue to JFT at all but pushed successfully towards climb with power in thrust of engine. So now imagine, JFT pulling up the landing gear immediately right after leaving the ground, would have went in vertical or climbing in short span of time with less drag resulting in more power. The point was only highlighted that indeed JFT still posses more power that it has shown yet while taking off.

While looking at Tejas as per later airshow performance, Tejas left the ground little earlier but still fly low to gain speed to go vertical or climb even pulled landing gear immediately which in result took more time and proven less power or performance.

What you saw in airshows is a vertical flight path. Flying horizontally first, the airplane pitched up until the nose was pointing straight into the sky.

Surprisingly, no thrust is needed to perform this maneuver. Even gliders can do it. What happens is that kinetic energy is converted to potential energy, the rate of potential energy increase being proportional to flight speed and aircraft mass. If you start fast enough, this vertical flying can be maintained for several seconds, until the aircraft runs out of speed and stops in midair, followed by an uncontrolled drop. Skilled pilots orient the aircraft in the right direction by starting a rotation around the vertical axis at the top of the climb, so the following drop lets them pick up speed again with the correct nose-down attitude. Now potential energy is converted back into kinetic energy until speed is sufficient for a pullout. In aerobatics, this maneuver is called a stall turn or a hammerhead stall.

A few conditions apply, however. The airplane must be able to fly fast enough to have the needed potential energy to sustain the maneuver through the pitch-up phase. This is helped if its engines add energy, so the kinetic energy bleeds off more slowly. Also, at the top of the maneuver it is flying at zero g, and this requires at least that all items on board are securely fastened. Lastly, the pitch-up needs a load factor bigger than 1 g, and the higher the maximum load factor is, the tighter this pitch-up can be flown.

The vertical flight path is flown right after take-off. This limits the entry speed for the maneuver, and gliders will not be able to do this. Let's assume that the pilot accelerates after takeoff to a horizontal speed v=100 m/s (194 KTAS) while retracting the flaps, the kinetic energy 0.5 X M X v ^ 2 is equivalent to a potential energy m X g X h of an altitude gain h of h = v ^2 / 2 X g.

So even if the JF-17 didn't leave the ground but still accelerating and increasing the speed v.
So in Short The engines have to deliver less thrust with increasing speed because the kinetic energy will be converted to potential energy.

Do the maths yourself because all parameters if available is easy to find.

 

[knight11]

Hi,

Well---I am glad that the F 16 did not pass at Leh----.

That was one aircraft the F 16 IN version that we would not have an answer for---for awhile.

Are you not the one who opened the thread about the obsession of the Pakistan for the F-16, and now showing the same for it LOLZ

So you don't think Rafale C F-3 is capable enough for F-16 Block 52 of PAF.

 

[The Eagle]

LCA ended with amusement of critics or you are making yourself the laughing stock by saying such things.
First do go to the LCA thread and read the subject before commenting and fear you have zero and I say zero knowledge of aeronautics or any fighter plane. For you its the ADA who have designed, certified by CELEMAC the LCA TEJAS not the HAL. Hal is just the manufacturing entity for the LCA Tejas and presently manufacturing SU-30MKI at the rate of 19-20 per year, developed and manufacturing Dhruva, Sitara, Hawk IJT, LCH, Rudra etc etc.
The performance of LCA Tejas SP-7 was great, and was able to showcase many of its abilities like short take off and landing, easeless handling capabilities with FBW, slow flight pass, quick 360 turn with 350m and around agility.
The maneuver shown in the Airshow is different than the tactical maneuver and only the jignos chest thumps or compares the capabilities on the basis of airshow performance.

Your worth mentioning of the Boeing decision to leave HAL have a flawed why you didn't mentioned it was given to the TATA Aerospace again Indian, the idea of the LCA project was not to build this fighter plane, rather build the whole ecosystem.

So not only HAL but ADA itself causes the damage to LCA. Indeed the performance was great to yourself instead never come to show on any Int'l soil, now do not quote those all test flies prototype attempts here. The mentioning of Boeing alone was subject to efficiency of HAL not that Boeing left India or not.

The initial idea was proposed by ADA to build the sucesson of Folk GNAT Sucessor, but MOD give the authority and responsibility to the ADA, for you knowledge the ADA have to first do the premilinary present the report, that the technology exists in the country to develop the fighter plane, which was intended to replace the MIG-21. However due to delay caused by various factors including the economical recession time, and the sanctions led on the India aftermath of the nuclear tests, India upgraded MIG-21 and bis to BISON standard, which will be going to retire starting from 2019. Now for the IAF rejected to fly this bird till today question stands are you still sleeping or want to live in illusion. LCA Tejas MK1 have been officially inducted in IAF, and presently the IAF pilot are getting training on the single LCA Tejas MK1 of the IOC-2 standard. Pls provide source for IAF rejecting LCA Tejas, because we all know the facts such as

1. IAF have given the order for 20 IOC-2 standard
2. IAF is ready to induct 100 MK-1A with AESA, Aerial refuel , and BVR capabilities in short fully BVR capable + LGB for CAS capable from the 1st day of FOC.

Leave the future assumptions like will be, going to be, could be aside. I mentioned the observation of current appearance. Wait .... what .... IAF inducted LCA... yes they were delivered to train with not to be called as operational induction.

For your argument that IAF was forced to swallow the LCA all three i.e ADA, MOD, and IAF have zeroed on one conclussion 120 LCA MK1, so keep reading the yellow gerno articles but for your sake LCA MK2 with F-414INS engine with superior thrust, more refined aerodynamics, better armament, sensors and its fusion is been worked upon. And in all its not just the end of the LCA, even if we consider the indegenous order, then 120 MK1A plus MK2 order for IAF, 40 MK-2 Naval for INAf and 80+ trainer order its a huge potential in india alone. So don't live in any illusion its a fact, that LCA will be inducted in numbers for its second tier defence. and for the future we have AMCA project. Let things keep accelerating

All again as will be and other future assumptions which should have done currently but alas the ADA as you say and HAL that sabotaged this capable bird.

hen you will definately say UH AH WALLAH

I wouldn't respond what actually you intend to invite me by these words but let me tell you something that you can be mannered if you give it a try avoid acting like mentioned but you are clueless or is it kind of an insulting attempt being delusional fooled due to sentiments. Manners please.

He He for the T/W ratio the short take off within 10 Sec is more than enough to say and for the low fly to attain the speed, lolz its called low fly pass, but for you as I said earlier its just the airshow, and LCA have already proven when she was able to fly with full load, even when the critics says its still over wt so total MTOW of 13.5 Tons from the short runway of the high altitude airstrip of LEH, where F-16, F-18, Grippen fails

Leaving the ground earlier is not the primary goal but the climb indeed. Rest about whatever has failed LEH, i know you have still something in IAF inventory except Tejas those would have failed at LEH.

LOLZ thats the great comment of the Indian Tax payer. Bhai mere HAL is only manufacturing and its the ADA which is the designing agency, So can you name the country who was able to build the 4th gen fighter plane with 100+ Institutions setup + Aerospace ecosystem with the parallel development of Turbofan engine plus the prototype building with the budget of mere 1.2 + 2 Billion. Check for instance China with superior industrial base the pumping of 100 billion for the Indegenous turbofan Engine or the Dassault with the decades of experience of fighter plane building and Thales for the Engine design and building took 20 years for the Rafale plus 10 billion for the Turbofan engine. Its the self reliance and the indegenous product like LCA which will safe the tax payer rather than the import house in defence sector.

As you helped to add ADA as well so i will say it was HAL and ADA both who dragged the LCA to this stage otherwise it could have been much better like if it was TATA for example since start that i bet Boeing went for due to some reasons however, it may be another story. But calling it Indigenous, it has been discussed to depth but you wouldn't accept and i know you will again come up with same tech shares posts and self analysis for future as will be, would be, should be thing to call it indigenous. Do not compare the Rafale time period with LCA. Your comments proves that after such duration, look what came out of Rafale that you fall to purchase 36 in hurry and the rest more but in case of all those years for LCA, total disappointment came out. No need to bring china and other countries into this. It is just about India only especially as you added ADA and HAL by me.

My initial post was only upon observations of mine alone but i was not expecting that it could become the reason for decision of IAF to induct or not and may become an accountability call by GOI otherwise such explanation wasn't needed nor i intended. Chill out... They wouldn't act upon whatsoever i have stated. The attempt was not for criticism against criticism but observations only but i was not expecting that I may have poked someone.

Well .... when you inducted the JFT , the same capability the Tejas had, but the IAF want plane which can drop bombs and fire BVR's and VR's unlike JFT when inducted in PAF it cannot fly in night , forget about dropping LGW's.

So their is different standard of induction we talking about . Take an example , PAF now want Fuel rods , which IAF want from the very first plane. this tells lot.

I did not share my words that why IAF did not induct but it was merely pointed at the manufacturers and mismanagement. And rest about your claim regarding JFT that couldn't drop bombs etc while inducted, looks like we owned the whole squadron of Block-I just to burn fuel and have tours around. The continue change of post for LCA was not due to requirement by IAF but a hard try in my words to ditch LCA in love of foreign machine love or they knew it wouldn't make it though just to dropping of bombs and firing missiles took a decade to finalize a product which itself reached to the superannuation age of those initial prototypes. I just criticize HAL and recently your fellow told without intention but it includes ADA as well for all these failures, delays and not upto the mark thing.