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.
Post Reply
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by ramana »

JayS wrote:Just doing some googling regarding flutter and Screech issues. Incidentally RM12 faced these exact two issues. And F135 also faced screech issue.

https://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/01/19/f135 ... fix-found/
“During development testing of the F135 in the May 2009 time frame, P&W found that at low altitude and high speed, certain pressure pulsations occurred when operating in full afterburner. This phenomenon, known broadly in the industry as screech, has been addressed with design modifications that have been validated to eliminate the issue. The modifications include minor hardware changes to the fuel system, reduced aerodynamic leakages, and upgraded software. The design of these modifications benefited greatly from the tools and processes developed in the design of the F119 engine that powers the F-22. The F119 and the F135 are the only two production engines that have provided augmented, stealth capability. With the modifications identified and implemented, the F135 now provides full max augmented thrust throughout the flight envelope. For the SDD program, a kit has been developed that brings these modifications to the engines that are powering the flight test program. Two engines have been modified to date with the design showing excellent results. The production configuration is being validated this year in both the CTOL/CV and STOVL variants of the F135. Confident that the F135 was providing the full required thrust throughout the flight envelope was just one of many reasons the government certified the CTOL/CV engine for Initial Service Release (ISR) in March 2010 and the STOVL engine achieved ISR in December 2010.”
some interesting info.
JayS, Would these apply to Kaveri especially the three areas listed in the posts above?

I guess the after burner issue would be fuel injection and software changes can tackle it.

Did the Kaveri 'screech' happen at low altitude?
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by abhik »

How does HAL HTFE-25 compare to Kaveri from a technological, future growth and learning perspective? From the figures released it looks like the HTFE-25 weighs only 350kg for 25 kN while Kaveri weighs 1200+ kg for only a little more than double its dry thrust (I assume the HAL engine doesn't have afterburner). The T/W ratio difference seems to be quite a bit, I guess it reflects the experience gained over the last couple of decades.
Would building a HTFE-100 be a better way forward than trying to fix Kaveri which has remained in test rigs for the last 2 decades?
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by JayS »

ramana wrote:
JayS wrote:Just doing some googling regarding flutter and Screech issues. Incidentally RM12 faced these exact two issues. And F135 also faced screech issue.

https://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/01/19/f135 ... fix-found/



some interesting info.
JayS, Would these apply to Kaveri especially the three areas listed in the posts above?

I guess the after burner issue would be fuel injection and software changes can tackle it.

Did the Kaveri 'screech' happen at low altitude?
I don't know. What we know is screech and Flutter issues were uncovered during flight trials in Russia. But we don't know what all points they tested for. The GTRE person carefully avoided telling me which points these issues are popping up.

Frankly speaking, these two things, flutter and screech are way above typical academic stuff taught in college. You need to actually work on it, either in PhD or as a professional to have a proper understanding of it. I have done combustion design but never done acoustics related stuff, which is what screech is. And I am not finding time to read (and it will need a lot of technical reading) enough about all this to bring myself up to speed to figure out exactly which points these two issues could be occurring. Whatever I find I will post here.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by JayS »

abhik wrote:How does HAL HTFE-25 compare to Kaveri from a technological, future growth and learning perspective? From the figures released it looks like the HTFE-25 weighs only 350kg for 25 kN while Kaveri weighs 1200+ kg for only a little more than double its dry thrust (I assume the HAL engine doesn't have afterburner). The T/W ratio difference seems to be quite a bit, I guess it reflects the experience gained over the last couple of decades.
Would building a HTFE-100 be a better way forward than trying to fix Kaveri which has remained in test rigs for the last 2 decades?
T:W for HTFE-25 is 5.66 (source - from AI-seminar slides). I am not sure where this 350kg figure is coming from or what exactly it is. It appears in many reports but it doesn't fit the bill. Kaveri is 7.5 T:W class. Kaveri is more advanced than HTFE.

Also keep in mind that HTFE-25 is not a full fledged engine as of now. Currently they are focused only on core certification and not worried about LP system so much. They kind of picked one number to size LP system for now and made it accordingly. But LP system may not be certified. or we see different thrust number in the first full fledged engine depending on the application. It could be scaled up to 35-40kN I suppose.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by ramana »

Screech comes from vibrations in the audible range. So its still a vibration problem.
Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4102
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Neela »

Jet starter kit and APU explained.


PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by PratikDas »

A good intro to jet engine screech in relatively simple language here: Screech Tones in Supersonic Jets

An extract:
Screech Suppression

Some surprisingly simple techniques work. One is to put a baffle around the periphery of the jet.
This inhibits the feedback path of the sound, and thus breaks the resonance loop. For round jets,
it is possible to break the symmetry of the vortex rings by placing a probe or other asymmetric
disturbance at the edge of the shear layer. For example, in our lab experiment, we found that a
pencil introduced into the shear layer would stop the screech tone. Of course this might have
been because the jet was at a relatively low Reynolds number, and the turbulence level is very
low, so that we had a high level of clean symmetry. This may not be the case in a jet engine
exhaust. On the other hand, Dr. Ahuja's team at GTRI has shown that placing small tabs into the
shear layer at the nozzle exit can reduce screech tones greatly.

This goes back to the issue of "receptivity": even small disturbances can cause major changes to
the instability waves, if introduced at the region of highest receptivity: the nozzle lip.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by JayS »

ramana wrote:Screech comes from vibrations in the audible range. So its still a vibration problem.
Gas turbine reheat thrust augmenters known as afterburners are used to provide
additional thrust during emergencies, take off, combat, and in supersonic flight of
high-performance. Afterburners provide a lightweight, low-capital cost method
to greatly increase engine thrust. During the course of reheat development, the
most persistent trouble has been the onset of a high frequency screech. It is
characterized by a peculiar violence, and its onset is invariably followed by rapid
mechanical failure. This failure evinces itself in the tearing of the sheet metal, or
if the screech is mild, persistent breakage of bolts or slackening the nuts [1].

Two types of instabilities are encountered in afterburners. They are buzz and
screech. Reheat buzz is a low frequency, self-excited oscillation that can occur
above a certain fuel-air ratio. Screech is accompanied by high frequency pressure
oscillations that may be of such magnitude as to cause rapid deterioration of the
burner. Screech might be, or closely related to, some form of resonant oscillation
or also known as flame-driven resonant oscillations or combustion instability.
The afterburner-inlet conditions at which screech occur differs widely for various
afterburner designs. Combustion-driven flow oscillations that arise in combustors
and the afterburners are difficult to predict.

Because of destructive nature of screeching combustion considerable effort is
required to find methods of mitigating or preventing the occurrence of screech.
Screech is associated with transverse oscillations. It is reported that the perfo-
rated liners are effective in mitigating transverse oscillations over the full operable
range of fuel-air ratio for burner.
Problem is there can be one or multiple origins of the vibratory motion in the gas - combustion instability, flow instabilities such as vortex shedding, Kelvin-Hemzhold instability, turbulence etc or Fluid-Stricture Interaction between the flame holder and the gas. To investigate such phenomena one needs high fidelity CFD codes with huge computational power and/or very elaborate experimental facilities. Experience really matter in such cases if you don't have good facilities. We lack on all of it.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Pratyush »

I am asking questions only for my understanding as I have no technical back ground.

Why is it that Kaveri program which was de-linked from LCA in the late 2000s continued in its current form. When it was clear that it will not meet the intended design goals. I have heard repeatedly that it would be used to power a UCAV. But the question remains, if the engine is unfit for flight certification then how can it power a UCAV.

Why was a new engine program not launched incorporating the lessons from Kaveri that had achieved a certain % of design goals.
Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Marten »

Boils down to current capabilities and budget, along with the will to succeed in an area where only 8-10 companies have succeeded over the past fifty years.

How would you plan a new program without funding.
Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1596
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Gyan »

I wonder if GTRE should have followed ISRO startegy of closely copying a known design and then incrementally improving it rather than a clean slate endeavour. Should we have simply copied F404 and tried improving it step be step? Any idea about the strategy being followed for new 110kn design?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by ramana »

ISRO was a co'developer of Viking engine and contributed Engineering man hours as the contribution.
This became the Vikas engine.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by ramana »

X-post from Missiles thread for completeness...
Karthik S wrote:https://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/03 ... vs-up.html
Three months ago, India’s Nirbhay cruise missile was destroyed mid-flight after an electro-mechanical failure made it roll dangerously with half-opened wings. The roll glitched out the missile’s intertial navigation system, sending it careening out of its notified flight envelope and forcing the test team on ground to push the kill switch. As scientists work to clear up problems bedeviling the crucial long-range weapon effort, a related development is understood to be showing fresh promise, and could soon be a direct part of the Nirbhay: the Indian-built Manik mini turbofan engine, intended to power production series Nirbhay cruise missiles.

Almost exactly a year ago, DRDO chief S. Christopher witnessed a test run demonstration of the Manik turbofan at the DRDO’s Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) in Bengaluru. In March 2015, Defence Secretary G. Mohan Kumar was shown the engine switched on. It was in November 2014 that the mini turbofan engine was christened Manik.

Livefist has learnt that the Nirbhay cruise missile, currently powered by an NPO Saturn 36MT turbofan, will next be tested in the May-June period using a turbojet engine. While the GTRE has been mandated with proving the Manik turbofan by the time the Nirbhay’s other flight systems are proven, top sources confirm a Nirbhay test powered by a Manik engine could take place by the end of next year. The Manik turbofan has been under rigirous ground and high power tests for over two years now, and scientists are understood to be satisfied with progress. Current activity includes work spread between GTRE and the National Aerospace Laboratory. At the latter’s Propulsion Division, Manik components including its fan, centrifugal compressor, high pressure and low pressure turbines and alternator are under test.

At 425 kgF (kilogram-force) of thrust, scientists are working to reduce the Manik turbofan’s current 110 kilogram total weight. The engine makes major use of the Mishra Dhatu Nigam-developed MDN 321 special steel and special indigenous alloys.
Significantly, the GTRE isn’t fully equipped to test the Manik and is working fast to add test capabilities and infrastructure. This was borne out yesterday in the defence standing committee’s report to Parliament, where the MoD made the following admission:

“The existing Fan & Compressor Test Facility at Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) has inadequate capacity and has become obsolete. To carry out testing of Fan & Compressor for existing and future generation gas turbine engine programmes of GTRE, it is essential to have a dedicated Fan & Compressor test facility at GTRE. GTRE is working out the budgetary cost of this facility to be established ‘on turnkey basis’ with an objective to initiate EPC approval by end of Oct 2016.”

The report further details aggressive plans to beef up a non-existent engine development and validation ecosystem in South India:

“The design improvement and validation of aero engine components and modules through testing is a continuous activity to enhance and demonstrate engine performance and reliability. At present, only limited aerodynamic and structural testing can be conducted within the country. Hence, the required component testing facilities at an estimated cost of Rs.1330 crore are planned to be established by DRDO at Rajanakunte, Bengaluru for development of Ghatak engine and all future generation aero engines.”

In addition, the DRDO is reported to be planning a twin test cell at GTRE to carry out ‘performance testing of gas turbine engines upto 130 kN thrust class’, which includes all versions of the Kaveri engine, including the dry version being developed for the Ghatak stealth UCAV. The bolstering of gas turbine development and testing infrastructure is belated but very welcome: it amplifies a recognition that India is willing to invest in one of the toughest areas of military science, one that has tormented the most advanced nations, and is currently harrowing China too.

But the Nirbhay isn’t the end game, as it were. Livefist learns the Manik turbofan will also power the DRDO’s secretive Long Range Cruise Missile (LRCM), a weapon project revealed first here on Livefist in 2010. Top DRDO sources reveal the LRCM, currently still in a configuration phase, will involve a three-stage power system: a booster to put the missile in the air, the Manik turbofan to power the LRCM through its 1,000-km cruise phase and, finally, a ramjet engine that will push the LRCM into supersonic endgame towards its target. The full-fledged project is being spearheaded by the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) and Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL).

So what is the expected weight goal for the Manik currently weighing 110 kg?
Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4102
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Neela »

Saturn's 36T Specification
Engine..............................................................................36МТ
Thrust at maximum rating, kgf..................................................450
Specific fuel consumption at maximum rating*, kg/(kgf∙h).................0.71
Weight, kg...........................................................................71

For a little less than Saturn 36T's thrust , Manik weighs nearly 50% more atm.
But its still early days for it.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by ramana »

So how much does Saturn 36MT (used in Kh-59) cost vs. Manik engine now?

And will the reduced weight Manik have to undergo the same bench testing underway now?

its in 2014 that the engine was named Manik.
And its 2017 and still we don't have a usable prototype.
I think this is Kaveri all over again.

What ails GTRE that they always sign up to design and engine and deliver sub-specification models?

Did thy not have product requirements when they signed up for the project?
What was the weight requirement? Same as SATURN 36MT?

There is something systemic wrong in the that place.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Indranil »

Neela wrote:Saturn's 36T Specification
Engine..............................................................................36МТ
Thrust at maximum rating, kgf..................................................450
Specific fuel consumption at maximum rating*, kg/(kgf∙h).................0.71
Weight, kg...........................................................................71

For a little less than Saturn 36T's thrust , Manik weighs nearly 50% more atm.
But its still early days for it.
We don't know what those 110 kgs and 71 kgs include.
Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4102
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Neela »

Indranil-ji
Are you talking about the jet starter kit not counted into weight?
36MT has all single stages in fan- HP compressor- HP turbine- LP turbine .
There isn't much scope for weight ambiguity but google does give diff results ( < 100kg ) whereas Saturn website mentions 71kgs.

In any case,
Saturn 36Mt dimensions: 850mm x 330mm
Manik is : 900 x 360mm
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Project BRF: India's Kaveri Engine Saga

Post by UlanBatori »

They are pursuing peacetime research and publishing papers. That is fine, but they don't seem to have an Admiral Hyman Rickover / KPS Gill to set and drive through a hard, laser-focused project to get results. Wonder how the nuclear submarine ppl did it - or is it also, in the immortal words of R.K. Laxman, "100% Indigenous with only 99% imported parts"?
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Project BRF: India's Kaveri Engine Saga

Post by UlanBatori »

Sounds like GATET is along the right path. Any gyan on whether it has substance? I know IITM center is focused on combustion, didn't seem to have much interest in rotating anything. Obvious a great idea to have advanced research in all aspects, but is there someone to take all this and insist on it being USED by the application engineer types in real engines?
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Project BRF: India's Kaveri Engine Saga

Post by SaiK »

linking it here as I found this.. feel free to delink if reference invalidates forum rules
http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016/12 ... t.html?m=1
http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2017/03 ... s.html?m=1
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Project BRF: India's Kaveri Engine Saga

Post by UlanBatori »

Ribbon-cutting?
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Project BRF: India's Kaveri Engine Saga

Post by UlanBatori »

Polis have fired the gun on the EllSeeYay dhaga :eek:
NRaoji, on additive mfg. Do u see an additive-manufactured turbine blade doing better than single-crystal? Of course crystal growth is additive manufacturing of a different kind..
Surprised to see above that Kaveri does not have single-crystal blades. WTF not I wonder, in the land of diamond-cutters. Isn't there anyone even setting basic timelines and deliverables on the biggest tech limiters?
I agree that if desh goes big-time into metal/ceramic additive mfg with nanotech thrown in, desh could leapfrog engine tech quite a lot. But it needs tough program mgmt as well as the ability to retain really smart people.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Project BRF: India's Kaveri Engine Saga

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Paging Maitya jee,
NRao wrote:
ramana wrote:

Mind adding the highlights? The link comes up as blocked.
Confident with initial studies that show that the desi ‘Kaveri’ engine can be revived and turned around for fighter jet operations in a short time span, India has asked its French collaborators whether the power-pack of the engine can be further boosted to upgrade its fleet of Su-30 MKI fighters.

The Kaveri project – which was abandoned in 2014 as it did not meet the power requirements of the Air Force – is being revived with French help for use on both the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) and a new unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV) project.

Work is on with the French side to use the significant offsets on the Rafale fighter jet deal to fund a redevelopment of the Indian jet engine project. French company Safran has to invest over $1 billion in India as part of its offset obligations for the Indian Rafale deal.

India is keen on an indigenous power plant that can be used for its future series of aerial combat platforms. Sources have told ThePrint that now the Indian side has suggested that the Kaveri engine be rated up to produce a power of 125 kn – to make it usable for the Su-30 MKI fleet.

The Air Force has a fleet of just under 300 Sukhoi jets that will need to be upgraded. “The idea is to have a more powerful engine that can be used for a ‘Super Sukhoi’ upgrade. With the numbers we require, it will be good to have a Make in India solution,” sources involved in the process told ThePrint.

The sources said that studies are now being carried out on the feasibility of using the upgraded Kaveri for the Su-30 MKI fleet. While Russia will need to be consulted for an engine replacement on the fleet as it is the designer of the jet, officials on the Indian side do not foresee any objections given that French engines are being extensively used, including on the KA-226 helicopters that are to be manufactured domestically for the Army.
ramana wrote:So what is the thrust level required for current SU-30MKI?

Never mind. From Wiki
AL-31FP Improved variant for the Indian Su-30MKI with thrust vectoring Salyut, HAL 2000 123 kN (27,700 lbf) Yes Su-30 MKI, Sukhoi Su-30MKM In service/production
Can anyone well versed in thermodamnics tell if the Kaveri core can be enhanced to produce 125 KN?
geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Project BRF: India's Kaveri Engine Saga

Post by geeth »

^^^ Not just the core, the whole of Kaveri cannot be enhanced to 125 KN with tech available now anywhere.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Project BRF: India's Kaveri Engine Saga

Post by JayS »

This is gyan thread. For regular discussion please use the Kaveri and Aero Engine thread. Else mods mamus will come with danda in hand. Mods, can you please remove last few posts to the other Kaveri thread..?

BTW, you are right about that geeth. But I wouldn't say "tech available anywhere" but its impractical anyway. :wink:
Last edited by Indranil on 26 Jul 2017 00:32, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Posts moved
sommuk
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 9
Joined: 18 Jul 2017 20:07

Re: Project BRF: India's Kaveri Engine Saga

Post by sommuk »

Titanium additive manufacturing is now being actively considered by some of India's leading private sector firms with an interest in the defense manufacturing sector. Titanium forging is also on top of the agenda. I personally know of one company based in Pune.
sommuk
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 9
Joined: 18 Jul 2017 20:07

Re: Project BRF: India's Kaveri Engine Saga

Post by sommuk »

Cranfield University in the UK has a programme wherein there is a direct 'lab-to-production line' concept in additive manufacturing ...so TRL 1-2-3 to directly TRL 7-8-9 in collaboration with aerospace majors like Airbus, Boeing and Rolls Royce. Perhaps a model which premier Indian universities could emulate.
sommuk
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 9
Joined: 18 Jul 2017 20:07

Re: Project BRF: India's Kaveri Engine Saga

Post by sommuk »

This one is specifically for aircraft structures

https://www.cranfield.ac.uk/press/news- ... technology
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Indranil »

Sommuk, the above posts have been moved to this thread from the "gyan" only thread. "gyan" only threads are for reference only. Use this thread for discussion about Kaveri engine.
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Project BRF: India's Kaveri Engine Saga

Post by Cosmo_R »

UlanBatori wrote:They are pursuing peacetime research and publishing papers. That is fine, but they don't seem to have an Admiral Hyman Rickover / KPS Gill to set and drive through a hard, laser-focused project to get results. Wonder how the nuclear submarine ppl did it - or is it also, in the immortal words of R.K. Laxman, "100% Indigenous with only 99% imported parts"?
"99% imported by 100% indigenous people".

I have been unfortunate witness to this import substitution saga for decades. When all the theories didn't pan out, the subject got changed and ended with "India has more pressing priorities than xyz. We have to first...."

Even Ganesh statues are made in China.

Kalam was our Rickover.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Indranil »

UB and Cosmo sir, please restrict Kaveri related "discussions" to this thread. Discussing on the gyan only thread will attract warnings. Please don't make me do that.
jayasimha
BRFite
Posts: 400
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 17:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by jayasimha »

Bit old,, but posting for records (MBD-if-RP).
---------
GTRE Setting up Twin Test Cell for developmental aero
gas turbine engines upto 130kN thrust class

Lot of things must have happened since 26th August 2016 1430 Hrs

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/drdojsp/do ... &p=RFI.pdf
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Indranil »

Post moved from gyan thread to here. Warning issued. Enough number of soft warnings had already been issued.
Saik wrote: have you guys read this?
http://defenceupdate.in/india-plans-use ... mki-fleet/

I want to read it as positive, but please tell me it is
Yes, it has been discussed here. Please go back a page in this very thread.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by ramana »

X-Posted...


Snippets from Force interview with drdo chief

Safran Aircraft Engine appears slightly reluctant to get into the Kaveri engine project (to power the LCA). They are keen to work with you on the M-88 technology that powers Rafale. What do you say to that?

We can use Kaveri engine core, but it will not cover the entire envelope. Therefore, the present thinking is to have the M-88 core but still more than 60 per cent will be Kaveri component and the entire engine will be made in India with our design rights.

Prasad wrote:OT for this thread but that means its a straight slotting in of the M88 core into Kaveri? Damn. What about our own engine program after that?!
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by ramana »

Prasad, If you had followed the Kaveri story all these many years and the to and fro discussion this fact that Kabini core wont cover entire envelope was quite evident.
No one wanted to bell the cat till they had a fix in hand.
Personally I want the LCA powered by local made engine to get freedom from sanctions.
I hope the entire engine to be made in India includes the new core in all its entirety.
And the design rights allow modifications as needed.

BTW many batch-mates worked on this quest for Kaveri.

No one wanted to sy the core was not dong its job. Kept tinkering with after burner etc.

First mistake was naming it after a river.
It turned out like Sagara's descendents quest till Bhagirath got Shiva's blessings and we got Ganga.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18272
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Prasad: When Snecma-Safran agreed to get the Kaveri working, that is what they meant. What Dr Christopher is saying ties into that - the core will be from the M88. We will get no know how other than a working prototype by 2018 and final certification in the early 2020s. Nobody is going to give us engine tech.

The question the interviewer asked matters little...it is the answer that Dr Christopher gave matters most. If going by Dr Christopher's statement that that the entire engine will be made in India with design rights and that is the best one can hope for. The tech of the engine core will still remain with Safran though. Again, nobody is going to give us engine tech on a platter. Remember, until recently the entire program was put on the backburner.

The key point to remember here is HOPEFULLY we will have a working and functioning Kaveri engine. If that comes to fruition, why would you need the GE F404 or F414 for the Tejas?

Safran posted a job on it's website for a program manager for the Kaveri engine. That job has now been filled, but IDRW had an article dated Feb 2017 in which they did a cut-and-paste job of the job description from the Safran website. Link below;

Safran looking for program manager for Kaveri engine
http://idrw.org/safran-looking-out-for- ... ri-engine/
Ensure the control and coordination of all activities on the program, including consistent with the M88 program.
Safran has/had a job opening on its website (link below) for a M88 / Kaveri Military Engine Performance Engineer.
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... &sandbox=1
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by JayS »

So finally French are having their way after all...? So much for the French help. :lol: Go beg for key tech everyone will show only middle finger. With M88 core it will be a french engine, no matter how much sugarcoating we do to it. I just hope they don't scrap Kabini altogether (Hopefully Ghatak project will fund Kabini development).

Ramana, there is nothing particular saying Kabini core is not working as per its design intent that I have so far seen in public domain (don't know panwala account). "not covering envelop" can have many meanings, not necessarily Kabini is not working as per its design intent. We know that LCA itself have put on weight while Kaveri design was never adjusted for that. In fact all indicators pointed towards problems in the LP system/AB always. Not the core. (Remember the core is not state of the art. But at least 2.5-3 generations behind the current state of the art.) The other day I was talking to the Tejas FB page admin about Kaveri on LCA. He mentioned the same thing that I have been expecting. Its the rotor dynamics where GTRE is struggling. Fan would typically be more difficult than HPC in this respect due to longer blades. No books or research papers help you here. Simulations are of very limited help especially if you are dependant on Commercial SW. No one is ready to provide deep consultancy (know why), he said. Only way is to run the HW for thousands of hours, observe, learn and then do educated trial and errors. System Integration was one key are where GTRE was grossly lacking and is struggling big time.

Anybody knows when in the past French offered to put M88 core in Kaveri...? They have and our guys rejected the offer, is what i remember. I will try to dig out. But if anyone knows, please post.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18272
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Rakesh »

JayS: What else were you expecting? :) I don't think anyone who was in Snecma-Safran and GTRE had any other expectation other than this. It will be a French engine onlee, but it is a much better situation to be in...rather than an engine program was comatose.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by ramana »

Yes the M88 core was offered in the past too but not taken as GTRE did not think they need it.
They focused on the LP/AB thinking they need to get more out of them.

If you note DRDO chief's statement 60% of new Kaveri will be GTRE.
So the LP/AB were not the problem. there is the ~ 60%.


If I had the decision making opportunity would have taken the M88 core and developed the Kabini core apart from the Kaveri program.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by ramana »

First page of this thread ten years ago to the month talk about Snecma.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3351

Note most of our members have been too kind with GTRE (GeT REst).

Read some of the comments in first two pages.

Every new CAG or MoD reports gives hopeful news and earnest please of success if only a few more rupees were spent.


Even vina was hopeful that they will succeed.
If it took ten years after K-9 to come to conclusion they need M88 core that gang needs to be retired.
Even a new college graduate would have come to the conclusion that it needs a re-jig.
All along they gave hopeful statements and delayed national projects.

Over feed on hope you die of starvation.
Post Reply