Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

The Technology & Economic Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to Technological and Economic developments in India. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1687
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Zynda » 20 Oct 2019 19:25

So this guy seems to have finally did it. I will admit, I was really skeptical about his success, but he probably surprised the nation through his efforts.

https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1185885615927095297

Delhi: Captain Amol Yadav, a pilot who has built a six seater indigenous experimental aircraft, called on Prime Minister Narendra Modi, today.


Image
Image
Image

Funny thing is, I wonder where he is getting the talent from (probably through contacts) but I have never come across any job postings from this entity. I do admit, its been a while since I last checked.

Good for these guys. Hope they really take-off further...

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1687
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Zynda » 29 Oct 2019 19:47

Such a massive single order for Airbus from Indigo, but are there any benefits for Indian Aerospace Industry from such a significant order? The Chinese would have probably demanded a 2nd A320 assembly plant :)

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... craft.html

Excerpts from the article...
Toulouse – India’s IndiGo has placed a firm order for 300 A320neo Family aircraft. This marks one of Airbus’ largest aircraft orders ever with a single airline operator.

This latest IndiGo order comprises a mix of A320neo, A321neo and A321XLR aircraft. This will take IndiGo’s total number of A320neo Family aircraft orders to 730.


At least, GoI should have demanded a MRO place in desh (perhaps massive support for Air Works from Airbus) where all the Indigo planes could be serviced. I know Air Works are gradually ramping up their MRO capabilities, but I do hope, such a place like above already exists (been a little out of touch on MRO scene in India off lately).

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20533
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 29 Oct 2019 21:01

Zynda wrote:So this guy seems to have finally did it. I will admit, I was really skeptical about his success, but he probably surprised the nation through his efforts.

https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1185885615927095297

Delhi: Captain Amol Yadav, a pilot who has built a six seater indigenous experimental aircraft, called on Prime Minister Narendra Modi, today.


[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHUcq-BU0AAKmaY.png[img]
[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHUcq-BVUAE7jOI.png[img]
[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHUcq-DVAAAMXEs.png[img]

Funny thing is, I wonder where he is getting the talent from (probably through contacts) but I have never come across any job postings from this entity. I do admit, its been a while since I last checked.

Good for these guys. Hope they really take-off further...


I gather that the aircraft is mostly homebrew and a one off.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1687
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Zynda » 29 Oct 2019 21:31

So just one prototype? Any clue on what his endgame might be? Did he want to just prove that he could build an aircraft or is he seriously looking for funding to take his project farther? Probably, he would be hoping for the latter but just trying to know about the real ground scenario.

Not that I know people regarding funding or I am in any position to help him...but just curious.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2235
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Vips » 30 Nov 2019 02:13

Zurich Airport wins bid to design, develop and operate the new airport near Delhi in Jewar.

This airport will be the largest in India and i just hope the team at Zurich Airport uses better imagination and comes up with a world class airport. They won the bid for the Bangalore airport earlier but their design for the Bangalore airport was below par and match box style. It was such low standard that even our sarkari babus criticized it.

Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1146
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Nikhil T » 30 Nov 2019 10:37

Hopefully this Jewar airport is viable. The project site is 72 kilometres from Indira Gandhi International Airport; 60 km from Noida & 70 km from Faridabad & Ghaziabad, about 48 km from Greater Noida, 65 km from Gurgaon.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7385
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Prasad » 30 Nov 2019 11:32

A metro line would make it viable. Besides it is supposed to have 8 runways I think. Beijing new airport leven shakinaw

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20533
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 30 Nov 2019 11:53

Zynda wrote:So just one prototype? Any clue on what his endgame might be? Did he want to just prove that he could build an aircraft or is he seriously looking for funding to take his project farther? Probably, he would be hoping for the latter but just trying to know about the real ground scenario.

Not that I know people regarding funding or I am in any position to help him...but just curious.



publicity

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6331
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Supratik » 30 Nov 2019 16:37

It will be viable. It is next to rapidly urbanizing middle class areas with catchment right upto east, north, south Delhi. With highways and expressways that is just 1 hr drive.

pgbhat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4081
Joined: 16 Dec 2008 21:47
Location: Hayden's Ferry

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby pgbhat » 30 Nov 2019 22:35

Pilots revving engines too hard led to IndiGo’s Airbus woes
IndiGo and Go Airlines India Ltd. use the same type of engine made by Pratt & Whitney that’s susceptible to mid-flight shutdowns. Yet IndiGo, one of Airbus SE’s biggest customers, is the only one to encounter turbine failures this year, drawing heavy scrutiny from the aviation regulator.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1687
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Zynda » 03 Dec 2019 21:18

Boeing 777X’s fuselage split dramatically during September stress test

Image

Boeing got an unexpected jolt in September when engineers in Everett put the new 777X airframe through an extreme test of its structural strength. Just as the test approached its target stress level, an explosive depressurization tore through the fuselage.

Boeing has kept the details secret, but photos obtained by the Seattle Times show that the extent of the damage was greater than previously disclosed and earlier reports were wrong about crucial details.

The test plane is a complete write-off, its fuselage skin ripped wide open just behind the wing. A passenger door that blew out and fell to the factory floor was a secondary impact of the initial rupture, which was located far below the door.

The relatively good news for Boeing is that because the test failed so explosively at just 1% shy of meeting federal requirements, it will almost certainly not have to do a retest. Regulators will likely allow it to prove by analysis that it’s enough to reinforce the fuselage in the localized area where it failed.

Asked for comment, Boeing said in a statement Tuesday that while it has not yet completed a detailed analysis of the incident, “what we’ve seen to date reinforces our prior assessment that this will not have a significant impact on the design or our preparations for first flight.”

Boeing spokesman Paul Bergman said the test result won’t add to the program delays already caused by problems in development of the jet’s GE9X engine. He said the 777X should still fly for the first time in early 2020 and the first will be delivered to an airline in 2021.

[b]Wings bent up, fuselage bent down[b/]
The test conducted that day was the final test of this airplane, which was fixed in a test rig inside the Everett factory specifically to be stressed close to destruction. The jet was surrounded by scaffolding and multiple orange weights hung from the airframe. Wires were hooked to instrumentation that studded the surface to measure every stress and deflection, the data monitored in real time by engineers sitting at control room computers.

As the test neared its climax, weighted pulleys had bent the jet’s giant carbon composite wings upward more than 28 feet from their resting position. That’s far beyond the expected maximum deflection in normal flight of about 9 feet, according to a person familiar with the details. {777X Wing Span is 235 ft...9 ft of max deflection means around 4%...In our indigenous platforms, the max deflection allowed is a lot lower...interesting}

At the same time, the fuselage was bent downward at the extreme front and aft ends with millions of pounds of force. And the interior of the plane was pressurized beyond normal levels to about 10 pounds per square inch — not typically a requirement for this test, but something Boeing chose to do.

All this simulated the loads in a flight maneuver where a pilot would experience a force of 3.75 G, compared to the maximum of 1.3 G in normal flight.

But as Boeing personnel along with six FAA observers watched from the windows of a control room, at 1.48 times limit load — 99% of ultimate load — the structure gave way. Under the center fuselage, just aft of the wing and the well where the landing gear wheels are stowed, the extreme compression load caused the plane’s aluminum skin to buckle and rupture, according to the person familiar with the details.

The resulting depressurization was explosive enough that workers in the next bay heard it clearly. One worker said he heard “a loud boom, and the ground shook.”

That then caused secondary damage: The photos show that the fuselage skin split part of the way up the side of the airplane, along with areas of bent and twisted structure that extended through the area around a passenger door.

A day after the incident, based on incomplete information, The Seattle Times and other media outlets incorrectly reported that a cargo door had blown out.

Unlike the plane’s cargo doors, which hinge outward, the passenger doors on airliners are plug-type doors that only open inward and are larger than the hole they close. But the structure around that passenger door just aft of the 777X wing was so damaged that the pressure blew the door out and it fell to the floor.

These secondary damage sites — the rip up the side of the fuselage, the door blown out — alarming as they might seem, are not a concern to air safety engineers. “The doors were not a precipitating factor,” said the person familiar with the details.

It’s the initiating failure, the weakness in that localized area of the keel, that Boeing must now fix.

Yet the fix is very unlikely to require a retest.

A safety engineer at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), speaking anonymously without permission from the agency, said that because the blowout happened so close to the target load, it barely counts as a failure.

Boeing will have so much data gathered on the way to the 99% stage that it can now compare with its computer models to analyze the failure precisely, the FAA engineer said. It can then reinforce the weak area, and prove by analysis that that’s sufficient to cover the extra 1%.

The engineer said it’s not that unusual to find a vulnerability when taking an airplane structure to the edge of destruction.

“The good news is they found it and can address it,” the FAA engineer said. “They found a problem they can fix. They can beef up the structure based on analysis.”

FAA spokesman Lynn Lunsford said the safety agency is continuing conversations with Boeing about how the 777X can meet requirements after the test failure.

“The FAA requires manufacturers to meet design and certification standards,” Lunsford said. “How they choose to do that is up to them.”


A company with so much of commercial aircraft development experience can still be surprised once a while!

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7226
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 03 Dec 2019 22:54

pgbhat wrote:Pilots revving engines too hard led to IndiGo’s Airbus woes
IndiGo and Go Airlines India Ltd. use the same type of engine made by Pratt & Whitney that’s susceptible to mid-flight shutdowns. Yet IndiGo, one of Airbus SE’s biggest customers, is the only one to encounter turbine failures this year, drawing heavy scrutiny from the aviation regulator.


An Airbus spokesman said the planes are designed to handle full thrust, but it is established best practice for pilots to lower the thrust while climbing to reduce stress on the engine.


If the engines keep failing, it is obviously not designed to handle it then. I'm sorry but this is a Steve Jobs-esque "You are holding it wrong!" explanation. Airbus and PW need to send out a notice to operators that the engine normal operating limits need to be changed.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby JayS » 03 Dec 2019 23:08

^^ Its a deliberate attempt of leaking half-truth to shift blame from PW's design to IndiGo's SOP. It not about reporting, but all about opinion-making.

GTF family engines are failing elsewhere in the world too not just for IndiGO.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7769
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 03 Dec 2019 23:40

Zynda wrote:Boeing 777X’s fuselage split dramatically during September stress test

Image

A company with so much of commercial aircraft development experience can still be surprised once a while!

Actually, the outcome of this test is good for Boeing. You would like the structure to fail at 150% of limit load. It failed at 148%. It's a relatively easy local fix. The reporter just made much ado about nothing.

Zynda wrote:As the test neared its climax, weighted pulleys had bent the jet’s giant carbon composite wings upward more than 28 feet from their resting position. That’s far beyond the expected maximum deflection in normal flight of about 9 feet, according to a person familiar with the details. {777X Wing Span is 235 ft...9 ft of max deflection means around 4%...In our indigenous platforms, the max deflection allowed is a lot lower...interesting}

The deflection is dependent on the aspect ratio and shape of the wing. A fighters low aspect wings will not flex this much. A gliders wing on the other hand will flex more. But the fighter's wing can take much higher loads than the other two. Fighter wings are rated to 1.5 times the limit load, which is typically 9Gs

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1687
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Zynda » 04 Dec 2019 06:08

IR, absolutely...it is a good thing for Boeing. This is what you would like to happen during full scale static test. I doubt such an outcome was of Boeing's intention but in theory, this will lead to a better optimized structure since they can just beef up locally to address the issue.

IR, if you know how much deflection is allowed for an aircraft like Saras, please post it here. I will try to find out the same as well.

Just FYI, even A380 wings failed just shy of UL during static test. I believe, even Airbus did not have to repeat the test and could show compliance via analysis for certification purposes. But for 777, Boeing went up to 154% before the wings snapped.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5689
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Dileep » 04 Dec 2019 10:46

The story is just alarmist. This is a destructive test anyway. The only thing worth noting is that (since the inside is pressurized) the failure was dramatic and it blew a door off. I guess one of the reason is that the body is composite. Metal body might have just kinked and bent.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1687
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Zynda » 04 Dec 2019 19:58

Dileep saar, the 777x fuselage is still aluminum...

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7226
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 07 Dec 2019 03:55

HAL success with the HTT-40 has got me thinking. If they have the bandwidth for a civilian project (admittedly a big IF) they should consider working on a HTT-40 derived 6 passenger turboprop in the same category as the TBM-900, Epic E1000 and Pilatus PC-12 etc. (latter is a bit larger I think).

They can use the same Garrett engine (perhaps not derated to 950 shp from the 1100 shp max rating if needed) and the airframe can be derived from the basic HTT-40 design.

It is very difficult for a new entrant into commercial aviation space even with all certifications. But it should be easier to do in General aviation sector.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5689
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Dileep » 07 Dec 2019 08:39

Zynda wrote:Dileep saar, the 777x fuselage is still aluminum...

I stand corrected. Only the wing is composite. We saw the 777X being built. The lady who took us around did talk about composites, and I kind of assumed that the fuselage is also composite.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20533
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 07 Dec 2019 13:00

nachiket wrote:HAL success with the HTT-40 has got me thinking. If they have the bandwidth for a civilian project (admittedly a big IF) they should consider working on a HTT-40 derived 6 passenger turboprop in the same category as the TBM-900, Epic E1000 and Pilatus PC-12 etc. (latter is a bit larger I think).

They can use the same Garrett engine (perhaps not derated to 950 shp from the 1100 shp max rating if needed) and the airframe can be derived from the basic HTT-40 design.

It is very difficult for a new entrant into commercial aviation space even with all certifications. But it should be easier to do in General aviation sector.


why reinvent the wheel

why not try and use the dornier 228 as a possible design base instead of HTT-40 and use a lot more composites instead of metal to push the design envelope

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7226
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 07 Dec 2019 13:15

Do-228 already exists as a passenger aircraft. Not much design experience to be gained from merely tinkering with it. Also it is much bigger, in a different class possibly better suited for commercial/charter market. HTT 40 based design would be fully indigenous and the experience gained from it could be vital in the future.


Return to “Technology & Economic Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests