Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

[Pratyush]

If the conversion can be done by a 3rd party. So much the better. Take an old air India 747 and get on with it.

The added advantage will be that it is free from any aligations of corruption.

[Austin]

Shiv , I think HS-748 is typical 50 seater , lacks range/persistence ,even perhaps power requirement for awacs and is slower , I am not sure if HAL builds them any longer. Now sure if it can land on single engine with awacs load and crew if required.

A-330 is a fine aircraft , though for AWACS conversion to have a chapati on top they will have to run through wind tunnel at Airbus facility and gauge its stability perhaps add those extra fins or what ever you call behind the tail as one sees on A-50.

This back and forth and then conversion to AWACS with radar electronics etc will take time effort and money. Check the time EMbraer took and then it will be much higher for A-330. Pilots in Transport/AWACS Squadron will be happy to have a commercial aircraft and to fly them , has higher/better career outside forces if they decide to move on and join civis

[NRao]

....India does have a solid research base, but one that is not incented to productize that research. And, the political pressures are diff. So, I very much doubt India will need to steal and copy. It would be more like look and improve

research base of what in India saar?
Apologies for nitpicking but Indian quality of educational institutions, quality and quantity of patent filings, quality of technical papers suggests that "Indian research base" is puny even compared to the Chinese.

I think you are a maha-tongue-in-cheek guy, Good sense of humor there.

Cannot speak for China, but even in the 80-90 India produced the most research papers in the world.

The problem then, and I guess even now, is that a very, very low percentage were converted to a product.

Recall, within the past two weeks, even Dr. Saraswat mentioned it (but got lost in the buy Indian msg with a mention of Sea Gripen -Mk2).

I would not worry about the size of the research, in the current env China should have more. My concern with the Indian effort is that, even if we'll funded (risk) and no babudom, they will run out of time. One has to produce good products within a window for it to be valid/useful.

In an engine India needs multiple efforts, knowing fully well that 90-95% of them will fail. Chase that 5-10%. That is the gold India will be funding. Need an appetite for such risk. Which does not exist even for smaller risks. "Culture".

[shiv]

Shiv , I think HS-748 is typical 50 seater , lacks range/persistence ,even perhaps power requirement for awacs and is slower , I am not sure if HAL builds them any longer. Now sure if it can land on single engine with awacs load and crew if required.

A-330 is a fine aircraft , though for AWACS conversion to have a chapati on top they will have to run through wind tunnel at Airbus facility and gauge its stability perhaps add those extra fins or what ever you call behind the tail as one sees on A-50.

This back and forth and then conversion to AWACS with radar electronics etc will take time effort and money. Check the time EMbraer took and then it will be much higher for A-330. Pilots in Transport/AWACS Squadron will be happy to have a commercial aircraft and to fly them , has higher/better career outside forces if they decide to move on and join civis

No Austin I was thinking of engine test bed.

Here is an image mislabelled "Andover" but it is the 748 all right. I was wondering if an engine could be mounted asymmetrically near the upper back & side so the jet exhaust does not affect either tailfin or tailplane? Looking at the front view - the tailfin is at 12 o clock, the tailplane at 6 and 9 o clock. Engine gets mounted at 2 o clock or 10 o clock

[shiv]

Would it be possible to make an engine test bed out of an HS 748 by mounting the engine in one of the positions shown in red

[Neela]

^^^
Woudnt you need some basis CFD studies, CG and FEM studies to assess if this is safe to do?

This is unlike a standard engine mount point.
Imagine you are the program manager and ask for funds for this test bed. You mount it and then come up with safety problems for one of the issues above.
Would you take that risk?

[shiv]

^^^
Woudnt you need some basis CFD studies, CG and FEM studies to assess if this is safe to do?

Obviously.

We did after all mount an idli on the Avro AWACS and it flew. Such testing can be done, and we can make structural mods as we did for Avro and for Su-30 and earlier the Gnat

[Indranil]

The one on the top is not ideal as the exhaust will interact with the empennage. But the engine(s) mounted at the back is possible.

But then why am Avro, it can fly high or fast enough. Take any old jet and convert it.

[Cybaru]

So whatever happened to the offsets for C17 that were planned for the high altitude facility. Other than initial reports dating back to 2011, I can't find any movement on it.

http://www.stratpost.com/tag/high-altit ... t-facility

[JayS]

Shiv, if one aims to modify aircraft without OEM's help, then its imperative that the engine mounting should not change the flying characteristics of the Aircraft by any significant margin. Else FCS would have to be modified. And then certification of the flight test aircraft would become a big headache.

Wiki tells me that HS-748 has 2x13.5kN thrust engines (calculated at max speed of 450kmph). Now if you put an engine with any comparable power, let alone bigger one (Kaveri has 81kN which is ~3times the existing power plants on HS-748). Imagine the kind of change it would being about to the HS-748 if you put Kaveri on it. If its off-centre, the rudder will have to compensate that huge yaw moment that thrust vector of Kaveri would produce, which is impossible considering it must be sized to handle one engine off case for only 13.5kN (even when difference in moment arm is considered, its still too big a imbalance to handle).

Another point is the kind of local stresses that the mounting of 80kN class engine will put of the fuselage, it will need significantly high strengthening of air frame. Even the wing spar may not be able to take thrust load which is 6x that of its usual engine.

And of coarse its flight envelope is grossly inadequate for a military engine. And effect of relatively bigger engine on the aerodynamics of the Aircraft is another factor.

HS-748 may not be able to flight test even HTFE-25.

I think if government can fund the project, we can do the modifications on our own. It will take more time/efforts, but its not impossible.

My guestimate is - an old B747 might cost $75Mil and another $75-100 Mil for conversion = $150-175Mil = 1200 Cr.

Someone asked above is 1500Cr too much? Please consider this relative to the funding for whole Kaveri project which was about 2500Cr. Now GOI gave another 2500Cr for finishing 80kN engine and new 110kN class engine. So that 1500Cr is quite significant.

[shiv]

The one on the top is not ideal as the exhaust will interact with the empennage. But the engine(s) mounted at the back is possible.

But then why am Avro, it can fly high or fast enough. Take any old jet and convert it.

I suspect that we (India/HAL) have all the means to modify, test and validate the HS 748 but not any old jet which would still require spares from an OEM. The latter could put a spanner in the works.

[shiv]

Wiki tells me that HS-748 has 2x13.5kN thrust engines (calculated at max speed of 450kmph). Now if you put an engine with any comparable power, let alone bigger one (Kaveri has 81kN which is ~3times the existing power plants on HS-748). Imagine the kind of change it would being about to the HS-748 if you put Kaveri on it. If its off-centre, the rudder will have to compensate that huge yaw moment that thrust vector of Kaveri would produce, which is impossible considering it must be sized to handle one engine off case for only 13.5kN (even when difference in moment arm is considered, its still too big a imbalance to handle).

Asymmetry would be an issue - but Kaveri wet thrust is 81 kN. - the mounted engine would be dry thrust alone. But I suspect asymmetry can be mitigated as one might do for a single engine flight. In any case the Avro has no FCS needing modification - all manual/hydraulic push-pull/cables

The asymmetry and empennage issue did not matter for the Fairchild Packet when the Orpheus was mounted dorsally because of its twin tailboom and centrally mounted engine.

That is not possible with the Avro unless we redesign the damn thing and put two tailfins on the ends of the tailplanes and mount the engine centered dorsally.

I think at least some of these mods must be attempted at least as wind tunnel models.

[JayS]

The one on the top is not ideal as the exhaust will interact with the empennage. But the engine(s) mounted at the back is possible.

But then why am Avro, it can fly high or fast enough. Take any old jet and convert it.

I suspect that we (India/HAL) have all the means to modify, test and validate the HS 748 but not any old jet which would still require spares from an OEM. The latter could put a spanner in the works.

It would be fairly easy to get spares for any main stream airliner such as B747 or A340.

I suspect, US law for dual use technology could be a problem though. Since the test bed would be used for Mil Jet development. But I am too well versed about the law. But we can always syphon off spares from Air India fleet, if need be.

There are ways to tackle any challenge if there's a will to do it. If we decide to do it there is no real ceiling for us in creating our own flight test bed.

[shiv]

It would be fairly easy to get spares for any main stream airliner such as B747 or A340.

No. In fact I see a huge problem there.

If the modified aircraft (say a Boeing) has an accident - Airbus will claim that the Boeing is unsafe (ignoring the fact that HAL was playing with a new engine. That would be bad for sales and reputation. No self respecting OEM would allow it "legally/above-board". Claims that HAL did not take permission would be hollow if the OEM has allowed it. If the OEM allows - they will have to vet it, and they will charge a bomb.

[shiv]

I wonder if something like this -( the extra tailfins I mean) can at least be tested in a wind tunnel. How difficult would that be as a science project in a college?

[Cybaru]

we convert one of our own Il-76 into a test bed like the ruskies have. We need to order an extra 4-5 C17 anyways from their boneyard stock. So might as well do that now and reuse one of our own for test bed.

[shiv]

we convert one of our own Il-76 into a test bed like the ruskies have.

All IL 76s go back to mother Russia/Ukraine for upgrades. they will refuse spares or charge a bomb

[JayS]

It would be fairly easy to get spares for any main stream airliner such as B747 or A340.

No. In fact I see a huge problem there.

If the modified aircraft (say a Boeing) has an accident - Airbus will claim that the Boeing is unsafe (ignoring the fact that HAL was playing with a new engine. That would be bad for sales and reputation. No self respecting OEM would allow it "legally/above-board". Claims that HAL did not take permission would be hollow if the OEM has allowed it. If the OEM allows - they will have to vet it, and they will charge a bomb.

That's a valid point. I already tempered my argument with a disclaimer that I do not know if the contract will allow use of second hand jet for such purpose or not. This goes back to the original point that GTRE folks were raising, they cant have one because Ruskies not willing to sell one. They not allowing even MiG29 to be used as flight test bed.

[Cybaru]

we convert one of our own Il-76 into a test bed like the ruskies have.

All IL 76s go back to mother Russia/Ukraine for upgrades. they will refuse spares or charge a bomb

I don't think so, if they want to continue to sell to us. They can't screw us indiscriminately. There is a lot of future business at stake if they are this short sighted.

[shiv]

This image makes me sad. On BR the image of this aircraft from Aero India 1998 was taken by me in the days when we had film cameras and I was very nearly the only BRFite at the show with a camera

[shiv]

I don't think so, if they want to continue to sell to us. They can't screw us indiscriminately. There is a lot of future business at stake if they are this short sighted.

I think you have missed reading the number of occasions on which they have screwed us by not allowing what we wanted.

[Cybaru]

They not allowing even MiG29 to be used as flight test bed.

I think one possible worry there might be, if these engines work out good, we could re-engine the whole Mig29 fleet with it. Now that would make mig-29 a completely new aircraft and we could do it for the worldwide fleet.

[Cybaru]

I don't think so, if they want to continue to sell to us. They can't screw us indiscriminately. There is a lot of future business at stake if they are this short sighted.

I think you have missed reading the number of occasions on which they have screwed us by not allowing what we wanted.

I didn't say they can't screw us, it has happened before and will happen in future whether we do this or not. Small price to pay for future independence. We would like to copy like chinese, but we get stuck in the response from manufacturer/country etc. Here this is a valid use case, we push for it and make it happen.

We get Boeing to do the high altitude offsets as promised for C17 contract and we re purpose one of the il-76 as a test bed.

[shiv]

we re purpose one of the il-76 as a test bed.

To me this sounds like an "RFI" or "EOI" where we get a quotation for something that will eventually go through a hundred channels and end up costing several hundred crores.

A wind tunnel model can be tested for feasibility in the low lakhs.

[habal]

If you must pi$$ off a manufacturer or design bureau, by testing using their platforms as a test bed for high altitude testing, then the MiG design bureau is the safest bet. They have screwed us many times over wrt MiG-29, now let's repay in kind.

[Cybaru]

we re purpose one of the il-76 as a test bed.

To me this sounds like an "RFI" or "EOI" where we get a quotation for something that will eventually go through a hundred channels and end up costing several hundred crores.

A wind tunnel model can be tested for feasibility in the low lakhs.

Thats why I said our own, from the IAF stock and replace it with an C17 from boneyard stock. The latter will happen when it will. Given that the C17 are here, there is lot less pressure on the il76 and we could quite easily do a transfer from armed forces to GTRE lab. Its probably a much shorter route than RFI and EOI or XXX.

[shiv]

To me this sounds like an "RFI" or "EOI" where we get a quotation for something that will eventually go through a hundred channels and end up costing several hundred crores.

A wind tunnel model can be tested for feasibility in the low lakhs.

Thats why I said our own, from the IAF stock and replace it with an C17 from boneyard stock. The latter will happen when it will. Given that the C17 are here, there is lot less pressure on the il76 and we could quite easily do a transfer from armed forces to GTRE lab. Its probably a much shorter route than RFI and EOI or XXX.

No. We cannot do that for IL 76 or C-17. "Owning" is in name only. We do not own the IP. We simply do not have the parts or spares - which are all imported. We will have to set up factories for all that - just for 1 aircraft. Only a few a/c that we make can qualify for the deep modifications needed.

[Cybaru]

Is your opinion that the manufacturer will embargo us and won't let us use parts for the il-76-GTRE?

[JayS]

we re purpose one of the il-76 as a test bed.

To me this sounds like an "RFI" or "EOI" where we get a quotation for something that will eventually go through a hundred channels and end up costing several hundred crores.

A wind tunnel model can be tested for feasibility in the low lakhs.

Crores for anything of professional quality.

[habal]

how about using the Jaguar or this

Su-25 for sale in USA

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... -are-18576

[Cybaru]

how about using the Jaguar or this

Su-25 for sale in USA

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... -are-18576

IMO, a centerline engine pod carried where the bhramos on the MKI probably be a whole lot easier than resurrecting these old dead birds. Easiest and cheapest with little or no modification. It will need a fuel line to the engine, but if it can be podded and slung there, best solution. We even make the MKI. Add an extra order or two for GTRE. I think this is better than the mig-29 solution! We can re purpose the next two coming off the line straight for this. No waiting nothing. They just start modding it as soon as its ready. NO RFI, EOI, XXX.

[ragupta]

Getting the aircraft is not an issue, I suppose (not taking into consideration of any contractual obligations preventing use of the aircraft for test bed purpose, I am not sure how that works for Civilian jet, in case we want to use old Air India jet for this purpose for example). My guess is the process of converting existing Aircraft to Flight test bed needs extensive OEM support. Without the OEM's willingness, it would be very challenging. Of coarse if you are hell bent on creating one, you can of do it anyhow. Afterall Boeing or Illusion as well would have struggled for the first time. But we are not ready to take the harder path. We believe in begging for readymade technology through ToT.

India may have lot of old 747, it has MRO for boeing.
In order to avoid govt entity, in not being able to share or so.

Govt must help set up some shell companies with private ownership, and players who can hire, fire and acquire assets, and test for armed forces and DRDO that govt entity cannot do it.

I would say govt should set up such entity which will start acquiring old assets and start creating jugaads. These shell company can be folded and created at will and assets transferred avoiding IP issues with govt or other established private players. Something shady but this is one way out of all this denials by this one and that one. I am sure all established players do it, no one is saint.

[ragupta]

any plane can become defective and get be written off and given to science projects to some interested groups. who will be assisted by all that care about the projects. plane of all kinds can become defective and be written off - IL-76, Mig29, 747, 737 or airbus name it ...

[JayS]

how about using the Jaguar or this

Su-25 for sale in USA

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... -are-18576

IMO, a centerline engine pod carried where the bhramos on the MKI probably be a whole lot easier than resurrecting these old dead birds. Easiest and cheapest with little or no modification. It will need a fuel line to the engine, but if it can be podded and slung there, best solution. We even make the MKI. Add an extra order or two for GTRE. I think this is better than the mig-29 solution! We can re purpose the next two coming off the line straight for this. No waiting nothing. They just start modding it as soon as its ready. NO RFI, EOI, XXX.

Saar, please have some mercy on Su-30's. It could barely take 50cm dia Brahmos. You want it to take double the diameter under its belly...??

[ragupta]

How about on top like the 747 carrying shuttle and 225 carrying boron?

[Austin]

I dont think it is just a question of offloading one IL-76 to GTRE mating the kaveri and testing the engine , if things were as simple as that they would have done that long time back.

We would need the wind tunnel model data of Kaveri engine across different thrust and altitude when mated with IL-76 ( or a HS-748 or AN-32 ) , how to collect those data in real time and monitoring thousand of parameter while engine is in flight , Need to prepare for some possible Plan B like what happens if the engines explodes in flight for any reason how would that impact structural integrity of aircraft and wings and its near by engine and how to get the whole thing down in a controlled manner without gravity pulling you down forcefully. Only OEM have all those data and they can do that safely and also the experience of doing that thousand of time for various engines comes in handy without risking the crew or aircraft.

[ragupta]

I dont think it is just a question of offloading one IL-76 to GTRE mating the kaveri and testing the engine , if things were as simple as that they would have done that long time back.

We would need the wind tunnel model data of Kaveri engine across different thrust and altitude when mated with IL-76 ( or a HS-748 or AN-32 ) , how to collect those data in real time and monitoring thousand of parameter while engine is in flight , Need to prepare for some possible Plan B like what happens if the engines explodes in flight for any reason how would that impact structural integrity of aircraft and wings and its near by engine and how to get the whole thing down in a controlled manner without gravity pulling you down forcefully. Only OEM have all those data and they can do that safely and also the experience of doing that thousand of time for various engines comes in handy without risking the crew or aircraft.

The problem is OEM wont share or cooperate for fear of creating a competitor. Does that mean others should just sit idle and do nothing to make progress. From past experience, like every other projects in India, once you start seeing progress they will start selling and cooperating.

The reason China is getting better deal is because they are not shy of acquiring what they want by all means. Russians know this, so they are ready to sell China stuff that they won't sell to India, because they know India will play by the rule.

There is a need to acquire and progress without getting into all these IP and developing everything from sratch thing. Need to create NGOs kind of groups with interest and hobby and give them logistics to achieve things without bureaucracy or paperwork nonsense.

[Prem]

Won't French help us in this acquiring of test bed since they are helping to fix the engine?.

[ragupta]

I think French will probably test Kaveri in Rafale only, if we want that prototype, India will have to pay for it, maybe useful to test just one type of engine. It would be a waste to acquire system just for single type.
it would be better to go for 4 engine plane like 747 / IL-76 because if you want to test different size engine, then rafale type option will present lot of bottleneck. I am guessing it would be easier to do testing for variety of engine when it is slung on the wing then the fuselage.

[Austin]

I dont think it is just a question of offloading one IL-76 to GTRE mating the kaveri and testing the engine , if things were as simple as that they would have done that long time back.

We would need the wind tunnel model data of Kaveri engine across different thrust and altitude when mated with IL-76 ( or a HS-748 or AN-32 ) , how to collect those data in real time and monitoring thousand of parameter while engine is in flight , Need to prepare for some possible Plan B like what happens if the engines explodes in flight for any reason how would that impact structural integrity of aircraft and wings and its near by engine and how to get the whole thing down in a controlled manner without gravity pulling you down forcefully. Only OEM have all those data and they can do that safely and also the experience of doing that thousand of time for various engines comes in handy without risking the crew or aircraft.

The problem is OEM wont share or cooperate for fear of creating a competitor. Does that mean others should just sit idle and do nothing to make progress. From past experience, like every other projects in India, once you start seeing progress they will start selling and cooperating.

The reason China is getting better deal is because they are not shy of acquiring what they want by all means. Russians know this, so they are ready to sell China stuff that they won't sell to India, because they know India will play by the rule.

There is a need to acquire and progress without getting into all these IP and developing everything from sratch thing. Need to create NGOs kind of groups with interest and hobby and give them logistics to achieve things without bureaucracy or paperwork nonsense.

There is nothing top secret about such test vehicle , we can buy it from Airbus or Russia or US.

How many engine program do we have to justify cost of buying such dedicated aircraft , if we just have Kaveri then is it cheaper to take to take it to France or Russia on as and when needed basis.

Do we have experience of such test program or do we still have to depend on OEM to test and fine tune fix the engine .

The fact that we don't have the infra and the experience to fix Kaveri engine is the reason we are going to Russia and snecma to fix Kaveri issue