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.
steve
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 44
Joined: 29 Jul 2009 21:27

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby steve » 11 Mar 2012 16:27

Please some body explain me ................What is the difference between

1. Design Technology

2. Manufacturing Technology

Please explain in detail...........I will be very Grateful.

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 518
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby pralay » 11 Mar 2012 17:21

mody wrote:So the decision to terminate the K9 effort where it stands and just go ahead with K10 with snecma is not the right move.
The K9 effort should continue along with the K10 effort. Try and re-design the kabini core, with knowledge gained from working with snecma, to see if we can complete the kaveri engine the way it was supposed to be.

This absolutely correct! I agree with your view.

Hari Seldon
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9252
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 12:47
Location: University of Trantor

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Hari Seldon » 11 Mar 2012 20:44

steve wrote:Please some body explain me ................What is the difference between

1. Design Technology

2. Manufacturing Technology

Please explain in detail...........I will be very Grateful.


With respect, this should go to the newbie thread.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby SaiK » 12 Mar 2012 18:53

The deal with Sncema is a waste! I want the GTRE team reorganized and sent back to drawing board with a strict approach to establishing the required technologies - SC blades, blisks, high temp coatings, metallurgy etc., and most requiring is the test facilities.

SureshP
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 10 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby SureshP » 12 Mar 2012 19:03

Meanwhile in the real world

GKN 'planning to buy Volvo's aerospace unit'


GKN is reportedly in advanced talks to buy the aircraft engine unit of Volvo.

The UK engineering firm, with plants in Bristol and Cowes, Isle of Wight, is ready to pay £800m ($1.3bn) for the business, says the Sunday Times.

Volvo Aero makes aircraft engines and components, including the jet engine used in the Saab Gripen combat jet.

GKN's aerospace business is the firm's second biggest division. It makes parts for civilian and combat aircraft as well as helicopters.

Last year it had sales of £1.5bn, up 4%.

Volvo said in November that it would sell its aerospace unit to focus on trucks and construction equipment. It left car production more than a decade ago when it sold Volvo Cars to Ford.

Germany's MTU Aero Engines was in talks to buy the business but reports say it dropped out last month.

In reaction to the story, GKN said that it "does not comment on market speculation".


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17330674

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby shiv » 13 Mar 2012 08:14

steve wrote:Please some body explain me ................What is the difference between

1. Design Technology

2. Manufacturing Technology

Please explain in detail...........I will be very Grateful.


My reply here
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4290&p=1254999#p1254999

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby vic » 13 Mar 2012 09:19

The difference between Design and Manufactering can be shown by using the example of "da vinci". Most of the beautiful designs have remained as paintings as there is no Manufactering ability to execute them. Another example, we can design a floating metal ballon but very difficult to manufacture an alloy that is so light.

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby vic » 13 Mar 2012 09:31

I can understand that France does not start a new core for Kaveri as a completely new engine means an investment of something like US$5 Billion and ten years. I think that India should first absorb the technology of M-88 level before trying for the next stage.

The issue would be as what would be thrust and dimensions of K-10? If it is drop fit for F-414 then it can be used for upgrade of LCA + AMCA but if it is drop fit for M-88 then mid life upgrade of Rafale + AMCA

M-88 core is used for M-88 and was proposed for M-88-3 and M-88-4 which were bigger engines of 90kn and 110kn. As these engines were cancelled so technology developed was transferred to M-88 series itself.
Now we can improve M-88 to 90kn or have a new LP with output of say 120kn going upto 150kn in future.
I think that K-9 should be kept going and used in AJT version of LCA. But my feeling is that it may be failing at numerous/all points rather than simplistic view of being put out by GTRE. I further feel that we should launch a K-11 also, which is again fully indigenous to actually maintain the momentum of K-9 in addition to K-10

Added later
We have wrong conception of Engine core technology. For instance F101 technology developed in sixties is the basis of CFM56 and F110 of which tens of thousands of engines have been sold and are “still” being sold.

From WIKI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_CFM56

The CFM International CFM56 (U.S. military designation F108) series is a family of high-bypass turbofan aircraft engines made by CFM International (CFMI), with a thrust range of 18,000 to 34,000 pounds-force (80 to 150 kilonewtons). CFMI is a 50–50 joint-owned company of SNECMA, France and GE Aviation (GE), USA. Both companies are responsible for producing components and each has its own final assembly line. GE produces the high-pressure compressor, combustor, and high-pressure turbine, and SNECMA manufactures the fan, gearbox, exhaust and the low-pressure turbine, which some components are made by Avio of Italy. The engines are assembled by GE in Evendale, Ohio, and by SNECMA in Villaroche, France.


The CFM56 first ran in 1974. and, despite initial political problems, is [b]now one of the most common turbofan aircraft engines in the world, with more than 20,000 having been built in four major variants[/b].

Research into the next generation of commercial jet engines, high-bypass ratio turbofans in the "10-ton" (20,000 lbf; 89 kN) thrust class, began in the late 1960s. SNECMA, who had mostly built military engines until then, was the first company to seek entrance into the market by searching for a partner with commercial experience to design and build an engine in this class. They considered Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce, and GE Aviation as potential partners, but it was not until after two company executives, Gerhard Neumann from GE and René Ravaud from SNECMA, introduced themselves at the 1971 Paris Air Show that a decision was made. The two companies saw mutual benefit in the collaboration and met several more times, fleshing out the basics of the joint project.

A major reason for GE's interest in the collaboration, rather than building a 10-ton engine on their own, was that the SNECMA project was the only source of development funds for an engine in this class at this particular time. GE was initially considering only contributing technology from its CF6 engine rather than its much more advanced F101 engine, developed for the B-1 Lancer supersonic bomber. However, the company was faced with a dilemma when the United States Air Force (USAF) announced its Advanced Medium STOL Transport (AMST) project in 1972 which included funding for the development of a 10-ton engine – either to build a "limited" technology 10-ton engine with SNECMA, or a similar engine with "advanced" technology on their own. Concerned that the company would be left with only the "limited" engine in its portfolio if it did not win the Air Force contract (for which it was competing with Pratt & Whitney and a General Motors division with its "advanced" engine), GE decided to apply for an export license for the F101 core technology.

Export issues

GE applied for the export license in 1972 as their primary contribution to the 10-ton engine project. However, the United States Department of State's Office of Munitions Control recommended the rejection of the application on national security grounds; specifically because the core technology was an aspect of a strategic national defense system (the B-1 bomber), it was built with Department of Defense (and therefore American taxpayer) money, and that exporting the technology to France would limit the number of American workers on the project.[6] The official decision was made in a National Security Decision Memorandum signed by the National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger on 19 September 1972.

While national security concerns were cited as the grounds for rejection, reportedly high-level politics played an important role as well. The project, and the export issue associated with it, was considered so important that French President Georges Pompidou appealed directly to U.S. President Richard Nixon in 1971 to approve the deal, and that Henry Kissinger brought the issue up with President Pompidou in a 1972 meeting. GE reportedly argued at the highest levels that having half of the market was better than having none of it, which they believed would happen if SNECMA pursued the engine on their own without GE's contribution. However, Nixon administration officials feared that this project could be the beginning of the end of American aerospace leadership.

The first completed CFM56 engine first ran at GE in June 1974 with the second running in October 1974.


In 1998, CFMI launched the "Tech56" development and demonstration program to create an engine for the new single-aisle aircraft that were expected to be built by Airbus and Boeing. The program focused on developing a large number of new technologies for the theoretical future engine, not necessarily creating an all-new design. However, when it became clear that Boeing and Airbus were not going to build all-new aircraft to replace the 737 and A320, CFMI decided to apply some of those Tech56 technologies to the CFM56 in the form of the "Tech Insertion" program which focused on three areas: fuel efficiency, maintenance costs and emissions.

Launched in 2004, the package included redesigned high-pressure compressor blades, an improved combustor, and improved high- and low-pressure turbine components, which resulted in better fuel efficiency and lower nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. The new components also reduced engine wear, lowering maintenance costs by about 5%. The engines entered service in 2007, and all new CFM56-5B and CFM56-7B engines are being built with the Tech Insertion components.

Snehashis
BRFite
Posts: 199
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Snehashis » 13 Mar 2012 14:11

vic wrote:I can understand that France does not start a new core for Kaveri as a completely new engine means an investment of something like US$5 Billion and ten years. I think that India should first absorb the technology of M-88 level before trying for the next stage.

The issue would be as what would be thrust and dimensions of K-10? If it is drop fit for F-414 then it can be used for upgrade of LCA + AMCA but if it is drop fit for M-88 then mid life upgrade of Rafale + AMCA

M-88 core is used for M-88 and was proposed for M-88-3 and M-88-4 which were bigger engines of 90kn and 110kn. As these engines were cancelled so technology developed was transferred to M-88 series itself.
Now we can improve M-88 to 90kn or have a new LP with output of say 120kn going upto 150kn in future.
I think that K-9 should be kept going and used in AJT version of LCA. But my feeling is that it may be failing at numerous/all points rather than simplistic view of being put out by GTRE. I further feel that we should launch a K-11 also, which is again fully indigenous to actually maintain the momentum of K-9 in addition to K-10




I agree with you. The K10 engine must offer a bit more thrust than the GE F414-INS6 initially with significant growth potential. And it would be great if we develop a LIFT version of Tejas with K9 engine.


mody
BRFite
Posts: 705
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby mody » 21 Mar 2012 16:06

If snecma were to completely redesign the core for the Kaveri then as Vic is pointed out, it will be 5 year effort, given the amount of testing that would be required.

The Deal is certainly going to involve plugging in the the M88 core and customizing it so that the rest of Kaveri can work with it.
With this we will be able to improve the specs of the same engine in the future, if required.

This is a keen to to plugging in an Imported Seeker from France or Russia and using with our missiles. We do develop all the other sub systems and plug in the seeker to work with them. We can also improve the same missile in the future. But if we want to develop a new missile with a different mission profile, this effort does not help us. This is exactly the problem that has been affecting our guided missile programs.
Instead of this if we develop the Seeker on our own, then based on the experience, we can develop a whole family of Seekers for a range of different kind of missiles.

Developing our own Turbofan engine, with SCB technology, will truly be a game changer for us. The effort in that direction should not be abandoned at any cost.

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 21 Mar 2012 17:15



Guys, a lucky day. I added a para on last. read it. :wink:

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 21 Mar 2012 17:37

why not build a smallish turbofan engine using kaveri tech for cruise missiles also? it would only need to work for 3 hrs duration to be effective and hence can cut a lot of corners in durability and safety terms to shed weight.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Sagar G » 21 Mar 2012 18:03

Singha wrote:why not build a smallish turbofan engine using kaveri tech for cruise missiles also? it would only need to work for 3 hrs duration to be effective and hence can cut a lot of corners in durability and safety terms to shed weight.


Saar the "Laghu Shakti Engine" project by GTRE is for fulfilling this need I guess.

J Sankar Kumar, Scientist ‘D’, Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), Bengaluru, has made outstanding contribution in analysis and testing of turbo machinery blades in aeroelastic domain for KAVERI engine, which is a milestone activity in achieving self reliance in gas turbine engines.


Will some guru explain this further in layman terms the importance of this ???

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 21 Mar 2012 18:21

^^^^ Blades that run on a turbo machine, Kaveri Engine blades in this instance. The blades are aeroelastic, simple meaning that it can withstand a flight (not just at static conditions). It should be elastic enough without a flutter.

Simply put, the Kaveri engine blades testing have been done by him.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 21 Mar 2012 19:55

engine tech seems to be one area where there is no eureka moment or golden bullet. instead of 100s of small advancements in 10 different areas of science and engg come together to make the crown jewel product.

problem is - unless the country reaches beyond certain points in *each such area*, a modern engine cannot be made totally indigenously without foreign help in lacking areas.

no surprise only Rus, germany, france, UK and usa have the inhouse broad spectrum coverage. and germany chooses to work in a consortium with MTU not going the whole hog.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Sagar G » 22 Mar 2012 15:55

chackojoseph wrote:^^^^ Blades that run on a turbo machine, Kaveri Engine blades in this instance. The blades are aeroelastic, simple meaning that it can withstand a flight (not just at static conditions). It should be elastic enough without a flutter.

Simply put, the Kaveri engine blades testing have been done by him.


So saar can it be assumed that we have crossed major hurdles in turbojet engine designing and now only limited by our lack of knowledge in the materials arena ???

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 22 Mar 2012 17:00

Sagar G wrote:So saar can it be assumed that we have crossed major hurdles in turbojet engine designing and now only limited by our lack of knowledge in the materials arena ???


The operative word is "analysis." He has analyzed the test. No mention of him designing or producing it. Tests results can be of 1) acceptance of blade of integration 2) Blade fatigue after x hours etc. It may add to a) estimate the blade life b) determining the flight conditions 3) Communicating to the designer/producer for making it better or buy from a source that can supply it at test results based parameters.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby SaiK » 22 Mar 2012 18:35

If this deal is all about technology absorbing, then I see a point for the unlearned and inexperienced. But, no company in the world will give you technology like that. I doubt Snecma will give away everything, and it is silly of us not to envision that.

We have no idea, what is the contract or in the RFI for the proposal.

IMHO, technology learning should be like a team from GTRE sent to Snecma, and work there. spend that money.. and document everything.

Replicate the process and machinery, then innovate with our own designs. It is hard, but that is the way to do it.

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 22 Mar 2012 20:08

Sagar G wrote:So saar can it be assumed that we have crossed major hurdles in turbojet engine designing and now only limited by our lack of knowledge in the materials arena ???


Sorry replying this the second time. Since you quoted my comment on 'testing' I thought your comment was different from what I intended to say.

You are right about the Kaveri Project. We have a engine and we have problems at the materials at hot zones of the engine. We have a turbo fan engine and we have to refine that now.

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby vic » 24 Mar 2012 11:09



If we are able perfect Kaveri with dry thrust of around 40kn to 50kn even then we will be able to build a very effective leading edge UCAV with MTOW of around 10-20tons.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-47A

Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2400
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Yogi_G » 19 Apr 2012 15:22

Was watching NDTV wherein they were showing their journalist in Wheeler island premises during Agni-V launch, he was demonstrating the ruggedness of the material used for the re-entry vehicle with another person directing a blaze torch on the metal and nothing happening to it. Now why cant we use that material in Kaveri? Maybe a noob question.

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3646
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Neela » 19 Apr 2012 15:35

Yogi_G wrote:Was watching NDTV wherein they were showing their journalist in Wheeler island premises during Agni-V launch, he was demonstrating the ruggedness of the material used for the re-entry vehicle with another person directing a blaze torch on the metal and nothing happening to it. Now why cant we use that material in Kaveri? Maybe a noob question.


My guess would be that the same kind of stresses (thermal, mechanical) that are on turbine blades are not faced by RV. Moreover, unlike the RV , the blades need to be fit onto the wheel/axle and the manufacturing is not the same. Just my thoughts

On youtube, you will find videos of Rolls Royce engines being made - what surprised me was that the single crystal blades are crafted/chiseled by "artists" first in a wax mould which is then used to create the ceramic mould.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1907
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Zynda » 19 Apr 2012 15:36

Let me provide an answer which may be partly correct. I haven't seen the video you mentioned, so really can't comment on the type of material used on A5's heat shield. However if its similar to the heat shield used on NASA's Space Shuttle, the material is basically foam...doesn't have the mech properties needed for structural applications.

The materials used in gas turbine need to withstand high temperatures & high stresses. Also reusability is an important factor. I think the heat foam tiles on the shuttle are replaced before each new mission. WRT A5, its a one-time usage condition.

Hope this answers your question to an extent :)

Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2400
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Yogi_G » 19 Apr 2012 15:49

Zynda wrote:Let me provide an answer which may be partly correct. I haven't seen the video you mentioned, so really can't comment on the type of material used on A5's heat shield. However if its similar to the heat shield used on NASA's Space Shuttle, the material is basically foam...doesn't have the mech properties needed for structural applications.

The materials used in gas turbine need to withstand high temperatures & high stresses. Also reusability is an important factor. I think the heat foam tiles on the shuttle are replaced before each new mission. WRT A5, its a one-time usage condition.

Hope this answers your question to an extent :)


Makes sense, thanks. I am not sure if they were showing a tile, it did look like metal block, the journalist was sitting on one side and keeping his hand on the metal while the other dude was blowing a torch exactly on the other side and the journalist dint feel a thing. I definitely think its a metal block.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby vina » 19 Apr 2012 16:29

Makes sense, thanks. I am not sure if they were showing a tile, it did look like metal block, the journalist was sitting on one side and keeping his hand on the metal while the other dude was blowing a torch exactly on the other side and the journalist dint feel a thing. I definitely think its a metal block


It is not metal. It is a carbon-carbon kind of material, that cools ablatively, ie a layer of the material peels off and the next layer takes the heat and so on. That is perfectly fine for a missile nose cone, but you cant have it inside a gas turbine with material shedding off the turbine blades!

Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2400
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Yogi_G » 19 Apr 2012 21:52

I am not going to rest until I assure my armchair-analyst side that we have completely exploited all tech advances from the A-5 (which our real scientists would have done long time back but still curious me...).

How about the composite materials used in the rocket motors? Those must withstand very high temperatures also, why cant those materials be used in Kaveri?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby SaiK » 19 Apr 2012 21:57

Yogi_G wrote:Was watching NDTV wherein they were showing their journalist in Wheeler island premises during Agni-V launch, he was demonstrating the ruggedness of the material used for the re-entry vehicle with another person directing a blaze torch on the metal and nothing happening to it. Now why cant we use that material in Kaveri? Maybe a noob question.

SoM /characteristics of turbine blades and hot sections are off different class. Here there is a high pressure combustion chamber.. whereas, for a5, it has to only withstand a burn., and SoM characteristics is not under compression zone.

So, it has to be SC crystals, and then those zircon or some exotic quotings, plus air holes on the blades, etc.. is required.

But, I have no idea what went into A5 material again.. so yo may be right.. it could be used as blade stuff if it can withstand the pressure and heat.

Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2400
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Yogi_G » 19 Apr 2012 22:19

SaiK wrote:
Yogi_G wrote:Was watching NDTV wherein they were showing their journalist in Wheeler island premises during Agni-V launch, he was demonstrating the ruggedness of the material used for the re-entry vehicle with another person directing a blaze torch on the metal and nothing happening to it. Now why cant we use that material in Kaveri? Maybe a noob question.

SoM /characteristics of turbine blades and hot sections are off different class. Here there is a high pressure combustion chamber.. whereas, for a5, it has to only withstand a burn., and SoM characteristics is not under compression zone.

So, it has to be SC crystals, and then those zircon or some exotic quotings, plus air holes on the blades, etc.. is required.

But, I have no idea what went into A5 material again.. so yo may be right.. it could be used as blade stuff if it can withstand the pressure and heat.


ji, what is SoM characteristics? Also you meant exotic "coatings" right or did I understand wrong?

Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2400
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Yogi_G » 19 Apr 2012 22:20

I was reading about the development of the Ilyushin-86 aircraft's development and how the Soviets struggled with the engine tech for the aircraft. Looks like they traded some high-tech titanium technology to get the engine tech but that not in sufficient levels for completeness. If the Soviets with vast engine experience could not succeed in that particular engine dev, it gives us a good idea of how tough engine development is.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby SaiK » 20 Apr 2012 01:14

strength of materials. yes, there are coatings applied on blades to withstand high temp.

Yes, a 0.1 mm can induce a big difference in compression ratios. The khans have spear-headed millions of miles ahead in this field.

The blade angles matter too.. and vanes are even more important for the stalls, where a slight angle could reduce the air-flow, and thus the compression.

I think, our team needs re-org.. put a bunch young people, like they did for A4.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Sagar G » 20 Apr 2012 01:34

Yogi_G wrote:How about the composite materials used in the rocket motors? Those must withstand very high temperatures also, why cant those materials be used in Kaveri?


The blades used in gas turbine engine apart from being able to survive in high temperature environment also have to be usable for thousands of hours before being replaced. AFAIK the rocket motors of our ballistic missiles are not reusable and even if the materials used in them are used for making a gas turbine it might not give the desired hours of usability as wanted by user (IAF). Chipandas also have gas turbine engines to show off but they crap after 30 hrs. or so, had we been a chipanda kind of nation we would also have had a "working" Kaveri to save H&D infront of our abduls but since we are not hence our scientists have to work till we meet the desired criteria for the gas turbine. I think the deal with Snecma is all about getting these exotic materials and stuff.

Enqyoob is the Ayatollah who can answer these questions but don't see him around anymore don't know why ???

P.S. Moi an arm chair general myself not an expert in gas turbine engines :mrgreen:

Yogi_G wrote:ji, what is SoM characteristics? Also you meant exotic "coatings" right or did I understand wrong?


It's not "SoM characteristics" but Strength of Material / characteristics of turbine blade........ I guess that's what Saik saar meant.

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Austin » 20 Apr 2012 11:15

The Russian engine for HJT-36 trainer has put in a strong performance

The Russian AL-55I engine intended for HJT-36 trainer of the Indian air forces has put in a strong performance, ARMS-TASS reports with reference to the managing director of NPO Saturn, Ilya Fedorov.

"HJT-36 aircraft developed by the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) is performing flights normally and it is the Indian pride. It is the first jet developed and manufactured by India. The customer is satisfied with the key engine parameters. There were no incidents or crashes caused by the engine fault. We are proud too. Two contracts have been performed; research and development activities have been completed. At present four more engines are awaiting for their aircraft in India", - Fedorov said.

The engine has been created in only three years. The research and development activities on AL-55I’s resource enhancement to 300 hours are being carried out in the network of the contract with HAL. The program for production of new batch of 10 engines is being implemented. The engines should be delivered in 2011-2012.

"I believe it is no secret that a follow-on contract will be signed", - managing director of NPO Saturn said.

omdhar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 6
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby omdhar » 14 May 2012 19:52

First flight of Kaveri engine on LCA Tejas Mk-I in about three years’ time : A K Antony

http://idrw.org/?p=11417

Premier defence research agency DRDO plans to commence flight trials for technology demonstration of Kaveri Engine with the Light Combat Aircraft in about three years time, government told theLok Sabha today.

In a written reply to the House, Defence Minister A K Antony said that “DRDO has not fixed any time frame to fully develop the Kaveri Aero Engine for the LCA, Tejas…. It is planned to commence flight trials for technology demonstration of Kaveri engine with LCA Tejas Mk-I in about three years’ time.”

He was asked whether DRDO has fixed any timeframe to fully develop the Kaveri aero engine for the LCA.

“LCA Tejas requires 90 kN thrust class engine to meet its operational requirement, whereas Kaveri engine does not fully meet this requirement. It has been decided to use variants of Kaveri Engine to power Unmanned Air Vehicle and also for marine applications,” Antony said.

Replying to a question on the monetary allocations made to the DRDO in last three years, the Minister tabled a report of the money provided to it under various heads.

Since 2009-10 till 2011-12, government’s budgetary estimate for the DRDO was Rs 28,543.43. The revised estimate for the same period was Rs 28,888.55 crore.

The actual expenditure incurred by the organisation since 2009 till 2011-72 has been Rs 28,485.40 crore.

In reply to a question on delivery of equipment by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), Minister of State for Defence M M Pallam Raju said that the “government has taken cognisance of the complaints of IAF regarding delayed delivery of equipment by HAL.”

There have been delays in some projects due to rework of the Jigs supplied by the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) in respect of Hawk Advanced Jet Trainers (AJT), the Minister said.

“Delays were also noticed in establishing the facilities for complex engine components and radar software in respect of SU-30 MKI aircraft and certification of Shakti engine by the OEM in respect of Advance Light Helicopters (ALH),” Raju said.

Changes in Standard of Preparation (SOP) for the LCA and delay in engine development by the OEM in respect of Intermediate Jet Trainer (IJT) also caused further time lags in these projects, he said.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby SaiK » 14 May 2012 20:51

what the babooze are not highlighting is the the change in requirements form lower thrust engine to a higher thust one.. what is the guarantee now that 90kN is the required thrust and not 100kN. requirements engineering is missing.


What is the T:W ratio needed? hopefully, we have done some detailed analysis on the requirement for the next phase.. it would be a national shame if we continue to ignore basics. we can't afford to do such silly mistakes in terms of drafting requirements even if we take time to meet them.

tranches based development approach is the only way to success.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby SaiK » 16 May 2012 20:53

wondering if BR web masters should be double emphasizing negative reporting?
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=18525

flight global will think no fraction of a second to slam anything Indian.. we need dr. saraswat and kalam ji intervention to correct our jet engine development images in public.

one another way is reorg, and get fresh impetus... I am confident we can do this all by ourselves - 100kN it shall be.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2338
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Vivek K » 16 May 2012 21:09

SaiK wrote:one another way is reorg, and get fresh impetus... I am confident we can do this all by ourselves - 100kN it shall be.

And what gives you that confidence? The Marut failed because of a lack of a local (or foreign) engine, the LCA has like the Marut, flown on a foreign engine.

Perhaps we need to be realstic and make sure that the Kaveri is successful (good MTBO like western engines) in the Aura UCAV and perhaps a trainer. Also Kaveri Marine needs to be used in IN Navy ships. GTRE needs to be re-orgranized. That is something people have been saying for the past decade. It may now be too late. Perhaps the only way out is aggresive recruitment of fresh talent to complement the existing manpower and investment to enhance facilities. We need to give them smaller targets - engine for a basic trainer etc. and see if they can come up with something in the next five years. If not then GTRE should be disbanded and talented staff absorbed into HAL/DRDO.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby SaiK » 16 May 2012 22:49

confidence from observing the capabilities established in complex engineering feats.
confidence from the performance of DRDO missile defence projects
confidence from ISRO's capability and remarkable achievements.
confidence from our fundemental talents - edu cream from IISc, IIT, etc.
confidence from the very fact that we desire to build an indegnous one.

--

Yes.. once problem is identified, we can't sleep on it. disbandening is easy.. destruction is the simplest activity for human and non-human chain of events.

reorg is a constructive thought. it is hard to visualize, and is complex.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby srai » 16 May 2012 23:37

IMO, the following Kaveri variants should be pursued:

  • 120-150kN (w/ afterburner) -> FGFA-sized twin-engined aircrafts
  • 90-100kN (w/ afterburner) -> LCA-sized single-engine or AMCA-sized twin-engined aircrafts
  • 15-35kN -> IJT-sized single-engine or Hawk AJT-sized single-engine aircrafts
  • 1-5kN -> Micro engines for cruise missiles and small UAVs

Further variants should be pursued for civilian aircrafts along with turboprops.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2338
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Vivek K » 17 May 2012 04:31

Saik we need to learn to walk before we can run. All the data from Agnis cannot help a single blade of the Kaveri. Till we have a breakthrough on that front, the MTBO for the Kaveri would not be comparable to that of western engines. A separate initiative should be looked into to work on Single Crystal tech. GTRE should focus on making the Kaveri work for the UCAV till then and for marine purposes.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher, kapio, Nishant Kumar Jha and 65 guests