Kaveri Engine

Whitecollar

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
389
Likes
1,320
Country flag
This is from from an engine integration test. China have their own flying testbed based on il-76 just like the russians. This picture is most probably from a final testing of WS15 where they are using a dual engine aircraft with only one WS15 engine and with another proven engine as fail safe measure. Flying testbed is necessary and after certifying engine performance from there they can further test it anywhere. Don't believe in some dumb BS that mig27 can replace a FTB
But do you believe the BS that our Scientific Advisor to Defence Minister Mr Natarajan said in 2005?
How were they ready to integrate Kaveri prototype on an LCA prototype despite having any confidence whatsoever??

Screenshot_20211202-080347_Chrome.jpg
 

THESIS THORON

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
2,900
Likes
13,318
Country flag
imo if gormint had funded the program well from 2010 to 2020 we would have developed kaveri engine till now for sure, but sadly it didnt happen.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,549
Likes
1,351
Country flag
As Spitfire truly said, the success of Kaveri with afterburner was covered in a 2011 news...so there's no reason why a complete engine cannot be attempted for a retrofit on one TD Mig 29 so to speak.
The question is: if Kaveri was already overweight from the beginning, why bother to process further tests?
 

THESIS THORON

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
2,900
Likes
13,318
Country flag
The question is: if Kaveri was already overweight from the beginning, why bother to process further tests?
if only kaveri was overweight was the problem with some screech and other things then, what is the 90d logic behind lack of funding in the kaveri project.

these problems would have been solved if they had adequate funding.
 

Spitfire9

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
822
Likes
2,290
Country flag
if only kaveri was overweight was the problem with some screech and other things then, what is the 90d logic behind lack of funding in the kaveri project.

these problems would have been solved if they had adequate funding.
Agreed, seriously underfunded from the word go. If your knowledge is too limited to work out what the problem is, why there is the problem and how to fix the problem, you are stuck, aren't you? A thousand design engineers scratching their heads will achieve no more than a hundred design engineers scratching their heads.

About the weight, I have heard no reports of that issue being addressed. It can't be that difficult to work out where the problem lies - there are a few F404 engines kicking around. Why not take the one with the highest number of hours apart and weigh the components for comparative purposes?
 

_merlin_

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
11
Likes
46
Country flag
There seems to be something stopping the use of the Kaveri in a Mig-29 testbed. Maybe some of the posters in the know can clarify. Qualifying a domestic engine with lower specs is nonetheless a giant leap forward. Rome is not built in a day. Maybe the Kaveri could replace the RD-33s if the dimensions are similar?
That something is will and desire. With all problems with the full up Kaveri now fixed, one would assume that they would want to test that in Russia instead of just the core. So it looks like they have given up on flight testing of the Kaveri on the Il-76, so MiG-29 is out of the question.
 

Whitecollar

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
389
Likes
1,320
Country flag
The question is: if Kaveri was already overweight from the beginning, why bother to process further tests?
It's not about being overweight, It's about T/W ratio. Kaveri being overweight can still produce good thrust as per publically available data.

The data we used to see in 2010 has been changed as newer alloys have been incorporated resulting in some weight shedding.
Another thing is reliability testing. We cant be dependant on Russia for FTB when most Superpowers already have their own(infact they keep such things as secret). Using Migs as FTB will rather give us some form of closure about Kaveri as a whole. Keep in mind Kaveri at some point in 2007 was planned to be integrated on a prototype LCA. Mig 29 will still be much safer in that aspect plus we have both extremities(environment) to test the engine i.e. from Rajasthan to Ladakh.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,549
Likes
1,351
Country flag
if only kaveri was overweight was the problem with some screech and other things then, what is the 90d logic behind lack of funding in the kaveri project.

these problems would have been solved if they had adequate funding.
Not that simple.
We don't know what components caused the overweight: it was only one components or many different types of components.
And we don't what is the reason behind each of the overweight components. It maybe simply the insufficient strength of the material, or processing precision, or theoretical design , etc.
It is easy to provide enough money to GTRE to improve the engine.
But if it involves other components suppliers, you may look at funding the multiple industries. That not only requires much bigger funds, but also much longer time.
 

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
6,371
Likes
13,663
Country flag

SimplyIndian

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2020
Messages
1,905
Likes
7,987
Country flag
RR and SAFRAN have apparently offered to develop a 110kN engine for ~US$6 billion.

Indeed, you cannot seriously believe that - from a standing start - a viable fast jet engine can be created for a tiny fraction of that.

On the other hand a small amount spent to create an engine that can be used in non-fast jet applications could be viewed a good result.

And why not continue trying to develop the engine further to improve it and also gain extra knowhow?
Rather, Give that $ 6 Billion to GTRE ( INR 40,000 Crore) created Group in PMO to lead it.
 

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
6,371
Likes
13,663
Country flag
Rather, Give that $ 6 Billion to GTRE ( INR 40,000 Crore) created Group in PMO to lead it.
Wrong step. Along with that fund, we would have to give another decade or two to GTRE. But with a JV, we would cut down on time factor drastically.
 

_merlin_

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
11
Likes
46
Country flag
IIRC wet thrust achieved was 72 kN and could not be increased beyond that due to screech in the afterburner, fixed according to some reports. But not sure if it now reaches designed wet thrust of 80 kN or not.
 

Spitfire9

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
822
Likes
2,290
Country flag
Switched from IAF news and discussion...

There is no dichotomy between my and your views on the Kaveri.
When I spoke of the Kaveri engine I also included its successors, the K9 and K10 engines(planned).
I think all of us would agree that whatever knowledge we have on turbofan engines
is a consequence of the research and development carried out by GTRE on the Kaveri.

The Kaveri engine programme provides the base for future upgradation. Even if we design a new core, that endeavour will be drawing on the lessons we learnt while designing the Kabini core for the original Kaveri. Maybe telling us what not to do and what to do. If some design errors were present in the Kabini core, we will try to avoid them. Learning from experience.

So we cannot be rejecting the Kaveri 100% and hope to succeed with a new non GTRE entity undertaking the work of designing an 110kn engine. The odds would be rather high against it.

If we wish to make an meaningful technological contribution to the proposed joint venture (with Saffran or Rolls Royce) for realising an high output turbofan engine then we will have to leverage the knowledge base we have gained from the development of the Kaveri.

Else if either Rolls Royce or Snecma/Saffran will do the designing 100% and we contribute zilch, then there is nothing more to say.
If developing an engine for AMCA is urgent, how much GTRE input can contribute is governed by a 2030 timeline for a certified engine, isn't it? It would not help if GTRE involvement delayed development due to inadequate GTRE knowhow.

One thing is pretty much certain to me: if Kaveri had been funded over the years on more than a shoestring budget, GTRE would have developed more knowhow by now. Still, we are where we are.

Why not be realistic and accept that GTRE needs more knowhow to get a Kaveri 80kN engine finished and certified or to make a sizeable contribution to a new JV engine? At the very least annual funding for Kaveri should be substantially increased IMO so that whatever progress made will be made faster.
 

Whitecollar

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
389
Likes
1,320
Country flag
Switched from IAF news and discussion...


If developing an engine for AMCA is urgent, how much GTRE input can contribute is governed by a 2030 timeline for a certified engine, isn't it? It would not help if GTRE involvement delayed development due to inadequate GTRE knowhow.

One thing is pretty much certain to me: if Kaveri had been funded over the years on more than a shoestring budget, GTRE would have developed more knowhow by now. Still, we are where we are.

Why not be realistic and accept that GTRE needs more knowhow to get a Kaveri 80kN engine finished and certified or to make a sizeable contribution to a new JV engine? At the very least annual funding for Kaveri should be substantially increased IMO so that whatever progress made will be made faster.
Infact, the 75-80kN engine should be certified ASAP and put on trials by the time ORCA/TEDBF TD gets made(150+ kN isn't less for MW fighter). Parallely we can proceed towards JV for 110kN engine.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top