Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Kaveri & aero-engine 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.
ashbhee
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:05

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ashbhee » 26 Mar 2018 04:01

Is it easy to replace MKI's engine with this modified Kaveri engine? I wonder how will Russians react if replace some of their engines with Kaveri engines. They will lose overhauling engine business.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4188
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Neshant » 26 Mar 2018 08:37

India has already paid an arm and a leg for Sukhoi planes.
Negotiators from India did a VERY POOR job of ensuring India gained financially or technically from the MASSIVE order of Sukhois that was made. We have purchased hundreds of Sukhois with little if any offsets for domestic aerospace industry and still pay a huge price for them.

China with far fewer orders of Sukhois manage to get a whole lot more in concessions and offsets from Russia than India ever did.

Unless India begins to assert its interests and enters with Russia in future aerospace projects on a more equal footing, the arms relationship is not likely to last. Kaveris in Sukhois and hopefully FGFAs are part of that effort.

Now lets hope the govt is not screwing up FGFA negotiations like they did with the Sukhois.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 61995
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 26 Mar 2018 08:49

>>China with far fewer orders of Sukhois manage to get a whole lot more in concessions and offsets from Russia than India ever did.

china pays them in cash not for sukhois but for people help and license production rights / tot without the OEM stamped name. they have to pay because nothing is given out free. china has also licensed made or CKDed 300 su30+su27 starting early 90s.

what offsets are you talking about?

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 204
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Haridas » 26 Mar 2018 12:22

Neshant wrote:India has already paid an arm and a leg for Sukhoi planes.
Negotiators from India did a VERY POOR job of ensuring India gained financially or technically from the MASSIVE order of Sukhois that was made. We have purchased hundreds of Sukhois with little if any offsets for domestic aerospace industry and still pay a huge price for them.

China with far fewer orders of Sukhois manage to get a whole lot more in concessions and offsets from Russia than India ever did.

Unless India begins to assert its interests and enters with Russia in future aerospace projects on a more equal footing, the arms relationship is not likely to last. Kaveris in Sukhois and hopefully FGFAs are part of that effort.

Now lets hope the govt is not screwing up FGFA negotiations like they did with the Sukhois.


+108

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20764
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Austin » 26 Mar 2018 15:24

Neshant wrote:India has already paid an arm and a leg for Sukhoi planes.
Negotiators from India did a VERY POOR job of ensuring India gained financially or technically from the MASSIVE order of Sukhois that was made. We have purchased hundreds of Sukhois with little if any offsets for domestic aerospace industry and still pay a huge price for them.


What India got from Sukhoi deal then it wont get today even if we pay twice the cost , IF you consider the cost of Sukhoi at $60 million per aircraft and we purchased/built 272+ it comes to around $ 16 billion , I am inflating the cost at 2015 MOD quoted price of $ 60 million , in early 2000 Su-30 would cost ~ 40 million USD.

That includes the sunk infra cost , TOT , Lic Production cost , more than 60 % of Su are now built with Indian sources RAW materials , we can customise as we wish and integrate what we want , Engines are manufacured from Indian sources raw materials at Koraput .......... today Su-30 has an uptime of 65 % , All this for $ 16 billion.

Consider Rafale cost , for 36 Aircraft we pay $ 9 billion USD 2015 price ......we dont get TOT or Lic production , all aircraft will be imported , not sure if MRO facility is there let assume it does ... the only indian specific thing we got there is hard wire for Nuclear role , plus guranteed uptime of more than 70 % at a cost , The offset also comes with a cost i.e 40-50 % of the value.

Had we gone for a global tender for just the offset we could have got better or similar deal at the same cost ~ 3-4 billion USD beyond that Rafale is a Good but Expensive buy. Not even remotely comparable to the Flanker deal .......

madhu
BRFite
Posts: 210
Joined: 12 Oct 2005 17:00
Location: India

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby madhu » 26 Mar 2018 19:52

ok here is full calculation. looks like the T4 is not 1700K. but it is much less. however i am not able to calculate the A/B thrust. as it is coming too low.

Image

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2018
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Katare » 26 Mar 2018 20:14

Austin wrote:
Neshant wrote:India has already paid an arm and a leg for Sukhoi planes.
Negotiators from India did a VERY POOR job of ensuring India gained financially or technically from the MASSIVE order of Sukhois that was made. We have purchased hundreds of Sukhois with little if any offsets for domestic aerospace industry and still pay a huge price for them.


What India got from Sukhoi deal then it wont get today even if we pay twice the cost , IF you consider the cost of Sukhoi at $60 million per aircraft and we purchased/built 272+ it comes to around $ 16 billion , I am inflating the cost at 2015 MOD quoted price of $ 60 million , in early 2000 Su-30 would cost ~ 40 million USD.

That includes the sunk infra cost , TOT , Lic Production cost , more than 60 % of Su are now built with Indian sources RAW materials , we can customise as we wish and integrate what we want , Engines are manufacured from Indian sources raw materials at Koraput .......... today Su-30 has an uptime of 65 % , All this for $ 16 billion.

Consider Rafale cost , for 36 Aircraft we pay $ 9 billion USD 2015 price ......we dont get TOT or Lic production , all aircraft will be imported , not sure if MRO facility is there let assume it does ... the only indian specific thing we got there is hard wire for Nuclear role , plus guranteed uptime of more than 70 % at a cost , The offset also comes with a cost i.e 40-50 % of the value.

Had we gone for a global tender for just the offset we could have got better or similar deal at the same cost ~ 3-4 billion USD beyond that Rafale is a Good but Expensive buy. Not even remotely comparable to the Flanker deal .......


The MKI’s are great products and deal even if discount for low serviceability, low technology gains and painfully long execution. But don’t discount Rafael deal, we might get much better technology than what we got with Sukhoi deal. Wait and watch

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3229
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 26 Mar 2018 20:58

^^ guys, engine thread. Not Su-30 or Rafale.

Madhu, bravo. Good work. Lower than 1700K T4 is expected at SL conditions. Kaveri is flat rated remember..?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49353
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 26 Mar 2018 23:26

JayS or Rakesh. Please warn Neshant for bringing in OT in this thread.
Thanks ramana

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49353
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 26 Mar 2018 23:30

Madhu, Great job.

So Kaveri is underperforming at 1.5KN below specification.

Is that bad enough to can it?
A/B is for take off and get away from dog fight.

And its flat rating should count for something?

JayS, Now we have numbers to discuss, what's the real problem?

Engine weight for the thrust?
With expected weight savings in Tejas should this even out?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6472
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Indranil » 27 Mar 2018 01:46

Jay,

These discussions need to be catalogues of future reference. Could you please move the relevant posts to the Kaveri gyan sticky thread.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3229
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 27 Mar 2018 10:11

Indranil wrote:Jay,

These discussions need to be catalogues of future reference. Could you please move the relevant posts to the Kaveri gyan sticky thread.


Yeah. That's pending from my side. Quite a bit of good posts to move.

ramana wrote:Madhu, Great job.

So Kaveri is underperforming at 1.5KN below specification.

Is that bad enough to can it?
A/B is for take off and get away from dog fight.

And its flat rating should count for something?

JayS, Now we have numbers to discuss, what's the real problem?

Engine weight for the thrust?
With expected weight savings in Tejas should this even out?


Ramana,

of coarse some short fall is not too bad (+/-2% from target is usual). But As such Kaveri is not good enough for LCA now. They need to fly Kaveri so we get acquainted with the certification and full debugging process. So next iterations are faster.

Above numbers do not change any of the assertions we have made here previously. There is nothing wrong as such with the dry thrust, some small changes to bump up efficiencies by 2-3%, reduce leakage etc would be sufficient to bring it quite close to design dry thrust. Efficiencies are on lower side as compared to the competitor engines (we knew it already from specs). A/B needs some work to achieve wet thrust, but its almost independent module from rest of the engine. And this is only one operating point. The engine needs to run in full envelop spanning 0-15km and 0-1.8M at various inlet conditions. The reported problems are related to flutter, vibrations in some flight regimes which will not show up in such calculations obviously. But I have posted one paper from Dec 2017 which shows GTRE has worked out compressor blade flutter issues.

All in all, I think, single biggest thing remaining is A/B design. Other things are small and within grasp. GTRE claimed they figured out A/B issues too but I am yet to see proof other than their word from AI-2017.

Flat rating is obviously a big deal for a fighter. But it puts a lot of constraints on engine design. Designer needs to suppress thrust at low altitudes lower than max possible. What it means is, there is artificial limit of TET at lower altitudes for Kaveri which limits its thrust at lower altitudes. If they remove that limit obviously Kaveri can produce more thrust at SL than rated now. But obviously the damage is not done as the design choice of flat rating forced them to go with lower BPR, so just hiking TET wont still be optimum solution. If they choose to redesign Kaveri, they should let go of flat rating requirement IMO. Why make it unnecessarily complicated. Anyway none of the comparable jets such as F404, M88, RM12 are flat rated.

PS: Do remember that model used by Madhu is still not completely realistic. For example it does not account for Cooling air off take from HPC which can be as high as 30% of HPC output.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7629
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Pratyush » 27 Mar 2018 11:21

A nube question for people who know more than me. This is regarding the choices made by the Tejas program for the Kaveri. When contemporary engine designs were not flat rates. Why did the ASQR specify flat rates engine. Also what are the potential advantages of flat rating. And how it will effect the performance of the Tejas. If and when it is put into service with the flat rated Kaveri.

Sorry, too many questions but only for my understanding.

jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 384
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby jaysimha » 27 Mar 2018 12:21

Found these 2 old articles, Posting for records only.

Flat rating concept introduced in the GTX engine
Arun Prasad and V. Sundararajan
http://publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/index.php/dsj/article/viewFile/6007/3132

Capacity-building in defence science and technology
A perspective from the DRDO
Suranjan Pal & william selvamurthy
https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/dpi/2008/IDSA.pdf

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3229
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 27 Mar 2018 12:28

Pratyush wrote:A nube question for people who know more than me. This is regarding the choices made by the Tejas program for the Kaveri. When contemporary engine designs were not flat rates. Why did the ASQR specify flat rates engine. Also what are the potential advantages of flat rating. And how it will effect the performance of the Tejas. If and when it is put into service with the flat rated Kaveri.

Sorry, too many questions but only for my understanding.


Why it was specified..? Our folks have knack for setting up programs for failure from starting. GTRE should not have accepted it as requirement. They should have flatly (pun intended) refused to accept it (or at best kept it as lose constraint) even if ASQR mentioned it.

Advantage is you have the exact same thrust that you get on the ground till certain altitude, say 10000ft. A non-flat rated Kaveri would have given 84kN at Sea Level and thrust would go on reducing with increasing altitude. With flat rating it would continue to give 84kN thrust upto certain altitude and only then you would have reduction in thrust. In simple terms available thrust while flying at altitude would be more with flat rating than with non flat rating. (e.g. LCA could supercruise with Kaveri if Kaveri achieved design thrust levels while with F404 it wouldn't). Operational ceiling of aircraft would also increase effectively. The engine would be much better under hot and high and hot conditions which we see in Laddakh. That's why Kaveri design is more challenging than F404 as it has all design targets same as F404, with lower technology at hand and with stricter design goals.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9541
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 27 Mar 2018 12:41

So we asked for soemthing from the size of the F404 which GE with so many years of design experience could not deliver. Wow.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7629
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Pratyush » 27 Mar 2018 13:17

Now I am beginning to understand the 3 legged cheetah remark.

As the engine is inferior to what it was intended to fly with.

madhu
BRFite
Posts: 210
Joined: 12 Oct 2005 17:00
Location: India

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby madhu » 27 Mar 2018 18:30

JayS wrote:PS: Do remember that model used by Madhu is still not completely realistic. For example it does not account for Cooling air off take from HPC which can be as high as 30% of HPC output.

To do that kind of analysis I need much more data. I think I need to do stage by stage analysis and find efficiency loop it back to cross check.
If we start going into that level, I guess we need to do full mean line design right? Like number of stages, number of blades, blade inlet and outlet angle at mean radius, combustor performance and over all dimension. There are too many variables to choose from.
Do you any clue how to go about it?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3229
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 27 Mar 2018 23:37

madhu wrote:
JayS wrote:PS: Do remember that model used by Madhu is still not completely realistic. For example it does not account for Cooling air off take from HPC which can be as high as 30% of HPC output.

To do that kind of analysis I need much more data. I think I need to do stage by stage analysis and find efficiency loop it back to cross check.
If we start going into that level, I guess we need to do full mean line design right? Like number of stages, number of blades, blade inlet and outlet angle at mean radius, combustor performance and over all dimension. There are too many variables to choose from.
Do you any clue how to go about it?


Ypu can also do it, nothing great in it. I have once prepared such excel for Civil Jet engine design as assignment in college. It was CF6 IIRC. The spreadsheet was quite large. It had stage by stage thermodynamic design and blade design parameters. Took me two A3 size papers to print it all. It didnt have cooling and offtake, but it can be added. All one needs to do is go from first principle just like the set of equations you used are derived (they are from Mattingly's book right..?) and use simple models for various phenomena. I lack motivation and time, else I wanted to make such python based SW like 3yrs ago. It would have included even the blade airfoil design based on MCA profiles. But it never happened.

But you can add cooling in your sheet, relatively easily. Split the Turbine process between HPT and LPT. Station 4-45 and 45-5. Take say 10% air from HPC output and add in LPT, bypassing Combustor and HPT. That NAL paper link I gave you does this all.

Also there is huge amount of the data/ info you would need for such non-professional level work, is available on internet. You need to know where to look for and what to look for. Obviously not much wpuld be available on operational engines. Browse through older NASA funded engine program related docs from 70s n 80s. There is so much info available that you couldnt even skim through it all.

madhu
BRFite
Posts: 210
Joined: 12 Oct 2005 17:00
Location: India

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby madhu » 27 Mar 2018 23:49

Jays,
Right now i am doing it for Civil Jet engine just to calibrate my calculations. But i see that there are too many options to choose from. To do s reverse engineering. I might need data like hub/tip radius etc.
The option are so many that it difficult without cross check every time.
Let me see. Will try for trent 500 and if successful will try and do it for Kaveri

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49353
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 29 Mar 2018 19:13

Jay s and Madhu,
Why dont you meet over a jug of coffee and work this? Take laptop and steno pad for notes. Say 3 months?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49353
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 29 Mar 2018 19:20

Jays
So flat rating would mean fuel consumption would be higher then without it? Like pushing accelerator all the time to get that constant thrust from SL to altitude.

I think flat rating was thrown as a challenge and has now become a hard requirement.

If all those engines front have it is it fair to demand at first attempt of a Indian turbofan? And they are acceptable without flat rating!

Pratyush, incorrect. Motivated comment.

Picklu
BRFite
Posts: 1627
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Picklu » 29 Mar 2018 19:34

IIRC, N3 recommended to throw out flat rating at least 10 years back. No point to shackle a powerful beast at lower altitude to ensure thrust remains same at the higher.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49353
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 29 Mar 2018 19:53

We need to find out how flat rating became a requirement instead of a goal.
It's a huge handicap as air density goes down with altitude and to maintain thrust more fuel has to be burnt.

Do we know how this came about?

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 493
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Avarachan » 30 Mar 2018 06:40

JayS wrote:That's why Kaveri design is more challenging than F404 as it has all design targets same as F404, with lower technology at hand and with stricter design goals.


Aditya_V wrote:So we asked for soemthing from the size of the F404 which GE with so many years of design experience could not deliver. Wow.


My jaw just hit the floor.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49353
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 30 Mar 2018 09:28

Live and learn.
Would you never have found that anywhere else!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49353
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 30 Mar 2018 09:30

Normally flat rating would be a stretch goal and not requirement for a first Turbofan.
GTRE never protested.
They wanted the job.
Now the folks who put that requirement are not there. But it's cast in stone.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16557
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 30 Mar 2018 10:51

Avarachan wrote:
JayS wrote:That's why Kaveri design is more challenging than F404 as it has all design targets same as F404, with lower technology at hand and with stricter design goals.


Aditya_V wrote:So we asked for soemthing from the size of the F404 which GE with so many years of design experience could not deliver. Wow.


My jaw just hit the floor.


The DRDO went into the kaveri project with nil experience as well as nil exposure but starry eyed and with both eyes shut wide. That they miserably failed to evaluate the enormity of the task is only now hitting home with a vengeance.

Customer requirements would have been discussed threadbare, if only to situate the customer as well as the developers on the same page and prevent later misunderstandings/misinterpretations.

The customer has every right to ask for the moon and he surely will but it is the developer who has to provide the grounding in reality for the project and clearly state what is or isn't within the realm of reality and what is achievable, keeping in mind the technology/talent available.

Nobody has forced anybody's hand.

The customer and the developer may have had options that they did not or chose not to exercise, like maybe direct imports and JV collaborations, only the true insiders can say

Even big and accomplished technological powers like the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia et al, would, even today, balk at the ab initio development of a military jet engine for a single engined fighter application.

Ceteris paribus, it is the enormous ginormous requirement of funds that would give them very good reason to pause and take a long and serious look at such a project.

But in our case specifically, Ceteris paribus or "all other things being equal" simply does not apply. We neither have the scientific talent, technological/infrastructure wherewithal nor the capability of deploying ginormous funds.

I know that folks here will not like my saying so but it is high time that we faced up to the facts on the ground. We are now actively seeking some sort of JV tieups, transfer of core technology and god only knows what else.

This to me, clearly says that we are simply lacking in these areas and the situation extant has no in house or even in country talent/solutions. It is also a fact that such talent/solutions has not existed in India, even from times before the kick off of the Kaveri project and sadly, nor do they exist even now.

This should have been recognized right at the outset, both by the customer as well as the developer. But as Indians, we have always liked to fool ourselves that Indian jugaad will always triumph in the end.

In most cases, jugaad has simply never paid off.

We have now been abandoned mid project, left at the baleful, blackmailing mercy of such greedy and voracious technological powers and are now being made to pay through the nose for mistakes wilfully committed many decades ago by people who surely knew whats what even then but purposely kept very very quiet. I speak to the old timers at various gatherings. This has also happened in many other projects.

I would hesitate to even venture a guess as to what the future holds for us, as far as Kaveri goes.

Let us wait and see how things play out.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3229
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 30 Mar 2018 11:17

chetak wrote:
The DRDO went into the kaveri project with nil experience as well as nil exposure but starry eyed and with both eyes shut wide. That they miserably failed to evaluate the enormity of the task is only now hitting home with a vengeance.


Its not entirely true that Kaveri was ab initio development. GTRE had at least one (and perhaps more) GT developed before Kaveri. Though the experience was limited, it doesn't take whole lot of genius and experience to know what kind of design goals are achievable for given technological level at preliminary design stage for a Jet engine. Perhaps they knew the enormity and thought they can surmount the challenge, just as LCA team thought about full digital FCS. Sadly for them project Kaveri did not receive commensurate support from government. LCA fared better in that respect. There are some mind boggling things that GTRE has done, and it would be interesting to know rationale behind them. One being Flat rating. Another being - Project Kaveri did not have provision for flight testing in it, or it as a mile stone. They included this step only in mid-late 2000s it seems.

hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3916
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby hanumadu » 30 Mar 2018 11:29

They should have realised that flat rating is not achievable and started working on a new engine with lessons learnt from Kaveri at least 7-8 years ago.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9541
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 30 Mar 2018 11:34

I don't think DRDO had a choice, the import lobby had set impossible requirements. Foreign countries don't us to have MIC and children Visa and education is a huge carrot no one can run away from. A serving General was Threatened int his country by TATRA.

Wow in the name of performance things like flat rating were slipped in.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3229
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 30 Mar 2018 11:40

ramana wrote:Jays
So flat rating would mean fuel consumption would be higher then without it? Like pushing accelerator all the time to get that constant thrust from SL to altitude.

I think flat rating was thrown as a challenge and has now become a hard requirement.

If all those engines front have it is it fair to demand at first attempt of a Indian turbofan? And they are acceptable without flat rating!

Pratyush, incorrect. Motivated comment.


You actually limit TET from going to max on ground and lower altitudes to keep thrust artificially lower than what is possible. (that means lower fuel consumption to some extent but then you are forced to use lower BPR so some disadvantage there. Its complicated enough that we cannot make generic statement. One would need parametric analysis of the engine to see overall impact). What flat rating means is that you design the engine to give 54kN thrust at say 10000ft rather than designing it for 54kN on ground. (getting same thrust on ground is easier than at altitude, so in that sense its harder to design or overdesigned). So you are overdesigning the engine so it can still give same thrust at altitude that it gives at ground. Had Kaveri been designed without flat rating it would give 54kN thrust on ground and may be say 45kN at 10000ft altitude. Now it is designed to give 54kN at 10000ft and suppressed to keep it at 54kN on ground by limiting TET, when it could perhaps give 65kN on ground by removing limiter on the TET.

There are quite a bit of benefits of flat rating which make it a very attractive preposition - your fighter has much better thrust available at altitude. You can perhaps even supercruise. You have somewhat better life for HPT components since they run at lower than max temp on ground. You could perhaps even trade off some of the saving in life to hike max TET at altitude to extract slightly higher thrust. You can definitely do stuff and it gives a significant edge to your fighter. But then it also makes you work hard.

Do read the paper linked by Jaysimha above - it explains Flat rating concept used in Kaveri.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3229
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 30 Mar 2018 11:43

Folks, first of all, we do not know whether flat rating was imposed condition by ASQR or whether it was self-imposed goal by GTRE. Lets keep that in mind while commenting. I am personally only interested in knowing the rationale behind it as of now, not debating it.

madhu
BRFite
Posts: 210
Joined: 12 Oct 2005 17:00
Location: India

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby madhu » 30 Mar 2018 17:14

JayS,
I am seeing way too many unknowns to proceed further. if you have any pointers can you suggest? also please PM your mail id so that we can discuss more.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16557
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 30 Mar 2018 18:11

JayS wrote:
chetak wrote:
The DRDO went into the kaveri project with nil experience as well as nil exposure but starry eyed and with both eyes shut wide. That they miserably failed to evaluate the enormity of the task is only now hitting home with a vengeance.


Its not entirely true that Kaveri was ab initio development. GTRE had at least one (and perhaps more) GT developed before Kaveri. Though the experience was limited, it doesn't take whole lot of genius and experience to know what kind of design goals are achievable for given technological level at preliminary design stage for a Jet engine. Perhaps they knew the enormity and thought they can surmount the challenge, just as LCA team thought about full digital FCS. Sadly for them project Kaveri did not receive commensurate support from government. LCA fared better in that respect. There are some mind boggling things that GTRE has done, and it would be interesting to know rationale behind them. One being Flat rating. Another being - Project Kaveri did not have provision for flight testing in it, or it as a mile stone. They included this step only in mid-late 2000s it seems.


Not arguing but Kaveri was about as ab initio as one can get.

Like running a kindergarten three legged race and using that experience to enter the Olympics.

Considering the existing resources at the time, namely intellectual, infrastructural as well as financial, it was an impossible task right from the minute it was taken up. This is hindsight 20/20 kicking in.

People should have been more careful, realistic and mindful of the expected results and the promised timelines.

After all, this critical national project was feeding through into another highly visible, vital and critical national project.

hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3916
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby hanumadu » 30 Mar 2018 18:22

Using the Kaveri experience, how long will it take to develop a new engine with Kaveri specifications but without flat rating?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16557
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 30 Mar 2018 18:51

hanumadu wrote:Using the Kaveri experience, how long will it take to develop a new engine with Kaveri specifications but without flat rating?



For the Kaveri, flat rating is the least of the problems.

If other performance and weight and life criteria are met, the customer would probably accept it.

Flat rating can come later.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 61995
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 30 Mar 2018 19:40

we did however manage to develop nuclear weapons and strategic missiles with no help from any of the P5.

but engines have so many facets it was important to control risk & requirements in phases which was not done.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16557
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 30 Mar 2018 20:29

Singha wrote:we did however manage to develop nuclear weapons and strategic missiles with no help from any of the P5.

but engines have so many facets it was important to control risk & requirements in phases which was not done.



The DAE and ISRO are very different kettles of fish.

need to get rid of DRDO baboo(n)s first.

They have very few genuine scientists.

Simply qualifying some entrance exam and training for many months is no way to become a scientist. It needs passion, dedication and a very different type of intellect. I have been lucky to have met maybe two or three genuine "scientists" so far. It is a real thrill to interact with such towering visionaries. The rest are simply politically aware baboo(n)s who know where the ladder is, how to climb it and which butt to kiss.

Sorry to be so blunt.

This Kaveri thread is the most depressing thing I have read in a long time. It breaks my heart to see the mess that has been created.

Everybody on this thread is sooooo diplomatic and correct. We need many more visionary domain experts/sub matter specialists and not guys who are only experienced in office politics with a mere smattering of subject matter jargon and slick willies who know which sauce goes best with which samosa.

DRDO is currently training a lot young opportunists with one eye permanently peeled for employment in foreign private companies.


Twitter

One of the reason ISRO outperforms compared to any other GoI departments is due to the fact that Scientists are given free hand to formulate their own policies/goals with their domain expertise.


Bureaucrats are making a mess of everything and anything they have control over yet they remain on commanding height. This is the tragedy of this country since the British created this relic in the nineteenth century to further their colonial interests.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16557
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 30 Mar 2018 21:08

Singha wrote:we did however manage to develop nuclear weapons and strategic missiles with no help from any of the P5.

but engines have so many facets it was important to control risk & requirements in phases which was not done.


Are warheads and their delivery systems any less complicated, saar??

And yet we mastered it.

Imagine the systems and their reliability, they have to operate at optimum level after years of storage and being roughly jostled about from place to place.

And yes, I am aware that these machines are one shot affairs and aero engines are daily use machines and have to perform equally reliably, sometimes over decades of use/misuse.

How and why did some groups succeed while some others did not??

We need to look inward and honestly introspect.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ashok Sarraff, Rakesh and 33 guests