Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

srin · Post by **srin** » 10 Jan 2013 07:20

indranilroy wrote:
srin wrote:A noob question ...

Not talking about AMCA engine, rather engine for LCA.

With the technology we already have, would it be more feasible to develop an F125 class engine and have two of them power the LCA, rather than a single F404 class engine ? Would two engines increase fuel consumption compared to a single engine of double the thrust ?
Is building a F125 class of engine easier than building a F404 class of engine?

Not knowing much about the engines, I was wondering if an engine of lower thrust would have lower temperatures inside the turbine, and might be feasible for GTRE to power LCA.

srin · Post by **srin** » 10 Jan 2013 07:50

indranilroy wrote:
SaiK wrote:1?: No [technology gap is way too big here with what we have achieved so far]
2?: This is a big time thinking question - it all depends on the efficiency of the engines. You would need too much calc for this.

It requires some serious math calculation answer from a guru to tell that. If the thrust to deliver in the same engine takes lesser fuel compared to dual engine providing a similar thrust.

Anyways, try it yourself from wikis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_engine#Thrust

jmt
No guru, and hence no great calculations. But here are my back of the envelop calculations. F125 is not going to cut it in terms total thrust required. Anyways here they are:
Code: Select all
             Thrust  Thrust   Weight    TWR   TWR     SFC    SFC    Dia   Length   Cross-sec  Volume  Inlet airflow
             (dry)    (wet)    (lbs)   (dry)  (wet)  (dry)  (wet)   (in)   (in)      area
F125IN        6230    9850    1360     4.58   7.24   0.775  1.91    23.3   140.2     426.17    59749      92.5
  X2         12460   19700    2720     4.58   7.24   0.775  1.91                     852.34   119498      185
F414         12500   22000    2445     5.11   9.0    0.810  1.74    35.0   154       961.62   148089      164
So, with 2 F125INs how would an LCA fare?
Weight: Minimal increase.
Performance (using Mk1s weight): TWR will greatly decrease in wet mode from 1.05 to 0.93.
Drag: (Most probably) decrease in wave drag due to smaller cross sectional area.
Internal volume: (Most probably) slightly increase
Range (with same amt. of fuel): Almost the same

Thanks - this is awesome. So the wet thrust of F125 isn't as efficient as F414 (I was thinking more of F404, where it is slightly worse ?)

srin · Post by **srin** » 10 Jan 2013 10:31

Zynda wrote:
indranilroy wrote: Your suggestion is akin to what the AMCA is. His question was different. More like the Taiwanese IDF.
I am not suggesting sir. Just replying to the question posted earlier about adding an extra engine to LCA.

Not just an extra engine, an F125 class engine (x2) which has roughly half the thrust.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 25 Jan 2013 19:31

Kaveri flops, LCA-Tejas to fly on US engines

The dream of fitting Kaveri engine being developed indigenously into the home-grown Light Combat Aircraft LCA-Tejas appears to be as good as over.

"Kaveri engine as such will never come into LCA", P S Subramanyam, Director of Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), a DRDO lab, which is the nodal agency for the design and development of LCA with HAL as the principal partner, told PTI here.

Noting that LCA-Mark 1 and Mark 2 will have engines from GE, he, however, said the LCA would support Kaveri engine's flight tests and demonstrations and certification.

"As and when there is support required by the Kaveri engine, LCA will give support of its flying test facilities", Subramanyam said. He expected flying tests of Kaveri engine to lead to its fitting into unmanned air systems.
...
...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Jan 2013 21:18

DDM needs to be told how to word headlines. This is getting pathetic!

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 25 Jan 2013 21:26

this above had been said earlier as well. LCA will be used to test kaveri, but not inducted on LCA in IAF, due to shortfall in thrust!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Jan 2013 04:43

First we need to reorg GTRE.. then everything will happen. They need to serious revamp. safety critical technology otherwise, there are things.. like being influential at least ask for funds for the right work. They can't deliver anything having shoddy history.

Kaveri what!?? we can make ganga 150kN wet! at 100kN sizes. just chest beating, but we have quite a bit of engineers who can make it happen.

Arunkumar · Post by **Arunkumar** » 30 Jan 2013 11:09

Its interesting that the two hi-tech areas in which India has a good success rate are Atomic Energy and Space launches. Both these departments heads report directly to the Prime-minister. In contrast however GTRE is just one among the 20+ labs that constitute DRDO. Its just a LAB!!!. The head of GTRE reports to head of DRDO who in turn reports to Raksha-mantri or maybe some babu in MOD. Probably this organisational heirarchy also has a role to play in the relatively slow success rate of kaveri. If there was a Department of Gas Turbines, with its head reporting directly to PM things might have moved a bit faster. Homi bhaba influenced decisions on atomic energy, Sarabhai influenced space, but there was nobody for gas turbines at that time.

negi · Post by **negi** » 30 Jan 2013 12:02

^ It is all about prioritization ; in hindsight they got those right at least in this particular case.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 30 Jan 2013 12:28

arvin wrote:Its interesting that the two hi-tech areas in which India has a good success rate are Atomic Energy and Space launches. Both these departments heads report directly to the Prime-minister. In contrast however GTRE is just one among the 20+ labs that constitute DRDO. Its just a LAB!!!. The head of GTRE reports to head of DRDO who in turn reports to Raksha-mantri or maybe some babu in MOD. Probably this organisational heirarchy also has a role to play in the relatively slow success rate of kaveri. If there was a Department of Gas Turbines, with its head reporting directly to PM things might have moved a bit faster. Homi bhaba influenced decisions on atomic energy, Sarabhai influenced space, but there was nobody for gas turbines at that time.

+100

It is also interesting that these areas are heavily sanctioned and there are no International suppliers available as substitutes where arms agents can make a commission.

sum · Post by **sum** » 30 Jan 2013 13:49

arvin wrote:Its interesting that the two hi-tech areas in which India has a good success rate are Atomic Energy and Space launches. Both these departments heads report directly to the Prime-minister. In contrast however GTRE is just one among the 20+ labs that constitute DRDO. Its just a LAB!!!. The head of GTRE reports to head of DRDO who in turn reports to Raksha-mantri or maybe some babu in MOD. Probably this organisational heirarchy also has a role to play in the relatively slow success rate of kaveri. If there was a Department of Gas Turbines, with its head reporting directly to PM things might have moved a bit faster. Homi bhaba influenced decisions on atomic energy, Sarabhai influenced space, but there was nobody for gas turbines at that time.

^^+400% onlee.

If only we had one such towering figure for aero-engines, we might have been spinning out variant after variant like we seem to be doing these days for the missiles atleast

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 30 Jan 2013 16:59

X-post. http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1401387

The Indian aircraft industry is still in its nascent stages of growth. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) is the only significant player, manufacturing aircraft and engines, albeit under license production. Even so, most of the materials and material technologies have been sourced from the original manufacturers (OEMs) of the engines and aircraft.

In the recent past, a number of new material technologies have been recently introduced which are required in the production of Sukhoi aircraft (Su-30) and its engine (AL31FP). Kaveri, the proposed engine for LCA Tejas is the only programme which aims to design and develop indigenous engine and also to develop indigenous capabilities in the areas of materials and manufacturing technologies. In a sense, the development of indigenous material technologies in India is linked to Kaveri programme. Assessment of materials and manufacturing technologies presented here is largely based on the Kaveri experience in which many industries and research laboratories are participating. GTRE is also developing a smaller engine called “laghu Shakti.”

Primary mill products

Most of the primary alloys used in gas turbines are being manufactured at Mishra Dhatu Nigam (MIDHANI), Hyderabad. MIDHANI has been successful in indigenous development and manufacture of various mill products of several grades of super-alloys, Titanium alloys and steels. In addition MIDHANI also produces several Russian grades of steels, Titanium alloys and super-alloys. Some of the most important alloys produced at MIDHANI are:

Space & Missiles – MDN-250, Ti-64, Ti-15-3,
Kaveri Engine – Su-718, CM247LC, Su-263, Ti-29A (834), Ti-64, GTM900, BS-347,
LCA – 17- 4PH, 15- 5PH,
MIG series – AE961W, AE646M, A286, BT-9,
Sukhoi-30 – BT-20, BT-18

Infrastructural constraints have restricted MIDHANI to expand its range to newer alloys such as 720Li and large diameter products in nickel base super-alloys which are required for turbine and compressor discs and large casings of engine. Thankfully the facilities at MIDHANI are being upgraded and these upgrades are expected to enhance its capabilities in this area.

Forgings

The Foundry and Forge (F&F) plant of HAL has the capacity to produce rings, blocker forgings, closed die forgings and precision forgings in a wide variety of Al, Mg, Cu alloys and steels.

Its association with the Kaveri Engine programme has resulted in HAL’s F&F plant to develop the technologies to manufacture a large number of ring, open die forgings and blade forgings in various grades of super-alloys and Titanium alloys. Some of the important forgings include ring rolled products in super-alloys – Su-718 and Su-263, Titanium alloys – Ti64 and Ti685, and steels – S-80 and E16NCD 13. In addition HAL’s F&F plant has demonstrated the capability to produce complex airfoil forgings for compressor blades and vanes in Su718, Ti64 and GTM900.

The other benefactor of the Kaveri Engine programme is this regards has been the Steel Industrial forgings Limited (SIFL), Trichur, which has also developed small closed die forgings in Ti6A14V and 718 for Kaveri engine.

The turbine’s Discs are the most critical components in a gas turbine. These have to be manufactured to very strict specifications of mechanical properties, macro-structure, micro-structure and integrity. A collaborative programme between Bharat Forge Limited, (BFL), Pune, Project Office (Materials), Defence (Materials) and CRI (M) has resulted in the successful development of all the three Kaveri fan discs using the Ti64 alloy. The discs were made using indigenous forging stock of requisite specification produced at MIDHANI.

Castings

The DMRL has successfully developed complex airfoil castings for the Kaveri turbine using the Nickel base alloy CM247LC. The castings are hollow with internal cooling channels and have to meet very stringent dimensional, micro-structural, chemical and porosity requirements. This is one of the most complex processing steps, each requiring a very strict control. The DS castings have been qualified by airworthiness agencies (CEMILAC) for use in Kaveri engine. Recently, vaccume diffusion brazing process for tip and root of HPY blade of Kaveri engine has been developed in collaboration with Godrej and Boyce, Mumbai.

The DMRL has also developed the jet fuel starter castings for the LCA Tejas as well as the castings for the Adour engine (used in the Jaguar). The technology developed at DMRL is currently being transferred to HAL, Koraput. HAL has investment casting facilities although so far it has been manufacturing only equiaxed castings of Russian grade super-alloys. Recently, HAL (Koraput) has also developed shroud castings in CM247LC and 718 alloys for Kaveri engine and these castings have been qualified by CEMILAC. HAL has also acquired capability to manufacture DS and single crystal castings of turbine airfoils for Sukhoi aircraft engine AL31FP.

The development of Platinum-Aluminide coatings and thermal barrier coatings (TBC) are also in progress at DMRL in association with ARCI, Hyderabad.

Advanced materials and Processes

DMRL has been working on Titanium-Aluminides (TiAl) and has developed alloy compositions with adequate ductility. Compressor blades of a α2-Ti3Al TiAl alloy have been forged at HAL (F&F). DMRL has also demonstrated processing of TiAl alloys by isothermal forging route to get equiaxed structure of α2 + γ. Development of discs in Titanium alloys Ti26A (Ti685) for Adour and Kaveri engine has been carried out at DMRL. The near-isothermal forging process along with extensive use of modelling and simulation has been used at DMRL to optimise the process. Discs in Ti26A alloys for Adour engines will soon be produced in larger numbers by MIDHANI employing the DMRL infrastructure and technology with appropriate augmentation of the infrastructure required for the production batches.

Recently, DMRL has also carried out development of disc and integral shaft forgings for the Kaveri engine using the Ti834, which is a new Titanium alloy developed for use at 600 degree C. While many important technologies have been developed for gas turbines, some of these technologies developed cannot be said to have attained a maturity level typical of production environments. This has been largely due to the small volumes and only a few batches of components that have been produced so far. Also some of the materials’ technologies already employed routinely in gas turbines in western countries are still not indigenously available. The most important of these are:

Single crystal alloys and castings for turbine airfoils,
Blisk Technology for compressor discs both in titanium alloys and super alloys,
Inertia welding for engine parts such as compressor drums,
Large diameter forging stock, large width plates and sheets in super alloys and titanium alloys,
Super-alloy discs for compressor and turbine.

Many of these have not been attempted due to non-availability of the required equipment/ infrastructure, for example large capacity press to forge discs using the super-alloys or inertia welding facilities. In addition there are several gaps in knowledge and in the understanding of various aspects of materials and processes which need to be developed for efficient exploration of materials technologies.

Looking Forward

Despite the relatively small size of aerospace industry in India, the future growth prospects of this sector in a fast emerging economy make it imperative that critical gaps in technologies are filled. It may require augmentation of infrastructure on the one hand and generation of knowledge and acquisition of expertise and highly skilled human resources on the other. Some of the core technologies and critical facilities that need to be established are:

Large forge capacity, large billet capacity,
Inertia welding and linear friction welding,
Augmentation of investment castings – DS and single crystal,
Composites – fibre C/SiC, etc.,
Facilities for testing both the materials as well as the components,
Life prediction technologies,
EBPVD for TBC,
Advanced machining such as creep feed grinding,
EDM/laser drilling, laser peening Ultrasonic peening, electro-chemical machining, etc.,
Advanced inspection and NDT such as phased array ultrasonic, 3D x-ray tomography in production environment

Notwithstanding the augmentation of infrastructure, it is equally essential to integrate design, materials and manufacturing capabilities available within the country to evolve indigenous solutions for problems unique to our environment. It may be possible to overcome certain manufacturing limitations by smart design. In addition to infrastructure requirements, capability to design processes, techniques, tools and acceptance criterion will play an important role in indigenous development of engine and its components with satisfactory performance.

Highlighting this as it seems to be the core issue.

Many of these have not been attempted due to non-availability of the required equipment/ infrastructure, for example large capacity press to forge discs using the super-alloys or inertia welding facilities. In addition there are several gaps in knowledge and in the understanding of various aspects of materials and processes which need to be developed for efficient exploration of materials technologies.

GTRE and DMRL/Midhani must be given the time to explore to find that exotic cocktail of materials. And no amount of management re-shuffle, scrap GTRE, shoot neighbor's dog is going to help them get there.

nvishal · Post by **nvishal** » 30 Jan 2013 18:40

RIP kaveri

600 million down the toilet

Fire every GTRE jackass

AbhiJ · Post by **AbhiJ** » 30 Jan 2013 18:49

nvishal wrote:RIP kaveri

600 million down the toilet

Fire every GTRE jackass

As Neelaji propounded, there is no other way of having a flying engine other than SRDE's Khoon, Pasina and Billion of Dollars!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Jan 2013 19:08

nvishal wrote:RIP kaveri

600 million down the toilet

Fire every GTRE jackass

Why?

In such tech dev there is nothing called death. It is a stepping stone to the next phase/stage/step.

Read the previous post to yours. It is bang where one would expect India to be right now. I believe India sits rather pretty. If they know what they do not know and what they need to catch up with that by itself is huge. It will take time and funds, but they are on the path. Neither is Kaveri dead, nor have millions gone down any toilet.

I see a vibrant future. But one that will take time ................... 10-15 years at a minimum. But, it will happen.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 30 Jan 2013 19:21

Don't know about GTRE but some jackasses have already started to crap here.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 30 Jan 2013 19:25

That materials article by chacko is from June 14, 2011 need new info as things would have moved on, AI visiting guys should do the needful.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jan 2013 19:46

setting up world class labs and machinery needs a lot of investment. even a simple thing like a small electronic balance that can accurately weigh down to fractions of gms costs in lakh+ range.
we just placed a PO on some simple parallel optical cables for our project and the cost came to some 16000/- per cable! between a few cables and attenuators the order ran into some lakhs

the kind of equipment needed to play at engine levels must be 10-100X more complex and costly vs the typical commercial stuff.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Jan 2013 19:56

Just to be sure, India has solved (for her requirements) space and missile needs. So, such things are doable. Each tech has its own challenges and the ones for such engines are perhaps more so. So, I guess, the issue boils down to if the GoI wants an engine, of their own, for their own air craft/s. Can India overcome the political and bureaucratic challenges before the financial and technical ones.

?????

Doable, IMHO.

Today, I just do not subscribe to the thought that the Kaveri effort has gone a waste. However, it is a major challenge that will take a lot of funds and effort.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jan 2013 20:04

Unless we reorg GTRE, all the kaveri efforts will go waste. We need to engage the right people with the right mindset and reenergized funds. building a Safran or GE or even Saturn is not a joke.. that moolah is not a waste.. never NEVER!!!!

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 30 Jan 2013 20:09

i suspect that for jet engines the issue is not only about money, else certain countries with very deep pocket would have had there own jet engine.
It seems to be something technology wise which is simply not available in beg/borrow/steal mode, but which once developed could pave the way for a whole range of jet engines.
Any idea of what these could be and what the current status of these could be for GTRE

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 30 Jan 2013 20:14

But do we know what is the real obstacle for Kaveri
is it Single Crystal blades
Is it Materials
Is it manufacturing tech
Is it heat treatment
Is it investment casting
Is it Foundary/Forgings

on this forum I have not seen what exactly is the issue.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 30 Jan 2013 20:19

SaiK wrote:Unless we reorg GTRE, all the kaveri efforts will go waste. We need to engage the right people with the right mindset and reenergized funds. building a Safran or GE or even Saturn is not a joke.. that moolah is not a waste.. never NEVER!!!!

I don't get what you mean by reorg. GTRE ,it's run the same way as other DRDO labs. GTRE has done whatever it could do in terms of money and resources made available to it. The current stagnation IMHO is due to tech barriers which need to be overcome, the GATET initiative taken for R&D in aero engine will take some time to reap results.

prashanth · Post by **prashanth** » 30 Jan 2013 20:52

pentaiah wrote:But do we know what is the real obstacle for Kaveri
is it Single Crystal blades
Is it Materials
Is it manufacturing tech
Is it heat treatment
Is it investment casting
Is it Foundary/Forgings

on this forum I have not seen what exactly is the issue.

All of these.
Newbie opinion. Take it for what it's worth.
Well, single crystal is not a silver bullet that will enable the engine. The alloy of which the SC blades are made also matters a lot. A very crude analogy here. It is relatively easy to manufacture single crystal silicon (a semiconductor) in bulk. However it is much more difficult to manufacture single crystal Gallium Arsenide alloy semiconductor, and it is just with two elements. For turbine blades we are talking of alloys having 10 or more elements. Even before attempting to develop single crystal of any material you have to determine the right elements for the alloy and their proportions. Growing single crystals of this material comes next. So when people mention single crystal, the important question is 'Single crystal of what alloy?'. IIrc DRDO has already developed single crystal materials on lab scale for Kaveri. Refer this link.

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 30 Jan 2013 21:01

Boss Crucible experiment is for scientists, making it in industrial scale is the job of technologists.
All our titans of technologists come from IITs who promptly go to selling PG, or Lever brothers soaps or Goldman sacks (sacks of Gold) exotics swaps and derivatives ( developing models using fourier transforms complex variables etc learned in 4 years in IIT).

This growing crystals in testube or invitro is no good.

Strictly speaking we have everything except to work in public sector with the exception few gems who dont care about pay and do it for the love of what they do and learn.

NFC has zironium alloy plant to shape alloys
Midhani has French collabration and Russian collabration for advanced alloys
DMRL has some of the most exotic machines ( this was in 1980s, now even better)

we need some leadership and people who can do things as technologists, instead of waiting for complete solution for the integral like ML Khanna books (with enough printing mistakes to menatlly wreck you)

I had long back suggested failed Kaveri will make an excellent UAV engine

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jan 2013 21:31

sagar g,reorg meaning decision making and management team. a team that says go no-go, funds, the chieftans etc. because, requirements keep changing.. and we need to scope things down correct.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 30 Jan 2013 21:53

how about this :
GTRE comes out with a honest list of things that they need to improve the efficiency of Kaveri engine. All those stuffs that will
help them move to the next level and which are currently blocking them. Make these requirement public.
For each of these stuff allow anyone in public / private sector to help them out and i am pretty sure that things can be
speeded up.
Private sector seeing the immense potential for such a project will find out ways to collaborate with foreign vendors for such components / sub-components. GTRE still remaining the lead integrator.
Point is it at times it is not possible to make everything under one roof.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jan 2013 22:43

good start that would be.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 31 Jan 2013 06:48

SaiK wrote:Unless we reorg GTRE, all the kaveri efforts will go waste. We need to engage the right people with the right mindset and reenergized funds. building a Safran or GE or even Saturn is not a joke.. that moolah is not a waste.. never NEVER!!!!

not to mention the fact that some of GTRE's "better" scientific minds seem to do their best "thinking" in seedy massage parlours...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 31 Jan 2013 08:01

let us not worry about individual whims and fancies, that is all private stuff. it does not matter, unless that was a setup to spoil the project or divert specific men away from getting things completed. now, my worries are not that.. they failed to some basic requirements to scope things down.

like having a de-rated engine to work, while the future would definitely think about growth. Given, the nature of history of development with GE/PW/Snecma et al, there is enough data (5-10k level) to consider that if they chase behind a path that can demonstrate rather work on actual specs, would have helped a lot.

other than thrusts, the blades.. it failed, and the reasons where it can't take beyond certain TET. now, that should been in the designs as well. it makes think, they have fundamentally not geared at all with right mindsets and engineering approach.

yes, i agree with given funds they did a great job.. but what i am saying is this, a go no-go should have happened much before expected failures. It is not a big thing to realize these are first tried technologies, and it should be in what hands., and needed funds. I don't take that BS argument that we lack funds.

just consider the achievements other drdo labs are getting especially on the missile front.. i understand the critical aspects here off different genre, but during r&d stage, there is no human involved, so they should be emboldened to try out technologies.

i can't understand certain failures here in gTRE, or they have not exposed the problems completely. I am thinking, it is all because of poor management, poor staffing, and poor engineering approach, to get what we wanted.

taking time is fine, funds are fine.. but the outcome is important.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Jan 2013 08:51

^^ fact is, we have never tried to build not even on a proto scale.
new skillsets will need development though some of the core turbine and manufacturing tech remains same from turbofans.

if money or people are lacking, its best to persist with turbofans because turboprops cost less and are less strategic, and good turboshafts are available off the shelf from EU/US.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 31 Jan 2013 19:50

SaiK wrote:other than thrusts, the blades.. it failed, and the reasons where it can't take beyond certain TET. now, that should been in the designs as well. it makes think, they have fundamentally not geared at all with right mindsets and engineering approach.

Lets assume that you are right here so doesn't this also constitute a part of the learning curve ??? Unless and until we don't make mistakes how the hell are we going to learn ??? As I see it making mistakes is not wrong but continuing to make the same mistakes again and again is criminal. GTRE has been very honest in the past few years about what it lacks and has started research in the areas where the same is needed, at least allow the guys to try and fix things the way they want because GTRE is the best shot we have now if we dream of seeing an Indian aero engine.

SaiK wrote:I don't take that BS argument that we lack funds.

With all due respect saar whether you agree or not doesn't change the reality, yes funds have been lacking till very recently. As a matter of fact DRDO still doesn't get what it asks for and to top that this yr we have a 10,000 Cr. defence budget cut so as to siphon of the money to scams like MNREGA and Cash Transfer. Any guesses who is going to suffer first ???

SaiK wrote:i can't understand certain failures here in gTRE, or they have not exposed the problems completely. I am thinking, it is all because of poor management, poor staffing, and poor engineering approach, to get what we wanted.

What to do saar India is poor turd world country onlee

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 31 Jan 2013 19:59

dhiraj wrote:Private sector seeing the immense potential for such a project will find out ways to collaborate with foreign vendors for such components / sub-components. GTRE still remaining the lead integrator.

Here comes BRF's answer to all of India's problems "The Mighty Private Sector". Ok let's play along see we don't have SCB tech as we all know so please tell me allowing which private company to get the same will do the trick and how it is going to achieve the same ??? Which OEM is going to supply us with the SCB tech if we task one of our private company to do the same ??? Which country will allow the OEM to transfer SCB tech to India's private entity knowing very well it will be used in India's indigenous engine ???

I want proper answer's to all this not some BS wishful thinking based on wild assumptions and facts drawn out of thin air, if and only if you can answer with solid facts then only come up with a reply otherwise don't even care to reply back.

dhiraj wrote:Point is it at times it is not possible to make everything under one roof.

Point is DRDO knew this very well since the beginning and that's why it has collaborated with pvt. sector so chill.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 31 Jan 2013 20:31

^^^^^^^^^
oh god not again

, my sincere and innocuous post is responded with an aggressive response.

Sagar G wrote:Point is DRDO knew this very well since the beginning and that's why it has collaborated with pvt. sector so chill.

By DRDO here u mean GTRE also right, if yes, then that is what i suggested. Involve pvt sector .

For SCB, honestly i don;t know but what is the harm with having a chat with some of firms who would has the potential in this area
based on there current activity and if things work out at least they could give a shot.
Point is GTRE is working on something for long and R&D activity is still on, so someone else could also start some parallel work on it in R&D/beg/borrow/steal mode, who cares. It is the result that is important for us.

Please note : if you are not satisfied by the above then feel free to ignore the post or you could enlighten me in some positive sense , but please no personal remarks.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 31 Jan 2013 20:41

dhiraj wrote:my sincere and innocuous post

dhiraj wrote:By DRDO here u mean GTRE also right, if yes, then that is what i suggested. Involve pvt sector .

Wah wah what a suggestion, now who could have thought of that.

dhiraj wrote:For SCB, honestly i don;t know but what is the harm with having a chat with some of firms who would has the potential in this area
based on there current activity and if things work out at least they could give a shot.
Point is GTRE is working on something for long and R&D activity is still on, so someone else could also start some parallel work on it

I asked for a factual answer not more goat droppings.

dhiraj wrote:in R&D/beg/borrow/steal mode, who cares. It is the result that is important for us.

And our next door neighbour China is a very good example why beg,borrow,steal in R&D doesn't work. There is no shortcut to success even if Bollywood makes you believe there is.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Jan 2013 20:55

Dhiraj this has been discussed for so long that I have made many posts on the issue of aero engines - maybe I should collect them up and make one big post on the FAQ thread.

Anyhow I will just copy-paste one post which shows why it is so difficult to cross the engine hurdle Only an handful of countries have the tech and if they share it with India they will stop getting the profits they make from selling thousands of airline engines.

The problem is that if you spend X time developing say a particular blade alloy and run it. Suppose it runs 10 hours and fails. You scrap it and try a new formula. The new formula runs 50 hours. You think you have hit the jackpot and then at 52 hours it fails. Trial 3 gets a blade that fails. Trial 4 gets an alloy that lasts 100 hours and you say "heck we are bold. Put it in a plane and fly it". Fine it flies but conks out at 250 hours or at high RPM. Then what?

Then you look at the calendar and find that 5-10 years have gone and several million spent. Apply the same issues to several other components. You get an engine that looks like its great but you find that the damn thing chokes up and stops if the plane tries to do a loop. Then what?

Technology is knowing what will fail. Knowing what you must not do and which direction you need to head. The existing engine manufacturers have done all that 50 years ago. Try throwing money at a calendar. It won't move you back to last year.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 31 Jan 2013 22:04

^^^^^^^^
Thanks Shiv for the details that you provided.
This is one area where we can beat China and hope we do it. Will give a lot of satisfaction

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 31 Jan 2013 22:19

Sagar G, What I am saying is GTRE did a great job. But what they achieved falls below expectations/end product use. The corrections could have happened earlier. Not the r&d technology part alone, but participation from wider section of the industry and educational institutions.

Now, we charter on something, and end up in something else.. we think, we should done something better halfway, then take risk and correct it. My examples, were just to point out and not in reality that would be true.

I am taking the result "failure" as failed to get it ported to Tejas as failure, and not technology failure or GTRE work force failure. It is a management issue.

Sagar G wrote: What to do saar India is poor turd world country onlee

That is your view. Not mine. I have never projected to anywhere to anyone that we are third world. not in my definitions.

We can't beat china in their game, but we can definitely match up to cold war heroes level technology. Take for example GE engines, they have been continuously investing and improving since ages. Like shiv pointed out, investment into engineering efforts have to conform to certain standards, and that takes time. But, once you have established standards, and reached the maturity, rest is product and production engineering., moving away from r&d.

We need huge investment in test facilities ( I hope these are taking shape behind while we talk here), and per plans we should be gearing up ahead on Kaveri 10++.

manum · Post by **manum** » 31 Jan 2013 22:32

I am seeing two extremes of "over confidence" and "innocence" in Sagar G and Dhiraj respectively...Though they both need to exchange their hats...

While I am going OT...but could not resist...

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 01 Feb 2013 00:22

SaiK wrote:Sagar G, What I am saying is GTRE did a great job. But what they achieved falls below expectations/end product use. The corrections could have happened earlier. Not the r&d technology part alone, but participation from wider section of the industry and educational institutions.

Now, we charter on something, and end up in something else.. we think, we should done something better halfway, then take risk and correct it. My examples, were just to point out and not in reality that would be true.

Lets not get saddened about what didn't happen in the past but see what we can do to fix the problem in hand at present, a lot of things shouldn't have happened in the past but they have happened so let bygones be bygones.

SaiK wrote:I am taking the result "failure" as failed to get it ported to Tejas as failure, and not technology failure or GTRE work force failure. It is a management issue.

It's all a part of the learning curve eventually if we persist we will get there.

SaiK wrote:That is your view. Not mine. I have never projected to anywhere to anyone that we are third world. not in my definitions.

I was pisking onlee

SaiK wrote:We can't beat china in their game, but we can definitely match up to cold war heroes level technology. Take for example GE engines, they have been continuously investing and improving since ages. Like shiv pointed out, investment into engineering efforts have to conform to certain standards, and that takes time. But, once you have established standards, and reached the maturity, rest is product and production engineering., moving away from r&d.

Saar now don't bring in unkil's investments in this field or any other cause comparing with them only results in cowering in shame for mango abduls cause they wouldn't take the pain to understand why unkil is unkil and why India isn't so. Comparing with unkil's facilities is an instant debate killer and is a sure shot way of injecting mass sadness.

SaiK wrote:We need huge investment in test facilities ( I hope these are taking shape behind while we talk here), and per plans we should be gearing up ahead on Kaveri 10++.

There was an article by lifafa shook-law regarding this. I won't post that lifafa's link please Google.