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
neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 857
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by neerajb »

Rahul M wrote:************************Attention*************************
If you have questions (even technical ones) about kaveri or about engine development in India in general don't hesitate to put them here.
Question : Media reports say that Kaveri has achieved the required dry thrust but has achived 90-95% of the required afterburner thrust. It is being claimed that Single Crystal blades should solve Kaveri's problems. My question is when dry thrust is a non issue but wet thrust is, then why SC blades are being offered as a solution whereas the media reports suggest that afterburner section needs further fine tuning and not the turbines? Though the move towards SC blades is most welcomed.

Cheers....
neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 857
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by neerajb »

Yogi_G wrote:What are the export chances for LCA (boss I DO know the aircraft still hasnt cleared FOC)? am just thinking on the lines of amortization, reduction of unit cost price etc with export of LCA.....
I don't think that numbers will help much in bringing down the unit cost. Unlike Raptors 30 billion USD development cost, Tejas development cost is a mere 1.5-2 billion USD.

Cheers....
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7900
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Anujan »

1. There was some talk about selecting a foreign partner for a JV for the Kaveri. News reports are conflicting about this (selected/not selected/it is snecma), any comments ?
2. There was some talk by the IAF about Tejas Mk2 and future orders for Tejas incumbent upon a better performing engine. Does this impact Kaveri timeline ? Viability ?
3. Are there definitive plans for KMGT ? Any firm commitments by the navy for existing/future ships ?
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4728
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by putnanja »

IAF not keen on French offer for Kaveri engine
IAF not keen on French offer for Kaveri engine



Ravi Sharma


BANGALORE: Indian Air Force (IAF) is not keen on accepting an offer from the French company Snecma to join the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) in co-developing the long-delayed Kaveri turbofan combat aircraft engine.

The Kaveri engine, which has been under development at the GTRE for two decades at a cost of almost Rs.2,000 crore, is specifically being built to power the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft Tejas.

A committee set up by the IAF has indicated to Air Headquarters that the Snecma offer will not meet the Air Force’s operational requirements, nor help India acquire the technological know-how to indigenously develop a combat engine.

Constituted in September under the chairmanship of Air Vice Marshal M. Matheswaran, to look at the Snecma offer, the committee had as its members representatives from the designers of the Tejas - the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), the manufacturers of the Tejas - the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), the Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification, and IAF officers posted at ADA, the National Flight Test Centre and the Aircraft Systems and Testing Establishment.

Not in India’s interest


Highly placed sources told The Hindu that the committee felt that the Snecma offer was not in the IAF and India’s interest primarily because the French were offering a fully developed engine accepting which would “compromise and even kill the efforts, however meagre” that Indian defence laboratories had made towards developing the indigenous Kaveri engine.

The offer would also not help India get a co-designed, co-developed engine but rather an engine under a licence production arrangement, and at a great financial cost.


Explained a member of the committee: “It would be better if GTRE and other laboratories working on the Kaveri brought the engine to its logical conclusion even if it took a few more years. At least we would have mastery over the core technology. This will be better than importing the French core, paying a lifelong royalty, but saying the Kaveri is our indigenous effort. Neither the French nor anybody else will give us the know-how on the core technology.”

No production


The GTRE has been unable to come up with the engine’s core technology.
Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2449
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Yogi_G »

RaviBg wrote:IAF not keen on French offer for Kaveri engine
IAF not keen on French offer for Kaveri engine



Ravi Sharma


BANGALORE: Indian Air Force (IAF) is not keen on accepting an offer from the French company Snecma to join the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) in co-developing the long-delayed Kaveri turbofan combat aircraft engine.

The Kaveri engine, which has been under development at the GTRE for two decades at a cost of almost Rs.2,000 crore, is specifically being built to power the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft Tejas.

A committee set up by the IAF has indicated to Air Headquarters that the Snecma offer will not meet the Air Force’s operational requirements, nor help India acquire the technological know-how to indigenously develop a combat engine.

Constituted in September under the chairmanship of Air Vice Marshal M. Matheswaran, to look at the Snecma offer, the committee had as its members representatives from the designers of the Tejas - the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), the manufacturers of the Tejas - the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), the Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification, and IAF officers posted at ADA, the National Flight Test Centre and the Aircraft Systems and Testing Establishment.

Not in India’s interest


Highly placed sources told The Hindu that the committee felt that the Snecma offer was not in the IAF and India’s interest primarily because the French were offering a fully developed engine accepting which would “compromise and even kill the efforts, however meagre” that Indian defence laboratories had made towards developing the indigenous Kaveri engine.

The offer would also not help India get a co-designed, co-developed engine but rather an engine under a licence production arrangement, and at a great financial cost.


Explained a member of the committee: “It would be better if GTRE and other laboratories working on the Kaveri brought the engine to its logical conclusion even if it took a few more years. At least we would have mastery over the core technology. This will be better than importing the French core, paying a lifelong royalty, but saying the Kaveri is our indigenous effort. Neither the French nor anybody else will give us the know-how on the core technology.”

No production


The GTRE has been unable to come up with the engine’s core technology.
I am not sure if I should be happy or sad for this news but one thing for sure is that I am very proud of the IAF for its views on the indigenization of the engine. I hope this peps up the GTRE folks further and am sure they will develop Kaveri to the satisfaction of the IAF....

Now if the army could only think like the IAF :evil:
Dhanush
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 37
Joined: 15 Jun 2008 23:58

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Dhanush »

Yogi_G wrote:
RaviBg wrote:IAF not keen on French offer for Kaveri engine

IAF not keen on French offer for Kaveri engine
That is a great approach and this will be a landmark decision (if taken). It will signal to the community that we are not afraid of failures and we will continue our R&D efforts to reach our goals. An off-the-shelf engine can be purchased for LCA MK2 and Kaveri will be pursued with. That would mean GTRE and Kaveri gets time and budget to finish the project with reasonable goals.
Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Raj Malhotra »

IAF should also put money where their mouth is! Give a contract for 15 AJT-LCA with Kaveri engine to be delivered between 2015-2025.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5873
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Kartik »

what this confuses me about is regarding the Mk.2 variant- I can understand if the IAF rejected the Snecma M-88-2 offer disguised as a co-developed Kaveri-M-88-2 because it didn't meet their operational requirements, but now what ? they'll only get fully built F-414s or EJ-200s, and India won't gain any technological knowhow with them either, although they may be operationally sufficient. looks like the ball is back in GTRE's court to overcome whatever issues they have on their own- no company in the world is going to teach them how to.
vsharm
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 2
Joined: 26 Dec 2008 18:26

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by vsharm »

Kartik wrote:what this confuses me about is regarding the Mk.2 variant- I can understand if the IAF rejected the Snecma M-88-2 offer disguised as a co-developed Kaveri-M-88-2 because it didn't meet their operational requirements, but now what ? they'll only get fully built F-414s or EJ-200s, and India won't gain any technological knowhow with them either, although they may be operationally sufficient. looks like the ball is back in GTRE's court to overcome whatever issues they have on their own- no company in the world is going to teach them how to.
u are right to be confused -who wouldn't with the Kaveri saga. Seems to me to be another way for some vested interest to kill off the LCA+kaveri : keep changing the specs, keep inventing new selection processes when it is blatent that GTRE will not -by their own admission - be able to develop the engine. Sell it off as a completion of the indigenization process so that u can sell your arguments and then a few years down say it doesn't meet requirements - so u need to buy a readymade engine (preferably US) or even better kill the LCA and buy the latest US or Russian fighter...
skganji
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 93
Joined: 01 Dec 2007 01:21
Location: U.SA/India.

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by skganji »

I have been reading all the comments recently on Kaveri and I firmly believe that the goals/milestones cannot be shifted as you like ( this is what IAF is doing ) and expect GTRE to deliver you the Kaveri engine for the overweighted LCA. Why is IAF expecting too much from LCA ?. Indigenious efforts are always fruitful in the long run and for the country. Please don't kill LCA/Kaveri, just like what army has done to Arjun tanks. I hope the high altitude tests of Kaveri in next Feb/Mar will be successfull and the last two technical problems for Kaveri will be resolved soon. GTRE should fully utilize all the money that is left for this project and be aggressive about meeting deadlines.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by SaiK »

i can understand the issues.. but i felt this long back that gtre should be reshuffled. why has this not done? more heavy weight people like kalam sahib, isro gurus can be in the executive team. its a matter of few inputs here and there based on an agile agenda. check out how p&w established highest level of cmm with in their org. money alone doesnt matter. we need the right minds in the right places.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by SaiK »

shiv wrote:
kuldipchager wrote:If we can somehow put this AL-31f in LCA,we can fly LCA mach 2-plus.Need some work to be done and we don't have to waiste $10bils on MRCA.I am sure russian will love to work on this project.
How would that help kuldipchager? Do you have any idea how it would help to have the LCA flying Mach 2
the al31 s length itself is near 200", while LCA can accommodate not more than 150".

however just thought of the interesting point where Kaveri could gain.. extending the current 137" to 150" inches would increase thrust? more combustion space? -> move over to Kaveri thread./ot
Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Kailash »

SaiK wrote:i can understand the issues.. but i felt this long back that gtre should be reshuffled. why has this not done? more heavy weight people like kalam sahib, isro gurus can be in the executive team. its a matter of few inputs here and there based on an agile agenda. check out how p&w established highest level of cmm with in their org. money alone doesnt matter. we need the right minds in the right places.
Well I don't think it is the lack of brains. But every change cannot be tested and optimized on actual models and we lack the cutting edge software for CAD/FEA/Simulation etc. Our in-house products are simply not good enough. So decision to manufacture a version Kn+1 after a Kn would be deferred till it justifies the design changes and cost.
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7900
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Anujan »

Rahul M wrote:************************Attention*************************
one of our esteemed members will be going to GTRE shortly and will have access to the people who have the answers we seek.
Any updates on the visit ? Did it happen yet ?
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17167
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Rahul M »

I think we should have some updates in a couple of days. hopefully.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by SaiK »

Kailash wrote:
SaiK wrote:i can understand the issues.. but i felt this long back that gtre should be reshuffled. why has this not done? more heavy weight people like kalam sahib, isro gurus can be in the executive team. its a matter of few inputs here and there based on an agile agenda. check out how p&w established highest level of cmm with in their org. money alone doesnt matter. we need the right minds in the right places.
Well I don't think it is the lack of brains. But every change cannot be tested and optimized on actual models and we lack the cutting edge software for CAD/FEA/Simulation etc. Our in-house products are simply not good enough. So decision to manufacture a version Kn+1 after a Kn would be deferred till it justifies the design changes and cost.
what do you you all think we need to make the cutting edge good enough? i am sure its not in the investments.
kvraghavaiah
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 16 Feb 2008 17:20
Location: Chennai
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by kvraghavaiah »

Rahul M wrote:I think we should have some updates in a couple of days. hopefully.
Please post the following details when you get the information.

1. What is the highest achieved dry thrust and after burner thrust by indegenous kaveri till now.
2. Is it's weight to power ration equal (at least optimal) to the similar engines in US and Europe.
3. Are there any unsolved issues with respect to technolgy of the digital engine controller, fan blades strength and shaping, durability of the engine, injection systems and ruggedness.
4. What dry thrust and after burner thrust is enough to be achieved to meet the so called IAF MK II LCAs and what is being done to achieve this (any foriegn collaboration and in what).
5. What is the status of the thrust vectoring nozzle technology.
6. Is there initiative to develope other turbofans with diffrent powers, helocopter engines and engines for heavy vedicles like tanks.
Drevin
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 12:27

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Drevin »

more question for the gtre guys,
Q: What is the new timeline and how many more k variants will there be before it can power a foc-spec lca/nlca?
Q: Will it not be easier for GTRE to simultaneously start a new program that develops a mk2 kaveri with a more powerful mk2 core?
KrishG
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 1290
Joined: 25 Nov 2008 20:43
Location: Land of Trala-la

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by KrishG »

I think that the present weight of Tejas would require about 60-62kN of military thrust to super-cruise and what we have achieved is 52kN.
aditp
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by aditp »

A krish wrote:I think that the present weight of Tejas would require about 60-62kN of military thrust to super-cruise and what we have achieved is 52kN.
Supercruise has never been a requirement for LCA / NLCA. Let GTRE first deliver on the specified performance parameters before we add fancy features.
KrishG
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 1290
Joined: 25 Nov 2008 20:43
Location: Land of Trala-la

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by KrishG »

aditp wrote:
A krish wrote:I think that the present weight of Tejas would require about 60-62kN of military thrust to super-cruise and what we have achieved is 52kN.
Supercruise has never been a requirement for LCA / NLCA. Let GTRE first deliver on the specified performance parameters before we add fancy features.
Supercruise is not a fancy feature. It saves fuel because with full afterburner the engine uses a lot of fuel. Most of the aircraft today need a lot of thrust to Super-cruise. If we can get it on Tejas it would be commendable. That can be achieved by the FE-414 engine but it is costly.
Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Raj Malhotra »

I think the proper question to GTRE should be "What is the plans for engine for MCA", considering that kaveri and LCA will most probably remain heer ranjha
Drevin
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 12:27

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Drevin »

Before asking them about details about engine kaveri and kaveri2 we should get a written legal statement from the iaf showing what thrust levels they need for what weight aircraft in asr format. :mrgreen: That way the iaf doesn't play spoil sport when gtre does finally deliver on kaveri2/kaveri.
kobe
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 28 Nov 2008 14:26
Location: Tang Bohu' Village, Suzhou

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by kobe »

there exists an official whine thread for stuff like this.
don't defile this thread.
Last edited by Rahul M on 12 Jan 2009 19:47, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: OT post.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by SaiK »

ask about the status of SC blades.
Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Kailash »

Engine thrust only one side of the coin. What about the weight reduction, material research in that direction?
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17167
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Rahul M »

The member is back from his sojourn to the heart of India's aerospace industry.
The following are excerpts from his email :
(There are some good and bad news with the bad news presented up front, in accordance with the email ordering. The highlights are mine)

Unfortunately, unlike the guys at NAL, IISC, ASTE and CABS, who turned out to be very proactive in their discussions with yours truly, the guys at the GTRE were not overly helpful to my queries. The best I could get out of that place other than actually seeing the engines was to get the lead guy to accept a written version of my queries as a favor. he says he will get back to me later. When I get the email from him, I will pass you a copy of his replies.

Nevertheless, here's some of my personal observations of the place:
a) Compared to the other institutions I have mentioned above, GTRE was almost deserted. No sign of life in that place compared to ASTE, for example.
b) The people working inside were almost lethargic as far as my interactions went. (Again, relatively speaking. NAL EAD (Experimental Aerodynamics Division) was buzzing with activity from mini UAV designs to Saras models being tested in large facilities)
c) The Kaveri engine is beautiful and an engineering masterpiece given the cost at which it has been made. According to the folks in the labs, they are now "within a few percent" of the required thrust levels
d) The Naval version of the engine is going ahead nicely. In fact, I saw more Navy guys at the place than IAF guys!
e) LCA integration remains a paper dream at this point. No fixed dates for any goals at that place. Before going there I had been told to expect this, but it was nevertheless disappointing.
f) SC blades still remains the lynchpin of the design. The Turbine temperatures remains limited until the issues with the SC blades are resolved, which in turn limits the thrust. As mentioned above, several labs are apparently working on the SC technology but again no fixed dates for anything.

The technical stuff in the questionnaire I submitted to the head honcho at GTRE will contain the answers to what the members at BR want to know, but it might be a week before I hear from my friend so don't hold your breath yet. Disappointing, I know, but that is the definition of the place as far as the guys at NAL, IISC etc think of GTRE. :(

Anyway, enough of the bad news. Now for some brief good news from the other Labs at NAL, ASTE and CABS:

a) LCA making good progress and experimental program to accelerate in the next two months.
b) Amazing (indeed groundbreaking is a better term) progress in Hypersonics both at IISC and NAL EAD. The HSTDV program has been made feasible is all I can say for now. Full flight test in 3 months. Modified Agni-I boost to 40km and then a 20 second burn using hydrogen injection across strut based injectors. Wind tunnel tests completed.
c) Pathbreaking advances in plasma drag reduction techniques (what we read briefly in the news etc) that reduce missile drag by 30% during reentry using the most simplest of techniques. In addition, the temperatures at the surface are reduced dramatically so that heat shield no longer needs to be as bulky as before. Reduced weight as a result leading to dramatic new values for the missile fuel-mass values.
d) Active noise control helmets for the LCA under design. These will cut out the engine background noise completely so that the pilot can listen to AWACS controls etc more clearly in the thick of combat.
e) Significant progress on the CABS AEW radar electronics. Aircraft integration studies underway.
f) Micro-UAV designs being studied at NAL for the Army.
g) Chetan Helicopter undergoing flight tests.
h) Some activity seen on the Avro "Hack" with regard to LCA MMR. (Though that was out of bounds for me, so not many more details here)
i) New self compensating aero-nozzles for SLVs and Multi-stage missiles. Reduces overall requirement for different stages with different nozzle area ratios and increases fuel carriage and so shows exponential increase in range for the same design sizes. In wind tunnels right now awaiting flight tests.
k) Base bleed studies underway for reduced missile drag. Also in wind tunnels at NAL EAD.
l) A new fixed wing design aircraft being designed at NAL. Very hush-hush, I am told. They wouldn't even tell me what the aircraft type was!!
g) NAL designers are talking of a new large body civilian airliner type aircraft project about to begin.
h) NAL collaborating with GTRE now for advances in afterburning engine nozzles. Also, NAL now beginning studies in turbine blade perfromance. They seem to be bypassing GTRE on a number of issues. This is something that became increasingly obvious after a few hours of talks with the people there.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17167
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Rahul M »

A request, I'll be reposting this post in some of the other threads, please take the non-kaveri discussions at the appropriate places.
thanks.
Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Kailash »

Rahul M wrote:f) SC blades still remains the lynchpin of the design. The Turbine temperatures remains limited until the issues with the SC blades are resolved, which in turn limits the thrust. As mentioned above, several labs are apparently working on the SC technology but again no fixed dates for anything.
weren't there some media reports on advancements in SC technology? How come this is suddenly being reverted?

Good that people are working on the afterburner - that may be their best bet with IAF acceptance. Other core changes may be a long time - with or without outside cooperation
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17167
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Rahul M »

don't think its a reversion. advancement doesn't necessarily mean completion.
lakshmikanth
BRFite
Posts: 723
Joined: 27 Oct 2008 10:07
Location: Bee for Baakistan

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by lakshmikanth »

Rahul M wrote: They seem to be bypassing GTRE on a number of issues. This is something that became increasingly obvious after a few hours of talks with the people there.
GTRE --> Ghass charnaa aur Timepass Reasearch Establishment????

If everyone knows about how "good" GTRE is when compared to the likes of ISRO or NAL... why is no one doing anything??? I am just wondering who are the main drivers that keep the org alive and not re-assign the project to a more efficient team?? Is there some power circle that protects it, or is it because the tech that they developed is good enough for the Navy?
Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2449
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Yogi_G »

lakshmikanth wrote:
Rahul M wrote: They seem to be bypassing GTRE on a number of issues. This is something that became increasingly obvious after a few hours of talks with the people there.
GTRE --> Ghass charnaa aur Timepass Reasearch Establishment????

If everyone knows about how "good" GTRE is when compared to the likes of ISRO or NAL... why is no one doing anything??? I am just wondering who are the main drivers that keep the org alive and not re-assign the project to a more efficient team?? Is there some power circle that protects it, or is it because the tech that they developed is good enough for the Navy?
From reading the stuff on various labs working on SC blades, I think GTRE is on "standby" mode waiting for the improved "stuff" which can come from this research....The note on being very close to acquiring the desired thrust also to some extent lends some credence to this line of thought...but honestly just as the managers who grossly underestimated the costs and material of Gorky are having their a$$ whipped now, the people who promised to deliver Kaveri on such ridiculous schedules need to have their whipped too...unfortunately though the GTRE has been doing a good job on the Kaveri all the criticism surrounding the engine has probably de-motivate and wiped out their enthu...
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by SaiK »

had been to gtre, blr during 88-90s.. same type of enthu i saw. their moto remains the same even now.. 'cause of other labs helping them, it remains a concern.. else, they should be transferring those enthu ones from ISRO, NAL to GTRE, and send existing gtre folks to assembly shops in HAL karaput.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by SaiK »

here is the old link about the ambitions:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/19 ... ition.html

and it was on trial heats on 2006 report from dmrl
http://www.midhani.com/downloads/anlrep0506-en.pdf - Trial heats of Supercast 247A (directionallysolidified Super alloy) required for Kaveri AeroEngine Blade/vane application
2005, the blade casting techs were shown to kalam saab.
http://www.drdo.org/pub/nl/oct05/president_dmrl.htm
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by SaiK »

Drevin
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 12:27

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Drevin »

Cross-posting from LCA thread. This post was made by account Jayram and seemed very relevant to the current ongoing discussion.
Re SC Blades in Kaveri..
I have fundamental doubts wiether this is the only limiting technology to boost the thrust numbers for the Engine. The reason the world over has switched to SC insted of Directionly solidified blades is greater "sustained" operating temperatures and therefore greater "sustained" thrust. However there is nothing stopping the Kaveri folks from running the existing non SC turbine blades at higher temperatures to get the required thrust with the caveat being it will not be sustanied in other words you should be able to gain "short term" higher thrust by running your engine at higher temperatures proved you are willing to sacrifice long term engine life. So has anybody confirmed that Kaveri is able to produce higher "short term" thrust at the expense of engine life thereby validating the basic turbine and blade design?

The reason for SC v/s DS blades in turbine technology is that SC offers better fatigue life and creep resistance at higher temperatures but there is nothing preventing the engine designers from sacrificing engine life in say one engine to validate their design no?

BTW Single Crystal technology is nothing esoteric by now - it has now been around for over 20 years now and most major turbine shops have swtiched over to this technology for its benefits. Check the number of google hits on this topic and the number of papers in open source for confirmation. I am sure DRDO or the world class brains in IISc would have cracked it by now. However the challenge is in getting "your" blade cast correctly to get SC growth since everyones design of the blade and the metallurgy of the alloy will be slightly different.

Dissenting views on this are welcome.
--Jayram
Jayram hope you don't mind.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by SaiK »

imho, its not the technology capability, but production or precision engineering setup and gigs.
A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1253
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by A Sharma »

Link

CEMILAC certificates for ETBR&DC engines
ETBR&DC Division, Bangalore has been accorded Military Airworthiness Type Approval for two indigenous Gas Turbine Engines from the Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification (CEMILAC).The two gas turbine engines, namely, Pilotless Target Aircraft Engine (PTAE-7) and Gas Turbine Starter Unit (GTSU-110) are the first two indigenous Aero Gas Turbine Engines to obtain the CEMILAC certification in the country. While PTAE-7 is to power the pilotless Target Aircraft Lakshya, GTSU-110 is to start the main engine of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas.
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4728
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by putnanja »

IAF, research firm lock horns
IAF, research firm lock horns
Bidanda M Chengappa ,DH News Service,Bangalore:
The Indian Air Force (IAF) and the City-based Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) are divided over development of the controversial Kaveri engine for the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA).


Informed sources aver that the Kaveri engine, if developed with its present thrust, is insufficient to power the LCA in accordance with the IAF's operational requirements. This implies that the Kaveri engine has to be re-designed to generate a higher thrust. Therefore the IAF has already convinced the government to de-link the Kaveri engine from the first few LCA squadrons.

The GTRE, which forms part of the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), was compelled to seek help from foreign aero-engine majors to co-develop the Kaveri engine in late 2004, because it could not make much headway having spent Rs 2,000 crore since 1989. The GTRE lacks the know-how to develop 'hot end' components for an aero- engine which comprise the core of the Kaveri engine. Considering only a handful of eastern countries possess the scientific capability to develop aero-engine technologies, the GTRE felt that joint development was the only solution to get the Kaveri engine ready for the LCA on some schedule.

Accordingly the GTRE was keen on co-development of the Kaveri engine with the French aero-engine manufacturer Snecma.
The French offer proposes to bring the core of an already developed M-82 Eco engine in the late 1970s and tailored for the Rafale fighter aircraft for use in the Kaveri.

However the IAF has serious reservations about the transfer of technology route for further development of the Kaveri engine. Accepting the Snecma offer implies importing the core and its integration with the Kaveri engine; besides paying a lifelong royalty, say the sources. This French technology would cost the exchequer dearly and also lead to a technology transfer stretched out over a 15-year period, they add.

An IAF committee, instituted in September 2008 to study the Snecma offer, feels that it would not meet the air force's operational requirement nor help to acquire technology for futuristic development of an aero-engine for a fighter aircraft.
It also observes that the offer would prove detrimental to the DRDOs efforts to develop the Kaveri engine till now.

The GTRE and the Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory, Hyderabad have been at the forefront of the Kaveri engine development and form part of the DRDO 's 49 laboratories spread across the length and breadth of the country.

The original deal was that both partners, namely, the GTRE and the chosen foreign aero-engine major would contribute financially and technologically in equal measure.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Vivek K »

This is getting more and more confusing. Some sources IIRC have said that Kaveri is at 95% of required thrust. Well, that would not present a hopeless situation. Now other articles paint a hopeless picture.

We need fresh impetus to the Kaveri and the takeover of research by HAL Engine division may provide that. Take HAL's best brains and make them run the research.
Post Reply