No problem.



You are right. No two ways about that. One: IN has done the best it can under the circumstances, and two) perhaps the 90+KN Kaveri (with Snecma?) (two of them?) will be good enough for a destroyer?

Point being that the effort is not total loss.



Very surprised you make this argument.

IN HAS made the same argument that the IAF made: you yourself stated it: IN will NOT use it for their destroyer because it is under powered.



Really nice of them. But, IIRC the 40 is over some YEARS.



Bad fit I am told (on BR). IIRC Kaveri is too big for IJT.



Hmmm...... Cost of fuel. Support? Redesign of all our tanks? All of them? Dunno.

I would expect India to build a GOOD tank engine - doable, just cost is an issue per automotive engineers I have talked to.



One thing at a time? Even that being a challenge in India?

who says they are ?
IAF has specified the performance requirements and the LCA developers realised that they can't achieve it with the kaveri.

secondly, IAF involvement if it happens in a constructive way is a good thing, not one to be scoffed at.

Read the article carefully first, A General Electric LM2500 produces 22MW and it is not the requirement for KMGT to produce 22MW. The LM2500 is a derivative of GE CF6-6 aircraft engine, the maximum thrust of CF6-6 is 178 kN

if cf 6 generates max thrust of 178 KN and marine version 22 MW

then marine kaveri generates 12 mw that means it gives out about 97 KN
i think 65 KN is the dry thrust of the engine

regards
Rudresh

Yes, sir IAF involvement is nothing to be scoffed at
but at the same time I read news reports and links on BR about a 95KN IAF requirement...it just seems counter-intutive that the IAF is specifying the design rather than the performance

I believe the CF6 is from GE's line of aero engines for commercial/passenger aircraft and hence SIGNIFICANTLY bigger (in terms of both physical dimensions and thrust)
I wonder what kind of thrust the Kaveri would produce at that physical size

Hmm. Very radical indeed. Maybe they should hire wannab radicals reds like N Ram with molotov cocktails to light the tandoor.



All the Ambassador welders with gas torches wont be able to fix it if the design is 65KN wet thrust as our diyar Former Karnail turned Jurnailist , Ajai Shook Law seems to imply. Tinkering wont do. It calls for a re design ( we all know that here don't we). But I really cant understand why the GTRE guys speak in riddles via the Shook Laws and in-laws instead of coming out clean with what they have achieved / not achieved.

Frankly, I take Shook Law's numbers with huge dollops of salt. There were reports earlier that the dry thrust was acheived and there was a 2 to 3% shortfall in wet thurst. Dry thrust will be in the 50KN range and A/B thrust will be around 80KN. I cant imagine that anyone could have set the specs in 1998 for 65KN wet thrust.

Believe me, it isn't as simple as school maths here.

With the weight and thrust limitations for Kaveri perhaps it is an ideal candidate for a naval hydrofoil or hovercraft(larger).

Kaveri even at 65kn can be used for AJT-LIFT based on LCA. Point is that will the IAF be interersted to buy without the road being greased?

The specific fuel consumption will be very high due the very-low bypass ratio of Kaveri. Trainers always seem to use comparitively higher-bypass engines as it reduces SFC and very high exhaust is not a requirement for trainers as it is to fighters. I wonder how much weight can GTRE take of a non-afterburning version of Kaveri ??

Those buttons have been flip-flopped. I nearly started a new thread!

The focus - I would hope - is on the new Kaveri (I hope they change the name). Hope it come out way ahead in time.

krish, he is talking of a LIFT which is almost a full fledged fighter with full offensive capabilities, not a normal trainer.

the current parallel are the Mig-21's of the MOFTU and the hunters of the HOFTU in the past.

May be I did not put it in right way. I did not wanted to say KMGT has to be in 22Mw class. My point is that Navy took interest in the project and is now set to use the Kaveri to propel its corvettes and other patrol ships.

with this kind of support, I don't have any doubt tomorrow, GTRE will be able to develop gas turbine in 22 Mw class also.


Ya, efforts are never wasted. U move ahead in learning curve.



I only wanted to say it is all about attitude. The fact that KMGT is only 12Mw did not deter IN to think of the area where it fits in. It is not very distant to see new corvettes and patrol ships propelled by KMGT and all those destroyers will have gas turbine generators for electricity.

Encouragement for domestic R & D has to be of this nature. Just beating about bush and claiming we are always in support of Indigenous drive and domestic R & D is not enough.

IN in sharing 25% cost of the project. How much IAF has shared / is willing to share? I hope we will not argue about IAF being end user and should not share cost.

-Nitin

Sure, I think you are right about IN having better attitude (than either IAF or IA). However, in this particular case I am not convinced that the IAF's attitude is misplaced. The IAF relied on a LCA + Kaveri, both of which came in over weight. The IAF has kept the LCA (so the attitude there is OK) and agreed to go with a more suitable engine (IF GTRE can deliver one, the attitude there is Ok too). And, unlike the IN, the IAF is no position to use the less-thrust engine for another machine that is already flying. I think the demands placed on the IAF are a lot more (than the IN) in this term (IN having a lot more ships of varying weights).

The Kaveri seems to be a comedy of errors(?). In the end all the mis-planned errors have turned out to benefit someone/thing. Now, only IF GTRE can deliver on a 95+KN engine (with growth potential please) for the LCA it would be neat.

Hmm.. our diyar Jurnailist, Ajai Shook-Law says in his blog that he visited Midhani and that work on single crystals and hot zone metallurgy is a "work in progress". Well, they could wait till kingdom come and it will be great if they could come up with the materials.

However, there is the larger kweschun of stratejee (moi YumBeeYea onree no ? ). Why not learn from what the Navy did with the Navy LCA. Now that Nook-Shook deal is done, and we are "near Munna" and on the glide path to Poodledom a la UK stan, why not access the industrial base of Amreeka, Jurmanistan and Frogistan ?. Tap into the supplier base of MTU, Safran, GE, P&W, Rolls, Honeywell ityadi and get high temp materials and ding dongs you want.

Sure, you might have to sign up saying that you cant export the engine without Unkil and associated Poodle' da signature. But so what ?. Expolts like our Chini birathers can come later. That can wait until kingdom comes for Midhani to come up with the required ding dong.

I know that GTRE tied up with SAFRAN for some assemblies. But why not go the who hog, and ask for wide chord fan blades, blisks, and all else, now that kind of trade is open..

To add to what I said earlier. IMHO, putting my yum bee yea hat on, the issue many people have raised is that GTRE Leadership is not good & that explains most of the problem with Kaveri. My understanding of the leadership problem is that - GTRE is not pushing itself aggressively enough to improve its design, try innovative approaches to solve bottlenecks in technology and capabilities & seems happy to sit on its backside & give excuses. In an ideal world there are million ways to solve this issue. But in a bureaucratic & multi-layered world of government decision making, the choices are limited.

A simple approach with these constraints in mind is to have IAF set up a team to meet with & review GTRE's results at regular intervals (say every few months). IAF need not even have to wield a stick, just ask what they have achieved, what problems they have faced, & how they are trying to solve the problems & bottlenecks, do some brainstorming on solving bottlenecks, also gently highlight what the goals are & review whether the current path will help them achieve the goals. Just the fact that somebody is regularly reviewing can result in huge performance improvements in people / organisations & this can be used effectively by IAF to push GTRE (My yum bee yea experience speaking ). Not sure if is this is enough, but it could make a difference, hopefully big. My 2 cents.

This is the first time it will fly in the Il-76 test bed. Hence maiden flight. The earlier HA flight tests were, IIRC, at CIAM and not in the Il-76 test bed. I'm talking about the Kaveri here, not the Kabini.

earlier test in russia was on a Tu-16 IIRC.

But that test was of the core Kabini, not the full up Kaveri.

Al-55 used in IJT is variant of Al-31 used in Su-30MKI. So Kaveri varinats can be used in IJT & AJT if IAF wants but does it want that?

vinaji: With other kinds of turban on, hiyar eej my suggestion:

Instead of
which always leads to yada yada yada, do this through bure 400% halal academic cooberashun. Even Mujahids recognized this long pack. Put instead of sending nanha mujahids to evil de-jeneraat weshtern univerjitiej, pring the rejearch brojects to desi madarssas with desi nanhe mujahids doing em-ess or pee-ech&dee.

Phunding phor said em-ess and pee-ech-dee depends on brohrej in developing this and that. They can go talk to other univerjitiej, get other univerjities to talk to them etc. etc. as long as the work is REALLY PASIC, like:

"Computational and experimental investigation of crack initiation in crystalline solids under cyclic thermal stress."

" A moving -grid computational study of the pressure resistance of a labyrinth seal under multi-dimensional stress in a cylindrical coordinate system"

See? Al Jibbar-eesh. Pasic. Halal. Easy to get advice from the best experts in the field. And if organized pie mullahs with something petween their kaanen than ear-wax and vacuum, this leads directly to improved pressure ratio and T-i-T, and hence to better dry thrust and supercruise.

What is missing is the steady, determined, focused development and reduction to practice of needed technical breakthroughs. Of course where these ARE done, no one believes that they are done.

Instead the desi approach is scatter-brained, to put it mildly. Wait until it is 10 years past the deadline, roll out a sub-par museum piece and call it "meeting specs set in 1920", then announce that the next hope is that some phoren entity is going "collaborate" to develop the next-gen piece, wasting 50 times more money than it would have taken to solve the problem by the above approach, and ending up with something that can't be duplicated because there is no learning, just "MOUs" and IP agreements locking out Indian R&D.

Sorry, but there's the problem I see - any emBeeAys pls exalt that to suitable language and drum it into the Babus.

If phoren technology is 2 b brought into defence R&D, it should be done through madarssas. Not by "asking"

^^ I find your posts very educational(specially on kaveri issue) and this wierd form of "phinglish" is somewhat distracting. So could you please refrain from using it in your illuminating posts?:)
But perhaps its only me and the others may very well enjoy it.

that raises the question, what exact modifications do you need to fit and operate an afterburning engine on a transport that doesn't use AB engines ?

n^3 ji ?


IIRC Al-55 is a smaller version of the Al-31 core (i.e engine w/o afterburner). if GTRE can actually develop something like that on time and specs is something we can only guess.

I do believe if they actually come up with something that is comparable to foreign stuff IAF will accept it.

Strap the whole thing on and hit the "start" button, I suppose. I wouldn't know what is special - anyway it is just hung on the engine pylon on a wing. What happens when there is so much thrust produced, is an interesting question. So it must mean that the aircraft's other engines are at least as powerful, and probabl bigger and heavier too.

The A/B duct is not a heavy item, just adds a bit of length.

Anyway, note that I don't believe that afterburner performance is the only, or even the primary, issue in high-altitude testing.

See, vina!

Suar-phyrr way to develop injin tech while winning the Babus/Mantris' total approval:



Buy a couple of these babies, get a couple of injins extra, and turn them into posh restaurants modeled after KFCs in B'lore and maybe Nasik while the injins are taken apart and used for some rejerj. One din a jehadi can toss an halal gas cylinder into the KFC as eet eej written in the Ho Kitab, and that will be that, give the insurance a break and tell them the injins must have been thrown a great distance and lost.

Or, more seriously, keep these in operation, with more than the bare minimum of injin spares. How tough can that be? And LOOK at the interior!!

Hmm... didn't see the Shukla blog - thanks for the heads up.

Key thing to note is that Midhani is a production/process house - and they have delivered when it counted ( Maraging Steels etc) ; its DMRL that probably owns the base technologies like SC. Which brings us to the question as to what should we make for all the various awards (Shram Virs, maybe even some Padma shris and a whole bunch of others, fancy mentions in DRDO newsletters etc to DMRL folks) that were trotted out here on BRF by many worthies as proof that we "had" SC technology. Maybe a good lesson as to how to "read" awards in this context.

Is it possible that engine development is being deliberately understated? That there is an underground factory churning out thousands of super-duper LCA engines with T-i-T of 2500C and pressure ratio of 30 and T/W of 11?

Nice rumor to start, but I cannot find any shred of evidence to hang it on. Maybe the awards are a giveaway?

Yeah, I wish. But unfortunately, I don't think so... plus even the award givers are shameful enough - and there's more sunshine in these circles that the con-game can't go on too long. Plus the people who needed to get places, did - and are now comfortably retired or otherwise occupied, them having sold the bridges successfully etc

I had asked this question in the newbie forum but got no answer. So perhaps this is more apt forum to ask this:
What are the effects of low bypass ratio for a turbofan engine like Kaveri?
High fuel consumption comes to mind.
Does it also increase the IR signature of the exhaust?
What are the other degrading effects?

Inside DRDO's Kaveri Jet Engine
Photos from Live Fist

Interesting that the livefist article mentions a bypass ratio of 0.2 - 0.24. My understanding was that it was between 0.16-0.18 based on a lot of posts in this thread. Was the Kaveri slightly modified to accomodate a higher bypass ratio ?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 748467.jpg

@ 81 Kn and T/w @ 7.8, ways to go.

Shiv Aroor's data looks to be entirely based on the Tech Focus issue posted earlier by A Sharma, including the photos and the summary.

Interestingly, the Tech Focus pegs the Marine Kaveri output at 15MW instead of 12MW.

Any updates on the testing results of the Engine.

nothing wrong in asking for couple of billion $$s for Kaveri.

I have been searching for the High Altitude test results of the Kaveri which was due in Russia last month but cant find anything on BR. Can anyone update me on the test results, Any good news so far?

if we have already spent 3000 crores for K, and still expecting to spend more, why not spend another 100 odd crore more high altitude test facility.. I am sure after Kaveri, there is more engines/versions we might build, especially enhanced ones for MCA, FGFA may be too interested. n number of possibilities.