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.
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3954
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 25 Apr 2020 17:06

Rsatchi wrote:A noob pooch: Why did GTRE go for a Turbo Shaft engine as the first attempt??
Could they have not started with a Turboprop which could have found multiple usage with growing needs for small/medium aircraft both civilian and military in the country?


No matter what path you take, it cannot be done it with 500M.

If we are aiming for the moon, need to put the money where the mouth is. The path to the moon comes next.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2417
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 25 Apr 2020 23:07

It is clear - the armed forces want only to import. Imported fighters, tanks, ships, subs and poverty all around, stunted industrial growth - because the Pakis have AMRAAAMs so we need the Rafale! The PM has said it several times himself. Sacrifice everything so a hidden few can be rich.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 491
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby maitya » 25 Apr 2020 23:21

Vivek K wrote:
nachiket wrote:It is not just a question of throwing money at the problem. The Chinese have sunk many times that amount into various engine programs by now and they are still catching up with the Russians, forget the Americans.

SCB tech is the biggest unknown. Midhani should be funded to scale up their achievements. SU-30 came with deep TOT so this should be available there. Layman question - Aren't satellite launch vehicles and re-entry vehicles (HSP and ballistic missiles) subjected to higher temps than turbine blades? Didn't ISRO demo a heat shield for its re-entry vehicle? Why can't that metallurgy be used to create better blades?


Not true ... we have had SCB Tech ready for many years now, DMRL have had been putting up SC-based (they have patented it as DMS4) HPT Blades and Vanes, in various expo-displays for many years now ... refer to one of my earlier posts, that refers to being displayed in 2015, if not even earlier.

And before somebody starts decrying it, as another-SDRE-produced-and-so-absolutely-useless thing, pls remember this is 4th Gen SCB with YSZ-TBC coating (via EBPVD) and with convection-cooling-holes.
(*most probably laser-drilled, but I myself have not seen any direct proof of these convection-cooling-holes being laser-drilled part - indirectly though, since there're not many other ways of getting convection-cooling-holes on a TBC coated surface, it is safe to assume that tech has also been mastered indigenously) - but I digress.

Betw this tech is so much more advanced than what is there in the so-called "licence-produced" and "indigenously-manufactured" made-in-Koraput-solid-SC-blades of the AL-31F etc crap that you get to hear from Rodina-lovers here in BRF, that it is beneath-contempt to even respond to it - so I don't even try.


But the above is really half-glass full story - what is really needed is industrial-level manufacturing base of "SC blade-batches" - another technology in itself. Some details on it in Points 1 and 2 of another one of my old posts.

And no, nobody, repeat nobody, is going to part that tech.


The 52/80KN-current-Kaveri doesn't need SC based HPTB or HPTVs - the useless SDRE-moron-designed-and-manufactured DS-based HPTB/HPTV are good-enough for that.
In fact, the useless SDREs have quite brainlessly, kept the dry thrust by ~7-8% lower artificially, by deliberately integrating a low BPR fan.
(to address some useless requirement like taking-off on full-load without A/B in Apr-May-Jun from anywhere in North India)
If only they had an iota of brains, tehy should have gone for glossy brochure based thrust figures and have kept the BPR a notch higher - that way they would have beat the F404 and declared victory etc - but again I digress.


All Kaveri currently needs is,
1) some more funding so that it can rake-up the static engine-run qualification runs and get into a flying-platform and validate the thermodynamic and CFD tech of a truly modern Turbofan
2) even more funding, to reduce the weight by 100-150Kg, that it has since crept into it, being an ab-initio tech-devt program.

Towards that, recent breakthroughs
i) on LZ-TSZ bilayer TBC tech (pls refer my earlier posts on this topic) means quite a bit of it is within reach via. brand-new-coating of the "static" AB parts like the A/B liner
ii) usage of CMC (replacing the Ni-based Nimonic Superalloy C263) in C/D nozzles (~70% weight reduction accomplished as C263 density is 8.3g/m3 whereas CMC is at 2.6g/m3)
etc etc. has given us some hope.

But more (funding and work) is required in
i) getting CMC (SiC/SiC) based parts-substitutions in the hot-section e.g. turbine shrouds.
ii) carbon-fiber composite fan blades.



But the current thread of discussion is to get to 75-80KN level dry thrust etc levels with some slight change in inlet dimensions (so increased mass-flow etc, resulting in dry thrust).
That level on thrust increment with out corresponding proportionate increase in inlet geometry (so proportionate increase in mass-flow) will require dramatic improvement in TeT and OPR levels - one or the other won't workout, BOTH are required, simultaneously.

Unachievable? Well let's sample this:
for example, Kabini currently is at 1,455deg C (or 1,728deg K) TeT level - while M88 is at 1,850 K (1,580 °C) - so ~125deg improvement (in Turbofan lingo that's a Gen jump, actually maybe 1.5 Gen jump).
DMS4 based SC would be absolutely required which typically would provide 50-60deg (out of this 125deg) TeT advantage - all other TeT increment would have to come from one-and-only-one place,
viz. new-gen TBC (e.g. EBPVD based LZ-YSZ based bilayer TBC coating applications on both rotating (aka HPT blades) and static (aka HPT vanes) parts
AND
improvement in laser-drilled-convection-cooling scheme
etc etc etc.
...........................................
...........................................

Time to stop the monologue and quickly slink back into lurk mode again.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8214
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 25 Apr 2020 23:46

Maitya ji, on the kaveri thread. Can you please elaborate if the the current HTFE engine can be modified into a 30/48 kN AB engine?

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 491
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby maitya » 26 Apr 2020 02:39

JayS wrote:
Indranil wrote:I am not so sure that he was speaking of wet thrust. I think we was speaking of materials. With a higher TET. See the quoted part below. I think with a 25 kN engine, they can easily get 40kN of wet thrust.

https://aquantumofmind.wordpress.com/2015/10/31/presentation-on-heat-resistant-coating-for-scbs-of-al-31fp-aeroindia-2015/


HAL has a great engine on their hands. I wish they design an engine with ~36kN of dry thrust and ~54 kN of wet thrust. They can design an awesome AJT/LIFT based on that.


Thats my blog page btw and its from AI-2015. You said AI-2019. So I was thinking something else.

When HAL talks about 35-50kN for HTFE its always with A/B. Its not just about materials, whole aerothermodynamic design and system level architecture needs to be relooked at with such large change. The hot core has very limited organic growth potential with some refined redesign (called PIP in industry), typically ~2-3%. Unless some significant tech infusion happens something like from metallic to CMC blades, of that order (which is a huge change BTW), it wont give much bigger thrust without system level redesign. A big chunk of dry thrust can be changed thru tailoring LP system actually, but even then the total organic growth wont be larger than ~10%. Max 20% with all sorts of stuff added up.

HTFE uses uncooled blades. If one wants to extract significantly higher thrust with same air intake (proportionally higher intake would mean full redesign of core) means burning more fuel, that is much higher TIT. Though HTFE has a lot of margin on TIT as of now, any increase from current level would require introducing either CMC like material (currently even GE has not demonstrated CMC in HP, IIRC, rest are all lightyears behind) to keep uncooled blades, else introducing cooling for HPT/LPT blades. Introducing cooling is a tedious job, especially for a small engine. And it doesn't give the proportional benefit we may thing it would give, hiking TIT, because cooling takes up upto 25% of HPC output, proportionally reducing the air passing thru the combustion chamber. You can imagine the whole sizing of the engine would need a relook with such change. Then there is a matter of making cooling air channels/spaces in the engine, which would increase complexities of entire secondary air system by orders of magnitude. I'll leave it at this.

The Tech gap between HTFE and Kaveri is huge. But a Geometrically scaled larger engine with same tech level as HTFE can be built for 35kN dry thrust, but it will essentially be a different engine.

I got asked, in the AMCA thread, that if HTFE can be scaled to a 30/48KN turbofan or not ... and the reason why I quoted JayS post is that there's not much more to say than what he's already said in it - I've highlighted some important points in it.

Today HTFE achieves 25KN dry ... making it to produce 30KN, so 20% more, would be quite difficult without completely redesigning the core.
Typically, with the same core, 5-7% more should be achievable by a lighter/more-efficient Fan.

Trouble is, HAL "cheated" with the HTFE ... aka they went for the higher quoted max dry thrust figures (more suitable for glossy-brochures), achieved though a higher BPR setting. What I mean is, the proportion of the dry-thrust coming form the Fan is quite high (like F404 for example), compared to that coming from the Core.
But that's ok for a platform designed for training (IJT/AJT etc), where success-factor is more on MTBO/MTBF type engine lifecycle costs than that of a raw fighter application - anybody having wet-dreams of having a Jaguar re-engined with a HTFE derivative, would be surprised when that platform will inevitably switch-to A/B on max/higher weapon load in Apr-Jul timeframe in any north-Indian airfield. Of course, HTFE, like F404 or any other western engine, wouldn't have such issues operating from western countries etc.

Kaveri will not have that issue - because it was way-ahead of it times, in deliberately keeping the brochure-quoted dry thrust figures low, but achieving it ALL indian conditions ... after all, a desi system designed by desi kallurams, you see.
Instead, it uses the peak TeT (1455 deg C) to make the HPC turn faster in those hot ambient condition, utilising the deliberately more air-mass available (a function of low BPR) for the HPC and maintain it quoted thrust dry figures.
In reality it would be operating more at TeT levels of 1250deg C regime, 90% of the time - it doesn't need to huff-puff to the higher and max TeT figures (and there goes the engine life), as it already has the adequate mass-flow available for achieving the 51KN dry thrust.

Of course, today there's huge cacophony of randi-rona-dhona about oh-so-almighty GE running its EPE/EDE and all those alphabetic-soup programs, while poor SDREs labour out the primitive-and-stone-aged Kaveri/Kabini.

But as is the usual nowadays, I have again digressed to a completely unrelated topic - I was wishing, again as always, to write-up a post on this very aspect, but as usual again lack of b/w meant, it's lying somewhere in hdd, maybe at 25-30% completion stage - SIGH!!!!


Back to topic ... question was HTFE can be scaled to a 30/48KN turbofan or not?

Answer is, no it can't without significantly changing the core ... because it didn't allow those "headrooms" in it's core design, instead choosing to chase the glamorous brochure figures.

My guess is, it can be tweaked to 27-28KN dry (so may be 37-40KN max Wet) with a better fan , but that'll be it.
To go any further, they will have to improve first the TeT to 1400deg C levels - and that means a brand-new core.
These temp-levels mean a whole paradigm of cutting edge technologies like DS or even SC HPT blades and vanes casting, convectional-cooling and what not.
I'm deliberately not mentioning TBC, as I think it already uses YSZ based uni-layer TBC (much like Kaveri/Kabini) - as without that achieving 1200deg C TeT on polycrystalline casted blades/vanes is next to impossible.

However they have an advantage there - unlike Kaveri, the contemporary kallurams in MIDHANI etc, have mastered bilayer LZ-YSZ TBC, that'd certainly give another 100-150+ deg C TeT advantage (all they need to master is the anti-spalding characteristics of fast rotating turbine etc).
So, if they can go to the relatively low-tech solid SC casted blades/vanes (Rodina-gifted-made-in-koraput-AL-31F ones) and come up with a bilayer LZ-YSZ TBC, they may as well touch the 1400deg C TeT figure - and thus make a lot of headway towards 30-32KN dry thrust figures.

But even then, they will still not achieved those dry-thrust figures, if they are not able to scale the OPR to atleast 20-21 levels - and that'll be a steeper challenge actually, as tinkering the HPC blade geometry etc for higher SPR, is highest level of rotor dynamics and CFD mastering "technology", that requires, well, pen-and-paper and some really smart and tenacious fellows - something that grand-mullah-enquoobuddin-gas-turbini (PissBUH) would attest.
This OPR increase, will also require a slightly higher mass-flow-thru-core to be allowed which will require a new inlet (higher dia) design (and thus a new, bigger Fan as well).

No easy meals, I guess!! But with all these in place it can and should achieve 38KN/50KN figures.

But what really is impressive about HTFE, and that gives me a lot of confidence about it, is the way 3D manufacturing tech has been utilised to cut down the design and development schedule. So these technical developments, though very tough, can still be achieved in a reasonable timeframe, I guess!!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8214
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 26 Apr 2020 03:41

Thank you for breaking it down for me. I should have looked at the BPR before asking the question. Basically, I am looking at options for a single-engined LIFT with 35 kN and 50 kN of dry and wet thrust.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7520
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Prasad » 26 Apr 2020 14:36

maitya wrote:<huge lecture of fun reading>
And before somebody starts decrying it, as another-SDRE-produced-and-so-absolutely-useless thing, pls remember this is 4th Gen SCB with YSZ-TBC coating (via EBPVD) and with convection-cooling-holes.
(*most probably laser-drilled, but I myself have not seen any direct proof of these convection-cooling-holes being laser-drilled part - indirectly though, since there're not many other ways of getting convection-cooling-holes on a TBC coated surface, it is safe to assume that tech has also been mastered indigenously) - but I digress.

<more reading>
Betw this tech is so much more advanced than what is there in the so-called "licence-produced" and "indigenously-manufactured" made-in-Koraput-solid-SC-blades of the AL-31F etc crap that you get to hear from Rodina-lovers here in BRF, that it is beneath-contempt to even respond to it - so I don't even try.
<even fun reading>

Drilling holes is a "oh that isn't an issue at all for us today" thing. The AL-31FP on the MKI has a TeT of 1650K aka 1376 celcius. Compared to the 1455 celcius of the Kaveri.

Btw, how much do you think the fan/engine casing weighs? SiC blades and vanes are many years away.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23288
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 26 Apr 2020 15:24

Indranil wrote:Thank you for breaking it down for me. I should have looked at the BPR before asking the question. Basically, I am looking at options for a single-engined LIFT with 35 kN and 50 kN of dry and wet thrust.


won't the people posting so knowledgeably also know why the funding for GTRE has slowed so drastically.

why are such constraints and hurdles dominating what is essentially being described here as a project that can be solved simply by vastly increased funding coupled with the development of infrastructure.

what are the scientific community thought leaders not stepping up to own the problem and through that responsible route force the desired solution.

or, are there some other problems that are not benefiting from the sunshine of realistic scrutiny

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23288
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 26 Apr 2020 15:34

yes, this is not an apple to apple comparison especially with the support and role of the MIC but still......... it is undoubtedly an eye opener.

and surprise, surprise, even the budgets are roughly comparable.


Defence Research and Development Organisation
Agency overview
Employees 30,000 (5000 scientists)
Annual budget ₹14,818.74 crore (US$2.1 billion)(2017-18)
Minister responsible Rajnath Singh, Minister of Defence
Agency executive Dr G. Satheesh Reddy, Chairman, DRDO




DARPA
Agency overview
Employees 220
Annual budget $3.427 billion (2019)
Agency executives Dr. Peter Highnam, Acting Director Dr. David Honey, Acting Deputy Director
Parent agency U.S. Department of Defense




https://drdo.gov.in/sites/default/files/drdo-news-documents/DRDO_News_28_Nov_2019.pdf


Steady rise in budget allocation for DRDO

New Delhi:
There has been a steady rise in the budgetary allocation of the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO) since last three years, the Centre said on Wednesday, emphasising that it has been supportive of providing additional funds for the agency on need basis.

In a written response to a question in Lok Sabha, Minister of State for Defence Shripad Naik said Rs 13,501 was allocated to the DRDO in 2016-17. It increased to 15,399.25 and 17,121.99 in 2017-18 and 2018-19.

Naik said Rs 19,021.02 has been allocated for 2019-20.



BTW, I have some SDRE classmates with tenures at some US universities and parts of their research work are supported by DOD grants.

I have yet to hear of the GoI funding such people but there are chinese funds, usually available for the asking

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8214
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 26 Apr 2020 20:06

I am the PI of a DARPA project. DARPA's mandate and DRDO's mandate are not the same.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19683
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 26 Apr 2020 20:54

chetak wrote:
Indranil wrote:Thank you for breaking it down for me. I should have looked at the BPR before asking the question. Basically, I am looking at options for a single-engined LIFT with 35 kN and 50 kN of dry and wet thrust.


won't the people posting so knowledgeably also know why the funding for GTRE has slowed so drastically.

why are such constraints and hurdles dominating what is essentially being described here as a project that can be solved simply by vastly increased funding coupled with the development of infrastructure.

what are the scientific community thought leaders not stepping up to own the problem and through that responsible route force the desired solution.

or, are there some other problems that are not benefiting from the sunshine of realistic scrutiny


Because the GOI is waiting for a report from NITI Aayog led by Dr VKS on the next gen jet engine program. Its due this year.

Meanwhile a 1000 crore program to design a Kaveri derivative for the UCAV has been funded and progressed.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19683
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 26 Apr 2020 20:56

I have no idea what you wish to depict by such a comparison. DRDO's mandate, its challenges are completely different from that of DARPA. The latter is more and more into program management, whereas DRDO has to develop a lot inhouse and even does limited series production of key items. DRDO also runs multiple academic funded programs at Indian universities.

chetak wrote:yes, this is not an apple to apple comparison especially with the support and role of the MIC but still......... it is undoubtedly an eye opener.

and surprise, surprise, even the budgets are roughly comparable.


Defence Research and Development Organisation
Agency overview
Employees 30,000 (5000 scientists)
Annual budget ₹14,818.74 crore (US$2.1 billion)(2017-18)
Minister responsible Rajnath Singh, Minister of Defence
Agency executive Dr G. Satheesh Reddy, Chairman, DRDO




DARPA
Agency overview
Employees 220
Annual budget $3.427 billion (2019)
Agency executives Dr. Peter Highnam, Acting Director Dr. David Honey, Acting Deputy Director
Parent agency U.S. Department of Defense




https://drdo.gov.in/sites/default/files/drdo-news-documents/DRDO_News_28_Nov_2019.pdf


Steady rise in budget allocation for DRDO

New Delhi:
There has been a steady rise in the budgetary allocation of the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO) since last three years, the Centre said on Wednesday, emphasising that it has been supportive of providing additional funds for the agency on need basis.

In a written response to a question in Lok Sabha, Minister of State for Defence Shripad Naik said Rs 13,501 was allocated to the DRDO in 2016-17. It increased to 15,399.25 and 17,121.99 in 2017-18 and 2018-19.

Naik said Rs 19,021.02 has been allocated for 2019-20.



BTW, I have some SDRE classmates with tenures at some US universities and parts of their research work are supported by DOD grants.

I have yet to hear of the GoI funding such people but there are chinese funds, usually available for the asking

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19683
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 26 Apr 2020 22:53

Chetak - i am deleting your above post, as it literally has nothing of import bar the same old same old, and the usual complaints against Indian institutions that can be discussed in multiple other threads and is not suitable for the Kaveri thread. If you have something useful for the Kaveri in particular, please post the same.

Furthermore, claiming that DRDO is not delivering consistently etc is also not a view most certainly not held by many folks from the services I have had the opportunity to interact with in recent days. They all - to my surprise - bemoan the lack of consistent policy making in the services culture itself which has sabotaged far too many projects and is also leading to an exodus of talented technical personnel from the services. They reiterate, the lack of a product development subculture in the services is hobbling them and blaming DRDO has long past gone by the sell-by date.

Even in the current Covid episode, it has been the DRDO which has delivered, at incredibly short notice, everything from masks, to PPE, to ventilators. You can do the research on your own. But this is neither the thread to bring in specious comparisons to DARPA whose function does not even include a fraction of the challenges the DRDO or CSIR et al face in developing an entire ecosystem, and in fact incubating that ecosystem and then transferring the technology to multiple industries.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23288
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 26 Apr 2020 22:54

Karan M wrote:Chetak - i am deleting your above post, as it literally has nothing of import bar the same old same old that can be discussed in multiple other threads and is not suitable for the GTRE thread.


you are the boss, Karan M ji.

Nilanjan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 33
Joined: 04 Apr 2020 13:47

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Nilanjan » 27 Apr 2020 19:51

Guys, i have a news.....in 2017 mod. Sanctioned a project called ' high efficiency high temp. turbine '.i can't confirm exact purpose of this project but it seems it is for a higher thrust engine.maybe it will be basic of the new engine..in a recent interview drdo chief dr. Reddy said drdo moved ahead from kaveri and consentreteting on new design..so, it seems although the full project still in discussion level,the r&d on core tech. started and maybe future of complete engine project will depend on success of the sanctioned project.

Rsatchi
BRFite
Posts: 862
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Rsatchi » 28 Apr 2020 19:41

Nilanjan wrote:Guys, i have a news.....in 2017 mod. Sanctioned a project called ' high efficiency high temp. turbine '.i can't confirm exact purpose of this project but it seems it is for a higher thrust engine.maybe it will be basic of the new engine..in a recent interview drdo chief dr. Reddy said drdo moved ahead from kaveri and consentreteting on new design..so, it seems although the full project still in discussion level,the r&d on core tech. started and maybe future of complete engine project will depend on success of the sanctioned project.

Hope this fructifies into something tangible in some realistic timelines!!
Another Noob Pooch: Any of the derivatives/byproducts of kaveri/kabini into serial production of engines of some sort finding niche in military/civilian use??

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby abhik » 28 Apr 2020 20:26

OT but regarding DARPA vs DRDO, AFAIK the US is spending a total of 100+ billion on R&D and testing. Proportionally we should be spending about 10b no? Something to chew on.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54776
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 12 May 2020 00:54

maitya and anyone else \:

Can a follow on turbo-prop be developed from the HAL HTFE Turbofan?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_HTFE-25

HAL has very good gearbox development capability in the turboshaft engines like

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_HTFE-25
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safran_Ardiden


If so what will be the power output from such a conversion?

If its sufficient power can be used to replace those on An-32 planes and even Hercules?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54776
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 12 May 2020 01:07

I am thinking something like this Rolls Royce Engine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_AE_2100

The Rolls-Royce AE 2100 is a turboprop developed by Allison Engine Company, now part of Rolls-Royce North America. A derivative of the Allison AE 1107C-Liberty (Rolls-Royce T406) turboshaft engine, the AE 2100 shares the same high-pressure core as that engine, as does the Rolls-Royce AE 3007 turbofan. The engine is a two-shaft design, and was the first[when?] to use dual FADECs (full authority digital engine control) to control both engine and propeller.[citation needed] There are four variants of the engine: the civil AE 2100A, and the military variants which include the AE 2100D2/D2A, AE 2100D3, AE 2100J and AE 2100P.

The engine uses new six-bladed Dowty propellers for use on the 50-seat Saab 2000 and the Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules military transport. Each engine develops 4,591 shaft horsepower.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54776
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 12 May 2020 01:13

IAF has 105 An-32 each with 2 engines.

India
Indian Air Force: Bought 125 aircraft, 105 are still in service. Entire fleet is undergoing modernization; 35 upgraded An-32s have been delivered by Ukrspetsexport.[13] The upgrades include modern avionics equipment, new oxygen systems and improved crew seats. The remaining aircraft are being upgraded in India.


So assume 210 engines plus 40 spare is 250 engines
Add four engines each for Hercules fleet.

A derated version can power the SARAS when it comes along.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 519
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby dinesh_kimar » 13 May 2020 00:39

^ Ramana Saar, will answer as layman, dunno if it's on the dot.

Turbofans have an outer cowl around which most of air is bypassed, and less air is highly compressed by 3-4 compressors, ignited and powers the turbine, and exits the rear nozzle, providing thrust.

'Props have no bypass, no cowl, the power shafting is directed front thru many compressor stages (10-12), and runs a slow speed propeller making thrust from the front. It is slower engine.

I assume it is difficult to convert a turbofan into a prop, it's like fast car engine vs slow truck engine.

The HAL engine is about 1400 hp / 1200 kw. Maybe some aspects/ know- how can be used to build a turboprop for Dornier/Saras size aircraft.

The AN-32, C-130 ,etc. needs 5000 hp+.

The conversion of Turboprop to turboshaft engine ( for propeller plane and helicopter respectively) could be possible, as Pratt & Whitney PT-6 and GE CT-7 shows.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23288
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 13 May 2020 03:11

dinesh_kimar wrote:^ Ramana Saar, will answer as layman, dunno if it's on the dot.

Turbofans have an outer cowl around which most of air is bypassed, and less air is highly compressed by 3-4 compressors, ignited and powers the turbine, and exits the rear nozzle, providing thrust.

'Props have no bypass, no cowl, the power shafting is directed front thru many compressor stages (10-12), and runs a slow speed propeller making thrust from the front. It is slower engine.

I assume it is difficult to convert a turbofan into a prop, it's like fast car engine vs slow truck engine.

The HAL engine is about 1400 hp / 1200 kw. Maybe some aspects/ know- how can be used to build a turboprop for Dornier/Saras size aircraft.

The AN-32, C-130 ,etc. needs 5000 hp+.

The conversion of Turboprop to turboshaft engine ( for propeller plane and helicopter respectively) could be possible, as Pratt & Whitney PT-6 and GE CT-7 shows.


The IN and the IAF both use the AI20 series engines for the IL38 and the AN32.

these engines are far too heavy for the saras. Each engine is about a 1000 Kgs, give or take

per wiki

General characteristics: Ivchenko AI-20D series 5
Type: Single-shaft turboprop
Length: 3,096 mm (121.9 in)
Diameter: 450 mm (18 in) (intake casing)[10]
Width: 842 mm (33.1 in)
Height: 11,802 mm (464.6 in)
Dry weight: 1,040 kg (2,290 lb)

comparable engines would be

Allison T56
Bristol Proteus
General Electric T64
Pratt & Whitney Canada PW100
Rolls-Royce Tyne

The PT6 series or equivalent would be the better fit

the DO228 which is in a comparable weight class to the saras has engines that weigh, IIRC, about 380 lbs apiece, give or take.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3513
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby fanne » 13 May 2020 04:03

Engine development has been very non strategic. Take example of HTFE -25, it can perhaps fit in some trainer (that HAL is not building as of yet), but cannot power Jaguars (even if it is upgraded to its max limit). However a HTFE-40 like engine could have powered Jaguars and a derated HTFE-40, could have fulfilled the purpose that HTFE-25 was suppose to fulfill. In our infinite wisdom, we went for HTFE-25 and not HTFE-40.
The amount of tech we developed for Kaveri (and got from AL-31F engines), HTFE-40 would have been achievable. An engine of that nature may not need SC blade (where per news we may be struggling...or not), a directionally solidified blades could do (which we were able to achieve through Kaveri)….similarly other tech would have helped. But we went for HTFE-25..
Similarly we are going for a 110 KN engine, the fall back to F414 would leave it short of thrust. We have mastered (relatively), design and construction of airplane (LCA). A twin engine F 414 plane will have 32% more thrust available than Rafale (Afterburner M-88-2 74KN thrust, F414 - 98KN thrust, both giving roughly 66% of AB thrust as dry thrust). We can build our next gen TEDBF and AMCA around that engine and then go for indigenous attempt to make a F414 engine locally (similar to Kaveri vs F404).
Making a plane optimized for 110 KN engine (two engine, thrust of 220 KN) and then failing in getting the engine right will jeopardize the plane as well. Worst news, there is no 110 KN thrust engine in the market (assuming that if there were, sizes would be comparable, so easy to replace). Though similar to F404-IN-20, there is rumor that F414-XXX is in the making that would give 110 KN thrust (or so we hope).
In the past, decisions on engines have not be optimal, I hope some new people make the decisions on the new path forward.
A HTFE-40 like engine from web has many uses - Trainer, Jags, UCAV, UAV, even small transport planes and within our reach. The HtFE-25 should continue, but just as science project, we should start HTFE-40 (if a new design so be it). The goal should be that in few years, it can be put in Jags. Who knows where the Jags will be in few years, may be we will retire them, maybe we wont. Mig 21 were supposed to be retired in 1990, the Bisons by 2010 and here we are in 2020.

Some back of the envelope comparison for engines -
(This is one of reasons why single engined fighters typically have better peformance than twin engined fighters despite lower thrust-to-weight ratio. Engine frontal area is one of major contributors to drag in all “normal” flight conditions. Taking two engines that use same technology and general design, frontal area – and drag – will increase with square of dimensions’ increase, while weight – and thus thrust – will increase with cube of dimensions’ increase. Engine that is 20% larger in all three dimensions will have 44% greater frontal area and 72,8% more weight and thrust – thus its thrust-to-drag ratio will be 20% greater than that of the smaller engine. If engines are of the same size and characteristics, then twin engined aircraft will be larger and have higher inertia and inferior transient performance. This of course assumes identical design goals and avaliable technology. For example, F-119 is 239% larger in volume than the EJ200, has 59% greater frontal area and 15% better thrust-to-drag ratio.).

https://defenseissues.net/2014/12/06/fi ... mparision/

chetonzz
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 99
Joined: 18 Mar 2019 11:11

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetonzz » 20 May 2020 15:59

posting a video here of that european man's "analysis" of Kaveri saga so far

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfrHWdoXl1M

kalichpur
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 13 May 2020 16:46

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby kalichpur » 22 May 2020 23:26

Here a YouTube channel called "AgentJayZ" run by a guy who works at JET CITY a jet turbine work shop.
He has over 800 videos on problems and maintenance of jet engines. He sort of mentors engineering students.
I thought persons on this forum may get more in-depth knowledge about jet engines.
Here is a sample video on AL-25 engine. I have learned a lot from this channel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLcQNfk95Ps

Apologies if this channel is already known here. This is my first post on BR

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9536
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 22 May 2020 23:27

Rambo, welcome to BR. Please change your username. If you cannot, please advise and I will change it for you.

kalichpur
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 13 May 2020 16:46

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby kalichpur » 22 May 2020 23:31

Please change it for me as I am not very familiar with the interface. Please change it to "Hispano"

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9536
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 22 May 2020 23:47

Rambo, we need a human sounding one. Not an ethnic one :) Anything is fine.

kalichpur
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 13 May 2020 16:46

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby kalichpur » 23 May 2020 14:27

Rakesh wrote:Rambo, we need a human sounding one. Not an ethnic one :) Anything is fine.


Please change it to "Kalichpur"

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9536
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 01 Jul 2020 09:35

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 46720?s=20 ---> High pressure compressor stator for the HAL HTFE-25 manufactured by 3D printing using the alloy Ti-6Al-4V. A stator converts KE into pressure energy. The complete design to realize cycle for the combustion chamber was done in less than 5 months, traditionally it takes 14 months.

Image

Image

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 491
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby maitya » 01 Jul 2020 15:52

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/strategic_front/status/1278168960681246720?s=20 ---> High pressure compressor stator for the HAL HTFE-25 manufactured by 3D printing using the alloy Ti-6Al-4V. A stator converts KE into pressure energy. The complete design to realize cycle for the combustion chamber was done in less than 5 months, traditionally it takes 14 months.
<snip>

Confusing tweet ... is he talking about HPC stator (looks that way) or the combustor!!!
The image is of a Stator (maybe for HPC stage, as the caption says) ...

However still good news, as it compresses the overall timeline significantly ... better would have been if they could invent a 3-D Mfg tech for CMC based stators (especially for the last stages of the HPC which uses Ni superalloys etc) - typically density of CMC is about half of that of Ti alloys (so ~half the weight for a given volume/geometry of the stator etc).

But still good news ...

Dexter
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 02 Apr 2019 15:22

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Dexter » 02 Jul 2020 12:46

Noob Question

Nal seems to have done good work with CMC's which can possibly increase the capacity of our jet engines
https://www.nal.res.in/en/current-resea ... l-ceramics

As per my readings, I understood the problem with CMC manufacturing is low throughput and not total inability to manufacture. Since we need a comparatively small quantity anyways to make just one engine, why have we not tried it yet.

I am sure I got something wrong. Any gurus can please enlighten ?

Kamal_raj
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 65
Joined: 10 Oct 1999 11:31
Location: U.K

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Kamal_raj » 26 Jul 2020 16:13

Sorry guys I didn’t know how to post twitter images but I found this on Twitter from amitraaz account.

Kalyani's KCTI 120...
120kgf Thrust gas Turbine Engine.
Technology realized

Specifics:
Cross over diffuser
Reverse-flow combustor with Effusion cooling
3D print Flame tube.
• 2.2 Kg/sec Mass Flow Rate
• 55,000 RPM (Max)
• ~25kg in Overall Weight

Applications
UAV

Kamal_raj
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 65
Joined: 10 Oct 1999 11:31
Location: U.K

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Kamal_raj » 26 Jul 2020 16:14

Kalyani Centre for Technology and Innovation (KCTI) proposed a 400kgf or 3.92KN class category jet engine.

The key system involved

Additive Manufacturing (DMLS\FDM)
70% of parts are manufactured by 3D printing.
UG NX and ANSYS( for thermal and mechanical loading evaluation.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2981
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Vips » 26 Jul 2020 19:13

One of the earliest small jet engine program they were developing was supposed to be out by now.

Neilz
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 91
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 21:09

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Neilz » 30 Jul 2020 01:11

A question to learned members. I came across the below link which depicts that we/India exports a substantial parts of different turbines including turbojet and turbo propellers.
1. How much does it translate into deep knowledge of parts design or the turbine itself?
2. Can we call it an eco-system which can in opportune moment translate into functional desi engine?



Where does India export Turbo-jets, turbo-propellers and other gas turbines.?
Top export destinations of "Turbo-jets, turbo-propellers and other gas turbines." from India in 2019:


USA with a share of 39% (1.41 billion US$)
Germany with a share of 14.2% (509 million US$)
United Kingdom with a share of 12.8% (457 million US$)
Singapore with a share of 10.7% (382 million US$)
China with a share of 4.14% (147 million US$)
France with a share of 3.29% (117 million US$)
Belgium with a share of 2.74% (97 million US$)
Turkey with a share of 2.03% (72 million US$)
Malaysia with a share of 1.58% (56 million US$)
United Arab Emirates with a share of 1.29% (46 million US$)

Exports structure of 8411 - Turbo-jets, turbo-propellers and other gas turbines. - from India in 2019 represented by the following main commodity groups:

87% (3.12 billion US$): 841112 - Turbo-jets, of a thrust >25 kN
3.82% (136 million US$): 841191 - Parts of the turbo-jets/turbo-propellers of 8411.11-8411.22
3.39% (121 million US$): 841181 - Gas turbines other than turbo-jets/turbo-propellers, of a power not >5000kW
2.39% (85 million US$): 841199 - Parts of the oth. gas turbines of 8411.81 & 8411.82
1.45% (51 million US$): 841182 - Gas turbines other than turbo-jets/turbo-propellers, of a power >5000kW
0.843% (30 million US$): 841111 - Turbo-jets, of a thrust not >25kN
0.334% (11.9 million US$): 841122 - Turbo-propellers, of a power >1,100kW
0.043% (1.55 million US$): 841121 - Turbo-propellers, of a power not >1,100kW

https://trendeconomy.com/data/h2/India/8411

Avtar Singh
BRFite
Posts: 153
Joined: 22 Jan 2017 02:07

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Avtar Singh » 12 Aug 2020 01:00

This new procurement policy which must have been in the air for quite a while
would explain why someone like RR (Rolls Royce) would want to jump in on the development
of an Indian jet engine.

All those 000s of engines India will need has to be the last big chunk of Indian change
left on the table for someone to grab?

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1553
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Gyan » 12 Aug 2020 01:28

RR is out of all 5th Gen Fighter jet Programs anywhere in the world (USA, Japan, South Korea, Europe). Indian AMCA is the last opportunity. Would be good for both the parties.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9077
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Aug 2020 01:47

Rolls Royce is the primary propulsion solution developer and eventually provider on the Italian-British-Swedish Tempest program.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54776
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 12 Aug 2020 04:02

So which turbine engine with 120 kgf thrust is available in India to be put on No Import List?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mihir.mehta, uskumar and 50 guests