Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 23 Jan 2019 22:43

If anything mig29 will be one to get them. Is there not some proposal for it earlier?

chola · Post by **chola** » 23 Jan 2019 22:50

chetak wrote:
not blaming you in any way, saar.

these guys, including HAL ought to know better.

HAL is back to playing games once again, especially the ex-chairman who is definitely into some top quality stuff. (pun intended)

I know, Chetak ji. The last time I had real good stuff was in college which I shared with the girl who became my wife. We all do crazy things when we’re on it. LOL

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 23 Jan 2019 22:57

In relation to the above tweets, is ‪@avarakai ‬one of us?

chola · Post by **chola** » 24 Jan 2019 01:14

Yagnasri wrote:If anything mig29 will be one to get them. Is there not some proposal for it earlier?

There had been a lot of talk and speculation of using a Fulcrum as an in-flight testbed but I don’t recall anything about the MiG-29 being in line for the Kaveri as an option. The MiG is an old platform, other than the 29K for the IN, there will be no new orders for the plane.

With the Rafale, we are in line for future orders. So a Kaveri option while not likely will be probably more feasible than the MiG-29 because of its brighter future.

That said, the Kaveri would likely to be tested first on a MiG-29 than Rafale. I don’t see the IAF giving up a precious Rafale for testing.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Jan 2019 02:19

No Saar, even Kaveri on MiG-29 will not work. See diameter below....

Kaveri engine

Code: Select all

Length: 137.4 in (348.99 cm)
Diameter: 35.8 in (90.93 cm)

F404-IN20 (Tejas engine)

Code: Select all

Length: 154 in (391 cm)
Diameter: 35 in (89 cm)

RD-33 (MiG-29 engine)

Code: Select all

Length: 166.50 in (422.91 cm)
Diameter: 40.94 in (103.99 cm)

M88 (Rafale engine)

Code: Select all

Length: 139.3 in (353.8 cm)
Diameter: 27.4 in (69.6 cm)

If someone can advise how Snecma managed to squeeze a GE F404 turbofan onto the first Rafale prototype, I would be grateful. Because the first Rafale prototype flew with a F404-GE-400 engine. Perhaps the diameter size is similar to the M88?

Added Later: I checked the diameter size of the F404-GE-400. It is 35 inches onlee.

chola · Post by **chola** » 24 Jan 2019 02:37

I don’t think you need to have exact dimensional matches, Admiral. Otherwise, we’d never see testbeds taking on engines with new dimensions!

The RD-33 is both longer and wider than the Kaveri so there would be ample space. I imagine that bracing the thing would be an issue. It must it must be easier than taking in a bigger engine.

If the Rafale prototype was able to accomodate the F404 then the Rafale should be able to accept the Kaveri too since it is shorter but of the same width.

Aren’t planes designed for a particular class of engines? Not to a specific engine? Kaveri, F404 and RD-33 are of the same medium class (unlike say the F-100 or AL-31 which are heavy class.)

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Jan 2019 05:52

I will buy the argument (reluctantly) of bracing a smaller diameter sized engine in a larger engine bay. What I cannot understand is how one can fit a larger diameter sized engine in a smaller engine bay.

We need some engine gurus to chime in here.

But till then (as someone once said) ---> If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Jan 2019 06:45

Hari Seldon in Foundation!!!
No you cant fit a larger diameter in a smaller diameter engine bay.
So whoever was tweeting that stuff was smoking double distilled stuff.
And chetak pointed it out in this page.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Jan 2019 06:51

BTW when the Tejas TD planes were being design ed with F404 there were queries on how will Kaveri fit?
All this in 1998 time frame.
And people pooh poohed them as naysayers not supportive of indigenous development.
Now Kaveri will fit into Rafale engine bay.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Jan 2019 08:38

ramana wrote:Hari Seldon in Foundation!!!
No you cant fit a larger diameter in a smaller diameter engine bay.
So whoever was tweeting that stuff was smoking double distilled stuff.
And chetak pointed it out in this page.

Ramana-ji, that is what logic tells me as well.

But how does one reconcile the fact that the Rafale A flew with a F404-GE-400 engine in 1986?

Was the engine bay diameter larger in the Rafale A (prototype) than in the production variants (Rafale C/B/M)?

Diameter difference between F404-GE-400 engine and the M88 engine is 7.6 inches! What kind of jadoo did Dassault do?

In airframe design, adding or removing 7.6++ inches to an engine bay diameter has implications no?

A Deshmukh · Post by **A Deshmukh** » 24 Jan 2019 10:34

design and build a UAV just to test the Kaveri......jmt

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 24 Jan 2019 10:44

ramana wrote:I click on this thread hopefully to hear significant progress with Kaveri.
All I hear is 'should' and 'would'.

Nowadays defence reporters are sounding like wish list promoters.
When do they report what is happening?

Spot on sir, took the words of my mouth..kuch to news chahiye

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 25 Jan 2019 12:21

Cain Marko wrote:
ramana wrote:I click on this thread hopefully to hear significant progress with Kaveri.
All I hear is 'should' and 'would'.

Nowadays defence reporters are sounding like wish list promoters.
When do they report what is happening?
Spot on sir, took the words of my mouth..kuch to news chahiye

most of them benefit financially by pushing a very specific position or point of view.

rrao · Post by **rrao** » 25 Jan 2019 13:26

Poofed.

MOD NOTE- Dont post trash like this. Consider it a soft warning.

hemant_sai · Post by **hemant_sai** » 25 Jan 2019 19:12

I am another wish maker like https://mobile.twitter.com/AdvaidhyaT/s ... 0603425792, But one thing must be certain that Kaveri production contract should not go to HAL alone. Fortunately BharatForge & TASL has already started capability building in jet engine production. In-fact I strongly believe that if BF/TASL is involved now, things will happen sooner than 2020. Sometimes I feel Kaveri has become as sacred as Ganga for IAF revolution.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 21 Feb 2019 00:48

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/1098153574410924032 ----> Pity to report no major progress on the Kaveri. The struggle towards airworthiness continues, while the partnership with Safran Engines (part of Rafale offsets) remains in a tech evaluation stage. Also, Kaveri won’t power the AMCA, the team confirms.

nam · Post by **nam** » 21 Feb 2019 00:54

Kaveri won't power LCA or AMCA.

So what is it planning to power? Either we fund it properly or shut it down.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Feb 2019 01:22

nam wrote:Kaveri won't power LCA or AMCA.

So what is it planning to power? Either we fund it properly or shut it down.

nam, a large chunk of Rafale offset money is to create a jet engine and its production facility.
Its long term. Patience.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 21 Feb 2019 04:56

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1098332296044638209

Work on integrating the Kaveri low-bypass turbofan with a LCA test vehicle is underway. Expect demonstration flights to take place in the near future. But these will be for demonstration purposes only.

chola · Post by **chola** » 21 Feb 2019 05:16

Gagan wrote:https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1098332296044638209
Work on integrating the Kaveri low-bypass turbofan with a LCA test vehicle is underway. Expect demonstration flights to take place in the near
future. But these will be for demonstration purposes only.

Even for demonstration, this is wonderful news!

Wow, like someone opened the floodgates on good news today.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 21 Feb 2019 05:24

What other good news has come about today sir?

chola · Post by **chola** » 21 Feb 2019 05:55

^^^ FOC and now finally the Kaveri on the LCA is a tsunami of good news to me

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 21 Feb 2019 06:24

Two polar opposite tweets on the Kaveri turbofan on the same day. I am going to with Saurav Jha.

Good find Gagan!

SriKumar · Post by **SriKumar** » 21 Feb 2019 06:52

Gagan wrote:https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1098332296044638209
Work on integrating the Kaveri low-bypass turbofan with a LCA test vehicle is underway. Expect demonstration flights to take place in the near future. But these will be for demonstration purposes only.

IMVHO, this is bigger than FOC of LCA. The darn thing just needs to fly and the engineers will prove their mettle. I only hope 'near future' is this year and not 2 or 3 years out.

'LCA test vehicle': which LCA airframe was diverted for this...? Maybe one of the LSPs has been diverted? Or a brand new one from production line that's not going to a squadron? Is there any LSP that's not flying (accumulating hours) lately?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 21 Feb 2019 06:58

ramana wrote:nam, a large chunk of Rafale offset money is to create a jet engine and its production facility.
Its long term. Patience.

Thank You Ramana-ji. Coming from you, that means a lot.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 21 Feb 2019 08:44

Non after burning Kaveri engine is supposed to be used for UVAV.

Also I feel it can be used for LIFT LCA which is being contemplated by HAL

sajaym · Post by **sajaym** » 21 Feb 2019 12:22

Gyan wrote:Non after burning Kaveri engine is supposed to be used for UVAV.

If that is the case, then I hope they can do the test without putting a Bakra inside the Kaveri-powered LCA. That way they can proof the engine and also proof the guidance system for an unmanned version of the LCA down the road.

Gyan wrote: Also I feel it can be used for LIFT LCA which is being contemplated by HAL

A lot, lot, lot of testing will be required before this combo (LIFT LCA + Kaveri engine), can be sold to/accepted by any customer.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 21 Feb 2019 20:02

^^ Probably gonna start a program by some other name.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 22 Feb 2019 10:21

Livefist Verified account @livefist

It’s official: India’s Kaveri jet engine won’t power the future AMCA fighter or the Medium Weight Fighter, confirms @DRDO_India. The team does hope to see it power an aircraft and spin off a marine engine version though. #AeroIndia2019

watch the video

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/1098432193360248832

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Feb 2019 11:46

Both AMCA and MWF require higher performance than Tejas for which Kaveri was designed.
So it can't power either plane.

So was Livefist being DDM?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Feb 2019 11:47

The Kaveri once developed still can replace the GE engines over life of the Tejas airframe.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 22 Feb 2019 11:54

ramana wrote:
nam wrote:Kaveri won't power LCA or AMCA.

So what is it planning to power? Either we fund it properly or shut it down.
nam, a large chunk of Rafale offset money is to create a jet engine and its production facility.
Its long term. Patience.

Right!

A couple of further thoughts.
1. What is imperative has to be perused no matter what the cost. A future power cannot depend on the others for ever.
2. The project has been de-linked. Let it not become a hurdle in the path of the other projects that are important on their own.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Feb 2019 12:20

I wonder what they meant by saying the JV with safran is at "tech eval stage"!! Rafales are getting ready for delivery and we are still nowhere on this offset project?

and its not like we have a choice of french vendors under dassault ecosystem for this - safran is the one and only option.

both sides need to get cracking on this. if they already admitting defeat and sayting AMCA which at best will have first flight in 2025 cannot get a new hot section & materials kaveri, in 5 years, then we are done and should close the project. put them to work designing engines for turboprop UAVs and small turbojets for UCAVs and missiles - atleast those will do some good than this never ending loop on kaveri

one way or another this it it - the last chance, or remain tied to us/french/russian engines forever. "reliance" or "L&T" is not going to be coming up with a fighter engine.

atleast keep a goal to power the Tejas and future AJT model of Tejas. make a non afterburner model of it and reengine the Hawk also - a good vehicle to try different ideas and brits will not mind us tinkering with its dated airframe.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 22 Feb 2019 13:14

Singha wrote:I wonder what they meant by saying the JV with safran is at "tech eval stage"!! Rafales are getting ready for delivery and we are still nowhere on this offset project?

and its not like we have a choice of french vendors under dassault ecosystem for this - safran is the one and only option.

both sides need to get cracking on this. if they already admitting defeat and sayting AMCA which at best will have first flight in 2025 cannot get a new hot section & materials kaveri, in 5 years, then we are done and should close the project. put them to work designing engines for turboprop UAVs and small turbojets for UCAVs and missiles - atleast those will do some good than this never ending loop on kaveri

one way or another this it it - the last chance, or remain tied to us/french/russian engines forever. "reliance" or "L&T" is not going to be coming up with a fighter engine.

atleast keep a goal to power the Tejas and future AJT model of Tejas. make a non afterburner model of it and reengine the Hawk also - a good vehicle to try different ideas and brits will not mind us tinkering with its dated airframe.

somebody was already talking of "work share", meaning they expect garam banna banna halwa to be delivered hot and steaming on a fancy plate and then they expect to be fed lavishly in terms of IP.

Discussion of work share implies some sort of technical equality and intellectual contribution on an approximately similar level from both sides. It also means that the dominant partner would be the one transferring or using the IP to make modifications, and not a baboo(n) like setup and entitlement that you do the work and I will be the boss and watch type of management set up.

Someone may have seriously misunderstood even the basic idea of offsets

Offset means that the goras will fight tooth and nail to ensure that nothing of value will be delivered. Boeing offsets resulted in some bare metallic boxes being made in India, just like what the local trunk wallas make in UP.

Folks may have just discovered exactly what safran means by "assistance" for the kaveri

No one will part with their family silver just because some colored guys came up with a crazy idea of offsets.

IIRC, there were discussions of kaveri flying with an already developed and available core that was somehow "suitable" for transplantation with some minor jugad.

The core means, among other things, the SCBs are being targeted right off the bat, by our guys and this will certainly not make safran dance with joy.

mridulmm · Post by **mridulmm** » 22 Feb 2019 21:35

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/109 ... 74464?s=19

Kaveri engine project will be closed before a successor is officially unveiled. #IAH

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/109 ... 07808?s=19

Sources say the Kaveri engine program will be closed before a new project is officially unveiled. Which is why they want to do a few demonstration flights on a Tejas test vehicle that has an intake which can accommodate the higher mass flow of the Kaveri vis a vis the F404. #IAH

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 24 Feb 2019 00:16

A pooch to the Insiders (maybe with serious reasons): What is role of Indian univ. research in this/related program? I know there is a national Gas Turbine Center HQ-ed at IITM. Why do 1980s problems such as screech/ AB oscillations still persist (OK, I hear that screech is gone, maybe). Blade flutter too: again a 1970s/80s research problem, I bet the stuff is not even ITAR anymore. Isn't that avoided by SOP design procedure? Just confused on how The System works in desh: don't they call in the eggheads and present the problem, and say here are some coins, bring me solution report in 6 mo or ur head on a platter like King of Prof. Archimedes? Have they overcome Inlet Unstart? Buzz?
I get the strange deja vu sensation that lack of basic gyan is the problem. Like "which equation do I plug in?"
Specific gyan questions: Why is there screech (if it is still there)?
Why are there other AB oscillations (1980s problem)?
Why is there blade flutter?
If these are the problems why are ppl from univs where they have textbooks and courses and libraries, brought in to solve these, pronto?
Maybe answer is deeper. Like pain in musharraf is actually caused by flu?

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 24 Feb 2019 01:35

The project should be continued till the original goals set in 1989 are fulfilled:

1. 52/81 KN thrust
2. 1100 kg weight
3. Flightworthy. (500h, Screech, afterburner, MTBO).

If cannot power next gen aircraft, so be it, but let research pls be continued, for the ultimate goal of import substitution/ tech indegenisation.

The DRDO has been announcing the start of flight testing since 2009, but have not gone ahead and done it.

This was after they declared successful FTB tests, which precede airframe integration and testing.

It is criminal that they completed FTB in 2011-13 timeline, but have still not integrated and tested on airframe.

My CT is this has been blocked, as airframe integration and 500 h of flight tests precede production.

Even if a flightworthy Kaveri acheives only 71 KN, there will soon be pressure to stop importing entire ecosystem of engines under this thrust class (many exist, for Hawk, Jaguar, Mig 21 engines and spares).

A simpler follow on project for turboprops will rid us of foreign supplied engines for An-32, C-130, Do-228, and turboshaft based Mi-17.

Turboprops are simpler to engineer, with less demanding hot sections and thrust ratings. A working Kaveri would be a boon here.

Not to mention low hanging fruit like desi Jet engine starters, materials and alloys for compressor/turbine of imported engine ( import substitution), engine accessories like jet pumps, FADEC controllers, pipes and tubes, etc.

Thereby lies the threat of the Kaveri.

The DRDO should have fought tooth and nail to flight qualify Kaveri for these reasons.

They are tamely folding over, without a wimper, and this is suspicious on their part.

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 24 Feb 2019 01:53

By import substitution, I mean the following.

The IAF jet engine has any 7-8 modules, and life of 6000h, say, with 3 overhauls/2000 hours.

Let's assume India does entire engine overhaul in-house. So no foreign vendor for assembly/test.

So, the scene unfolds like this: after 2000 h of Rolls Royce engine life, change compressor and turbine module, re- assemble as per standards, balance the rotor masses ,send to engine test bed.

The turbine / compressor module imported from Rolls Royce may cost 1 million euro.

30 engines overhauled a year is 30 million euros straight off from the IAF budget.

An indegenous alternative will be cheaper and sanction proof.

And don't worry abt patents and IPR, India owns the planes and can do what it wants with them, this is the law I understand.

Refusal of OEM to certify plane/engine can be managed by using alternate certifying agency like Cemilac or ones abroad.

Re engining planes or sourcing spares from non approved vendors is common enough phenomenon.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 24 Feb 2019 04:15

Any updates on the HTFE and HTSE ?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 24 Feb 2019 04:35

That's ok - a professor once told me - declare victory and move on! So mate the Kaveri with the LCA and keep that combo flying to gain knowledge. Use the same team in the new venture so that the knowledge is maintained.