Quote from: CrazyPilot on September 22, 2011, 11:01:14 AM

Quote from: anwar on September 22, 2011, 08:46:12 AM
I thought I have dealt with "name calling", are there any examples left in public ?

Here

Quote from: ujjwaana on September 22, 2011, 02:58:24 AM
Crazypilot (you have so aptly chose your handle ) I dare you to prove me wrong.

Who started it ? dont try to be stealthy, by just mentioning the thread, as if people wont make 2+2 on whom you trying to point finger.  Now regarding my Funjet Vs Flyjet comparision, see even what others are saying. Hope giving a clean chit to HK on this blatant copying wont earn a HK reward here:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1494123&highlight=flyjet#post19127420
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1493707&highlight=flyjet

Who is wrong and childish ?

Thanks Gary for your enlightenment. Your links makes my opinion even stronger. Start up are always fueled by young blood who 'nearly' did things back in the college itself. You need such energetic people with fresh ideas, and a bunch of experienced one who have strategic insight to guide them towards commercial use. Unless folks do some extent of work on real technology, instead of bookish/academic exercise, you wont have such game changers. The software industry's fast pace is such a good example of this.  Do you think a Medical college can produce Doc without particle
on human bodies. Even in the past, Comp Science was not a 'Department' in itself and a mere subject of Electrical/electronics/Communication department. Comp Science slowly evolved as a separate discipline.

I still feel many responders have mixed up between the concept of UAV and UCAV and see evil. I see no harm in colleges involved in some serious UAV augmentation , which are good implementation of technology across the board and just not 'GPS assisted flight. One good example of such augmentation was the guy developing a Wifi spying drone. sounds mischievous, but it was such a great off-the-shelf tech demo.
I would not encourage its use for Papapprazi kind of activity, but when our LE does not have the luxury of Helis as the west, why not colleges geared up with police/Fire services/Local Startups  develop a low cost and durable Quad drones to give the, bird eye view for emergency situation. 

Quote from: ujjwaana on September 22, 2011, 04:58:55 PM
I still feel many responders have mixed up between the concept of UAV and UCAV and see evil.  

There is a very very thin line johny here, what do you call a Predator armed with hellfire ?? a UCAV or an armed UAV. where is the evil. Mix AI with UCAV, see what you get, a machine that can identify threat from its library (Not out of some fiction movie, i am talking real here), what have you got? mmm. gives me nightmares, these superior computing power, TBs of space shrinking, advancement in AI and Nano tech mixed with UCAVs(For that matter any destructive machines), is MAD round the corner?, are we so dumb not to see the writing on the wall. let me ask you this "have you killed anybody" ?, assume you did, and you regret it, combine that feeling with the knowledge that you have a possible autonomous killers on the loose. it is not GOW, it is flesh and blood

Disclaimer holds, and i am starting to sound like a Doomsday Chiliast myself

I don't know whats worse, a UAV with brains or humans who act as UAVs and become mindless drones for the likes of Laden. Either way, the thought is not comforting

Hey Ujjwana. I could start a new thread for this but i dont need brownie points (Rep power) by creating another thread or HK reward (if it exists). anyways would like to know your opinion on the following


HAL Tejas


Mirage 2000


HAL Sitara


Hongdu J8

All the HAL planes looks like copy of others. So what do you suggest?

Guys, Take the fight on a different thread. And let the frutile discussion continue.

Srivatsa, nobody is fighting here. This is Gentleman's forum and I am participating as politely as I can.

Good to hear. And one more request, Assuming this being a discussion we must stop dare to prove someone wrong. We are just putting our views here not trying to prove someone wrong or correct. Hope everyone agrees with it.

Regards,
Srivatsa

Here is another (sort of) civilian use :

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/aerial-surveillance-push/2300359.aspx

Quote from: CrazyPilot on September 23, 2011, 11:42:33 AM

Hey Ujjwana. I could start a new thread for this but i dont need brownie points (Rep power) by creating another thread or HK reward (if it exists). anyways would like to know your opinion on the following

I would again request you think before speaking, or gathering facts. Just dont copy-past allegation from 'Scum of Internet' there are enough Pakis on Defense/Jet forums who make such alligation. Even in your personal/Professional life, verify before you put foundation of your belief on just ANY Internet article.

Though I criticize HAL/NAL/BEL on taking long time, but my criticism if towards management, leadership and Govt apathy. I have absolutely high regards for the Engineers who have done an excellent job and the Test pilots who proved their Mattel.


LCA Tejas Vs Mirage 2000
   I would have take such allegation from a non-aero guy, but not like you who should know the cricitalicy in Wing design. Are ALL delta wings similar ? do you know even changes in 10% wing area like that of Wing tips/Slats means entirely different wings ? Look at the wing profile for both the planes at the bottom of Wiki pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas#Specifications_.28HAL_Tejas.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_2000#Specifications_.28Mirage_2000C.29

1. The swept ratio is totally different
2. The Wing break is different. Mirage 200 is Compound delta while Tejas is Ogival delta
3. Most importantly  Tejas has  high wing root configuration while Mirage 2000 has low wing root configuration. Do you think that makes any difference?
4. Fuse shape is different.
5. Both have completely different Avionics, power plant and Composite material metallurgy.

HAL HJT-36 Sitara Vs Hongdu JL-8
This one is close in most of characteristics : WS, Length, services ceiling, speed, wing loading powerhouse. But the phsical ressemblance is limited to Fuse alone.  

Sitara is a leading tapered Wing and JL-8  is trailing. The Wing aerofoil is also different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_HJT-36_Sitara#Specifications_.28HJT-36.2C_prototypes.29
http://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/modernplanes/modern-jk/42246/view/jl-8_k-8_karakorum/

Actually Both the plane carry much from BAE Hawk than one another. And here, I would give more credit to HAL Folks for whom picking things from BAE Hawk would have been more natural and logical (and may be even internally agreed upon)as they already had technological collaboration with BAE system. HAL couldn't have blatantly copied from Hawk, while the Chinese did.

So CrazyPilot, please do some research before hurriedly posting pics and cooked up facts.


I would **Completely** agree with Gusty sir, who has more stake and knowledge on these topic that instead of re-inventing the wheel, India should go for a progressive 'Technology Colab and Transfer' with the leading manufactures than re-inventing the wheels.
But this is **Completely** different than 'Chinising', which is illegal, unethical, cheating, One-Way and dangerous. In Collaboration, both benefit. The legal tech giver transfer credible and crucial know-how of the technology and the receiver need not 'Reverse-Engineer', not knowing many hidden facts, not captured in the RE process.

I would even love that India makes a consortium of Tata-Ambani-Birlas and other tycoon, and ask them to acquire the ailing Russian agencies like Sukhoii, MIG, and collaborate with those whom they cannot buy (Dassault , BAE, other Israeli co), This would slowly make the country independent in its Defense requirement. 'Buying' ready made arsenal always comes with a caveat. While copying, they dont know what 'Back doors' they are copying too!!

Its never too late, even if you did not wake early.

I am not locking  the thread but I think made my self clear enough. People with logical aptitude should be able to make their own conclusion.

Thats an EOD (End of Discussion) from my side. I am just waiting the opinion of Gusty sir who would know these things more than anyone here.

Quote from: srivatsa on September 23, 2011, 12:17:20 PM
Good to hear. And one more request, Assuming this being a discussion we must stop dare to prove someone wrong.
Regards,
Srivatsa

Ridiculing one's  reasoning and capability of analyzing is an invitation of such altercation of questioning of the other. Especially when it is put in most cunning manner. Srivats, please follow the thread above before putting the ball in one's court.

Quote from: ujjwaana on September 23, 2011, 02:42:56 PM

LCA Tejas Vs Mirage 2000
    I would have take such allegation from a non-aero guy, but not like you who should know the cricitalicy in Wing design. Are ALL delta wings similar ? do you know even changes in 10% wing area like that of Wing tips/Slats means entirely different wings ? Look at the wing profile for both the planes at the bottom of Wiki pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas#Specifications_.28HAL_Tejas.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_2000#Specifications_.28Mirage_2000C.29

1. The swept ratio is totally different
2. The Wing break is different. Mirage 200 is Compound delta while Tejas is Ogival delta
3. Most importantly  Tejas has  high wing root configuration while Mirage 2000 has low wing root configuration. Do you think that makes any difference?
4. Fuse shape is different.

HAL HJT-36 Sitara Vs Hongdu JL-8
This one is close in most of characteristics : WS, Length, services ceiling, speed, wing loading powerhouse. But the phsical ressemblance is limited to Fuse alone. 

All your facts accepted. Now can i safely say that these two only look similar but have different flight characteristics. do you agree?





One more info for u IAF has both the planes in service. Mirage 2000 and BAE hawk. so obviously HAL did take the design and put their own SW and other things.

Defense Industry is Huge, there is a famous saying, "Follow the Money", if you follow the money trial of defense expenditure , spending, etc, it will lead back some hand full of companies/Consortiums in the world, any war is beneficial for Arms Sellers, Having said that,

take any aeroplane for example, today, it is not made by a single company, there are specialist in the field, avionics, Rin Laser Gyro, Ejection Seats to name a few. It is not economically viable to buy a Bull to make a Shoe. That's why "Arms dealers" collaborate, sometimes even clandestinely, to stay in this competitive world which sadly is out to destroy each other.

Design similarities is not copying, after all, there are only some handful of designs available. M2K and LCA, definitely handles differently, has different capabilities, and not similar in any which way, CP, that call was wrong of yours.., Sitara too is visually closer to hawk +1 with johny on that issue. Hawk definitely is a dream machine for a trainee. Even the RC Hawk is superb to fly.

Coming to the topic of india lagging on UAV developments esp in the colleges, i agree yes we are lagging, thank god they are lagging. We need to concentrate on what will bring you progress, clean energy, Renewable energy, nano tech to save life. etc.. etc not some destructive tech. they are available off the shelf, for filling up our armory four times over, Key word is Minimum Credible Deterrence., hat needs to be maintained, after all we are a peace loving nation, with no territorial ambitions.

Johny EOF for me

Quote from: CrazyPilot on September 23, 2011, 03:47:23 PM
Now can i safely say that these two only look similar but have different flight characteristics.  

CP

You are bang on, they look similar, they wont perform similarly, Here is your answer

http://www.rcindia.org/electric-planes/hobby-king-is-%27copy-king%27-this-time-funjet/msg75420/#msg75420

Here is your answer to prove that, i have a funjet, she is twice as fast as this machine and lowspeed handling of this machine is better than funjet due fuse lift

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrfSt1CO5AU&feature=player_embedded

Quote from: CrazyPilot on September 23, 2011, 03:47:23 PM
One more info for u IAF has both the planes in service. Mirage 2000 and BAE hawk. so obviously HAL did take the design and put their own SW and other things.

That's a wrong answer. LCA's design was frozen well before Mirage was Inducted, Sitara was test flown, well before hawks were even thought off, to be inducted.

QuoteSrivats, please follow the thread above before putting the ball in one's court.

I don't think i did that. Reason for me to tell that was, for a moment i felt we had deviated from the original discussion. The discussion was on UAV development in Universities and we have end up discussing something on whether our indigenous designs are actually copied.

Gentleman's forum

Ok, At least phrase is getting bit fashionable, if not forum, being so.


Sir "Follow the Money" is the mantra of today's world, leave behind weapon dealers, even HK (Ok I have not dragged it here, but appeared magically even on UAV thread) has followed it. Beg borrow or steal, follow the way which can bring in the money. Cut Copy paste, are the wonder words. But I Agree with you sir, that we should concentrate on techs which brings betterment to our life, but again this is a ruthless world. Remember what happened to Nehru's Panchsheel. And information is a click away, Sir, I heard about terrorists learned making bombs from internet.

OK Ujjwaana, agree, with the poster, if Mirage and LCA Tejas are different why can't be Fun jet and xJet. Photo copy can't become original document, so they are different. I think you got the point.

UAV development is only for destruction ? ..Just like beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. Things here also depends on people's perception. UAV can be used in peace time missions.  maritime reconnaissance and several other types of reconnaissance missions would play its role in betterment of humanity.

An aeroplane can be used as a bomber as well as transport. It depends on the use. Just because it can bomb buildings (WTC as an example) doesn't brand it destructive. Rocket can be GSLV (betterment of humanity) can also be an ICBM (destructive to humanity).

UAV can be put to good use. Its good if it is promoted in Universities

Srivatsa.

Am in complete agreement on peaceful uses. But I also feel there is no need "to re-invent the wheel".

Saddam Bought Pipes for transporting oil and made a Super Gun, to bomb and gas Iranians out of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon) this dual use technology is also part of destruction. close control is required, research in college/universities means uncontrolled exploitation, which is not good. it will find its way to harm people. have no doubts on that

i agree with gusty sir

We all Know that RC flying is primarily carried out as a hobby in india.

Apart from Hobby related trade and services , Awareness about various Career and Business opportunities in design and development of UAVs is not wide spread in RC field. So anyone willing to share knowledge and pitch questions about the same are welcome to post here.

hi to all,
i wouldnt completely agree that there is no developement in the uav field in universities in india.i am a member of the uav team of delhi technological university (formerly delhi college of engineering).we got a research grant from LOCKHEED MARTIN worth $350,000 to develope a complete unmanned aerial system in 2010.the project was given due to our very promising performance in the AUVSI student competition in which we will be taking part this year also on the 13th of june and are expecting a podium finish(we use a modified sig rascal 110 as our uav platform).i have attached a photo of the uav named aarush 1.i am really sorry but i cannot disclose further specifications of the uav AS OF NOW as we are yet to do a public flight somewhere in september this year after which i will post all the things the uav has been developed to do.

devesh

Quote from: ujjwaana on September 21, 2011, 08:25:52 PM
Unless the Govt encourage the right liaison between universities, where you get the innovators of tomorrow in these critical industries ? Not encouraged, I know loads of people from my batch ending up in US universities. They were no less patriot than their talent.

ujjwaana in our colg ISRO didnt recruit few good students just bcoz they lacked practical exposure this year
if this continues students who are patriotic will also eventually lose interest in joining ISRO/DRDO
and they wont hep us in getting this practical exposure they demand

Even universities are not coming up to take UAV projects in this present situations in indai they r thinking that UAV's have no potential take my case i didnt get any support from my college to develop a UAV one thing the FUTURE OF AEROSPACE IS UNMANNED >>>>

The potential of UAV's is more..all the major countries are dveloping uavs for their defence USA named DAPRA for extensive UAV research .......all the major research is going very fast extensive research is going on VTOL uavs capable of using anywhere ....in our we r now ADE is doing extensive research in UAVS especially in MALE UAV's in my opinion lack of scope in the respective feild is main cause of underdevelopment here in chennai MADRAS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY developed daksh an Quad or HEXA....now standing second in UAV FORGES Competetion.....we r havin capabilities but havin littile scope for exploring and in some coll & univ its a kind of hobby they r still in that stage (EX : my coll .....not even supported for my project but still i managed to compleate it on my own risk) some of the student organisations r emerging i witnessed in chennai LIKE AVIAN AEROSPACE intended fro research in chennai organising by group of aeronautical engg students.

                    The thing is lack of potential in our minds..