Kaveri Engine

[sasum]

Using gas turbine on land is more difficult compared to sea or air. It is due to dust present in air near land surface.

Nope..:biggrin2: BHEL routinely installs gas turbines for power generation. Railways tried gas turbine on a modified loco in 2010.

 

[garg_bharat]

GTRE fabricated Kaveri at its own facilities. DRDO labs are not starved of facilities or funds. Successive Govts. pampered them. Only, scientists & engineers are mediocre.

View attachment 7911

The picture does not look like anything Indian.
About GTRE, you are mistaken.

I know about BHEL. Power generation and locomotives are different applications.

 

[sasum]

The picture does not look like anything Indian.
About GTRE, you are mistaken.

I know about BHEL. Power generation and locomotives are different applications.

See my earlier post linking an ET Article. Kaveri variant was being considered for all three applications:-
1. Marine propulsion
2. Locomotives
3. Power generation
For power generation, only modification is , the generated thrust is released into a chamber containing dynamo to turn it.

 

[Chinmoy]

I think alongwith overweight, underpower is the issue with Kaveri. With after burner it achieved a meagre 80Kn thrust, while a fully loaded Tejas with drop-tank requires 110Kn. Tweaks alone can not do it. May have to reconfigure from core.
Btw, I am curious, passenger Jets have their engines hung from pylons under their wings. Since this space is taken up by missile-pods in Fighter planes, engine(s) is integrated with the fuselage at the tail. Now if the engine is hung below the tail, off-the-shelf engines of required power and/ or weight can be tried out with different Airframes to achieve optimal power-to-weight ratio. Views of knowledgeable members please.

Novel idea, but again the weight and fluid dynamics would churn the hell out of brain in doing so. Passenger jets and fighters do have a very basic difference in its overall size and weight. An engine in a fighter jet does occupy nearly 75% of its space and about 40% of its weight. Now just imagine what would happen if you try to make it fly attaching it in the underbelly.

 

[garg_bharat]

See my earlier post linking an ET Article. Kaveri variant was being considered for all three applications:-
1. Marine propulsion
2. Locomotives
3. Power generation
For power generation, only modification is , the generated thrust is released into a chamber containing dynamo to turn it.

Marine and power are similar applications. Locomotive is quite different.

Being considered is ok, but it did not happen.

A marine power plant can be easily adapted for power generation.

I was expecting kmgt to be fitted in a warship several years back but it did not happen. I think it never got certified.

 

[sasum]

Novel idea, but again the weight and fluid dynamics would churn the hell out of brain in doing so

I read somewhere, in modern warplanes, pitch, roll & yaw are controlled by a computer algorithm (part of avionics suite). In older aircrafts like Mig-21, these were juggled manually by pilots employing hydraulic-mechanical controls requiring considerable skill. Now, think when a fighter jet takes off with equal no. of missiles (equally distributed weight) under each wing, it is well balanced. When pilot fires one, that side becomes lighter and the plane tends to roll. It is the FCS which comes into play & constantly adjusts plane's orientation.
Can't the same adjustment be done with firing engines?

 

[sasum]

Locomotive is quite different.

Not different. It is exactly like other two applications. The on-board turbine generates electricity which is fed into a series of massive inverters. These inverters supply power to the traction motor.

 

[garg_bharat]

Not different. It is exactly like other two applications. The on-board turbine generates electricity which is fed into a series of massive inverters. These inverters supply power to the traction motor.

A land vehicle has a wide powerband. Turbines work best in a narrow rpm range. So it cannot be as simple as you say.

 

[sasum]

A land vehicle has a wide powerband. Turbines work best in a narrow rpm range. So it cannot be as simple as you say.

You just want to have the last say before qitting the debate; so I give up. You are bringing on irrelevant issues just to win the argument.
For the last time, RPM is controlled by gear not engine. Every engine/ motor gives optimal output. It is reduced by proportionate reduction in amount of fuel injected and output RPM is suitably reduced by larger gear wheel.

 

[warrior monk]

It is a pretty old report. Now that Kaveri itself is in a bit of doldrums, we can't count on its spin-offs.
http://articles.economictimes.india.../28446695_1_kaveri-engine-kaveri-project-drdo

I know about it and it is possible to do it by synthesizing the Rankine cycle to follow the Brayton cycle but I don't think GTRE is doing it or maybe they are doing it in secret who knows. Plus they have to modify the internal geometry of the core and change the metallurgy

 

[BON PLAN]

I think alongwith overweight, underpower is the issue with Kaveri. With after burner it achieved a meagre 80Kn thrust, while a fully loaded Tejas with drop-tank requires 110Kn. Tweaks alone can not do it. May have to reconfigure from core.
Btw, I am curious, passenger Jets have their engines hung from pylons under their wings. Since this space is taken up by missile-pods in Fighter planes, engine(s) is integrated with the fuselage at the tail. Now if the engine is hung below the tail, off-the-shelf engines of required power and/ or weight can be tried out with different Airframes to achieve optimal power-to-weight ratio. Views of knowledgeable members please.

And India is not on the way to put a 11tons engine in the LCA.

 

[BON PLAN]

Well thats the issue isn't it low R and D budget . Well if we cancel the Rafale deal and transfer the 11 odd billion euros of the Rafale deal for AMCA and K-10 LBP turbofan we can get both of them ready by 2030 max with a little help from LM or Sukhoi .

No country in the world can develop a LBP turbofan matching Kaveri's data points in under 650 million dollars

View attachment 7882

Air Mass Flow : 78 kg/s
• Bypass Ratio : 0.16
• Pressure Ratio : 21.5
• TET: 1487 K – 1700 K
•Max.Dry Thrust: 52 kN
• Afterburner Thrust: 81 kN
• Thrust / Weight Ratio: 7.8
• Afterburner SFC: 2.03 kg/hr/kg

At least it's a scientifical experience, and all the lessons are interesting.
In R&D, a failure is interesting also : you know you don't have to investigate more in that direction.

Maybe you were too optimistic by developping a fighter jet first.

 

[BON PLAN]

Kaveri spin off

old pic
View attachment 7897

The Kaveri Marine Gas Turbine for propelling Indian naval ships a two-stage free power turbine designed to translate the gas power into mechanical output to drive the ship propeller .

Salient Features
Output : 15 MW at ISA-SLS
Specific fuel consumption : 0.27 kg/kW-h at ISA-SLS
Fuel : Low sulphur high speed diesel
Power turbine speed : 5800 rpm
TET : 1560 K (max)

courtesy - GTRE

It's a really good idea.
No weight issue. If it break, not as serious as in a plane. A real test bench.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

DRDO developed single crystal blades now its in the production and manfacturing stage

Please provide the reference.............

 

[garg_bharat]

You just want to have the last say before qitting the debate; so I give up. You are bringing on irrelevant issues just to win the argument.
For the last time, RPM is controlled by gear not engine. Every engine/ motor gives optimal output. It is reduced by proportionate reduction in amount of fuel injected and output RPM is suitably reduced by larger gear wheel.

You at least agree that turbines are not preferred in locomotives. So there must be a reason.
Issue is not gearbox. The narrow rpm band means there is waste of fuel in idling etc.

Other reason is reliability.

Railways prefer electric and diesel ICE.

 

[garg_bharat]

Very good article on Kavery:

http://www.business-standard.com/ar...-engine-of-indigenisation-115122101122_1.html

 

[sasum]

Please provide the reference.............

See the website of DRDO affiliated DMRL.
I saw it in a defencepk thread though. Though this cannot solve the turbo-fan throwing problem of Kaveri.

 

[warrior monk]

At least it's a scientifical experience, and all the lessons are interesting.
In R&D, a failure is interesting also : you know you don't have to investigate more in that direction.

Maybe you were too optimistic by developping a fighter jet first.

No amount of assembling Russian engines would have given us the capability to design our own LBP turbofan but Kaveri taught us a lot of things and we are proceeding towards improving our technology in metallurgy which was the primary reason for the failure of Kaveri.
By the way we have not given up on it .

 

[warrior monk]

A recent tender by GTRE calling for

For those who think GTRE is doing nothing

 

[BON PLAN]

No amount of assembling Russian engines would have given us the capability to design our own LBP turbofan but Kaveri taught us a lot of things and we are proceeding towards improving our technology in metallurgy which was the primary reason for the failure of Kaveri.
By the way we have not given up on it .

The road is long...

Safran (Snecma in fact) has a lot of problem with it's new business jet Silvercrest to day. 3 years late on shedule! That means even for a well established producer, it's some times hard to go on a new market (with a new product). So for you it will be even harder. But not impossible.