HAL Tejas Jet Fighter

B

bingo

Junior Member
Ok.

So, the useful weight of J-10 is indeed 9650 kg.
(with 6000 kg of weapons load).

Coming back to the numbers related to engine power:

I added a column for Dry Thrust of the engines used (for twin engines, it's 2xDry Thrust).

Just to compare Eurofighter and J-10, on just engine power to loaded weight:

Loaded Weight
Eurofighter = 16 tons
J-10 = 18.5 tons

Dry Thrust
Eurofighter = 120 kN
J-10 = 79.43 kN

Eurofighter has 1.5 times engine power than J-10 (and actually, Eurofighter is lighter than J-10).

Just on these numbers, I'd predict that Eurofighter is going to be super maneuverable, compared to J-10.

A single engine of 79.43 kN is just too less to carry 18.5 tons.

Please see the updated attached file, where we sort on Dry Thrust / Loaded Weight. Under this analysis, JF-17 seems have much more engine power than J-10.

Indeed, I was myself surprised to find J-10 at the lowest point, among all aircraft.

That's why I earlier got a feeling that J-10 was better off with 2 engines rather than 1.

F-35 is the only aircraft having a higher weight than J-10, and is still designed as a single engine aircraft. But F-35 has a super powerful engine of Dry Thrust = 125 kN

The only other thing, I can think of is that J-10 number for Loaded Weight (=18.5 tons) is grossly incorrect, as listed on wikipedia. Can anyone confirm the numbers (to a rough level of accuracy atleast).
 

Attachments

  • Aircraft1.doc
    38 KB · Views: 8
L

Lion

Senior Member
bingo said:
Ok.

So, the useful weight of J-10 is indeed 9650 kg.
(with 6000 kg of weapons load).

Coming back to the numbers related to engine power:

I added a column for Dry Thrust of the engines used (for twin engines, it's 2xDry Thrust).

Just to compare Eurofighter and J-10, on just engine power to loaded weight:

Loaded Weight
Eurofighter = 16 tons
J-10 = 18.5 tons

Dry Thrust
Eurofighter = 120 kN
J-10 = 79.43 kN

Eurofighter has 1.5 times engine power than J-10 (and actually, Eurofighter is lighter than J-10).

Just on these numbers, I'd predict that Eurofighter is going to be super maneuverable, compared to J-10.

A single engine of 79.43 kN is just too less to carry 18.5 tons.

Please see the updated attached file, where we sort on Dry Thrust / Loaded Weight. Under this analysis, JF-17 seems have much more engine power than J-10.

Indeed, I was myself surprised to find J-10 at the lowest point, among all aircraft.

That's why I earlier got a feeling that J-10 was better off with 2 engines rather than 1.

F-35 is the only aircraft having a higher weight than J-10, and is still designed as a single engine aircraft. But F-35 has a super powerful engine of Dry Thrust = 125 kN

The only other thing, I can think of is that J-10 number for Loaded Weight (=18.5 tons) is grossly incorrect, as listed on wikipedia. Can anyone confirm the numbers (to a rough level of accuracy atleast).
Click to expand...

Yr calculation got serious problem....
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
bingo said:
Ok.

So, the useful weight of J-10 is indeed 9650 kg.
(with 6000 kg of weapons load).

Coming back to the numbers related to engine power:

I added a column for Dry Thrust of the engines used (for twin engines, it's 2xDry Thrust).

Just to compare Eurofighter and J-10, on just engine power to loaded weight:

Loaded Weight
Eurofighter = 16 tons
J-10 = 18.5 tons

Dry Thrust
Eurofighter = 120 kN
J-10 = 79.43 kN

Eurofighter has 1.5 times engine power than J-10 (and actually, Eurofighter is lighter than J-10).

Just on these numbers, I'd predict that Eurofighter is going to be super maneuverable, compared to J-10.

A single engine of 79.43 kN is just too less to carry 18.5 tons.

Please see the updated attached file, where we sort on Dry Thrust / Loaded Weight. Under this analysis, JF-17 seems have much more engine power than J-10.

Indeed, I was myself surprised to find J-10 at the lowest point, among all aircraft.

That's why I earlier got a feeling that J-10 was better off with 2 engines rather than 1.

F-35 is the only aircraft having a higher weight than J-10, and is still designed as a single engine aircraft. But F-35 has a super powerful engine of Dry Thrust = 125 kN

The only other thing, I can think of is that J-10 number for Loaded Weight (=18.5 tons) is grossly incorrect, as listed on wikipedia. Can anyone confirm the numbers (to a rough level of accuracy atleast).
Click to expand...
Ahem, if we do use wikipedia as a source for numbers...

And if we use max take off weights - the EF Typhoon has 23500 kg while J-10 has 19277 kg.

And the Typhoon has a weapons load of 7500kg and a loaded weight of 16000 (if we take into account that it has an empty weight of 11000, then obviously the loaded weight isn't with it carrying a full load or such so I'd think taht it isn't wise to compare the two).

Really, taking such an extensive "analysis" using numbers from wikipedia is redundant and vain -- if this thread's for talking about the LCA Tejas then let's keep it ONLY on the Tejas and try to refrain from going into comparisons.
 
B

bingo

Junior Member
Nobody's saying much about HAL Tejas on this thread, recently. I have nothing to add either.


Since, this topic strayed ..... I must add, I found J-10 correct weight should be 12.4 tonnes (at a chinese site).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"It had additional stats like length of 16.43 m, width of 9.75 m, height of 5.43 m, normal take-off weight of 12.4 ton (not really sure what the configuration is), maximum speed of mach 2.0 and operation ceiling of 18000 m. I think the maximum speed is probably higher than that from previous articles, but we probably will need to wait longer for complete information to come out."

So, that solves the problem of weight.

But, now I am confused what the Empty weight is .... backcalculating, it should be about 6.4 tonnes, since Useful Weight of J-10 = 6 tons.
 
D

dingyibvs

Junior Member
bingo said:
Nobody's saying much about HAL Tejas on this thread, recently. I have nothing to add either.


Since, this topic strayed ..... I must add, I found J-10 correct weight should be 12.4 tonnes (at a chinese site).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"It had additional stats like length of 16.43 m, width of 9.75 m, height of 5.43 m, normal take-off weight of 12.4 ton (not really sure what the configuration is), maximum speed of mach 2.0 and operation ceiling of 18000 m. I think the maximum speed is probably higher than that from previous articles, but we probably will need to wait longer for complete information to come out."

So, that solves the problem of weight.

But, now I am confused what the Empty weight is .... backcalculating, it should be about 6.4 tonnes, since Useful Weight of J-10 = 6 tons.
Click to expand...

Normal take off weight is usually half load, and I don't think any weight information of the plane itself has been released by official sources so it's impossible to know the precise normal or maximum take off weight of the plane. The maximum take off weight in Wikipedia is actually "quoted" from this site, sinodefence, but that number is a guess and has since been taken off from this site.
 
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Let us get back to the topic of HAL Tejas.

I am aware that a carrier based version of the HAL Tejas is available. This may be significant due to the fact that despite its short range Tejas is a supersonic plane and has far better air-to-air capabilities than the current Harriers. Does anyone know whether India will complement the fleet with SU-33s?
 
B

bingo

Junior Member
Mig-29K actually (I haven't heard anything for Su-33).
Mig-29K will be able to operate from both the current and proposed carriers.

They will also use STOBAR .... like HAL Tejas (naval version).
(Harriers used VTOL). So, India has no experience on, leave alone designing, even operating STOBAR aircrafts.

Intuitively, I think the take-off part (esp. the first couple of take-offs) done using naval Tejas will be key .... and actually most dangerous part of the entire thing. If after the ski-jump, it fails to take-off .... the pilots life could be at serious risk.

Landing / arrested recovery should be less dangerous atleast ... not too complicated than landing tests on a new land based aircraft.

They will attempt a take-off around the end of the year, as per current plans. Ground testing / taxi trials are being done right now.
 
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
bingo said:
Mig-29K actually (I haven't heard anything for Su-33).
Mig-29K will be able to operate from both the current and proposed carriers.

They will also use STOBAR .... like HAL Tejas (naval version).
(Harriers used VTOL). So, India has no experience on, leave alone designing, even operating STOBAR aircrafts.

Intuitively, I think the take-off part (esp. the first couple of take-offs) done using naval Tejas will be key .... and actually most dangerous part of the entire thing. If after the ski-jump, it fails to take-off .... the pilots life could be at serious risk.

Landing / arrested recovery should be less dangerous atleast ... not too complicated than landing tests on a new land based aircraft.

They will attempt a take-off around the end of the year, as per current plans. Ground testing / taxi trials are being done right now.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info on the naval Tejas! Looks like the Indian navy is getting more formidable with the passing of the decade. What will happen to the Harriers once the transition is complete (retirement/target shooting)?
 
Semi-Lobster

Semi-Lobster

Junior Member
siegecrossbow said:
Thanks for the info on the naval Tejas! Looks like the Indian navy is getting more formidable with the passing of the decade. What will happen to the Harriers once the transition is complete (retirement/target shooting)?
Click to expand...

I assume retirement. There's not exactly a huge demand out there for used carrier based aircraft as any country operating already has some form of aircraft in service. The only country I can think of that 'needs' a naval based aircraft is Brazil
 
B

bingo

Junior Member
Yes, they have to retire. British navy has already retired all their Harriers.

But, it's a quite a bit of time to go. Mig29-K may get operationalized in 3-4 years (most optimistic). And naval HAL Tejas has to successfully take-off first.

It's just about building capability ..... the current aircraft carrier of IN was never ever used in a war, during it's entire lifetime. And the Harrier had a little role in the 1971 war.

But capability leads to deterrence .... which is essential in preventing war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top