LCA news and discussion

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 09 Mar 2009 19:53

I'm one of the lucky few who is in possession of an autographed book by AM Philip on the LCA development story.

I've a question for the Mods here : Is it okay if I can post excerpts here from the book? It will help clear lot of doubts about what went wrong were and other tid-bits. I know in an ideal world the jingoes and more so the aviation gurus and wannabe aviation gurus should each own one copy but for the sake for some more informed discussion? All the whys and why nots can be put to rest.

Thank you in advance.

skher · Post by **skher** » 09 Mar 2009 21:02

K Mehta wrote: Can you explain how development costs can be cheaper in case of Kaveri? Chandrayaan wasnt our first satellite, Kaveri is our first engine development programme (Unless you consider PTAE-7 engine, which is in essence a miniaturized orpheus engine). That too with objectives that are not achieved by any engine.
Please dont compare apples with oranges.

Only in absolute terms of labor costs.
I wanted to imply that money has become a lesser issue now as most of the development work has been completed and a reasonable amount of infrastructure & institutionalization is in place for further development.

Perhaps GTRE and other research establishments can be allowed to sell (via PADP model) sub-components to interested parties and plough back the resulting revenue back into the Kaveri/Kabini program.

Administrative ministrations drive most potential PADP away-the red tape needs to be cut down.

There is a need to allow some self-financing of big ticket Category 1 projects like the Kaveri in the post nuclear deal world.

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 09 Mar 2009 21:16

Hardly boss, the infrastructure especially critically needed one is still not there. You have quite rightly suggested that we need to start building the needed infrastructure. Though whether the revenue can be generated for it as you have suggested is debatable.
I had earlier proposed that the research establishments should get a 5% of the profit generated on the technology they develop which is being marketed. This would act as a stimulus for the research establishments.
This would also help some in-house projects like Saras would get funding from the money generated from Hansa. Also would interest other academic institutions to get into defence research.

sum · Post by **sum** » 09 Mar 2009 21:48

I've a question for the Mods here : Is it okay if I can post excerpts here from the book? It will help clear lot of doubts about what went wrong were and other tid-bits. I know in an ideal world the jingoes and more so the aviation gurus and wannabe aviation gurus should each own one copy but for the sake for some more informed discussion? All the whys and why nots can be put to rest.

Thank you in advance.

Please do post some of the interesting stuff....

*mouth drooling*

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 09 Mar 2009 22:45

K Mehta wrote: Can you explain how development costs can be cheaper in case of Kaveri?

K Mehta, just to give you an idea of how much experienced engineering contractors (not generally direct employees) of companies like GE, Boeing, etc. make on an average per year, its easily more than what 4-5 average experienced engineering employees in India make. that itself reduces the costs of engineering labour by about a fifth.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Mar 2009 23:25

but, is it not exactly the labor cost that we want it to increase so that they provide better engineering and be able to maintain the best talent within the country.

there is also the issue of certain regulations perhaps, the salaries can't be compared. this is the reason, that all ex-employees (talents onlee) could be absorbed back as consultants rather than employees thus retaining the best with in the regime of limited regulations.

the top cream job still needs to be paid.. either you pay them to get the best, or waste a lot of money, with the averages to get there and still be wasting money.

skher · Post by **skher** » 10 Mar 2009 01:17

K Mehta wrote: Hardly boss, the infrastructure especially critically needed one is still not there. You have quite rightly suggested that we need to start building the needed infrastructure. Though whether the revenue can be generated for it as you have suggested is debatable.

Shourie saab was on NDTV Profit where he spoke strongly against the current stimulus package and suggested that the govt. rapidly implement infra projects of strategic nature to revive the economy.
The critical testing,flight control facilities, supersonic wind tunnels etc. could be given a massive boost if the establishment agrees and awards contracts to RURs.The research chaps should get 20% of profits as licence fees.

K Mehta wrote: I had earlier proposed that the research establishments should get a 5% of the profit generated on the technology they develop which is being marketed. This would act as a stimulus for the research establishments.
This would also help some in-house projects like Saras would get funding from the money generated from Hansa. Also would interest other academic institutions to get into defence research.

There was a proposal by current UGC chairman wherein all research institutes (IIT/NIT) would act as a KPO arm as well and derive fees from tech transfer.

SaiK wrote: the top cream job still needs to be paid.. either you pay them to get the best, or waste a lot of money, with the averages to get there and still be wasting money.

The ideal model for NAL,HAL,ADA and DRDO affiliates would be an OKB-style Limited Liability Partnership with retired or serving Scientist G level people in charge (retired or otherwise).
Also,the above research orgs. should be become deemed universities under the Institutes of National Importance.Even better could be to set up a University of Defence Sciences.
Hence,a three stage self financing model would emerge - which could make Best of Brochure Claims scenario irrelevant.

ADA could be our first LLP company with govt. shareholding.The XCA (LCA,MCA and beyond) program should be then able to continue unhindered irrespective of American,European or Russian mood swings.

Perhaps I'm getting too ahead of myself.But if I remember correctly,the Prof.P Rama Rao committee had made some recommendations on similar lines.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Mar 2009 04:59

skher wrote:
SaiK wrote: the top cream job still needs to be paid.. either you pay them to get the best, or waste a lot of money, with the averages to get there and still be wasting money.
The ideal model for NAL,HAL,ADA and DRDO affiliates would be an OKB-style Limited Liability Partnership with retired or serving Scientist G level people in charge (retired or otherwise).
...

well, they may serve alumni or that interest their field of study. I disagree they be given any controls or decision making powers, in addition they may be only act as some reference personality or knowledge house.

it should be all based on merits, performance, and capability.

munda · Post by **munda** » 10 Mar 2009 11:07

Deleted.

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 10 Mar 2009 11:11

Pathetic air farce shared technology with chinkis???

. I thought chinks patched up a reworked mig-33 with fevicol and gifted it to the pakis.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 10 Mar 2009 11:34

munda wrote:
krishnan wrote:Can you remove that junk from from here
Any why so? I thought this is just helpful info for all of us to know, just for general knowledge purpose.

This is not the right thread for it. Post it in the paki arms thread. And any comments regarding LCA in that article is pure paki delusion, and it is not worth the paper it is written on.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 10 Mar 2009 12:10

vasu_ray wrote:do planes in the Saras class have fuel dumping systems for emergency landing? in the hot Indian weather fuel will ignite easily.

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

As jets began flying with U.S. airlines in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the FAA rule in effect at the time mandated that if the ratio between an aircraft's maximum structural takeoff weight and its maximum structural landing weight was greater than 105%, the aircraft had to have a fuel dump system installed.

Accordingly, aircraft such as the Boeing 707 and 727 and the Douglas DC-8 had fuel dump systems.

Considering the more powerful engines that had been developed, the FAA changed the rules to delete the 105% requirement, and FAR 25.1001 was enacted stating a jettison system was not required if the climb requirements of FAR 25.119 (Landing Climb) and FAR 25.121 (Approach Climb) could be met, assuming a 15-minute flight. In other words, for a go-around with full landing flaps and all engines operating, and at approach flap setting and one engine inoperative, respectively.

Since most twinjet airliners can meet these requirements, most aircraft of this type such as the Boeing 737 (all models), the DC-9/MD80 and Boeing 717, the A320 family and various regional jet ("RJ") aircraft do not have fuel dump systems installed.

Cheers....

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Mar 2009 14:07

http://www.virtualpet.com/pe/portals/md ... m#turbines

turbomeca doesnt have marine GT product. MTU product is for smaller ships (2.4MW).

other than RR, there appears to be no other EU alternative. no Russian or Japanese either (I would think Mitsubishi could make something if interested).

so its GE, P&W?, Zorya, RR.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 13 Mar 2009 08:15

neerajb wrote: Considering the more powerful engines that had been developed, the FAA changed the rules to delete the 105% requirement, and FAR 25.1001 was enacted stating a jettison system was not required if the climb requirements of FAR 25.119 (Landing Climb) and FAR 25.121 (Approach Climb) could be met, assuming a 15-minute flight. In other words, for a go-around with full landing flaps and all engines operating, and at approach flap setting and one engine inoperative, respectively.

Since most twinjet airliners can meet these requirements, most aircraft of this type such as the Boeing 737 (all models), the DC-9/MD80 and Boeing 717, the A320 family and various regional jet ("RJ") aircraft do not have fuel dump systems installed.

Thanks Neeraj, forgot about the internet flash cards. In an emergency landing fire engines are the first to arrive, as fire is the primary risk (from wing clipping?), don't understand why fuel dumping isn't an option (retaining only so much that is sufficient for a few go arounds)

maybe Saras had a parachute system, however the mishap happened at lower altitude, just unfortunate.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 13 Mar 2009 08:44

K Mehta, just to give you an idea of how much experienced engineering contractors (not generally direct employees) of companies like GE, Boeing, etc. make on an average per year, its easily more than what 4-5 average experienced engineering employees in India make. that itself reduces the costs of engineering labour by about a fifth.

This is true. Engineering skills are critical. So the advantage of highly skilled labor here in india is really huge .... I think the 4-5 figure should be more.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 13 Mar 2009 09:48

It is said in many articles that it had been a while since a plane (saras) with a pusher-propeller configuration had been made. Is there some basic complexity involved that isn't there in other configurations? Infact pusher-propeller setup never got popular. I feel two normal jet engines would have been much more apt for powering saras. Would have looked far more professional.

I hope NAL uses this time to tighten their design and ensures no more failures from now on. This is really going to affect their 70-seater program too if they donot get more professional about this.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 13 Mar 2009 12:08

Drevin wrote:It is said in many articles that it had been a while since a plane (saras) with a pusher-propeller configuration had been made. Is there some basic complexity involved that isn't there in other configurations? Infact pusher-propeller setup never got popular. I feel two normal jet engines would have been much more apt for powering saras. Would have looked far more professional.

I hope NAL uses this time to tighten their design and ensures no more failures from now on. This is really going to affect their 70-seater program too if they donot get more professional about this.

At the recent AERO INDIA 2009 I saw the Saras performing some maneuvers which would put a fighter pilot to shame ! ( OK I am stretching it a bot too far ). I have a dirty feeling that the crew got carried away over estimating their skills as well as the capabilities of the aircraft, with disastrous consequences.

K

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 13 Mar 2009 12:25

LCA-Tejas has completed 1079 Test Flights successfully. (13-Mar-09).

* LCA has completed 1079 Test Flights successfully
(TD1-233, TD2-304,PV1-187,PV2-118,PV3-140,LSP1-45,LSP2-52).
* 187th flight of Tejas PV1 occurred on 12th Mar 09.
* 118th flight of Tejas PV2 occurred on 12th Mar 09.
* 140th flight of Tejas PV3 occurred on 12th Mar 09.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 13 Mar 2009 12:32

Drevin wrote:It is said in many articles that it had been a while since a plane (saras) with a pusher-propeller configuration had been made. Is there some basic complexity involved that isn't there in other configurations? Infact pusher-propeller setup never got popular. I feel two normal jet engines would have been much more apt for powering saras. Would have looked far more professional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaggio_P.180_Avanti
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Starship
They both use the same engines as the Saras does as well.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 13 Mar 2009 13:23

I feel two normal jet engines would have been much more apt for powering saras. Would have looked far more professional.

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 13 Mar 2009 14:10

I feel two normal jet engines would have been much more apt for powering saras. Would have looked far more professional.

How will it look more professional? Please can you explain. Do you intend to make it F-22.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 13 Mar 2009 14:27

Drevin wrote:It is said in many articles that it had been a while since a plane (saras) with a pusher-propeller configuration had been made. Is there some basic complexity involved that isn't there in other configurations? Infact pusher-propeller setup never got popular. I feel two normal jet engines would have been much more apt for powering saras. Would have looked far more professional.

.

Saras is for short-haul flights - hence cannot climb to higher altitudes.. jet engines are efficient at higher altitudes & high subsonic mach numbers -- which is not the flight envelop that Saras would fly.. Hence the choice of the prop which is more effieicnt at med-altitude flights..

further remember that Saras is designed to operate from under-prepared runways.. with the pusher-prop there is no issue of foreign body ingestion...

And that design choice is extremely professioNAL.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 13 Mar 2009 14:48

Better take the saras discussion to general aviation thread, before admin garu gets angry

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Mar 2009 16:35

self deleted

Himanshu · Post by **Himanshu** » 13 Mar 2009 19:24

Doc.. with every passing day your claws are getting sharper and sharper..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Mar 2009 20:36

rakall wrote:
Drevin wrote:It is said in many articles that it had been a while since a plane (saras) with a pusher-propeller configuration had been made. Is there some basic complexity involved that isn't there in other configurations? Infact pusher-propeller setup never got popular. I feel two normal jet engines would have been much more apt for powering saras. Would have looked far more professional.

.

Saras is for short-haul flights - hence cannot climb to higher altitudes.. jet engines are efficient at higher altitudes & high subsonic mach numbers -- which is not the flight envelop that Saras would fly.. Hence the choice of the prop which is more effieicnt at med-altitude flights..

further remember that Saras is designed to operate from under-prepared runways.. with the pusher-prop there is no issue of foreign body ingestion...

And that design choice is extremely professioNAL.

My response here
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 69#p635069

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 13 Mar 2009 22:14

My response here,
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 89#p635089

and here,
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 88#p635188

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Mar 2009 02:00

Drevin wrote:It is said in many articles that it had been a while since a plane (saras) with a pusher-propeller configuration had been made. Is there some basic complexity involved that isn't there in other configurations? Infact pusher-propeller setup never got popular. I feel two normal jet engines would have been much more apt for powering saras. Would have looked far more professional.

I hope NAL uses this time to tighten their design and ensures no more failures from now on. This is really going to affect their 70-seater program too if they donot get more professional about this.

I'm not sure about what the far more professional bit meant..but there are certain advantages to turbo-props as compared to jet engines (range, fuel consumption at medium altitudes, etc.), although on the down side, they're noisier and the vibration issues require more work. there is no harm in the pusher-propellor configuration as it is and in fact, it should reduce the cabin noise because the engines are rear-mounted. also, the wing is clean, which improves its aerodynamics.

I've seen Boeing's civilian 7J7 concept (which was later on dropped, due to noise issues where it made more noise than was permissible at airports, as per an engineer I spoke to) which had a similar configuration but used an unducted fan..

seen here

added later: sorry for the post on the Saras here. Any more posts, and I'll write on the relevant thread.

m mittal · Post by **m mittal** » 14 Mar 2009 09:29

IMHO Shiv is trying to monopolize the threads and any post that is in disagreement with his thoughts and he starts flaimbaiting.

Shiv in my opinion seems to be just an arrogant jingo.

Common Shiv grow up; we are the largest democracy in the world and the only country where there is such multitude of languages, cultures and what not but still it is a nation.......I guess u can use some tolerance for ideas that u r not okay with.

You don't seem to me as an expert and even if you are; u can not be perfect......atleast ur replies are not.

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 14 Mar 2009 09:33

For a second I thought I am in a wrong Thread.

Please stick to the topic - LCA news and discussions

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 14 Mar 2009 15:40

Gripen

# Empty weight: 5,700 kg (14,600 lb)
# Loaded weight: 8,500 kg (18,700 lb)
# Max takeoff weight: 14,000 kg (31,000 lb)
# Powerplant: 1× Volvo Aero RM12 afterburning turbofan
* Dry thrust: 54 kN (12,100 lbf)
* Thrust with afterburner: 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf)

LCA

# Empty weight: 5,500 kg (12,100 lb)
# Loaded weight: 8,500 kg (18,700 lb (in fighter configuration))
# Max takeoff weight: 14,500 kg (32,000 lb)

# Powerplant: 1× General Electric F404-GE-IN20 turbofan
* Dry thrust: 54.9 kN (12,250 lbf)
* Thrust with afterburner: 85 kN (19,000 lbf)

GTX-35VS Kaveri
* Thrust:
o Military thrust (throttled):11,687 lbf (52.0 kN) Goal 13,500 lbf (60.0 kN)
o Full afterburner:18,210 lbf (81.0 kN) [Goal: 20,200 lbf (90.0 kN)]

All data from wiki

Pardon me if already discussed.

I am not able to understand how is LCA underpowered. Gripen with almost same specs is using a 80.5KN engine. Kaveri already delivering 81Kn of thrust.

-Nitin

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 14 Mar 2009 16:06

^^^^^ Weight is not the only issue. We do not know the aerodynamic drag force comparision b/w the Gripen and the LCA. Same engine on a/cs with similar wt but dissimilar Cd / Fd will produce significantly difference performance characteristics.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Mar 2009 16:23

m mittal wrote:
Shiv in my opinion seems to be just an arrogant jingo.

Common Shiv grow up; we are the largest democracy in the world and the only country where there is such multitude of languages, cultures and what not but still it is a nation.......I guess u can use some tolerance for ideas that u r not okay with.

You don't seem to me as an expert and even if you are; u can not be perfect......atleast ur replies are not.

I am totally intolerant of idiocy.

I am intolerant of needless criticism of our own people by people displaying zero insight. Stop being a buffoon and join the Saras discussion where it has actually been shifted to and post knowledge if you have any. And get a life - this is the LCA thread and report my post if you don't like what I write.

kuldipchager · Post by **kuldipchager** » 14 Mar 2009 16:34

Mr.NRshaw, Its foreign lobby trying to distroye own LCA,becouse they do not get kickback.Same LCA,if it wuold be CHINA LCA,It wuold have 300 Manufactured and 300 sold to other nation as Advance fighter.

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 14 Mar 2009 19:52

kuldipchager wrote:Mr.NRshaw, Its foreign lobby trying to distroye own LCA,becouse they do not get kickback.Same LCA,if it wuold be CHINA LCA,It wuold have 300 Manufactured and 300 sold to other nation as Advance fighter.

True

nelson dias · Post by **nelson dias** » 14 Mar 2009 20:02

With all due respect to Mr.NRshaw, presumably he can furnish facts to back his claims.

Himanshu · Post by **Himanshu** » 14 Mar 2009 20:17

Nitin.. all these figures are fine.. but what would also matter is how much DRAG each frame is producing.. and honestly we do not know about the aerodynamic behavior of airframe and CG etc at various altitude and weather conditions.. for these two aircrafts..

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 14 Mar 2009 21:35

nrshah wrote:Gripen

# Empty weight: 5,700 kg (14,600 lb)
# Loaded weight: 8,500 kg (18,700 lb)
# Max takeoff weight: 14,000 kg (31,000 lb)
# Powerplant: 1× Volvo Aero RM12 afterburning turbofan
* Dry thrust: 54 kN (12,100 lbf)
* Thrust with afterburner: 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf)

LCA

# Empty weight: 5,500 kg (12,100 lb)
# Loaded weight: 8,500 kg (18,700 lb (in fighter configuration))
# Max takeoff weight: 14,500 kg (32,000 lb)

# Powerplant: 1× General Electric F404-GE-IN20 turbofan
* Dry thrust: 54.9 kN (12,250 lbf)
* Thrust with afterburner: 85 kN (19,000 lbf)

GTX-35VS Kaveri
* Thrust:
o Military thrust (throttled):11,687 lbf (52.0 kN) Goal 13,500 lbf (60.0 kN)
o Full afterburner:18,210 lbf (81.0 kN) [Goal: 20,200 lbf (90.0 kN)]

All data from wiki

Pardon me if already discussed.

I am not able to understand how is LCA underpowered. Gripen with almost same specs is using a 80.5KN engine. Kaveri already delivering 81Kn of thrust.

-Nitin

Please don´t compare Gripen to LCA. They are two different aircrafts with two totally different designs. Gripen is a a successful design and have no drag issues...

Ardeshir · Post by **Ardeshir** » 14 Mar 2009 22:46

Wickberg wrote:
Please don´t compare Gripen to LCA. They are two different aircrafts with two totally different designs. Gripen is a a successful design and have no drag issues...

Are you implying that the LCA isn't a successful design, and had issues with drag?

Srivastav · Post by **Srivastav** » 14 Mar 2009 23:40

Nitin, LCA's empty weight is closer to 6300 lbs(if iam not mistaken) now, So that makes a difference. Also as others said we haven really tested LCA through all the envelops yet and from what ive heard the current engine might not be sufficient for optimum performance.

Prasant sahab, I think wickberg is not saying that LCA isnt a succesfull design. he is saying that since LCA's development/testing is not fully done yet why compare it to a fully dev'd gripen c/d. Not sure bout Gripen NG, since all the new harpoints etc might cause some issues.

Therefore its futile it to compare LCA with any other aircraft, when we dont even know what all of LCA's abilities are. After the IOC and with futher collection of info bout LCA (thanks kprasad and rakallji) well have a better idea.

Allthough I will like to state, come what may its a huge achievement that we designed a gen 4 aircraft with hardly any experience.