Kaveri Engine

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
French engine is generation behind UK and USA and almost equal to Rusisia's.

in fact, before USSR collapsed, as for engine tech French was most crappy ,of the 4 countries that could manufactur engine independently. However, French has good avionics.
Before the USSR collapsed, French engines were made for Mirage fighters, they were comperable in engine tech to the US in their weight class and even more reliable. Far more reliable and less maintenance intensive than Soviet engines.

Of all 4G bird, French M2000 has poorest engine. in fact, as for T/W ratio, the M2000's engine was only 6.0,almost one generation behind F15/16's and Su27's.
its avionics makes up the flaw,to some extent.
2000 = 6.4
F-16 = 6.85
MiG-29 = 7.86
Su-27 = 8

Its true the Soviet Union was kicking ass in engine performance, but their reliability and maintenance cycles were abysmal. France had the most reliable engines bar none, sweet and simple.


As for engine tech today,

USA and UK has best engine tech, they are the 1st class;

Russia and French is about one generation behind(almost 15-20 year behind). they are the second class;
Now lets look at how France has developed today.

M88-2 = 8.6
M88-3 = 10.3

Compare that to USA

F-22 = 8.9
F-35 = 10.5

Compare that to Russia

MiG-35 = 7.85
Su-35 = 9.15

France is at the top. Russia is losing the curve.

China is about 1.5 G behind( about 25-30 years behind,that is USA in 1980s);
The best fighter engine China has produced is the Spey Mk 202 knockoff which is 5 and you only did that by pirating the license and calling it WS-9.

You are at least two generations behind.

India's Kavery has a T/W ratio about 6. that is almost 40-50 years behind UK. UK's spey has also a ratio of 5.8,and it was developed in 1960s.
Kaveri is better then your knockoff engines. :sarcastic:
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
746
Before the USSR collapsed, French engines were made for Mirage fighters, they were comperable in engine tech to the US in their weight class and even more reliable. Far more reliable and less maintenance intensive than Soviet engines.



2000 = 6.4
F-16 = 6.85
MiG-29 = 7.86
Su-27 = 8

Its true the Soviet Union was kicking ass in engine performance, but their reliability and maintenance cycles were abysmal. France had the most reliable engines bar none, sweet and simple.




Now lets look at how France has developed today.

M88-2 = 8.6
M88-3 = 10.3

Compare that to USA

F-22 = 8.9
F-35 = 10.5

Compare that to Russia

MiG-35 = 7.85
Su-35 = 9.15

France is at the top. Russia is losing the curve.



The best fighter engine China has produced is the Spey Mk 202 knockoff which is 5 and you only did that by pirating the license and calling it WS-9.

You are at least two generations behind.



Kaveri is better then your knockoff engines. :sarcastic:

well,guy .same tricks comes again...

compare french toys in labs with other's toys in service... first is "meteor",now it is turn of M88...come on,guy ,don't you have any new tricks?

BTW, F16 and F15 used the same engine with a T/W ratio of 7.0-8.0.
SU27's engine also has a T/W ratio of 7.0-8.0.

In fact, almost all 4 G birds have a T/W ratio of 7.0-8.0 ,except M2000.

M2000's engine has a ratio of only about 6.0 .

BTW,
French engine is crappy.however it has a decent avionics .its avionics almost is side by side by USA. well evenybody has its clouts and short-comings.

France quit the project of EF2000,partly because France didn't want its advanced avionics to be shared by its allies, although UK would rather do a deal of "engine for avionics".....UK's engine tech is much more advanced than France.


As for Chinese engine tech...I don't think your comments are worth any rebuting. Whatever you says, CHinese tech is there and progressing rapidly. anyhow, it is hard time now for the china-basher and China-to-colllapse advocators! and I think that the happy time for them won't come again in forseeable future.....so you should take care of yourself..otherwise you would "collapse" before China were to collapse....hahahah

if Europe is not united, whether UK or France can not afford to the high cost to develope next G engines alone.
it is not a problem of tech any more,but a problem of money....either France or UK has no enough money now...
 

sandeepdg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
2,333
Likes
227
well,guy .same tricks comes again...

compare french toys in labs with other's toys in service... first is "meteor",now it is turn of M88...come on,guy ,don't you have any new tricks?

BTW, F16 and F15 used the same engine with a T/W ratio of 7.0-8.0.
SU27's engine also has a T/W ratio of 7.0-8.0.

In fact, almost all 4 G birds have a T/W ratio of 7.0-8.0 ,except M2000.

M2000's engine has a ratio of only about 6.0 .

BTW,
French engine is crappy.however it has a decent avionics .its avionics almost is side by side by USA. well evenybody has its clouts and short-comings.

France quit the project of EF2000,partly because France didn't want its advanced avionics to be shared by its allies, although UK would rather do a deal of "engine for avionics".....UK's engine tech is much more advanced than France.


As for Chinese engine tech...I don't think your comments are worth any rebuting. Whatever you says, CHinese tech is there and progressing rapidly. anyhow, it is hard time now for the china-basher and China-to-colllapse advocators! and I think that the happy time for them won't come again in forseeable future.....so you should take care of yourself..otherwise you would "collapse" before China were to collapse....hahahah

if Europe is not united, whether UK or France can not afford to the high cost to develope next G engines alone.
it is not a problem of tech any more,but a problem of money....either France or UK has no enough money now...
However crappy they might be, they are far better than your piece of s*** called WS-9 Qin Ling. With all your financial might, you can only come up with a copied version of the Rolls Royce Spey engine of the 1950s era with a T/W ratio of 5.0, currently being used in your JH-7s. And by the way, the T/W ratio of Kaveri engine is 7.8 and not 6.0 as you foolishly claim. Please get your facts right pal, before you rant !!

DRDO::
www.lca-tejas.org/engine.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaveri_engine
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
well,guy .same tricks comes again...

compare french toys in labs with other's toys in service... first is "meteor",now it is turn of M88...come on,guy ,don't you have any new tricks?
Out of the lab, setting up production phase. Plenty of new "tricks" like stealth UAVs, ABM shield, and aircraft carriers your engineers can't even dream of.

BTW, F16 and F15 used the same engine with a T/W ratio of 7.0-8.0.
SU27's engine also has a T/W ratio of 7.0-8.0.

In fact, almost all 4 G birds have a T/W ratio of 7.0-8.0 ,except M2000.

M2000's engine has a ratio of only about 6.0 .
Non, all my calculations were done by hand, not the crap you read on wiki.

BTW,
French engine is crappy.however it has a decent avionics .its avionics almost is side by side by USA. well evenybody has its clouts and short-comings.

France quit the project of EF2000,partly because France didn't want its advanced avionics to be shared by its allies, although UK would rather do a deal of "engine for avionics"....
France left the project because we wanted a smaller carrier capable plane which the others didn't, and the addition of Snecma engines. Our allies are welcome to our avionics, but they won't tell us how to market them.

UK's engine tech is much more advanced than France.
It was, now that they have singehandedly killed the Eurofighter cost spiral and put 16,000 engineers out of work, they can't compete.

As for Chinese engine tech...I don't think your comments are worth any rebuting. Whatever you says, CHinese tech is there and progressing rapidly. anyhow, it is hard time now for the china-basher and China-to-colllapse advocators! and I think that the happy time for them won't come again in forseeable future.....so you should take care of yourself..otherwise you would "collapse" before China were to collapse....hahahah
They aren't worth rebutting because you can't. While you have spent the last 20 years trying to copy obsolete engines, we have already gone four evolutions on a tech that was already superior to yours. I have seen your WS-10A engines with R-11 style ejector nozzles. China isn't even attempting to put the needed Iris nozzles needed on that engine. The entire programme is destined for failure until you do. No wonder it takes a J-11B nearly two minutes to achieve military thrust when Rafale can do it in 4 seconds. The only concrete technology you have is based on the Spey which RR handed you the production equipment.

if Europe is not united, whether UK or France can not afford to the high cost to develope next G engines alone.
it is not a problem of tech any more,but a problem of money....either France or UK has no enough money now...
Next G engines are scramjets. France has the active LEA hypersonic test programme, India has ISRO and VSSC getting ready for flight in the next year. Where are yours at?
 

ptldM3

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
46
Likes
11
You are comparing apples and oranges. The AL-31F is 3 decades old. The M-88-3 is not even ready. The 117S will come out sooner than the M-88-3 too. In the next 5-10 years, the AL-41 is also expected to be operationalized which will place it right behind P&W F-135. Civilian engines isn't even the bone of contention. Airbus is pretty good at engine design. At the same time the Russians get to save money by entering into a JV with France. Who wouldn't go for a win win situation?? Pride does not dictate business. People always go towards where the money is.

You always bring OT discussion into a thread. Civilian engines are not a topic of discussion. Superjet, SSJ-100 and what not.
True statement. Comparing the AL-41F to the M-88-3 is no different then comparing the 117S to the M-88-2. There should be no comparison between engines that are in full production and engines that are still under development.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
True statement. Comparing the AL-41F to the M-88-3 is no different then comparing the 117S to the M-88-2. There should be no comparison between engines that are in full production and engines that are still under development.
PAK FA hasn't even had the tender floated yet for the 15.5 tonne engine competition. Phase two isn't going to start until 2013 at the earliest. That makes it a concept engine, nothing close to the level of M88-3. The new compressor is the only difference from the 2E4 and the prototype for that demonstrated it back in 1996. There wasn't a French requirement for it so it sat on the shelf until somebody wanted it for export, then comes UAE. We are waiting on their funding to go ahead with production, the technology is already there.

117S level of technology is more comperable to a cross between production M88-2S1 in 1996 and M53-92 from 1985 which had already used the crystal blades and FADEC. The T/W is similar to the first M88-2 but far better than the simpler M53-P2. It places Russian engine tech around a 1991 average to French deployment dates but Flankers haven't fielded these engines yet which only draws them back in the comparison. We have since added the 2E4 upgrade, the GE F414-EDE is currently researching a similar programme called EDE but is behind M88s since we have fielded ECO for several years. Saturn has yet to even attempt to improve their engines to this level. The 117S is only getting comperable in maintenance cycles to early F-15, Mirage-2000 engines developed decades ago. Russians are getting better at it, but are falling behind the curve as our development continues. Time does not sit in a vacuum.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
Another thing to note on the new 117S engine, the production models haven't been tested long enough to know if the advertised maintenance cycles are really as good as they claim they are.
 

ptldM3

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
46
Likes
11
PAK FA hasn't even had the tender floated yet for the 15.5 tonne engine competition. Phase two isn't going to start until 2013 at the earliest. That makes it a concept engine, nothing close to the level of M88-3.
Engines arn't my specialty. With that in mind, what is it that makes theM88-3 so great? According to Global Aircraft the M88-3 produces only 19,555 lb (86.98 kN) with afterburner. Global Aircraft -- Dassault Rafale

Another thing to note on the new 117S engine, the production models haven't been tested long enough to know if the advertised maintenance cycles are really as good as they claim they are
How much testing have the two engines gone through?
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
Engines arn't my specialty. With that in mind, what is it that makes theM88-3 so great? According to Global Aircraft the M88-3 produces only 19,555 lb (86.98 kN) with afterburner. Global Aircraft -- Dassault Rafale
A T/W ratio of 10.3, time between overhauls of 3,500 hours and service life of 7,000hrs, life of the aircraft. Compare this with 117S advertised numbers, T/W of 9.15, 1,500hrs TBO and 4,000hrs service life. The only thing better about 117S is the sheer thrust, but we have to realise it was designed for a BIGGER plane. Rafale is so much lighter her payload is 9500kg, 1500kgs more than an Su-34 Fullback. Su-35BM and Rafale currently share the same T/W on the aircraft, but when adding 20% to Rafale's numbers, it will blow it away.

How much testing have the two engines gone through?
117S-04,05 would have the longest time since they had 200 bench hours plus another hundred in the air for around 300 total. That is far short of 1,500 hours to be claiming that kind of TBO stats.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
A T/W ratio of 10.3, time between overhauls of 3,500 hours and service life of 7,000hrs, life of the aircraft. Compare this with 117S advertised numbers, T/W of 9.15, 1,500hrs TBO and 4,000hrs service life. The only thing better about 117S is the sheer thrust, but we have to realise it was designed for a BIGGER plane. Rafale is so much lighter her payload is 9500kg, 1500kgs more than an Su-34 Fullback. Su-35BM and Rafale currently share the same T/W on the aircraft, but when adding 20% to Rafale's numbers, it will blow it away.
Please stop showing your ignorance over and over again. You are comparing a 90KN non-existing engine with a 141KN existing engine. The 117S delivers a thrust of 14 tons compared to 9t on the M88-3. The 117s is undergoing flight tests and will receive certification very soon while the M88-3 is yet to be flight tested even once.

All that T/W does not matter, the 117S is simply too powerful compared to the M88 series. M88-2 is better compared with GE F-404 and M88-3 is better compared with GE F-414. If you really want to compare the M88 to Russian engines then only the RD-33 Series 3 engines can be compared. AL- 31 and higher are simply too advanced for comparison.

The AL-31 weighs 1800kg while the M88 weighs 900kgs. Its like comparing a heavy weight boxer with a light weight category boxer.

Comparing the AL-31 to M88 is like apples and oranges. Can you compare a Mustang to a Bugatti? No you cannot. Those numbers will never matchup.

The 117S is actually big enough for you to crawl into the exhaust and sleep in it. And you are actually comparing the M88 to it. :rofl:

Snemca M88-2


There is a guy in the background you can use as a scale or even this one



Just compare to it to this:



or this



The sheer size of the AL-31 defeats your challenge.
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
746
the several criterion of the performance of engines:

1. T/W ratio.

the more the T/W ratio is ,the more advanced the engine is.

Generally speaking, the engines of most 4G birds has a T/W ratio about 7.0-8.0,except M2000. the engine is always one main shortcoming of French birds.

the engine of 5G bird such as F22 and F35 has a T/W ratio of about 10.0,which is one generation ahead of the engine of 4G birds. the engine of EF2000 has also a T/W ratio of about 10.0,because its engine is made by UK. UK's engine tech is almost as advanced as USA.



2. the absolute thrust.

According to the thrust, engine can be classified as 3 types :" big engine( USA's F110,Russia's AL31,China's WS10),mid engine (french M88 ,UK's EJ200 and India's Kavery) and mini engine( mainly for cruising missles and drones)

Generally speaking, it is harder to develope big engines than to develope mid engines.
For example,the F22's engine has a T/W ratio similar with EF2000's engine,but it is harder to develop F22's engine, because F22's engine is big engine while EF2000's engine is just a mid engine.

Once only two countries( USA and Russia) could develop big engine. If CHinese WS10 can prove itself, then CHina will be the 3rd country that can produce big engine.

what France and UK produce are all mid engines.India's Kaverty is also a mid engine.


3. lifespan and oil wear.

west engine has a much better lifespan and oil wear indication than Russia and CHina.

for example, UK's spey was developed in 1960 and its T/W ratio is only about 5.0-6.0,but it has decent lifespan and oil wear indicaiton. it make Chinese JF7 have a good voyage

so, with the above 3 criterions, we can easily see the rank list of engine tech

Grade A: USA and Uk.
both developed 10.0-level engines (engines with T/W ratio of about 10.0) ten years ago(F22 and EF2000).
if advancing smoothly, USA can promote the T/W ratio of engine from current 10.0 to 15.0-20.0 in 2020 or so.
UK can not (or would not) produce big engine,so USA engine tech should be a bit better than UK's.


Grade B: France and Russia.they might produce 8.0 level engine(with a T/W ratio of 8.0) and are developing 10.0 level engine

Russia should have be grade A. but due to "deindustrialization after 1990, Russia's engine tech progressed quite slowly and has be left almost one generation behind by UK and USA.
USA and UK 10.0 level( T/W ratio) engine have been in service for ten years , while Russia's 10.0-level engine( AL41) is still in labs.

France engine was always poorest of traditional big 4( USA,Soviet ,UK and France).because Russia skrews itself, France seems to be side by side with Russia now. But Frenchmen still can not produce big engine.so Russia should be still a bit advanced than France

Grade C ,China,could produce 6.0 level engine and is developing engine of 8.0
As for China, if Chinese WS10 engine can prove itself, then CHinese can be label as "grade B". WS10 is a 8.0 level engine but it is the only big engine outside USA and Russia.




Grade D India. is developing 6.0 level engine
India's Kavery is a mid engine with a T/W ratio of about 6.0.
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
746
BTW, according to "Aja Shukla"'s report, Kavery's T/W ratio should be about 6.0,a bit more than that of UK's Spey,which was developed in 1960s.

USA's F110 and Russia's AL31 were developed in later 1970s or early 1980s,which have a T/W ratio of 7.0-8.0

the engine of M2000 is also about 6.0.

Monday, 7 September 2009
Kaveri jet engine finally poised for first flight



Photo: The Kaveri aero jet engine undergoing final checks before its despatch to Russia for flight testing.






Ajai Shukla
GTRE, Bangalore
Business Standard, 7th Sept 09


After 20 years in the making, the Kaveri jet engine will finally take to the skies.


In 1989, Dr Mohana Rao, then a junior technician at the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), Bangalore, immersed himself in the ambitious Kaveri programme, which was designing a jet engine for the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft. After pushing the Kaveri through two decades of heartbreak and achievement, Dr Rao is now the Director of GTRE. And his baby, the Kaveri engine, is ready to fly.


This week, a fully built Kaveri engine will be transported to a testing facility outside Moscow called the Gromov Flight Research Institute. Here, a giant IL-76 aircraft will have one of its four engines replaced with a Kaveri. Russian and GTRE experts will then evaluate the Kaveri’s performance while the IL-76 flies.


Before the actual flight tests, Russian experts at Moscow’s Central Institute of Aviation Motors will run ground checks on the Kaveri’s performance, in conditions that simulate altitudes up to 15 kilometers (49,200 feet).


Business Standard visited the Kaveri ground test bed at GTRE, Bangalore, where Russian experts are finishing “pre-acceptance checks” on the Kaveri engine that is headed for their facilities in Russia. The giant turbofan engine, suspended from a ceiling bracket, was being revved up gradually. As it roared to a deafening crescendo, engineers monitored the Kaveri’s power output, watching carefully from behind a bullet-proof glass window.


“The Kaveri’s development is complete”, confirmed Dr Mohana Rao, “In ground testing at GTRE it met the performance parameters laid down in 1998. The next step is to confirm that it performs during flight. A 50-person GTRE team will travel with the engine to Moscow and participate in the flight trials over the next 3-4 months.”


India has no facilities for altitude-testing and flight-testing jet engines. GTRE estimates it will take several hundred crore rupees to create such test facilities in India. Meanwhile, each test campaign in Russia costs Rs 50-60 crores.


For the DRDO (GTRE is a DRDO laboratory) even a successful Kaveri flight will be a bittersweet end to one of India’s most savagely criticised development programmes. A measure of success, on the one hand, in an ambitious technological leapfrog to building a modern jet engine, something only a few countries can do. On the other hand, the Kaveri has failed to provide an engine for the Tejas, even after spending Rs 3000 crores.


“The reason was two-fold”, explains Mohana Rao. “The Kaveri turned out 15% heavier than we planned. From the planned 1100 kg, its final weight has gone up to 1265 kg.”


Meanwhile, the Tejas fighter also turned out heavier than planned, demanding a more powerful engine; the Kaveri’s maximum thrust of 65 Kilo Newtons (KN) is simply not enough. The air force has chosen American GE 404-IN engines, which produce 80 KN at full power, to power the first 20 Tejas fighters. And subsequent Tejas will get about 95 KN of thrust from a new-generation engine: the General Electric GE-414 and the Eurojet EJ200 engines are currently being evaluated.


But GTRE is undeterred, having produced a high-tech turbofan jet engine in a country that has never produced even a motorcycle or car engine.


“We need more thrust without increasing the size of the engine”, says Mohana Rao. “That means getting better technologies from a more experienced foreign partner. We have chosen (French aero-engine major) Snecma. The Defence Ministry has approved the tie-up.”


Business Standard has learned that Rolls Royce, and General Electric declined to partner GTRE, apparently unwilling to part with cutting-edge technology. US major, Pratt & Whitney, was willing only to provide consultancy. With only Russia’s NPO Saturn and Snecma in the game, the MoD has opted for Snecma.
Broadsword
 

enlightened1

Member of The Month JANUARY 2010
Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
880
Likes
60
BTW, according to "Aja Shukla"'s report, Kavery's T/W ratio should be about 6.0,a bit more than that of UK's Spey,which was developed in 1960s.

USA's F110 and Russia's AL31 were developed in later 1970s or early 1980s,which have a T/W ratio of 7.0-8.0

the engine of M2000 is also about 6.0.


Broadsword
Mr Ajai Shukla's article is not correct, DRDO released the specs late last year. Read (especially the last page)

http://www.drdo.com/pub/techfocus/2009/oct09.pdf
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
BTW, according to "Aja Shukla"'s report, Kavery's T/W ratio should be about 6.0,a bit more than that of UK's Spey,which was developed in 1960s.
Spey was 5, 6 is quite a bit more.

USA's F110 and Russia's AL31 were developed in later 1970s or early 1980s,which have a T/W ratio of 7.0-8.0
GE F110 had a T/W of 6.36 - 6.88 depending on the version... do the math, it isn't hard.

the engine of M2000 is also about 6.0.
It is 6.4, again do the math.
 

sandeepdg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
2,333
Likes
227
BTW, according to "Aja Shukla"'s report, Kavery's T/W ratio should be about 6.0,a bit more than that of UK's Spey,which was developed in 1960s.

USA's F110 and Russia's AL31 were developed in later 1970s or early 1980s,which have a T/W ratio of 7.0-8.0

the engine of M2000 is also about 6.0.
Listen pal, don't go by the word of Mr. Ajai Shukla. He is no authority on matters concerning India's defense production, especially jet engines. He is just a reporter who like everybody else from their clan around the world just love to shout about anything without knowing anyhing about what they are shouting about, just to sell their article with all sorts of fake info... I don't think he can even tell a jet engine from a turboprop engine..

The current Kaveri engine which you claim as having T/W ratio of 6.0 is not going to be the operational engine to power the LCAs. Only the initial 40 LCA Mark-1 will be powered by the GE404 engines. The next LCA Mark-2 will incorporate a new version of the Kaveri engine which is being jointly developed with Snecma and will have a T/W of 7.5 to 7.8 which is more or less equal to AL31FP with T/W ratio of 8.0 and the WS 10A with a T/W ratio of 7.5. Besides the LCA is a lightweight fighter and it can do with low thrust unlike AL31FP which powers heavy fighters like the SU-27, SU-30.

The main reason for the collaboration with Snecma and HAL is that we lack the knowledge of highly sophisticated metallurgy techniques especially the use of single crystal blades which can withstand high thermal stress. Surely, China has also faced numerous problems in coming up with the WS-10A which has already been more than 20 years in the making and has still not been perfected.The Chinese jet engine development began in the 1960s with the WS-6 which continued in development phase until mid 1980s when it was abandoned as no substantial success was achieved even after 20 years in development phase. It is then that the plans for the WS 10A were drawn up in 1986 and its development began henceforth. So, surely the Chinese are no better off than us when it comes to jet engine development for a 4+ generation aircraft.

By the way folks, please take a look at the following articles by none other than the CEO of ACIC . An interesting read, it will bust all the myth about the Chinese successes with the WS 10A .

Chinese AVIC Top Head admits the Poor Quality of Jet Engine|China Military Power Mashup
This is the real face of Taihang (WS-10) Turbofan Engine!|China Military Power Mashup
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
746
Spey was 5, 6 is quite a bit more.



GE F110 had a T/W of 6.36 - 6.88 depending on the version... do the math, it isn't hard.



It is 6.4, again do the math.
or, guy,pls don't fool yourself.

there are several different caluation criterions for T/W ratios. Russian criterions is quite different from USA's. you always used the strictest criterion for others while using the loosest criterion for french's....is it your another hobby to flatter yourself by cheating others?

But measued by any criterions ,the T/W ratio of F110 and AL31 is 7.0-8.0. so people usually called the engine of 4G bird "8.0-level engine".
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
746
Listen pal, don't go by the word of Mr. Ajai Shukla. He is no authority on matters concerning India's defense production, especially jet engines. He is just a reporter who like everybody else from their clan around the world just love to shout about anything without knowing anyhing about what they are shouting about, just to sell their article with all sorts of fake info... I don't think he can even tell a jet engine from a turboprop engine..

The current Kaveri engine which you claim as having T/W ratio of 6.0 is not going to be the operational engine to power the LCAs. Only the initial 40 LCA Mark-1 will be powered by the GE404 engines. The next LCA Mark-2 will incorporate a new version of the Kaveri engine which is being jointly developed with Snecma and will have a T/W of 7.5 to 7.8 which is more or less equal to AL31FP with T/W ratio of 8.0 and the WS 10A with a T/W ratio of 7.5. Besides the LCA is a lightweight fighter and it can do with low thrust unlike AL31FP which powers heavy fighters like the SU-27, SU-30.

The main reason for the collaboration with Snecma and HAL is that we lack the knowledge of highly sophisticated metallurgy techniques especially the use of single crystal blades which can withstand high thermal stress. Surely, China has also faced numerous problems in coming up with the WS-10A which has already been more than 20 years in the making and has still not been perfected.The Chinese jet engine development began in the 1960s with the WS-6 which continued in development phase until mid 1980s when it was abandoned as no substantial success was achieved even after 20 years in development phase. It is then that the plans for the WS 10A were drawn up in 1986 and its development began henceforth. So, surely the Chinese are no better off than us when it comes to jet engine development for a 4+ generation aircraft.

By the way folks, please take a look at the following articles by none other than the CEO of ACIC . An interesting read, it will bust all the myth about the Chinese successes with the WS 10A .

Chinese AVIC Top Head admits the Poor Quality of Jet Engine|China Military Power Mashup
This is the real face of Taihang (WS-10) Turbofan Engine!|China Military Power Mashup
guy,

1. when will Kavery MKII have a T/W ratio of 8.0 or so? it is not as easy as your cheap talk.

according to Aja Shukla, Kavery T/W ratio is only about 6.0. morever, Kavery is still being tested in lab and not in service yet.

it once took USA and other countries 20 years to promote the engine's T/W from 6.0 to 8.0.


2.the development of China's engine was full of frustration and faillures too. because we experienced so many unpleasant failures, we know exactly that engine's T/W ratio can not be promoted from 6.0 to 8.0 as easily and soon as your cheap talks.
 

sandeepdg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
2,333
Likes
227
guy,

1. when will Kavery MKII have a T/W ratio of 8.0 or so? it is not as easy as your cheap talk.

according to Aja Shukla, Kavery T/W ratio is only about 6.0. morever, Kavery is still being tested in lab and not in service yet.

it once took USA and other countries 20 years to promote the engine's T/W from 6.0 to 8.0.


2.the development of China's engine was full of frustration and faillures too. because we experienced so many unpleasant failures, we know exactly that engine's T/W ratio can not be promoted from 6.0 to 8.0 as easily and soon as your cheap talks.
Listen chum, it seems you have trouble understanding plain English !! I clearly said that don't go by Mr. Ajai Shukla's words, he is as good as a nobody !! Also, even I have mentioned that the Kaveri is still under development, not functional. And now Snecma has joined in to help in the development, which will help us get a better version of the Kaveri probably by sometime around 2014-15 and will be surely incorporated in the LCA Mark-2 as its standard engine. The links in my previous post will show that the final version Kaveri under development will have a T/W ratio of around 7.8. And, please don't give that shit about "since we couldn't do it, even you wouldn't be able to do it" !! We also know how difficult it is to design and manufacture a fourth genr. aircraft's jet engine, we are struggling with it for 30 years, and that's the reason why we have accepted outside help, i.e. from Snecma of France to realize our goal in the required time. And again, low T/W ratio wouldn't harm the LCA so much as it is a very lightweight fighter and not a heavy one !
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top