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
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Vivek K »

Great news, can the paanwalla bribe the chaiwalla to get some more news!
prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1214
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by prasannasimha »

Unfortunately silence of the Lambs
dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 527
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by dinesh_kimar »

^ river in South India flowing better.

- More thrust obtained from engine ?

- I wish Sjha or Siddique sahib come out with some news / white paper at end of year on such small things as thrust/ weight / reliability / future plans.
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Post by tsarkar »

shiv wrote:
chetak wrote:Is it anybody's argument that the missile exhaust/gunfire gasses are not highly turbulent and if ingested by the engine, it is this turbulent and highly disturbed airflow that is going to affect the engine much more than the content of the missile exhaust smoke/gunfire gas per se??
.
Don't know if there is any argument but every single reference to flame out after missile firing that I have seen speaks of plume ingestion and not turbulence or "ingestion" of turbulence. Will try and locate MiG 21 history in this regard. Not tonight though.
This is one of the reasons why air launched missile incorporate smokeless propellants
Image

Aircraft under development are extensively tested using CFD as well as operational testing for smoke ingestion.

Gun cartridges generate a lot of smoke, and A-10 is prone engine flameouts when cannon was fired. Solution was engine ingitors automatically turning on when gun is fired.

Also check out the windshield wipers.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13 ... nd-a-curse

If I remember the Nachiketa CoI finding from memory, the cause of ingestion was slow speed and high altitude (with less air density). If air density or airspeed was higher, this would not have created a problem. Otherwise MiG-27 ingest a lot of gases when firing guns.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/torqueavi ... 954060903/
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Post by JayS »

tsarkar wrote:
shiv wrote: Don't know if there is any argument but every single reference to flame out after missile firing that I have seen speaks of plume ingestion and not turbulence or "ingestion" of turbulence. Will try and locate MiG 21 history in this regard. Not tonight though.
This is one of the reasons why air launched missile incorporate smokeless propellants
Image

Aircraft under development are extensively tested using CFD as well as operational testing for smoke ingestion.

Gun cartridges generate a lot of smoke, and A-10 is prone engine flameouts when cannon was fired. Solution was engine ingitors automatically turning on when gun is fired.

Also check out the windshield wipers.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13 ... nd-a-curse

If I remember the Nachiketa CoI finding from memory, the cause of ingestion was slow speed and high altitude (with less air density). If air density or airspeed was higher, this would not have created a problem. Otherwise MiG-27 ingest a lot of gases when firing guns.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/torqueavi ... 954060903/
For Missile exhaust ingestion, smokeless or smoke shouldnt matter. Its the hot gases which makes the engine stall. And as such the exhaust of missile would hardly have any particulate matter in it.

Here is a paper from ADA folks trying to understand missile exhaust, which would be used to study its impact when ingestied by engine, impact on aircraft surface etc etc.

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&sourc ... YoYbHRzm4n
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4712
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by nam »

Once Kaveri completes all the test, who is going to produce the engines? HAL?
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Post by Indranil »

The smokeless propellant is used to hide the trail of the missile. Makes it more difficult to acquire and track.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Post by Karan M »

Also metal particulates interfere with datalink. Issue faced by trishul and hence its propellant was changed late into the program.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Post by ramana »

Karan M wrote:Also metal particulates interfere with datalink. Issue faced by trishul and hence its propellant was changed late into the program.
So how do they get that ISP without mass flow? I thought instead is Al which ionizes in the hot exhaust use a different metal?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by ramana »

Yes.
HAL Jet engine division
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Post by shiv »

Doesn't Al burn brightly and leave a residue of oxide? That said - is there any propellant other than H2 + O2 that burns to produce 100% gases and no solid particulate matter? There is no such propellant that I could find on searching the net.

There is no such thing as a propellant that leaves NO solid residue. Any number of references on the Net show that "smokeless" propellants leave "very little" residue. Very little is not zero. All guns that use smokeless propellant need less frequent cleaning of residue - but that cleaning is required nevertheless

The point I want to make is that apart from hot gases, particulate matter can choke up jet engines. Volcanic ash at 40,000 feet - which is cool still causes engines to fail.

I had posted a link earlier that points out that the propensity for an engine to flame out on gas ingestion may vary. A brand new or recently serviced engine may continue running while ingesting some gas, but an older engine or one that is due for servicing may flame out. Missile and gun exhausts are bad for engines and hardly innocuous.

About particulate matter
https://play.google.com/store/books/det ... fAC&rdot=1
The primary cause of engine thrust loss in the volcanic ash ingestion events in Indonesia in 1982 and at Redoubt was the accumulation of melted and resolidified ash on the stage 1 turbine nozzle guide vanes. These deposits reduced the effective flow area causing an increase in the compressor operating line and compressor surge. Compressor airfoil erosion contributed to the loss of surge margin. Turbofan engines tested operating at high combustor discharge temperatures, and exposed to high concentrations of sand/dust with low melting point, exhibit symptoms and conditions similar to those of engines exposed to volcanic ash. Operation at low-thrust level while in an ash cloud significantly reduces the rate of engine performance degradation.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Post by NRao »

Does this count?

Solid-propellant rocket
Minimum-signature (smokeless) propellants Edit

One of the most active areas of solid propellant research is the development of high-energy, minimum-signature propellant using C6H6N6(NO2)6 CL-20 nitroamine (China Lake compound #20), which has 14% higher energy per mass and 20% higher energy density than HMX. The new propellant has been successfully developed and tested in tactical rocket motors. The propellant is non-polluting: acid-free, solid particulates-free, and lead-free. It is also smokeless and has only a faint shock diamond pattern that is visible in the otherwise transparent exhaust. Without the bright flame and dense smoke trail produced by the burning of aluminized propellants, these smokeless propellants all but eliminate the risk of giving away the positions from which the missiles are fired. The new CL-20 propellant is shock-insensitive (hazard class 1.3) as opposed to current HMX smokeless propellants which are highly detonable (hazard class 1.1). CL-20 is considered a major breakthrough in solid rocket propellant technology but has yet to see widespread use because costs remain high.[22]
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

Post by shiv »

NRao wrote:Does this count?
This is all OT, but since you ask probably not

That claim leads to a dead link (reference no 22)
The language sounds like a promotional/advert type message about research work

From the little I know of chemistry and physics. 100% smokeless is achievable only when water is the end product but even C02 or other gases will do. Anything that burns produces some products - and 100% burning should produce 100 % gases alone for "no particulate matter". To my knowledge this has never been achieved. Smokeless is always "very little residue". "Smokeless" is a bogey - a marketing term. The actual chemistry is what matters. That is what I need to see.

A word search leads to a desi paper which says of the compound you asked about having a "faint smoke trail". Not smokeless
http://euroasiapub.org/wp-content/uploa ... 4530-1.pdf

But let me get to the point about gun testing and the Tejas. Gun plumes are dangerous to aircraft engines not because of "turbulence onlee" or "hot gases onlee" or "particulate matter onlee". It is a combination of one or more of all three that pose a danger. That is why it is preferable to minimize - or preferably avoid, all gun gas ingestion.

The Tejas has a gun port below and behind the right intake and is apparently well away but a live video of gun firing trials shows how huge the plume is. In case a Tejas is banking to the right and descending - following a target below and to the right - there could be a possibility of gas ingestion. This of course is my speculation based on visual size of plume and site of gun port. I am sure the designers know this, but they will surely test for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KbZDuBKcEs
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by JayS »

X posting from LCA thread
shiv wrote:Doesn't Al burn brightly and leave a residue of oxide? That said - is there any propellant other than H2 + O2 that burns to produce 100% gases and no solid particulate matter? There is no such propellant that I could find on searching the net.

There is no such thing as a propellant that leaves NO solid residue. Any number of references on the Net show that "smokeless" propellants leave "very little" residue. Very little is not zero. All guns that use smokeless propellant need less frequent cleaning of residue - but that cleaning is required nevertheless

The point I want to make is that apart from hot gases, particulate matter can choke up jet engines. Volcanic ash at 40,000 feet - which is cool still causes engines to fail.

I had posted a link earlier that points out that the propensity for an engine to flame out on gas ingestion may vary. A brand new or recently serviced engine may continue running while ingesting some gas, but an older engine or one that is due for servicing may flame out. Missile and gun exhausts are bad for engines and hardly innocuous.

About particulate matter
https://play.google.com/store/books/det ... fAC&rdot=1
The primary cause of engine thrust loss in the volcanic ash ingestion events in Indonesia in 1982 and at Redoubt was the accumulation of melted and resolidified ash on the stage 1 turbine nozzle guide vanes. These deposits reduced the effective flow area causing an increase in the compressor operating line and compressor surge. Compressor airfoil erosion contributed to the loss of surge margin. Turbofan engines tested operating at high combustor discharge temperatures, and exposed to high concentrations of sand/dust with low melting point, exhibit symptoms and conditions similar to those of engines exposed to volcanic ash. Operation at low-thrust level while in an ash cloud significantly reduces the rate of engine performance degradation.
Nothing is particulate free 100% by that standard Shiv. Not even normal Air. Engines can certainly stand some amount of particulate matter. They cannot be supersensitive because in daily life they have to withstand air which is not "100%" particulate matter free. Also when we talk about particles things like size, composition, velocity, mechanical properties matter. OEMs do test engines with significant amount of sand of various type thrown in it. Because they have to operate in sandy environment of areas like middile east. Here is a video of Sand Ingestion test. GE has Sand ingestion test facility. I am sure other OEMs too have it.

https://youtu.be/IMIkk-ZqUzM

But of coarse the threshold is to a certain limit and Volcanic erruption presents extreme situation. So engines cannot withstand that situation always. But the particulate density of even a smoky missile exhaust or that of Gun exhaust should be well below the threshold. Similar argument can be made with respect to turbulence (in fact turbulence would the last thing I would think of). Due to low probability of any noticeable damage happening due to solid particles and turbulence, it can be safely ignored. Impact of hot gas and vibration or even shock waves due to bullets or present in shock diamond have far more significant. So those are crucial factors and are considered generally. Others can be safely neglected.

If you see any generic compressor map you will realise that engines operate very close to the surge line. Its relatively easy to throw it off balance and make it surge. But as I said earlier, modern engines are much more resilient now, especially with FADEC in place and Military engines especially have good stall margin now a days. So sensitivity of engines to hot gas ingestion is far less now compared to engines from 60s or 70s.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by shiv »

JayS wrote:
Nothing is particulate free 100% by that standard Shiv. Not even normal Air. Engines can certainly stand some amount of particulate matter. They cannot be supersensitive because in daily life they have to withstand air which is not "100%" particulate matter free. Also when we talk about particles things like size, composition, velocity, mechanical properties matter. OEMs do test engines with significant amount of sand of various type thrown in it. Because they have to operate in sandy environment of areas like middile east. Here is a video of Sand Ingestion test. GE has Sand ingestion test facility. I am sure other OEMs too have it.
Remember the news item from a couple of months ago - I think it was Indigo airlines
http://www.thehindu.com/business/Indust ... 781399.ece
Pratt & Whitney has informed the Directorate General of Civil Aviation that Indian climatic conditions are primarily responsible for snags encountered in its engines fitted in Airbus A320 new engine option planes.

The American aircraft engine manufacturer has said that weather conditions unique to India such as high humidity, heat and saltiness due to the ocean were causing problems to A320neo plane engines, sources said.
Yes the environment and "normal air" are also a problem - compared with crystal clear temperate latitude air. Other manufacturers too - includingthe Russians have cited special problems in India

This in fact leads to a greater propensity for flame-out in engines that may have run a full cycle and may be just due for overhaul. The balance may be tipped by a "little gas ingestion"

So the fact that engines must run reliably in rough conditions does not mean that it is in any way "OK" to allow "a little" gas ingestion from guns or missile plumes. As far as possible they have to be avoided. I think these factors become important in strange ways. We do know that the GSh 23 itself has finite life and must be discarded after X rounds (2500?) . The same way - it is possible that if "a little" gas ingestion is allowed safely the engine itself will have to undergo inspections after a specified number of gun firings to make sure that limits are not crossed. I think you know this and I know this. But on BRF with people moaning and complaining about delays I think it is necessary to point out the complexities of testing and safety.

If an engine require overhaul more frequently because of gun firing - the manufacturer is going to blame HAL and HAL may blame the air force. This sort of rubbish has happened time and time again and then we will have BRF geniuses saying "Air Force must learn from America"
prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1214
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by prasannasimha »

The Kaveri will be tested around 2020-2021 on the Tejas as per some Chaiwalla reports.

As far as what ails just think about this - there are only 7 scientists b as new recruits and over 70 scientists G. New recruitment has verily stalled and only the old timers are slogging with no new recruits getting approved. This just goes to show the constraints whereas even the MRE food section of DRDO has over 50 scientists working. That is the reality. Getting alloys made to specification is easier said than done.Guess what the cahs injection to the project is ? Take any other jet engine maker and see the funding . The GTRE heads have to sit in Delhi begging for funds from some Babu and even this is cut and delayed and yet everyone wants a world class engine.
Incidentally the Kaveri at present meets 95% of its design mandate and the push for the last 5% is where all this is going on.

Those in Bangalore can go and see Adhamya Chethana on National College grounds
prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1214
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by prasannasimha »

By test beds I meant flying test beds
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32278
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by chetak »

prasannasimha wrote:The Kaveri will be tested around 2020-2021 on the Tejas as per some Chaiwalla reports.

As far as what ails just think about this - there are only 7 scientists b as new recruits and over 70 scientists G. New recruitment has verily stalled and only the old timers are slogging with no new recruits getting approved. This just goes to show the constraints whereas even the MRE food section of DRDO has over 50 scientists working. That is the reality. Getting alloys made to specification is easier said than done.Guess what the cahs injection to the project is ? Take any other jet engine maker and see the funding . The GTRE heads have to sit in Delhi begging for funds from some Babu and even this is cut and delayed and yet everyone wants a world class engine.
Incidentally the Kaveri at present meets 95% of its design mandate and the push for the last 5% is where all this is going on.

Those in Bangalore can go and see Adhamya Chethana on National College grounds
many "recruits" are seduced away by foreign companies after a couple of years in the DRDP or PSUs. So much for dedicated staff. Everybody wants to get ahead and why not??.

How the hell do you wind up with 70 Sc Gs in one unit?? How many more are "outstanding" scientists?? This is not just one but almost every DRDO lab.

so, long story short, no engine, full promotion, no tension, full pension, right??

Its the story of every lab and PSU in India.

I am sure that there is a lesson in there deep inside, somewhere, for all of us.

If results were not a big problem, funding would never be the issue.

some alloys you can make, some you can buy, some you cannot make and some you cannot buy. More importantly, don't use pusher type propellers where ordinary everyday type tractor propellers would have worked better, ESPECIALLY when you have an very steep learning curve to deal with.

Big boys take all this into consideration before they start a tough journey.

In the end, its always no tension, full pension.

To truly succeed, one needs relentless, dedicated drive and also hunger and fear gnawing away at the vitals, sometimes one more than the other.

There are the new beginnings of such unheard of characteristics in some aviation PSUs, nowhere else.

These guys bulldoze their way through problems by innovative methods,selfless team work and co opting certification agencies very very early in the design cycle and the end result is foremost in their sights. Its slowly catching on.

Pity, we neither had the amreki hire and fire nor the ruski gulags.

Just like One MODI and and a whole lot of faceless, useless bjp, with the aam aadmi asking vociferously why no second rung leadership is available.

so after decades of effort, it does not matter that 5-6 % is left to complete because the tough part is yet to come and some chaiwallah says wait another 3-4 years and then after that GOK how long before it can actually be put into a fuselage or even hung on a wing??

some lab took more than 24 years to develop a basic UAV and an absolutely stunned foreign audience at some conference just could not believe their ears at the time line disclosed by a famous lab director whose farewell took a full three days of breakfast to dinner celebrations to see him off.

I wonder, at times, if hire and fire or a gulag at the end of the dark tunnel would not have been a better way for us to go.
Last edited by chetak on 30 Dec 2017 19:24, edited 1 time in total.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by NRao »

The Kaveri will be tested around 2020-2021 on the Tejas as per some Chaiwalla reports.
The French, I thought I read, were planning on a 2019 or so trisl. So, I'd this a pure GTRE effort, without any help from outside?
we neither had the amreki hire and fire
The US has multiple efforts, at various levels, going in non compete parallel. AFRL, as an example, funds promising kids at Masters level and has jobs + funds waiting once they graduate. DARPA has s thread of their own. NASA. All in addition to the well known culprits like GE and P&W. Most of the research efforts fail. Thus the risk is huge.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32278
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by chetak »

shiv wrote:
JayS wrote:
Nothing is particulate free 100% by that standard Shiv. Not even normal Air. Engines can certainly stand some amount of particulate matter. They cannot be supersensitive because in daily life they have to withstand air which is not "100%" particulate matter free. Also when we talk about particles things like size, composition, velocity, mechanical properties matter. OEMs do test engines with significant amount of sand of various type thrown in it. Because they have to operate in sandy environment of areas like middile east. Here is a video of Sand Ingestion test. GE has Sand ingestion test facility. I am sure other OEMs too have it.
Remember the news item from a couple of months ago - I think it was Indigo airlines
http://www.thehindu.com/business/Indust ... 781399.ece
Pratt & Whitney has informed the Directorate General of Civil Aviation that Indian climatic conditions are primarily responsible for snags encountered in its engines fitted in Airbus A320 new engine option planes.

The American aircraft engine manufacturer has said that weather conditions unique to India such as high humidity, heat and saltiness due to the ocean were causing problems to A320neo plane engines, sources said.
Yes the environment and "normal air" are also a problem - compared with crystal clear temperate latitude air. Other manufacturers too - includingthe Russians have cited special problems in India

This in fact leads to a greater propensity for flame-out in engines that may have run a full cycle and may be just due for overhaul. The balance may be tipped by a "little gas ingestion"

So the fact that engines must run reliably in rough conditions does not mean that it is in any way "OK" to allow "a little" gas ingestion from guns or missile plumes. As far as possible they have to be avoided. I think these factors become important in strange ways. We do know that the GSh 23 itself has finite life and must be discarded after X rounds (2500?) . The same way - it is possible that if "a little" gas ingestion is allowed safely the engine itself will have to undergo inspections after a specified number of gun firings to make sure that limits are not crossed. I think you know this and I know this. But on BRF with people moaning and complaining about delays I think it is necessary to point out the complexities of testing and safety.

If an engine require overhaul more frequently because of gun firing - the manufacturer is going to blame HAL and HAL may blame the air force. This sort of rubbish has happened time and time again and then we will have BRF geniuses saying "Air Force must learn from America"
never ever heard of an engine that requires overhaul more frequently because of gun firing but I have heard of airframes that add extra time to the airframe hours whenever an armament related sortie is flown.

Incidently, P&W is lying through their "unable to solve the problem" teeth.
high humidity, heat and saltiness due to the ocean were causing problems
is not a unique Indian problem and it never ever was.

This is truly high quality amreki BS

How come other manufacturers haven't ever reported such unique conditions which would have resulted in a lot of engine testing in such "unique" Indian conditions??
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by shiv »

chetak wrote:
How come other manufacturers haven't ever reported such unique conditions which would have resulted in a lot of engine testing in such "unique" Indian conditions??
They have - but this is about the air force. I have heard (literally) that wear and tear of IAF engines is higher because of smoke and dust. But I am unable to provide a source - will try and locate one.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by shiv »

OK here is one ref - but from WW2
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Uxj ... nt&f=false
"..abrasive dust ground down the engines..
Another - but generic - not specific to India. But this is what low flying aircraft of IAF face day in and day out in the North Indian summer
http://blog.covingtonaircraft.com/2011/ ... -overhaul/
Life for an engine operating primarily in dry, dusty conditions, near salt water, in varied climates or any combination of these is subject to extra wear.
What this means is that the TBO (Time Between Overhaul) for engines operating in these conditions will have to change and the spares that need to be kept in reserve may be different.
Last edited by shiv on 30 Dec 2017 20:44, edited 1 time in total.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by shiv »

chetak wrote: never ever heard of an engine that requires overhaul more frequently because of gun firing but I have heard of airframes that add extra time to the airframe hours whenever an armament related sortie is flown.
This is because gun gases are prevented from entering engines by rigorous testing. Air Marshal Rajkumar in his chapter in the MiG 21 history book says that K-13 missile firing was always done only after turning on the engine relight switch.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by JayS »

NRao wrote:
The Kaveri will be tested around 2020-2021 on the Tejas as per some Chaiwalla reports.
The French, I thought I read, were planning on a 2019 or so trisl.
you have set yourself for disappointment by taking all those reports of Kaveri flying in 2 yrs, French help, GE JV in India at face value. Ain't happening that soon. Ground reality hasn't changed significantly.

The other day I was looking for something in old LCA posts. I stumbled upon a post by Shiv from 2011 about Kaveri, after AI-11. If one don't see the dates the same post could have easily been passed of as post after AI-17. It mentioned French help for Kaveri and Kaveri to fly on LCA in 2-3 yrs.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by JayS »

shiv wrote:
JayS wrote:
Nothing is particulate free 100% by that standard Shiv. Not even normal Air. Engines can certainly stand some amount of particulate matter. They cannot be supersensitive because in daily life they have to withstand air which is not "100%" particulate matter free. Also when we talk about particles things like size, composition, velocity, mechanical properties matter. OEMs do test engines with significant amount of sand of various type thrown in it. Because they have to operate in sandy environment of areas like middile east. Here is a video of Sand Ingestion test. GE has Sand ingestion test facility. I am sure other OEMs too have it.
Remember the news item from a couple of months ago - I think it was Indigo airlines
http://www.thehindu.com/business/Indust ... 781399.ece
Pratt & Whitney has informed the Directorate General of Civil Aviation that Indian climatic conditions are primarily responsible for snags encountered in its engines fitted in Airbus A320 new engine option planes.

The American aircraft engine manufacturer has said that weather conditions unique to India such as high humidity, heat and saltiness due to the ocean were causing problems to A320neo plane engines, sources said.
Yes the environment and "normal air" are also a problem - compared with crystal clear temperate latitude air. Other manufacturers too - includingthe Russians have cited special problems in India

This in fact leads to a greater propensity for flame-out in engines that may have run a full cycle and may be just due for overhaul. The balance may be tipped by a "little gas ingestion"

So the fact that engines must run reliably in rough conditions does not mean that it is in any way "OK" to allow "a little" gas ingestion from guns or missile plumes. As far as possible they have to be avoided. I think these factors become important in strange ways. We do know that the GSh 23 itself has finite life and must be discarded after X rounds (2500?) . The same way - it is possible that if "a little" gas ingestion is allowed safely the engine itself will have to undergo inspections after a specified number of gun firings to make sure that limits are not crossed. I think you know this and I know this. But on BRF with people moaning and complaining about delays I think it is necessary to point out the complexities of testing and safety.

If an engine require overhaul more frequently because of gun firing - the manufacturer is going to blame HAL and HAL may blame the air force. This sort of rubbish has happened time and time again and then we will have BRF geniuses saying "Air Force must learn from America"
1. About this whether thing quoted by P&W. I have already called it out as BS even as it appeared in Media. Not because India doesn't offers some challenges in Operating conditions. It does. But because P&W should have considered it a priori, because neither those conditions have arisen recently out of the blue nor Jet engines have started flying in India in recent time only. To add to that I have also posted reports showing same/similar problems happening on another engine of same GTF family flying in Switzerland. So don't take whatever sorry excuses P&W is giving for their design flaws too seriously. But let me also add that its very usual to have such problems in any new engine (A320 NEO engine, on top, is not merely a new engine, or even merely first of this family, its the first of this GTF architecture in HBPR civil engine domain). Its usually takes a couple of years to iron out all such issues. Whats is disappointing to see is P&W not owning up the issues and blaming on some factors which it should have considered (and perhaps have considered for all we know but they still screwed up the design somewhat).

2. Impact of gas ingestion has been severe in old engines in many cases. The certification would always consider the most conservative cases. But over the decades the engine tech have improved by leaps and bounds and modern engines are not so much affected by gun gas ingestion or missile exhaust ingestion. But the certification requirements, design philosophies and SOPs remain, because those change only very slowly and lag considerably wrt the technical advancement. Thats how Aerospace industry is - ultra-conservative (which may sound counter-intuitive, especially for a sector which traditionally has been most cutting edge, technologically speaking). I do not think that such instances of gas ingestion have any significant impact on modern engines and their MRO plans. As such Military engines have much shorter inspection intervals as compared to Civil counterparts. Any possible impact may be easily detected in usual scheduled maintenance.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by shiv »

JayS wrote: 1. About this whether thing quoted by P&W. I have already called it out as BS even as it appeared in Media. Not because India doesn't offers some challenges in Operating conditions. It does. But because P&W should have considered it a priori, because neither those conditions have arisen recently out of the blue nor Jet engines have started flying in India in recent time only.
The problem I have with dismissing such an admission is that P&W is too big a company to bluff and get away without being chewed out by the vicious competition. There are others who will call their bluff. In fact along with the huge Indigo + P&W order there were a few smaller orders by other airlines of the same A 320 with CFM 56 I think. So P&W have made a candid admission of their fault in not anticipating a particular component failure caused by atmospheric conditions. A company of that size cannot simply bluff about a problem with its biggest single customer - Indigo

JayS wrote: modern engines are not so much affected by gun gas ingestion or missile exhaust ingestion.
The statement that "modern engines are not so much affected" can only be a retrospective one that can come after much testing. I doubt if a single engine manufacturer would endorse the placement of a gun port where the engine can ingest gases based on the generalization that modern engines are much more tolerant to such ingestion. Note that in the quote above you have accused P&W of bluffing. Don't you think that any failure in an engine that happens to have ingested some gun/missile gas in a live fire exercise will simply be blamed by the manufacturer on gas ingestion to escape blame? Or do you believe they would say "OK - our engine failed - but it cannot be gas ingestion because our engines are certified tolerant"

No. No matter how "tolerant" engines are they cannot willy nilly be exposed to gas ingestion and everything possible must be done to avoid that knowing that some ingestion would be unavoidable in some flight regimes.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Philip »

I think that the failure of Kaveri to arrive has been more of a management problem than technological.I know an industrialist who developed a blisk for it but has not recd. a single order for years and can't sell his invention becos of some paltry funding he recd.from the govt.

Technology is all around us globally.Whoever was in charge should've been given the freedom to identify a collaborator and the govt. to accept the scientific advice and released necessary funds.More than just Kaveri is the massive failure of various govt. in not setting up a dedicated aero-eengine establishment to develop a range of engines for all types of aircraft and helos.Where have our principal scientific advisors to the PM/Govt. been doing on this score?We're in no better shape engine wise since the HF -24 days and when looking at China's indigenous achievements must hang our heads in shame.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by chola »

Again, the Kaveri is a singular moon shot at a world class medium turbofan when our industry had never productionized a turbojet (or anything lower on the propulsion technology totem pole.) Our first indigenous turbojets being the GTX37/GTX-35 experimentals created during the Kaveri project.

Compared to the chini industry that progressed with the WP-6 turbojet for the J-6 to WP-7 for J-7 to WS-9 turbofan for JH-7 to WS-10 for J-11.

The WS-10 was their tipping point and now they have an explosion of medium and heavy turbofan projects in both low and high bypass forms — WS-11, WS-13, WS-15, WS-18, WS-19, WS-20, WS-118, SF-A, CJ-1000 — across multiple organizations in a wide and deep industry with names like Shenyang Liming, Xian, Guizhou and ACAE.

We have only GTRE. This is not an industry like Cheen where subcomponents can be drawn. It is a singular organization with a singular jet engine project. It had done as well as can be expected under the circumstances.
Abhibhushan
BRFite
Posts: 210
Joined: 28 Sep 2005 20:56
Location: Chennai

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Abhibhushan »

Re heat and dust of India and Aero engines.

An annecdotal piece of info

In 1947 - 48 we had purchased the Hawkwers Tempest II as our main ground attack aircraft. The aircraft was powerful and effective for its role. It was powered by a radial engine that used a conceptually ‘new’ rotating sleeve valve. These engines worked well in Europe. Unfortunately, the sleeve valve technology could not survive in the Indian environment. Fine dust in the air of northern India started to jam these valves often. We had to admit defeat and junk the fleet of Tempest II by 1953/54.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by JayS »

shiv wrote:
JayS wrote: 1. About this whether thing quoted by P&W. I have already called it out as BS even as it appeared in Media. Not because India doesn't offers some challenges in Operating conditions. It does. But because P&W should have considered it a priori, because neither those conditions have arisen recently out of the blue nor Jet engines have started flying in India in recent time only.
The problem I have with dismissing such an admission is that P&W is too big a company to bluff and get away without being chewed out by the vicious competition. There are others who will call their bluff. In fact along with the huge Indigo + P&W order there were a few smaller orders by other airlines of the same A 320 with CFM 56 I think. So P&W have made a candid admission of their fault in not anticipating a particular component failure caused by atmospheric conditions. A company of that size cannot simply bluff about a problem with its biggest single customer - Indigo
Well, A320 NEO has more than more than 5700 orders and half of them are with PW GTF engines. Rest are LEAP 1A. CFM56 is older ones. Some airlines still buy original A320 config too. IndiGo order is 420 or so out of that.

I didnt feel the connotation of their statement was " candid addmission of their fault". It was more like blaming Indian conditions for failure. As I said, neither Indian conditions are new nor this is the first time jet engines are flying in India. What possibly can be the reason that PW failed to account for Indian conditions when there one of the biggest orders are from India...? And why would exact same failure would be seen in Europe if it was due to India specific conditions..?

As for other OEMs, they would probably do the same under similar conditions. The competitor engine Leap has its own issues. If they try to publically say anything against PW, PW can also give them in kind in next turn. Everyone has weak points. Second thing is its not that easy for a company to publically go against another in such matter. They will need a lot of technical data to back their statement. How will they get that when its proprietary to PW..? PW wont share anything obviously. There is no public investigation report also. (I recently got a taste of how unaware one OEM could be about some seemingly obvious thing from other OEM. Since we work with all three OEMs we know better).

I dont have problem with them saying the failures are due to India specific conditions but they have to accept "we failed to account for those conditions while designing". It cannot be "our design was alright. Its the Indian conditions which made it fail." Mission sheet for aircraft has many tens of missions of various range, payload and atmospheric conditions occuring world over. Some of them are specific to some countries. For example typically one set of mission would be there for Qatar for Hot day, which represents one of the worst conditions. Similarly very cold day mission would be there for some northen airport. There are thousands of operating points in such sheet typically. So if PW engine was expected to operate in india in large numbers, why India specific missions were not considered..? I would ask that question to PW.

Also saying something in media for saving face is not same as bluffing with customer. Even Indigo management would understand such tactics. They are not making much noise because PW is trying to compensate them with additional spare engines and perhaps even monetary compensations. Some airlines already have cancelled orders and convered to GE engine or delayed deliveries until PW can fix issues.
shiv wrote:
JayS wrote: modern engines are not so much affected by gun gas ingestion or missile exhaust ingestion.
The statement that "modern engines are not so much affected" can only be a retrospective one that can come after much testing. I doubt if a single engine manufacturer would endorse the placement of a gun port where the engine can ingest gases based on the generalization that modern engines are much more tolerant to such ingestion. Note that in the quote above you have accused P&W of bluffing. Don't you think that any failure in an engine that happens to have ingested some gun/missile gas in a live fire exercise will simply be blamed by the manufacturer on gas ingestion to escape blame? Or do you believe they would say "OK - our engine failed - but it cannot be gas ingestion because our engines are certified tolerant"

No. No matter how "tolerant" engines are they cannot willy nilly be exposed to gas ingestion and everything possible must be done to avoid that knowing that some ingestion would be unavoidable in some flight regimes.
Guess you misunderstood me. When I say modern engine are far less sensitive, I dont mean we should put them under those operating conditions. I am just saying. An engine like F404 dont have to worry about it so much as some old engine like that might have had to. Designer would still obviously go as much conservative as possible if there is no significant cost associated with that particular design compromise and eliminate one headache. Less things to worry about. Dont fix whats not broken.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by shiv »

JayS wrote: Dont fix whats not broken.
Don't break what can't be fixed is an equally vital principle. One cannot compromise on factors that cannot be predicted. If different gun propellant powders and 23 mm shell varieties or newer missiles that might appear in future cannot be predicted, the design has to avoid gas ingestion and cannot be more lax with a newer model "more tolerant" engine and less lax with an older model engine. I cannot imagine a designer saying "It's OK if some gases are ingested. That is imprecise and a formula for disaster. "How much gas gets ingested and under what conditions" would be critical. Unless that is studied by testing there will be needless accidents. That is the reason why testing takes time, which is where the discussion started.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Indranil »

And if you ask me, this is where the discussion should end. We have gone round the circle at least once.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by ramana »

Abhibhushan wrote:Re heat and dust of India and Aero engines.

An annecdotal piece of info

In 1947 - 48 we had purchased the Hawkwers Tempest II as our main ground attack aircraft. The aircraft was powerful and effective for its role. It was powered by a radial engine that used a conceptually ‘new’ rotating sleeve valve. These engines worked well in Europe. Unfortunately, the sleeve valve technology could not survive in the Indian environment. Fine dust in the air of northern India started to jam these valves often. We had to admit defeat and junk the fleet of Tempest II by 1953/54.
What do you make of this gun firing brouhaha for LCA?
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

prasannasimha wrote:They went to IIT's and NIT's for recruitment and guess what the number was zero. . They have asked for university integration guess what zero. Easy to say Hire and fire when you can't hire in the first place.
Is this a recent phenomenon? My classmates/batchmates were selected from campus selection and one of them made an important contribution to the river project as well.
prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1214
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by prasannasimha »

IIST was started as Madhavan Nair APJ Kalam got zero people coming for IIT's to ISRO and DTDO. The ones they wnated refused and the ones they got were not adequate in their knowledge and they then thought they should start an Institute to train people for their requirements.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32278
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by chetak »

shiv wrote:
chetak wrote: never ever heard of an engine that requires overhaul more frequently because of gun firing but I have heard of airframes that add extra time to the airframe hours whenever an armament related sortie is flown.
This is because gun gases are prevented from entering engines by rigorous testing. Air Marshal Rajkumar in his chapter in the MiG 21 history book says that K-13 missile firing was always done only after turning on the engine relight switch.
many airline companies and also many mil operators have SOPs that require that the ignitors are turned on during heavy rain too.

The position of the guns are usually dictated by the aircraft geometry and not many positions are available either to mount internal guns or gun packs. Testing and firing limitations have to be determined keeping these constraints in mind.

Almost always its a tradeoff.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32278
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by chetak »

shiv wrote:
chetak wrote:
How come other manufacturers haven't ever reported such unique conditions which would have resulted in a lot of engine testing in such "unique" Indian conditions??
They have - but this is about the air force. I have heard (literally) that wear and tear of IAF engines is higher because of smoke and dust. But I am unable to provide a source - will try and locate one.
let me give you the example of flying in goa. The IN flies predominantly from coastal bases and different contaminants affect IN engines. That's why IN aviation, (as well as non aviation) equipment is "marinised" The IN engines, the airframes and the LRUs are much more expensive because of such "marinisation" incorporated into the design, build as well as the extensive + expensive lengthy testing procedures required for the qualification of such equipment.

The goan air has a very high particulate matter content and the particulate matter is predominantly iron ore dust. This comes from the open cast mining practiced in goa.

Goa has a saline atmosphere like any coastal city/state due to the high saline content of the sea air.

So, you wind up with salt, water, and iron which when put together forms a perfect battery compromising anode, cathode, and electrolyte. Currents flow in these localized batteries and produce corrosion of the engine blades apart from the abrasive problems posed by such particulate matter

I still remember, after all these years, the utter surprise and deep shock on the face of a gora tech rep when we "washed" a running engine in front of him by pumping a mixture of distilled water and some chemicals directly into the intake of a running engine. The process took 25 minutes to complete and he was in a great panic throughout and he tried to stop us many times. For us, it was merely a mundane procedure that we carried out regularly and as a matter of routine.

Our procedures were not even known to the Designer/manufacturer of the engine nor was anyone else interested in following our procedures which served us very well in safeguarding our engines.

The dazed gora tech rep later asked if he could have a copy of our "washing" procedure and it was willingly given to him.

Much later, I heard that some others in India also started "washing" their engines when earlier they had loudly laughed at us.

Engines with a high magnesium content tend to have corrosion and other abrasion problems, especially in an atmosphere like goa. Many many countries have similar or even more diverse airborne particulate and chemical issues in their atmospheres. P&W seems to be flying OK there or is it simply too expensive to talk of "special conditions", especially when lawyers also attend tech meetings in those countries??

These days magnesium is mostly out and/or other alloys have taken their place which are treated and show vastly improved performance in the presence of contaminants both particulate as well as chemical.

So when some joker from P&W condescendingly yaps about the "special conditions" in India, its pure, unadulterated BS and someone there thinks that he has bamboozled us dumb SDREs.

In some form or the other, such conditions obtain all over the world. and their piss poor new gen 321 engines are supposed to perform, notwithstanding, and if they do not, it can usually be traced back to a design issue.

There is enough shooklaw type paid media to carry fake news in every part of the world, especially when hired gora guns are hunting SDREs just to silence them.
Last edited by chetak on 01 Jan 2018 16:49, edited 1 time in total.
Abhibhushan
BRFite
Posts: 210
Joined: 28 Sep 2005 20:56
Location: Chennai

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Abhibhushan »

Ramana wrote
Re heat and dust of India and Aero engines.
What do you make of this gun firing brouhaha for LCA?
Gun gas ingestion is an old challenge for a designer. We had our full measure of gas ingestion problem with the Gnat. Finally we accepted the aircraft with a compromise solution: the engine power was reduced automatically by a ‘Dip Switch’ if guns were fired above 20000 feet altitude. (Fortunately, the Gnat never faced an enemy at above 20K in its total operational life.

Problems faced by the Tejas will also be overcome, through technology or through operational techniques/compromises)
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by JayS »

chetak wrote: when we "washed" a running engine in front of him by pumping a mixture of distilled water and some chemicals directly into the intake of a running engine.
Now that's what I call it "Badass". :wink: Very interesting info. Thanks for sharing.

Which engine was that.? If you don't mind sharing..
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by chola »

Time to set up multiple engine development oganizations, including the private sector, that can compete with each other.

If not, even a successful SNECMA Kaveri won’t make much of a difference. We need an INDUSTRY not a singular project.

The PRC looks like it had broken through the engine barrier in 2017 with a flood of new prototypes and tests. Maybe dhoti-shivering can create some urgency.

Posted in AFM:
https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthr ... ost2424982
2017 Engine Advances
1) WS-10 variant on J-20 bort number 2021

2) WS-10X with AVEN nozzles on a J-10B/C

3) WS-19 engine prototype assembled *

4) WS-20 engine nearing testing on Y-20

5) CJ-1000A prototype assembled **

6) WS-15 reported in March to be “ready soon” ***

7) WZ-10 turboshaft reported to be ready and powering Z-20 prototypes

8 ) 2nd FC-31 prototype reportedly flew with WS-13

* The WS-19 is to be the uprated engine to be paired with the FC-31 which is increasingly cited as the next Chinese carrier fighter.

** The CJ-1000A is a LEAP-level domestic engine from ACAE, a commercial engine builder, for the C-919
Post Reply