Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

[Pratyush]

Why not use the DT TI process to get the yanks to provide a 747 for the purposes of flight testing.

[shiv]

When we are a nation of kisans and we make a plough the entire world will help us with "technology" to make the plough better while they sell us aircraft and engines which are bread and butter for the industrialized west. But when we want to make aircraft and engines NO ONE is going to help. I think many of us harbour a Nehru like naivete thinking that in this free new post world war 2 world everyone will cooperate with everyone else. That era got over 60 years ago. Need to wake up.

If we take a Boeing or a IL 76 and start modifying it to carry a Kaveri we will still need data about the loads and stresses the wing components can take and what can be modified to remove old cabling from the existing engine to install new pipes, wires and other telemetry equipment for the new engine which means wiring and cables from engine pylons, through the fuselage into the cockpit and tanks. We do not have the data and the design drawings. If we strip it down (which we could) we will have to replicate parts.

We can start doing this on our own - but no one will get fooled if we cannibalize one and then pretend to buy spares. If the OEM suspects that you are fiddling with his rights he will either wait till you are in trouble or simply cut off crucial supplies and delay things forever - or supply trivial parts at exorbitant prices. This is normal at that level of business. There is no such thing as "hand holding" when it comes to cutting edge tech. But the US made a poodle out of Britain by sharing cutting edge with them and China and the US both made a servile whore out of Pakistan by gifting stuff to them. Naturally - Britain behaves like a faithful wife to the US while Pakistan behaves like a whore. The detail in small scale is repeated in large scale. Fractal behaviour.

[Rakesh]

+100! Amen!

[JayS]

When we are a nation of kisans and we make a plough the entire world will help us with "technology" to make the plough better while they sell us aircraft and engines which are bread and butter for the industrialized west. But when we want to make aircraft and engines NO ONE is going to help. I think many of us harbour a Nehru like naivete thinking that in this free new post world war 2 world everyone will cooperate with everyone else. That era got over 60 years ago. Need to wake up.

If we take a Boeing or a IL 76 and start modifying it to carry a Kaveri we will still need data about the loads and stresses the wing components can take and what can be modified to remove old cabling from the existing engine to install new pipes, wires and other telemetry equipment for the new engine which means wiring and cables from engine pylons, through the fuselage into the cockpit and tanks. We do not have the data and the design drawings. If we strip it down (which we could) we will have to replicate parts.
.

Not to metion violation of ITAR for dual use technology, in all probability, which could attract severe penalties not only for the Indian entities but also the US OEMs who are suppose to make sure ITAR is followed.

[habal]

this test-bed has been acquired by a neighbouring country after filling out all forms in triplicate, without violating IPRs, satisfying manufacturers dual-use technology concerns. All data about loads and stresses the wings can take have been miraculously supplied by manufacturer.

[vina]

No. In fact I see a huge problem there.

If the modified aircraft (say a Boeing) has an accident - Airbus will claim that the Boeing is unsafe (ignoring the fact that HAL was playing with a new engine. That would be bad for sales and reputation. No self respecting OEM would allow it "legally/above-board". Claims that HAL did not take permission would be hollow if the OEM has allowed it. If the OEM allows - they will have to vet it, and they will charge a bomb.

That's a valid point. I already tempered my argument with a disclaimer that I do not know if the contract will allow use of second hand jet for such purpose or not. This goes back to the original point that GTRE folks were raising, they cant have one because Ruskies not willing to sell one. They not allowing even MiG29 to be used as flight test bed.

Nah.. Nearly every test bed of every major engine maker (PW, RR and GE) is basically a large 4 engined aircraft passenger plane (PW, RR and GE own their 747 test beds), the Russians use IL 76. The reasons are simple, the large plane can be packed with test and monitoring equipment, but more importantly, the test engine can be fitted in place of one of the 4 engines, (even if less thrust than the engine that the normal plane would come with) , but with the excess thrust from the remaining 3 engines, you still have huge safety margins. For e.g., a B- 747 will continue flying safely with 3 of it's 4 engines going out in flight. Just ONE engine would suffice for it to continue flying. That gives a 4 engine plane (like the 747 and the IL 76) the best place to do a test of a new engine with great margins.

Of course it can be done with 2 engine planes as well. Rafales first flew with the engines from the Tornado fighters, and then when the M-88 was developed, one of the RB-199s was replaced with an M-88. We could do the same thing with a Mig 29. Nothing stops us. However, it would mean acquiring an old Mig29 from somewhere (which makes a lot of sense). The IAF surely will not spare an operational one from their lines. Easiest would be to pick up a Mig 29 from some East European country/ Somewhere and modify that as a testbed for Kaveri. We can surely do it if we want to. Nothing stops us. Trouble is you can't pack the Mig 29 with test equipment and monitoring equipment and people to check on things , like you can if the test bed was a large 4 engined airliner.

Best would be to pick up an IL -76 from a boneyard or wherever and modify it on our own to make a flying testbed. That will take some effort and investment, but if we actually do have a series of engines planned (from HAL and GTRE), we need to make that investment anyways. Maybe, with the Pappi-Jhappi going on with America, a 747 for the same purpose is far easier to procure and maintain and we can surely get the paperwork for that done with the Americans.

[Avtar Singh]

Put engine into an LCA airframe and just get on with it.

Plenty of ground runs, taxi trials, take off runs to an abort can be done
before getting airborne.

Eventaully.. take off, circuits, medium level, high level etc....
I presume pilot has a zero zero seat if not make a uav LCA to do the testing but that is ott.

If it crashes no problem build some more until it does not and get it done.
How many Gripens were lost before it could fly properly?
No LCA has been lost and India is up to the stage of putting an engine in!!

Also if an airframe is lost and it is shrugged off, it will be a kathartic event for the psyche.
Plus fun to listen to all the knashing of teeth and hysteria from media and weak kneed idiots.

[shiv]

I just had a sudden doubt. It's about the various agencies that need to coordinate and what is required of them and how they coordinate with each other. I would be happy if someone can throw light or correct any mistakes.

Let me start with HAL and ASTE. HAL makes aircraft, the ASTE tests aircraft and systems and has, at any given time some aircraft assigned to it. So, to my knowledge these are the two agencies that must operate actual aircraft.

Now some if DRDO lab - such as DARE or BEL or even OFB come up with some kind of item that goes inside an aircraft I guess they have to meet certain parameters first - that is the thing that goes in must have the right size and weight and must be able to connect up with existing power supply and buses - or be slung on to a pylon. Once that is done the actual integration may be done by HALor maybe ASTE(?) and tested, first on the ground and then in flight.

CABS is a slightly different set up. They seem to require dedicated aircraft -and those aircraft are selected first after which CABS gets to work putting those systems on the aircraft. Don't know if they have separate facilities for that.

ADA is another beast that has no actual aircraft of its own - but it actually builds aircraft. Three aircraft I can name are Hansa, Saras and Tejas. Ultimately i am guessing that the aircraft are flight tested in HALs facilities by ASTE pilots in shared space.

But what about GTRE. GTRE builds engines and if they are to be used for planes they must be put on aircraft to fly. Whose aircraft do they use? Looks like they have to use "foreign consultants" for this. Thsi seems absurd. Shouldn't the GTRE have real live aircraft of its own or shared with HAL or ASTE for this purpose?

[NRao]

Why the doubt or confusion? Each agency is on their own, doing what they were tasked and when they feel the others are not doing their jobs they creep and take over a few tasks. Check out the interviews granted by the Chiefs of ADA and HAL. There are a few overlaps. Then on the topic of the NLCA the RM had to clarify what two parties were floating without stepping on the other's toe. If one had followed the rules set down, would the HTT-40 have seen the day light so quickly?

[Neela]

Remember the company which demo-ed small engines in AeroIndia2017?
They supply components to HTFE program.


http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis ... 62338.html

As for how Intech took to developing jet engines, Sridhar said: “We have been involved in engine development programme with the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, wherein we contributed over 30 per cent of the critical components.”

HAL is developing HTFE-25 (Hindustan Turbo Fan Engine), which has a thrust of 25 kN.

[shiv]

Why the doubt or confusion? Each agency is on their own, doing what they were tasked and when they feel the others are not doing their jobs they creep and take over a few tasks. Check out the interviews granted by the Chiefs of ADA and HAL. There are a few overlaps. Then on the topic of the NLCA the RM had to clarify what two parties were floating without stepping on the other's toe. If one had followed the rules set down, would the HTT-40 have seen the day light so quickly?

That is no answer.

The question is what is the GTRE expected to do to flight test an engine? Which of these agencies can help them. As far as I can tell none of them can

[NRao]

Why the doubt or confusion? Each agency is on their own, doing what they were tasked and when they feel the others are not doing their jobs they creep and take over a few tasks. Check out the interviews granted by the Chiefs of ADA and HAL. There are a few overlaps. Then on the topic of the NLCA the RM had to clarify what two parties were floating without stepping on the other's toe. If one had followed the rules set down, would the HTT-40 have seen the day light so quickly?

That is no answer.

The question is what is the GTRE expected to do to flight test an engine? Which of these agencies can help them. As far as I can tell none of them can

Well ...................

First of all, I waited a good 4 hours (or so) to respond. Hoping against hope that someone would preempt me.

Second, note that it took you a whole day or two to answer your own question and it had no answer.

So, allow me, for the second time, to answer your question. The correct and only answer is: ISRO.

[NRao]

BTW, I was digging "stuff" for the MCA/AMCA/NGFA, when I ran into ................ ta da .................. drum roll.................. Kaveri and Safran/Snecma stories ................ as early as 2008/9. And, we think the Rafale deal actually bought us something refreshing.

Fully expect Snema to dust off a 1995 tech and pass it through a scrubber, polish it and hand it over as their contribution for a Euro 1 Billion effort.

[haryanvi]

Of course it can be done with 2 engine planes as well. Rafales first flew with the engines from the Tornado fighters, and then when the M-88 was developed, one of the RB-199s was replaced with an M-88.

Rafale flew with GE F 404 (not RB-199) initially.

From wiki:

The demonstrator was initially powered by General Electric F404-GE-400 afterburning turbofans from the F/A-18 Hornet, instead of the Snecma M88, to reduce the risk that often comes with a first flight, and since the M88 was not considered sufficiently mature for the initial trials programme

[Rishi Verma]

If and when the Kaveri engine is ready, desi engineers will come up with a juggad way to flight test it. It's too early to worry about that now. India has done more risky things, LCA first flew after extensive ground runs and high speed taxi trials. Same will be done with Kaveri. If 1000 hours of ground run data are available then a 30-min first flight would be low risk. If not I'd suggest strap Burkha Dutt into the pilot seat and launch it off shore based navy ramp and get as much data via telemetry.

[shiv]

Second, note that it took you a whole day or two to answer your own question and it had no answer.

So, allow me, for the second time, to answer your question. The correct and only answer is: ISRO.

In fact I think GTRE needs to either have access to its own test aircraft or ASTE needs a dedicated engine test bed aircraft.

I suspect that now that HAL has an engine coming up they will find something to flight test it in - but GTRE seems to me like an organization that is out on a limbo working (or not working in yearsgone my) on its own. At least it seems like that to me and I was wondering if anyone knew.

There is one more agency that I did not mention - which is crucial - CEMILAC. Where does it fit in, in the scheme of things?

[chola]

this test-bed has been acquired by a neighbouring country after filling out all forms in triplicate, without violating IPRs, satisfying manufacturers dual-use technology concerns. All data about loads and stresses the wings can take have been miraculously supplied by manufacturer.

Very nice. A Il-76 testbed giftwrapped to the PRC from our Russki "friends." Ah, that fat engine is the chicom's latest and bestest WS-20 -- a high-bypass variant of their WS-10. No doubt this nice testbed have shaved many years off development. It is a matter of time before we get such a wondrous machine for engines, no? Are not these bloodsuckers our friends too?

I say to hell with them. If I were vindictive, I would say we should use the MKI tech to clone our own Flankers. But I'm not and the russian stuff is shit anyways so cut the fuc-ing cord with Ivana and go Unkil full stop.

South Korea started decades later than us screw-giriing F-Solahs. Now they are exporting their T-50 around the world. What have we after decades assembling MiGs and SUs? The things we can export like the Dhruv are western partnerships.

But then again, the Russians are bound to sell a engine testbed soon right? Let's not upset the apple cart now!

[JayS]

If and when the Kaveri engine is ready, desi engineers will come up with a juggad way to flight test it. It's too early to worry about that now. India has done more risky things, LCA first flew after extensive ground runs and high speed taxi trials. Same will be done with Kaveri. If 1000 hours of ground run data are available then a 30-min first flight would be low risk. If not I'd suggest strap Burkha Dutt into the pilot seat and launch it off shore based navy ramp and get as much data via telemetry.

What were you thinking while writing this post, Sir..? Do you read the thread or just reply based on the previous post..?

1000hr ground test data for Kaveri was available like 7yr ago. Today they have ground run of 6000hr finished along with 50+ hr of flight test.

[shiv]

1000hr ground test data for Kaveri was available like 7yr ago. Today they have ground run of 6000hr finished along with 50+ hr of flight test.

I think one Kaveri has been running continuously for 2500 hours also

[Zynda]

^^Do you mean that one prototype of Kaveri has been tested for 2500 hours spreading over various test coupons with no changes in between? Or one engine has been run continuously for 2500 hours in one go?

Edit: If its the latter, perhaps it could be accelerated testing worth 2500 hours?

[shiv]

^^Do you mean that one prototype of Kaveri has been tested for 2500 hours spreading over various test coupons with no changes in between? Or one engine has been run continuously for 2500 hours in one go?

Edit: If its the latter, perhaps it could be accelerated testing worth 2500 hours?

Run continuously is what the guy in the Kaveri section told me. And still running. But I was so full of questions that long after I left the hall I did a facepalm and thought "Duh! I should have asked him more about this". They have built 8-9 engines IIRC (Can't recall the exact number)

[prasannasimha]

I also heard that it is continuously running and has not stopped.

[Zynda]

So it seems like GTRE have been running the engine continuously for 3.5 months. Like you said, a few questions immediately comes to my mind. For which conditions are they running the engines? i.e mission profiles? Are they running the engine mimicking real life take-off to landing (manoeuvres included in mission profiles)? Or are they running it continuously at a specified thrust rating? Perhaps JayS can shed some light.

Edit: It seems like GTRE wants to do test & check fatigue performance of the article in real time instead of accelerated time scales. Good for them.

[Snehashis]

^^Do you mean that one prototype of Kaveri has been tested for 2500 hours spreading over various test coupons with no changes in between? Or one engine has been run continuously for 2500 hours in one go?

Edit: If its the latter, perhaps it could be accelerated testing worth 2500 hours?

Run continuously is what the guy in the Kaveri section told me. And still running. But I was so full of questions that long after I left the hall I did a facepalm and thought "Duh! I should have asked him more about this". They have built 8-9 engines IIRC (Can't recall the exact number)

It's probably the Kaveri Marine KGMT. There was talk to 5000-6000 hours of continuous test required to fit into a warship. IIRC Atleast one R class destroyer will be re-engined with KGMT.

[Rishi Verma]

1000hr ground test data for Kaveri was available like 7yr ago. Today they have ground run of 6000hr finished along with 50+ hr of flight test.

I know what I am talking about. Kaveri-2 with snecma input doesn't even exist yet. The kaveri-1 data is no use for the future test flight.

[Indranil]

I know what I am talking about.

Good that you let us know. Otherwise, how would we have known?

Kaveri-2 with snecma input doesn't even exist yet. The kaveri-1 data is no use for the future test flight.

You are right. How is Kaveri-1 data useful for Kaveri-2? Just like how is 404 data relevant to the 414?

[Indranil]

^^Do you mean that one prototype of Kaveri has been tested for 2500 hours spreading over various test coupons with no changes in between? Or one engine has been run continuously for 2500 hours in one go?

Edit: If its the latter, perhaps it could be accelerated testing worth 2500 hours?

Run continuously is what the guy in the Kaveri section told me. And still running. But I was so full of questions that long after I left the hall I did a facepalm and thought "Duh! I should have asked him more about this". They have built 8-9 engines IIRC (Can't recall the exact number)

Hakeem, that's not possible. They have run 2500 hours of testing on one prototype engine. Kaveri still has a long way to go. There are a set of very knowledgeable SDREs in GTRE. Unfortunately none of them with main decision making power. One thing which has worked out well is that this govt. knows that money has to be poured into this project to get it up and running.

It's probably the Kaveri Marine KGMT. There was talk to 5000-6000 hours of continuous test required to fit into a warship. IIRC Atleast one R class destroyer will be re-engined with KGMT.

User spec has changed. Navy and GTRE are trying to find a way forward. The user is willing.

[shiv]

So it seems like GTRE have been running the engine continuously for 3.5 months. Like you said, a few questions immediately comes to my mind. For which conditions are they running the engines? i.e mission profiles? Are they running the engine mimicking real life take-off to landing (manoeuvres included in mission profiles)? Or are they running it continuously at a specified thrust rating? Perhaps JayS can shed some light.

Edit: It seems like GTRE wants to do test & check fatigue performance of the article in real time instead of accelerated time scales. Good for them.

These are the types of questions that came to my mind after I rested my ass on a bus seat outside the venue after 7 hours on my feet - at which time my brain suddenly switched itself back on. There must be a switch there. But I do know that other phoren engines are run continuously by their manufacturers for thousands of hours (recall reading that elsewhere) to check component reliability, wear and tear. The guy did say they have made 8 or 9 engines and one is running continuously. That's a lot of aviation fuel was the only thought that came up, but only a fraction of what the IAF or an airline would use up in a day.

I was wondering if, in the morning, the boss comes up and says "Chalo ab isko zor se ghumao" and turns up the throttle with an evil grin. Or whether they just run the thing at constant RPM so chana can be roasted in the exhaust for snack time

[Cybaru]

I know what I am talking about. Kaveri-2 with snecma input doesn't even exist yet. The kaveri-1 data is no use for the future test flight.

I have seen many a folk use this technique to get a leg up and not question what they write. They *HINT* armed forces background or whatever. If you are armed forces, please say so and don't hide behind such hints.

I applaud Deejay for sharing his background so that we can understand where he is coming from and understand his point of view. It helps immensely in a discussion.

[Rishi Verma]

I know what I am talking about.

Good that you let us know. Otherwise, how would we have known

Hi Indranil,
What's the purpose of taking a statement out of context which wasn't even directed towards you? I didn't expect it from you.

[Gyan]

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Zc5L7fLoaYk/ ... Poster.JPG

This is pic of brochure posted on Trishul Blog. Does it give more info to add to our knowledge base? IIRC the LP stage had given problems in flying test bed tests of Kaveri.

[JayS]

I know what I am talking about. Kaveri-2 with snecma input doesn't even exist yet. The kaveri-1 data is no use for the future test flight.

OK Sir, please tell us then what exactly is the difference in the so-called Kaveri-2 and Kaveri-1. What is the basis on which you say existing flight test data is "of no use" in future flight testing...? What input Snecma is giving for Kaveri exactly..?

[JTull]

I was wondering if, in the morning, the boss comes up and says "Chalo ab isko zor se ghumao" and turns up the throttle with an evil grin. Or whether they just run the thing at constant RPM so chana can be roasted in the exhaust for snack time

I'm glad GTRE are not sitting on their bums and waiting for some gora to save them. They must have institutional knowledge of what data needs to be gathered and this must surely go beyond a headline thrust number. These bench tests will allow it to model potential impact of any design changes to various parts of such a complex system. More data they have the better it is.

I was once being shown around a company having hydrogen fuel cells. These can be tiny (about the size of a AAA battery) but could be stacked up in 3 dimensions, 100 times in size - maybe more. Despite having a ready product, their lab had hundreds of them being run continuously but with many other variable parameters, such as different ambient temperatures, constant power but at different levels, variable power, etc.

[Indranil]

Hi Indranil,
What's the purpose of taking a statement out of context which wasn't even directed towards you? I didn't expect it from you.

I did not enjoy writing it one bit either. But, post after posts of yours in the last page and in LCA thread forced me to.

I know that you didn't like my criticism, but by that same token, don't you find it distasteful to deride the work of tens of thousands of employees with blanket statements? And then you say you know it all.

[NRao]

I do NOT think either the Snecma/Safran nor the GE (F414-INS6 enhancement for the AMCA) will provide India with anything more than a snapshot of an engine. Based on these two "engine"s, I very much doubt that India will be able to design AND productize the next gen engine.

Having said that, I think, both are good efforts to provide a much needed breathing space to their respective projects.

As a student, way back, I had a close friend (Indian) who was completing his Ph.D in material science (I had not clue it even existed until I met this guy). Back then there were no laptops and certainly no "spreadsheet"s. All data that was collected was written on paper, then types (manual type writers, with ribbons that faded). To create a "table" we had to use ----- to mark rows and | to mark columns. And we had liquid paper to correct our typing mistakes. This h=guy - in the 70s - had at least a 100 (single sided) pages of data (took years to collect) - explaining what all that was additional pages.

For India, to become a power in the area of engines, will need some 1000 such guys. MOST of them will fail, but will contribute to the base knowledge. Need to fund this controlled madness.

[Rishi Verma]

Hi Indranil,
What's the purpose of taking a statement out of context which wasn't even directed towards you? I didn't expect it from you.

I did not enjoy writing it one bit either. But, post after posts of yours in the last page and in LCA thread forced me to.

I know that you didn't like my criticism, but by that same token, don't you find it distasteful to deride the work of tens of thousands of employees with blanket statements? And then you say you know it all.

Boss, yes I am pessimistic about the manufacturability of the LCA and you are welcome to meet people in the IAF and hear them say why they have no faith in stated deadlines or plans. But the context of my present post was anything but "deriding". I was suggesting why kaveri would not need an imported flying test-vehicle. But anyway...

[Indranil]

Then you don't have the same yardstick of derision for yourself and others. By the way, please don't presume that because I support the desi products vociferously, that I don't talk to or agree with IAF personnel. But, I am not an yes-man to either groups.

This is the last of this OT from me. You can have the last word if you want to.

[ragupta]

Pessimist can hold on to it. India needs to make sure the optimistics keep working and I believe they will make it happen.

[JayS]

I know what I am talking about. Kaveri-2 with snecma input doesn't even exist yet. The kaveri-1 data is no use for the future test flight.

OK Sir, please tell us then what exactly is the difference in the so-called Kaveri-2 and Kaveri-1. What is the basis on which you say existing flight test data is "of no use" in future flight testing...? What input Snecma is giving for Kaveri exactly..?

Still waiting for answer...kindly enlighten us please.

[Rishi Verma]

OK Sir, please tell us then what exactly is the difference in the so-called Kaveri-2 and Kaveri-1. What is the basis on which you say existing flight test data is "of no use" in future flight testing...? What input Snecma is giving for Kaveri exactly..?

Still waiting for answer...kindly enlighten us please.

You already know then why ask. One that was tested in Russia I call k-1. One that "may" get "improved" with French help, one that "may" get production ready, one that "may" find design win with AMCA I call K-2.

My point was when and if the K-2 materializes then it won't be necessary to test it on a foreign land on a foreign aircraft.