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: 3572
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 25 Feb 2019 14:20

chetak wrote:
SaiK wrote:Yes sir, when I say copy, I meant by first principles. Entire specs, methods, technology and standards. Just replicate in our ways. In the sense, all our teething problem is in just establishing that. [we don't need to go after some special engines - like we are talking now - 110kN]


SaiK saar,

+108

The first Shenyang MiG copies had a total life of 150 hours because the ruski metallurgy on the stolen MiGs was a total mystery to the hans and yet they managed to copy, produce and fly it, airframe, engine, instruments, sensors and all, the whole shebang, in fact.

Of course, it helped enormously that they were allowed by the state to adapt some advanced Confucian methods of management techniques and every now and then shoot a few sorry assed design and other engineers who did not perform up to the mark expected. According to the hans, it worked wonders for motivation then and as it still does even now. You know, of course, that Confucius was a very wise man.

We should have done exactly the very same thing, copy, I mean, and not shoot sorry assed design engineers, no matter how badly they deserved it.

In hindsight, we have had unrestricted access to many types of engines/aircraft, from many different countries, established overhaul and repair facilities, which valuable opportunities were never afforded to the hans during their early days of copying err... experimentation.

Even now it is not too late.

here is an example of the ancient aeronautical han jugad

The Chinese also built a two-seat trainer version of the MiG-17, designated the Chengdu JJ-5 (Jianjiji Jiaolianji - Fighter Trainer - FT-5),from 1968, by combining the two-seat cockpit of the MiG-15UTI, the VK-1A engine of the J-5, and the fuselage of the J-5A. All internal armament was deleted and a single Nudelman-Richter NR-23 23 mm cannon was carried in a ventral pack.


Is there something wrong with our design engineers, or what??

or are they normally shy and retiring types, given to eating thayir sadam in solitary splendor, whilst silently contemplating the mysteries of the aeronautical universe over multiple shots of hot spicy pepper rasam before going home, on time, and doing respectful pranam to their honored pitashree/matashree/dharam patni ??


The original chinese copies were turbojets — WP-5 from the Klimov VK-1 which was a copy of the Rolls Royce Nene
(the grandmother of all Eastern Bloc jet engines.) Then WP-6 and WP-7 for MiG-19 and -21 clones.

Unlike turbofans, turbojets are designed to be short lived but easy to manufacture in large numbers. This helped set up an industry with production in economy of scale.

IMO the turbojet is an important step to building an industry (as opposed to a single focused project) and all of the P-5 went through this stage. We skipped this step entirely. We never had a mass produced turbojet.

Even the Iranians were able to clone the MiG-21 generation turbojet in the J-85 from the F-5. When Iranian F-5 Kowsar clone flew on the Owj engine, they did something we never did.

This is the PRC’s turbofan history AFAIK:
When the chinis decided to finally do a turbofan, they went to Rolls Royce during a period of bonhomie in the early 1980s. (Chinis did not have access to a Russian turbofan until the AL-31 in the SU-27 deal in the late 1990s.) This was the licensed produced WS-9 copy of the RR Spey. This engine had a clean safety record from what I know. The WS-9 still powers the JH-7 today.

But the chinis found the Spey weak and wanted TFTA Amreeki engines that power the ‘Teens but Unkil no sell them. So the WS-10 began with a reverse engineering of the civilian CFM-56 which powers their large fleet of Boeings. The CFM-56 itself was developed from the core of the F101/110 family which powered the B1 supersonic bombers and F-15 (among others.) So the chinis attempted to get an Amreeki mil engine through the backdoor.

The WS-10 was always problematic because they never got the material science right. But from what I read, their research and breakdown of the CFM-56 core gave them a huge wealth of knowledge that formed the basis of their biggest mil and civ turbofan projects today — WS-15 (J-20), WS-20 (Y-20), CJ-1000 (C919.) They never had anything they can copy bolt for bolt on the mil side during the WS-10 development so they were forced to learn what the Amreekis were doing in principal. They probably guessed wrong at times but they still managed something that can power flight.

Now in the 2000s, Russkie and Ukrainian engines gave them another avenue. The RD-93 (for Blunder) and the D-30KP resulted in the WS-13 and WS-18 though people are not sure either one are in use yet. No direct AL-31 clone because they already have the WS-10 of the same class but they must have incorporated Russian features in later WS-10 variants.

The lessons?

One, build up the industry from ground up by building turbojets (and turboprops and turboshafts.) We went for the TFTA modern turbofan without the supporting industrial base. The chinis, in contrast, had a base that was producing turbojets by the thousands before tackling a modern turbofan.

Two, no one will give you their crown jewels. Do what you can and persevere. The hacking of the CMF-56 gave them a knowledge base for all subsequent turbofan projects and so does constant spying and stealing today. It resulted in hundreds of WS-10s, for all their faults, in chini flankers today.

The tradeoff is losing pilots to domestic engines but in the long term it has paid off for them. They have so many turbofan programs in all the weight classes that they’ll eventually mature simply by volume of experience alone.

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3615
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Neela » 25 Feb 2019 15:41

chola wrote:One, build up the industry from ground up by building turbojets (and turboprops and turboshafts.) We went for the TFTA modern turbofan without the supporting industrial base. The chinis, in contrast, had a base that was producing turbojets by the thousands before tackling a modern turbofan.


The above quote caught my eye.

A bureaucratic aspect is how to convince babus and netas to invest such large sums in engine dev.
What is their perspective? What are they interested in?
SCB? MTBO? I dont think so. They want to see what is the cost of development, what are the returns and what are the savings in forex. I doubt if they are even bothered too much about indigenization let alone engineering problems.


By starting off with dev of smaller engines , you put realistic achieveable targets for agencies. The initial outlays are smaller. It is easier to convince non-engg folk. You develop these and once these go into products, are refined and see large scale adoption, you can gather information on how much money is saved by investing in R&D. IMO, this is the backing that will be needed to convince non-engg minds. IOW, organic development and growth. Imagine if GTRE had focused on Adour and Shakthi equivalents initially over the last years....something that is definately achievable - they would have had success which would be the stepping stone to larger ones. It is such sucess that can convince bureaucracy to loosen the purse strings.


I really think that development strategy , timelines of Kaveri , HTFE / HTSE , wankel engine etc....all are pointers to lack of national level focus. This should be firmly with Defense ministry or identified as strategic IP.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19312
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 25 Feb 2019 17:14

@Chola

This is the PRC’s turbofan history AFAIK:
When the chinis decided to finally do a turbofan, they went to Rolls Royce during a period of bonhomie in the early 1980s. (Chinis did not have access to a Russian turbofan until the AL-31 in the SU-27 deal in the late 1990s.) This was the licensed produced WS-9 copy of the RR Spey. This engine had a clean safety record from what I know. The WS-9 still powers the JH-7 today.


The RR spey story actually starts off with tricky dick.

During the nixon cheeni bonhomie, tricky dick arranged for RR to sell a very considerable number of spey engines (about 20 odd engines, IIRC)

Also, see the shady brit saga of dealings with the hans

Military Spey Folklore

A few years ago, when I worked for a natural gas company, we needed some overhaul parts for our Mk-1900 Industrial Spey engines. Being unhappy with Roll's parts pricing and delivery times, I was poking around to see what aircraft Spey parts might be compatible. I was at a turbine convention in Ontario, California, and bumped into a fellow who said that he had a number of Mk-203 Military aero Spey engines, and would sell one to me relatively cheap, to do a compatability study. We made the deal, and a few weeks later a whole Mk-203 Spey engine arrived, fresh from the engine bay of a Royal Airforce F4 Phantom. We stripped it down, and yes, there was a high degree of compatability. We paid for engine No.1, and negotiated the purchase of three other units. Engine No.2 arrived, exactly the same as the first, but the last two, were significantly different inside, and the engine data tag stated that they were "Mk-205". Nobody seemed to know anything about them, so we sent the HP Turbine blades for analysis. HP.1 Turbine blades were DS Cast, and HP. 2 Turbine blades were single crystal! HPT Stg-1 nozzles were completely different too, with a revised blunt-nose profile with three rows of film cooling holes, and 40% increased cooling air flow, combined with the trailing edge cooling slots.(As opposed to trailing edge cooling holes as per Mk-203/Mk-1900) Turns out our supplier of the engines had a good repoire with the British MOD, and a few months earlier had been notified that The MOD was to surplus Qty-62 Military Aero Spey engines. He had negotiated with The MOD a first option to purchase Qty-10 engines, and of this he made good and duly purchased the engines. About this time, Rolls Royce was working with the Chinese to build a military aero Spey shop in Xian, China to license build Speys there, in anticipation of the wholly indigenous, new Chinese fighter, the Chengdu J-10 "Vigourous Dragon" Rolls figured that they had an inside track with the MOD, and had exclusive access to the Qty-62 engines. They were livid when it was revealed that my guy had scooped them on Qty-10 engines, and cherry picked them at that! In the end, Rolls bought all of my guys' remaining parts, at his price. (Yes, he is now comfortably retired, somewhere in Cypress.) A couple years later, the Chinese can sniffing around my shop, inquiring as to whether I had any military aero Spey parts for sale. "Well as a matter of fact I do" They took every bit, and were especially happy to get their hands on the Mk-205 unique parts, as Rolls would not share that technology with them. (Mk-203 to Mk-205 status represents a 3000# increase in total thrust per engine, a significant boost in performance.)
This was well before ITARS clamped down on everyone, and today, I could not do the same, without appropriate export licenses, and permits.
Story doesn't end here.
Later, my guy in the UK says "I found two more Mk-203 Speys, in As-Removed condition, intersted in them?" Sure, why not? I bought them for a reasonable price, and a few weeks later they arrive.
Definately run, but not in too bad of shape. I strip them down, and put the industrial compatible parts in storage. So, I ask him,"I thought all the military aero Speys were gone to the Chinese", to which he replies, "they are, I found these in a scrap yard on The Isle of Wight". Now who the heck would have these engines on the Isle? Mr. Richard Noble. Yes, these two engines were from the Thrust SSC program, which currently holds the world land speed record of 763 miles per hour, set in 1996. Now Mr. Noble claims that the record was set using Mk-203 Speys. Rolls did supply him with a total of four engines for the Thrust SSC program, two Mk-203sand two Mk-205s. If this is indeed the case, the Thrust SSC car on display in The Smithsonian, has the never ran Mk-205s installed, and I gave away all the HP Turbine blades as paper weights to various friends and highschool classes who toured through my shop. I still have a few bits from these Mk-203 engines, if anyone is interested in some (potential) memorabilia. Can't be confirmed, and likely denied, but I think I have the real story.

Robin.


WS9 Imported Spey Engine Technology

The WS-9 is a licensed production of Spey Mk202. It reduced fan compression from 17 to 14 stages. Different burner, nozzle, 500kg more thrust. After 30 years of efforts, by 2004 Xi'an Aeroengine reportedly started producing the Spey engines licensed to it by Rolls-Royce in the 1970s. Reportedly, these engines were installed in the JH-7A.

At the end of 1971, at a conference on aero-product quality, Premier Zhou Enlai, with regard to the problem of declining quality and poor performance of China-produced aero engines, pointed out that the engine is the "Heart", and asked "How can one fight with a poor Heart uncured"! Following the meeting, he asked MAI to improve the quality of the products, and also to study how best to introduce foreign technology into China. Ye Jianying, Vice Chairman of the Military Commission of CCCPC, and Li Xiannian, Vice Premier, led the study and evaluation and decided to import the military version of the Spey from England. In May 1972, contact with the UK commenced, and a technical survey team was sent to the UK. In August 1974, the negotiations reached a substantial stage, and the technical import contract was signed on December 13th, 1975.

China purchased the manufacturing license of the Spey MK202 turbofan engine from Rolls-Royce, England. This engine was developed from the commercial Spey MK511. At the beginning of the 1970s, England re-engined their F4 Phantom fighters purchased from the United States with Spey engines. The United States also imported the engine, and used it on A7 attack aircraft. The purchase of the Spey Engine technology was a major decision for China.

The Spey MK202 had a high thrust augmentation ratio (i.e. the ratio between the thrust with reheat and the thrust without reheat) comparatively low s.f.c., longer operation life, big surge margin of the compressor, high efficiency of components at various conditions and stable and reliable running. It had an air bleed system for the flap BLC (boundary layer control) to improve the take-off and landing performance of the aeroplane. However, the engine structure was complicated, the thrust to weight ratio was relatively low, and the thrust was insufficient at high altitude. It was, however, a good engine for China to import at that time.

The engine was designated as the WS9 and produced by Xi'an Aeroengine Factory [XEF], and the State paid close attention to the development. Vice Premier Wang Zhen inspected the factory three times, and the Vice Minister of MAI, Mo Wenxiang, was assigned by the MAI to lead a team in the factory. They worked with Shaanxi Province to organize the relative factories, institutes, colleges and universities to translate technical documents and to produce toolings. The State allocated a specific fund for the trial production and the factory's technical reformation. The supply of domestic raw materials was also arranged.

The trial production in XEF started in 1976. The massive staff members and workers contributed all their efforts and completed the translation and copying of 420,000 pages of documents and finished about 30,000 tooling design drawings and the manufacture of these toolings. During the tooling manufacturing stage, Li Guofu, Qu Guangxin, Ma Shiying and other technical leaders of the factory organized the work to tackle the key technical problems and detail parts trial production, solving 76 critical techniques. The titanium alloy thermal form¬ing was a unique process jointly worked out with BAMTRI, superceding the process specified in the supplied technical documents.

Through more than 3 years' effort, in the latter part of 1979, 4 WS9 engines were assembled in two batches. In November the same year, the 150 hours endurance test was completed in China jointly conducted by the British and the Chinese. From February to May 1980, the engine test in the simulated altitude test facility including cold starting at -40 t and fatigue cycling test for 5 major components were carried out in England. All the results met the technical requirements. Documents were signed between the representatives of the two sides for clearance of the qualification test of the China-made WS9 engine.

The successful production of the WS9 engine enabled China to have a moderate thrust reheat turbofan engine. The manufacturing techniques in the Chinese engine industry were brought to a much higher level through the production of the WS9 engines. The engine had a complicated structure, with many blades, precision parts, thin wall fabrications and complicatedly shaped pipes. Some existing Chinese materials used, however, were of poor quality. In order to solve this problem, new work processes and new technologies were introduced including the electro-chemical machining, electron beam welding, laboratory control, inspection and measur¬ing, precision casting and precision forging. The parts and the toolings manufactured were one grade higher in precision than those previously used in China.

During the production of the WS9, the factory mastered 13 items of advanced world technology such as the metal spray, vacuum heat treatment, pipe butt welding, vacuum brazing, NC pipe bending and electro machining, and in addition mastered 46 advanced technologies in China including soft die form¬ing and creep feed grinding. Through the development of the WS9 engine, the manufacturing techniques and technical levels of China's metallurgical, chemical and machinery industries were also improved. Therefore, the gap between China and advanced aeronautical countries in engine manufacturing technology was considerably narrowed.

The imported 137 copies of design and calculation reports and test reports, as well as the complicated manufacturing documents of the Spey engine, were used as reference guides for design and development of our engines, and the manufacture of other western advanced engines.

The import of the Spey promoted the technical reformation of the factory, which purchased some 700 advanced machine tools and facilities from abroad. In its numerical control (NC) machine workshop, there were 26 NC machines both made in China and from abroad, support¬ed by the capabilities of programming, setting, machining and inspection. There were 23 sets of special equipment for producing WS9 parts, which were modified by the factory from their existing capabilities. For example, the machining of the contours of HP and LP compressor casings was done in England by a special copy milling machine, at a cost of 800,000 Pounds Sterling.

Niu Chunpu and his colleagues modified a conventional vertical milling machine, which performed the task perfectly. The precision casting and precision forging production lines all had first class facilities and work processes. It produced very few allowance forging and casting blanks, which greatly saved precious alloys, equipments and manhours. It served not only for other aeroengine factories, but also other military and commercial enterprises. XEF became an aeroengine manufacturing base with the manufacturing technique world competitive in the 1970s.

The introduction of the Spey was the starting point for China's aviation industry to further develop extensive international technical cooperation. The main problem of the import of Spey engine was that there was no proper applications for the engine, which affects the full use of the benefit both in technology and economy.

Qinling Mountains
Recent Chinese turbofan engines have been named after famous mountains in China. The WS9 is named after Shaanxi's Qinling Mountains. Domestic and foreign geologists and biologists generally acknowledge that Qinling is one of the three famous mountain ranges in the world and is known as the "Three Sisters" on the earth with the Alps in Europe and the Rocky Mount in Americas. All the three mountains are of great size and their geographical locations are very important, the ecological and environmental protection of which is related to sustainable development of human beings.

Running east to west, Qinling Mountains lie in the eastern province of Shaanxi and form a natural division between northern and southern China in terms of geography and climate. The Qinling Mountains is the site of one of the most biologically rich temperate forest in the world. Xi`an, the capital city of the province of Shaanxi, is a short distance to the north-east of Qinling Mountains lies. Xi`an is one of the six ancient Chinese capitals and was the starting point of the world-famous "Silk Road". Qinling Mountains is a significant water source area and a "climate adjuster" of Xi'an, and is the lifeblood for sustainable development of Xi'an economy and for production and life of people.

As a grand mountain range of the continental shelf in China, Qinling Mountains is the dividing line of natural ecology and climate of north and south as well as Yangtze River and the Yellow River, but also the important distribution area of rare wild plants and animals in our country. The diversity of ecosystems, species and genes in Qinling all has the important typical and representative characteristics. The main part of the Qinling Mountains is located in Shaanxi province, which covers the part of the region of six cities in the province. The Qinling mountainous areas account for a quarter of the province's total area.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7354
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 26 Feb 2019 05:50

Sachin Saar, I did not get your email. So I emailed you.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 976
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 26 Feb 2019 07:35

i responded saar

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3572
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 26 Feb 2019 09:27

Neela wrote:

A bureaucratic aspect is how to convince babus and netas to invest such large sums in engine dev.
What is their perspective? What are they interested in?
SCB? MTBO? I dont think so. They want to see what is the cost of development, what are the returns and what are the savings in forex. I doubt if they are even bothered too much about indigenization let alone engineering problems.


By starting off with dev of smaller engines , you put realistic achieveable targets for agencies. The initial outlays are smaller. It is easier to convince non-engg folk. You develop these and once these go into products, are refined and see large scale adoption, you can gather information on how much money is saved by investing in R&D. IMO, this is the backing that will be needed to convince non-engg minds. IOW, organic development and growth. Imagine if GTRE had focused on Adour and Shakthi equivalents initially over the last years....something that is definately achievable - they would have had success which would be the stepping stone to larger ones. It is such sucess that can convince bureaucracy to loosen the purse strings.



Neela, once the industrial based is built, the protypes and advancement will hopefully come from the industry organically. You don’t need a government led project every time. The only money you spend would be in the purchase. RnD will be done by the firms in the industry as a matter of course.

@Chetak. Thanks for expansion on the RR Spey’s story. Among other things given to Cheen by the West during this time was their first BVRAAM — the Aspide from Italy which in turn was a development of the AIM-7 Sparrow.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3572
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 28 Feb 2019 08:54

Speaking of the devil. RR is back with a proposal to build an engine plant in Cheen.

Posted in International aerospace:

https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7625&p=2327437#p2327437

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19312
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 28 Feb 2019 10:49

chola wrote:Speaking of the devil. RR is back with a proposal to build an engine plant in Cheen.

Posted in International aerospace:

https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7625&p=2327437#p2327437


This has the brexit debacle written all over it.

They are back to feeding the dragon, hoping that they will be eaten last.

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3615
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Neela » 02 Mar 2019 15:26

@SJha1618
According to India's Ministry of Defence, 3 sets of the MANIK Small Turbofan Engine developed by @DRDO_India are to be integrated with the Nirbhay cruise missile for testing. The integration work is being done by Brahmos Aerospace Thiruvananthapuram Limited

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 03 Mar 2019 02:26

Jay,

Please give us a dump on HTFE, HTSE and Manik that you found at AI19.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2435
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby abhik » 03 Mar 2019 02:40

^^^
Can all the updates from AI19 be collated in one place (even if it is links to posts)? It feels like there is less and less information out with progressive AIs.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4076
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby JayS » 04 Mar 2019 19:09

Indranil wrote:Jay,

Please give us a dump on HTFE, HTSE and Manik that you found at AI19.


Sorry saar, this times visit was very unfruitful for me. :| :| I don't have much on this. Only that HAL has validated the core of HTFE to a satisfactory level and are moving ahead with full engine system with LP system designed for 25kN thrust. Later they will add AB to get it to about 36kN.

The guy near HTSE didn't know much.

Manik is good to go, we will see it on oncoming Nirbhay test. It worked beautifully in cold temp tests those happened in Leh some time back.

Kaveri is in limbo. GTRE mainly is looking for Hot tech to jack up the thrust (SCBs and all), but French guys have asked so much money that it like 3-4x money spent on entire Kaveri project so far. GTRE has given proposal from their side, thinks are in MOD's court. The person there had no idea on the Flying Test Bed (FTB) proposal that DRDO is supposed to be working. He said all issues with Flutter and screech are solved and they want to test the new design on FTB. The tender we saw was for that. but he couldn't give any timelines on the tests as he said its G2G matter really. When they give green light it will happen. His helplessness was very evident. I forgot ( :| ) to ask him about the new fan or what is the status on other things like Ghatak engine et al or what new engines they are building currently (wrt all those tenders we see now).

He also mentioned LCA Airframe is available wherever GTRE wants it.

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 437
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby aditp » 04 Mar 2019 21:29

Noob question here.

There was talk of integrating the Kaveri on one of the initial Tejas prototypes (1st one I think) as a flying test bed. Would it be too difficult to convert this inr into an unmanned plane and fly it over coastal areas (over sea) to avoid casualties in case of failure & test? This way probably flight testing could be done.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 04 Mar 2019 22:58

JayS wrote:Only that HAL has validated the core of HTFE to a satisfactory level and are moving ahead with full engine system with LP system designed for 25kN thrust. Later they will add AB to get it to about 36kN.

This is good news. 25 kN thrust is for a low bypass turbofan. They should be able to scale up to 30 kN for a high bypass.

JayS wrote:Kaveri is in limbo. GTRE mainly is looking for Hot tech to jack up the thrust (SCBs and all), but French guys have asked so much money that it like 3-4x money spent on entire Kaveri project so far. GTRE has given proposal from their side, thinks are in MOD's court. The person there had no idea on the FTB proposal that DRDO is supposed to be working. He said all issues with Flutter and screech are solved and they want to test the new design on FTB. The tender we saw was for that. but he couldn't give any timelines on the tests as he said its G2G matter really. When they give green light it will happen. His helplessness was very evident. I forgot ( :| ) to ask him about the new fan or what is the status on other things like Ghatak engine et al or what new engines they are building currently (wrt all those tenders we see now). He also mentioned LCA Airframe is available wherever GTRE wants it.

We have to bite the bullet. Do it ourselves. There is no shortcut (read ToT) to this. They will take the money and give us nothing meaningful.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52586
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 05 Mar 2019 04:04

JayS and Indranil, Can the HTFE replace the RR Adour?
Looks close in thrust dry and wet.
I don't know the dimensions.

Adour Specs from Wiki:

General characteristics

Type: Turbofan
Length: 114 inches (2.90 m)
Diameter: 22.3 inches (0.57 m)
Dry weight: 1,784 lb (809 kg)

Components

Compressor: 2-stage LP, 5-stage HP
Turbine: 1-stage LP, 1-stage HP

Performance

Maximum thrust: 6,000 lb (27.0 KN) dry / 8,430 lb (37.5 KN) with reheat
Overall pressure ratio: 10.4
Bypass ratio: 0.75-0.8
Fuel consumption: dry 0.81 lb/(lbf⋅h) (23 g/(kN⋅s))
Thrust-to-weight ratio: 4.725:1


Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 05 Mar 2019 05:59

HTFE was designed to go on IJTs and Hawks.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1379
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 05 Mar 2019 07:12

HAL is targeting Jaguar Max upgrade with HTFE.

Shekhar Singh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 16 Sep 2018 14:55

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Shekhar Singh » 05 Mar 2019 09:57

Is there any news about HTFE 40?

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 540
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Avarachan » 05 Mar 2019 10:01

ramana wrote:JayS and Indranil, Can the HTFE replace the RR Adour?


Yes. Read this article carefully. It's a synopsis of the propulsion presentations from the AeroIndia-2015 seminars. There are many nuggets. I don't want to copy-and-paste the whole article here because I think the author makes some money from blog ads.

https://aquantumofmind.wordpress.com/20 ... ndia-2015/
Title: Development of Medium Thrust Class Turbofan Engine – HTFE25 by Devanathan, AERDC, HAL

Q&A
Q: Why build 25kN engine when HAL license mfg same thrust class engines (adour-871 et al). Why not make Al-55 replacement?

A: Initially 20kN was proposed. Since Al-55 is ~17kN, a 20kN would have been good for IJT MK2. But the higher authorities went with 25kN. Wrt adour871 advantage in technology (smaller size, PR 11 vs 20, ~600mm vs ~450mm Turbine dia – huge turbine operating at lower rpm for Adour) , weight and size. So This engine while replacing Adour would give better performance. This engine can be used for Jagaur (which has 28kN engine) as well. Just need to change mounting points (and perhaps LP module?). Its very easy to adjust the design to various thrust levels by changing materials etc. Analysis already done. With similar core 35-40kN is achievable easily. SFC for this engine 0.72, better than older engines.


Indranil wrote:HTFE was designed to go on IJTs and Hawks.

Please see above.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4076
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby JayS » 05 Mar 2019 14:50

Avarachan wrote:
ramana wrote:JayS and Indranil, Can the HTFE replace the RR Adour?


Yes. Read this article carefully. It's a synopsis of the propulsion presentations from the AeroIndia-2015 seminars. There are many nuggets. I don't want to copy-and-paste the whole article here because I think the author makes some money from blog ads.

https://aquantumofmind.wordpress.com/20 ... ndia-2015/
Title: Development of Medium Thrust Class Turbofan Engine – HTFE25 by Devanathan, AERDC, HAL

Q&A
Q: Why build 25kN engine when HAL license mfg same thrust class engines (adour-871 et al). Why not make Al-55 replacement?

A: Initially 20kN was proposed. Since Al-55 is ~17kN, a 20kN would have been good for IJT MK2. But the higher authorities went with 25kN. Wrt adour871 advantage in technology (smaller size, PR 11 vs 20, ~600mm vs ~450mm Turbine dia – huge turbine operating at lower rpm for Adour) , weight and size. So This engine while replacing Adour would give better performance. This engine can be used for Jagaur (which has 28kN engine) as well. Just need to change mounting points (and perhaps LP module?). Its very easy to adjust the design to various thrust levels by changing materials etc. Analysis already done. With similar core 35-40kN is achievable easily. SFC for this engine 0.72, better than older engines.


Indranil wrote:HTFE was designed to go on IJTs and Hawks.

Please see above.


That's my page. I started putting up things for my own reference, but couldn't continue beyond a few pages. :wink: Copy all you want. I don't make a penny out of it, only some spammers visit the page.

This is the same seminar, where an (ex?) IAF officer tried to run down the work by HAL. Its been referenced on BRF many times.

I think the idea at HAL was always to replace Adour class engines that they have been making for quite a while. Since HTFE has many latest technologies, its much more compact and light compared to Adour. HTFE 25 is sufficient for Trainers, but I am pretty sure, they can have a enlarged LP system to jack up the total thrust a bit and then add AB to reach to 45kN. HAL also says it can be used for Biz jets, which means they have an eye on High BPR version based on same core which will compete with likes of HTF7000.

Same with HTSE << >> Ardiden.

HTFE 40 = HTFE25 + AB

Interesting thing I noticed only now is HTSE has SCBs in it, with TBC coating. Sounds very much like Shakti. But I am not sure where they are procuring the SCBs from, or whether they made them using the inhouse capability from AL31FP ToT. The temperatures are rather low so they don't need TFTA SCBs there. But use of SCB plus TBC allows them to eliminate cooling air requirement completely I think. Whereas HTFE25 have air cooled 3D printed Inco blades.

Shekhar Singh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 16 Sep 2018 14:55

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Shekhar Singh » 05 Mar 2019 16:11

During Aero India 2017 there was news about HTFE 40 which is derivative of HTFE 25 with 40kN dry and 60kN wet thrust with marginal weight gain. I am trying to search link which I have seen that time but could not find one.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4076
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby JayS » 05 Mar 2019 17:40

Honeywell official doc for F125IN mentions its 9600lbf class engine = 42kN. Very much within HTFE's core's capability, with AB of coarse.

Interestingly the doc mentions 2000hrs MTBO for F125IN engine compared to "current 500hrs" which means current Jag engines have 500hr MTBO.

And it also mentiones its lowest cost option to increase capability of Jags. :lol:

https://aerospace.honeywell.com/en/~/me ... ne-bro.pdf

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2435
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby abhik » 05 Mar 2019 20:51

From AI19: HAL's unmanned wingmann will use PTA7E engine.
Image
From Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/vkthakur/status/1102836188002435072

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 05 Mar 2019 22:43

1. The time to reenigne the Jaguars are now (or never). An afterburning HTFE is at least 6-7 years away! So, although HAL says it cant fit the HTFE on Jaguars, it's almost impossible.

2. It is the right time for them to think of a NG HJT/LIFT/LSA powered by HTFE. Empty weight: 4.5 tons. CTOW: 6.5 tons, MTOW: 10 tons. Supersonic at altitude. 7 hardpoints. AESA primary radar. Litening.

3. Would love to see Manik scale up to the 0.7 ton thrust class. Would a good replacement for the PTAE-7 engine.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52586
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 06 Mar 2019 01:49

I think so too on the jaguar engine replacement.
Already much time has been lost.
A better engine gives the much required thrust and takeoff with full load.

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 540
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Avarachan » 06 Mar 2019 08:33

^^ But how much is that capability worth? Is Ajai Shukla correct in saying that Honeywell is now quoting $13.3 million per engine (i.e, $26.6 million per Jaguar)? https://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2019/01 ... aguar.html

$26.6 million for the engines alone is prohibitively expensive.

thammu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 71
Joined: 29 Mar 2007 08:16

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby thammu » 20 Mar 2019 16:59


chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19312
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 20 Mar 2019 19:14

Avarachan wrote:^^ But how much is that capability worth? Is Ajai Shukla correct in saying that Honeywell is now quoting $13.3 million per engine (i.e, $26.6 million per Jaguar)? https://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2019/01 ... aguar.html

$26.6 million for the engines alone is prohibitively expensive.


they think that they have you by the short and curlies, hence the predatory pricing.

BTW, this clown shooklaw is quite short on street cred.

this may just be the opening gambit before an offer is made for a "new" aircraft or whatever over aged, long in the tooth junk that the amerikis are pushing at this time.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby JTull » 01 Apr 2019 14:06

FWIW

IDRW: General Electric offers India a new engine for MWF and AMCA fighter program

General Electric Company which previously supplied engines for India’s Tejas Mk1 fighter jet has recently offered to supply F414 Enhanced Engines to power India’s upcoming Medium Weight Fighter (MWF), and 5th Generation AMCA fighter jet program. According to reliable industry sources close to idrw.org, ADA officials were officially briefed by GE Officials on F414 Enhanced Engines and how it can be incorporated into e F414-INS6 engines selected by ADA for Previous MKII version of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft.

According to GE Aviation, F414 Enhanced Engine incorporates additional technical advancements that can be retrofitted into the existing engines like F414 engines at much lower ownership cost. GE till now has supplied ADA with Eight F414-INS6 engines which generate 98kN Class of Wet Thrust but F414 Enhanced Engine can generate 116 kN Class of Wet Thrust with 1% improved fuel burn over F414-INS6 engines with negligible weight gain.

F414-INS6 engines and F414 Enhanced Engine dimensions will remain the same and no airframe changes will be required was the assurance given by the GE officials to ADA. GE promised that transaction will be smooth just like in LCA-Tejas Mk1 Program when ADA moved from an Initial lot of 8 F404-F2J3 engines which were used in LCA TD and Prototypes to F404-GE-IN20 engines with 5kn of extra wet thrust now used in Production variants. GE in 2010 had won a contract to supply 99 F414-INS6 engines with an option of 40 more as follow on order to power Mk-2 LCA-Tejas which now has become MWF with increased Maximum take-off weight of 17.5 tonnes over which GE officials feel that additional 18kn Wet Thrust will come in handy on MWF after incremental growth in its payload and weapons capabilities after redesign.

US and India previously had agreed to co-develop a new engine to power India’s AMCA based on GE’s F414 Enhanced Engine but talks fell through due to lack of any advancement in negotiations after both sides were not able to reach an agreement on Transfer of Technology of the Core section of the engine. GE by offering F414 Enhanced Engines wants to kill two birds with one stone and secure orders for nearly 1400+ engines for both MWF and AMCA Program for the fleets entire operational requirement for next 3 to 4 decades to come, but Transfer of Technology will be key to secure such multi-billion dollars contract from India said Defence expert Ranesh Rajan to idrw.org.

GE Aviation is already facing challenges from French Safran and UK’s Rolls Royce for the supply of new engines to power India’s AMCA fighter jets but GE is pushing for common engines for both MWF and AMCA program which will help lower ownership cost of this engine and will also improve the scale of supply chain due to common engine in both fighter jet program. GE Aviation will still require approvals from US Administration for the supply of engines which are yet to power American jets but GE has offered to set up a local assembly line and also create a local supply chain with help from public-private sector companies in India which will ensure smooth supply of spares and logistics. GE also has promised to use its Bangalore Facility in India to incorporate further improvements in the engine as per feedback provided by the operators.

According to Defence expert Ranesh Rajan, If F414 Enhanced Engines is selected it will take care of future thrust requirements which are bound to happen in weight increase in MWF due to future upgrades and India will also be able to experiment with 3D thrust vector nozzles for possible MK3 configuration to further improve aircraft maneuverability. The revival of Local Kaveri turbofan engine with help from French Safran Aero Engine maker as part of Rafale offset clause as not resulted into desired output and we are back to square one and now it is more or less confirmed that Kaveri engine derivative will not be powering MWF or Tejas MK1A in near future nor any new variant will be developed based on Kaveri engine unless Government decides to push in fresh round of funds in the program and also decides to appoint a technical partner to the program.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6836
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 02 Apr 2019 02:54

^^This seems to be the much talked about EPE variant. It is no doubt that the LCA Mk2 MWF would be a hot rod with this engine but the question is does India need to finance the development of this engine? In that case the money would be better spent financing development of an indigenous engine for the AMCA while the MWF can carry on with the F414-INS6

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7483
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 02 Apr 2019 07:50

nachiket wrote:^^This seems to be the much talked about EPE variant. It is no doubt that the LCA Mk2 MWF would be a hot rod with this engine but the question is does India need to finance the development of this engine? In that case the money would be better spent financing development of an indigenous engine for the AMCA while the MWF can carry on with the F414-INS6


I think the article is BS and just something completely made up. Why would only IDRW have this exclusive scoop if indeed such an offer was made? What about the rest of the Indian and US media? The Enhanced engine has evolved and I bet GE is marketing it off and on but there has never really been a thrust to get one single non US customer to fund it and doing that will likely be cost prohibitive and quite redundant because the engine enhancements would at some point be funded by the US Navy since not only do they have a very large Super Hornet inventory but they just added about 100 aircraft to its topline a couple of years ago. I do expect the USN to invest in these enhancements after they are done with the block III F/A-18 validations.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7354
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 02 Apr 2019 08:13

Brar, IDRW is doing cut-and-paste + some half baked imagination :D

sajaym
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 40
Joined: 04 Feb 2019 09:11

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby sajaym » 08 Apr 2019 11:04

chola wrote:^^^ Here we go: the J-11 testbed used to wring out the WS-10.

When I first saw this, I literally smacked my forehead. Why didn't we do the same with the Kaveri? The dimensions of that are within those for the MiG-29.

On the right is the WS-10. Easy to spot with the short petals. On the left is the established Al-31 in case the test engine fails:
Image


Instead of expecting the IAF to spare operational airframes, could we have used the MIG-25 for such testing? After retiring them from the IAF, they could've been transferred to HAL. From among the MIG-25s, we could've mothballed all except 2 trainers and kept them running by cannibalizing the others for spares.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3572
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 08 Apr 2019 15:48

sajaym wrote:
chola wrote:^^^ Here we go: the J-11 testbed used to wring out the WS-10.

When I first saw this, I literally smacked my forehead. Why didn't we do the same with the Kaveri? The dimensions of that are within those for the MiG-29.

On the right is the WS-10. Easy to spot with the short petals. On the left is the established Al-31 in case the test engine fails:
Image


Instead of expecting the IAF to spare operational airframes, could we have used the MIG-25 for such testing? After retiring them from the IAF, they could've been transferred to HAL. From among the MIG-25s, we could've mothballed all except 2 trainers and kept them running by cannibalizing the others for spares.


Not going to work. The MiG-25 is a massive straightline interceptor with R-15 turbojets nearly twice the size of the Kaveri. Size difference in engines, aircraft and design are too great.

For a medium class turbofan like the Kaveri you need a lighter twin turbofan aircraft like the MiG-29 (ideal) or the Hornet/Typhoon/Rafale (impractical.)

If we had the will to do this and pushed the Kaveri like the chinis did the WS-10, it would have had to be the Fulcrum.

We picked an inconveniently sized engine in the "Light" Combat Aircraft. If we went with a single engine aircraft based on a Al-31 sized poweplant, we would have had plenty of possible airframes to choose from -- not only the hundreds of Flankers produced by HAL but also the SU-30K/MKs we flew before the MKI so the IAF would had never needed to even give up a MKI for a testbed.
Last edited by chola on 08 Apr 2019 15:53, edited 1 time in total.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6836
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 08 Apr 2019 15:51

chola wrote:We picked an inconveniently sized engine in the "Light" Combat Aircraft. If we went with a single engine aircraft based on a Al-31 sized poweplant, we would have had plenty of possible airframes to choose from -- not only the hundreds of Flankers produced by HAL but also the SU-30K/MKs we flew before the MKI so the IAF would hafd never needed to even give up a MKI for a testbed.

:D LCA designers had no idea that IAF would be flying Su-30's or HAL would be producing them when the engine was chosen. Also, they were working under size and cost restrictions, which is why the LCA is the size it is and not the size of a Mig-27 or an F-16, to fit an AL-31 sized engine.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3572
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 08 Apr 2019 16:05

^^^ The LCA designers might not know but did the GOI? We were evaluating the Flanker at least in the early 1990s but possibly before then. First flight of the SU-30MK came in 1997 before that of the LCA.

At any rate, it was still unfortunately inconvenient. An Al-31 based single engine design would have given us commonality and more of an impetus on the local engine, especially since we were making parts for the Al-31 too.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6836
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 08 Apr 2019 16:22

chola wrote:^^^ The LCA designers might not know but did the GOI? We were evaluating the Flanker at least in the early 1990s but possibly before then. First flight of the SU-30MK came in 1997 before that of the LCA.

The size of the aircraft and the engine parameters were already selected before that.

At any rate, it was still unfortunately inconvenient. An Al-31 based single engine design would have given us commonality and more of an impetus on the local engine, especially since we were making parts for the Al-31 too.

Looking at the AL-31 serviceability issues and engine failures in the Su-30 fleet, it would have surely given us plenty of LCA accidents too and probably shut the program for good.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3572
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 08 Apr 2019 16:32

^^^ Ah but using a twin engine testbed and possibly installing the domestic engine in a production variant of the desi Flanker first while letting our other-reality LCA fly with Al-31s initially would have reduced risk considerably.

Your points are well taken though, Nachiket ji. It is just a mind exercise at this point.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 333
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby dinesh_kimar » 08 Apr 2019 19:45

Just like Eurofighter used both RB 199 and EJ 200 for first test flight, so too the Mig 29 with Kaveri and RD 33.

The RD 33 is about 40.5 inch diameter, 155 inch length, 1050 kg.
Kaveri is about 35.5 inch diameter, 160 inch length, 1250 kg.

Very similar dimensions, the CG changes can be suitably adjusted.

With small modifications to internal mounting points and freeing up space internally (5-6 inches), it can be made to work.

It's been done in the past, for flight testing.

Dassault always flight tests new airplane with existing engine, and new engine with existing airframe, as risk mitigation.

Route forward for Kaveri is either large multi engine flying test bed like IL 76 or a simpler Mig 29.

Su 30 won't cut it, diameter much bigger.

A guy who has popular tea stall was overheard saying that Kaveri hot parts are going to become composite for weight and performance advantage. ( not HP turbine though).

Maybe afterburner petals and flaps from existing metal alloy to composite carbon based.

Better performance at high temp, less creep, no thermal barrier coating required and much advantage in weight density.

Tea seller however said overall outlook bleak, science lab project only. All tea customers agreed that engine fitment to FTB is a must.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 458
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby maitya » 10 Apr 2019 18:58

dinesh_kimar wrote:<snip>
A guy who has popular tea stall was overheard saying that Kaveri hot parts are going to become composite for weight and performance advantage. ( not HP turbine though).
<snip>

I think he's alluding to Titanium Aluminide (TiAl) for the HPC stages (currently they are all "traditional" equiaxed Nickel alloys- approx 50% weight saving) - as TiAl blades can withstand ambient temperatures upto 850deg C, more than enough what the last (or last two) HPC stages would ever encounter.

Of course, the giants like GE et all, have successfully used TiAl for LPT stages etc (IIRC for commercial engine LPT stages).

But to master the cast technology of TiAl blades, is leap-frogging to absolute cutting edge in the field - will require mastery of additive manufacturing for metal parts like Electron Beam Melting (EBM) - basically a type of 3D mfg technique of melting metal powder layer by layer with an electron beam in a high vacuum.

Some of my relevant posts on this topic are: EBM and Ti-Al and EBM vs Laser Sintering.

But HAL already uses DMLS for manufacturing HPT of HTFE-25 while MIDHANI has had 300KW (and also 150KW) EBM furnaces from 2015 onward.

So who knows where we may have reached by now.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chiru, Khalsa, nits and 41 guests