3 years 9 months compared to 2 years 9 months of htt40, for first flight. First series production flight in 11 years vs 12 Y.
Also the view regarding ADA and ARDC is a lot opposite, ARDC has more success
Trainer Aircraft of IAF - PC-7, HTT-40, HJT-36, BAE Hawk
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
Also the view regarding ADA and ARDC is a lot opposite, ARDC has more success
I was hoping for HLFT 42, alas F414 itself will cost around 10-12 million $.
So none of them will be able to offer ?
HTT-40 having its first flight quick doesn't mean anything if the plane flown is designed with flight characteristics like this and needs to be augmented with plenty of aero devices to become safe... Same with the production remark, they took basically the same time and what they have produced is not export quality, neither is it the best option for the IAF. I think in fact, I am even making it easier for ARDC by not bringing up the difference in WHEN the developments of KT-1 and HTT-40 happened (25 whole YEARS apart). For a better comparison, I should have compared it with the TA-20 or similar. Then you would further see the issues.
Trainer Aircraft of IAF - PC-7, HTT-40, HJT-36, BAE Hawk
Points from the same article he has quoted Damn! Difficult time create strong men. Strong men create easy times. Easy times create weak men. Weak men create difficult times. Difficult times gives us Manohar Parrikar sir. Hopefully the rot and rust will be cleared from all defense...
www.strategicfront.org
Consider reading the above link
Also, I would not call taking 20+ yrs to develop an IJT successful... And also having to get a foreign consultant for aero work... There's plenty of other examples.
The tweet you have attached is saying that the Pushpak, HT-2, Kiran are examples of successful ARDC designed aircraft, don't you think that is at least A BIT out of date perhaps?? And the Pushpak is a licensed Aeronca Chief...
By this logic the DGCA is better than ADA, for they have designed a piston training aircraft (LT-1 Swati) which the ADA hasn't!
Last edited:
"Taking longer development/design period"HTT-40 having its first flight quick doesn't mean anything if the plane flown is designed with flight characteristics like this and needs to be augmented with plenty of aero devices to become safe... Same with the production remark, they took basically the same time and what they have produced is not export quality, neither is it the best option for the IAF. I think in fact, I am even making it easier for ARDC by not bringing up the difference in WHEN the developments of KT-1 and HTT-40 happened (25 whole YEARS apart). For a better comparison, I should have compared it with the TA-20 or similar. Then you would further see the issues.
Trainer Aircraft of IAF - PC-7, HTT-40, HJT-36, BAE Hawk
Points from the same article he has quoted Damn! Difficult time create strong men. Strong men create easy times. Easy times create weak men. Weak men create difficult times. Difficult times gives us Manohar Parrikar sir. Hopefully the rot and rust will be cleared from all defense...
Consider reading the above link
Also, I would not call taking 20+ yrs to develop an IJT successful... And also having to get a foreign consultant for aero work... There's plenty of other examples.
The tweet you have attached is saying that the Pushpak, HT-2, Kiran are examples of successful ARDC designed aircraft, don't you think that is at least A BIT out of date perhaps?? And the Pushpak is a licensed Aeronca Chief...
By this logic the DGCA is better than ADA, for they have designed a piston training aircraft (LT-1 Swati) which the ADA hasn't!
I thought you were referring to development time
I was.
Development time doesn't mean just time to first flight... There is a lot more to it. For me it means when the product has been fully completed and is in a competitive/world class stage.
Happy Independence day
Do you have the paper btw?HTT-40 having its first flight quick doesn't mean anything if the plane flown is designed with flight characteristics like this and needs to be augmented with plenty of aero devices to become safe... Same with the production remark, they took basically the same time and what they have produced is not export quality, neither is it the best option for the IAF. I think in fact, I am even making it easier for ARDC by not bringing up the difference in WHEN the developments of KT-1 and HTT-40 happened (25 whole YEARS apart). For a better comparison, I should have compared it with the TA-20 or similar. Then you would further see the issues.
Trainer Aircraft of IAF - PC-7, HTT-40, HJT-36, BAE Hawk
Points from the same article he has quoted Damn! Difficult time create strong men. Strong men create easy times. Easy times create weak men. Weak men create difficult times. Difficult times gives us Manohar Parrikar sir. Hopefully the rot and rust will be cleared from all defense...
Consider reading the above link
Also, I would not call taking 20+ yrs to develop an IJT successful... And also having to get a foreign consultant for aero work... There's plenty of other examples.
The tweet you have attached is saying that the Pushpak, HT-2, Kiran are examples of successful ARDC designed aircraft, don't you think that is at least A BIT out of date perhaps?? And the Pushpak is a licensed Aeronca Chief...
By this logic the DGCA is better than ADA, for they have designed a piston training aircraft (LT-1 Swati) which the ADA hasn't!