What's new

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

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.

The OP and all analysis were about that JFT gained much energy in short span of time proving much power and still hidden as well. Your theory posted here is all i can find on internet but i don't know whats your point here? like you want to accept that JFT done well and Tejas couldn't or kinetic energy becomes biased to help JFT but not Tejas?

@MastanKhan Sir your opinion please.
 
The OP and all analysis were about that JFT gained much energy in short span of time proving much power and still hidden as well. Your theory posted here is all i can find on internet but i don't know whats your point here? like you want to accept that JFT done well and Tejas couldn't or kinetic energy becomes biased to help JFT but not Tejas?

sir plz leave all this !!!
as last thing i want u to understand is -
One of the downsides of deltas is that they create more drag, because of the bigger surface area, but they do have a bigger internal volume (for fuel, for example) which could lead to a smaller fuselage, or more space in the fuselage for other things. Another disadvantage is higher landing and take off speeds.
 
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.

For Boeing part its the Boeing who feels that working with the Pvt company like TAML and Tata Aerospace is more comfortable than the PSU like HAL, and obviously Pvt company runs more efficiently than the state run PSUs but what is important is that development of the Indian Aerospace Industry and more and more pvt aerospace companies like Godrej Aerospace, Tata Aerospace, Reliance , Mahindra Aerospace. These companies are not small companies and the Make in India which GOI is now promoting needs pvt investment from such Giants so that India could become self reliance in Defense sector.


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.

I am only giving the realistic figures like 120 MK-1A and 40 MK-2 Naval which both IAF and INAF are comitted because the second line which HAL opened for the LCA Tejas production cost around 1250 Crore Rupees of which half is paid by IAF and IN combine and rest by HAL.
Second about the 80+ LIFT trainer due to the fact that IAF operated 200 Su30 MKI and uses its MKI for the training purpose due to its tandem seat, so using Tejas trainer where the glass cockpits of LCA tejas trainer could easily mimic the instruments and gadgets of MKI, thus Increasing the TBO life of the MKI.

Your response is not so idiotic like many Pakistani poster, so allow me to tell you the actual procedure of the production strarts with the SOP and all drawing with the HAL, which was handed in Aug 2015. So if you ask why slow production process then the answer is that its normal to have full scale production level only after 2 -2.5 years after SOP. Till then it will take some time for full scale production.

Lot of Pakistani lay stress to the operational Induction and give an example of JF-17, now the question is does the operational induction means ferry flight without any teeth like LGB, or BVR and till now the integration is going on, so in case of PAF JF-17 it is still in IOC standard. However I too feels that IAF should have ordered atleast 20 MK-1 tandem seat LIFT or trainer in 2010 - 2012.

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.

Now this is where lies the problem. So lets leave HAL aside and talk about the ADA.
IF you check the time line the actual funding for the LCA starts from 1993 plus 2 problem of the economical recession when there was no funds and the sanctioned period after nuclear test. Yes LCA was only meant for the Mig-21 replacement, but with the time, new challenges arrives and IAF changes its ASR several time in short the goal post was changed several time. But ADA did the wonderful job with the small budget to develop several cutting edge technology which we were lagging.

1. FBW
2. Composites
3. FADEEC
4. AESA MMR


1. For the first part its not an easy job to do that and even SAAB have to run to LM of USA after its Grippen crashes twice due to the FBW problem.

2. Composites in this field, India did have a great experience and expertise with the DRDO's NAL and even the software developed for the composite stucture design by the ADA during the development of the Tejas is now used by the companies like Boeing.

3. It was great achievement, when India though lagging Turbo fan engine tech, did aim for much heigher and gone for the FADEEC and sucessfully developed it. Most of the people thought that Kaveri project is a failure, but actually it did reached its intended goal of the thrust, but till then the change of the ASR of the IAF due to change of the requirement demanded more LRU inside the Tejas, thus the thrust requirement was increased, which was not possible without more R&D and tech like crystal blade tech. which is available with only few OEM in the world and don't share with anybody. Thus Kaveri was delinked from the LCA Tejas but Kaveri was not dumped and development still continues.

4. For the starter AESA radar, India was working in this field from 90's and got good achievement for the Ground and AEW (AWAAC) and ship based radars, and work on UTTAM radar is going on with the schedule to get ready 2024, the time when Tejas MK-2 would be mass produced.



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.

Read https://defence.pk/threads/round-on...han-jf17-to-go-up.419030/page-19#post-8112725

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.

TATA's TAML have a good experience of Composites and is building various parts of airframe of Donier and Syscosky, so tata's quality of the doors build for the Boeing airliner is better than by the HAL and time consuming to build the number of parts is also less.

The time period comparison was done to show the full angle, then how could you expect India whichout any know how of the above tech, and less knowledge of design and development of the 4 gen or even 3rd gen fighter plane to the capabilities of the OEM like Dassault or LM or Boing

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.

No hard feeling, and it is not called critism, but a logical discussion. Feel free to quote me anytime.

The OP and all analysis were about that JFT gained much energy in short span of time proving much power and still hidden as well. Your theory posted here is all i can find on internet but i don't know whats your point here? like you want to accept that JFT done well and Tejas couldn't or kinetic energy becomes biased to help JFT but not Tejas?

First its just a airshow display, which is just for the display and for clapping by the audience, and should not be take seriously.

However the main motive of the LCA team was to show the short take off and landing capability by the LCA.
Your point is what I understand is that the JF-17 took straight to the verticle flight after it leaves the ground and LCA didn't and you doubt that LCA w/t weight to thrust ratio is not good so needs to gain speed before doing that.

So I am not so expert but try to answer you. There are few who can answer precisely @Nilgiri

1. First looking from the angle of the angle, you cannot judge properly. Check out this video of 747 airliner doing the same stuff


If you look at this video it looks stunning, but it does not means actually 747 did fly like the rocket, because the camera angle is responsible to look as if it just rocket lift the moment it took to the sky, so if the camera of the view is from the side and not from the back or front, it could be judged better.

2. My earlier post actually shows if you gain the velocity, which JF-17 gained more than the LCA tejas if the time period of take off is taken, but if we consider the time period to gain the initial speed aks time from the release of the brake that means suppose LCA tejas took 10 second for the take off and JF-17 17 seconds, for the seven seconds JF-17 is gaining more speed though running on the airstrip, the Kinetic energy gained will be the Potential energy for both the plane, so this maneuver could be done even by a glider provided, it have some initial speed, and while doing so when the nose is lifted then the potential energy gained which will depend on the velocity and the mass of the planes and keep going for some period of time. For the Glider it could do that but don't have a engine to keep going, but for the fighter plane the max thrust is needed to do such maneuver is not during vertical nose up, but after its initial energy bleeds to keep the fighter plane going.
 
sir plz leave all this !!!
as last thing i want u to understand is -
One of the downsides of deltas is that they create more drag, because of the bigger surface area, but they do have a bigger internal volume (for fuel, for example) which could lead to a smaller fuselage, or more space in the fuselage for other things. Another disadvantage is higher landing and take off speeds.

Indeed every design has advantages and disadvantages as well that no one can ever overrule but things can be applied to overcome. Thanks
 
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.
Whole Block Burns the fuel around the world but ne one Air force inducted till yet. Well Its beyond your understanding how difficult to develop technology / infrastructure etc. IAF is not might as Rich as PAF which spend half million $ for free.

End Result IAF is getting more advance plane in the budget. that's all matter , India develop key aerospace technology, which help in future.
 
Your response is not so idiotic like many Pakistani poster,

Though you still find out some idiotic of my post at few points like being not so idiotic. Rest about many Pakistani Posters, I am a Pakistani as well and am among them not separate and everyone has his own style and words to come up but what really matters is how are you feeling when you are reading and replying to someone.

Rest of your post is all about the happenings so i wouldn't drag them anymore as it has been discussed so many times on several threads so let be short here.

What i mean by moving away of Boeing was only highlighted that someone should understand that HAL is not that capable that other industries are in subjected field.

JFTs were not inducted as tandem seat lift or as trainers and IOC has been already obtained if I am not wrong here which can be found at particular thread. Indeed Bahrain airshow was an airshow of display and there lies the answer that hence JFT did not participate rather many Indians tried to prove that PAC or PAF were short of fund or were like afraid of LCA etc.

I was concerned about the climb rate initially from take-off subject to OP as well so while looking at gaining climb as per rate of time then it is clearly visible that LCA almost took 30 seconds to go vertical and JFT as being little late against LCA while taking off, gained climb rate quickly even having the drag by landing gears.

So it was only just my short knowledge analysis as well as the concerns about delays at the end of LCA by HAL etc.

So in conclusion LCA could have been proven much more if it was not the HAL after all those delays and such budget. Pakistan faced the same sanctions as well or I can say more than India.
 
My dear friend while looking the vertical ascend of JFT you can see that even if it had a swift turn and ascend but short live unsustainable.. it show the lack of energy not the other way around

Instead Tejas ascend was smooth and continuous

check the flying loops , JFT was like an ordinary flight , Tejas was swift with sharp angles, short radius

dont type simply this and that without any qualitative facts

Every fighter is fine in its on porto ... JFT had the advantage of earlier induction and experience , but doesnt make it better
 
Whole Block Burns the fuel around the world but ne one Air force inducted till yet.

How long did you take to induct your own LCA. What about Rafale, SUs and many others that are inducted in your airforce. Indeed Nigeria and Mayanmar are confirmed as buyers and soon you will see JFT in many colors though this is not the subject here but to inform you and go through the particular threads or you have an option of SEARCH in PDF that using it will ease your life more at PDF.

Well Its beyond your understanding how difficult to develop technology / infrastructure etc. IAF is not might as Rich as PAF which spend half million $ for free.

We know how difficult it is and we are on the track of it rightly aligned with steady pace. You can see our JV with China in JFT and the fruits as well. Rest about the Rich Things, look at your inventory and tell me how much does it cost and who is rich to throw money like thrash though we spend smartly as per our requirements not like just being in love with shiny gadgets those becomes useless.

End Result IAF is getting more advance plane in the budget. that's all matter , India develop key aerospace technology, which help in future

Now this statement of yours contradicts your Not Rich Theory. Do you have any idea how much India spent on LCA alone? may your fellows help your as well as go through the different post around PDF you will find our that how the money was wasted on LCA and still buying of advance planes. Rest about developments, no body hates it until & unless it is a nightmare in the end with lost of time and wealth.
 
Hi,


What a joke this display is---the aircraft releases brake at 5:29---wheels up at 5:41---sticks its wheels in at 5:49---and keeps on flying low to gain speed till 5:59---ie is 10 seconds and when it gathers speed---and when it has enough energy buildup---it goes up---.

30 seconds---half a minute-----

What a chicken sh-it lack of power display----

@Viper0011. @Irfan Baloch @Zarvan @Manticore and everyone else----check this out bud----you would like the info

Now look at the take of of the JF 17 at paris

Brake release at 00:57 second-----the moment the wheels are off the ground--it takes a steep climb at 1:17 second and shoots up-----and still the wheels are down and not tucked in---which means a massive drag on the aircraft---.

The wheels go in at around 1:30---.

So---basically---it is up at close to 4000 feet elevation whereas the Tejas is just about lifitng off the runway to put its nose up in the air.

Guys---just check the vidoes out----. Pakistani guys---I told you many months ago---there was a reason for the wheels out take off and the hanging wheels----. They don't want to show the actual power of the aircraft.

PAF's JF-17 Thunder Flying over Paris Air Show 2015 - Video Dailymotion

Source: Bahrain Airshow 2016 : Light Combat Aircraft Tejas in action | Page 8

So, are u accepting that LCA need 12 sec & JF-17 need 20 sec. And need lower runway? And thats why LCA variant was developed?

Are you impressed with LCA capabilities? :rofl:

BTW, for the sake of your knowledge, as I know u dont know anything about word operational capability.

NO, NO aircraft in world do vertical take off with loaded payload.

Hi,

Guys---now just think about it---if the JF 17 has the wheels in just like the Tejas did when the wheels left the tarmac----it could be at around 10000 feet elevation by the time tajes decided to lift its nose to go up---.

How, did u refused to add that 8 sec because of your illogical mind?

Though you still find out some idiotic of my post at few points like being not so idiotic. Rest about many Pakistani Posters, I am a Pakistani as well and am among them not separate and everyone has his own style and words to come up but what really matters is how are you feeling when you are reading and replying to someone.

Rest of your post is all about the happenings so i wouldn't drag them anymore as it has been discussed so many times on several threads so let be short here.

What i mean by moving away of Boeing was only highlighted that someone should understand that HAL is not that capable that other industries are in subjected field.

JFTs were not inducted as tandem seat lift or as trainers and IOC has been already obtained if I am not wrong here which can be found at particular thread. Indeed Bahrain airshow was an airshow of display and there lies the answer that hence JFT did not participate rather many Indians tried to prove that PAC or PAF were short of fund or were like afraid of LCA etc.

I was concerned about the climb rate initially from take-off subject to OP as well so while looking at gaining climb as per rate of time then it is clearly visible that LCA almost took 30 seconds to go vertical and JFT as being little late against LCA while taking off, gained climb rate quickly even having the drag by landing gears.

So it was only just my short knowledge analysis as well as the concerns about delays at the end of LCA by HAL etc.

So in conclusion LCA could have been proven much more if it was not the HAL after all those delays and such budget. Pakistan faced the same sanctions as well or I can say more than India.

If you doing operational capabilities analysis with these videos, then in military world you would be known as fool.

IAF or PAF not do such analysis in this configuration, loaded with 15 min fuel only for aerobatics. But in this configuration. Further ADA pilots dont do operational capabilities, they just do weapons trials. And there is a huge difference in wep trials & op capabilities.
IsOHT.jpg


And tell you what, if you actually want to know about capabilities of LCA then you need to contact TACDE, not Bahrain Air Show..

Further no aircraft on the planet earth able to perform beyond 5.5-6 g in this configuration.
 
Last edited:
why the need for such a thread. congrats to India on the tejas. why argue. the jft more known internationally as its been to more airshows. just wish each other the best of luck and move on.

How else can one witness sensibility even leaving the best of (wo)men? Such threads lay bare the basic nature of human exposed - sheer idiocy! Read the posts and enjoy them. If the video shows the aircraft as failing or not failing, the int corps will have a field day! Its hilarious to see one side claiming that the aircraft failed ..... by using yardsticks not applicable to the video, and other defend it - and each becoming more personal than the other!
 
If you doing operational capabilities analysis with these videos, then in military world you would be known as fool.

IAF or PAF not do such analysis in this configuration, loaded with 15 min fuel only for aerobatics. But in this configuration. Further ADA pilots dont do operational capabilities, they just do weapons trials.

Who did mention the operational capabilities analysis with these videos to fool you especially. These were just analysis based upon what so ever shared and that's it. The analysis were purely based upon the power of bird rather a fool dragged in operational capabilities based analysis.
 
Who did mention the operational capabilities analysis with these videos to fool you especially. These were just analysis based upon what so ever shared and that's it. The analysis were purely based upon the power of bird rather a fool dragged in operational capabilities based analysis.
Analysis of power of fighter aircraft, without payload & only with 15 min of fuel?

Then please describe the purpose of it? What you achieve with it?
 
go through the complete thread rather looking at last few posts here. Thanks

Analysis of power of fighter aircraft, without payload & only with 15 min of fuel?

Then please describe the purpose of it? What you achieve with it?
 
go through the complete thread rather looking at last few posts here. Thanks
I dont need to, because whole thread is based on a bull crap.

Like vertical takeoff ( with no payload & only with 15 min of fuel) , which doesnt matter in operational capability, but on how much distance an aircraft able to lift off.

So able to deployed on futuristic FOB cum ALG (made of tar).
 
I dont need to, because whole thread is based on a bull crap.

Like vertical takeoff ( with no payload & only with 15 min of fuel) , which doesnt matter in operational capability, but on how much distance an aircraft able to lift off.

So able to deployed on futuristic FOB cum ALG (made of tar).

In that case, this is not the thread that you may have participated. See, every member including me here, was sharing the observations and analysis based upon the simple video yet available wherein both the aircraft were flying in Int'l shows rather on mission. So the analysis with payload etc are whole lot of a different story to talk about. No body was suppose to achieve anything which does not matter to anyone else but self yet i shared my observations and analysis along with other members.
 
Back
Top Bottom