Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 4 of 66 FirstFirst 123456781454 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 1965

Thread: Tejas Mk1 and Mk2 thread

  1. #91
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,246
    Thanks, how did you do that? When I right clicked, image disappeared.

    So those UPICS can allow for any weapon to be carried on any station, provided it meets weight/carriage restrictions. Also, there is just the 1 IMA MC now, seems to have the redundancy built into one LRU. Weight savings ..

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    The Second Foundation
    Posts
    2,006


    I see that the brake chute door has been hinged. Prior version was tethered to the chute itself and brightly colored.
    But what a fool believes, he sees
    No wise man has the power to reason away

    -The Doobie Brothers

  3. #93
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,246
    Getting to the operational level versus the prototypes.



    The RLGINS being developed for the LCA is at the bottom left.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,816
    View from inside the cockpit and more..
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=1eThatTQcSU

    Flown by Cmde Jaideep Maolankar.
    Last edited by Twinblade; 19th February 2013 at 01:48.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,816
    So I had a little spare time today and I decided to guess what Tejas Mk2 would look like (both Airforce and Naval variant).
    From the recent information we know that Mk2 would be 0.5m longer than Mk1 variant, so based on that I photoshopped an existing picture of Mk1.
    Here's the size comparison of Mk2 Airforce variant with Mk1. Not much of a difference.

    Naval variant, with a drooping nose, higher pilot position and larger canopy.


    Airforce Variant, Tejas Mk2.

    Naval Variant, Tejas Mk2.
    Last edited by Twinblade; 19th February 2013 at 17:03.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,816
    Some amazing pictures of Tejas by Praveen Sundaram.






    View the gallery over here:- Tejas-LCA - Photoyogi Commercial Photography - Praveen Sundaram

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    ShangHai
    Posts
    559
    No HQ spotted video of demonstration released yet?
    The truth usually between two extremes, the key is when and where.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,816
    Quote Originally Posted by emile View Post
    No HQ spotted video of demonstration released yet?
    Quite a few.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=MgfVPUz9mNg
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=wouCnA7waAo

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,816
    Some more pictures from tejas.gov.in










  10. #100
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,816
    Update on Naval variant.

    ----------------------------------------
    And some pictures.









  11. #101
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    5,702
    Excellent Tejas Pictures , PYogi , Vishal and others have done an excellent job with their camera at AI 2013.

    The Twin cockpit of Tejas gives it a hooded look of Baaz
    "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,997
    ...

    He was my North, my South, my East and West,
    My working week and my Sunday rest,
    My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
    I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.

    The stars are not wanted now; put out every one:
    Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun;
    Pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods:
    For nothing now can ever come to any good.
    -------------------------------------------------
    W.H.Auden (1945)

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,816
    Looks like a small change in aux intakes.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Twinblade View Post
    So I had a little spare time today and I decided to guess what Tejas Mk2 would look like (both Airforce and Naval variant).
    From the recent information we know that Mk2 would be 0.5m longer than Mk1 variant, so based on that I photoshopped an existing picture of Mk1.
    Here's the size comparison of Mk2 Airforce variant with Mk1. Not much of a difference.

    Naval variant, with a drooping nose, higher pilot position and larger canopy.


    Airforce Variant, Tejas Mk2.

    Naval Variant, Tejas Mk2.
    nicely done Twinblade! would appreciate it if you could do this kind of PS work on a Tejas Mk1 image that shows its side profile, so we can see what the 0.5m plug will do to the overall fineness ratio on the Mk2.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,614
    Reported in Aviation Week about Tejas Mk1...

    To achieve initial operational capability, the Tejas program will need to expand the platform's angle of attack, g-tolerance and weapons capability.

    If production is starting in 2014, will angle of attack, g-tolerance be achieved?

    In its latest round of trials, the Tejas completed a series of high-altitude tests at the Leh air base in northern India in January. IAF Air Chief Marshal Norman Browne indicated earlier this month that the trials had not been entirely successful, and that the platform's engine didn't perform as expected.

    “Modifications will be required. There is much work ahead. Development projects do indeed take time, but it is imperative that there are no further delays in the program. A lot of effort has been invested in it, including from the IAF. It needs to be ready for operations soon,” Browne said.


    Engine not performing as expected? Is GE going to be asked to modify the engine?

    http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....p70-551081.xml

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Tampa, Florida USA
    Posts
    11,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Spitfire9 View Post
    Reported in Aviation Week about Tejas Mk1...

    To achieve initial operational capability, the Tejas program will need to expand the platform's angle of attack, g-tolerance and weapons capability.

    If production is starting in 2014, will angle of attack, g-tolerance be achieved?

    In its latest round of trials, the Tejas completed a series of high-altitude tests at the Leh air base in northern India in January. IAF Air Chief Marshal Norman Browne indicated earlier this month that the trials had not been entirely successful, and that the platform's engine didn't perform as expected.

    “Modifications will be required. There is much work ahead. Development projects do indeed take time, but it is imperative that there are no further delays in the program. A lot of effort has been invested in it, including from the IAF. It needs to be ready for operations soon,” Browne said.


    Engine not performing as expected? Is GE going to be asked to modify the engine?

    http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....p70-551081.xml

    The LCA MK1 is equipped with the GE F404. Which, was said to be underpowered for the aircraft. Which, is why India selected the more powerful GE 414. So, why should we be surprised about issues in High Altitude Testing with the underpowered MK1????

    Just saying.........
    F-35 Lightning II

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Twinblade View Post
    So I had a little spare time today and I decided to guess what Tejas Mk2 would look like (both Airforce and Naval variant).
    From the recent information we know that Mk2 would be 0.5m longer than Mk1 variant, so based on that I photoshopped an existing picture of Mk1.
    Here's the size comparison of Mk2 Airforce variant with Mk1. Not much of a difference. *SNIP*
    Could be placebo or wishful thinking, but I think the extra length does improve appearance markedly. The LEVCONs are cool also.
    Brief and powerless is Man's life; on him and all his race the slow sure doom falls pitiless and dark.

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,614
    Quote Originally Posted by Scooter View Post
    The LCA MK1 is equipped with the GE F404. Which, was said to be underpowered for the aircraft. Which, is why India selected the more powerful GE 414. So, why should we be surprised about issues in High Altitude Testing with the underpowered MK1????

    Just saying.........
    I'm confused. too.

    Norman Browne indicated earlier this month that the trials had not been entirely successful, and that the platform's engine didn't perform as expected.

    “Modifications will be required. There is much work ahead."
    As you were saying, the aircraft is deemed to be underpowered. Perhaps the Air Chief Marshal is alluding to other problems with engine eg difficult to start at altitude (IIRC this was a problem with some of the MMRCA candidates). If he is referring to inadequate thrust from the engine requiring modification of the engine, it's a bit late to address that problem IMO.

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Tampa, Florida USA
    Posts
    11,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Spitfire9 View Post
    I'm confused. too.



    As you were saying, the aircraft is deemed to be underpowered. Perhaps the Air Chief Marshal is alluding to other problems with engine eg difficult to start at altitude (IIRC this was a problem with some of the MMRCA candidates). If he is referring to inadequate thrust from the engine requiring modification of the engine, it's a bit late to address that problem IMO.

    Well, the GE F404 is an excellent engine and thousands have been produced. So, we know it's not the engine itself. Which, is not say that in the LCA at Altitude. It wouldn't experience "issues". Clearly, any engine that is underpowered and at high altitude would experience problems.


    That would be like saying a F-22 equipped with J-79's couldn't Super Cruise. Wow, what a surprise......
    F-35 Lightning II

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Tampa, Florida USA
    Posts
    11,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Spitfire9 View Post
    I'm confused. too.



    As you were saying, the aircraft is deemed to be underpowered. Perhaps the Air Chief Marshal is alluding to other problems with engine eg difficult to start at altitude (IIRC this was a problem with some of the MMRCA candidates). If he is referring to inadequate thrust from the engine requiring modification of the engine, it's a bit late to address that problem IMO.

    The F404 has been is service for decades in the F/A-18A/C Hornet, F-117, and JAS-39 Gripen. As a matter of fact it's consider one of the best fighter engines ever produced.

    So, I think we would know about any performance issues by now. If it was directly related to engine. (i.e.F404)
    F-35 Lightning II

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,614
    Quote Originally Posted by Scooter View Post
    Well, the GE F404 is an excellent engine and thousands have been produced. So, we know it's not the engine itself. Which, is not say that in the LCA at Altitude. It wouldn't experience "issues". Clearly, any engine that is underpowered and at high altitude would experience problems.
    What I don't understand is the comment that modifications need to be made. I thought that the IAF had accepted that the Mk1 would be underpowered. By definition that means performance will fall short in some areas eg hot and high airfield performance.

    In simple terms I think the IAF should see the Mk1 as a suitable MiG-21 replacement as it is and accept its deficiencies. IMO it is better to focus on Mk2 development and see Mk1 as a development vehicle and stepping stone to Mk2.

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,816
    ^^ The issue was related to fuel supply and starting of engines and not engines themselves. All fighters in IAF inventory have had a glitch or two at that temperature and altitude.

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,614
    Quote Originally Posted by Twinblade View Post
    ^^ The issue was related to fuel supply and starting of engines and not engines themselves. All fighters in IAF inventory have had a glitch or two at that temperature and altitude.
    Do they still have a glitch or two or were the problems resolved? If so, who resolved the glitches - the engine manufacturer?

    I hope this problem is relatively simple to solve so that it does not delay the start of series production.
    Last edited by Spitfire9; 13th March 2013 at 09:06.

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Tampa, Florida USA
    Posts
    11,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Spitfire9 View Post
    What I don't understand is the comment that modifications need to be made. I thought that the IAF had accepted that the Mk1 would be underpowered. By definition that means performance will fall short in some areas eg hot and high airfield performance.

    In simple terms I think the IAF should see the Mk1 as a suitable MiG-21 replacement as it is and accept its deficiencies. IMO it is better to focus on Mk2 development and see Mk1 as a development vehicle and stepping stone to Mk2.
    Also, remember that the IAF is going to accept a small number of MK I. So, they still must be airworthy.
    F-35 Lightning II

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,126
    Are the Mk I's going to be accepted as a political show of commitment to the program?

    I suppose it doesn't help that India's fighter fleet is shrinking due to attrition and retirement -Su-30MKI acquisition is not offsetting these (and indeed 4 Su-30s have crashed).

    So even an extremely limited LCA is alright in terms of maintaining pilot flying hours.

  26. #116
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Tampa, Florida USA
    Posts
    11,705
    Quote Originally Posted by thobbes View Post
    Are the Mk I's going to be accepted as a political show of commitment to the program?

    I suppose it doesn't help that India's fighter fleet is shrinking due to attrition and retirement -Su-30MKI acquisition is not offsetting these (and indeed 4 Su-30s have crashed).

    So even an extremely limited LCA is alright in terms of maintaining pilot flying hours.
    Personally, I see little advantage even excepting a small number of MK1's. The IAF mite as well wait until the MK2's are ready.
    F-35 Lightning II

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,126
    I totally agree.

    I'd say signing the MRCA contract and getting Rafale's delivered in a timely manner is a lot more important than getting a small number of limited capability Tejas into service.

  28. #118
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,312
    Quote Originally Posted by thobbes View Post
    I totally agree.

    I'd say signing the MRCA contract and getting Rafale's delivered in a timely manner is a lot more important than getting a small number of limited capability Tejas into service.
    could you please let us know what exactly you mean by "limited capability" Tejas Mk1s after they've attained FOC?

  29. #119
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Tampa, Florida USA
    Posts
    11,705
    Quote Originally Posted by thobbes View Post
    I totally agree.

    I'd say signing the MRCA contract and getting Rafale's delivered in a timely manner is a lot more important than getting a small number of limited capability Tejas into service.
    Agreed...
    F-35 Lightning II

  30. #120
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Scooter View Post
    Personally, I see little advantage even excepting a small number of MK1's. The IAF mite as well wait until the MK2's are ready.
    You must believe that its unheard of for any fighter that has not been fully developed to ever enter service to say that. The Typhoon Tranche 1 jets were not at the same level as the T3 jets and nor was Rafale F1 at the same capability level as the F3 today..so should their respective air forces have sat till T3 and F3 were developed?

    The Tejas Mk1 when it attains FOC will have met nearly all the goals of the ASR, with some relaxations made for performance (such as 8G max limit versus 9G specified by the ASR). Which isn't unheard of either, as we've seen with the relaxation of performance goals with the F-35 that you are such a huge fan of.

    The Tejas Mk2 aims to overcome all those minor performance limitations among other things. As things stand, those Tejas Mk1s will be far superior to the MiG-21 and the MiG-21 Bisons that are still flying in the IAF. Which is why it makes a lot of sense to get them into service, get air and ground crews familiar with the Tejas and start developing doctrines/tactics for utilizing it. Then, when the Mk2 arrives later in the decade, it won't be a totally new airplane for the IAF.
    Last edited by BlackArcher; 14th March 2013 at 03:48.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES