Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 23 Dec 2014 06:22

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2658 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 ... 67  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 14:35 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4606
Location: Duke Nukem
Quote:
Perhaps HAL

You gotta be kidding me. Those jokers cant find their a**ses with their two hands as far as engines went.

The only thing that can be done is a "national program" with a multiple teams trying different approaches , drawn from all major national institutes (IIT, IISc, NAL, GTRE and of course HAL engine division), along with access to the global ecosystem of suppliers for engine accessories and fabricators for global biggies (basically folks supplying to RR, Snecma, MTU, GE,PW,Honeywell/Garrett, Williams etc) . Have two teams work on it .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 14:37 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 19 Dec 2010 07:08
Posts: 31
Why not involve private sector with a tie-up with a foreign player...GE, Saturn, Snecma...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 16:11 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Posts: 2257
Location: Bharathavarshey Bharathakhandey Jumbudweepey Kaveryaha Uttare Teerey
merlin wrote:
No GTRE.


Unfortunately GTRE is the only org in the country which has the capability to build an engine from scratch up. Private sector without foreign help would not even have been able to come up with an engine equivalent to the current Kaveri.

Private sector with foreign help is another story and a lot of funds need to be diverted by the govt to engine building ASAP. Pump more money into GTRE with a big re-org and more academics-industry integration and work on solving the Single crystal blade problem ASAP.

Incentivize private industry to come up with 90KN engine with a partner of their choice and of course the condition is that the IP should rest with the local private player. Some HAL lab can then work with this private player to set up production line etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 16:17 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Posts: 7111
Location: Desh ke baarei mei sochna shuru karo. Soch badlo, desh badlega!
Will prvt sector with foriegn partner really help ???

1. WIll the foriegn partner give key tech to the prvt partner if not it will end up like our PSU's ??
2. What are the chances that the product will be bought in numbers to justify the money that prvt partner will put??
3. Will the ability of the prvt partner to bribe have any impact on whether govt will buy from them ??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 16:42 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34034
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
angered by the failure of their various engine projects to deliver something even equivalent to the RD33 or AL31 as a product, cheen has apparently allocated $16b war chest to develop/steal/clone/vandalize anything needed to make the final push to the summit and get themselves engines at par with the world standards. it is being taken up from highest levels probably with a single reporting chain to the "alpha dog" in the hall of people itself.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/ ... 7B20121029

much of engine perf apparently cannot be cloned by geometric copying but is inherent to the materials and the procedure used to fashion the parts...much like the power of a virginia class sub lies latent and hidden behind its plain black hull.

one thing is apparent from Cheen failure on engine front - just throwing money at same problem using various teams is no guarantee of success. we must not repeat the same mistake

what seems to me
- need global ecosystem plugin to get the low volume but specialized parts needed cheaply without spending yrs reinventing every wheel.
- need the highest caliber of senior people in the field (this we unfortunately do not have as such people few as they were, left for videsh decades ago)
- need access to the specialized machines needed to build the highest tolerance and costly parts - this again is under some form of hidden sanctions

I offer no solution because the 3 problems above do not seem solvable to me in our current economic condition.

if we had a economy 3X our size, with a thriving domestic airline industry we could via the big plane makers develop links with their ecosystem via projects like RTA etc. we goofed up there. we are not even collaborating with brazil on its mil airlifter , instead choosing the carcass called the MTA so that HAL can get easy and guaranteed assembly work. embraer is the one 'outsider' and 'brown skinned' who has broken into the 'system' and been given a seat at high table...rest there is not even one non-gora/honorary gora(japan mitsubishi) co in this field

Cheen has made a good bet on the C919 and GE and honeywell are fawning all over it.

as for people , unless a unlimited budget is doled out to hire the best and brightest young or old tall of short, there is no getting past that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 16:52 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31
Posts: 1104
Beg, borrow or STEAL.

Brits, Germans (in WW2)
US and USSR (Cold War)
China (now)

All have done it. Why not us?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 16:54 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4606
Location: Duke Nukem
Quote:
much of engine perf apparently cannot be cloned by geometric copying but is inherent to the materials and the procedure used to fashion the parts...much like the power of a virginia class sub lies latent and hidden behind its plain black hull.

To get as close as possible to theoretical "physics" based performance, your engineering should approach the "ideal".. Surfaces as smooth as Hema Malini's cheeks for the blades.. blades being infinitely stiff in the heat and forces generated due to rotation, zero tip losses etc. etc.. . very easy to do in one line as a mathematical assumption as a theoretical problem, but try doing it in real world and engineer it, that takes some doing. Cloning the geometry and getting the material composition by some mass spectrometer or something is easy, but actually manufacturing and doing it is tough.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 16:55 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4606
Location: Duke Nukem
JTull wrote:
All have done it. Why not us?

Well, you can beg, borrow and steal a WW_II tech engine. Trouble is you want a GE-414 equivalent in thrust to weight and that uses materials ported back from PW-119 class!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 17:02 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34034
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
apparently the Rus post ww2 managed to clone the B29 by taking it apart to nuts and bolt level ... but not sure what they put in for the engine. they must have their own engine projects during ww2 for their bombers and fighters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 17:06 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 2155
Location: NullPointerException
vina wrote:
You gotta be kidding me. Those jokers cant find their a**ses with their two hands as far as engines went.


At the time GTRE was created, HAL certainly had more experience than GTRE.

vina wrote:
The only thing that can be done is a "national program" with a multiple teams trying different approaches , drawn from all major national institutes (IIT, IISc, NAL, GTRE and of course HAL engine division), along with access to the global ecosystem of suppliers for engine accessories and fabricators for global biggies (basically folks supplying to RR, Snecma, MTU, GE,PW,Honeywell/Garrett, Williams etc) . Have two teams work on it .


That may well end up as the only approach left for India.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 17:41 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Posts: 2618
Location: Singampatti Zamin.Tall claims with Aruval. Rarely used.
vina wrote:
JTull wrote:
All have done it. Why not us?

Well, you can beg, borrow and steal a WW_II tech engine. Trouble is you want a GE-414 equivalent in thrust to weight and that uses materials ported back from PW-119 class!


There is a great advantage when you develop->produce->deliver->refine product->produce->deliver from version v1.0 to v200.0 . You have customers for the product from v1.0 itself and that itself adds a sustaining dimension to the product. IOW, the luxury of organic growth was not there with India/GTRE. When you have no product from v1.0 to v200.0, the costs in developing v201.0 directly is all under the expenses head and you will see no incomes as there are no customers.....of course it is going to look big and scary.

For comparisons, what you should be counting is not YEARS but MAN-YEARS for developing the product. And I doubt if during the WW2, cold war times , people would have been working 8-hour days to develop the engine. India did not have these catalysts then. These situations will also avoid a babu sitting on file which has high altitude testing labs' financial clearances in it.
This is a long hard road. You are either in it or out. It will guzzle a lot of money. It will. When the president P.Patel can spend 200 karores on foreign travel and clearances are done with a mere glance of an eye, I am sure somethign as important as this should be done in a more streamlined process. Instead what do we hear ?" No GTRE" :rotfl: ....and then do what? Eat chole-bature and then power LCA?
See you either believe GTRE and Midhani or do not. It is tough. Just a P.Subbu talked about LCA clearing a 40 year tech gap, the Kaveri Marine cleared a significant margin too. That I see as the consolidation phase. Somehow, when we could do a Vikas and the CLAW team could do a Ironbird , I do not think this is beyond us. It is just that it is elusive. That is the part we are in right now.


Last edited by Neela on 04 Jan 2013 20:38, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 18:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4606
Location: Duke Nukem
Singha wrote:
apparently the Rus post ww2 managed to clone the B29 by taking it apart to nuts and bolt level ... but not sure what they put in for the engine. they must have their own engine projects during ww2 for their bombers and fighters.


During and before WW-II Russian engines sucked. During WW-II, the brits exported fighter engines at great human and material cost to Russia via the Northern Murmansk convoys which were without fail brutally attacked by the Germans sitting in Norway.

After WWII, Russian engines improved dramatically. The secret? They rounded up all the Germans they could lay their hands on with engine experience and carted away entire plants back to Russia.. The Germans were put in the Gulag and told to get on with it or told really bad things will happen to them. That gave them the entry into engines..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 18:19 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Apr 2008 17:29
Posts: 617
Location: Skardu
Russian entry into good jet engines was through Great Britain. After the war , under the 1946 UK-USSR trade agreement, Clement Atlee as a goodwill gesture (Prithviraj chauhan anyone??) transferrred several Rolls - Royce nene jet engines to Soviet Union. Nene itself saw limited production in UK. However it was reverse engineered by the soviets to produce the Klimov VK-1 that went to power the Mig-15. The exploits of Mig-15 in North Korea is well known.
This transfer is still regretted in west.

Even if we start with nene today, we might still reach there in 20 years time. I assume it would only be using mild steel and duralumin in construction.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 18:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 2155
Location: NullPointerException
Neela wrote:

There is a great advantage when you develop->produce->deliver->refine product->produce->deliver from version v1.0 to v200.0 . You have customers for the product from v1.0 itself and that itself adds a sustaining dimension to the product. IOW, the luxury of organic growth was not there with India/GTRE. When you have no product from v1.0 to v200.0, the costs in developing v201.0 directly is all under the expenses head and you will see no incomes as there are no customers.....of course it is going to look big and scary.

For comparisons, what you should be counting is not YEARS but MAN-YEARS for developing the product. And I doubt if during the WW2, cold war times , people would have been working 8-hour days to develop the engine. India did not have these catalysts then. These situations will also avoid a babu sitting on file which has high altitude testing labs' financial clearances in it.
This is a long hard road. You are either in it or out. It will guzzle a lot of money. It will. When the president P.Patel can spend 200 karores on foreign travel and clearances are done with a mere glance of an eye, I am sure somethign as important as this should be done in a more streamlined process. Instead what do we hear ?" No GTRE" :rotfl: ....and then do what? Eat chole-bature and then power Kaveri?
See you either believe GTRE and Midhani or do not. It is tough. Just a P.Subbu talked about LCA clearing a 40 year tech gap, the Kaveri Marine cleared a significant margin too. That I see as the consolidation phase. Somehow, when we could do a Vikas and the CLAW team could do a Ironbird , I do not think this is beyond us. It is just that it is elusive. That is the part we are in right now.



Ok, then. Yes GTRE and no usable engine for the next 20 years also :rotfl: :rotfl: . Usage in non-fighter applications does not count.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 18:29 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4606
Location: Duke Nukem
Quote:
Russian entry into good jet engines was through Great Britain. After the war , under the 1946 UK-USSR trade agreemen

They rounded up every german they could lay their hand on. That gave them the engineering base.

Even the french did that. The Atar engine of the Mirage III series are a direct descendent of the BMW Jet engine of WWII..Atar became the M-53 ..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 18:29 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26907
Location: NowHere
We still could have better strategies.. from first principles to chinese xerox.. just heard yesterday's copy news about architectures and new and next generation in copying technology.. see that is advancement. Chinese pay for the firang concepts.. invite them for drawing board and diagrams and techniques... and get this their own IPR, on contract. They have their own design institutes to finish up the jobs.

What I am saying, everyone has an approach they focus on. We are not funding enough.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 18:42 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34034
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
Cheen has been trying to climb the summit throwing a lot of money and even must have tried to recruit ukrainian and russian designers for the job. either ukr/rus is doing a good job of keeping their engine designers inhouse or atleast the good ones prefer to work in home country...else they should have managed the WS-10 == AL31F bit by now with such help and money.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 19:33 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31
Posts: 1104
Human race has progressed this far by "learning from others". Tech is hidden because the developer doesn't want others to have it so he can have a monopoly on supply. That doesn't mean others don't want the tech if it were available freely. In-between truth is that the developer hides the tech because there are others who want to steal it. You're just joining the queue of wannabe's. Otherwise you'll only get discarded stuff that has no value to the giver.

No one is asking you to steal an engine. But if alloys are an issue then there are hundreds of labs across the globe that may not have adequate security. Stealing tech requires systematic and coordinated effort. USSR and China have employed it. First identify the problem areas then find the potential sources. The engine will be no less Indian if we "took" a little help. Ajai Shukla's article implies that GTRE have tried it but are stuck somewhere. You just need enough "help" to get over the hump.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 20:17 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Apr 2008 17:29
Posts: 617
Location: Skardu
JTull wrote:

No one is asking you to steal an engine.


The US even did that to get a look into Tumansky R-15 on mig-25. (Victor Balenko incident).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 20:22 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26907
Location: NowHere
Who is stopping you to do it? If DRDO wishes, every engine can be lined up for dissection. Assimilation is different though.. if the end product is an exact copy, "then onlee" it is a copy. Else, it is all R&D.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 21:01 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 2028
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
What is the fetish with "stealing" engine tech ??? China tried it and has failed why shall we also do the same thing when we know that the end result will be failure. We have to keep going, doing R&D in this front till we achieve breakthroughs only that is going to produce a home grown engine for India. We have a working engine but now what we need to do is make it better. If DRDO is asking for funds, do it give them the funds they are asking for it might take two more decades but so be it till we don't achieve solutions to our problems we mustn't stop.

Quote:
Shaping the alloys into engine parts is an equal challenge. GTRE has learned how to make “directionally solidified” turbine blades; but it has not mastered the making of “single-crystal blades”, which are now standard.


So I guess we have developed SC tech but it is still in the labs, we haven't yet figured out how to take it to the production floor. No problem keep pushing we will figure it out eventually.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 21:19 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31
Posts: 1178
I visited the Eurojet stall at DefExpo in 2010. I asked the gentleman at the stall "How much would it cost to develop an entirely new jet engine, form the scratch " and "How much time would it take to develop an entirely new jet engine, form the scratch ". This gentleman just laughed at me and said that "Nobody would attempt to do such a task" !!!!

He then replied that to develop a entire new jet engine, from the scratch

"It would take about 5 billion Euros"

"It would take about 5 years to have the first prototype and production could take another 2 - 3 year"


Gurus

How does that compare with our GTRE and Kaveri and Kabini and ......

Kersi


P.S. Just for your information Eurojet's shareholders are Avio (Spain), MTU (Germany) and Rolls Royce (UK) !!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 21:23 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58
Posts: 1991
Kersi D wrote:
How does that compare with our GTRE and Kaveri and Kabini and ......


I think the number he quoted you was assuming all the fundamental R&D work has already been done at the start of project, technology exists and production experience is there.

And then it takes 8 years according to him.

If you don't have the above items I mentioned, add another 10 years to the mix, if not more.

JMT


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 21:32 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26907
Location: NowHere
I am strongly on the opinion that GTRE and their men lacked vision in terms of working to specifications, especially given their expertise and knowledge, and funds. One way is to muharramize and claim voila! in-spite of our conditions, we made a lower thrust engine version that is baseline-able. Agreed.. but forgotten would be the mistakes, where they failed to keep the baseline to specifications.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 21:35 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 2028
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
SaiK wrote:
Agreed.. but forgotten would be the mistakes, where they failed to keep the baseline to specifications.


Nobody is forgetting anything GTRE director is very frank on the issues we are facing.

Quote:
“To develop a more powerful Kaveri engine quickly and to become self-reliant in engine design, we need a foreign partner who can bring in core technologies. Otherwise the next cycle of engine development could take another 15-20 years,” admits Ramnarayan frankly


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2013 23:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26907
Location: NowHere
That would not be a solution to the failure.. The solution would be doing it all by ourselves. This is a big failure to engage a firang company, especially when the project is delinked and given enough time.

Quite frankly, they are giving up
!?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 00:04 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 2028
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
If they are going in for a firang company let them try that as well but they are surely not giving up on Kaveri DRDO has already pitched in strongly for Kaveri.

Quote:
The DRDO has moved a paper to the MoD that strongly backs the Kaveri programme as the foundation of aero engine development in the country.


I guess evil yindoos are up to something on this aero engine front :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 01:01 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11376
Location: Revive Sanskrit
The problem with India starting with a WW-II engine tech is, in 15-20 years:

Quote:
DRDO is struggling in developing the Nickel and Cobalt superalloys


They will reach that point and will not be able to overcome it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 05:38 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4606
Location: Duke Nukem
NRao wrote:
Quote:
DRDO is struggling in developing the Nickel and Cobalt superalloys


They will reach that point and will not be able to overcome it.


Trouble with the likes of Shook-Laws and In-Laws and their ilk is that they mix up multiple things and make a "Kichdi" out of it.

Lets try to get some "facts" that Shukla seems to have gleaned and let us unscramble the "Shukla isms" layered on top of it.

"Fact" as far as I can make out from the article.
1) Kaveri seems to be within striking range of achieving (around 95% to 98%) of design dry thrust
2) Wet thrust has around 10KN shortfall from the design target of 80KN ?
3) Single crystal turbine blades are still some way off ..

Now that we have unscrambled the Shukla-isms and got to the core facts, let us put the thinking caps on and speculate.
1) Dry thrust is good news. The design tweaks /performance shortfalls will be fixed that can achieve it's design goals.
2) Wet thrust.. Now, the afterburner is an add on piece. It is designed such that the turbo machinery upstream simply never feels it and has no bearing whatsoever whether it is on or off. So if there is a wet thrust shortfall, all that needs to be fixed is the after burner .
a) Will need to find out the root cause of performance shortfall. Could be multiple things.. flow losses, combustion losses, combustion efficiency .. etc etc. , or simply bad design , so that the turbo machinery feels back pressure from afterburner and chokes (this is too simplistic..but cant rule that out.. this is something like the back pressure from the tuned exhaust expander in the two stroke motorcycle engine being used to stop the incoming charge from flowing into the exhaust.. I think GTRE would be well adviced to do a good analysis of the vibration and acoustics of the afterburner pipe and check out the harmonics).
b) Good news here is ,after burner stuff is much less complex to fix than the core engine.. no moving parts, math and physics modelling is much easier for this and so is testing , tweaking and fixing.
3) This Single Crystal is not relevant at all to the current Kaveri thrust short fall if the dry thrust is nearly there (read again about afterburner and no effect on turbo machinery). Yes.. To get a full 110 to 120KN version going with the required T:W ratio of current engines, you need it. No getting away from it. But that can wait for a few years and is not needed right now, once the decision to de-link Kaveri from LCA is made.

4) Yeah, once you make the engine for AMCA decision, you are looking at a 125KN class engine (I had said this long long ago... in one of my earlier posts in this thread, do look back, to delink Kaveri from LCA and go for a 125KN class engine for AMCA.. that is the right thing to do and it has finally happened), yes, with the engineering and turbo machinery base we have from getting the Kaveri to this stage, we can make the jump to the higher thrust class. For that.
a) The materials program in DRDO/Midhani matures and we get the materials
b) We get the materials and the subsystem and testing/bug fixing help from a partner and we are plugged into the global supply chain for gas turbines.

So I think 4 (b) is the better bet. If Midhani finally comes up with the materials, future versions can get progressively more indigenous. The trouble with going forward with designs without the indigenous material and R&D base will see a 20 year project, as seen from the IGMDP programs and also the Kaveri itself.

And oh, maybe the DRDO are better off talking to these small "jugaad", highly skilled engineering guys who upgrade and maintain gas turbines, rather than the global biggies out to get their pound of flesh. These guys will jump at an opportunity for large business, will be more flexible and will be easier to work with and have fewer conflicts.. from a quick Google search, sort of like this,this and this.. Notice how between the three of them , the small guys have a complete ecosystem of being able to come up with a material, fabricate it and then replace the OEM hot section and test it out and put it back in the field.

This is exactly the kind of thing the Nehruvian socialism and the Public Sector only fetish and everything driven by Baboo(n)s, supplemented by Natasha driven "Screw Driver Indigenization" and killed in India and drove the folks who could have done stuff like this abroad for 50 years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 07:17 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34034
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
>> once you make the engine for AMCA decision, you are looking at a 125KN class engine (I had said this long long ago... in one of my earlier posts in this thread, do look back, to delink Kaveri from LCA and go for a 125KN class engine for AMCA.. that is the right thing to do and it has finally happened

the AMCA did not look large enough in the models to warrant such a powerful engine . sure if you want to make a raptor out of it, then we need such as F100 engine type stuff, but my understanding was a 75KN wet thrust model in the M88 mould would be enough being twin engined for adequate a2a perf and good strike perf. this level of performance already seems to be in current Kaveri. the foreign collab might increase the dry and wet thrust somewhat and maybe some upsizing could be done to increase the dry value and tuning to improve the fuel consumption which is vital to the viability of the engine as a fielded product (no discussion on that at all so far vs the M53/M88 values)

ofcourse this will limit the size of the AMCA to about the size of the rafale .... is that ok?

125kN engine would be a entirely new project and no amt of tuning the current model will extract such thrust without
physical changes I think. the 404 and 414 are same size with 100kg gain in weight, but the wet thrust was upped from 78 to 98, a gain of 25%. so from 72 we might expect the final kaveri to reach atmost 90 if everything goes well but thats it for this engine architecture and size.

for EJ200 it seems to be not the big dogs RR and MTU who do the afterburner section, but lesser know Avio and ITP though the big dogs are surely intimately there in overall design

Table 1 Eurojet GmbH organisation[2]
Partner company Development share Production share Responsibilities
Rolls-Royce 33% 34.5% Combustion system, High pressure turbine and engine health monitoring system.
MTU Aero Engines 33% 30% Low pressure and high-pressure compressors, system design responsibility for the Digital Engine Control and Monitoring Unit
Avio 21% 19.5% Low-pressure turbine, reheat system, gearbox and air/oil system.
ITP 13% 16% Exhaust nozzles, jet pipe, exhaust diffuser, by-pass duct and external dressings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 07:53 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11376
Location: Revive Sanskrit
Vina ji,

Thanks. Yar, iss age me itna padna mushkil hai bhai.

Anyways, if I may I would like to trouble you with a question or two:

1)
Quote:
Good news here is ,after burner stuff is much less complex to fix than the core engine.. no moving parts, math and physics modelling is much easier for this and so is testing , tweaking and fixing.


IF that is true (I have no reason to doubt it), then why would they seem to act as though they are abandoning the Kaveri-LCA link and moving to a Kaveri-UAV link?

Also, after burner seems to mean (to this lay man reading at random on the internet) increase in speed of gas flow OR increase in volume of gas flowing OR some combination of the two. Since these options do not seem to be a problem (If it was it seems to me that the fix is rather tame) I SUSPECT the problem lies prior to the after burner. Now IF that is true, then the fix is way beyond repair - it should mean a redesign of the engine itself (possible, but time consuming).

The Kaveri-UAV talk - to me - seals this thinking. I just cannot get myself to believe that the solution is that easy.

2) SCB/BLISK/Alloys is serious business - ONLY because they become a tool that allow one to actually solve complex problems. IMHO, the problem India (and perhaps China too) faces with engines is just that. India has not many high slung options to solve problems OR the solutions they have are so low tech that these techs cannot solve ANY meaningful problems.

It is like working with handheld ratchets vs. compressed air ones. There is only so much you can do with the prior (I know).

I just do not see how India can progress without mastering - not just paying a partner to get them - such technologies. Forget 125 Kn engines, they will not meet the current recs.

I feel/think they could really do with one or two of these techs now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 08:08 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34034
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
yes without producing a decent 90Kn wet thrust engine from what is the current kaveri, there is no point starting a new proj given limited manpower resources for a 125kn engine.

if the AMCA designers really want a 125knx2 engine they should look at some F-100/F-110 engine or AL31 derivative because no euro fighter engine is in that band. if they want 90x2, there are options like F414, EJ200, EJ220, M88-4 if the kaveri effort fails...so they can hedge their bets a bit.

that part should be clear enough if AMCA design is finalized.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 09:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00
Posts: 6617
Sagar G wrote:
SaiK wrote:
Agreed.. but forgotten would be the mistakes, where they failed to keep the baseline to specifications.


Nobody is forgetting anything GTRE director is very frank on the issues we are facing.

Quote:
“To develop a more powerful Kaveri engine quickly and to become self-reliant in engine design, we need a foreign partner who can bring in core technologies. Otherwise the next cycle of engine development could take another 15-20 years,” admits Ramnarayan frankly



As opposed to needing a "foreign partner" in the initial stages of developing the Kaveri?? Much time and treasure has been lost in the meantime. The more things change the less they change.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 10:24 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26907
Location: NowHere
Getting 125kN with +/-100kg similar to GE 414 technology specs is not a joke, with the kind of effort and investments GTRE is doing & given the schedule and plan. They have repeated said openly in public that they will go with a foreign help, even when delinked from LCA for sometime now.

So, without any foreign help, please tell me what is GTRE's plan? I like to know that. And Snecma, the chosen company to collaborate with has no proven GE 414 speced engine yet. If they will, then it will be on Indian tax payer money. M-88core whatever version has not even reached the 100kN wet mark, let alone T:W ratio.

So, if GTRE-Snecma is going to spending $3billion on Kaveri, why not a re-organized GTRE (call it something else), get it done with just another billion moolah only? Tell me we are not lacking engineers. We might lack expertise, but given a basis of Kaveri as is, is enough expertise to chart on further enhanced program.

Something really wrong here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 11:57 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4606
Location: Duke Nukem
Singha wrote:
was a 75KN wet thrust model in the M88 mould would be enough being twin engined for adequate a2a perf and good strike perf. this level of performance already seems to be in current Kaveri

Yeah... A 125KN engine for an AMCA would be too much of a Shakinah and that probably is my power trip running loose.

But, yes, if you want a all stealthy, internal weapon, Rafale/Typhoon sized stealthy plane, with supercruise and a higher fuel fraction that it will entail, it is going to be "fatter" than a Rafale/Typhoon and will need around 65KN to 75KN dry thrust and some 100 to 110KN wet thrust.

Singha wrote:
......125kN engine would be a entirely new project and no amt of tuning the current model will extract such thrust without physical changes I think. the 404 and 414 are same size with 100kg gain in weight, but the wet thrust was upped from 78 to 98, a gain of 25%. so from 72 we might expect the final kaveri to reach atmost 90 if everything goes well but thats it for this engine architecture and s
..........yes without producing a decent 90Kn wet thrust engine from what is the current kaveri, there is no point starting a new proj given limited manpower resources for a 125kn engine.


See, if you go back and read the sermon of El-Enqyoob-ud-Din-al-GasTurbine, some things are very clear. My take is that the current Kaveri config is designed around the limitations of the materials of circa mid 70s that are available to India. The very low bypass ratio (some 0.16 or something) harks back to a near full turbojet cycle going back to nearly WWII. It is very clear that two things need to happen. The bypass ratio goes up to something like 0.35 to 0.6 (depending on the thermodynamic cycle they finally settle on) and the turbine entry temp needs to go up. Both are related.

As things stand, yes,with current materials and config, the design of 80KN or whatever is the max possible. Two routes are possible going forward to achieve the two things that need to happen.
Route 1 : Replace the current core with a tinku sa-chikna sa core with the latest materials , keeping the low pressure spool from the current Kaveri, this in essence was the Snecma proposal (probably core from the M88-3), and presto..you get a 90KN Snecma-Kaveri with all the boxes for performance , durability and fuel burn ticked..

Route 2 : Keep the current core (the current core is oversized for the engine.. that is the reason why the bypass is low, refer to dhoti cooling in the said sermon), get the latest materials into it, so that it can tolerate a much higher TET than it currently can, and scale the current Kaveri's low pressure system and wallah, you get a 125KN engine with all the boxes for all ding dongs checked.

So whichever way they decide to go, you really have an option for two engine classes, with some work and of course testing and hopefully less of heartbreak and learning curve, now that they have sweated blood and tears to get this far. Route 1 will need a new core. Route 2 will need a new LP system. But both routes will need new and cutting edge high temp materials. There is no getting away from that. The good thing is both the 90KN and 125KN will be derivatives of existing stuff and not altogether new centerline design. That is exactly how everyone goes about in this business. Use existing artefacts and proven stuff to mix and match to come up with new(er) stuff. Very little ab-initio design like what we had to do with kaveri.

But right now, they are correctly working on perfecting what they have got (including flight testing on LCA) to get the baseline in place and proven. Hopefully in another 3 to 4 years, the high temp materials are in place (JV, Midhani, from the Jugaad folks like I mentioned.. why not just invite such companies to set up shop in India and make them for you, I wonder, rather than have a fetish of I will make it everything inhouse in the name of "self sufficiency" / wherever) and we can move to the next level. That in my opinion seems like a practical plan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 13:09 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2535
I think the "directionally solidified" stuff came from DMRL based on the techfocus article below

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfocus/2 ... il2011.pdf

Vinaji just curious how were the jet engines of the 70s and 80s achieve such high thrust without single crystal blades? Were they inefficient or were they huge?

If i understand your post correctly there is still some work left to be done in the cold section to improve the compression ratio?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 13:35 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34034
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
folks the F414 is a wet thrust 98kn engine, dont mistake it for a 125kn engine....GE is doing work on EPE no doubt under federal funding but in the end its the EDE which might see service to reduce lifecycle costs over their huge fleet of Shornets. upto 20% thrust increase was claimed on paper which would make the F414-EPE a 120kn engine.

far more mature and proven are the F100/F110 engines from GE & PW that power the F16 and F15 and which are solidly in the 120-130kN range. the only in-service peer worldwide is the AL-31F family ... these might see technology backported from the F119 and F136 engines as the F16/F15 will be in service for atleast 2 more decades yet...so EDE, less fuel burn, lighter weight is very much on the cards.

based on design of AMCA they must have a big call on the size of plane which will decide choice of engine -
-- if its a big plane, then the su35bm engine 117S / pakfa engine 117 / derivative of the F100/F110 are only games in town. kaveri in any redesign cannot make it that far.

-- if its a medium plane - kaveri might make it eventually if we get the right help. other solid choices are M88-4 / EJ220 / F414-EDE

wrt to internal munitions given our lack of portfolio they better ride the coat tails of the PAKFA and size the internal bay exactly as the PAKFA and not smaller, to take advantage of the internal munitions adapted to or developed fresh for the PAKFA. we dont want to be caught with pants down on that front. just licence the internal adapters and pylons inside that bay from the front bay of the PAKFA for commonality and make sure stuff like astra can also find a home.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 20:55 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Jun 2010 20:28
Posts: 291
Couple of questions come to my mind:

a. As is said, we would go for a foreign collaboration for injecting tech into the Kaveri Engine programme. Since, there are a handful of companies in the world which make jet engines for fighter aircrafts, why the heck would they help us learn the tech from them and become a competitor to them 10 years down the lane. As long as India does not learn to make an engine, it would continue to buy engine from them and keep their cash register counting. So why would the present engine manufacturers do harakiri.

b. It is now being touted that the UCAV being designed by DRDO, would be powered by Kaveri. Question. The UCAV is basically going to be a bomb truck for us, going deep inside enemy territory and rain havoc. Which means long legs. Also, the UCAV, probably would also be a high-subsonic beast, non-after burning Kaveri engine, an indication of the same. So, for high sub-sonic and long range, why not a medium to high by-pass engine rather than the low-bypass Kaveri?

Please note, that I am all for the support needed for the Kaveri engine as it would truly make us non-dependent on others for good, but the above two questions just came to my mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 21:02 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11376
Location: Revive Sanskrit
A wet dream if anyone is expecting any aerospace company to part with core technologies. Cannot happen.

India needs to light that fire and make it into a huge bonfire. Only India can do it, no one else can. It will mean plenty of funds for sure.

Single crystal, N-axis milling machines, alloys.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 22:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19
Posts: 4004
Location: छिछला पानी में (In shallow waters)
That 15 or 20 or 50 years are going to come and go is not an issue. Govt can create RnD Zones for certain technologies, on the path of SEZs.

An example of SEZ I have to give something that Gujarat can’t offer: Prithviraj Chavan. E-paper link clicky.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2658 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 ... 67  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher, prasannasimha, Yahoo [Bot] and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group