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.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2841
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chola » 18 Aug 2018 08:53

^^^ Turboprops give drones endurance. The chini CH-5 and Wing Loong 2 fly on chini turboprops that also power their light utilities. Access to engines allowed the PRC to sell hundreds of hunter-killers to the Middle East.

Along with a turbojet, a turboprop should have been a goal a long time ago. They were achievable goals while went for the RD-33/F101 class moonshot in the kaveri.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6988
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Indranil » 18 Aug 2018 11:25

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.
3. There is nothing stopping us from developing UAVs using turboprops. We have experience in both tractor and pusher configs.
4. HAL is developing a turboprop.

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3552
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Neela » 22 Aug 2018 17:25

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.
3. There is nothing stopping us from developing UAVs using turboprops. We have experience in both tractor and pusher configs.
4. HAL is developing a turboprop.


One would assume that for military transport , turboprops would be a better choice as they can do with shorter runways , on top of being more fuel efficient .
On the commercial side, turboprops seems to be a better choice for 300-800km range routes.
---------
Do you know power rating of HAL's tuboprop?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36076
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby SaiK » 30 Aug 2018 12:12


Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5999
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 22 Sep 2018 19:20

So much for the much vaunted JETJWG....

2+2 should finally yield 4
https://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes. ... y-yield-4/

At its last meeting in July, DTTI’s jet engine working group was shut down for lack of progress. They chose to call it a “strategic pause”. Apparently, the divergence between what India wanted and what the US and General Electric were willing to offer was too wide. It’s obvious that GE will not part with its crown jewel having spent billions in R&D. As someone said, “it’s the one thing the company has”. GE executives saw it as a compromise of their intellectual property to even suggest improvements in an indigenous Indian engine (Kaveri). Differences also emerged because the US wanted a measure of where India was in terms of indigenous engine technology. India was not keen on open access and benchmarking.


Also see this ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3351&p=2234699&hilit=JETJWG#p2234699

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 571
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby nrshah » 22 Sep 2018 21:23

Rakesh wrote:So much for the much vaunted JETJWG....

2+2 should finally yield 4
https://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes. ... y-yield-4/

At its last meeting in July, DTTI’s jet engine working group was shut down for lack of progress. They chose to call it a “strategic pause”. Apparently, the divergence between what India wanted and what the US and General Electric were willing to offer was too wide. It’s obvious that GE will not part with its crown jewel having spent billions in R&D. As someone said, “it’s the one thing the company has”. GE executives saw it as a compromise of their intellectual property to even suggest improvements in an indigenous Indian engine (Kaveri). Differences also emerged because the US wanted a measure of where India was in terms of indigenous engine technology. India was not keen on open access and benchmarking.


Also see this ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3351&p=2234699&hilit=JETJWG#p2234699


So much for the strategic partnership... dtti was hogwash only, American carrot thrown at us and like always Indians going mad after anything from gora

uskumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 24 Aug 2009 23:41

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby uskumar » 22 Sep 2018 23:23

Rakesh wrote:So much for the much vaunted JETJWG....

2+2 should finally yield 4
https://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes. ... y-yield-4/

At its last meeting in July, DTTI’s jet engine working group was shut down for lack of progress.

I wonder what new excuse import lobby is going to come up for f16 now that engine tech is off the table. My money is on super duper stealth and/or sensor fusion.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5999
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 23 Sep 2018 19:08

Dated article from April 2017 (yes 2017!) by Saurav Jha but confirms that Snecma-Safran's audit on the Kaveri program...

Foreign expertise key to fire up India's jets
https://www.deccanherald.com/content/60 ... re-up.html

This is precisely why the DRDO has engaged France’s Safran Aircraft Engines (Snecma) to perform a design audit on the Kaveri. At the moment, Snecma is preparing a detailed report outlining the design changes needed to create flightworthy prototypes. Once Snecma’s report is ready, GTRE expects to get the go-ahead for the next phase of work that will involve modifying existing SoP prototypes and testing them, with a view to creating new prototypes that can be integrated with an actual flight capable airframe. Snecma will also be a consultant for aircraft integration activities.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1043386033402855425 ---> Given CAATSA et al., a wise course of action would be to reexamine alternatives to the GE F-414 family for the Tejas programme. And most importantly, it is time New Delhi got serious about domestic jet engine development.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3607
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby JayS » 24 Sep 2018 11:27

A good article read to get a glimpse of RR's chosen path for the future of its engines. We will see the things mentioned here coming to fruition in next 2 decades, starting with the UltraFan planned for EIS in 2025, presumably with Boeing's NMA.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-as-trent-reaches-limits-r-r-sees-need-for-451908/

Much of the UltraFan vision is already known. The composite fan, which will replace hollow titanium, to keep weight down, has already been flight-tested. The core around which the low-pressure system – including fan – will be wrapped is being tested as R-R’s well-trailed Advance3 project. This next-generation core has already accumulated 100h of bench testing, built between a Trent XWB-84 fan and Trent 1000 low-pressure turbine. Gearboxes have been under test at a purpose-built facility near Berlin since late 2017

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3607
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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
BRFite
Posts: 1249
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6988
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3552
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6988
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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
BRFite
Posts: 343
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby 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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3552
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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
BRFite
Posts: 1589
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6988
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby 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
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6988
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3607
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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
BRFite
Posts: 1721
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6988
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2841
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7851
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3607
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50763
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17720
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50763
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17720
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6988
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 02 Oct 2018 22:47

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

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6587
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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
BRFite
Posts: 1721
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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

Image

VKumar
BRFite
Posts: 444
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Mumbai,India

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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
BRFite
Posts: 1721
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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

Image

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.
Last edited by Picklu on 02 Oct 2018 23:29, edited 1 time in total.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1589
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3607
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50763
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17720
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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
BRFite
Posts: 1721
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby 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?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 27 guests