Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

The Technology & Economic Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to Technological and Economic developments in India. 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.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7158
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 13 Feb 2019 20:51

The only innovation that is really happening in the civilian sphere is in the engines in terms of fuel economy and noise etc. and in avionics to some extent. Aside from that not much has changed even in the 737 and A320 series. So if the Chinis are copying it is a good approach. They will most likely be using the latest engines from GE/RR/PW anyway.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20267
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 14 Feb 2019 11:29

Austin wrote:Yes so is C919 is a copy of A-320 having even similar dimension generally and in many cases identical , they have been assembling A320 in china afterall :lol:

Innovation is not a Chinese forte in most cases but they steal and copy paste it well to the I's and T's even that is an art and science in itself , Other than CHinese and Iranians I havent seen any other nation mastering reverse engineering and C&P on large scale

Only the Russians Innovated with Narrow body aircraft with Composite Wing a first for narrow body and largest diameter fuselage plus the PD-14 engine is comparable to PW and LEAP in virtually all aspect and active flight control


Outright theft is far easier that RE and theft is what the hans specialize in.

RE involves replication of complex alloys and superalloys, advanced and complex manufacturing processes, newer materials etc not readily available in the public domain.

Isn't this precisely why they install 4G/5G telecom equipment all over the world??
and the dumb goras have realized it just now??

Flight control laws, weapon and integration software et all cannot be precisely reverse engineered without knowing the exact requirements that led to its development. Given the very same requirements, I guarantee you that different design teams will arrive at different but still workable solutions. Optimizing this to best fit the actual need is a very different ball game.

We also forget that there are large russkie and ukranian teams of retired engineers and technologists working with the hans, often with the benign blessings of their russkie and ukranian sold out baboo(n)s and politicos. Most of their test pilots and engineers are russkie trained.

The entire cheeni carrier program reeks of the imprint of such russkie and ukranian technical teams. The carrier exploitation, as well as the development of carrier operations doctrines, is completely russkie and ukranian led.

Can anyone in the world RE the S-400 systems (for example) so very easily??, one would have to suspend all belief to think so, no?

The hans are not gods, and yes, they are hard working and dedicated but the mere threat of a bullet to the brain is enough to inspire such extreme loyalty in anyone, anywhere in the world, and also work wonders for their work ethics. There is nothing like the finality of the bullet to the brain to inspire josh and vastly improved production ethics.

Remember, among countless other things, how the trains ran on time, petty corruption etc almost dried up during IG's emergency?? It all vanished in a puff of smoke when the emergency was lifted.

The hans target and invest huge amounts in specific technology startups, place their already bright boys and girls in companies that are R&D heavy where they are looking to steal/acquire technology.

Sure, the hans lose some money due to theft by their own citizens but justice is swift and sure where such guys are caught and it usually ends with a bullet to the brain, without the messy "democratic" niceties such as proof, corrupt courts and hizzoners on the take.

Such is not the case that obtains in India.

A lot of complex technology was transferred by israel, technologies that it developed for the forcibly aborted lavi program.

A lot of the cheeni internal work and aircraft projects has grown from transfers like these.

India eternally looks for freebies while moralizing and sermonizing to the world, voting stupidly in the UN, WTO and other institutions where it should either abstain or keep very very quiet.

We will never learn and are like this onlee.
Last edited by chetak on 14 Feb 2019 11:40, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Singha » 14 Feb 2019 11:39

airbus has announced end of A380 production

cheeni teams will be onsite next week to try and purchase bits and pieces of its coveted tech to for C929

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Austin » 14 Feb 2019 11:50

Yes a Theft or RE or Lic Production would at best tell you how good the other guy is and what is the benchmark he can set to make yourself better or reach that goal.

You still need Industrial capacity backed by many thousand big and small industries , Ablity to make your own FC laws , Good Mastery over Materials and equally good mastery in Aerodynamics and manufacturing capacity to make your own stuff.

That is the reason I dont prefer the RE rroute or copy or any thing unless you are just spying on your adversary to figure out how good you are , That can be a baseline but you need to design your own stuff and do out of box thinking to try and make it better.

With RE you end up with the same downside that the other guy has in your design , no out of box thinking there so it even sedates your ability to think better or think out of box.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20267
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 14 Feb 2019 12:32

Austin wrote:Yes a Theft or RE or Lic Production would at best tell you how good the other guy is and what is the benchmark he can set to make yourself better or reach that goal.

You still need Industrial capacity backed by many thousand big and small industries , Ablity to make your own FC laws , Good Mastery over Materials and equally good mastery in Aerodynamics and manufacturing capacity to make your own stuff.

That is the reason I dont prefer the RE rroute or copy or any thing unless you are just spying on your adversary to figure out how good you are , That can be a baseline but you need to design your own stuff and do out of box thinking to try and make it better.

With RE you end up with the same downside that the other guy has in your design , no out of box thinking there so it even sedates your ability to think better or think out of box.


this is what happens fairly often when you RE :)


https://twitter.com/Imamofpeace/status/1095282867431600129

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Singha » 14 Feb 2019 14:24

^^ thats a 2013 proton rocket per comments, but point is true. RE of complex systems can have unknown results.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Austin » 14 Feb 2019 14:49

Yes its a proton that crashes few seconds after take off , Turns out one lazy guy who was latter called good for nothing have put the gyro ulta :D

I read in todays news that US is using some black program to sabotage Iranian Missile and SLV but it turns out IRan SLV are failing but not their Missile , So could be more of Irans inability to master space technology ......during early days we faced the same issue

https://taskandpurpose.com/us-sabotage- ... t-launches

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3825
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chola » 14 Feb 2019 14:51

Austin wrote:Yes a Theft or RE or Lic Production would at best tell you how good the other guy is and what is the benchmark he can set to make yourself better or reach that goal.

You still need Industrial capacity backed by many thousand big and small industries , Ablity to make your own FC laws , Good Mastery over Materials and equally good mastery in Aerodynamics and manufacturing capacity to make your own stuff.




That is the crux of it. The industrial base is what makes your theft, reverse engineering or home grown design a reality. You can steal the greatest design in the world but if you don’t have the industry to build it, it meaningless. Innovation would be nothing but bright ideas. Without the base you can’t even begin to RE.

That is where Cheen excels. A massive industrial base behind the ARJ21 and C919. This is why they are able to run so many projects. Unlike ours, it is not a spot project like Saras here or a Do 228 there. It runs the entire gamut from piston cropdusters to civilian GA single seaters to 19 seaters to 70 seater turboprops to 85 seat turbofan regional jets to 160-seat narrowbody and finally a wide body project. This is mirrored in the military too all the way from a turboprop general purpose to a heavy transport.

We need to build a bigger and more complete base. Finishing up Saras and beginning a regional aircraft is critical to that base.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Austin » 14 Feb 2019 15:25

Singha wrote:airbus has announced end of A380 production

cheeni teams will be onsite next week to try and purchase bits and pieces of its coveted tech to for C929


A380 was a loss making venture since inception big 4 engine aircraft niche market for it , the emrites deal for a350 over 380 sealed its fate. Sad

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5673
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Dileep » 14 Feb 2019 17:36

Cheen had invited a number of Tier 1/2 suppliers to develop stuff in cheen. Once the work is done, and the 919 is flying, they were sent home with a "thank you.. we will take it from here".

"We still hold a lot of things they do not know" is the self consolation these poor folk made.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20267
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 14 Feb 2019 18:26

chola wrote:
Austin wrote:Yes a Theft or RE or Lic Production would at best tell you how good the other guy is and what is the benchmark he can set to make yourself better or reach that goal.

You still need Industrial capacity backed by many thousand big and small industries , Ablity to make your own FC laws , Good Mastery over Materials and equally good mastery in Aerodynamics and manufacturing capacity to make your own stuff.



That is the crux of it. The industrial base is what makes your theft, reverse engineering or home grown design a reality. You can steal the greatest design in the world but if you don’t have the industry to build it, it meaningless. Innovation would be nothing but bright ideas. Without the base you can’t even begin to RE.

That is where Cheen excels. A massive industrial base behind the ARJ21 and C919. This is why they are able to run so many projects. Unlike ours, it is not a spot project like Saras here or a Do 228 there. It runs the entire gamut from piston cropdusters to civilian GA single seaters to 19 seaters to 70 seater turboprops to 85 seat turbofan regional jets to 160-seat narrowbody and finally a wide body project. This is mirrored in the military too all the way from a turboprop general purpose to a heavy transport.

We need to build a bigger and more complete base. Finishing up Saras and beginning a regional aircraft is critical to that base.




I know from personal experience of the industrial infrastructure base in srilanka and malayasia and nothing in India compares to that and yet they are much smaller countries as well as much smaller economies.

Our R&D folks are mostly lone ranger type of mavericks with no central coordinating and controlling authority because if they did have such a system, a project like the saras should never have come about at the time it did. These guys are mostly centrally coordinated for finances only but in the design space and work flow wise, there is no oversight to ensure that complementary projects from different labs dovetail smoothly into a larger national mosaic of objectives so that a dynamically aware and monitoring oversight team can coordinate multiple project threads that can run parallelly instead of serially.

Start small, take baby steps and build from there. To go to a pusher configuration, right off the bat, makes no sense. They have not much clue of long established and reliable lifeblood aviation practices like configuration management, no aviation culture to speak of and no real knowledge of risk analysis etc and this speaks volumes about workflow discipline, work ethics and organisation culture.

You have a living example in the DO-228, a safe, reliable and well understood workhorse. It could have been scaled up and been rejuvenated as a mid level regional commuter with 40-60 seats and it is also a classic conventional design with high tech features and most manufacturing issues have already been ironed out.

It would have, maybe, paid a better dividend.

Instead, a long gestation, de novo, pusher design was chosen, pigheadedly persisted with and built and what happened to it thereafter set the saras program back by a decade at least. Forget adequate funding, it will take a long time, even to get the trust back.

Most of these director level guys work on the "let me build my own kingdom" syndrome and "my own kingdom" often means my ideas and my people, with no room or place for cross pollination of ideas or dissent and so all team members are working in a rigid "don't rock the boat" mindset. This is not team building, in any sense of the term, but it is a sure fire recipe for disaster.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20267
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 14 Feb 2019 18:43

Dileep wrote:Cheen had invited a number of Tier 1/2 suppliers to develop stuff in cheen. Once the work is done, and the 919 is flying, they were sent home with a "thank you.. we will take it from here".

"We still hold a lot of things they do not know" is the self consolation these poor folk made.


This is exactly what happened in the ALH program and it is precisely what HAL did to MBB.

Except, HAL didn't/couldn't judge the vitally important "Once the work is done" point and they goofed up big time.

MBB was very kind to warn HAL then, multiple times, as it turned out, but HAL was in its usual "ego" mode instead of the infinitely more beneficial "analysis" mode.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Austin » 15 Feb 2019 10:35

A Humiliating End to the Superjumbo Era

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... went-wrong

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Austin » 15 Feb 2019 12:00

I wonder if A380 program was a loss in the sense the sunk money in the program could not be recovered or its a loss that they could not achieve the target goal of selling X number of aircraft world over but it is not a financial loss ........Not sure about it

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3631
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Neela » 15 Feb 2019 12:09

Austin wrote:A Humiliating End to the Superjumbo Era

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... went-wrong


I dont know what is "humiliating" about an era or A380 failing?

It was a strategic bet gone wrong.
And maybe traffic in the future will revive it again.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20267
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 15 Feb 2019 13:03

Austin wrote:I wonder if A380 program was a loss in the sense the sunk money in the program could not be recovered or its a loss that they could not achieve the target goal of selling X number of aircraft world over but it is not a financial loss ........Not sure about it


A lot of EU subsidies are/have been non transparently buried in the entire airbus program.

Like always, it will be the taxpayers who will take the longterm hit as well as the short term haircut.

As usual, some very creative accounting will bamboozle the natives and the press will be, as always, gourmet wined, cheesed and dined.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3825
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chola » 15 Feb 2019 14:12

chetak wrote:
I know from personal experience of the industrial infrastructure base in srilanka and malayasia and nothing in India compares to that and yet they are much smaller countries as well as much smaller economies.



Sri Lanka? Malaysia I can believe because they do have world class corporations there especially from their large overseas chini community. But sobering thoughts. How can this possibly be with our size of economy.

Our R&D folks are mostly lone ranger type of mavericks with no central coordinating and controlling authority because if they did have such a system, a project like the saras should never have come about at the time it did.


We have a series of projects. Some brilliant but not an actual industry which can develop, prototype and pitch products on its own. We do not have an organic industry. This is how we can bring a turbofan like the Kaveri to the flight testing stage (something only a handful of elite nations could do) but we have never built and productionize a turbojet — sonething that even Iran was able to do with the Owj engine and Kowsar F-5 clone.


Instead, a long gestation, de novo, pusher design was chosen, pigheadedly persisted with and built and what happened to it thereafter set the saras program back by a decade at least. Forget adequate funding, it will take a long time, even to get the trust back.


I was surprised that they went for such an unconventional design but it looks rather cool. Almost jet-like though a prop. You absolutely right with using the Do 228 as a base. Why tackle a pusher design as a first project when 95% of the established aircraft out there are tractors? That time will come but let’s get some experience first.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3825
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chola » 15 Feb 2019 14:18

chetak wrote:
Dileep wrote:Cheen had invited a number of Tier 1/2 suppliers to develop stuff in cheen. Once the work is done, and the 919 is flying, they were sent home with a "thank you.. we will take it from here".

"We still hold a lot of things they do not know" is the self consolation these poor folk made.


This is exactly what happened in the ALH program and it is precisely what HAL did to MBB.

Except, HAL didn't/couldn't judge the vitally important "Once the work is done" point and they goofed up big time.

MBB was very kind to warn HAL then, multiple times, as it turned out, but HAL was in its usual "ego" mode instead of the infinitely more beneficial "analysis" mode.



And the helo arm of HAL is by far the most successful division. So sorry MBB national security and national capacity is more important. To be honest, I wish we do more of this. For example, the MKI line. Why should we allow the eco-system built up over time to just die because the “contract” is over? I would have it build desi Flankers. Maybe even one for the carriers. Our SU-33.

Chetakji, I am unsure of what HAL misjudged. MBB warned them of what? And how have HAL goofed?

Much appreciate your opinions.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20267
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 15 Feb 2019 15:11

chola wrote:
chetak wrote:
This is exactly what happened in the ALH program and it is precisely what HAL did to MBB.

Except, HAL didn't/couldn't judge the vitally important "Once the work is done" point and they goofed up big time.

MBB was very kind to warn HAL then, multiple times, as it turned out, but HAL was in its usual "ego" mode instead of the infinitely more beneficial "analysis" mode.



And the helo arm of HAL is by far the most successful division. So sorry MBB national security and national capacity is more important. To be honest, I wish we do more of this. For example, the MKI line. Why should we allow the eco-system built up over time to just die because the “contract” is over? I would have it build desi Flankers. Maybe even one for the carriers. Our SU-33.

Chetakji, I am unsure of what HAL misjudged. MBB warned them of what? And how have HAL goofed?

Much appreciate your opinions.


it would be a long and tiresome discussion, one perhaps better saved for another day.

suffice it to say that had HAL listened to MBB, the troubles which surfaced later in the ALH would not have done so.

All MBB asked then while pointing out the as yet unfinished or incomplete work was for their contract to be extended for a short period to enable them to complete the pending work in hand.

It was almost like a coup by a bunch of morons who perhaps had visions of padma shris and padma bhushans dancing in their addled brains.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3825
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chola » 15 Feb 2019 16:11

^^^ But Chetak ji, the Dhruv has been a very successful program overall. Don’t you think so?

I recall some issues initially with altitude perfirmances and a series of maintenance problems. The Ecuadorian thing was probably pilot error or more lack of support and training from the customer than any hard evidence of technical failure.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20267
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 15 Feb 2019 20:10

chola wrote:^^^ But Chetak ji, the Dhruv has been a very successful program overall. Don’t you think so?

I recall some issues initially with altitude perfirmances and a series of maintenance problems. The Ecuadorian thing was probably pilot error or more lack of support and training from the customer than any hard evidence of technical failure.


the last time I raised this issue, I was warned off.

best to let sleeping dogs lie.

Maybe it would be a topic at some BR meet where well lubricated tounges would enable some to speak and other equally well lubricated ears would listen.

Let's move on, shall we??

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3825
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chola » 16 Feb 2019 09:04

^^^ Understood Sir. For what it is worth, I believe your views are highly respected here, Chetak ji.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Neshant » 17 Feb 2019 05:46

nachiket wrote:The only innovation that is really happening in the civilian sphere is in the engines in terms of fuel economy and noise etc. and in avionics to some extent. Aside from that not much has changed even in the 737 and A320 series. So if the Chinis are copying it is a good approach. They will most likely be using the latest engines from GE/RR/PW anyway.


The market for regional aircraft is getting crowded and competition will be getting fierce.

737, A320, Bombardier C series, Mitsubishi regional jet, Embraer.

China has booked something like 47 customers for its C-919. But all of them are local carriers in China. Essentially the govt is forcing them to buy the planes. Even if India managed to build a plane, it would need to sell it. Can it force local carriers to buy an Indian made plane? India would need an export market for the plane to get economy of scale.

A tall order.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Neshant » 17 Feb 2019 06:03

chetak wrote:To go to a pusher configuration, right off the bat, makes no sense.


So far their vision seems to be working on the Saras.

The Saras' delay was due to its funding being cutoff by short sighted individuals at the first sign of troubles.

But troubles are inherent in anything difficult and there is a learning curve to overcome.

This is the only real civilian aircraft project that's moving ahead - so lets give it some support instead of brickbats.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20267
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 17 Feb 2019 06:51

Neshant wrote:
chetak wrote:To go to a pusher configuration, right off the bat, makes no sense.


So far their vision seems to be working on the Saras.

The Saras' delay was due to its funding being cutoff by short sighted individuals at the first sign of troubles.

But troubles are inherent in anything difficult and there is a learning curve to overcome.

This is the only real civilian aircraft project that's moving ahead - so lets give it some support instead of brickbats.


At the time, the larger and pressurized 328 version was also available for the asking because of serious financial difficulties at the parent company.

That opportunity was also let go.

Without any malice intended, the saras has no market. It will, at best, be dumped on the forces who do not need it.

Much more reliable, tested and well proven aircraft of this size are readily available with a well set marketing and after sales support that are languishing in the wilderness of a scarce market.

what is to be done with an aircraft that is still a good 8-10 years away from being marketed after due certification?? It needs a full fledged spares support and a spares supply network.

Documentation, manuals and spare parts schedule with full featured drawings to aid parts identification, fitment and maintenance work is needed. This documentation needs to be delivered in some very specific internationally accepted documentation standard. All this very highly specialized work, far removed from the specialities available at NAL who anyway are too hoi polloi to dirty their hands with such mundane, painstaking and pedestrian labour. Such work is never in the limelight so there will be not m(any) takers for it.

In the meanwhile, the rest of the highly competitive regional market would have moved along just that much further ahead.

Is the objective of this project technology demonstration?? or product development??

On either count, its far from impressive at this point.

Everyone is patriotic but one must draw the line somewhere and have the courage to call a spade a spade.

I am sure that many universities and IITs are more than capable of doing what NAL has done so far.

Maybe its time that we seriously looked inwards, honestly reflected and searched our souls as well as our nationally available talent pool to set up a go getter team that is impartially selected from available resources, based solely on merits and best fit considerations and take it from there, without worrying too much about some outmoded guru shishya parampara.

In any lab/organisation, there are, at best, only a few really bright, self starting and inspired sparks who are able to produce tangible research results and command respect.

The rest are merely pedestrian, mostly passive passengers and onlookers cleverly avoiding responsibilities.

BTW, funding is cut mostly because of loss of confidence and non delivery of agreed upon and verifiable project milestones and not because of the shortsightedness of some individuals in dilli far removed from the scene.

After the accident, did anyone resign??, own up responsibility?? or in the truly and in the age old Indian way, did they simply go home, have dinner, watch TV and go to sleep??

How much confidence do you think is left after the idly avro and the saras accidents??

there is no reliable research to discover/forecast/predict/quantify the numbers of saras that will be required by the regional aircraft market in the country or even the region.

So how are the production numbers going to be set?? this will seriously affect tooling, jigs and manpower, no??

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Austin » 17 Feb 2019 10:45


China has booked something like 47 customers for its C-919. But all of them are local carriers in China. Essentially the govt is forcing them to buy the planes. Even if India managed to build a plane, it would need to sell it. Can it force local carriers to buy an Indian made plane? India would need an export market for the plane to get economy of scale.

A tall order.


Even EU and US does the same thing by forcing its local airlines to buy A or B type via subsidies , the competitors have hard time pushing into each other’s local market

In fact A lost a big tanker deal that it won fair and square for US AF and deal got cancelled and AF was told to buy and do maga

So there is nothing wrong if China or india or Brazil or Russia ask local airliner to buy locally made aircraft via subsidies or tariff the big players do the same

The way to help Saras is to subsidise the feeder route or provide attractive subsidy / long term finance to any local airline who buy Saras and then extend to international carrier once you have established the MRO safety , spares etc take around 3-5 years to do that , another option is to impose tariffs on competitor on similar class

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Austin » 17 Feb 2019 16:17

Banks, NIIF and Etihad to restart Jet engine with Rs 3,400 crore infusion

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/in ... 018038.cms

Goyal’s stake will drop to 20% from 51%, stripping him of board membership and management control. He will, however, retain his status as promoter.


Image

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Neshant » 17 Feb 2019 17:04

chetak wrote:At the time, the larger and pressurized 328 version was also available for the asking because of serious financial difficulties at the parent company.

That opportunity was also let go.

Without any malice intended, the saras has no market. It will, at best, be dumped on the forces who do not need it.

Much more reliable, tested and well proven aircraft of this size are readily available with a well set marketing and after sales support that are languishing in the wilderness of a scarce market.


The objective here is to build the necessary setup for an aerospace R&D base.
Doing license manufacture screw driver turning is not R&D.
License manufacture will go on nonetheless with aircraft in a somewhat different category - but it won't advance the goal of developing an aerospace R&D base which requires doing such a project from the ground up.

Saras is the right move to gain experience in aircraft design & development from the ground up.
Its in the right segment of the market both technically as a project that isn't too ambitious in scale and economically in terms of internal demand.

China invested a lot of effort in C-919 not because it cannot purchase 737 or A320 and build a large segment of it using the supply chain within its country but rather, because it wants to establish its aerospace industry at the R&D level.
Even so, they are using GE engines - with the intention to eventually replace them with engines of their own make.

Nothing says Saras isn't being done as per FAA standards given that it has to be approved by the aviation authorities in India to the same standards applied on the Tejas. The reason the Tejas was considered by Germany for import as a trainer (in exchange for purchase of the Eurofighter) is because the Tejas has followed western development standards for certification. Legally, planes made by countries that don't meet those high standards of development cannot be flown in western and countries following western standards on aerospace safety.

That kind of stuff wasn't happening in China - until the C-919 came along.

India is moving in the right direction on this.
Saras needs to succeed for the good of the country's aerospace industry.

The hoping it fails because someone has a big axe to grind needs to stop. Its toxic for human health.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20267
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 17 Feb 2019 17:20

Neshant wrote:
chetak wrote:At the time, the larger and pressurized 328 version was also available for the asking because of serious financial difficulties at the parent company.

That opportunity was also let go.

Without any malice intended, the saras has no market. It will, at best, be dumped on the forces who do not need it.

Much more reliable, tested and well proven aircraft of this size are readily available with a well set marketing and after sales support that are languishing in the wilderness of a scarce market.


The objective here is to build the necessary setup for an aerospace R&D base.
Doing license manufacture screw driver turning is not R&D.
License manufacture will go on nonetheless with aircraft in a somewhat different category - but it won't advance the goal of developing an aerospace R&D base which requires doing such a project from the ground up.

Saras is the right move to gain experience in aircraft design & development from the ground up.
Its in the right segment of the market both technically as a project that isn't too ambitious in scale and economically in terms of internal demand.

China invested a lot of effort in C-919 not because it cannot purchase 737 or A320 and build a large segment of it using the supply chain within its country but rather, because it wants to establish its aerospace industry at the R&D level.
Even so, they are using GE engines - with the intention to eventually replace them with engines of their own make.

Nothing says Saras isn't being done as per FAA standards given that it has to be approved by the aviation authorities in India to the same standards applied on the Tejas. The reason the Tejas was considered by Germany for import as a trainer (in exchange for purchase of the Eurofighter) is because the Tejas has followed western development standards for certification. Legally, planes made by countries that don't meet those high standards of development cannot be flown in western and countries following western standards on aerospace safety.

That kind of stuff wasn't happening in China - until the C-919 came along.

India is moving in the right direction on this.
Saras needs to succeed for the good of the country's aerospace industry.

The hoping it fails because someone has a big axe to grind needs to stop.


tejus is a military machine and saras is a civil machine.

The applicable standards are totally different as are the certification procedures. The aviation authorities involved with these two machines are very different and they serve different masters, markets and purposes.

commercial certification needs to be transparent and follow set and approved procedures formulated by agencies like FAA, EASA etc. Not only certification but also design needs to follow rigid guidelines.

Rarely are military certification procedures as transparent.

Saras does not need to fail, but to succeed, it needs better people than currently working on it and surprise, surprise, such people may be available in other institutions in India and not just at NAL.

saras is a national project and not a private one

Leverage, strengthen, innovate and succeed. Do not stifle, stagnate and meander aimlessly.

When ISRO and DAE could succeed even under conditions of severe and long term sanctions, why not others, especially those who never had to hear the word sanctions??

Don't keep on doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result each time.
Last edited by chetak on 17 Feb 2019 17:41, edited 1 time in total.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Neshant » 17 Feb 2019 17:37

chetak wrote:tejus is a military machine and saras is a civil machine.

The applicable standards are totally different as is the certification procedure.


FAA based MIL and DO certification standards are in fact more rigorous for military aircraft.
This is especially so since the aircraft will operate under taxing conditions and in a more diverse set of environments.
e.g. everything from electronic components to fluids to fan blades have to operate at a variety of extreme temperatures which civilian aircraft are not expected to meet.
The overall process of getting anything certified by the FAA for aerospace usage is largely the same.

Anyway the sour grapes need to stop.
The Saras is a good project and its success will be one small step for modern MANU.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20267
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 17 Feb 2019 17:44

Neshant wrote:
chetak wrote:tejus is a military machine and saras is a civil machine.

The applicable standards are totally different as is the certification procedure.


FAA based MIL and DO certification standards are in fact more rigorous for military aircraft.
This is especially so since the aircraft will operate under taxing conditions and in a more diverse set of environments.
e.g. everything from electronic components to fluids to fan blades have to operate at a variety of extreme temperatures which civilian aircraft are not expected to meet.
The overall process of getting anything certified by the FAA for aerospace usage is largely the same.

Anyway the sour grapes need to stop.
The Saras is a good project and its success will be one small step for modern MANU.


looks like we both want the same thing but differ on the means.

let us agree to disagree.

EOD.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20267
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 17 Feb 2019 23:19

some light into events past.

the stories one could tell, no??



Mallya loan fraud case: Air Deccan founder GR Gopinath under lens


Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Austin » 18 Feb 2019 17:36

The A380 is dead, long live the A350!


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Austin » 21 Feb 2019 12:22



arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby arshyam » 21 Feb 2019 17:14

Saw an article recently that SIA is going to upgauge SIN-BLR-SIN to an A-350.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6300
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Supratik » 21 Feb 2019 19:27


chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3825
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chola » 23 Feb 2019 16:55

In sharp contrast to Chetakji’s point on the uber pusher design Saras, the chinis went full boring conventional tractor with the 19-seat Y-12.

In its fifth mark, it finally gets retractable gear which Saras had designed from the very beginning. This represents a low risk incremental approach.

Translated in the chini section of the paki forum:
Y-12F: The latest development with almost everything redesigned: wider fuselage, new wings, retractable landing gear and more powerful engines.

The turbine engines are more powerful PT6A-65B. Due to all the improvement, Y-12F has high cruise speed and long range, it can accommodate 19 passenger or carry cargo in 3 LD3 containers.

The design started at April 2005 and maiden flight on December 29, 2010. It received the CAAC type certification on December 10, 2015, and the FAA type certification on February 22, 2016. Y-12F has passed evaluation flight tests for its automatic flight control system by the FAA on June 30, 2018


Basic mil Y-12C or D:
Image

Y-12F:
Image
Image

Saras for comparison:
Image

The Saras looks cooler from every angle and has TFTA features (like the retractable LG) compared to the base Y-12 which looks like a box with square wings and low tech tricycle gear. But the Y-12 is serviceable and flies in the hundreds so that the later marks can now sport the cooler stuff. Chinis seem to be manufacturers first and designers second. We are opposite.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Austin » 23 Feb 2019 17:51

Considering Y-12 is in production since 1985 as per wiki that means it has a huge headstart while comparing to Saras which is still under flight test program wont be a fair comparision.

I am hoping the government can push Saras to civilian operator for short route operation and it does not get limited to just low double digit number sale to military.

If required GOI should start an airline subsidary of Air India that uses domestic aircraft like Saras and RTA that is the only way you can push your program to get the necessary flying hours and experience etc to then push to other civil operators.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3825
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chola » 23 Feb 2019 18:05

^^^ Yes and no, Austin ji. The Y-12 began in the 1980s just a few years before NAL began the LTA program that ended up as the Saras. But the chinis did use the piston-driven Y-11 as a base. So they had this as a big advantage as you noted.

And yet they went for a very conventional design. They had previous experience so it is probably more reasonable for them to try a pusher than for NAL to attempt one. Yet the opposite happened.

We shoot for the moon while they stick to what they could build in any given time and then improve in increments as their ability increases.

That said, the Saras program must be pushed along so the sacrifices made are not for naught.


Return to “Technology & Economic Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests