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.
rakall
BRFite
Posts: 798
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby rakall » 24 Jun 2014 12:50

indranilroy wrote:Okay. Here is the information about HTFE-25 from recent HAL tenders.

The Hindustan Turbo Fan Engine-25 (HTFE-25) is a twin spool, low bypass, nonafterburning, mixed flow turbofan engine in 25 KN class being designed & developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).


Tender for manufacturing its gearbox is also out. I think that they are going to start testing this thing in about a year's time.


25KN is more than the Al-55, but exactly the thrust of Adour Mk871 of the Hawk

1. Is it intended for a future deep upgrade of the IJT - even in such case 25KN is too much for IJT

2. Or HAL is planning/reviving an AJT of its own.. In AI2005 they had displayed a mock-up of their in-house AJT design called CAT (Combat Attack Trainer). May be revival of that project?

3.Or on similar lines a CAS/COIN type of aircraft.. With LCH & Apache, there is probably little utility of such specialised CAS/COIN aircraft..

So, may be HAL is designing an AJT.. Whatever it is, indigenous engine development is welcome..

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3687
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Neela » 24 Jun 2014 15:00

During AI2013, there was a engine mock-up being displayed and was called Laghu Shakti engine. I recall it was also for 25kN. Is it the HTFE-25?

rakall
BRFite
Posts: 798
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby rakall » 24 Jun 2014 15:48

Neela wrote:During AI2013, there was a engine mock-up being displayed and was called Laghu Shakti engine. I recall it was also for 25kN. Is it the HTFE-25?


Laghu Shakti engine is for 3.7KN..

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 24 Jun 2014 16:01



Note the following:

"The powerplants have to be ready well ahead of air vehicle development—as both the Air Force and Navy discovered in the 1970s with the McDonnell Douglas F-15A Eagle and Grumman F-14A Tomcat with both type encountering severe difficulties with their engines."

I think the implication for AMCA is obvious.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9495
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Jun 2014 16:29

Everything depends upon the propulsion and the ability to provide the required engines. This is not only true for cutting edge fighters but also for upgrades of existing fighters. In a nut shell, want a fighter that can do X Km combat Radius, @ Y mph with a desired payload and the designers need to know what size they must build the fighter. Efficient engines allow the designers to design an optimum airframe while if the engines are not advanced high speed long distance cruise has to be obtained by adding size and weight for more fuel. When the RFP's are issued by Khan the propulsion bids are handed over to each designer as they begin working on their designs to best meet the requirements. The TR levels mentioned are also important because the designers need to know at what level of "maturity" propulsion is as they advance their designs over the years. In house design work and scale model wind tunnel testing begins years ahead of the expected RFP. Simply put no NG engines means NO 6th gen fighter. The sort of capability being demanded as per the media is not going to be possible with existing engines.




Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8256
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Indranil » 24 Jun 2014 17:52

Pratyush wrote:IR,

For a project of this nature, what would be the ideal length of testing period.

Hard to say. Many tests are serial in nature. If all goes well, ground tests may be 3-5 years and then 1-2 years of flight testing. Right now they are building prototypes, most probably for ground testing. Generally, theses are followed by flight prototypes and production prototypes.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8256
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Indranil » 24 Jun 2014 18:01

rakall wrote:25KN is more than the Al-55, but exactly the thrust of Adour Mk871 of the Hawk

1. Is it intended for a future deep upgrade of the IJT - even in such case 25KN is too much for IJT

2. Or HAL is planning/reviving an AJT of its own.. In AI2005 they had displayed a mock-up of their in-house AJT design called CAT (Combat Attack Trainer). May be revival of that project?

3.Or on similar lines a CAS/COIN type of aircraft.. With LCH & Apache, there is probably little utility of such specialised CAS/COIN aircraft..

So, may be HAL is designing an AJT.. Whatever it is, indigenous engine development is welcome..

You can always have different versions of the same engine with different thrust. The question is more on the dimensions than the thrust.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8256
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Indranil » 25 Jun 2014 20:33

Well they came out with the tender for the bellmouth required for ground testing the engine. From that, one can infer that the inlet diameter is 455 mm. That is less than that of the AL-55I (590mm) and the Adour 951 (580mm).

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 522
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby dinesh_kimar » 26 Jun 2014 15:18

A BRF poster pentaiah had talked about trying to make the old RR DART and ORPHEUS engines to gain know how.....this is increasingly making sense, after recent info from Prof. Das about the Kaveri's troubles. A reliable 1st or 2nd gen base engine with about 1000 h life and 60 - 80 KN thrust can actually power a series of aircrafts, and will give us the technical base. Many of the basics like compressor selection, maping stages to each other, combustion chamber design, integration of aircraft, etc. are also as important as Single Crystal Blade technology. For example, the IAF was happy with the Canebbra, and a similar design powered by two of these engines seems to be possible, with Kaveri acheiving 85% of its targeted thrust.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4556
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 26 Jun 2014 19:21

dinesh_kumar wrote:A BRF poster pentaiah had talked about trying to make the old RR DART and ORPHEUS engines to gain know how.....this is increasingly making sense, after recent info from Prof. Das about the Kaveri's troubles. A reliable 1st or 2nd gen base engine with about 1000 h life and 60 - 80 KN thrust can actually power a series of aircrafts, and will give us the technical base. Many of the basics like compressor selection, maping stages to each other, combustion chamber design, integration of aircraft, etc. are also as important as Single Crystal Blade technology. For example, the IAF was happy with the Canebbra, and a similar design powered by two of these engines seems to be possible, with Kaveri acheiving 85% of its targeted thrust.


In any approach, There should be a visionary plan for developing 3rd gen engine and eventually 4th-5th gen tech. More vigorous than what we are already doing with Kaveri (e.g. We are not even building basic testing facilities. And China is investing like $16 Billion or something by 2030 for jet technology (IIRC) and by 2050 total investment will run to $50-60 Billion (leaving apart the question if they can sustain this :-)). How much are we investing? $0.5 Billion??) We need to pool in all the national resources. We need to build basic infrastructure for future. Delegate the theoretical work to academia and engineering work in parts to private industry for development. DRDO/GTRE should be only working as integrator and working on only technologies that are too advanced or too expensive or too risky for academia or private industry. This will ensure a broad base of technical know-how and know-why for future. Its not like we have to start from scratch. A lot of knowledge/technology is out there, we know what to look for and where to look for in a broad sense. We need to fill in details (no doubt its the most crucial step). For ex, we already have advanced level of CFD at our disposal. Also we can bring in some subject matter experts in this field from the NRI bunch. Given "conducive environment", I am sure at least some would have no issues working on such projects.

The problem has always been at the top. Nobody cared. We could definitely do better with more organised efforts.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby shiv » 26 Jun 2014 19:38

nileshjr wrote:(e.g. We are not even building basic testing facilities.

Possibly true..

For all the cursing we do against Prodyut Das he writes some similar stuff

About the Kaveri he points out:
http://profprodyutdas.blogspot.in/2013/ ... ource.html
Jet Engines development presupposes certain facilities as sine quo non: a) Test rigs for combustion chamber development b) Test rigs for testing the compressor spools together at rated conditions, c) test rigs for testing the turbine blading for cooling, thermal and mechanical loads simultaneously and finally d) a flight test bed to test the engine in the air. Item d) is still not available in the country and there are reasons to believe that items a), b, c) were not available at the time of taking up the project and may not in fact be satisfactorily available even now. Recall that Egypt, developing the E300 engine under the guidance of Ferdinand Brandner, with much poorer traditions and resources, had a flying test bed , a modified AN12, in 1964,.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8256
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Indranil » 07 Jul 2014 20:49

A few details of the Turboshaft engine from HAL are out through the RFI on Design, manufacturing, supply and ToT for single crystal blade for turboshaft engine program.

It will be a 1000-1200 kW turboshaft engine.

HAL is in the process of developing a new turboshaft engine for Helicopter applications. It is planned to use Single crystal (SX) blades in the High Pressure (HP) Turbine Rotor section of the engine.


Requirements / Scope of work
Single Crystal blades are required for HP Turbine Rotor of the new engine being designed by HAL. Approx. no. of blades per engine HP rotor is 60. The gas inlet temperature to the blade section is about 1500 K. Blade cooling is not envisaged for this engine, hence, there is no provision made for cooling holes. However, material removal from the tip portion of the blade for a depth of about 10 mm may be considered to reduce the weight and stress marginally. The blades are proposed to be used in the operating temperature of 1500 K and should possess required creep, low cycle thermo-mechanical fatigue properties. The SX blade crystallographic orientation shall be [001]. The grain orientation deviation shall not degrade the properties of SX blade. The supplier shall provide details
about the grain orientation deviation and its effect on the mechanical properties. Nickel based single crystal super alloy of 3rd generation or higher shall be used for the blade material.


So we don't have 3rd generation SCB technology (at least not production technology)

The scope of supplier is as follows:
i. Design and manufacturing of all the required tooling (such as Wax Pattern Dies) for the blade manufacturing. Also, manufacturing of ceramic core dies, ceramic support tools, formers, etc (if required)
ii. Develop and establish the process including design of gating system by employing suitable simulation software.
iii. Design inspection procedures & inspection tools.
iv. Supply of blades as per HAL supplied drawing (quantities as per table)
v. Transfer of Technology (ToT) to HAL.



Quantity requirement
For technology demonstrator phase of engine development, a quantity of about 200 blades will be required and for the certification testing phase, about 1200 blades will be required.
Tentative year-wise requirement of HPT blades are indicated as follows:
Table

Code: Select all

Sl.       Reqd. quantities of
No. Year  HPT blade in Nos.
 1  2016        200
 2  2017        200
 3  2018        400
 4  2019        400
 5  2020        200


This gives 2 pieces of information: 1.They have blades worth 20 prototypes, and 2. Don't expect this engine to get into production helicopters before 2025.

Transfer of Technology (ToT)
Subsequent to the supply of the blades mentioned in the Table above, the supplier should transfer the complete technology for the manufacturing of the blades to the Foundry & Forge Division of HAL.
Supplier should provide the following details as part of ToT:
1. Details / complete technical specification of the equipment required for the blade manufacturing so that HAL can procure & establish the facilities.
2. Proposed Plant layout.
3. In addition, the supplier should transfer all the required tooling for manufacturing & inspection to HAL.
4. Complete process details for manufacturing, processing, inspecting & certification, in the form of technical documentation including the planned acceptance rates / max permissible scrap rates.
5. Training of HAL Engineers / Technicians at Suppliers works.
6. Prove out of the castings at HAL.
7. Details of all materials / consumables with the source details.
8. All necessary documentation required for ToT.
9. Supplier may indicate any other relevant aspects involved in the development and ToT.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby vic » 07 Jul 2014 21:55

So the Great JV and ToT of Shakti Engine and AL-31 has yielded nothing in respect of Single Crystal blade manufacturing.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8256
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Indranil » 07 Jul 2014 22:00

AFAIK, it was not supposed to. It was supposed to give HAL turboshaft engine and transmission system design capability. It is partially successful.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Austin » 07 Jul 2014 22:47

TOT is suppose to give HAL the resources to make and manage their own engines using locally sourced raw materials ,which helps in better managing of the product inhouse without running to OEM , I dont think TOT is going to help HAL greatly develop another engine unless they plan to illegally copy the engine they were suppose to get via TOT/Lic Production.

So TOT on AL-31FP or M88 wont help HAL make their own SCB for their new engine , either they get some help or do it on their own , ofcourse knowledge gain may help in varying degree if they are willing to make use of it and dont infringe on copyrights of OEM.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby abhik » 07 Jul 2014 23:50

How much of the Shakti engine is actually made in India?

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 495
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby maitya » 08 Jul 2014 09:13

indranilroy wrote:A few details of the Turboshaft engine from HAL are out through the RFI on Design, manufacturing, supply and ToT for single crystal blade for turboshaft engine program.

It will be a 1000-1200 kW turboshaft engine.
<<snip>>
HAL is in the process of developing a new turboshaft engine for Helicopter applications. It is planned to use Single crystal (SX) blades in the High Pressure (HP) Turbine Rotor section of the engine.
<<snip>>
Requirements / Scope of work
Single Crystal blades are required for HP Turbine Rotor of the new engine being designed by HAL. Approx. no. of blades per engine HP rotor is 60. The gas inlet temperature to the blade section is about 1500 K. Blade cooling is not envisaged for this engine, hence, there is no provision made for cooling holes.
<<snip>>

Some of the above points are quite intriguing really ... when we already 1700K TeT capable DS blades, why we do we require 3-Gen SCBs? :-o

One pertinent point though - that 1700K capability is via serpentine air flow pessages made possible by cooling holes (which will not be there in this case).

But, yes it's a laudible initiative no doubt - we don't have any turboshaft program, this should provide some fast-tracked capability.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4731
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby srai » 08 Jul 2014 09:35

Austin wrote:TOT is suppose to give HAL the resources to make and manage their own engines using locally sourced raw materials ,which helps in better managing of the product inhouse without running to OEM , I dont think TOT is going to help HAL greatly develop another engine unless they plan to illegally copy the engine they were suppose to get via TOT/Lic Production.

So TOT on AL-31FP or M88 wont help HAL make their own SCB for their new engine , either they get some help or do it on their own , ofcourse knowledge gain may help in varying degree if they are willing to make use of it and dont infringe on copyrights of OEM.


True.

As types of TOT being signed in various deals become more clearer, it is becoming more evident that for the most part TOT is more for supporting operational lifecycle requirement (i.e. local manufacture of part supplies for 30-to-40 years) of a foreign aircraft than gaining an expertise to build something new using it.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby vic » 08 Jul 2014 15:37

Shakti engine is fake JV wherein theoretically it has four phases and by the last phase we will get 70% of technology. But the catch is:-


1. Even after 20 years we are only in first phase of outright purchase and assembly.

2. No Hot section technology would be given.

3. Limited ToT and manufacturering technology would be given after first 700 engines, which means practically never as we will never reach the figure of 700 engines.


So inspite of giving around USD 3000 million worth of orders for engines and spare parts, we get ZERO tech transfer.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8256
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Indranil » 09 Jul 2014 03:23

maitya wrote:But, yes it's a laudible initiative no doubt - we don't have any turboshaft program, this should provide some fast-tracked capability.

So, the only "future project" that HAL lists on its website, but we don't know anything about is the turboprop for trainers.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 09 Jul 2014 06:11

dinesh_kumar wrote:A BRF poster pentaiah had talked about trying to make the old RR DART and ORPHEUS engines to gain know how.....this is increasingly making sense, after recent info from Prof. Das about the Kaveri's troubles. ....


Kabini core was made after uprating the orpheus-703 for HF-24.

govardhanks
BRFite
Posts: 220
Joined: 08 Jun 2009 23:12
Location: Earth

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby govardhanks » 30 Jul 2014 17:08

Is it possible to completely delink Kaveri aeroengine from LCA or whatever aircraft? related question with the available tech can we reach till 110kN engine with minimal size constraints (or no size limit)?

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 30 Jul 2014 17:39

vic wrote:Shakti engine is fake JV wherein theoretically it has four phases and by the last phase we will get 70% of technology. But the catch is:-

........


So inspite of giving around USD 3000 million worth of orders for engines and spare parts, we get ZERO tech transfer.


Yes. And, if one thinks about it, it's 100% FDI by us in jobs in France

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4850
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Neshant » 31 Jul 2014 13:32

ToT or Transfer of Technology is the biggest marketing gimmickry to sell over-priced stuff to suckers.

Its meant to fool suckers into thinking they will download the accumulated knowledge & experience of foreign scientists & engineers into the brains of local ones... after a big wad of money is handed over.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Austin » 03 Aug 2014 09:24

Neshant wrote:ToT or Transfer of Technology is the biggest marketing gimmickry to sell over-priced stuff to suckers.

Its meant to fool suckers into thinking they will download the accumulated knowledge & experience of foreign scientists & engineers into the brains of local ones... after a big wad of money is handed over.


TOT in our context is better Lic Tech Manuf ..In good old days when we used to do Lic Manuf of aircraft . the OEM used to give us design and components used to get imported very few used to get manuf here , we used to assemble it the plant based on those design and components.

These days we do the same except that many components are manuf here from local materials as far as possible or imported ones in some cases ...some dont get manuf here due to cost or it not being part of transfer agreement ....so we know what material goes into manuf those components and in what proportion .....that makes us less dependent on OEM for components over period of time and generates more job and manuf base locally , IAF get better access to Spares and Support which affects their uptimes.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby vic » 03 Aug 2014 10:58

indranilroy wrote:A few details of the Turboshaft engine from HAL are out through the RFI on Design, manufacturing, supply and ToT for single crystal blade for turboshaft engine program.

It will be a 1000-1200 kW turboshaft engine.



Is this engine comparable to Shakti of ALH or VK-2500 of Mi-17s? I was wondering if HAL is trying to indigenise ALH or taking first steps towards Medium Helo of 12-15 ton category?

Can you also give the HAL tender link?

Some details of VK-2500

VK-2500-I
Has a 1,500 shp (1,103 kW) maximum continuous performance and a 2,000 shp (1,470 kW) take-off performance.
VK-2500-II
Has a 1,500 shp (1,103 kW) maximum continuous performance and a 2,200 shp (1,617 kW) take-off performance.
VK-2500-III
Has 1,750 shp (1,287 kW) maximum continuous performance and a 2,400 shp (1,764 kW) take-off performance.

Details of Shakti engine

Shakti Specifications
Power
Emergency Power: 1,204 kW (1,614 hp)
Max Continuous Power: 880 kW (1,180 hp)
Max Power at TakeOff: 1,053 kW (1,412 hp)
OEI 2 min: 1,099 kW (1,473 shp)
OEI Continuous: 1,024 kW (1,373 shp)
Time
Time Between Overhaul: 3,000 hour
Weight
Dry Weight: 180 kilogram (397 pound)


To add to the confusion even Mechanical power and thermal power ratings are different.

So the question is whether HAL engine has maximum "continuous" power of 1000-1200 kW for normal use or maximum emergency or take power of 1000-1200 kW?? And whether it is mechanical power or thermal power?

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 522
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby dinesh_kimar » 03 Aug 2014 17:29

HAL had almost localised the entire Adour engine, incl. hot sections and blades. This was the most powerful version, and making simpler versions from this hard won know how would have been the next logical step. However, they signed ToT with rolls royce to make a less powerful non afterburning Adour engine. Now trying to make a 20-25 KN engine on their own, for trainers and UCAVs, which is powered in England and France by version of Adour engine.

Also, for the Jaguar re-engining, i wish they had used the core of the Kaveri, which is good for 80 KN, around an Adour These were IMHO, some low hanging fruit.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby vic » 03 Aug 2014 17:36

HAL is shamelessly into screwdriver giri!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16875
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby NRao » 03 Aug 2014 17:49

Interesting that you mention:

HAL had almost localised the entire Adour engine, incl. hot sections and blades. .........................


So, for kicks, I visited wiki:

Variants

Bench engines
Ten prototype engines were built for testing by both Rolls-Royce and Turbomeca.[3]

Flight development engines
Development engines for the Jaguar prototypes, 25 built.[3]

Reheated (Afterburning)
Adour Mk 811 displayed at HAL Aerospace Museum

Adour Mk 101 - First production variant for the Jaguar, 40 built.[3]
Adour Mk 102 - Second production variant with the addition of part-throttle reheat.[3]
Adour Mk 104
Adour Mk 106 - Replacement for the Jaguar's Mk104 engine (developed from the Adour 871) with a reheat section. The RAF refitted its fleet with this engine as part of the GR3 upgrade.[4] In May 2007, following the retirement of the last 16 Jaguars from No. 6 Squadron RAF, based at RAF Coningsby, the Adour 106 has been phased out of RAF service.[5]
Adour Mk 801 - For Mitsubishi F-1 & T-2 (JASDF)
TF40-IHI-801A - Licence-built version of Mk 801 by Ishikawajima-Harima for Mitsubishi F-1 & T-2 (JASDF)
Adour Mk 804 - Licence-built by HAL for Indian Air Force phase 2 Jaguars
Adour Mk 811 - Licence-built by HAL for Indian Air Force phase 3 to 6 Jaguars
Adour Mk 821 - Engine upgrade of Mk804 and Mk811 engines, currently under development, for Indian Air Force Jaguar aircraft.

Dry (Non-afterburning)

Adour Mk 151-01 Used by the Royal Air Force training aircraft fleet
Adour Mk 151-02 - Used by the Red Arrows,
Adour Mk 851
Adour Mk 861
Adour Mk 871
F405-RR-401 - Similar configuration to Mk 871, for US Navy T-45 Goshawk.
Adour Mk 951 - Designed for the latest versions of the BAE Hawk and powering the BAE Taranis and Dassault nEUROn UCAV technology demonstrators.[6] The Adour Mk 951 is a more fundamental redesign than the Adour Mk 106, with improved performance (rated at 6,500 lbf (29,000 N) thrust) and up to twice the service life of the 871.[7] It features an all-new fan and combustor, revised HP and LP turbines, and introduces Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC).[citation needed] The Mk 951 was certified in 2005.
F405-RR-402 - Upgrade of F405-RR-401, incorporating Mk 951 technology, certified 2008. Expected entry into service 2012.

Higher bypass

A higher-bypass version built around the core of the Adour and intended as a Spey replacement was developed by Rolls-Royce in 1967 as the Rolls-Royce RB.203 Trent

Applications

Aermacchi MB-338 (not-built)
BAE Hawk
BAE Taranis (UCAV development aircraft)
Dassault nEUROn (UCAV development aircraft)

McDonnell Douglas T-45 Goshawk
SEPECAT Jaguar

Licence-built

Ishikawajima-Harima TF40-IHI-801A

Mitsubishi F-1
Mitsubishi T-2


and perhaps a handful that are missed in that list.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16875
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby NRao » 03 Aug 2014 17:55

IMHO, India lacks a governing body that provides direction, some form of encouragement, enables funds, supports effort and a place where-the-buck-stops.

Or if there is one, it has been very, very ineffective.

This applies to everything - across the board, exceptions:IN, ISRO and a handful of others that I am sure I have missed (BARC?)(?).

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4009
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby deejay » 03 Aug 2014 19:27

NRao wrote:IMHO, India lacks a governing body that provides direction, some form of encouragement, enables funds, supports effort and a place where-the-buck-stops.

Or if there is one, it has been very, very ineffective.

This applies to everything - across the board, exceptions:IN, ISRO and a handful of others that I am sure I have missed (BARC?)(?).


+1
I wouldn't exclude the IN from this set up, IN has done well here so it could help run such a set up. The present system is wholly inadequate. Given the large coastline and our increasing assertiveness, the IN will grow, if not in to the biggest arm then definitely in to the second biggest arm. The IN has also done well for creating an ecology for itself within India.

Another advantage is that IN treats its Engineering branch and its Executive branch almost at par or so I have been told by the Naval folks. The IAF has an entire Maintenance command structure but the role of Engineers within IAF in terms of decision making is inadequate. I am not really sure about the army. This inculcates a culture in the Navy of giving engineering projects a high degree of importance which I don't think is the case with the IAF.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby merlin » 04 Aug 2014 12:20

NRao wrote:IMHO, India lacks a governing body that provides direction, some form of encouragement, enables funds, supports effort and a place where-the-buck-stops.

Or if there is one, it has been very, very ineffective.

This applies to everything - across the board, exceptions:IN, ISRO and a handful of others that I am sure I have missed (BARC?)(?).


You are talking about commissions. There is an Atomic Energy Commission, a Space Commission. There is a need for an Aeronautical Commission at the minimum.

govardhanks
BRFite
Posts: 220
Joined: 08 Jun 2009 23:12
Location: Earth

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby govardhanks » 19 Aug 2014 23:19

I have dumb question. Is it possible to model and predict phigh temp n pressure properties of alloys using available crystal structures?... Say I mix one or two metals, it attains a different property.. In order to characterize it I have to do experimental analysis.. What if I predict same results in a computer model?
Apologies if such software or prediction algorithm exists.. :(

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16875
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby NRao » 19 Aug 2014 23:33

^^^^^

I am not aware of any such means. From my interaction with Met Sci folks, there are absolutely no shortcuts. It is a trial and error means and that only reduces the risks (which is why it is laughable that people laugh at cracks in a new planes wings/engine blades, etc). What does dissolve risks is time and funds - the more one uses the material, the more faults are figured out and solved. Other means exist - mostly less research/funds, but they carry a higher risk (which normally translates into low MTBO and the like - more frequent maintenance).

Not rocket science. Ghutna. Gisthe raho. You can work serially - or in parallel. But fund * time needs to be the same. So, you can fund a small group for a longer period or a larger group for a shorter period. In the prior you can allocate funds in smaller quantities and in the other you will need larger funds up front.

Funds.

vsunder
BRFite
Posts: 951
Joined: 06 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Ulan Bator, Mongolia

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby vsunder » 20 Aug 2014 04:42

govardhan wrote:I have dumb question. Is it possible to model and predict phigh temp n pressure properties of alloys using available crystal structures?... Say I mix one or two metals, it attains a different property.. In order to characterize it I have to do experimental analysis.. What if I predict same results in a computer model?
Apologies if such software or prediction algorithm exists.. :(

This is deja vu Pokaran 1998 again and the famous Equation of state of xxxx There is a high pressure group that works at BARC of which S. K. Sikka was the head of the group. In general you can do some computer studies and would have some very good idea, but never a very good idea. That is why one has to do experiments. I can tell you something from my own experience. Lets take the interior of stars
and try to find a relation between pressure and density. All of us know from high school that for a gas
the formula is PV=nRT, or re-writing P= c density. That is an equation of state and it is for a dilute gas. As the pressure in the stellar interior increases, the equation of state of the material changes P=c (density)^{5/3} say for a white dwarf star. This can be computed out by first principles. See Chapter 9 in S. Chandrasekhar's book Introduction to Stellar Structure.
As the pressure starts to increase say for a collapsing star the formula becomes P=c(density)^{4/3} ( gain see Chandrasekhar Chapter 9, where he even does the asymptotics). I can sit here on Earth and actually compute such things. I can use these things to say things about the star, I have. But for the questions you are asking you want exact or nearly exact formulae and that sort of thing you cannot get by just computation alone because such computations tacitly make many assumptions to simplify the computations, for example in a crystal you may just consider nearest neighbor interaction and ignore others, so is this viable esp when under high pressure things are squeezed, and what is atom far now does start interacting and nearest neighbour interaction only is no longer a good enough assumption, but now you can understand the mess the computation will become if we start factoring in all possible interactions, even a high speed computer will die. Thus experiments are needed to validate which assumptions are really crucial and which can be dropped and still get equations of state that tell you how say the material behaves under high pressure and how the density etc is related to the pressure. All this is highly non-trivial. I can assure you that. The sub-kiloton tests 1998 I presume in part was to validate and/or obtain very precise information of equations of state. This in turn can be used to not waste fissile material. The example of stars I discussed above shows that the eqn. of state started out linear, but changed from one power law to another one as the pressure increased. The precise formula of change from one to another even in this case is not a piece of cake to compute out,
and you can take a look at Chapter 9-10 of the afore-mentioned book where Chandra does it from first principles.

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Rien » 20 Aug 2014 06:29

vsunder wrote:
govardhan wrote:I have dumb question. Is it possible to model and predict phigh temp n pressure properties of alloys using available crystal structures?... Say I mix one or two metals, it attains a different property.. In order to characterize it I have to do experimental analysis.. What if I predict same results in a computer model?
Apologies if such software or prediction algorithm exists.. :(

<snip> The precise formula of change from one to another even in this case is not a piece of cake to compute out,
and you can take a look at Chapter 9-10 of the afore-mentioned book where Chandra does it from first principles.


Govardhan, Quantum chemistry is what you are looking for. What's annoying is that the same thing is called several different things. Computational Chemistry is another name. I'll talk about what it is, rather than naming things.

Quantum chemistry is reducing chemistry to physics. In particular, we are reducing it to the Dirac Equation. So rather than explaining things in terms of electron orbitals or junk like that, we use the lowest guts of reality. We talk about things in terms of QM. If you're interested I'll explain the basics, but the details require the Feynman lectures.

http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v5/n ... t1691.html

Predicting crystal structure by merging data mining with quantum mechanics

Christopher C. Fischer1, Kevin J. Tibbetts1, Dane Morgan2 and Gerbrand Ceder1
Abstract

Modern methods of quantum mechanics have proved to be effective tools to understand and even predict materials properties. An essential element of the materials design process, relevant to both new materials and the optimization of existing ones, is knowing which crystal structures will form in an alloy system. Crystal structure can only be predicted effectively with quantum mechanics if an algorithm to direct the search through the large space of possible structures is found. We present a new approach to the prediction of structure that rigorously mines correlations embodied within experimental data and uses them to direct quantum mechanical techniques efficiently towards the stable crystal structure of materials.


This is 2006 and sadly even today it is still cutting edge research. The problem is that you can get two things. Exact answers or simulate large systems. What we want is exact answers for large systems. Unfortunately, the computational power to make that happen doesn't exist.

So in short what you want is theoretically easy, but very very hard in practice. The problem is building a computer fast enough to get the job done. We need Exascale computing to make that happen. So try again in 5-10 years. So very smart question, but the answer is we don't have the fast enough computers. No go.

govardhanks
BRFite
Posts: 220
Joined: 08 Jun 2009 23:12
Location: Earth

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby govardhanks » 20 Aug 2014 11:10

OK so answer is- It cannot be done or perhaps we are not yet in that stage to do it. And there is no alternative than experimenting or even trial and error I agree.
N Rao sir- Somehow if Kaveri engine core funding goes on, one day we will be there.
Vsunder saab- I agree no shortcuts.
Rein saab- Hope we find such super fast computers.

A Deshmukh
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:24

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby A Deshmukh » 20 Aug 2014 11:19

Any news on Kaveri / SCB?

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Rien » 20 Aug 2014 15:43

govardhan wrote:OK so answer is- It cannot be done or perhaps we are not yet in that stage to do it. And there is no alternative than experimenting or even trial and error I agree.
N Rao sir- Somehow if Kaveri engine core funding goes on, one day we will be there.
Vsunder saab- I agree no shortcuts.
Rein saab- Hope we find such super fast computers.


http://www.indiatechonline.com/it-happe ... hp?id=1276\

The National Supercomputing Mission for India has set itself a short term, 3-year target, to set up three petaflop-scale facilities, networked into a grid. Twenty high end terra-scale facilities located in academic institutions, universities and research labs and 50 medium range terra-scale would also be created and networked.


We might get lucky. Iff(if and only if) they build this on time, then in 3 years we can make quantum chemistry predictions of metal alloys. Much better than I thought! Rather than build one big machine, a whole set of machines networked together can work very well if connected by high speed links. But no one from the Kaveri team is working on this. I'm pretty sure they haven't heard of quantum chemistry. A case of "no one sanctioned this" onlee.

vsunder
BRFite
Posts: 951
Joined: 06 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Ulan Bator, Mongolia

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby vsunder » 20 Aug 2014 16:55

Actually Mr. Rien is not correct, Dirac equation has no relevance, for problems of Metallurgy we are not relativistic . But ok I want to show you by a concrete example a mix of three things. Computers, numerical simulation and hard theorems in a simple problem of designing a composite material.

So here is the problem. I am given the following:

(a) All sorts of materials of varying density, lead, copper, Kothari chaap paan ka masala, etc, and I am also told that the densities of all the supplied materials lie between two fixed given numbers a,b that is

0<a< density <b.

(b) Of course I am given the shape of the object, oh I am a retard, so I may want to think of the shape as a lowly washer, some of you aim for the moon, so think of an an aircraft wing.


(c) I am also prescribed the mass M of the object.

So (a), (b) and (c) are the constraints on me. All natural engineering constraints. Now under these constraints I have to combine my materials to build the object so it has the maximum rigidity.
This means the following. I build the object taking Kothari chaap paan ka masala, lead, tin, and take a huge effing hammer and hit it. I hear a fundamental tone like a gong. I record the lowest frequency in the vibration. I now change the material percentages still keeping my constraints, now hit the guy, and my aim is such that I want at the end of the day to produce that body of course satisfying my constraints (a), (b) and (c) that has the lowest possible fundamental vibrational frequency. This is in engineering parlance called maximizing rigidity. So natural questions arise.

1. Can I even build such a minimizer or optimal composite satisfying the constraints (a) to (c) and maximizing rigidity? Answer is yes and the math. theorem ( Theorem 13, paper 1)says you just need the heaviest density material and the lightest density material, you can and should throw out all the material in intermediate density. Also all the lighter density material ( black zone in the pictures in paper 1) must be placed at the boundary or edges of the object. See the linked paper 1 where this quite amazing fact is rigorously proved as a mathematical theorem.

2. OK now that we know that, that is there is a solution to the optimization problem, we can proceed further. Let us say we want to design a washer, do we arrange the two materials ( lowest and highest density materials) symmetrically respecting the symmetry of the washer. Answer No . This was first seen by computer simulation using Fortran and the thought was that perhaps there was some error in the code. But soon after a rigorous mathematical proof as a theorem ( theorem 6, paper 1) showed that indeed that is true, see paper 1. See the simulations and pictures in the linked paper for a washer called an annulus. So symmetry breaking occurs in this problem, materials have to be arranged non-symetrically to construct symmetric objects so constraints (a) to (c) are satisfied and yet maximal rigidity is established.

3. Now what about the fine structure of the junction between the two materials, cracks, dislocations etc. This too has been studied and the fine structure depends on the dimension. For 2-dimension objects like plates or layered composites the junction ( free boundary as you cannot control the interface, the optimizer will select it for you) can be a crack that looks like a cross etc. and two other configurations. Unfortunately the authors of that paper, paper 2 on interfaces never drew pictures in their paper, but it is clear they have completely classified the possible interface in all dimensions, 2 or 3 in particular.

The only reason for my rant is to point out that even for simple questions things are pretty complicated and also to show you what I really also had in mind regarding my post above.
Some of the code used in the simulations is discussed in Paper 1. But the simulation is just a tool to see what theorems are rigorously proveable. For example symmetry breaking was a total surprise for this problem.

Paper 1

Paper 2
Last edited by vsunder on 20 Aug 2014 19:43, edited 5 times in total.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: evm and 73 guests