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.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3494
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 27 Oct 2017 12:29

chola wrote:The GOI can never fund that many engine companies, I know. But I don’t want it to. I want the private sector to fight for government contracts so that HAL can get some competition and create that churning eco-system that can wring out efficiencies and drive innovation. A government monopoly like HAL can help but be slow and static.


Government does not need to fund them all, nor fund everything. What government should do is to fund the bas level enabling technologies (things which need huge upfront investments and have long gestation time or which are generic in nature) and make them freely available to private players who can then use them and develop solutions at much lower investment. Let me give one example. Our labs ADA, NAL, ISRO has a good number of good design and analysis softwares. Why not make them available freely to all Indians...? Today if a company wants to develop a half-decent turbojet, it will have to invest Crores of rupees per year just in buying licenses for SW from companies like Ansys, MSc etc. But if decent SWs are available for almost no money, then even a small startup can think of working on some great solutions. This is only one example how GOI can subsidize cost of technology development for private companies. There can be many such things. This is not limited to only aero-def companies. Companies working in virtually every sector will be benefited out of such sharing. Billions of dollars worth of cost to private companies can be eliminated and at the same time some SMEs can be provided with far superior tools in their hands which they could not have afforded otherwise. Imagine the hike in productivity of SMEs if they can easily run hi fidelity simulations for even small components. I have worked in a tech startup and I know how lack of quality tools can hamper one's ability to do quality work.

But of coarse, it aint gonna happen in existing system.

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 947
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby KrishnaK » 27 Oct 2017 21:24

JayS wrote:
chola wrote:The GOI can never fund that many engine companies, I know. But I don’t want it to. I want the private sector to fight for government contracts so that HAL can get some competition and create that churning eco-system that can wring out efficiencies and drive innovation. A government monopoly like HAL can help but be slow and static.


Government does not need to fund them all, nor fund everything. What government should do is to fund the bas level enabling technologies (things which need huge upfront investments and have long gestation time or which are generic in nature) and make them freely available to private players who can then use them and develop solutions at much lower investment. Let me give one example. Our labs ADA, NAL, ISRO has a good number of good design and analysis softwares. Why not make them available freely to all Indians...? Today if a company wants to develop a half-decent turbojet, it will have to invest Crores of rupees per year just in buying licenses for SW from companies like Ansys, MSc etc. But if decent SWs are available for almost no money, then even a small startup can think of working on some great solutions. This is only one example how GOI can subsidize cost of technology development for private companies. There can be many such things. This is not limited to only aero-def companies. Companies working in virtually every sector will be benefited out of such sharing. Billions of dollars worth of cost to private companies can be eliminated and at the same time some SMEs can be provided with far superior tools in their hands which they could not have afforded otherwise. Imagine the hike in productivity of SMEs if they can easily run hi fidelity simulations for even small components. I have worked in a tech startup and I know how lack of quality tools can hamper one's ability to do quality work.

But of coarse, it aint gonna happen in existing system.

Excellent post. The entire ecosystem of free software, elastic compute & other infra capacity is the reason for so many startups experimenting and taking off. If Indian private companies cannot create an ecosystem yet, the GoI must step in and create an ecosystem of enabling technology. Super important to lower barriers.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50400
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 27 Oct 2017 22:43

Zynda wrote:This was mentioned some where...at least the current GoI is looking to build strategic influences through various high-ticket defence acquisitions. Since the financial resources are limited, I guess at the moment indigenous R&D is not a very high priority. Of course, on things like avionics, electronics, munitions development continues to happen. I guess we trying to follow Israeli model i.e. establish good competence on avionics, munitions etc., which does not require huge capex investments like a jet turbine or even a good UAV system/platform. Perhaps hope is that through strategic alliances, we won't get shafted (spare parts, OEM support etc.) in time of need?



This quest is known by the suppliers and their governments.
its not happening.
instead blue sky futuristic projects are being offered which may or may-not see fruition.
These foreign entities know the Indian penchant to work at leading edge technology and forget the present.

Second the strategic alliances are like the rope around the chimpanzee's neck in the Planet of the Apes. Its to control us. Not to give technology to become free.


This is the problem

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50400
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 27 Oct 2017 22:51

X-posting...
vina wrote:Folks, let get back on track and away from some random stuff about "security" and "leaks" or whatever. None of that happens here , though I am sure the BRF is followed very closely by Military Intelligence, spooks of all kinds of all stripes for "analysis" /"spin"/ whatever you want to call it. In fact, the Indo US Nuke agreement text was link-posted FIRST here , and the TV and other types picked it up from here without acknowledging it.. (I still remember Boorkha Didi, "breaking" it without batting an eyelid, as if they sniffed it out.. but I digress) ..

So getting back to topic.

Kartik wrote:The Mirage-2000 overcame many of the core deficiencies of the Mirage III design - lousy cockpit ergonomics, high landing speeds, lack of augmented controls, lack of slats, flaps and most importantly, extremely under-powered, thirsty engines. No wonder the Mirage-2000 was considered to be a superb machine (and the most beautiful by far);


While I agree with everything ELSE you wrote here, I have to disagree with the engine part. The "weakness" of the Mirage 2000 , all versions is the engine and the deficiency in installed thrust. The thrust in the Snecma M-53P2 is 95KN thrust , compare that with the baseline thrust of the original F16 A/B and the latest blocks which top at at what 140KN ?

The M53 is a classic example of incremental design and refinements of an existing engine which reached it's design limit /pinnacle in the early 80s. It's origin is the BMW 004 engine that the French got their hands on from captured originals, along with the scientists and engineers who developed it
(they were moved to France.. just like Dietrich Küchemann and his assistant Johanna Weber , moved to England and worked in Royal Aircraft Establishment), which was developed in to the Atar, the Atar was further modified/developed into the M53.

Just like the original BMW 003, the Atar is a single spool design , as is the M53. The bypass in the Atar was increased to realise the M53. At each stage of that, what enabled/drove the "improvement" as underlying material development. BMW 003 --> Atar , better materials, with higher TeT. Atar-->M53 , better materials with higher TeT.

Even with the M53, the original engines came with 85KN thrust. The materials developed for the Rafale M88 was back ported to M53 , to get the the M53 P2 with a 1 Ton thrust increase, ie to 95KN thrust.

With the M53 single spool architecture, they have reached the technological limits of the single spool architecture with the existing materials. They didn't bother developing a twin spool for that, because, France was moving to the Rafale (M88 is a twin spool design).


If there is a moral in this, when the Kaveri "basic" versions, with existing materials and all is flight tested and bugs ironed out, there is a huge amount of growth possible, with sustained investment (financial, engineering and R&D) over the next 25 to 30 years. Look at the direct descendent of the BMW 003. From wiki, it shows Atar, Japanese Ne-20, Heinkel HS-20, Metropoliten Vickers F2.. etc, basically half a dozen engines which are a direct lift from it. In any case, none of the nations who inherited that BMW 003 (by whatever means), developed that further, invested money and engineering in further versions, built new designs and developed their industries over time. All nations did it, except of course , India, where we seem to be content with "successive" imports and short changing sustained engineering and R&D and other investments.


That apart, coming to Tejas, it has a higher t:w than the M2K, has an engine with a better specific fuel consumption, and my guess , not sure, probably a higher degree of static instability. All that would theoretically mean better field performance, than the M2K. Range wise, my guess is that it is not very different from the M2K. It has a similar fuel fraction with an engine with better SFC.. On paper similar range ! And of course a radar that is a Generation ahead !

(will this rant/speculation also be reported to the "powers " that be ?) :rotfl: :lol:




Something to ruminate on.....

once the Kaveri core is improved based on offset program for Rafale.

Vina, Thanks for the Links to Kuchemann and Weber.

I guess their book was used as text in the madrassa?

One insight I got was the B2 wing owes its shape to their work on the Vulcan.

And Wiki on BMW 003 engine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_003
The competing Jumo 004 was basis of US engines!!!!

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5705
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Rakesh » 02 Nov 2017 05:19

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/925657472634798081 --> Work with SNECMA for the refurbished core is continuing. GTRE still hopes to fly it in an LCA by Aero India '19.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby shiv » 02 Nov 2017 07:17

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/925657472634798081 --> Work with SNECMA for the refurbished core is continuing. GTRE still hopes to fly it in an LCA by Aero India '19.

I hope this news is not like "Tejas may also land on Agra expressway"

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5217
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Nov 2017 21:38

shiv wrote:
Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/925657472634798081 --> Work with SNECMA for the refurbished core is continuing. GTRE still hopes to fly it in an LCA by Aero India '19.

I hope this news is not like "Tejas may also land on Agra expressway"
Another key concern is, is this another science project or a user-governed and controlled project?

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby vina » 02 Nov 2017 22:25

ramana wrote:The competing Jumo 004 was basis of US engines!!!!


Oh. The Americans got not just the Jumo 004 , but also some absolutely brilliant talent. They also got Max Bentele to the US. He was the man who fixed the vibration and acoustics problems in the Jumo 004 (where the stators were suspended from the casing, he fixed that by changing to the "Christmas Tree', mounted on shaft mode we see today), and also in the blades (where he discovered that the engine rpm matched the one of the higher order harmonic frequencies the blades and set off resonance)..

While Von Braun's team and the Physicsts from all over Europe gave the US a big lead in Rocketry and Atomic stuff, and is well known, what people dont realise is the wealth the US gained from German Engineers & Scientists post war in other fields and also from the Tizard Mission handed to the US in fields ranging from medicine to some of the greatest scientific advances in that time (radar, cavity magnetron, Whittle's jet engine, the plans for feasibility of an atomic bomb, Sonar , the Brits developed it as ASDIC, Penicillin) to mundane stuff like radio fuses for bombs, gunsights , RDX and other plastic explosives).

I had talked about Max Bentele and the Jumo 004 (as James Von Pond Jeero Jeero Phour) when the YakHerder talked about contra rotating spool with at the stators rotating fixed to the casing and rotating (like a Horizontal loading washing machine drum) and reminded him about the vibrations and stuff.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15519
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Karan M » 02 Nov 2017 23:21

ShauryaT wrote:
shiv wrote:I hope this news is not like "Tejas may also land on Agra expressway"
Another key concern is, is this another science project or a user-governed and controlled project?


Please do inform us what will the user govern and control for a jet engine program? How many jet engine experts in R&D does the user have to depute to GTRE? Such pronouncements on "science project" etc are what detract from the seriousness of the task at hand, which requires huge funding and sustained political support. No amount of user governance or control can provide fundamental breakthroughs in engines or material science.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50400
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 02 Nov 2017 23:29

KaranM, When DRDO stops using words like 'hope, may and other' weasel words they will be taken seriously.

Worst is futuristic. Means its worse than all those words. Its not even on paper and no plan for ever being completed in this yuga.

All such words are escape clauses.

Its like a sold rock of Jello.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby shiv » 03 Nov 2017 08:33

AM Rajkumar commented 2-3 years ago about Kaveri, "Why don't they just put it in a Tejas and fly it?"

It can be done. It will fly. The actual hurdles are elsewhere

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21910
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Austin » 03 Nov 2017 12:10

As a lay man perspective what I understand is any new engine that needs to be fit into an aircraft needs to be flight qualified/certified first that would mean running thousand of hours on IL-76 like frame at different speed/altitude and without any issues [ if there is any they need to fix that for good] perhaps even inflight re-ignition test and Kaveri has not reached that stage yet [ from what I read it is short on thrust and had flame out issue on IL-76 hack and they never managed to get out of that my info could be dated though ] post that Engine will be put into the airframe and with number of ground tests & runs and duly cerified by bodies that be would make its first flight.

Without going through the first part the certifying body in India [CEMILI or DGCA what ever they call themself ] wont let Tejas fly with Kaveri engine .....I dont think ADA/DRDO or who ever can just put the Kaveri in Tejas and say lets fly and see , its a risk to aircraft and pilot and they wont be allowed to do that.

Then again Kaveri/Tejas needs to prove its worth running another 1000 plus hours and many test points for all flight condition/speed/AOA/militarypower/blah blah without any issue [ if they find any they will have to fix that for good ] then both engine and aircraft will be cerified for IAF service.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3494
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 03 Nov 2017 12:29

Austin wrote:As a lay man perspective what I understand is any new engine that needs to be fit into an aircraft needs to be flight qualified/certified first that would mean running thousand of hours on IL-76 like frame at different speed/altitude and without any issues [ if there is any they need to fix that for good] perhaps even inflight re-ignition test and Kaveri has not reached that stage yet [ from what I read it is short on thrust and had flame out issue on IL-76 hack and they never managed to get out of that my info could be dated though ] post that Engine will be put into the airframe and with number of ground tests & runs and duly cerified by bodies that be would make its first flight.

Without going through the first part the certifying body in India [CEMILI or DGCA what ever they call themself ] wont let Tejas fly with Kaveri engine .....I dont think ADA/DRDO or who ever can just put the Kaveri in Tejas and say lets fly and see , its a risk to aircraft and pilot and they wont be allowed to do that.

Then again Kaveri/Tejas needs to prove its worth running another 1000 plus hours and many test points for all flight condition/speed/AOA/militarypower/blah blah without any issue [ if they find any they will have to fix that for good ] then both engine and aircraft will be cerified for IAF service.


Aim now is/should be to make Kaveri work flawlessly and reliably. Performance does not matter. LCA is decoupled from Kaveri already. Once its debugged GTRE can work on performance. As such dry thrust is OK. Its the wet thrust which is AB issue and is kind of decoupled from the engine, in a sense that it can be worked on independent of the main engine. I don't consider AB issue a big deal at this time. The should really focus on making the core turbofan work. Lets say its not flight worthy to put it in LCA. Obviously its not. Even GE/PW/RR would not put an engine in SE fighter without running it on multi-engine flying test bed. Question is why no testing on IL76 or on MiG-29 in last so many years..? With no testing there is no point even making any changes because we would never know if the changes work or not. As they say, if you try, you "might" fail, if you don't, you will fail "definitely".

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2685
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chola » 03 Nov 2017 15:36

You cannot mount an engine that has a tendency to throw turbine blades on any test platform. Our material science for the core is simply not at level. It is not the design. I think the latest turbofan concepts are known to GTRE but building those parts conceptionalized is the real difficulty. What SNECMA is doing in “incorporating” the M88 core is making use of French parts. You can’t really use another core and just shove it into Kaveri’s fan and outer tube.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3494
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 03 Nov 2017 16:21

chola wrote:You cannot mount an engine that has a tendency to throw turbine blades on any test platform. Our material science for the core is simply not at level. It is not the design. I think the latest turbofan concepts are known to GTRE but building those parts conceptionalized is the real difficulty. What SNECMA is doing in “incorporating” the M88 core is making use of French parts. You can’t really use another core and just shove it into Kaveri’s fan and outer tube.


Your info seems outdated. In past 3-4yrs I have not seen any report referring to "tendency to throw turbine blades" for Kaveri. A source would be great help, if you can (I see an ancient news item from 2002 mentioning this. A lot has happened since then including flight tests on IL-76, you think Ruskies would have put their IL76 in jeopardy by putting "turbine blade throwing engine" on it..?). Issues are with LPC and AB, AFAIK and multiple sources including conversation with GTRE folks at AI corroborate that.

Kaveri basic gas generator works OK which is evident with by the fact that intended dry thrust is achieved in ground and flight tests and that the core is chosen to power Ghatak. Kavari has quite low TET by today's standard. Material science is not the bottle-neck as such. Kavari doesn't even need any cutting-edge material (by today's standard) or stuff like SCB to get to the designed specs. DS blades are sufficient and is what used in Kaveri. And all the materials needed for Kaveri class engine are easily available it seems. GTRE keeps publishing tenders with all the material specs mentioned in it. Majority of them are standard engine materials now.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby shiv » 03 Nov 2017 17:23

Actually I have not seen any reports of Kaveri throwing a turbine blade. I have heard of lack of full power (old news) . High noise (more recent) etc

All this business of SCB/Blisk and composite rotors are all not absolutely essential for a good, efficient running engine. There was also some news about one engine having been run continuously for 1000 plus hours and was still running at the time of that report.

Kaveri is a working engine and we know it has been working for at least 5 years we know from a series of people hearing at aero India and from others. They were going to fit it on the UCAV and there is still a plan to put it on a Tejas. But like a "dead" cockroach that suddenly waves its legs a day after I spray it and leave it lying we get these news snippets and hear nothing further. Same thing happened with Saras. The Saras cockroach waved its legs about 6 months ago

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3494
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 03 Nov 2017 17:30

shiv wrote:Actually I have not seen any reports of Kaveri throwing a turbine blade. I have heard of lack of full power (old news) . High noise (more recent) etc

All this business of SCB/Blisk and composite rotors are all not absolutely essential for a good, efficient running engine.

Kaveri is a working engine and we know it has been working for at least 5 years we know from a series of people hearing at aero India and from others. They were going to fit it on the UCAV and there is still a plan to put it on a Tejas. But like a "dead" cockroach that suddenly waves its legs a day after I spray it and leave it lying we get these news snippets and hear nothing further. Same thing happened with Saras. The Saras cockroach waved its legs about 6 months ago


Exactly. What we need to concentrate on it making it work reliably. Performance is secondary. Let alone flightworthy engine, In a marine or land based powerplant version Kaveri will neither need T/W ratio nor the A/B. Only the basic turbofan. Damn it doesn't even need to be flight qualified. But we are not working on that as well. We heard about Kaveri test as marine version and IN being interested in it. Later it died a quite death. Never heard about it afterwards.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2685
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chola » 03 Nov 2017 17:50

Jay ji, you are right. My data is dated. I pretty much re-gurgitated what I thought I’ve known for years since following the Kaveri for close to two decades now. But had not been diligent in following updates. (Partly out of depression induced by Kaveri along with LCA. lol)

I sort of used Air Marshal Chopra’s article as my primer in a lazy man’s approach to the history but you are correct, the AM referenced the blade issue only from 2002.

http://www.defstrat.com/india%E2%80%99s-fighter-engine-dream

India’s Fighter Engine Dream

Issues Details:
Vol 11 Issue 2 May - Jun 2017
Page No.:
48
Sub Title:
An absorbing History of the Development of Aircraft Engines
Author:
Air Marshal Anil Chopra, PVSM, AVSM, VM, VSM (Retd)

...
In 2002, it was known that the Kaveri had a tendency to “throw” turbine blades, which required securing blades from French engine maker SNECMA.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby shiv » 03 Nov 2017 19:13

^^I note that that AM Chopra writes of "enforceable transfer of technology" I think it is high time this myth is erased from the minds of senior people in industry and defence the way it has been erased on BRF.

While I am no metallurgist or engineer calculating internal engine thermodynamics - "technology" is not something that can be "given" like gifting Nano car to someone.

For example - for engine blades there will be a combination of metals that are heated just to the right temp and treated just right. This is a skill that can only be built up by hands on in a foundry and nowadays even that will not work because in th west many of these things will be automated and the parameters are just entered on a console and the alloy is done. There may be "rough blades" that require finishing manually by a chap visually handling each blade and grinding or buffing. This is also "hands on" - someone has to sit on the workfloor and learn by observation and trial and error. People have to do it - and they will be blue collar workers. They will be supervised by someone who knows. That is technology. Another aspect of technology is data on what works and what does not work - recorded in 20-30,000 manual pages. You want 50 Kn, 2 spool engine? then you need inlet diameter of X and Y stages in low pres comp and Z stages in hi pres comp. Temperatures are likely to be #$ degC requiring bla material blades.

This is all stuff that is a matter of "been there, done that" for the big engine makers. Same is true for aircraft designers. Long ago Wingco Suresh told me of meeting Pavel Sukhoi with a panel of HAL people. And one of the latter started speaking of technology, for which Pavel Sukhoi puffed himself up - banged his own chest with his palm and said,"What is technology? I am technology"

This is IMO more true than would seem to be the case. Technology transfer is not papers and reading. It is the human element. It is how the welders weld the seams of a submarine, how the technician grinds down the 3D printed blisk. It is high time senior officials stopped talking this shit about "technology transfer"

For those who were on BRF back then I would like to recall how we celebarted with joy at the prospect of "Deep technology transfer" for Su-30. Yes it came - but not the way we thought. Real technology is the knowledge to create. If AM Chopra does not know that I am not surprised. Our nation is full of people who think that others are magically going to "transfer technology". It cannot be transferred. It has to be built up in house. It's about people with skills.

Even 100,000 man years of work by Indians in Intel designing chips does not give us one clue about how that chip is fabricated. We live in a delusional world. I used to hope that the "younger generation" would do something - but those "younger generation guys" I was thinking of are now middle aged with adolescent kids. We have to teach an even younger gen...just sayin'

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2685
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chola » 03 Nov 2017 21:04

^^^ Agreed and it is why I want us to build and sell everything that we can build and sell now and not waiting for a glamourous but insanely hard to build turbofan before we fvcking manufacture and market an engine.

We need to build a foundation on what we capable of now. The Kaveri does not require piston to be successful, it is true. But the aviation industry as a whole does. The disciplines of the industry must be built up step by step. If leapfrogging was an easy way to the turbofan, we would done it by now.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2685
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chola » 03 Nov 2017 21:18

Read this story. Think of what this means.

Iran, under the harshest of embargos, is producing piston-powered UAVs for the battleground. While we are still farting around with Rustom II with its imported russkie engine.

The Iranians lapped us in the real, practical world with pistons for UAVs and turbojets for trainers and light fighter.

But hey, they don’t have a turban like Kaveri so we still beat them right? In the fvcking lab, yes.

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/20/us-iran-drone-shot-down-syria

US shoots down second Iran-made armed drone over Syria in 12 days

US says fighter shot drone as it approached outpost near borders of Syria, Iraq, and Jordan

...

In a similar incident on 8 June, an Iranian-made drone of the same kind dropped a bomb near US troops at the same training outpost before it was shot down by a US plane.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5705
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Rakesh » 04 Nov 2017 02:07

chola wrote:^^^ Agreed and it is why I want us to build and sell everything that we can build and sell now and not waiting for a glamourous but insanely hard to build turbofan before we fvcking manufacture and market an engine.

We need to build a foundation on what we capable of now. The Kaveri does not require piston to be successful, it is true. But the aviation industry as a whole does. The disciplines of the industry must be built up step by step. If leapfrogging was an easy way to the turbofan, we would done it by now.

I am seeing this in a number of your posts. Before the mods caution you, I would suggest you kindly refrain from typing it any further.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2685
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chola » 04 Nov 2017 02:20

Without the GDF, I have become an angrier poster. Will refrain.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21910
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Austin » 04 Nov 2017 13:47

JayS wrote:Aim now is/should be to make Kaveri work flawlessly and reliably. Performance does not matter. LCA is decoupled from Kaveri already. Once its debugged GTRE can work on performance. As such dry thrust is OK. Its the wet thrust which is AB issue and is kind of decoupled from the engine, in a sense that it can be worked on independent of the main engine. I don't consider AB issue a big deal at this time. The should really focus on making the core turbofan work. Lets say its not flight worthy to put it in LCA. Obviously its not. Even GE/PW/RR would not put an engine in SE fighter without running it on multi-engine flying test bed. Question is why no testing on IL76 or on MiG-29 in last so many years..? With no testing there is no point even making any changes because we would never know if the changes work or not. As they say, if you try, you "might" fail, if you don't, you will fail "definitely".


Kaveri has not reached a stage where it can be tested on a Mig-29 replacing say one of the RD-33 with Kaveri .....even one has to reach that stage ........All this talk about meeting dry thrust and not meeting wet thrust is juggling with words from Certification POV you need to meet the requirement fully or you are not there ....its like stating I can crawl well but cant walk straight means nothing really.

Kaveri for all practical purpose is a Dead Engine not just for the IAF but also for IN GT engine needs you dont see any IN official stating they would replace or use Kaveri-GT for some kind of frigate or corvette.

As Dr Christopher stated in an inverview I posted from F Mag they will work with Safran on Kaveri in new Avtar and other report states it will use New Core of M88 engine but there is nothing concrete yet but talks for past few years , This would be a new Project any ways and if they can make it flight qualified by 2025-2028 it would be Good for us , they can have hope to use in AMCA in some Mk2 model

Yes GTRE/DRDO can still use the exisit kaveri to learn and develop things for experimental purpose and learning curve but that is thats about it .

It is like Dr doing Post Mortem on Dead Body for their own learning it wont make a Corpse go Alive !

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3494
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 04 Nov 2017 14:42

Austin wrote:
JayS wrote:Aim now is/should be to make Kaveri work flawlessly and reliably. Performance does not matter. LCA is decoupled from Kaveri already. Once its debugged GTRE can work on performance. As such dry thrust is OK. Its the wet thrust which is AB issue and is kind of decoupled from the engine, in a sense that it can be worked on independent of the main engine. I don't consider AB issue a big deal at this time. The should really focus on making the core turbofan work. Lets say its not flight worthy to put it in LCA. Obviously its not. Even GE/PW/RR would not put an engine in SE fighter without running it on multi-engine flying test bed. Question is why no testing on IL76 or on MiG-29 in last so many years..? With no testing there is no point even making any changes because we would never know if the changes work or not. As they say, if you try, you "might" fail, if you don't, you will fail "definitely".


Kaveri has not reached a stage where it can be tested on a Mig-29 replacing say one of the RD-33 with Kaveri .....even one has to reach that stage ........All this talk about meeting dry thrust and not meeting wet thrust is juggling with words from Certification POV you need to meet the requirement fully or you are not there ....its like stating I can crawl well but cant walk straight means nothing really.


!


So what stage exactly Kaveri is now..? What exactly is needed to get it upto the stage where it can be put in IL76 then MiG29..?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21910
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Austin » 04 Nov 2017 14:47

Frankly speaking how does it matter , it is like asking whether the man died 2 hours back or 2 days back.

Kaveri in its present form is dead the only hope is to see DRDO-Safran plan see the light of the day and hope it does.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 451
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby maitya » 05 Nov 2017 11:22

JayS wrote:
Austin wrote:
Kaveri has not reached a stage where it can be tested on a Mig-29 replacing say one of the RD-33 with Kaveri .....even one has to reach that stage ........All this talk about meeting dry thrust and not meeting wet thrust is juggling with words from Certification POV you need to meet the requirement fully or you are not there ....its like stating I can crawl well but cant walk straight means nothing really.


!


So what stage exactly Kaveri is now..? What exactly is needed to get it upto the stage where it can be put in IL76 then MiG29..?

AFAIK and IIRC, there's
a) nothing stopping Kaveri to be put into a IL76 ... has been done before so no issues doing it again.
But having achieved the dry-thrust ratings, there's not much of an value in flight-testing in a IL-76 type test-bed ... GTRE folks would have got enough amount of real-flight data, and thus would have validated/re-calibrated the coore, for the flight-regimes that can be tested in such a platform.
b) IIRC CEMILAC stipulates 2000hrs of ground run (and may include hrs in flight-testing in IL-76 testbed as well, not sure), in the final engine configuration, to be certified to be put into a dual-engine military-platform like a MiG-29/Su-30 etc ... as of circa 2015, last we heard was, that ~800hrs has been achieved.
So no, without achieving those number of hrs Kaveri won't go anywhere near a MiG-29 (or Su-30) kind of platform.

Also IIRC, it requires further ~1000hrs of flight-testing in MiG-29/Su-30 type platform, it will qualify (by CEMILAC) to go anywhere near a single-engine platform, say a LCA TD/PV for further flight-testing.

I'm ofcourse completely unaware as to where we are today wrt achieving these flight-test hours etc.


Also Austinji, there's absolutely no reason why Kaveri/Kabini can't follow the F404 to F414 evolution route and can't be "upgraded" to 100KN class turbofan (say "Ganga" ((c) Vinaji - some of the relevant posts from me can be found here and here.

after all, GE with 70+ years of cutting-edge gas-turbine R&D, design and development, took 10+ years to do the upgrade - not sure how long it will take a GTRE to achieve it.

Do further note, the basic feature of F404 -> F414 "upgrade" is again the same-old same-old "increase thrust by increasing the mass-flow thru core, by enlarging the inlet geometry" etc - the trick however is to maintain (slightly improve) BPR and, the huge/major aspect of maintaining the Thermal-efficiency figures.

That is major issue, and requires decades of back-breaking R&D and Testing iterations, as it requires enhanced OPR and TeT (refer to the Kaveri sticky thread for the OPR vs TeT interplay) which in turn requires large technological "leaps" like,
1) 3rd Gen SCB for LPT
2) Large-chord LPC blade geometry (higher OPR via each Blade-SPR improvements)
3) Improved cooling architecture for LPT/HPT blades (due to higher TeT by ~70-90deg)
etc etc.

OR you may still get a higher thrust rating but sacrifice the Thermal efficiency (so lower SFC etc - a la the Russian turbofans) and force the users to accept sub-par system (and then incrementally improve them - again Russian philosophy) - fat chance of that happening with IAF, though.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3494
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 05 Nov 2017 11:31

Austin wrote:Frankly speaking how does it matter , it is like asking whether the man died 2 hours back or 2 days back.

Kaveri in its present form is dead the only hope is to see DRDO-Safran plan see the light of the day and hope it does.


Good evasive answer. If its written off as dead, I want to know on what basis. Because talking to GTRE engineers gives completely different picture, so does reports from S jha.
And engine is never dead as such. You perfect a core and create a family of engines based on it for 3-4 decades to come. Maitya has written a lot of stuff so I dont need to repeate anything on this.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3494
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 05 Nov 2017 11:51

maitya wrote:
JayS wrote:
So what stage exactly Kaveri is now..? What exactly is needed to get it upto the stage where it can be put in IL76 then MiG29..?

AFAIK and IIRC, there's
a) nothing stopping Kaveri to be put into a IL76 ... has been done before so no issues doing it again.
But having achieved the dry-thrust ratings, there's not much of an value in flight-testing in a IL-76 type test-bed ... GTRE folks would have got enough amount of real-flight data, and thus would have validated/re-calibrated the coore, for the flight-regimes that can be tested in such a platform.
b) IIRC CEMILAC stipulates 2000hrs of ground run (and may include hrs in flight-testing in IL-76 testbed as well, not sure), in the final engine configuration, to be certified to be put into a dual-engine military-platform like a MiG-29/Su-30 etc ... as of circa 2015, last we heard was, that ~800hrs has been achieved.
So no, without achieving those number of hrs Kaveri won't go anywhere near a MiG-29 (or Su-30) kind of platform.

Also IIRC, it requires further ~1000hrs of flight-testing in MiG-29/Su-30 type platform, it will qualify (by CEMILAC) to go anywhere near a single-engine platform, say a LCA TD/PV for further flight-testing.

I'm ofcourse completely unaware as to where we are today wrt achieving these flight-test hours etc.


Also Austinji, there's absolutely no reason why Kaveri/Kabini can't follow the F404 to F414 evolution route and can't be "upgraded" to 100KN class turbofan (say "Ganga" ((c) Vinaji - some of the relevant posts from me can be found here and here.

after all, GE with 70+ years of cutting-edge gas-turbine R&D, design and development, took 10+ years to do the upgrade - not sure how long it will take a GTRE to achieve it.

Do further note, the basic feature of F404 -> F414 "upgrade" is again the same-old same-old "increase thrust by increasing the mass-flow thru core, by enlarging the inlet geometry" etc - the trick however is to maintain (slightly improve) BPR and, the huge/major aspect of maintaining the Thermal-efficiency figures.

That is major issue, and requires decades of back-breaking R&D and Testing iterations, as it requires enhanced OPR and TeT (refer to the Kaveri sticky thread for the OPR vs TeT interplay) which in turn requires large technological "leaps" like,
1) 3rd Gen SCB for LPT
2) Large-chord LPC blade geometry (higher OPR via each Blade-SPR improvements)
3) Improved cooling architecture for LPT/HPT blades (due to higher TeT by ~70-90deg)
etc etc.

OR you may still get a higher thrust rating but sacrifice the Thermal efficiency (so lower SFC etc - a la the Russian turbofans) and force the users to accept sub-par system (and then incrementally improve them - again Russian philosophy) - fat chance of that happening with IAF, though.


Maitya sahab, it was a rhetorical question.

BTW, if you want to believe what GTRE folks tell in AI, total ground testing is well past 3000hrs. And Kaveri is ready to put it on flight test bed. And they are waiting for MiG29 since 3yrs. Upto you to consider if its credible enough. I personally feel truth is somewhere in between. From all indications, issues are in only some flight regimes, not all. AB issues can be negkected for now, only LPC needs to be focused on. HP systems seems stable.

Even after IL76 test, if any changes are done, how would we know if the changes do work, without flight testing it again..? Anyhow, is 70 odd hours of testing enough..? I simply dont understand how we know Kaveri doesnt work without testing it again in flight..? Definitely some work has been done on it after last time it was flight tested. Since the problems were only uncovered in flight test, it clear that those conditions are not reliably reproduceable on ground. (Also some flight regimes will be only possible on fighter test bed).

F135 has undergone 20000plus hours of testing last time I checked, a significant amount of it in-flight testing. Without large scale testing no engine program will ever succeed.

There is gonna be Turbo GT conference in BLR on 7-8 Dec I think. That would be a good place to find out about Kaveri technical issues. Unfortunately I wont be able to go there.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17470
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 05 Nov 2017 13:42

Austin wrote:
JayS wrote:Aim now is/should be to make Kaveri work flawlessly and reliably. Performance does not matter. LCA is decoupled from Kaveri already. Once its debugged GTRE can work on performance. As such dry thrust is OK. Its the wet thrust which is AB issue and is kind of decoupled from the engine, in a sense that it can be worked on independent of the main engine. I don't consider AB issue a big deal at this time. The should really focus on making the core turbofan work. Lets say its not flight worthy to put it in LCA. Obviously its not. Even GE/PW/RR would not put an engine in SE fighter without running it on multi-engine flying test bed. Question is why no testing on IL76 or on MiG-29 in last so many years..? With no testing there is no point even making any changes because we would never know if the changes work or not. As they say, if you try, you "might" fail, if you don't, you will fail "definitely".


Kaveri has not reached a stage where it can be tested on a Mig-29 replacing say one of the RD-33 with Kaveri .....even one has to reach that stage ........All this talk about meeting dry thrust and not meeting wet thrust is juggling with words from Certification POV you need to meet the requirement fully or you are not there ....its like stating I can crawl well but cant walk straight means nothing really.

Kaveri for all practical purpose is a Dead Engine not just for the IAF but also for IN GT engine needs you dont see any IN official stating they would replace or use Kaveri-GT for some kind of frigate or corvette.

As Dr Christopher stated in an inverview I posted from F Mag they will work with Safran on Kaveri in new Avtar and other report states it will use New Core of M88 engine but there is nothing concrete yet but talks for past few years , This would be a new Project any ways and if they can make it flight qualified by 2025-2028 it would be Good for us , they can have hope to use in AMCA in some Mk2 model

Yes GTRE/DRDO can still use the exisit kaveri to learn and develop things for experimental purpose and learning curve but that is thats about it .

It is like Dr doing Post Mortem on Dead Body for their own learning it wont make a Corpse go Alive !


A much heard refrain from some "design" agencies is that the forces are not even giving us a chance, there has to be some compromise, after all we are doing our best"

I think kaveri flight trials should be done only in dual seater aircraft with the other seat being always occupied by a "designer" who is so loudly crying out for a "chance" and "compromise".

If such a thing can be enforced, I figure that the design will improve on a logarithmic scale. :)

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby shiv » 05 Nov 2017 13:49

chetak wrote:
If such a thing can be enforced, I figure that the design will improve on a logarithmic scale. :)

I wouldn't bet on it. The idea that all people are afraid of losing their lives is mistaken.The number of people who have experimented on themselves and died is high. But yes it would definitely allow a test flight. I think the Kaveri is flyable

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21910
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Austin » 05 Nov 2017 14:15

JayS wrote:
Austin wrote:Frankly speaking how does it matter , it is like asking whether the man died 2 hours back or 2 days back.

Kaveri in its present form is dead the only hope is to see DRDO-Safran plan see the light of the day and hope it does.


Good evasive answer. If its written off as dead, I want to know on what basis. Because talking to GTRE engineers gives completely different picture, so does reports from S jha.
And engine is never dead as such. You perfect a core and create a family of engines based on it for 3-4 decades to come. Maitya has written a lot of stuff so I dont need to repeate anything on this.


I havent seen any single DRDO official in any recent interview talking about any further progress on exisiting kaveri be it on Test Bed IL_76 or on fighter , Dr Christopher spoke about reviving kaveri via Safran but this would still be some time to go before they agree .....Remember we are reading a lot about French coming in for Kaveri rescue for past 2-3 years but nothing has been signed on paper yet even news report of IAF apprehensive about this as no good technology was coming from French on this.

As far as I can see Kaveri in present from was no good for Tejas long time back and it still is no good for Navy for their GT Engine , All we see is DRDO hoping that Kaveri with better thrust would happen with Safran using M88 Core lets see how this shape up and in what time frame

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6875
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Indranil » 05 Nov 2017 14:44

But deducing that Kaveri is dead from that is be grossly wrong. Just head over to DRDO's tender site and see for your self, the number of tenders for parts they are issuing. They are building a new engine around some existing core for aure

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2685
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chola » 05 Nov 2017 15:19

It would a massive waste to simply drop the Kaveri. See what the French come up with for the turbofan while GTRE can make use of the Kaveri’s GTX-35 turbojet core. Use it for cruise missles, UAVs or trainers.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17470
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 05 Nov 2017 16:04

chola wrote:It would a massive waste to simply drop the Kaveri. See what the French come up with for the turbofan while GTRE can make use of the Kaveri’s GTX-35 turbojet core. Use it for cruise missles, UAVs or trainers.


It's an expensive learning curve. Nothing has been wasted. At least now, people know what not to do.

One can only hope that institutional memory has been sensitized accordingly and also up dated.


JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3494
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 06 Nov 2017 21:00

So apparently some thinking is going on, on having a indigenous flying test bed. But they will be "soon" forming a committee to look into the matter. God knows how long will it take. I hope DRDO doesn't take "indigenous" too seriously and get down to build one from scratch if they can help it. First priority should be to get it ASAP. Buy second-hand if you can get one, or get one built by one of the foreign pvt companies (not only OEMs but, seems there are other 3rd party companies who can convert a second hand jet airliner in FTB, at least one in US). If only its denied outright, build one in India own our own.

arvin
BRFite
Posts: 151
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby arvin » 06 Nov 2017 21:12

Borrow 1 747 from Air India and convert into flying test bed. This single act will wipe off all bad karma of Air India and help it attain moksh.

Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 172
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Rishi_Tri » 06 Nov 2017 21:28

arvin wrote:Borrow 1 747 from Air India and convert into flying test bed. This single act will wipe off all bad karma of Air India and help it attain moksh.


Dont quite know about Air India but the 747 shall definitely attain Moksh. :rotfl:

But not a bad idea at all. Use it for Kaveri, Laser Weapon, AWACS and what not.

As to Kaveri, if Jugaad can run all over North India and very well do the job of Case New Holland, Mahindra; Kaveri definitely has a space. All about willingness.

As to CEMILAC mandated test standards, one is testing something for the first time so some standards can be relaxed or in other words, enough risk taken.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7833
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Pratyush » 06 Nov 2017 21:34

Wake me up when kaveri flies. I have given up on it. We seem quite content to plod on but never reach a destination. Since 2008 when kaveri was delinked from LCA and to 2017. No major progress has been made in domestic engine. I guess I should be happy with the fact that GTRE was also starved of funds and resources it needed to get the job done.

But just get the dammit thing in the air use one of the first prototypes of lca if we must. But mere it fly.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kakarat and 44 guests