Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Feb 2012 13:08

^^^ You completely missed what Cybaru wanted to convey !!!

Par for the course.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 01 Feb 2012 14:11

Wouldn't a smaller bird like the Mig29 be a little claustrophobic?
There simply will not be enough space to mount an engine, mate 2 (independent) FADECs to the aircraft, wire them AND on top of that build in sensors to monitor the engine performance.

Will · Post by **Will** » 01 Feb 2012 14:45

kuldipchager wrote:[b]Cybaru Post subject: Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussionPosted: 31 Jan 2012 23:53

BRFite

Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 583 IMO GTRE needs to buy 3-4 used mig-29s as testbeds from russia from storage for Kaveri testing. We need platforms that have 500-1000 hours left in them.

Install Kaveri in one bay and keep RD-33 in another. The Mig-29 will require a complete overhaul to do such a thing as seating kaveri might not be easy, but this would allow us a fair amount of confidence and perhaps 100-200 hours of testing may allow us enough confidence to change both engines to be kaveri.

We have a fair amount of expertise maintaing Mig-29s and this means we can do things that we may not be able to do other platforms.

We don't have to ask russia for old mig 29.We have old HF 24. We can use them as test bed.
We might gain something because we were thinking HF 24 needed more powerful engine,that will give us more expeirance.

[/b]

Isn't Boeing going to help India with a high altitude testbed as part of the offsets for the C-17 deal?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Feb 2012 14:54

we will need a twin engine testbed for any new engine, regardless of ground based or airborne pod facility(slung on IL76 gromov style).

the Mig29 sounds about the right size for a kaveri to fit in. the su30 might need more work. they can scab on whatever they want outside the plan or on top to house sensors since aerodynamic drag etc is least our concerns here.

we need to start on this process whether mig29 or su30 .... kaveri cannot be a 1-off project...there have to be more engines developed.

getting one our IL76 converted to a gromov style testbed is 1st step to test bulk of envelope, subsonic, hot, cold; fitting it on a fighter is 2nd step to test violent moves, supersonic regime and air cutoff, fitting it on a single engine fighter is 3rd step

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 01 Feb 2012 14:54

I think Boeing is going to provide an advanced wind tunnel which help simulate conditions.

Sriman · Post by **Sriman** » 01 Feb 2012 15:08

Aditya_V wrote:I think Boeing is going to provide an advanced wind tunnel which help simulate conditions.

Yeah, the C17 offsets are supposed to include a High Altitude Engine Test Facility and a Trisonic Wind Tunnel Facility.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 01 Feb 2012 20:26

Mig 29 testing is a good idea. Will give lot of confidence for every one involved also. Guess we can even review Marut - say have a Marut 2020 version for CAP purpose.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Feb 2012 21:16

FADEC matlab no mig29. It must be on the PV or TD LCA platform., that feedback to a closed-loop data that needs to be collected, and learned.

Rafale and LCA now going to be concentrating, it is good idea that Kaveri-Snecma start looking towards 100kN wala having the same FADECs for both., and it is all only a matter of few more thrusts, and data controls from then on that can be measured, and documented.

There could be still differences between these platforms, but I see a large narrower gap with LCA/Rafale than a big problematic one with Mig29s.

vina · Post by **vina** » 01 Feb 2012 21:28

getting one our IL76 converted to a gromov style testbed is 1st step to test bulk of envelope, subsonic, hot, cold; fitting it on a fighter is 2nd step to test violent moves, supersonic regime and air cutoff, fitting it on a single engine fighter is 3rd step

The airflow inside a jet engine is always subsonic (leave out scramjets) , even if the airplane itself is supersonic. The inlet slows it down to subsonic speeds . So really testing the engine in a pod at mach 0.7 does all the testing , including the "supersonic" speed one, where you are really testing how well the inlet is working , rather than the engine per se.

Stuff like distorted airflow , aircraft flying with side slip, high angle of attack etc can be easily tested in the IL-76 test bed itself. So really, it looks like done, just need to rack up the min number of hours of the final version in the test bed for reliability check and put it on a fighter.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Feb 2012 21:32

vina I am aware of the subsonic airflow, but you can never test the high turn rates, inverse flying, high AoA, vertical climbs and dives on a IL76 testbed and obviously none of the supersonic is possible(can be done in wind tunnel though but again not supersonic speed + manouvers).
if the gromov testbed can change the angle of the engine on the pylon (does not seem like it) I stand corrected.

since the kaveri snecma is some years off, another good option is Snecma could take one Rafale slated for us and put the engine there...they would be very familiar with the rafale fuel system and architecture and with dassault, arrange to test this engine.

this would be less problematic than mig29 + snecma involvement. might as well pay one party for everything.

the M88 engine was I believe tested on either a twin engined MirageIV ?

vina · Post by **vina** » 02 Feb 2012 11:00

Singha wrote:vina I am aware of the subsonic airflow, but you can never test the high turn rates, inverse flying, high AoA, vertical climbs and dives on a IL76 testbed and obviously none of the supersonic is possible(can be done in wind tunnel though but again not supersonic speed + manouvers).
if the gromov testbed can change the angle of the engine on the pylon (does not seem like it) I stand corrected.

The plane itself will fly at an AoA as desired , no need to change anything on the pylon, same with side slip and rolls (sure, it cant do a full roll I agree, the wings will come off). So whether you are pulling some 9 G and the fighter does some 26deg AoA or you are flying on a IL-76 at just above stall speed with a big flare of 26 AoA, it is the same. So maneuver + supersonic is largely taken care of. Once the hours for durability is racked up, you can put it on a fighter.

No need for a Mig29 /twin engine test bed I think. It's contribution over an IL-76 would be very little/ next to nothing and plus, you cannot have the space and everything for test and monitoring equipment and workstations for engineers to monitoring the testing

vina · Post by **vina** » 02 Feb 2012 11:04

Singha wrote:the M88 engine was I believe tested on either a twin engined MirageIV ?

Dont know that. However, the Rafale first flew with the Tornado's Rb199 engines. What I hope is that the engine package offer we got for the Rafale is the Snecma M88-3 which packs about 85 to 90KN of thrust. That will be great for our hot and high conditions and will make this great plane go toe to toe or even better the Eurofighter (it has lower weight after all!) in A2A , while in A2G it is anyway leagues ahead. That or an later produced & MLU upgrade of the earlier ones to a Kaveri of 90KN with Snecma materials would be perfect.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 02 Feb 2012 11:31

vina wrote:Once the hours for durability is racked up, you can put it on a fighter.

No need for a Mig29 /twin engine test bed I think. It's contribution over an IL-76 would be very little/ next to nothing and plus, you cannot have the space and everything for test and monitoring equipment and workstations for engineers to monitoring the testing

Exactly how many hours of durability trials? how is that number being ascertained?

With the official testing over on the Russian platform, what is right way to continue testing of K9? Can we use one of the LCA-TDs or a PVs ?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 02 Feb 2012 12:02

vina wrote: The plane itself will fly at an AoA as desired , no need to change anything on the pylon, same with side slip and rolls (sure, it cant do a full roll I agree, the wings will come off). So whether you are pulling some 9 G and the fighter does some 26deg AoA or you are flying on a IL-76 at just above stall speed with a big flare of 26 AoA, it is the same. So maneuver + supersonic is largely taken care of. Once the hours for durability is racked up, you can put it on a fighter.

Can a huge aircraft like the IL-76 fly at 26deg AoA? Sounds impossible to me.

Edit: This site claims the maximum AoA allowable for the IL-76LL engine-testbed version is 15 deg. There are a few other websites giving the same value. Don't know if this is more than the max AoA for the regular MD version.

vina · Post by **vina** » 02 Feb 2012 12:36

Can a huge aircraft like the IL-76 fly at 26deg AoA? Sounds impossible to me.

Edit: This site claims the maximum AoA allowable for the IL-76LL engine-testbed version is 15 deg. There are a few other websites giving the same value. Don't know if this is more than the max AoA for the regular MD version.

It is the inlet's job to give distortion free and stable airflow to the engine in all sorts of conditions in the flight regime. The engine itself handles that stuff only within a much smaller range. So installed in a fighter, the engine will expect the fighter's inlet to do the overwhelming bulk of the heavy lifting in that department.

On a test bed like IL-76 with the kind of inlet we saw which is basically like putting the engine right in the airflow in front of the wings, I think the engine would be quite well tested within it's design limits for of distorted airflow, max airflow, max free stream flow kind of thing.

haryanvi · Post by **haryanvi** » 02 Feb 2012 13:44

vina wrote:
Singha wrote:the M88 engine was I believe tested on either a twin engined MirageIV ?
Dont know that. However, the Rafale first flew with the Tornado's Rb199 engines.

Rafale first flew with GE F404 engines. The first flight with M88 used only one M88, F404 being retained as the other engine, just in case things went wrong.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 02 Feb 2012 14:00

vina wrote:
Can a huge aircraft like the IL-76 fly at 26deg AoA? Sounds impossible to me.

Edit: This site claims the maximum AoA allowable for the IL-76LL engine-testbed version is 15 deg. There are a few other websites giving the same value. Don't know if this is more than the max AoA for the regular MD version.
It is the inlet's job to give distortion free and stable airflow to the engine in all sorts of conditions in the flight regime. The engine itself handles that stuff only within a much smaller range. So installed in a fighter, the engine will expect the fighter's inlet to do the overwhelming bulk of the heavy lifting in that department.

On a test bed like IL-76 with the kind of inlet we saw which is basically like putting the engine right in the airflow in front of the wings, I think the engine would be quite well tested within it's design limits for of distorted airflow, max airflow, max free stream flow kind of thing.

Since we know air densities at different altitudes, why is not possible to create a huge chamber, pump out air according to different altitudes, and test the engine for each range we want to test. Isn't this much much cheaper then flying all the way to Gromov or Anecom , installing and flying.

And if it is the inlet's job is to provide x mass flow per sec at all flight conditions, even this can be simulated with the setup described above . This testing should give a fair amount of confidence before installing in a flying test bed.

vina · Post by **vina** » 02 Feb 2012 14:16

haryanvi wrote:Rafale first flew with GE F404 engines. The first flight with M88 used only one M88, F404 being retained as the other engine, just in case things went wrong.

Oh. Sorry . Maybe it was the Eurofighter which first flew with the RB-199 / Tornado engines.

Rafale indeed did fly with the GE404 first , and I think I had posted on this long long ago sometime (dont have the patience to look back the threads) and that the difference between France and India was that they had the industrial capacity to bring the new engine in to service while we didn't, both the aims being an indigneous engine of the GE404 class. Forgot it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Feb 2012 14:38

whatever has been possible with wind tunnels has already been done here imo. this is an a.c with a top speed of mach1.8 and we have such tunnels. we are not working on a scramjet here.

now its all upto the flying testbed , fitting on a fighter and exotic materials materials materials + snecma core to overcome the durability and thrust shortfalls.

in parallel why not develop the basic kaveri in derated non afterburner format and try it out on a BAE Hawk or Tejas testbed as a tech exercise?

vina · Post by **vina** » 02 Feb 2012 15:26

Neela wrote:Since we know air densities at different altitudes, why is not possible to create a huge chamber, pump out air according to different altitudes, and test the engine for each range we want to test. Isn't this much much cheaper then flying all the way to Gromov or Anecom , installing and flying.

Go back and read this thread about the high altitude test chamber and someone was talking about that as an offset from the C-17 deal.

And if it is the inlet's job is to provide x mass flow per sec at all flight conditions, even this can be simulated with the setup described above . This testing should give a fair amount of confidence before installing in a flying test bed.

Inlet testing is easily done in wind tunnels.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Feb 2012 15:07

someone high up in AMD india design team is a PRF member

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 03 Feb 2012 22:45

Singha wrote:someone high up in AMD india design team is a PRF member

Always liked AMD better, Intel is so overrated

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 04 Feb 2012 00:03

vina wrote: What I hope is that the engine package offer we got for the Rafale is the Snecma M88-3 which packs about 85 to 90KN of thrust. That will be great for our hot and high conditions and will make this great plane go toe to toe or even better the Eurofighter (it has lower weight after all!) in A2A , while in A2G it is anyway leagues ahead.

Unlikely imho - I think however, that the M88-ECO which currently powers the Rafale is capable of much higher thrust than the current 75KN. but this reduces life expectancy somewhat. During war time and real need, such limiters will probly be off. Some jugaad of this nature is also present on the EJ-200, and also for some Russian engines such as the RD-33 as well as the Tumanskys that power the MiG-21.

That or an later produced & MLU upgrade of the earlier ones to a Kaveri of 90KN with Snecma materials would be perfect.

Very likely imho. I expect the Snecma-Kaveri to be capable of at least 90KN, and possibly more. It should power the Rafale (iirc Dassault has already indicated this), AMCA and possibly LCA around MLU period.

kuldipchager · Post by **kuldipchager** » 04 Feb 2012 06:30

Unlikely imho - I think however, that the M88-ECO which currently powers the Rafale is capable of much higher thrust than the current 75KN. but this reduces life expectancy somewhat. During war time and real need, such limiters will probly be off. Some jugaad of this nature is also present on the EJ-200, and also for some Russian engines such as the RD-33 as well as the Tumanskys that power the MiG-21.

Quote:
That or an later produced & MLU upgrade of the earlier ones to a Kaveri of 90KN with Snecma materials would be perfect.

Very likely imho. I expect the Snecma-Kaveri to be capable of at least 90KN, and possibly more. It should power the Rafale (iirc Dassault has already indicated this), AMCA and possibly LCA around MLU period.

If we have all the problems like underpower why we don't use news russian engine new one with victor thrust until our engine is not mature enough.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Feb 2012 06:38

I would expect a Snecma supported Kaveri to power the AMCA, LCA and the Rafale. Ideally, plausible.

There has been a fear of a re-branded engine making an appearance as a Kaveri. Granted something that has to be defended against.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Feb 2012 06:42

Product specs and maturity can speak for itself.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 04 Feb 2012 07:16

But this is a project which should be pressed on at any cost. having a matured Jet Eng will help us in many ways.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 Feb 2012 09:59

kuldipchager wrote:If we have all the problems like underpower why we don't use news russian engine new one with victor thrust until our engine is not mature enough.

While Victor I am sure can thrust very well, I think we have Victor's bigger brother thrusting quite vigorously in the Rambha! Its time we found a desi who can thrust powerfully - no more weak thrusting! And I believe the French who are notorious in such affairs are going to lend a hand so that the likes of Tejas and Katrina will thrust and be properly thrusted. So there.

CM

Will · Post by **Will** » 14 Feb 2012 11:43

Is the deal with Snecma ever going to see the light of day???????? Are they waiting to negotiate it along with the Rafale deal?

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 16 Feb 2012 02:40

Will wrote:Is the deal with Snecma ever going to see the light of day???????? Are they waiting to negotiate it along with the Rafale deal?

I read somewhere that the negotiations on the deal are over... would be announced soon. Expect this deal (like the M2k deal and MICA missile deal) to cross-subsidize the Rafale MMRCA deal.
Whatever be the cost, I would be happy if we get a big push (forward) for our Jet-Engine development mission.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Feb 2012 08:12

If we are not factoring in Kaveri++ for Rafale, then this separate deal is a waste.. we should do it like how we did the first version of Kaveril all by ourselves.

Get the M4 engine technology part of Rafale deal and learn.

apply that to wards Kaveri. Anyways, K business is very very long term process, and hopefully makes light before many of us kick the bucket.

udy · Post by **udy** » 16 Feb 2012 11:09

It seems DRDO is looking for a new Head For GTRE.

Advertisement from the RAC website

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Feb 2012 11:32

udy wrote:It seems DRDO is looking for a new Head For GTRE.

Advertisement from the RAC website

Allow me to say this ... that salary is not going to attract any managerial head of any good quality! That is the average salary of a fresh undergrad/Masters student from a decent engineering/managerial school! I have friends whose salary consists of an extra zero and I am not thirty yet!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Feb 2012 11:46

indranilroy , while the salary might not look great for some one who is a Scientist "H" there are lot of perks and other benefits that comes with government job and certainly a lot of respect across various departments ,peers and in many ways even society.

Then there is the pride in leading a premier organisation like GTRE and shape its destiny for the next 10 -20 years. Obviously GTRE past has been lot of underperformance and over statements but it can just get better from here as some interesting projects for aeroengine , missile and marine will be done by them in next 2 decade.

Obviously for those who are interested in just salary for the kind of experience and qualification thats being asked , they are better off joining a corporate sector of their choice which will pay them many times over , GTRE may not be a good place for their career and they will end up doing more harm then good to GTRE.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 16 Feb 2012 11:53

One more thing is that the experience listed is 15 years for an H, typically scientist H are aged above 50 if someone joins as Scientist B in DRDL. This means GTRE is looking for someone energetic in the 35-40 age group.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Feb 2012 12:14

Let me first set somethings right ... I am not prompting that this job is good, bad etc. Also I was not born yesterday to understand what GTRE is and what leading an organization like GTRE entails. I also understand that GoI can't pay something outrageously different from the payscales as decided by the pay commission for all central employees.

But I ask a simple question ... Suppose you go with this job offer to a good manager who presently earns 3-10 times more ... Please answer with a hand on your heart, how many of them would seriously consider this? In all probability the position will be filled up by somebody whose salary was just lower or equivalent to the advertised salary. How many of you truly believe that it will be taken up by a man who would give a much better salary for the prestige?

I believe I love my country although I might be coming across as a materialistic money-seeking fool. In fact I raise this question because I want to see sustained betterment of Indian orgs. If we want to retain and attract good talent, we have to provide better incentives. Banking on patriotism alone would not do! This is a statistical fact even today.

Will · Post by **Will** » 16 Feb 2012 12:21

Just a query. Is the national jet engine project proposed by the DRDO going to be handled by GTRE? Is this going to be seperate from the K-10 project?

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 16 Feb 2012 12:35

IR ji after your post I went to the jobs on GE aviation, P&W and checked their salaries on glassdoor.com and they seem to be paid 65-95K this is a salary that a beginner makes in california. The only advantage is that the jobs are located in HArtford CT and WEst Chester OH which are both small towns. The salary offered by GTRE is pretty high because if you include DA/HRA/Medical expenses covered/subsidised afternoon canteen facilities/subsidised items from Canteen Stores Department(buying quality maal without paying salestax) the package will be 14-15 L Gross which is very good but not great for a city like blore. However, if they provide quarters then it is a very good package even by private industry standards, given other advantages like the feeling of working for your country, your area of work and the end goal of creating something where there is nothing

vic · Post by **vic** » 16 Feb 2012 12:42

indranilroy wrote: Allow me to say this ... that salary is not going to attract any managerial head of any good quality! That is the average salary of a fresh undergrad/Masters student from a decent engineering/managerial school! I have friends whose salary consists of an extra zero and I am not thirty yet!

Right on dot !!!!!!!!!!!! We will pay all the world and their salaries but not to our chaps. I wonder how much french employees are being paid by Dassault. The Basic pay of around Rs 70 thousand per month means Gross of around 1.5-2 lakhs per month (including DA, Pension, Gratuity, LTC, HRA, EPF, Medical, perks etc) which is around Rs. 18-22 lakhs per annum and is pathetic even by Indian standards.

munna · Post by **munna** » 16 Feb 2012 12:45

suryag wrote:The salary offered by GTRE is pretty high because if you include DA/HRA/Medical expenses covered/subsidised afternoon canteen facilities/subsidised items from Canteen Stores Department(buying quality maal without paying salestax) the package will be 14-15 L Gross which is very good but not great for a city like blore. However, if they provide quarters then it is a very good package even by private industry standards, given other advantages like the feeling of working for your country, your area of work and the end goal of creating something where there is nothing

Add to this the official car and driver which are provided to almost all heads of government labs and PSUs. In this case GTRE being a strategic and sensitive installation, government security (from a CPF) may also be thrown in. Adding the prestige and perquisites together heading a DPSU or D-Lab is definitely a meaty job, it is only at lower rungs that incentives and motivational aspects may need some strengthening.