Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. 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.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 14 Oct 2018 07:26

We don't have input from direct designers or the design review team except for tidbits from half knowledge reporters.
Kaveri has inlet fan, compressor and core.
So where is problem and more importantly what is the problem?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20526
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 14 Oct 2018 11:16

ramana wrote:We don't have input from direct designers or the design review team except for tidbits from half knowledge reporters.
Kaveri has inlet fan, compressor and core.
So where is problem and more importantly what is the problem?



Nor should such details be available on an open forum.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby JayS » 14 Oct 2018 14:10

chetak wrote:Let's just shoot for the best figures we can get.
..the designers of one should not be influenced by the designers of the other on this parameter.


Now you are doing exactly the same that you were objecting to, previously. Thats as arbitrary a statement as it gets. Who knows whats the best we can achieve, until we deploy Kaveri in service and see real life numbers. And there is no precedence to benchmark with for us. Setting up unrealistic numbers is also detrimental to the project. No one really does that in Aerospace. If you don't have your own historical benchmark, then you use others' data and experience. In short, we cannot get around being not influenced with what others are doing and have been able to achieve. Plus there is a definitive connection to the other programs which is the Physics of the whole thing. Design philosophies can influence the design parameters only so much. Finally Physics dictates the terms.

I think I said all I had to say on this. 1000hr MTBO is quite respectable number for any fighter jet engine. Going by Su-30MKI's utilisation numbers, that would give 8-10yrs between overhauls.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 15 Oct 2018 23:40

Chetak and JayS, Long ago I read in Interavia that once Kaveri manages cumulative performance of 100 hours the designers would accept putting on the Tejas.
This was an article during development circa 1990s.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20526
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 16 Oct 2018 10:40

ramana wrote:Chetak and JayS, Long ago I read in Interavia that once Kaveri manages cumulative performance of 100 hours the designers would accept putting on the Tejas.
This was an article during development circa 1990s.


Which designers, saar??

Kaveri or tejas??

They each may not have the same perspective.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 16 Oct 2018 10:57

Tejas designers wanted engine have cumulative 1000 hours run.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20526
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 16 Oct 2018 11:02

ramana wrote:Tejas designers wanted engine have cumulative 1000 hours run.


There you go!!

That's quite a significant variation in perspectives of the two design teams, no??

Each design team seems to have buttered the toast on different sides.

One would err on the side of abundant caution and go with the views of the jejas team or reach a flight safe and viable engineering compromise after joint analyses and discussion, and also including the flight test team right from the get-go.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 16 Oct 2018 22:38

So how many hours is the engine designers shooting for?

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby JayS » 16 Oct 2018 23:43

Ramana saar, what hours specifically..?

If its testing hours, Kaveri has almost 3000hrs testing hours under its belt. Its been mentioned somewhere that another 1000hr of ground resting and perhaps 100hrs of flight testing is needed before putting it on LCA. Some tender for flight testing was out some time back IIRC.

Re whatever was said in 1990s, I think they had no idea what they were talking about, if they said Kaveri will go on LCA after 1000hrs of testing. I still cant believe the original Kaveri program never included any flight testing. I dont know who were smoking what while drawing the program outline.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20526
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 17 Oct 2018 01:20

ramana wrote:So how many hours is the engine designers shooting for?


Unlike the easier testing of a commercial aero engine, relatively speaking, a military aero engine, especially one designed to operate on a single engined fighter will have to undergo punishing and brutal tests at various combat simulated flight regimes, with rapid to almost instantaneous changes in pressure, temperature, mass flow and fuel flow and angle of attack variations and still keep performing reliably and optimally.

The design of such tests alone will need an experienced and knowledgeable team which may or may not be available in house. This is what will worry the tejas designers more than anything else.

I have a nasty feeling that it may take a lot many more flight hours on the engine before anyone is confident enough to use it

Whatever one may say about russki engines, one has to wonder how in hell they manage to keep those engines running without surge or stall during a brutal manoeuvre (engine wise) like the Su-27 Pugachev's cobra.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQMJ2f6V-SE

Su-27 Pugachev's cobra


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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby JayS » 18 Oct 2018 00:36

chetak wrote:
Whatever one may say about russki engines, one has to wonder how in hell they manage to keep those engines running without surge or stall during a brutal manoeuvre (engine wise) like the Su-27 Pugachev's cobra.




I also wonder about the same. I did try to find out exact technical details about it. But I couldn't find any definitive information. Its rather difficult to find proper scientific publications, one they are all in Russian and other, the journals are not easily searchable/accessible on internet anyhow.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20526
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 18 Oct 2018 01:08

JayS wrote:
chetak wrote:
Whatever one may say about russki engines, one has to wonder how in hell they manage to keep those engines running without surge or stall during a brutal manoeuvre (engine wise) like the Su-27 Pugachev's cobra.




I also wonder about the same. I did try to find out exact technical details about it. But I couldn't find any definitive information. Its rather difficult to find proper scientific publications, one they are all in Russian and other, the journals are not easily searchable/accessible on internet anyhow.


Nothing to wonder about, saar.

Just can't beat these guys for excellent design and superlative mathematics.

This stuff will not be floating around on the net and also these days it is sad to see that their standards of production sometimes do not match their standards of design

BTW, its not just the engines alone, the russkis, by airframe and wing design, also manage to maintain even aerodynamic flow over both wings, so much so, that there is not even the hint of a nose/wing drop, especially during the most intricate of their slower speed maneuvers in the vertical plane which is something that their western counterparts are unable to achieve consistently or many even not at all. This is more a function of the aircraft design rather than the skill of their pilots.

Also, don't know too much about school standards now, but during the soviet era, when I was fortunate to make a number of trips to the soviet motherland, the kids in the USSR were routinely doing higher mathematics in school that the US kids were maybe doing at the college level when they were much older.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7918
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Oct 2018 05:17

chetak wrote:Whatever one may say about russki engines, one has to wonder how in hell they manage to keep those engines running without surge or stall during a brutal manoeuvre (engine wise) like the Su-27 Pugachev's cobra.


Modern engines are quite good and have been for some time. Here's an aircraft kitted with the F404 doing some insane low-speed high alpha stuff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vRh6xnbOZo

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20526
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 18 Oct 2018 13:22

brar_w wrote:
chetak wrote:Whatever one may say about russki engines, one has to wonder how in hell they manage to keep those engines running without surge or stall during a brutal manoeuvre (engine wise) like the Su-27 Pugachev's cobra.


Modern engines are quite good and have been for some time. Here's an aircraft kitted with the F404 doing some insane low-speed high alpha stuff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vRh6xnbOZo


nicely done.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby dinesh_kimar » 06 Nov 2018 11:44

The Kaveri is ambitious. Like a student trying to crack IIT in first attempt.

This is how GE did it:
Their first iteration was F-404 -400, which was in dev from 1973-76, and launched in 1985-6 timeline.
Max thrust was 71 KN or 16000 lb thrust. (Baseline was the J-79 engine, with same thrust goals).
The first 1100 F-18 Hornet A/B versions used this, and was even exported to Australia, Canada and Spain.

Only in 1992, after the Gulf War, the F-404-402 EPE with 79 KN was made available.

We apparently use a version of the Volvo RM-12, with about 80 KN, for Tejas.

Our best efforts with Kaveri indicate figures between 72 KN (Sjha) up to about 75 KN (93% of design thrust).

If I was a decision maker, I would accept and induct this. The calculation is somewhat as follows:

The Mig-21 weighs 5800 kg, with 69 KN from the Kilmov.

I would happily induct a lighter Tejas, with same weapons load as Mig-21, and all advantages of the newer technology, with 72 KN. Reliability MTBO figures are important here, however.

I will gladly use 150-200 nos. of this version, in lieu of the Migs.
This would be the base for LIFT and CAS aircraft, ground attack etc.

With replacements, about 500-600 Kaveri will be produced, more than a decade of production.

Free up the F-404 for MRCA and interceptor roles.
If sanctions are applied, our commanders can still fight back with what they have.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1249
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Gyan » 06 Nov 2018 23:09

AJT variant of LCA powered by Kaveri may be a good stepping stone.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby JayS » 12 Nov 2018 15:43

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/supersoni ... ty-engine/

New supersonic engine by GE for Aerion AS2 Biz Jet. Very interesting architecture. CFM-56 based core with infusion of advanced manufacturing tech. Dual Fan, and exhaust mixer at the back.

Image

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby dinesh_kimar » 17 Nov 2018 23:36

The DRDO Chief S. Christopher had tweeted that Kaveri powered LCA will fly in Aero India 2019, around Feb 2019.

The DRDO should hold to their word. They promised the nation, they need to deliver.

Also, shaktivel of DFI is tweeting that the SNECMA assistance is revival of an old shelved plan - an M-88 core and local modules.

Apparently, AVM Matheshwaran rejected it during the committee review, so was dropped.

SNECMA has promised 88 KN, and some ToT will come for non core modules.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2636
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 18 Nov 2018 00:58

I am all for holding DRDO responsible.. once we stop throwing peanuts at engine development.

If someone thinks some millions is going to result in DRDO bringing out a 80/90KN jet engine, they are being high on Afghan flavored stuff.

Everyone would asking DRDO to built for them.

Before DRDO, people should hold GoI responsible. Holding GTRE responsible just means firing people, who would gladly leave. Then what?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 18 Nov 2018 06:10

AVM cast a long shadow in torpedoing defence development.
Usually when yiu reject something on the table you need to offer better options.
So called Plan B.
What was Plan B for Kaveri if SNECMA was rejected in 2009?

thammu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 71
Joined: 29 Mar 2007 08:16

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby thammu » 01 Dec 2018 10:54

Kaveri on LCA

Sorry, if this has appeared earlier!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XGjKDCaUcc


Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 22 Dec 2018 00:05

engine gurus, please provide your inputs on below for this SDRE :)

https://twitter.com/aloysius34/status/1 ... 9507031040 ---> Mystery shrouds the K-9 GTX-35VS Kaveri turbofan engine, France Snecma involved in solving multiple design flaws will certify the engine & DRDO hopes to power the LCA Tejas MK I in 2019. The K-10 module is up for development with probable Rolls Royce. Multiple plans but no output.

Image

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby JayS » 22 Dec 2018 00:26

Rehashed info. Same old same old.

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 546
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Haridas » 23 Dec 2018 10:22

dinesh_kimar wrote:Apparently, AVM Matheshwaran rejected it during the committee review, so was dropped.

SNECMA has promised 88 KN, and some ToT will come for non core modules.

I recall meeting AVM Matheshwaran at his apartment few month after this review. His objection was SNECMA core means the GTRE development is dumped, hence it will be only Kaveri in name,

Yes AVM had no plan B. His big fat (ugly) ego just wanted HAL & ADA to follow his barking from his high pedestal ( the thorn of mighty Indra).
During that meeting he was against AMCA for he though it is unobtainium for Indians.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby dinesh_kimar » 23 Dec 2018 10:53

^ Saar, will respond, collecting info.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Prasad » 23 Dec 2018 11:31

Haridas wrote:
dinesh_kimar wrote:Apparently, AVM Matheshwaran rejected it during the committee review, so was dropped.

SNECMA has promised 88 KN, and some ToT will come for non core modules.

I recall meeting AVM Matheshwaran at his apartment few month after this review. His objection was SNECMA core means the GTRE development is dumped, hence it will be only Kaveri in name,

Yes AVM had no plan B. His big fat (ugly) ego just wanted HAL & ADA to follow his barking from his high pedestal ( the thorn of mighty Indra).
During that meeting he was against AMCA for he though it is unobtainium for Indians.

Very unfortunately, there are many who have a similar very unfavourable/hostile attitude toward any program to develop next-gen tech. "Oh that is beyond us, it is unproven tech, it is too kaastly to make lets import it, it wont fit timelines"

For the RTA, during the webinar the CSIR head said they have decided to put in an imported (RR i believe) turboprop engine and have no plans for developing an Indian engine despite projecting more than a 200 plane order :roll:

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby JayS » 23 Dec 2018 11:58

Prasad wrote:
For the RTA, during the webinar the CSIR head said they have decided to put in an imported (RR i believe) turboprop engine and have no plans for developing an Indian engine despite projecting more than a 200 plane order :roll:

Unfortunately they forgot to upload this webinar on youtube.
Do you remember what are the thrust requirements for this RTA engine...? I think it should be something like 40-50kN for one engine i.e. something like 8-10k Hp engine. HAL's HTFE could do the trick as its core is designed with max 40kN. But given our lack of experience with engine certification and lack of infra, it would be prudent to use existing engine and procure it through govt contract so desi-karan can be enforced to an extent we want.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Prasad » 23 Dec 2018 12:38

Don't think it was specified during the talk. It was just mentioned as an imported engine and treated like a plug-n-play item that they had no concern about. He repeatedly mentioned lower sfc, lower maintenance and operating costs as prime aims. So if a desi engine does not match imported engine, it will be dumped and cag will come back and say why for you waste thousands of tax rubees on a waste project like this that didnt even get to full scale production hainji.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby dinesh_kimar » 23 Dec 2018 14:00

Apparently, the issue was discussed in BRF, timeline around the LCA-Kaveri decoupling.

1. AVM -the SNECMA core wouldn't be indigenous, foreign exchange will be used up to purchase it, no local tech development will take place.

2. A Few BRF posters agreed with him. (Remember, at this point of time DRDO had shoddy timelines / project management, notorious overruns, etc).

Others opined that all existing aircraft engines in inventory are anyways purchased with foreign exchange, GTRE needs hand holding after they admitted they cannot meet goals, building some local content percentage, ( LP compressor, LP turbine and GTSU-110 starter) with proven engine core will also result in knowledge gain, SNECMA hand holding and certification is welcome.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby dinesh_kimar » 23 Dec 2018 14:21

Before 2014, I had no hope on ISRO cryogenic technology either.

The Russian engines was complicated as hell, with about 800 pipes coming from it in a spidery maze. The physics at minus 80 deg. was insane. They had a 50% success rate, and actual payload was closer to 1800 kg.

After they stopped flight testing in 2010, we had only 2 engines left from Russia, and clear message that no more would be supplied.

Radhakrishna ordered a deep design review in 2010, after the failed launch, and adopted various countermeasures.

He brought back many oldies to ISRO, and put his weight behind its success. (Remember Stanley Hooker and RB-211 ?)

The Local GSLV flew in 2014, successfully.

(This takes guts, with the media dissing you over GSLV failures, experts opining to stay with PSLV, close friends advising to "be smart" and stick with Ariane Space, final year of tenure, don't rock the boat, etc).

When the local GSLV went up in Jan 2014, ISRO had subconsciously crossed an invisible hurdle.

They knew it worked, the physics and the engineering.

Today, we are seeing 3500 kg heavies launched twice a year.

We airily talk about matching Ariane using SB stages.

Just 4 years back, 1800 kg was unobtanium.

With Kaveri, it's the same condition, the physics and the engineering.

Once it's done with 81 KN and 1100 kg weight, we can scale up.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1919
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby PratikDas » 24 Dec 2018 00:44

dinesh_kimar wrote:We airily talk about matching Ariane using SB stages.

Just 4 years back, 1800 kg was unobtanium.

With Kaveri, it's the same condition, the physics and the engineering.

Once it's done with 81 KN and 1100 kg weight, we can scale up.


Excellent post, Dinesh ji!

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3876
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 24 Dec 2018 01:10

^^^ I believe we have the physics and engineering already. We know principles of turbofan engineering. It is alchemy that the final hurdle. The portions and proportions of material science.

The difference between a rocket and an engine is making the latter last.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2636
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 24 Dec 2018 01:25

Not just that. The biggest issue, funds.

How much did we spend in the past 30 years? Has it even reached a billion?

thammu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 71
Joined: 29 Mar 2007 08:16

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby thammu » 24 Dec 2018 10:23

dinesh_kimar wrote:Before 2014, I had no hope on ISRO cryogenic technology either.

Today, we are seeing 3500 kg heavies launched twice a year.

We airily talk about matching Ariane using SB stages.

Just 4 years back, 1800 kg was unobtanium.

With Kaveri, it's the same condition, the physics and the engineering.

Once it's done with 81 KN and 1100 kg weight, we can scale up.



Well said!!

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3632
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Neela » 24 Dec 2018 13:18

Prasad wrote:For the RTA, during the webinar the CSIR head said they have decided to put in an imported (RR i believe) turboprop engine and have no plans for developing an Indian engine despite projecting more than a 200 plane order :roll:


Why would they"? No project manager would think of desi engine at this point. Needless diversion.
And guess what, many fires have to be fought...Sukhoi , Mitsubishi, embraer, bombardier, airbus 220 are all in the same turf .

Also,Indranil mentioned HAL was developing a turboprop.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 25 Dec 2018 08:09

dinesh_kimar wrote:Apparently, the issue was discussed in BRF, timeline around the LCA-Kaveri decoupling.

1. AVM -the SNECMA core wouldn't be indigenous, foreign exchange will be used up to purchase it, no local tech development will take place.

2. A Few BRF posters agreed with him. (Remember, at this point of time DRDO had shoddy timelines / project management, notorious overruns, etc).

Others opined that all existing aircraft engines in inventory are anyways purchased with foreign exchange, GTRE needs hand holding after they admitted they cannot meet goals, building some local content percentage, ( LP compressor, LP turbine and GTSU-110 starter) with proven engine core will also result in knowledge gain, SNECMA hand holding and certification is welcome.

A very old article from 26 December 2008 - almost 10 years ago to the day - but relevant to the discussion above. And I fully agree on the bolded part in your post. Thank you for that!

IAF not keen on French offer for Kaveri engine
https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/t ... 4.ece/amp/

Indian Air Force (IAF) is not keen on accepting an offer from the French company Snecma to join the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) in co-developing the long-delayed Kaveri turbofan combat aircraft engine. The Kaveri engine, which has been under development at the GTRE for two decades at a cost of almost Rs. 2,000 crore, is specifically being built to power the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft — Tejas. A committee set up by the IAF has indicated to Air Headquarters that the Snecma offer will not meet the Air Force’s operational requirements, nor help India acquire the technological know-how to indigenously develop a combat engine. Constituted in September under the chairmanship of Air Vice Marshal M. Matheswaran, to look at the Snecma offer, the committee had as its members representatives from the designers of the Tejas — the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), the manufacturers of the Tejas — the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), the Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification, and IAF officers posted at ADA, the National Flight Test Centre and the Aircraft Systems and Testing Establishment.

Highly placed sources told The Hindu that the committee felt that the Snecma offer was not in the IAF and India’s interest primarily because the French were offering a fully developed engine accepting which would “compromise and even kill the efforts, however meagre” that Indian defence laboratories had made towards developing the indigenous Kaveri engine. The offer would also not help India get a co-designed, co-developed engine but rather an engine under a licence production arrangement, and at a great financial cost. Explained a member of the committee: “It would be better if GTRE and other laboratories working on the Kaveri brought the engine to its logical conclusion even if it took a few more years. At least we would have mastery over the core technology. This will be better than importing the French core, paying a lifelong royalty, but saying the Kaveri is our indigenous effort. Neither the French nor anybody else will give us the know-how on the core technology.”

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 25 Dec 2018 08:11

dinesh_kimar wrote:With Kaveri, it's the same condition, the physics and the engineering.

Once it's done with 81 KN and 1100 kg weight, we can scale up.

Very nice post Sir! You give us all hope!

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Dileep » 26 Dec 2018 10:43

Major difference between engine for Civil and Military: You need to convince the aam-aadmi public who wouldn't buy Tata cars to fly on Indian designed engine.

Even Airframe will have some reluctance factor of being designed in India.. Even in 2018...

I remember being uneasy after realizing that the plane I just boarded is (then unheard of for me) CRJ-100 sometime in 1995.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Austin » 26 Dec 2018 10:49

Dileep Sir , having your engine ETOPS certified and EASA certified for aircraft is one way to reduce those apprehension for Non-EU/US developed system , Infact the only way as of now.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby JayS » 26 Dec 2018 19:51

Austin wrote:Dileep Sir , having your engine ETOPS certified and EASA certified for aircraft is one way to reduce those apprehension for Non-EU/US developed system , Infact the only way as of now.


Well, almost all countries' flightworthiness requirements including EASA are copy-paste of FAA. Ours wont be any different. In fact going by the mindset we have against our own products we will be putting them through more stringent testing than what typical aircraft would be going through.

ETOPS would be good extra milestone to walk to prove quality and reliability. Even though it will not be a necessity for our first engine which will be in all likelihood for a smaller airliner meant for domestic market only.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CalvinH, Google [Bot], shobhits89 and 20 guests