ADA to Refine Air Intake and Canards Design of Tejas Mk2 After Crucial Wind Tunnel Tests in France

India's Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) is refining the design of its Tejas Mk2 fighter jet based on crucial wind tunnel tests conducted at the French National Aerospace Research Center (ONERA), according to reports.

The tests, which simulated real-world flight conditions, provided critical data on the aircraft's aerodynamic performance, particularly focusing on the air intake and canards.

ONERA, a world leader in aerospace research and development, played a key role in analyzing the Tejas Mk2's airflow dynamics and performance parameters. The wind tunnel tests focused on evaluating how the air intake and canards perform under stress, allowing engineers to identify areas for improvement.

Canards, small forward-mounted control surfaces, are incorporated into the Tejas Mk2 to enhance maneuverability and control at higher angles of attack. The ONERA tests provided valuable data on their influence on the jet's aerodynamic profile, enabling ADA engineers to fine-tune their positioning and shape for maximum effectiveness. This is expected to improve the aircraft's agility, stability, and handling in combat situations.

The air intake system, vital for ensuring optimal airflow to the engine, was also a key focus. The tests provided insights into optimizing the Tejas Mk2's air intake for improved efficiency, reducing drag and enhancing airflow even at high speeds and altitudes. These refinements are expected to boost performance in both supersonic and subsonic flight regimes.

The findings from ONERA will be incorporated into the next batch of Tejas Mk2 prototypes as ADA prepares the aircraft for its first flight, expected in the coming years. These enhancements are expected to improve the fighter’s aerodynamic efficiency and contribute to its operational effectiveness.

The Tejas Mk2 is an advanced version of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), designed to meet the Indian Air Force's evolving operational needs. Featuring a larger fuselage, more powerful GE-F414 engines, increased payload capacity, and advanced avionics, the Mk2 represents a significant upgrade from its predecessor. The addition of canards and other design enhancements aim to significantly boost the aircraft's maneuverability, speed, and combat effectiveness.

This development comes as India continues to strengthen its domestic defence industry and reduce its reliance on foreign suppliers. The Tejas Mk2 is expected to play a crucial role in the Indian Air Force's future, providing a domestically produced, advanced fighter jet capable of meeting the challenges of modern aerial warfare.

 

[PKPRS]

Nope, u dont design a fuselage without considering the engine. Afterall the engine well has to be of optimal diameter to accomodate the engine. Engine is always considered during design phase itself. Its like designing a car body without considering the engine size and designing suspension without considering the wheel size.

Dimensions of F404 and F414 are near identical but the air inflow requirements are different, so the original design was based on F404 specs.

 

[ABHIJIT APSINGIKAR]

Dimensions of F404 and F414 are near identical but the air inflow requirements are different, so the original design was based on F404 specs.

Dimensions in diameter may as well be identical but the length is different. The F404 uses a 3 stage 7 axial fan compressor while F414 is 7 stage while EPE version has 6 stage.

 

[PKPRS]

Dimensions in diameter may as well be identical but the length is different. The F404 uses a 3 stage 7 axial fan compressor while F414 is 7 stage while EPE version has 6 stage.

Both engines are exact same length 154 inches and diameter 35 inches but GE F414 is heavier 1110KG VS 1035 KG and air inlet diameter is bigger 31 inch vs 28 inches hence larger intake in the fuselage that affects the aerodynamics in the overall design.

 

[ABHIJIT APSINGIKAR]

Both engines are exact same length 154 inches and diameter 35 inches but GE F414 is heavier 1110KG VS 1035 KG and air inlet diameter is bigger 31 inch vs 28 inches hence larger intake in the fuselage that affects the aerodynamics in the overall design.

Even assuming it's larger diameter, which contradicts your statement that they are same. It ought to have been considered before finalizing the design. Tgey finished CDR in 2022, and the intent to incorporate F414 was there even before that as far back as 2017-2020. So what exactly was finalized during CDR? what sort of circus we're tgey running at ADA/HAL?

Besides even if we assume that 414 was chosen later, even then they ought to have realized its greater air flow requirements. Yet they stuck with the flawed air intake design that has proven to have air flow issues in past.

 

[ABHIJIT APSINGIKAR]

Dr. Prodyut did say about canard placement but it wasn't this. Canards aren't directly in front of air intakes, where are you seeing that? He said its placement can be rectified by redesigning the front fuselage, but nowhere he said it's directly in front of air intakes.

I is not directly ahead but it sits on top. With small Y--duct intakes obscured under the wing. Where du think the turbulence generated by canrads goes?

 

[kumar]

It takes time and money. Capex defence budget has been very tight since ages.

Does not seem to apply for importing contemporary systems lock stock and barrel.

 

[PKPRS]

Even assuming it's larger diameter, which contradicts your statement that they are same. It ought to have been considered before finalizing the design. Tgey finished CDR in 2022, and the intent to incorporate F414 was there even before that as far back as 2017-2020. So what exactly was finalized during CDR? what sort of circus we're tgey running at ADA/HAL?

Besides even if we assume that 414 was chosen later, even then they ought to have realized its greater air flow requirements. Yet they stuck with the flawed air intake design that has proven to have air flow issues in past.

only the air inlet diameter is different, air inlet is a opening inside the engine that sucks air, it doesn’t affect the exterior dimension of the engine any way, that inlet in the engine needs to be connected to two larger hoses that connects to air intakes on both sides of the fuselage to suck more air, it’s only 3 inches wider compared to F404, if a part that is attached to the fuselage extends 3 inches on both sides of a jet, it affects the aero dynamics, I wonder if GE shared the specs with ADA when ADA did the initial wind tunnel testing of mK2 , so I don’t know whose fault it is.

 

[ABHIJIT APSINGIKAR]

only the air inlet diameter is different, air inlet is a opening inside the engine that sucks air, it doesn’t affect the exterior dimension of the engine any way, that inlet in the engine needs to be connected to two larger hoses that connects to air intakes on both sides of the fuselage to suck more air, it’s only 3 inches wider compared to F404, if a part that is attached to the fuselage extends 3 inches on both sides of a jet, it affects the aero dynamics, I wonder if GE shared the specs with ADA when ADA did the initial wind tunnel testing of mK2 , so I don’t know whose fault it is.

It greatly effects the Aerodynamics as the air flow changes with intake design. The fact that they retained the flaw even post CDR suggests the CDR was never done seriously. Besides The engine was almost already finalized by 2016 and plans were afloat to incorporate the F414 as far back as 2017. Why were the changes not executed during PDR/CDR?

 

[Vijigishu ( विजिग्शु )]

I is not directly ahead but it sits on top. With small Y--duct intakes obscured under the wing. Where du think the turbulence generated by canrads goes?

Yes it'll affect the air intake and I'm not defending that placement. I was just correcting him on "directly in front" position.

 

[PKPRS]

It greatly effects the Aerodynamics as the air flow changes with intake design. The fact that they retained the flaw even post CDR suggests the CDR was never done seriously. Besides The engine was almost already finalized by 2016 and plans were afloat to incorporate the F414 as far back as 2017. Why were the changes not executed during PDR/CDR?

Actually the engine was finalized in 2010 when GE was working on the india specific variant.

 

[ABHIJIT APSINGIKAR]

Actually the engine was finalized in 2010 when GE was working on the india specific variant.

I know, I have been closely following the program since 2012. But that actually makes it even worse that they did not realize the modifications to core design required during PDR/CDR.

 

[Dredd]

But still too fat to Super Cruise, how about ADA didn’t know about ONERA five years ago, why are they still testing the aerodynamics when they should be rolling out the prototype.

If they know the design is imperfect for first prototype then why are thy working on old design, They should take more time to fix the design

 

[PKPRS]

If they know the design is imperfect for first prototype then why are thy working on old design, They should take more time to fix the design

may be because of cost and time, also we could only make small changes to the original design.