Thread closed to stop spamming.

fft, isnt the F22 the first ever a/c to launch munitions from internal bays at supersonic speed ?

I read somewhere the main problem is to prevent the missile
‘floating’ up into the bay once released. So they must have solved it somehow.

The YF-12 and (although in a different way) A-5 Vigilante both have launched weapons from their bombbays at subsonic speed, and i think the F-105 and F-111 also did. The weapons are thrown through the aircraft’s slipstream by either ‘rams’ or explosive cartridges.

The Vigilante did have serious slipstream issues, but that was because it’s bombbay was essentially a tunnel between the engines, from which the munitions were pooped out at the rear. It proved impossible to prevent the payload to linger for a while in the slipstream, making accurate delivery impossible.

Better radar, better engines. There’s hardly anything wrong with the airframe, except maybe that you need really good welders.

So, as Sean perfectly summarised, the aircraft is called MiG-31.

Best comment i ever heard was not on an airshow, but when doing some operational spotting at Soesterberg.

Two blokes were watching the aircraft flying (the USAF F-15s were still stationed there), one knowing just a little bit more than the other, and eager to impress his chum.
Enter an NF-5 coming in to make an overshoot.
“Look, an F-16”, the smart guy says.
Which is IMHO totally acceptable. It’s a jet, it’s grey, it’s pointy, the lot. There are plenty of subjects around i am sure i can make far sillier comments on.
That NF-5 is shortly afterward followed by a Dutch AF Fokker F-27 coming in to land.
“Whoa, another F-16!” the smart guy says.

Everyone suddenly got quiet and started looking at him as if he were a total idiot.

There are still plenty of ‘new’ Galaxies around. The whole C-5B fleet (i think there are some 80 of them, would have to check but i’m not with my stuff at the moment) was built in the mid-1980s. The earlier C-5As like the one currently being stripped at WR are built in the late 1960s.

LCA started in 83 pdf theory has been debunked by Yahoo himself, thanks Yahoo.

No it hasn’t been debunked, wishful reading has debunked it. BR, Jane’s, Brasseys – they all give 1983 as the program start and 1985 as the design start.

Arthur
First off you are a mod now, acting arrogant and telling people to shut up should be left out.

And now you’re doing it again! I didn’t tell you to shut up, i only told you to shut up with putting things in my mouth i didn’t say. Sigh. You can say whatever you want here as long as it stays within the limits of the code of conduct, just do_not_misquote_me. I apologise if i didn’t phrase myself clearly enough, but then again you never asked me to explain myself better either.

Me being a mod doesn’t matter here, perhaps only in that i am actually more friendly than i would have been if i was not a moderator here. I am having this discussion with you as Arthur. Harry and Google know that, and i have good faith in them they keep me in check as they keep anyone else.

It has been said to you for 11 pages, that is why its so long, that the LCA nose is big enough for the MMR radar, u know, that radar that was DESIGNED for the LCA, so when you ay short distance btw bulkhead and blablabla, a new addition after 11 pages 🙂

I mentioned the distance from the cockpit to the forward bulkhead for the first time in post #158, at page 6 of this thread. I used it there to explain my previous remark about there being little room in the nose.
🙂 indeed…

…what d you mean, you are the one who is using rough language over here not me, you are right I dont understand what you say? The LCA nose is tooo short, nose to small, whatever you want to call it for what? Obviously not the MMR, hence it is a non issue.

Okay, fair enough. Do you have a picture of how the MMR will fit in the nose of the LCA, like in a cutaway view or perhaps an opened mockup? Because if the nose (as is on the prototypes) is not too small, i am seriously interested in how it is done, and what sort of radar that MMR is.

Also you can look at all the pics you like, unless you know about the internal layout of the LCA you can only assume and have theories,

Which is all i have been doing here, i never denied that.

…you also seem to think that the designers made a nose that could not fit anything but the radar without any other gear, a good theory for drunk Indian designers perhaps…..

No, i didn’t think that. Where did i write i think that? What made you think i think that?

…unless I am mistaken you would not be here if you knew that much more than we did, you would be working in the Eurofighter project or lecturing in a University.

There are far better informed people here at these forums who are far better qualified to be working in the Eurofighter project or lecturing at universities than me. I’m just an enthusiast who happens to occasionally know what to look for, how to find something and ask an interesting question every now and then. I come here to exchange information with others – i can’t see your problem with that.

EDIT:
Can you please stop replying to yourself? A moderator not engaged in this debate could call it spamming. I just happen to find it extremely annoying to find that when i’ve uploaded a reply to you, you have added something in between.

So…

NOt really rubbish, I am sick and tired of using the google searfch engine for you Arthur, everytime you have asked me for a source, I have provided them to you, you can search for the test pilot comments about the LCA on google.com

Google is not a source, it is a search engine. I’m sure your teachers or professors don’t agree when you say the research you’ve done for some piece of work is by googling.

..and hyes only a handful said that, you know why?
Because only a handful of pilots have flown the LCA! 🙂

Then why did you originally say that “a lot of IAF pilots have commented on it”? It’s in post #331, at the top of this page in the discussion. As i’ve been telling you repeatedly, if you quote something (that something could be me or some piece of info you googled up) quote accurately. Otherwise it really makes no sense of having a discussion.

Oh but Arthur Iam only doing the same thing you are doing, you said that the nose was too small, relative to what? I do not know, if you can deduce certain things without internal dimensions etc, then so can I, besides deductions work well on other threads and I do not see you complaining about that.

Can’t you read? The nose is fat, but on the prototypes we’ve seen so far there simply is NO ROOM between the cockpit and the forward bulkhead to put a decent radar. It’s not small – the space in the airframe is simply too short. I’ve been trying to explain that for these very 11 pages yet somehow you keep interpreting my “The space between the cockpit and forward fuselage bulkhead is awfully short” into “Arthur says the nose is small.” I’m sorry, but if you’re incapable of understanding me unless you dumb down my remarks for your own understanding up until the point that they no longer represent what i originally said, it’s pretty impossible debating with you.
Also, i don’t have problems with deducting. As long as you remain aware of the fact that deducing only leads to theories and those are by definition highly debatable. And that is exactly why this thread has reached 12 pages.

The M2000 was a benchmark and the LCA is ment to beat it, a lot of IAF pilots have commented on it, Harry has already posted about this, you can go back, I won’t waste my time, there are 11 pages here. It is you who keeps on harping LCA=Viggen and then calling all who go against that as mere fanboys.

Considering the fact that the IAF is not flying the LCA yet, but DRDO is, your quote of ‘a lot of IAF’ pilots is rubbish. The test pilots appearantly have commented on it (haven’t seen any specific quotes though, but i’ll take Harry’s word for it because he knows what he’s talking about unlike some over-eager phanatical younger males), but i don’t think there are ‘a lot’ of those. You see what’s happening here? Not only are you reading selectively, but you’re exaggurating the actual message into something stroking better with your point of view. Do you know realise why i am beginning to realise it is absolutely hopeless to debate with you?

I never said LCA=Viggen, that again is only your simplified version of what i wrote. Do you want me to write my next posts in Simplified Technical English? It seems you have difficulties understanding me otherwise. I did say that the LCA’s wing design has a cranked delta just like the Viggen has. The only way i have seen that refuted, is that the LCA’s wing is not a cranked delta as on the Viggen, but a compound delta. Without ever explaining what the actual difference between the two types of wing is – sure, the LCA creates different vortices, but if you at least could tell me how i’d at least know what you’re talking about. So far, you’re only playing semantics without actually saying something sensible.

Also, stop replying to yourself. You can edit posts and make them longer if you suddenly realise you want to add something. If you would have done this, this thread would only be 6 pages long :rolleyes:

You do not have the internal dimensions of the nose, you started it not us, crobato made a reasonable argument about the Zhuk M BEING too big, but it is yet you who is selectively reading, you take one thing that he says and then for the other thing, it becomes a deduction, give me a break. This thread has more open source info than any other, most of the J-10 thread is deduction, go there and harp on that logic, not here.

First of all, you don’t know about my involvement in different Chinese-related threads on this and other fora so you can’t comment on that. Rest assured, i had long discussions with Crobato, GD and others as well.
As for the size of the nose: can you now finally shut up with putting the same words in my mouth for posts on end? It gets tiring. Besides, when i remarked that the nose seemed awfully small (as judged by the distance between the cockpit and the forward bulkhead, which you probably didn’t know yet), all i heard was comments on how it wasn’t. Not that i was given dimensions or anything. Remember that i am not overly well informed on the LCA, and appearantly the plethora of open sources you guys so happily and informatively quote from couldn’t give dimensions of the nose either.
When Crobato refuted your original claim that a Zhuk-M can be fitted in the nose, most notably because of (read this carefully, this might be something new for you) the seemingly short distance between the cockpit and the forward bulkhead, you changed your repetetive mode on me calling the nose relatively small without giving a relation to anything.

Allow me to do so now, Hunting Hawk will be happy as well since the dyslexia seems to be contageous. Look at ANY radar-equipped fighter aircraft, and look at the distance between the cockpit and the forward bulkhead. That is where the radar system (not the dish, but all the black boxes. A radar is namely more than just an antenna, in case you didn’t know) is mounted, and in many cases other systems as well. Now compare that distance between the cockpit and the forward bulkhead of any other radar-equipped fighter with the distance between the cockpit and the forward bulkhead of the LCA. You will see that the distance between the cockpit and the forward bulkhead of the LCA is very short, and if you would know a bit about radar systems you would understand that it would take a very short radar system to fit in the short distance between the cockpit and the forward bulkhead you find on the LCA.

I never even mentioned radar antenna diameters, yet that was appearantly the point you were using to try and refute me. I am sorry it took me twelve pages to try and explain to you i wasn’t talking about radar diameters but over the distance between the cockpit and the forward bulkhead. You know, if i had any worries about the LCA’s maximum possible radar antenna diameter, i would have made that point and written it as such. But, and here is something new, i was talking about the distance between the cockpit and the forward bulkhead, which i deemed to short to house a whole radar system.

An issue which hasn’t been countered, but only inforced by Crobato’s more factual analysis than my simple deduction.