Kaveri Engine

[Kunal Biswas]

The data is from 2009 and being posted in 2017 ..

18th months is the time ..

=======

Note : As long as you debate in civil manner and keep your kool, everyone will listen and accept your view, The moment you start abusing you will lose it all ..

@Steven Rogers

No if K9 is able to fly on LCA by 2019.

 

[Steven Rogers]

The data is from 2009 and being posted in 2017 ..

I'm sorry what you said I didn't got.

 

[Steven Rogers]

stop being so ingnorant and look for the facts then answer.
having a test bed won't do any good when design wise you don't even have a flight worthy prototype either.

When you don't have a testbed where you gonna test your system...Testing on board is a lot different than testing on labs... Their will be a lot of data and knowledge onboard than testing on ground.

 

[Steven Rogers]

How does overall weight matter? It is as good as making LCA carry 100-200kg less payload. Whether weight is due to engine or otherwise, weight is weight. Considering that payload capacity is 2.5 tons, reducing it to 2.3-2.4ton will not change much

By pass ratio, overall ratio, TET Temperature is low than the expected and for which they have been working.

 

[Armand2REP]

Failed when in 2003, or in 2010,it passed high altitude test in 2010....it already established the endurance and reliability of the platform and achieved the initial requirements of 81kN thrust on the ground, however it didn't achieved in some parameters such as in bypass ratio, overall ratio and in TET where it was designed for 1800K.
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2010/11/drdo-conducts-first-successful-flig.html?_e_pi_=7,PAGE_ID10,9733632550

At the time of that article it had completed one test flight lasting one hour. That is hardly definitive. The report of Safran needing to complete 30% of its redesign and development rather says it was not complete. If it was it could have gone forward with use in UAVs and the GTX-35VS marine turbine.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Kaveri archived 78kn thrust back in 2011, If someone quoted it then its quite outdated data ..

Yo man you kick a lot of foreign lobbies with the authentic pics.

 

[Steven Rogers]

At the time of that article it had completed one test flight lasting one hour. That is hardly definitive. The report of Safran needing to complete 30% of its redesign and development rather says it was not complete. If it was it could have gone forward with use in UAVs and the GTX-35VS marine turbine.

Sorry but changing 30 percent of design, within 2 years on an engine which you have no idea....

 

[Armand2REP]

Sorry but changing 30 percent of design, within 2 years on an engine which you have no idea....

If it is complete with just lower thrust then where is the naval turbine? They spun-off the research for that a decade ago.

 

[Steven Rogers]

At the time of that article it had completed one test flight lasting one hour. That is hardly definitive. The report of Safran needing to complete 30% of its redesign and development rather says it was not complete. If it was it could have gone forward with use in UAVs and the GTX-35VS marine turbine.

Kaveri so far has been tested more than 100 hours on testbed successfully... With initial objectives completed.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

====================
====================

 

[Steven Rogers]

If it is complete with just lower thrust then where is the naval turbine? They spun-off the research for that a decade ago.

Naval turbine achieved 12MW power in 2013.

 

[Armand2REP]

Naval turbine achieved 12MW power in 2013.

Good for the 12MW, when did it hit the water?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The Navy wants a few of these engines to be provided to them to power some of their smaller ships. But the GTRE and its supervising director general (aeronautics), Dr K Tamilmani have so far demurred from entertaining the Navy’s request, Reason: the Navy is seeking less than 10 of these engines, which does not provide the scale of production for which GTRE can divert human and other resources.

Read more at: http://www.millenniumpost.in/navy-drdo-headed-for-a-tug-of-war-over-kaveri-engine-207386?NID=62675

Good for the 12MW, when did it hit the water?

 

[Vijyes]

At the time of that article it had completed one test flight lasting one hour. That is hardly definitive. The report of Safran needing to complete 30% of its redesign and development rather says it was not complete. If it was it could have gone forward with use in UAVs and the GTX-35VS marine turbine.

You are discounting congress and its agenda.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

One of the most earliest publication from the founding fathers of Kaveri engine regarding the concept and design objectives that went into the Kaveri engine programme. It will definately take you down the memory lane.

 

[singh100ful]

Speaking randomly will not make any sense. Avoid speaking if you can't answer questions. No one likes to listen to your monologue ranting without answering questions.

I am not talking randomly and niether am i ranting any monologue.
many people here are just stating assumptions of their own when it comes to the development of such military hardware and that is what i was replying to

 

[rudresh]

I am not talking randomly and niether am i ranting any monologue.
many people here are just stating assumptions of their own when it comes to the development of such military hardware and that is what i was replying to

Speaking to Mr Singh 100 full is nothing useful it is useless he has demonstrated his knowledge in previous page itself- he doesn't want a testbed for testing engine. According to him a reliable engine can be done without a testbed. Thank god I didn't knew it till now.......

 

[rudresh]

Sorry but changing 30 percent of design, within 2 years on an engine which you have no idea....

Yes u are 100% correct 30%changing design in two years is impossible for even the most prestigious engine houses weather it is Snegma , P&W, GE or saylut those who tell about such a thing is a clueless person.....

 

[rudresh]

If it is complete with just lower thrust then where is the naval turbine? They spun-off the research for that a decade ago.

There is a difference between a naval engine and an engine for airforce - a naval engine can be put into airforce plane but reverse is not effective. If you can understand why u will know the reason for not implementation of naval kaveri.

 

[singh100ful]

Speaking to Mr Singh 100 full is nothing useful it is useless he has demonstrated his knowledge in previous page itself- he doesn't want a testbed for testing engine. According to him a reliable engine can be done without a testbed. Thank god I didn't knew it till now.......

Thank you sir for evaluating my knowledge based on your judgemental attitude