Jai, someone on BR had earlier asked what the black mark under the right inlet was. does anyone know the answer ?

autorotations are taught to most helicopter pilots, but the key to it lies in the altitude at which the engine fails. below a certain altitude, autorotation is not possible.

exactly ! the US Navy has no business flying so close the Russian border, and if caught, should be willing to pay the price.

vksac of BR huh ? 🙂 . wilkommen mate.

and if the JL-10A won the JH-7 contract, was it optimised for maritime strike ?

From where you get 20% weigth reduction due to composites in F-16 and F-18?. AV-8B is not high performance machine fifteen series. Only F-18E/F uses 35% composites by weight but it is not better than F-16E/F.(Infact F-16 E/F can lift much more than F-18E/F and has better TWR.

And 400KG weight reduction in LCA from what begining weight? There is no independent proof that LCA is of 5500KG neither is there of 45% composite use. This is just Indian specification with no practical meaning in real life. I will reserve my judgment on JF-17 percentage of composite use. you will know it better in final standard before production.

The 20% weight reduction is by weight. means that for a comparable size, the composite weighs 20% less (source “Principles of Mechanics of Composite Materials” by Ronald F. Gibson, Prof. Wayne State Univ, and incidentally my prof. in the Mechanics of Composite Materials course. 🙂 )

and the AV-8B offered much greater improvement over the Harrier, from which it was derived. dont ask me to prove that, go look for yourself.

There is no independent proof that the Tejas is 5500 kg ? :rolleyes:

what independent proof is there that the Gripen weighs 6622 kg either ? its only SAAB and BAe that say so ? or is it that you want some “Independent source” to weigh the Gripen for u ?

This is just Indian specification with no practical meaning in real life

😀 . how stupid is this statement ?

your questions show your logical skills are those of a 7 yr old. no use even spending time writing all this for u.

F-16, M2K and Flankers are all metal aircraft. It does not make LCA superior to them. Its Indian logic that because LCA uses twice the composites of Gripen so it is better :rolleyes:

and you claim you are smart ? :rolleyes:

you did’nt read the part about RCS did you ? or is it that you dont know what RCS means ?

do you know what advantages composites offer in structures sense ? they have high specific strength, high specific stiffness. also, composite construction leads to smoother surfaces, since no rivets, or sharp transitions are needed. This reduces drag.

do you know what difference using composites did the AV-8B Harrier ? compare that aircraft to the basic Harrier and you’ll know why composites matter. it has graphite/epoxy (fiber/matrix) wing-box skins, forward fuselage, hori. stabilizer,elevators, rudder, outrigger fairing,overwing fairing, totalling about 26% of the aircraft’s total structural weight.

do you realise what improvements are offered to the T/W ratio due to weight reduction ? the Tejas TD-2 itself had reduced about 400 kg (correct me if I’m wrong) from the TD-1 and all thanks to more use of composites. now calculate the T/W ratio of these two aircraft and already the TD-2 stands superior. 🙂

and who says that F-16s/Mirages, etc. did’nt use composites ? the horizontal and vertical stabilizers, flaps, and other control surfaces on the F-15 and F-16 are composites, with typical weight savings of 20%.

and now lets talk bout the X-29 forward swept fighter. the conventional Aluminium structures could not withstand the aerodynamic forces acting on such a wing, so that graphite/epoxy composite wings had to be used.

IN fact, the implementation of the forward swept wing had to wait till the development of advanced composites.

and just because its on the Tejas, which happens to be Indian, you’ll say that it does’nt matter whether composites are used or not. 😉

and this is supposed to be plain stupid Indian logic huh ? :diablo:

the reason that the construction of the FC-1 was kept simple and basic was to bring the aircraft into service early. neither China nor Pakistan (whose contribution to the FC-1 is negligible other than finance) have any great expertise with composites and developing an industrial base for that would have taken time. I’ll give u that. But accept the fact that the FC-1 is a mid/older generation aircraft as far as its construction goes, and so it will take lesser time to test than an aircraft like the Tejas that extensively uses composites.

But composites have a great advantage that you’re totally overlooking. the RCS of a Tejas will be smaller than a comparable all-metal aircraft of the same size. and being already a small aircraft, use of 40% composites would reduce its RCS considerably.

and just by putting comparable avionics on the FC-1, it does’nt become as technologically advanced as the Tejas.

and Tiger bete, go and compare the specifications of the Gripen and the Tejas, they are almost in the same class.