Originally posted by Defcon5
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Rafale Wins MMRCA Bid
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Blademaster View PostWith the acquisition of Rafale, Super MKIs, upgraded M2000s, and planned induction of PAK-FAs, IAF does not need the LCA to be more than a better Mig-21. It just need a cost effective option for patrolling its skies, CAP, air-to-ground interdiction, air saturation, etc.
Comment
-
Looks like India's decision may influence Brazil's choice...
India shows data to Brazil?
India agreed during Amorim's trip to share with Brazil some of its experiences of carrying out the open tender evaluation to select the best aircraft.
Comment
-
The LCA is a pure delta fighter, similar in shape to the F-106. Aerodynamically, the delta has these attributes:
- Low drag if area rule is followed; good acceleration
- Excellent instantaneous turn rate
- Poor sustained turn rate
A Delta wing is able to deliver one excellent, but energy-depleting "bat turn", and then tends to go downhill. They have always had trouble working a vertical fight, almost regardless of thrust to weight. So it may be much more complicated than simple poor airflow.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Blademaster View PostHow did M-2000 and Gripen overcome the problem of energy-depleting "bat turn" and vertical fight?
Grippen
The Mirage has smaller, fixed, canards, but it was designed originally as an interceptor, so high speed and rate of climb were more important. The newer Rafale has bigger, all moving, canards:
Rafale
Comment
-
Originally posted by Blademaster View PostWhat is area rule., in layman's terms? What is the difference between sustained turn rate and instantaneous turn rate, in layman's terms?
Chogy or Jimmy could probably give you a better definition of instantaneous turn-rate vs. sustained turn-rate but, put simply (in deference to you, Kent), instantaneous turn-rate is the aircraft's ability (or lack thereof) to change it's vector quickly, and the sustained turn-rate is an aircraft's ability (or lack thereof) to maintain a contant turn-rate without losing airspeed. Normally, an aircraft will be able to do one or the other pretty well, but not both. My understanding is the A-4 had an excellent instantaneous turn-rate, but couldn't sustain it (small wing), whereas the F-15's instantaneous turn-rate wasn't so hot (big, heavy aircraft), but it had an excellent sustained turn-rate due to it's low wing-loading and high thrust-to-weight ratio.
Hopefully, Chogy or Jimmy can elaborate on this, since they have first-hand knowledge of both."There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chogy View PostThe LCA is a pure delta fighter, similar in shape to the F-106. Aerodynamically, the delta has these attributes:
The naval version has movable LEVCONS.
Comment
-
Last edited by Firestorm; 15 Feb 12,, 20:37.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Firestorm View PostIt is a compound delta actually. The sweepback angle at the front wing root is lower than the angle for the rest of the wing. Exactly the opposite of the cranked arrow design of the Saab Draken.
The naval version has movable LEVCONS.
The MiG-21 is not pure a delta, but the shape of its wing also gave it some delta tendencies. A-4, same.
Stitch's explanation of turn rates was spot on. As for the area rule, it turned the dog that was the prototype F-102 into the much more acceptable production F-102, and then the more refined F-106. Look at the fuselage of the F-106 vs. the early F-102. Simply following the area rule created a vastly superior jet by reducing transonic and supersonic drag. The prototype F-102 could barely go supersonic; the F-106 did so with ease.
F-106, more pronounced "wasp-waist".
On some other aircraft like the T-38, the area rule produced beautiful lines. Note the air ducting pinching in proportionally to the wing span:
More modern fighters still follow the area rule, but the rule has been refined, and you don't have the obvious fuselage pinching that you do on the earlier jets. A shame, because the more simplistic area rule jets have beautiful, "womanly" curves.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Chogy View PostThe prototype F-102 could barely go supersonic; the F-106 did so with ease.
BTW, good example of area-rule with that photo of the F-5, it really emphasises what area-rule is."There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge
Comment
-
Originally posted by Defcon5 View PostHitesh,
There is a inherent flaw in LCA, It is its air flow. That is not going to change without serious redesign, might as well as make a new light combat aircraft. 1 Rafale doesnt equal 5 LCA. With a foreign engine, foreign AESA etc also adding the R&D cost, it might half the cost of a Rafale or at most 2 Rafale's.
I am not going against your assertion for a plane 'like' LCA, but rather LCA itself. It is currently in a half baked form, but I am not blaming anyone, making aircraft industry from scratch is no child's play. But is that enough of a reason for IAF to order 350 LCA's, I doubt it.
One should also note that the engine for Gripen NG is F414G; I do not know how different it is from the F414IN that has been ordered for the LCA but since both are for single-engine fighter jets, my guess would be that they are not that different, and if there are any differences then perhaps those can be handled.
So perhaps India orders 90 Gripen NG without engines... ;)Last edited by Loke; 19 Feb 12,, 09:18.
Comment
Comment