Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Jun 2010 22:15

>>With the help of Indian R&D (which it seems does not quite exist)?

If it does not exist, where did the Kaveri itself come from and the point of this thread? Lock it and be done with it.

>>Or with help, as in "deal with Safran"? In which case Indian R&D will be still hobbling and "Kaveri" would be one-and-done.

Maitya got it but you didnt. Please reread what is written above.

>>Point being is there political will to fund a proper R&D effort that will support Kaveri AND BEYOND. Or it it asking for too much?

What else does Kaveri to its logical conclusion mean. There is ample data already about the multiple programs which are built around the Kaveri, as is. Once the Kaveri, for fighters is developed, you will see more movement at that end as well.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jun 2010 23:55

Wow.

Mrinal wrote: If it does not exist, where did the Kaveri itself come from and the point of this thread? Lock it and be done with it.

IF it did exist perhaps we have outsourced it to Safran!!!!!! And, we would have the Kaveri already in the LCA!!!!!

The point of this thread is to get clarificationS among other things.

Maitya got it but you didnt. Please reread what is written above.

Did it occur to you that Maitya could have been following the discussion far more closely than others? Wow.

What else does Kaveri to its logical conclusion mean. There is ample data already about the multiple programs which are built around the Kaveri, as is. Once the Kaveri, for fighters is developed, you will see more movement at that end as well.

It could mean - as I had posted - that it was one-and-done - produce something called Kaveri, put it into a LCA and call it a day. And, I am not looking for "more movement". I would like to know if Safran will want Indian consultancy. Or is India going to run back to Russia or the like for more help.

I do not know what you ate, but perhaps you need to cool it a wee bit.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jun 2010 04:50

NRao wrote:Wow.
IF it did exist perhaps we have outsourced it to Safran!!!!!! And, we would have the Kaveri already in the LCA!!!!
The point of this thread is to get clarificationS among other things.

Are comments such as "IF it did exist perhaps we have outsourced it to Safran" meant to be taken seriously or are they not just rhetoric? The Kaveri already exists, ergo there was and is capability to do that much. The discussion is about what next..the issue is time. The requirements for the Kaveri derivatives are linked to strict timelines, and which is why Safran can play a vital role.

Did it occur to you that Maitya could have been following the discussion far more closely than others? Wow.

Well, you jumped into a discussion wherein the assumption would be you understood the flow of the discussion. If you looked through the entire discussion yourself, you'd understand it far better than I would be able to tell you. Maitya could possibly explain it better than I could, I just said what I could..

It could mean - as I had posted - that it was one-and-done - produce something called Kaveri, put it into a LCA and call it a day. And, I am not looking for "more movement". I would like to know if Safran will want Indian consultancy. Or is India going to run back to Russia or the like for more help.

How do you know that it was "produce something called Kaveri, put it into a LCA and call it a day" vis a vis what I had written. I wrote "logical conclusion" as I was discussing with maitya. From my end "logical conclusion" means to use the Kaveri & derived designs on as many platforms as possible.

You jump in, misconstrue my words & then proceed to type even more furious responses when I point out otherwise. Please cool down.

And here : "I would like to know if Safran will want Indian consultancy. Or is India going to run back to Russia or the like for more help." -

Look, "if Safran will want" - there is no "if" and "will" here as I pointed out. The agreement stipulates for x amount of money that Safran will agree to do y. Its up to us to make sure it happens. This deal has been in the negotiation for a long while precisely around the amount of x and y.

Then " Or is India going to run back to Russia or the like for more help." - if India had to take Russia's help for the Kaveri, it would have done so long back. We just rely on them for test facilities & validation, thats about it. We have visited their facilities and know what they can and cannot do, but chose to go with Safran.

And "I am not looking for "more movement" - ?? Let me repeat - once the Kaveri 2 or whatever is finished or rather well underway, you'll get more news on what they have planned for its growth path. They are not going to come out with details of its 30 yr growth plan before the program kicks off & starts delivering. Theres no point in us discussing this either. First let the deal get signed.

I do not know what you ate, but perhaps you need to cool it a wee bit.

Sir, you are the one with the sarcastic smileys and aggressive responses & you are asking me to cool it? Ok..

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Jun 2010 07:21

Apologies for the smiley. However, I have not come across a more confrontational poster in 10-15 years on BR. (There have been some who have been very ego centric - one of 25 Ph. D. in the world, etc ............ but that is a different story.)

Based on another thread I had suspected something that you confirmed:

you jumped into a discussion wherein the assumption would be you understood the flow of the discussion

True, but it is very common for a thread to go in different directions. This is not a knock on you, but I think you are incapable of participating in a general discussion (which is OK - just an observation on my part, not a criticism). It is very normal for someone to "jumped into a discussion ..........."

Maitya could possibly explain it better than I could ..........

Not necessary. His interests seem to be at a much, much granular level than mine. I am actually at the other end of the spectrum - macro level issues. And, if you are unable to respond to my questions that is OK too. I do not expect everyone to know everything. (I do not understand most of his post anyways.)

From my end "logical conclusion" means to use the Kaveri & derived designs on as many platforms as possible.

once the Kaveri 2 or whatever is finished or rather well underway, you'll get more news on what they have planned for its growth path. They are not going to come out with details of its 30 yr growth plan before the program kicks off & starts delivering.

Thanks. That is the type of answers that lead somewhere - without confrontations. I understand you better with those answers.

Anyways, my question is not quite answered, but that is OK.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 21 Jun 2010 15:15

nukavarapu wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:nukavarapu,

I will call then next week and try to figure out.
Thanks a million!

I have verbal answers for this. I will post details when it comes.

The testing is over. Now it has to be put on as a replacement on four engined plane and test flown. Don't ask me more Q's. it will come in time.

steve · Post by **steve** » 21 Jun 2010 16:22

I have verbal answers for this. I will post details when it comes.
The testing is over. Now it has to be put on as a replacement on four engined plane and test flown. Don't ask me more Q's. it will come in time.

What do you mean by "testing is over"....?

Putting it on "four engined plane" ( which is we all know i.e, IL-76 )

and to be "test flown"........... is also part of testing or to be precise "High altitude testing".

In fact we are into final phase of testing. But it is not the case as such that " Testing " is completely over .

Your words are giving a impression that it is only now kaveri engine has completed ground testing and for the first time is going to be tested in high altitude.

On the contrary It has gone through number of high altitude testing in Russia initially on tupolev aircraft (test bed) and latter replaced by more modern test bed like IL-76.

Take a look at the below news report: april 7 th 2010

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/626 ... t-may.html

Kaveri engine flight test in May
Bangalore: Apr 7, DHNS

"Kaveri engine will be flight-tested in the next one and-half months. It should be after middle of May, using the IL-76 aircraft in Russia”, said Rao.

As the month of may is long gone by now the High altitude trials should have started.

The altitude tests conducted at Russia in February were a grand success, according to Rao.

The reason why Mr Rao ( Director GTRE ) says

"tests conducted at Russia in February were a grand success"

is that for the first time the turbine blades stopped comming of the kaveri engine ( It was a major problem that came in to picture when they started testing Kaveri engine) .

http://angle-of-attack.blogspot.com/201 ... pdate.html

However the good news is that the tendency to throw blades is now rectified and the engine is safe

Now as for as High altitude testing is concerned what you are saying is very much outdated news.

The latest update you could give us can be

1. How many sorties they have completed till now in Russia.
2. How many Hours of testing has taken places till now (In the latest phase of testing).
3. By what date will the present High altitude testing (In all probability the last one) going to be completed.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 21 Jun 2010 17:46

I also said Don't ask me more Q's. it will come in time.

Any chance you think, I have not read those reports? I also had similar reactions "what do you mean by tests are over? Must be HAW testing etc.

But, i guess its not supposed to be like that. I think, the K-9 engine will be overweight but is going in for IOC or FOC. It needs to be put in some flying bed and run for prescribed hours. Then it will be integrated to the originally meant platform and has to perform further flying hours. Then the engine will be certified.

As I said, i am also waiting for that in written before I promote it as an article.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 22 Jun 2010 03:34

Shouldn't this engine be flown for 300-400 hours in a dual engine test bed of sorts like an old mig-29 which can qualify this jet engine for a certian number of hours before being retrofitted in the single engine bird like the LCA? Why not have like 2 old mig-29s specifically bought and retrofitted with sensors for this purpose from old VVS stock. Qualify the engine for about 1000-1500 hours before moving it to forward.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 22 Jun 2010 03:49

Cybaru - that would make too much sense. That is why it will not be done.

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Jun 2010 06:40

Cybaru the kind of testing you are talking about is done on large aircraft for you do not want to risk the entire programme by doing such testing on a platform where the only source of power is the very engine being tested unless you meant replacing only one RD-33 with Kaveri which if done perhaps would ground the AC. Iirc GTRE went to CIAM Moscow where they carried the Exploratory altitude testing of Kaveri on a IL-76 testbed (one of the nacelles is re-engined with Kaveri and if my understanding is correct it is lighted only in mid flight at a designated altitude) , and as for the safety afaik the IL-76 can safely land on just 2 engines.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 23 Jun 2010 03:31

Sure, the airframe may require some modification and yes only one out of the two engine should be changed. Most of these birds can safely land on one engine.

If il-76 is what we need, perhaps we should have it flying out of India till Kaveri is a success. Small price to pay for a real engine.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jun 2010 04:26

Cybaru,

India does not seem to have reached critical mass in Engines to invest in such programs - yet.

I suspect once Kaveri matures AND other engines come into play India will have to invest in such programs. Till then what is there will have to do.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 25 Jun 2010 22:42

^^
Is one of the letters in Cyrillic script?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Jun 2010 23:26

it could be the russi engine used in nirbhay for all we know and possible that aroor has mixed up.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 25 Jun 2010 23:30

http://www.npo-saturn.ru/?slang=1

Prasun has to say this in his blog...

To be powered by a NPO Saturn-supplied 36MT turbofan rated at 400kg thrust, the Nirbhay’s target drone variant will be capable of cruising at a speed of Mach 0.92 at medium altitudes (10,000 feet) and 1,100kph at sea level, have a flight endurance of two hours, will sea-skim at 10 metres above sea level, will be able to pull up to 6.5 G, be equipped with a 130kg payload (of up to 24 different types such as towed radar/infra-red reflector/augmentation devices, EW jammers and hit-scorer avionics), and will have a digital flight management system that will enable the drone to undertake various flight manoeuvres like snaking, pop-up and a 40-degree dive. The ship-launched variant of Nirbhay will be equipped with twin solid-propellant boosters that will be ejected once the drone is airborne, while for the IAF, it will be configured for launch from an IL-76MD transport aircraft. For recovery purposes, both variants of the drone will be equipped with parachutes and inflatable air-bags. The drone will have a maximum takeoff weight of 650kg (minus the twin boosters), overall length of 5.5 metres, wingspan of 2.5 metres, and a fuselage diameter of 0.40 metres. The Nirbhay’s theatre reconnaissance CTOL-UAV variant for the IAF will be equipped with an X-band inverse synthetic aperture radar (most likely the EL/M-20600 from ELTA Systems of Israel), a wideband two-way data link, and a ring laser gyro-based inertial navigation system coupled to a GPS receiver. Maiden flight of the drone’s first prototype is scheduled for early 2009, while its CTOL-UAV variant is expected to fly later the same year. Present plans call for procuring up to 80 drones and 30 UAVs. Series production of the Nirbhay will be undertaken by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, while the 36MT turbofans will be procured off-the-shelf from NPO Saturn. In October 2006, NPO Saturn had inked a US$100 million contract with the DRDO under which the latter will deliver, starting this December, a total of 200 36MT turbofans through to 2010

Is it 200? I believe it something 300 & above....

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Jun 2010 23:33

^^^ talking of this one http://www.npo-saturn.ru/upload/editifr ... mage22.jpg

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 25 Jun 2010 23:35

Exact link:

http://www.npo-saturn.ru/?pid=95

negi · Post by **negi** » 25 Jun 2010 23:35

Yep 36MT looks similar to the one in Aroor's blog (13 fan blades ).

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 26 Jun 2010 02:55

Sorry for the double post, i posted this in the LCA thread by mistake then realised it belongs here,

VIDEO: Kaveri Turbofan Demonstrating Dry Thrust & Afterburner - http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/06/vi ... g-dry.html

rajsunder · Post by **rajsunder** » 26 Jun 2010 04:09

nukavarapu wrote:Finally the speculation ends. Aroor confirms with a slide:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... 0/GTRE.JPG

Notable Points:

-TD under development with concurrent fabrication

-Partnership for core technologies with NPO saturn

-Proposed MoU under process for technical collaboration

From the above link it also says that they have developed a Air turbine starter for ground staring engines, does this mean that if they have to restart engines in the middle of flight that it cannot be done???

vina · Post by **vina** » 28 Jun 2010 09:28

Cross posting from LCA thread.

Hmm. The IAF have a point. The engine decision should be made pronto and the MKII with the EJ200/GE F414 should be inducted in time to meet operational requirements.

However, "rejecting" the Snecma/Kaveri on the grounds that DRDO will play "no role" in the development is not exactly true. While the core might be French, the low pressure spool will be Indian. There is no two ways about it. If you want the core technology , you should have minimum number of orders to make it worthwhile. It wont be as if anyone is going to pay $1b or whatever the value is upfront to Snecma or anyone. It will get amortized over the number of engines made.

The Eurojet /GE folks have made it clear that they are not going to share any hot section technology. The French have a core, and will need an enhanced core if the UAE Rafale with it's 90KN requirements are indeed true. Maybe Snecma/Kaveri with a guaranteed joint development period of 4 years for the UAE Rafale and also LCA MKII (replacement engine) can be justified.

I think the problem is basically this. For EJ/GE to be able to guarantee the best offer (commercial,manufacturing etc) for their engines, they will need the guarantee of the selected engine for the life of the LCA. They will not set up manufacturing here otherwise.

That "guaranteeing" volumes where the fight between the IAF and GTRE is and that is what Diyar Shook Law does not talk about or lets fall between the cracks.

IAF just doesn't want to order the initial 100 engines as an import and be done with it and expose the program to future risks. The rub is in the "import 10 engines and build the rest in India".

For GTRE/DRDO, some has to make a strategy big picture call. IFF India wants a fighter engine and spin offs, we need the MCA program and guaranteed no of orders. The GTRE/Snecma engine should target the MCA and have a minimum thrust rating of 95 to 100 KN.

Best case for all will be to tell EJ/GE, look, foggedabout this 100. There is a total of close to 1500 engines on offer + spin offs over the LCA + MCA programs+ other programs. So if either of you play ball and help out with the core for the 100 KN MCA engine, you get a larger share of a larger cake. If that happens, we can safely ditch Snecma and invest in a full manufacturing line for the EJ/GE (whichever makes it) and build around it.

But that kind of thing will require the Babus and Netas to actually in the MoD take their thumbs out of their a**es and start making decisions. This is a big picture strategy call. We know the record of those monkeys there in making these sorts of calls and decisions. This is a classic kind of decision making that will tie any Boor-o-Cracy into knots. Here the Yindoos will tie their undies and dhoties into a Goridon knot that simply cannot be undone.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Jun 2010 09:34

The issue - as I see it - is about can the Indian team deliver an Indian engine - now and in the future. I recall the previous CAS stating that the MCA should be entirely Indian (no Israeli help WRT radar, no exceptions - all IP should be Indian).

IF we are to believe this article, then the proposed Kaveri engine will still rely on the French to provide enhanced performances, etc - no Indian entity will know how to design a "core" (something the "co-development' could have resolved to some extent I would imagine - ???????). Then since part of the engine is Indian and part French there could be issues with growth - since they are not quite designed for each other.

Back to basics - R&D. Nothing like that.

For now at least I am with the IAF. Get a bundle from EJ (seems to be the best fit so far) and be happy until DRDO/GTRE get their hands on their own "core". Snecma is not doing India any favors. In fact I would suggest they are doing India a great disfavor by making DRDO reliant on Snecma. Either Snecma should provide greater knowledge transfer or move on.

vic · Post by **vic** » 28 Jun 2010 14:04

vina wrote:Cross posting from LCA thread.

However, "rejecting" the Snecma/Kaveri on the grounds that DRDO will play "no role" in the development is not exactly true. While the core might be French, the low pressure spool will be Indian. There is no two ways about it. If you want the core technology , you should have minimum number of orders to make it worthwhile. It wont be as if anyone is going to pay $1b or whatever the value is upfront to Snecma or anyone. It will get amortized over the number of engines made.

The Eurojet /GE folks have made it clear that they are not going to share any hot section technology. The French have a core, and will need an enhanced core if the UAE Rafale with it's 90KN requirements are indeed true. Maybe Snecma/Kaveri with a guaranteed joint development period of 4 years for the UAE Rafale and also LCA MKII (replacement engine) can be justified.

IIRC It seems that core will be from France and LP will be new developed in France & inspired by Indian Kaveri. Reads as everything will be French.Also IIRC EJ offered Single Crystal tech, deep ToT and or help in Kaveri for extra moolah. And in any case, French are also not doing ii for cheap. I have been saying for some time that some of the so called JVs are single vendor / non tender imports.DRDO & IAF should invite both EJ & Snecma ask the total price for all our requirements being:-

1. LCA Mark2 engine

2. Deep ToT plus tech like Single crystal, blisk, TBC etc

3. New Kaveri

4. Kaveri off shoots

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Jun 2010 18:33

This Ajai Shukla article really has nothing new. Most, if not all, of it is old stuff - 6 months old at least.

Dec 31, 2009 :: Kaveri project: DRDO gets nod for tie-up with French firm

BANGALORE: The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has been given the go-ahead by the government to take up an offer of French firm Snecma to ‘partner’ with the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) for jointly developing the Kaveri aero engine.

Senior GTRE officials told The Hindu that talks with Snecma “could start early next year.” The Kaveri’s eventual user, the Indian Air Force now appears to have softened its opposition to the tie-up, they said.

The Rs. 2,839-crore Kaveri engine programme was launched in 1989, specifically to power the Light Combat Aircraft, Tejas, now under development at the DRDO’s Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA). In 2005, the GTRE indicated that it would not be able to develop the Kaveri engine on its own.

Interestingly, the government’s nod, which is expected to cost the exchequer at least Rs 1,000 crore, comes nine months after a team, headed by Air Vice-Marshal M. Matheswaran and comprising officials from the ADA, the IAF and the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, submitted a report that stated that an engine developed jointly by Snecma and the GTRE would not meet the IAF’s performance requirements. The IAF also wanted the Kaveri project delinked from Tejas programme.

According to informed sources, members of the Matheswaran team were critical of the French passing off their existing and fully developed ‘Eco’ engine core. This, the team felt, would not give India the engine core design knowledge or even control over it. It also pointed out that the design technology being handed out would take years to come.

Based on the report, the French offer was put on the backburner with even officials from Snecma stating that the “chapter was closed.” But the IAF for reasons not yet clear, appear to have reversed its stand.

Snecma, which indicated that an engine run of at least 250 is required to make their offer economically viable, agrees that an existing core would be at the heart of the Snecma – GTRE Kaveri engine. It, however, denies it would take years for handing over the design technology. It will take at least five years before the first production engine comes out.

Snecma chairman and chief executive officer Philippe Petitcolin told The Hindu: “Yes we first stated a 15-year period to hand over the design technology, but now we have indicated that the technology can be given as fast as the Indians can assimilate it.”

Love these French. Clock really ticks as far as $$$ are concerned.

The issue of delinking LCA and Kaveri remains.

And, French have gone from 250 to 300 engines?

But, they seem to be willing to part with "design technology" - whatever that is.

Again, weakness of Indian project management shows.

Telang · Post by **Telang** » 05 Jul 2010 12:41

Dont know whether the Kaveri will be distined to be brought out in an alltogether different "Avtar" with French technology, only after five years hence. If that be the case, I prefer the French collaberated engine to be altogether a new project totally delinked from Kaveri. Let Kaveri remain just "Kaveri" and not Shakti, and let the French collaboration be a separate entity. I hope, if the Kaveri remains just an "all India" effort, there could be some break through in the invention of required technology totally home grown, before the French collaborated engine sees the light after five years.

karthik · Post by **karthik** » 08 Jul 2010 16:37

If i am not mistaken the Kaveri has more thrust than the older modeled F404 engine currently in the test variants of the Tejas? If its only some reliability and weight issue then there is no reason for us to condemn it, it would be better we had an flying version of the Kaveri may be on some two engined Mig variant, its amazing that we have come so far considering the amount and time we spent with this. The West and Russia have spent billions upon billion on Research and development and not to mention decades of time, knowledge sharing and espionage to get where they are now!

What we have done by ourself is very nearly a master peace for the amount and time we spent with it, we should put the entire effort of the country back into this, i know there are great technical minds in india that can make this happen, after all this effort we cant simply go and get a 60% ToT french engine which discourages all this advancement.

I would be happy to see an working variant on an aircraft right now particularly when it has more thrust than the existing engine we dont need to go in for western engines, this will be good enough.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 03 Aug 2010 01:26

Yesterday Def Min said about kaveri, the same as i told you a month back.

Read here

On kaveri engine development he said that GTRE has successfully completed one major milestone i.e. altitude testing, simulating Kaveri engine performance at different altitude and Mach No.One of Kaveri prototype (K9) is being integrated with IL-76 aircraft at Gromov Flight Research Institute (GFRI), Russia for ground and flight tests, of Flying Test Bed (FTB) trials, this will be the second major milestone to be achieved. These two milestones would make ‘Kaveri engine flightworthy.

I told you this. After this it should be integrated in PV-1.

hariks · Post by **hariks** » 03 Aug 2010 02:27

chackojoseph, Could you please confirm the specs for the Kaveri version which will be integrated in PV1?
* Maximum thrust:
o Military thrust (throttled):11,687 lbf (52.0 kN)
o Full afterburner:18,210 lbf (81.0 kN)
o Specific fuel consumption:
o Military thrust: 0.78 lb/(lbf•h) (79.52 kg/(kN·h))
o Full afterburner: 2.03 lb/(lbf•h) (207.00 kg/(kN·h))
o Thrust-to-weight ratio: 7.8:1 (76.0 N/kg)
Dry weight: 2,427 lb (1,100 kg) [Production model goal: 2,100 lb (950 kg)]

It is a little bit better than F404 and would be great if it is flight worthy.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 03 Aug 2010 07:45

hariks,

The specs are different now. We will have to wait for the testing to be over. New "real" figures will come.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 03 Aug 2010 10:34

How different will it be? I recall reading somewhere that 95% of the target has been acheived. So, should we assume that the thrust will be 95% of the target or am I not interpreting things correctly

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 03 Aug 2010 11:51

I have already kept my queries to the department. I am awaiting an answer. It depends how much they want to tell me. I will revert as they revert back to me.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 03 Aug 2010 18:52

So we can expect a breaking news very soon ?

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 03 Aug 2010 21:57

One innocent pooch here. Does the IN20 differ from from the 414 only in aspects of thrust ? or does it differ on other params say thrustbyrpm ? The reason i am asking this is that the kaveri is better than the f404(not sure whether it is better than the in20) given that, if we put our tejas through a really strict weight loss program we might not need the new engines at all as the TWR will go up with decrease in denominator. weight loss could even start with the simplest of the things like changing the gage of the wire being used or use cane chair for the pilot

. I am pretty sure if a noob like me can think of this our ADA guys would ahve thought about it, I was just trying to explore options that would allow kaveri to integrate into the lca program seamlessly

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 03 Aug 2010 22:16

F404-F2J3 turbofan = 80.5 kN
F404 -GE-IN20 = 85kn
http://www.lca-tejas.org/history.html

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Aug 2010 22:20

the 414 is a bigger engine and its "growth version" slated for later iterations of F18 and the Gripen-NG will provide better power than IN20 which is the end of line for GE404 family. it is 98kN peak thrust and surely greater dry as well. GE has a version with increased life or 15% more thrust whichever customer wants, so 110kN could be feasible later.

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 03 Aug 2010 22:33

What happened to the decision between the eurojet and the 414 that was supposed to be just round the corner for the LCA? Are they waiting for the shortlist of the MMRCA before the winner is announced or has that been scrapped altogether in favour of the Kaveri Snecma hybrid?

Telang · Post by **Telang** » 10 Aug 2010 11:07

Some gurus here think Kaveri is bogging down LCA and wanted the LCA to go ahead with out Kaveri. I have no qualms. But what disturbs me is a mood here in favour of dumping Kaveri altogether. Whatever the capabilities, or lack of them be, I prefer an airframe around Kaveri, and do what ever it can. There is always a slot for any kind of an aircraft, Kaveri can also have one (I saw Harvards, Vampires, Gnats and MiG 21 all in service, at one time!!!). What we are missing here is the fact that no Original Indian Engine has taken to skys till now (that includes even the internal combustion types). In that sense, Kaveri would do us proud, apart from being a starting point. Killing Kaveri would amount to killing our confidence.

rahulm · Post by **rahulm** » 10 Aug 2010 11:10

A minor nit-pick. We have the PTAE 7 turbo prop which has successfully taken to the skies but yes we could do much more.

Telang · Post by **Telang** » 10 Aug 2010 11:13

rahulm wrote:A minor nit-pick. We have the PTAE 7 turbo prop which has successfully taken to the skies but yes we could do much more.

I agree, that way I also missed several engines fitted on the aero-models. (BTW, PTAE 7 is turbo jet I believe, there are no props)

Telang · Post by **Telang** » 10 Aug 2010 12:01

[quote]Snecma chairman and chief executive officer Philippe Petitcolin told The Hindu: “Yes we first stated a 15-year period to hand over the design technology, but now we have indicated that the technology can be given as fast as the Indians can assimilate it.”[/quote]

And, what is the period of "as fast as":

[quote]It, however, denies it would take years for handing over the design technology. It will take at least five years before the first production engine comes out.[/quote]

My guess is; with in five years Indians would have developed their own Tech and started Kaveri serial production. Pessimists can have a field day critisizing my optimism.