look bit elongated at top center. ADA said the change is gonna be minimal in AI-13. few mm, thats it plus from the picture 3 side inlets instead of one.
The most visible change is the openings in the sides of the air intake, similar to the ones found in the upper side of the MIG 29 air intakes.
The reason why F404 under-performed on Mk1 is because of these small air intakes. Now, NAL is going to kill more powerful, more air demanding, F414 by choking its throat too.
Is that a levcon? Would that be a standard for the AirForce version as well?
The cockpit integration into the fuselage looks a bit different: more "jaguar-ish".
Auxiliary intake(s) has been changed to those like found in SU-30MKIs and Mig-29s albeit they have these below and above of their main intakes, respectively. AOA of main intake seems to been tilted negatively. If so, good for high AoA performance. From provided angle, intake(s) looks larger. Curve angle of lower section seems to have been reduced.
With auxiliary intake?
ADA and DRDO is weasting the time LCA is not going to be use in IAF.It is 3rd generation fighter
Someone said that air intakes for mk2 will be enlarged by 10mm only.It sure looks the case.
Is lca mk2 still at wind tunnel model testing stage ???
Except LERX no real changes. Another waste of Money by our supreme organisation DRDO
If I recall correctly, the F-18 'hornet' aircraft of USAF earlier had similar rounded air intakes which were later modified to quadrilateral shape and aircraft was named 'super hornet'. I wonder if they do the same with the Tejas
I think by now DRDO probably has sever squadrons of wind tunnel models........ Just no fully developed and operational fighters.
Conformal fuel tanks ?
three little "blow in " doors ( you will see it in the MiG 21 and also on the Hunter intake upper surface-only they made do with one pair)to handle the slightly larger mass flow.I would have thought that they would have used about 20 cms of the length increase in getting a more'pointy" radome but apparently they seem to be comfortable with an entry reminiscent of the Gnat.
i guess there is a change in the landing gear..
When we design the intakes it needs to take 60 % more air than the required air volume so that it can generate full thrust at high altitudes.The air intakes to me are of same size and thus would hamper the performance of GE IN5S6 engine.I feel having a levicon as a standard feature is a good choice as it would lower the takeoff and landing distance as well as improve AOA. Hundreds of LCA can be put on china border in hangers carved in the mountains with small runways attached to it can blunt any attack by China.TIMBAKTOO
Air Intake changes on MK-2 are mandated by the laws of fluid dynamics and aerodynamics.it is naive to assume it looks like SUKHOI or Mig-29 or something else.Also louvers or doors don't matter that much as air intakes of all varieties are being designed for eons from MIg-21 days to Sukhoi days.there is nothing cutting edge so that we need to suspect some mistakes on the part of designers.Also there is nothing that can't be resolved in case there is a need for minor tweaks to air intake.
pointy radome is not an IAF spec. IAF wanted as big a radar on LCA as possible.ADA has provided a radome that is big enough to fit a asea radar as big as that of RAFALE's.Pointy Radome will only reduce the space available for RADAR diameter.
LCA had a radome dia almost equal to that of RAFALE, so that it can technically house the same diameter radar as RAFALE and fire the same METEOR missile as RAFALE does with almost the same RCS.If RADOME is made more pointy it will reduce the space for the asea radar.What is surprising is so called critics almost seem to forget this critical fact ,the extra stengthening of the wings is a fact posted in an article by former SA to Pm like A.Partahsarahty and head of the procurement committee Raman Puri.And no one from IAF contested it till date.The original ASR of IAF says a weapon weight of 4 tons. Now mk-2 is about to carry 5 tons with almost the same empty weight and the same wing loading and RAFALE sized asea Radar which is a feat equal to that of Grippen NG.In fact the TWR of mk-2 will be lot closer to that of RAFALE.MK-1 itself has more TWR and lower wing loading than Mirage -2000 in IAF. Lower wing loading and more TWR means more maneuverable than Mirage .
LCA had a radome dia almost equal to that of RAFALE, so that it can technically house the same diameter radar as RAFALE and fire the same METEOR missile as RAFALE does with almost the same RCS.What is surprising is so called critics almost seem to forget this critical fact ,the extra stengthening of the wings is a fact posted in an article by former SA to Pm like A.Partahsarahty and head of the procurement committee Raman Puri.And no one from IAF contested it till date.The original ASR of IAF says a weapon weight of 4 tons. Now mk-2 is about to carry 5 tons with almost the same empty weight and the same wing loading and RAFALE sized asea Radar which is a feat equal to that of Grippen NG.In fact the TWR of mk-2 will be lot closer to that of RAFALE.MK-1 itself has more TWR and lower wing loading than Mirage -2000 in IAF. Lower wing loading and more TWR means more maneuverable than Mirage .
The word "pointy" was used because I did not want to use "coeffecient of finesse" which is the ratio between the hydraulic diameter and the length. As you have said the LCA has a very large dia radome and common sense hydrodynamics dictates that the body length be increased w.r.t.to the cross section.This is why the fuselage is overall length is being increased. In my considered view the LCA has a very cross section and it is common sense again to increase the radome length to the plane of antennae array and then make a curve.This will require an addition of 20 cms to the radome length between the bulkhead and the tip.The catch is not to go overboard with the wetted area. So that may be the reason why they are doing what they are doing though I would have increased the radome length and re-contoured it. Regarding what I said about the wing strengthening I am not sure whether the IAF 's not contesting a claim or not makes or changes the facts I have stated.In fact the IAF 's attitude mostly has been "if you say so" possibly because theya re not teh Designers. The Russians were able to upgrade the MiG 21 for BVR without too much of a fuss
Mig-21s are never going to fire 120 km range Meteor type BVRs with their lousy radar range. So all comparision with Mig-21 is not proper.IAF will never contest it , because it is a truth exposed by Authorities like RAMAN PURI(head of MMRCA procurement) and ASHOK PARTHASARATHY (former scientific adviser to PM.)The primary reason for the 0.5 meter increase in length as said by the naval test pilot was "to have a bit more fuel to cater to the heavier air frame and landing gear weights of the naval version".The extra weight won't be there on IAF version . So it will have much higher specs than the mk-1. that's all.The length increase was not meant for fixing some unsolvable problems of MK-1.
Post a Comment