Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Quadbike Indian Air Force Thread Part 18

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • quadbike
    Rank 5 Registered User

    For me this is Bureaucratic shambles & Red Tapism, HAL is owned by government CEMILAC is a government agency, they must be told to look the other way, what is to loss its not a passenger plane the pilot can always eject.

    Some idiots being overly cautious.
    Love Planes, Live Planes

    Comment

    • Boom
      Under a banyan tree

      Originally posted by mack8 View Post
      Think we need to wait a bit longer to have it confirmed from another source. How credible is that idrw.org site ?
      a little less than strategypage. unless they are copy pasting someone else's article.
      HAL - one step ahead of IBM

      Comment

      • obligatory
        Senior Member

        ''The weight of the landing gear needs to be reduced. ''
        -meaning it is overweight

        ''Former IAF chief S. Krishnaswamy has said that the naval aircraft will probably need a new engine apart from a lot of testing and modifications. He has said that with the primary IAF version too hitting technological roadblocks, it’s bad news for the LCA programme all-round.''

        What technological roadblocks ?

        some of these problems could more easily be rectified had India made the Tejas a little longer to begin with.
        What of these problems would have been in a better shape with longer fuselage ?
        Last edited by obligatory; 12th March 2012, 13:29.

        Comment

        • Twinblade
          Rank 5 Registered User

          तेजस विमान : 12-march-2012 : भारत TEJAS LSP - 7

          At 2:50 on wards you can clearly see the seams in the panel where the sensors used to measure strain were attached on the PV-2 (often mistook for peeling paint)

          At 3:33 You can see the HMDS clearly.
          sigpic

          Comment

          • raghuk
            Rank 5 Registered User

            Originally posted by quadbike View Post
            For me this is Bureaucratic shambles & Red Tapism, HAL is owned by government CEMILAC is a government agency, they must be told to look the other way, what is to loss its not a passenger plane the pilot can always eject.

            Some idiots being overly cautious.
            Maybe you should fly it, afterall even you can eject easily and flying is such an easy job and from your posts, it seems you know much better than those worthless(idiots) engineers at HAL and CEMILAC.

            Comment

            • Kramer
              Evil Bordurian

              Originally posted by raghuk View Post
              Maybe you should fly it, afterall even you can eject easily and flying is such an easy job and from your posts, it seems you know much better than those worthless(idiots) engineers at HAL and CEMILAC.
              he doesn't know anything compared to the HAL and CEMILAC guys. His field isn't even remotely related to aviation. But, he does happen to be critical of HAL and bureaucracy as well as the LCA. and sometimes the criticism is valid too. Sometimes its just ignorant BS.
              "By the whiskers of Kurvi-Tasch!"

              Comment

              • Twinblade
                Rank 5 Registered User

                Originally posted by raghuk View Post
                Maybe you should fly it, afterall even you can eject easily and flying is such an easy job and from your posts, it seems you know much better than those worthless(idiots) engineers at HAL and CEMILAC.
                Don't bother Raghu, some people have no respect for the work you guys do

                PS: Is the Cemilac incident recent or a legacy from 2010 ? Also best of luck.
                Last edited by Twinblade; 13th March 2012, 14:48.
                sigpic

                Comment

                • matt
                  Satyameva jayate

                  Anyone have any details on why the NLCA certification failed? Will this delay the test flight program?

                  I dont understand why the certification authorities would not give certification because of an over weight part, that is a performance issue not a flight safety issue in itself unless the excess weight was compromising the structure of the aircraft or HAL were not able to prove the or certify the structure with the additional load.

                  What is happening with the LCA MK2?
                  Wrinkles wrinkles my kingdom fallen to a wrinkle

                  Comment

                  • CoffeeBean
                    Rank 5 Registered User

                    Originally posted by Sign View Post
                    which is the biggest modern AESA to fit (probably)?
                    Dont know about that, but it should be able to fit in +1200 T/R modules.

                    Hopefully there is an AESA radar under development for LCA.

                    Comment

                    • quadbike
                      Rank 5 Registered User

                      Originally posted by raghuk View Post
                      Maybe you should fly it, afterall even you can eject easily and flying is such an easy job and from your posts, it seems you know much better than those worthless(idiots) engineers at HAL and CEMILAC.
                      I am sorry if i hit a nerve, look at China or any other country where the certification authority and the company that develops the plane are both government owned, I doubt they cite small issues and delay the first flight.

                      I was just saying that this is ardent red tapism, don't need to be a rocket (or aviation) scientist to figure this out.

                      PS: I don't think flying a modern jet with automated everything is such a demanding task, as demonstrated by many journos during AI and otherwise, a few hours on the simulator and off you go. Not like you are asked to break the sound barrier for the first time.

                      Actually I do have a lot of respect for the work he does, and others like him do, that is why I want the whole establishment to be privatised so that he can get better pay better promotion and rewards for his work.

                      I dont understand why the certification authorities would not give certification because of an over weight part, that is a performance issue not a flight safety issue in itself unless the excess weight was compromising the structure of the aircraft or HAL were not able to prove the or certify the structure with the additional load.
                      Like I said its the same as the water authority turning off the taps to the electricity department because some bills are not paid, don't matter even if its all government owned, the pain of bureaucracy !
                      Last edited by quadbike; 13th March 2012, 21:58.
                      Love Planes, Live Planes

                      Comment

                      • Kramer
                        Evil Bordurian

                        Originally posted by quadbike View Post
                        I am sorry if i hit a nerve, look at China or any other country where the certification authority and the company that develops the plane are both government owned, I doubt they cite small issues and delay the first flight.
                        Your suggestion that certification may not delay a program does not match facts. China's ARJ21 is already delayed by CAAC not giving it certification in time. C919 is going to be delayed because CAAC is not going to start work on certifying it till the ARJ21 is certified.

                        Nothing has been announced, but Comac now expects the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) to certify the ARJ21 as airworthy in September or October 2012, says one industry official. Another executive involved in the program thinks 2013 is more likely, 11 years after the project began.

                        Comac has yet to officially acknowledge the latest delay to the ARJ21 program. Its last announcement on the matter was that certification would be achieved by year-end. This date already represented a delay from the original, admittedly ambitious, objective of 2006.


                        Strictly speaking, the FAA’s role is to validate the CAAC’s process, not the aircraft itself. But officials say the U.S. agency believes it can only be satisfied with the process if it follows it all the way to the end in this test case; only then can the C919 effort begin. A spokesman for the FAA declined to comment.

                        The CAAC is taking a properly tough line with Comac, says an industry official. There is not the slightest hint of a national regulator going soft on a national-champion manufacturer. In one instance, says another person close to the program, Comac was slow to recognize that a major ARJ21 part had failed a test, even though it very obviously had. Then the company hoped simply to repeat the test. The CAAC insisted on a redesign.
                        While an industry official familiar with the C919’s design says it will not have the faults of the ARJ21, the latter aircraft’s track record does not bode well for rapid certification flight tests. The ARJ21’s faults have included problems with the flight control system and an aluminum-alloy wing that broke before reaching its ultimate load. Flight control issues have resurfaced and avionics suppliers Honeywell and Rockwell Collins have been asked to change their equipment, not because it did not meet the specification but because a regulator, perhaps the CAAC, was not satisfied with the specification.

                        More tests are also needed. A program executive says he expects, or hopes, that if Comac fully satisfies the regulators, then the FAA will relax its attitude.

                        Crucially, Comac has yet to hand over the ARJ21 to the CAAC so the regulator can conduct its own tests, industry executives say. A regulator would normally need at least 10 months with the aircraft, accumulating 1,000 flight hr., which begin when the manufacturer issues a type inspection authorization. It is not clear when Comac will sign that authorization. And, despite the CAAC’s reported punctiliousness, there is the possibility the FAA may take issue with some of the Chinese regulator’s processes. If that occurs, there will be even further delays.
                        Aviation week article

                        I was just saying that this is ardent red tapism, don't need to be a rocket (or aviation) scientist to figure this out.
                        Perhaps you should read up more on what the role of the certification authority is- whether it makes the first flight or not is immaterial if the CEMILAC doesn't certify it. The major parts that need to be validated on the N-LCA are the re-designed landing gear and LEVCON (along with the FBW but that doesn't have the certification issue), and if those are the parts having issues then what's the point of making the first flight? They will need to be re-designed anyway to cater to CEMILAC's concerns. Their job is to make sure the N-LCA is safe to fly, not to make sure that it flies just for press releases.

                        If the N-LCA flies, it will be with CEMILAC's blessings or else there will be no flight till their concerns are met. It may be a re-design, it may well be a concern with some of the methods adopted for doing the analysis. It may be a small issue or a major issue, we don't know. We certainly don't know enough for you to go criticizing them for red-tapism.
                        Last edited by Kramer; 14th March 2012, 01:38.
                        "By the whiskers of Kurvi-Tasch!"

                        Comment

                        • quadbike
                          Rank 5 Registered User

                          Oh that is not a military aircraft, and in that sense the Chinese regulator is being tough because the aircraft will eventually need FAA certification, which it won't get if it don't pass stringent tests. NLCA don't need that they can just look the other way and take it easy on the ADA. Let it fly and then integrate things redesign for safety etc can come at a later stage, even active fleets are grounded and modification done to make them safe during a later time, I guess it don't matter much.

                          China has many successful programs so it can afford to play the tough game now. Still I am sure if the aircraft in question was a priority as LCA is to us, the certification would have done ages ago.

                          The pussyfooted approach with respect to testing has already cost LCA dear, who wants a 100% safety record when flight envelope expansion is so slow, one or two jets are always lost in the process of testing in most countries, its the norm. Look at the Gripen, F 16 etc, they had several crashes initially but aggressive testing meant they has their flight envelope expanded to paper specs faster.
                          Love Planes, Live Planes

                          Comment

                          • JSLLL4
                            Senior Member

                            wasn't EADS hired to redesign LCA's airframe?
                            Last edited by JSLLL4; 14th March 2012, 02:24.

                            Comment

                            • Kramer
                              Evil Bordurian

                              Originally posted by quadbike View Post
                              Oh that is not a military aircraft, and in that sense the Chinese regulator is being tough because the aircraft will eventually need FAA certification, which it won't get if it don't pass stringent tests. NLCA don't need that they can just look the other way and take it easy on the ADA. Let it fly and then integrate things redesign for safety etc can come at a later stage, even active fleets are grounded and modification done to make them safe during a later time, I guess it don't matter much.

                              China has many successful programs so it can afford to play the tough game now. Still I am sure if the aircraft in question was a priority as LCA is to us, the certification would have done ages ago.

                              The pussyfooted approach with respect to testing has already cost LCA dear, who wants a 100% safety record when flight envelope expansion is so slow, one or two jets are always lost in the process of testing in most countries, its the norm. Look at the Gripen, F 16 etc, they had several crashes initially but aggressive testing meant they has their flight envelope expanded to paper specs faster.
                              So what you're saying is that military certification is just eyewash and since a pilot can eject (if the situation is such that a pilot can eject), you can willy nilly approve any method or any part.

                              You're only highlighting just how little you know about aviation in the real world.

                              p.s.: if an LCA crashed its precisely your kind of people who'll jump up and down with suggestions about how the Sea Gripen or Gripen has now fully emerged from the shadows.
                              "By the whiskers of Kurvi-Tasch!"

                              Comment

                              • Twinblade
                                Rank 5 Registered User

                                Originally posted by Sign View Post
                                which is the biggest modern AESA to fit (probably)?
                                El-2052 would have been a perfect fit. It was designed for a smaller F-16 (740x480 mm) nose with ~ 1184 modules


                                A rough calculation would indicate a ridiculous 1400+ modules if the radar was scaled up for Tejas, but that ship has sailed anyway.
                                sigpic

                                Comment

                                • Kramer
                                  Evil Bordurian

                                  Tejas LSP-7

                                  "By the whiskers of Kurvi-Tasch!"

                                  Comment

                                  • quadbike
                                    Rank 5 Registered User

                                    Originally posted by Kramer View Post
                                    So what you're saying is that military certification is just eyewash and since a pilot can eject (if the situation is such that a pilot can eject), you can willy nilly approve any method or any part.

                                    You're only highlighting just how little you know about aviation in the real world.

                                    p.s.: if an LCA crashed its precisely your kind of people who'll jump up and down with suggestions about how the Sea Gripen or Gripen has now fully emerged from the shadows.
                                    It is not eyewash, but if the makers are happy with the plane and the pilot is happy they should fly it, the company is owned by the government as is the certification authority what is the point in these delays.

                                    May be I don't know much, but the whole purpose of having government regulators is to make sure the private players don't compromise on safety, if its government owned who cares, all money is government money whichever department/company it is in.

                                    No if it crashed and expanded its flying envelope there by making it closer to FoC and induction i will be rather happy.

                                    Sea Gripen has more chance than the LCA because people there know what they are doing, I am sure SAAB would have been willing to co-operate with NLCA more than EADS or Boeing, would have been happy with the role of a junior partner etc.
                                    Love Planes, Live Planes

                                    Comment

                                    • Twinblade
                                      Rank 5 Registered User

                                      Originally posted by quadbike View Post
                                      It is not eyewash, but if the makers are happy with the plane and the pilot is happy they should fly it, the company is owned by the government as is the certification authority what is the point in these delays.
                                      May be I don't know much, but the whole purpose of having government regulators is to make sure the private players don't compromise on safety, if its government owned who cares, all money is government money whichever department/company it is in.

                                      No if it crashed and expanded its flying envelope there by making it closer to FoC and induction i will be rather happy.
                                      You realise how ignorant you sound ? Just read what you wrote once again. Every government agency / public sector company in its day to day operations requires several licenses and adherence to several guidelines associated with safety. What happens in the case if there is an accident and the subsequent enquiry finds the design implementation and testing team guilty of not adhering to the safety guidelines resulting in loss of human life, government property and private loss, should it land in an inhibited area ?


                                      Sea Gripen has more chance than the LCA because people there know what they are doing, I am sure SAAB would have been willing to co-operate with NLCA more than EADS or Boeing, would have been happy with the role of a junior partner etc.
                                      A plane which exists in power point presentations v/s one doing EGR. You really are an optimist.
                                      sigpic

                                      Comment

                                      • Boom
                                        Under a banyan tree

                                        Originally posted by JSLLL4 View Post
                                        wasn't EADS hired to redesign LCA's airframe?
                                        no.
                                        HAL - one step ahead of IBM

                                        Comment

                                        • quadbike
                                          Rank 5 Registered User

                                          You realise how ignorant you sound ? Just read what you wrote once again. Every government agency / public sector company in its day to day operations requires several licenses and adherence to several guidelines associated with safety. What happens in the case if there is an accident and the subsequent enquiry finds the design implementation and testing team guilty of not adhering to the safety guidelines resulting in loss of human life, government property and private loss, should it land in an inhibited area ?
                                          I know there are rules, in govt-govt deals these can be broken and should be if we need to speed things up. If we are fine with importing stuff all the time then let it be like it is, follow the rules, procedures, and deliver the product when it will be considered obsolete.

                                          A plane which exists in power point presentations v/s one doing EGR. You really are an optimist.
                                          SAAB can just build one just like that, their experience is immense compared to ADA/HAL, if they get project sanction and funding now, I am willing to bet the Sea Gripen will overtake the N LCA programme, despite the headstart NLCA has.
                                          Love Planes, Live Planes

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X