Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 30 Sep 2018 02:40

Was this posted here before..?

First successful test run of “Hindustan Turbo Shaft Engine
(HTSE) -1200 engine” technology demonstrator was carried
out on 12th February, 2018.

150 Test runs so far for HTSE1200

HTFE 25 had total 255 ground tests with 2 prototypes

From HAL annual report.

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 30 Sep 2018 06:13

Any news on the three different jet engines being developed by Kalyani Group? Two of them were supposed to be ready for trials by year end.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Sep 2018 11:06

JayS wrote:Was this posted here before..?

First successful test run of “Hindustan Turbo Shaft Engine
(HTSE) -1200 engine” technology demonstrator was carried
out on 12th February, 2018.

150 Test runs so far for HTSE1200

HTFE 25 had total 255 ground tests with 2 prototypes
From HAL annual report.

No it wasn't. This is good news.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 01 Oct 2018 05:28

Strategic Frontier
‏

@strategic_front

The @HALHQBLR developed 25kN Turbofan Engine (HTFE-25) with applications for military jet trainers, business jets and large UAVs has completed 255 test runs so far with two prototypes.

In twin configuration can power a/c up to 9,000kg MTOW

#madeinIndia #MakeInIndia

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Oct 2018 10:47

I have been waiting for eons for a desi 50 kN trainer/light striker. A 2 ton mudmover. If they can get a good HJT-39, this can be easily achieved. The flying qualities of a trainer would mean that you would have an aircraft which can fly slowly through the valleys with sufficient authority. The Hawk-i can do this, but with only 28kN, it is woefully underpowered to defend itself or take off with sufficient payload from high altitude.

You can imagine my happiness when a desi-designed and built aircraft will fly with desi engines.

Haridas · Post by **Haridas** » 01 Oct 2018 11:25

Indranil wrote:1. People did not switch to turboprops because they are more modern. They are necessitated as one goes for larger UAVs.
2. Turboprops don’t give higher endurance, but shorter response time and better high altitude performance.

For survillance platform turboprop DOES give higher endurance compared to use of piston engine or jet engine.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 01 Oct 2018 18:39

Indranil wrote:I have been waiting for eons for a desi 50 kN trainer/light striker. A 2 ton mudmover. If they can get a good HJT-39, this can be easily achieved. The flying qualities of a trainer would mean that you would have an aircraft which can fly slowly through the valleys with sufficient authority. The Hawk-i can do this, but with only 28kN, it is woefully underpowered to defend itself or take off with sufficient payload from high altitude.

You can imagine my happiness when a desi-designed and built aircraft will fly with desi engines.

You mean A 10 kind?

nam · Post by **nam** » 01 Oct 2018 19:00

Question: Have we achieve higher thrust, if Kaveri is made bigger than it's current form?

If yes, why are we putting ourselves in a difficult position of having to create a engine in TFTA F404 form factor & efficiency?

What's wrong in having a bigger , less efficient engine? works fine for Russians, works fine for the Chinese.

Even if the end product is a bigger aircraft, it is easier to reduce weight on aircraft than on an engine!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Oct 2018 20:05

Haridas wrote:
Indranil wrote:1. People did not switch to turboprops because they are more modern. They are necessitated as one goes for larger UAVs.
2. Turboprops don’t give higher endurance, but shorter response time and better high altitude performance.
For survillance platform turboprop DOES give higher endurance compared to use of piston engine or jet engine.

We were discussing about the turboprops vs piston engines. And I disagree that turboprops have better fuel efficiency than piston engines. The SFC of good piston engines are in the mid 30s to low 40s lb/hp/h. The SFC of good turboprops are in the high 50s lb/hp/h.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Oct 2018 20:10

Neela wrote:
Indranil wrote:I have been waiting for eons for a desi 50 kN trainer/light striker. A 2 ton mudmover. If they can get a good HJT-39, this can be easily achieved. The flying qualities of a trainer would mean that you would have an aircraft which can fly slowly through the valleys with sufficient authority. The Hawk-i can do this, but with only 28kN, it is woefully underpowered to defend itself or take off with sufficient payload from high altitude.

You can imagine my happiness when a desi-designed and built aircraft will fly with desi engines.
You mean A 10 kind?

More like an AMX International, Yak-130, or a modern day Marut!

Added later: Modern day Hawker Hunter, enlarged Ajeet ....

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 01 Oct 2018 21:22

Anticipating follow on posts on IR's post above, let's not start a discussion on Aircraft design here.

Indranil wrote:
Haridas wrote: For survillance platform turboprop DOES give higher endurance compared to use of piston engine or jet engine.
We were discussing about the turboprops vs piston engines. And I disagree that turboprops have better fuel efficiency than piston engines. The SFC of good piston engines are in the mid 30s to low 40s lb/hp/h. The SFC of good turboprops are in the high 50s lb/hp/h.

While SFC might not be a major issue, perhaps the weight required for same power might be a factor while choosing piston vs turboprop..? How do the P/W numbers compare for the two class..?

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 01 Oct 2018 22:06

Any man rated Indian engine on squadron service would be a red letter day.

Note: man rated. Wankel engines powering drones don't count, though an important first step towards reliability data collection.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Oct 2018 22:27

JayS wrote: While SFC might not be a major issue, perhaps the weight required for same power might be a factor while choosing piston vs turboprop..? How do the P/W numbers compare for the two class..?

Turboprops are much better in that regard. It is unlikely that a modern designer will use piston engines once the power requirement surpasses 400 HP. Conversely, this is the reason why one doesn't find successful turboprops below this power threshold.

No more on this from me.

chola · Post by **chola** » 02 Oct 2018 08:21

nam wrote:Question: Have we achieve higher thrust, if Kaveri is made bigger than it's current form?

If yes, why are we putting ourselves in a difficult position of having to create a engine in TFTA F404 form factor & efficiency?

What's wrong in having a bigger , less efficient engine? works fine for Russians, works fine for the Chinese.

Even if the end product is a bigger aircraft, it is easier to reduce weight on aircraft than on an engine!

The Kaveri as a medium-sized turbofan was locked in by the Tejas as a “light” combat aircraft.

Though, I don’t think a bigger engine would be any easier. The Russians’ heavyweight AL-31 is hardly any better than their F404/Kaveri class, the RD-33. We’ve had myriad issues with both.

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 02 Oct 2018 12:07

Flying Test Bed
While present Kaveri variant has successfully completed FTB trials , future developments need a dedicated platform as risk mitigation.

IL-76 platform may not be optimum:
- difficulty with maintenance/ task availability
- Russian negotiations frequently unfruitful
- spares problem due to traditional factors/Ukraine situation
- old technology used leads to difficulty in instrumentation/ connecting fuel lines to test engine, etc.

The best choice, a 747, may need deep ToT from USA, which is why only GE and Pratt seem to have them.
The RR one is rarely seen.

In our inventory, we can more easily use C-130 platform.

This was used for A-400 propeller FTB trials.

The old Rolls Royce jets used a Lancaster aircraft as FTB, with feathered propellers and outer 2 pods containing jets.

A similar arrangement on C-130 can give us our FTB, with specialists in Europe (Marshal Aircraft) , Japan (Kawasaki) , etc. having expertise in this type of conversion.

Airframe integration
The use of Mig-29 platform, not from sparse IAF inventory, but bought from outside could be considered.
The RD-33 engine, being similar to Kaveri, could easily be throttled /matched for thrust.
The IAF BRD team in Nashik could help in testing and integration, which is what they often do on the Mig-29.
(A similar approach from Eurofighter with one EJ-200 and one RB-199 Turbo Union engine).

The 10 year old Boeing 737 has 73 KN engines, albeit more fuel efficient turbojets.

A successful 81 KN Kaveri is our meal ticket outta here.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 02 Oct 2018 12:22

Lot of 747s are leaving commercial service. They can be had cheap and be used for the next 10 year at the least. So that is the easiest way to the flying test bed.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 02 Oct 2018 12:54

dinesh_kimar wrote:Flying Test Bed

The best choice, a 747, may need deep ToT from USA, which is why only GE and Pratt seem to have them.
The RR one is rarely seen.

B747 indeed is best option, once we have one, we can use it for decades to come. Full life of any civil jet is about 40-50yrs. Thus even a decommissioned civil airliner still provides 20-30yrs of service. In fact even the Big three OEMs use repurposed jets as testbeds. We can use one of Air India's 747.

The transformation of civil jetliner to a FTB is a costly and complicated affair, but certainly not something which has any big technological challenges. At first I used to think only Boeing could convert B747 to FTB. But looks like in fact they don't. Last time I found out at least one third party small company in US which can do this. I am pretty sure FTB comes under ITAR as dual use technology and it probably is not as easy as buying something from Amazon.com. But I fail to see why it would be very difficult to for India to get one from US when we are buying so many Billions worth of equipment. I feel the weak link lies at MoD here. They are discussing need of FTB for last 4yrs. Whats there to discuss really..? Clearly something or someone somewhere is hindering the proposal. I do not know what or why. But I think it should be relatively easy to get a B747 based FTB from US if GOI really puts its mind to it, than asking for JV on engine development.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Oct 2018 21:36

nam wrote:Question: Have we achieve higher thrust, if Kaveri is made bigger than it's current form?

If yes, why are we putting ourselves in a difficult position of having to create a engine in TFTA F404 form factor & efficiency?

What's wrong in having a bigger , less efficient engine? works fine for Russians, works fine for the Chinese.

Even if the end product is a bigger aircraft, it is easier to reduce weight on aircraft than on an engine!

The Tejas was designed for a coordinated specific weight, volume and thrust for the engine.
Every kilogram extra weight of the engines adds to overall weight of the aircraft.

Long back Aviation week had a special issue on Tejas long ago and this point was made.
This was before the F404 was selected.

Besides the powers that be will pillory and crucify the GTRE is the kaveri is even one Kg more.
You don't understand the knives out in the whole ecosystem: media, ADA, IAF, chatteratti etc.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 02 Oct 2018 21:54

Pratyush wrote:Lot of 747s are leaving commercial service. They can be had cheap and be used for the next 10 year at the least. So that is the easiest way to the flying test bed.

israel has the tech for conversion of 747 to cargo version. We need a combi version for instrumentation as well as carrying the test crew.

If our guys could design the mount and pylon as well as the instrument bay, their guys could easily build it and test fly the 747 for proof of concept.

One could actually mount a kaveri on the pylon and complete the flight tests to check out the FTB.

Civil pilots rated for the 747 are easily available in India.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Oct 2018 22:05

One hurdle could be Boeing or whoever will void the warranty of that aircraft. So best option would be to ensure the aircraft is government owned and self insured for flying test bed purposes. And the decision endorsed at the highest levels to ward off CAG type whines.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 02 Oct 2018 22:29

ramana wrote:One hurdle could be Boeing or whoever will void the warranty of that aircraft. So best option would be to ensure the aircraft is government owned and self insured for flying test bed purposes. And the decision endorsed at the highest levels to ward off CAG type whines.

These aircraft are all quite old and way beyond any manufacturers warranty.

Individual owners can patent any modifications done on the aircraft per US law.

The aircraft will be govt owned, presumably by the DRDO and may be purchased from AI, if they haven't already sold all their B747s

AI can still maintain the aircraft and supply the maintenance crew on a contract basis.

The AI holdings of B747 spares must be very considerable and can be used.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 Oct 2018 22:47

If Boeing is a problem, go for an Airbus 340.

disha · Post by **disha** » 02 Oct 2018 23:00

No airplane manufacturing company will warrant their aircraft to be used as FTB for an unproven engine. And if they do, they will charge an arm and a leg and some more.

Once you have a prototype engine., you need a proven plane to fly it. And more importantly ability to digest and recover from accidents. In that sense, all the rona-dhona ecosystem needs to be shut out.

I used to think that Saras would be our ticket out. But one crash and tragic and unnecessary loss of life put paid to it.

Saras could have been proven on the turbo props first., if we had persisted we would have got our Saras ready to be operationally cleared by now. Once Saras's airframe is cleared, it can be paired with an unproven jet engine and a proven turboprop. This will be your FTB. And it has enough space to house all monitoring equipment.

Instead of searching wide and begging others to solve our problems for us, we should start thinking of ourselves as a $2.5 T economy with enough expertise, skills and talent and money to seed our own aircraft industry. Fast track Saras. Set up 2 teams after that to pick up Saras as FTB and put them with some common competing goals and some other goals and get them cracking.

Put a 3rd team to pick up the GTRE Kaveri and design a Saras-JET. This is a proven airplane with unproven engines.

But then our minds go on and on of putting it on Boeing 747/737 or Airbus 340 etc as FTB when the same amount could be spent locally to jumpstart our own industry.

And of course some money must be spent to wine-and-dine the rona-dhona industry.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 02 Oct 2018 23:10

disha wrote:No airplane manufacturing company will warrant their aircraft to be used as FTB for an unproven engine. And if they do, they will charge an arm and a leg and some more.
........

As you can see in the image below, the unproven engine is a deadweight for most of the flying time.

And as the name suggests, the FTB is for the purpose of "testing" the engine which means by definition the engine in unproven.

An engine will go to FTB only after certain amount of testing on ground test beds.

IMHO, we need to bite the bullet and get such a test bed as part of the offset instead of re-inventing the wheel with Saras

VKumar · Post by **VKumar** » 02 Oct 2018 23:19

In a 4 engine jet, can 1 engine not be swapped with Kaveri? In case it doesn't work, it can be shut down and plane can land with 3 engines.

I think we should mount Kaveri on a LCA or any aircraft available, just do taxi trials and see the results. Meanwhile see if 4 engine aircraft can be modified to test the Kaveri.

Had it been a war situation and with sanctions, this process would have been expedited.

Now it is chalta hai.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 02 Oct 2018 23:21

About the ideal engine for Saras and our future cargo planes, I think we should immediately start research towards the below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE36

Note: it used a modified F404. We have gained quite a bit of experience on the same and our Kaveri is also supposed to be a "near" drop-in replacement for f404.

Also, the dry part of the kaveri is performing more or less per spec; the part of Kaveri which needs fine tuning is the afterburner which is not required for propfans anyway. So ideal to start on this right away.

An engine with around 0.4 lb/lbf.h would be a game changer and that should be our target. Even if we reach 0.5 i.e. 25% less fuel economy than target, the current most economical is CFM56 which gives 0.545 so we still get a world beating product like our ALH dhruv.

The propfans are making a comeback and all the major engine producers have started serious research towards them due to the unbeatable combination of turbofan speed at turboprop fuel economy. Instead of starting late and playing catch up, we should start now, ahead, for a change, to come up with a propfan version of kaveri.

We can even ask Rushkies for consultancy due to their experience on D-27 used on An-70. Philip Sir would be happy.

nam · Post by **nam** » 02 Oct 2018 23:25

We can probably take one of AI's older craft and use one of the engine bay, doing something similar to what Russians have done with IL76.
If we pay Boeing or Airbus, they will be happy to convert one for us. Why would they say no?

Options are many, once GoI opens the purse string. Jet Engine tech are crown jewels of nations. You don't get them by throwing peanuts like we do.
You need a sustain billion dollar per year funding, if you want to see top notch engine. Till the money is shown, all these talk is just talk.

If you don't want to invest so much in jet turbine, figure out another way to power jet.May be an electric engine?

A perfect example is scramjet. Because it has no moving parts, it has allowed us to design one, despite our weakness in material science!

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 02 Oct 2018 23:32

disha wrote:No airplane manufacturing company will warrant their aircraft to be used as FTB for an unproven engine. And if they do, they will charge an arm and a leg and some more.

You have gone tangent to the topic at hand. All aero engines are tested on some aircraft at some point of time when they are unproven.

There is absolutely no need for an OEM to charge outrageous money. You don't even have to go to the OEM as I used to think previously. A handful of third party companies can do the conversion. Buy it from an airliner, Air India is best option. They are basically scrapped civil airliners with 20-25yrs behind them and about 20yrs ahead as cargo liners. Typically they are sold just before last D-check and should be coming rather cheap. Considering a brand new jet liner actually costs (sticker prices are typically very high) somewhere around 80-120M USD, the jet after its life is over as passenger jet must be costing not more than 40-50M USD.

Couple of hundred million USD for conversion to FTB, give or take few tens of Mil (instrumentation cost is main component, I would say. And FTB need a whole lot of state-of-the-art instrumentation). And you will have a nice 4 engine test bed to test all and sundry types of engines for 2-3 decades to come in a very safe manner. Operating is not a problem as we have many civilian pilots and even IAF test pilots. Spares can be borrowed from Air India B747 pool or can even be bought from I'national market in clandestine manner through shell companies if things go real bad. There is no need for any Airworthiness approval from any external agency, as FTB fly as test aircrafts and we can let CEMILAC cover the AW part. There is no need for Boeing to care about their brand value or any such trivial thing as its perfectly understood that FTB fly as separate class of aircrafts and do not have to abide by rules and regulations than Passenger airliner has to. Nor we need any warranty from OEM. We can maintain one jet at a bit higher cost for sure. And as IR said we can go with Airbus A340 or Il-76 too if Boeing is too much pain in the ass.

However GOI may need to spend some political weight to evade through US Export control laws, which I think should not be too difficult given the current bonhomie we have, where GOI is expecting JV engine development. Getting FTB is rather small compared to getting a JV anyday.

Saras is simply puny to be any meaningful FTB. Lets not even waste our time there.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Oct 2018 00:14

I think the MoD angst is due to mfg warranty issues. No one wants to stick neck out if the mfg refuses. And Kaveri is not ready anyway till SAFRAN said it should be flown.

I think one can rule out a US aircraft because in end its a rice bowl thing and the risk averse nature of MoD community.
Better use one of the Russian jets. And get on with it now that SAFRAN has recommended flying Kaveri.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 03 Oct 2018 01:05

ramana wrote:I think the MoD angst is due to mfg warranty issues. No one wants to stick neck out if the mfg refuses. And Kaveri is not ready anyway till SAFRAN said it should be flown.

I think one can rule out a US aircraft because in end its a rice bowl thing and the risk averse nature of MoD community.
Better use one of the Russian jets. And get on with it now that SAFRAN has recommended flying Kaveri.

Boeing doesn't care and nor does the US govt care about what you do with a used and elderly B747.

Why are we complicating the issue by dragging in the US govt or Boeing when it is not necessary??

If you do ask them, trump may corner you into purchasing a spanking new latest Boeing, modified per requirement and stick you a price tag of several billion $.

IAI converts older boeings on a regular basis. With israel, its purely a commercial deal with no politics involved. If not them, then there are any number of competent companies that are capable of doing the job provided someone is willing to pay.

The converted boeing should be certified by DGCA, we don't need anyone else for this. Certainly not CEMILAC who have nil exposure and experience in this type of work. Since its a transport aircraft, DGCA is mandatorily involved, and IIRC, it is also involved in mil transport aircraft.

DGCA will most likely classify this testbed as an "experimental" aircraft.

Once classified as "experimental", you are well and truly on your own.

Boeing, even if asked, will not take any responsibility for an FTB.

Rest assured that Boeing itself will be flying several of its own aircraft as FTBs.

Why ask anyone else at all??

DRDO should get the money sanctioned by making a case for it and go ahead with the modification if it is serious.

The test engine needs to be mounted on a separate pylon because a four engined Boeing 747 will NEVER be certified by anyone to take off on three engines EVER.

A test engine does not power the aircraft on take off. It may, however, run additionally as part of the test.

Worst case, I would expect the mod and instrumentation to take maybe a year to a year and a half.

Can someone explain what exactly are mfg warranty issues??

What mfg warranty issues can occur on a old B747??

What is happening is a modification on the aircraft. The org which does the mod will take responsibility for its work. Remaining is test flights to determine that the modification is safe and the airplane is aerodynamically stable and data on how it affects the performance of the aircraft in flight.

Some SOPs may change, emergency procedures may change, inspection intervals may change, additional inspections may be called for, concerning the new pylon, engine mounts, fuel system and what not.

This is not complicated or even such a big thing. ASTE test pilots/ engineers can do this if required. Better to do it as part of the modification package itself.

If you are thinking of the flying idly thingee that peeled right off, crashed the aircraft and killed people, that was an extremely unprofessional job done by folks who did not understand what they were doing.

IIRC, no one ever took responsibility for that mishap.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 03 Oct 2018 02:27

In addition to what Chetak has said, for all we care, we should loan an existing F404 to IAI to proof the modification.

Once they proof the mod and come up with various SOP to test the engine(F404) in different flight profile, we replace F404 and load Kaveri on it.

Why complicate this unnecessarily?

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 03 Oct 2018 06:17

I'm trying to understand what is needed to hook up an experimental engine onto an existing aircraft.
I can think of following
- fuel lines must be modified
- FADEC must hooked up

But is data like thrust, fuel consumption etc fed back _and_ integrated into the host aircraft? Wouldn't that mean having to know the source code for say a 747?

Or is the experimental engine in complete isolation except for say shared fuel?

I would assume that going for a relatively older large aircraft would make it easier given more analog parts than current day ones.

It really worries me that a crash or collapse would set us back by several years as was seen in Saras and AEW Avro test bed. The ownership and risk involved with this test bed might be a huge challenge for anyone.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 03 Oct 2018 11:14

Protection from an exploded engine and Instrumentation too.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Oct 2018 11:29

what! even ilyushin will not survive any type of explosion, however the housing definitely can be made robust

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Oct 2018 19:45

Prasad wrote:Protection from an exploded engine and Instrumentation too.

With this mindset can put wings on Arjun and call it Flying Test Bed.

Neela wrote: It really worries me that a crash or collapse would set us back by several years as was seen in Saras and AEW Avro test bed. The ownership and risk involved with this test bed might be a huge challenge for anyone.

You have two points here.

1) Crash of FTB will set India back like Saras and AEW prototypes.
I read the Saras crash investigation report and it clearly was due to pilot error as he was told to not restart the engine and let it glide. This was the root cause. Off course along the way they found many other design deficiencies that have been fixed. Example they now have more powerful engine and more composite parts to reduce dead-weight.
The NAL folks were bureaucrats without skin in the game so to speak and just let it slide in stupor all these years. Never advocated for the Saras even when IAF had given firm commitment to buy these planes if ever it was made in quantity.
AEW aka "flying chapati" I did not see the crash investigation. But looking at pictures the antenna struts attachment to the aircraft structure looked flimsy. I don't know but that attachment would rip off in bad winds.

2) Flying experiments is risky but one cant certify a penguin will fly. All engine programs did eventually get flown on test beds and certified. By now DRDO could have bought a plane and dedicated for FTB use but they want IAF to hand over a plane!
Why could they not use one of the Canberra's which had quite a bit of useful life? Or bought from the Eastern Europe.
I think there was no confidence that Kaveri will ever reach this stage. Any decent engineering development program would have activities related to getting the engine certified on a FTB.
Relying on Russian plane for one shot deal was planning for success.
I think here DRDO and GTRE and all who have oversight on Kaveri were checked out.
Most likely the committee attitude was like that uncle who nods approvingly when you bring a handmade toy made from bits and pieces.
Now they are caught when SAFRAN says this contraption is ready to be flown.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 03 Oct 2018 20:03

Neela wrote:I'm trying to understand what is needed to hook up an experimental engine onto an existing aircraft.
I can think of following
- fuel lines must be modified
- FADEC must hooked up

But is data like thrust, fuel consumption etc fed back _and_ integrated into the host aircraft? Wouldn't that mean having to know the source code for say a 747?

Or is the experimental engine in complete isolation except for say shared fuel?

I would assume that going for a relatively older large aircraft would make it easier given more analog parts than current day ones.

It really worries me that a crash or collapse would set us back by several years as was seen in Saras and AEW Avro test bed. The ownership and risk involved with this test bed might be a huge challenge for anyone.

AI would have a large holding of spares for its 747s and an already trained crew for maintenance. Why look elsewhere at all?? Such expertise is not available in any of the services and since the aircraft would be DGCA certified, it would need a legally DGCA licensed engineer to work on it. There is no getting around this.

If someone does not want to accept the responsibility for the FTB, then rest assured that no one will volunteer to do so. Ideally, the ball is in the GTRE/DRDO court.

If the design agency will not accept the responsibility or it will not establish a separate flight test unit under its administrative/operational control, no one else will bother, actually why should they??. This is the easiest way to kill the project.

No requirement for any data from the test engine be fed back to the to the host aircraft system except for recording (as a backup) or real time monitoring after the test data was telemetered out.?? The test engine would be an independent and isolated system.

The test engine would not hook up to the host aircraft FADEC but it would have its own independent FADEC.

There is no relationship between the analog instruments on the aircraft and the test instrumentation. The test instruments would be almost completely digital. The host aircraft itself could have a glass cockpit. The 400 series have a glass cockpit available and many have been installed.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 03 Oct 2018 21:46

Prasad wrote:Protection from an exploded engine and Instrumentation too.

Every engine's casings are designed to contain any thing flying out of it (rotating blades that is). If some thing cames out then there is something seriously wrong with the engine design. This is not to say such things do not happen. We have seen quite a few incidences even in recent times, where some stuff flew out of an engine and hit the aircraft on well established Jet airliners, let alone Flight test prototypes or FTBs. Point is no special thing is needed for FTB in this respect. Its already inbuilt into any aircraft and any engine. Whatever happenes after this is unforeseen and perhaps unavoidable. Any tests where engine might explode or it is supposed to explode happen on the ground.

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 03 Oct 2018 22:31

A flying test bed is not just about the plane that carries the engine. tHe faulty engine can alys be shut down if it malfunctions. What is important is the data collected during the testing and thus the sensor suit and its processing is what makes a plane really a flying test bed. So just biying a plane will not be enough. We can always get one-what is important is the ability to garner data from the tested engine. It can be done but requires money and political will to fund it.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 03 Oct 2018 23:28

chetak wrote:
The converted boeing should be certified by DGCA, we don't need anyone else for this. Certainly not CEMILAC who have nil exposure and experience in this type of work. Since its a transport aircraft, DGCA is mandatorily involved, and IIRC, it is also involved in mil transport aircraft.

DGCA will most likely classify this testbed as an "experimental" aircraft.

Once classified as "experimental", you are well and truly on your own.

I have high doubts on technical competency DGCA to handle something which may not be as simple as copy pasting from FAA..? DGCA made a random rule than one cannot have an experimental aircraft with weigh <1500Kg. From all that I hear about DGCA (even after giving a good margin for said and heard things) I don't think DGCA is in any situation to do any certification on its own. CEMILAC on the other hand seems to have much better competency due to working with LCA like projects.

There might be benefits to keep the FTB in Military domain. It could be completely shielded from any kind of public disclosure that way, I tend to think.

Anyway how to handle the certification is easy matter relatively speaking. Should not be bottleneck for acquiring FTB.

It will definitely be classified as "Experimental".

US Govt comes into picture because many things that have even remote chances of being used for Military application falls under dual use technology category and have restrictions on export. Even if we work with Israel or Europe, if the program involves anything from US, the ITAR would be applicable. And I am pretty sure something or the other will fall under dual use category. They even have alloys, which are widely used even in India, under export control. (The recent upgradation to Tier 1 country, should be helpful for us in getting clearances in many situations). You may get it, but still need to do all the documentation with export control licenses to be acquired from USG.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 03 Oct 2018 23:29

prasannasimha wrote:A flying test bed is not just about the plane that carries the engine. tHe faulty engine can alys be shut down if it malfunctions. What is important is the data collected during the testing and thus the sensor suit and its processing is what makes a plane really a flying test bed. So just biying a plane will not be enough. We can always get one-what is important is the ability to garner data from the tested engine. It can be done but requires money and political will to fund it.

Instrumentation is costlier than the cost of the aircraft itself, I would expect. And yes, even operating costs would be on higher side. We cant have a FTB with trickle funding that typically is sanctioned.

ramana wrote:[

By now DRDO could have bought a plane and dedicated for FTB use but they want IAF to hand over a plane!

Saar, do you really think DRDO can buy anything as large as an aircraft without signature of multiple babus..? Do you really think they could buy FTB on their own..? At least I think not. They have no earnings of their own. Every single rupee given to them is already marked for use. The budget given to DRDO is always about 25-30% lower than what they ask for. FTB is costly. Indian MPs seating on Def Committee can be bought way cheaper.