Why there should be any legitimate 3rd party complaint? The Kaveri is not in the market, not even operational now, “what it is” or “how it is” is not any legitimate 3rd party’s concern.
Engineers by the way of scientific papers, question and analyse systems they have no access to and even those, that aren't even prototyped yet, info on Kaveri on the other hand is widely available and papers on it also present.
Anyone with the requisite engineering experience willing to prove Kaveri is not a VCE could easily do it, it has nothing to do with Kaveri being or not being in the market.
Obviously, you didn’t even understand what I said. I said: even though non-VCE engines have by-pass stream, but this stream doesn’t work with independent burner.
And you’re doing it again.
Don’t make an empirical claim about anything without having facts to back it up.
Quite a few conventional turbofans have independent secondary burners.
Info on a US patent for a secondary bypass augmentation burners used in the bypass air passages of turbofans to provide extra thrust, from 1974.
http://www.patents.com/us-3999378.html
For info’s sake you should also look up duct burning turbofans, interstage turbine burners.
Yes, but you don’t understand what is difference between the bypass stream of turbofan engine and the bypass stream of VCE. That is why I have to explain to you from ABC.
I don’t think so, you were/are having trouble understanding how a normal turbofan works, VCE is still far off.
Your comments below only prove it further so.
No, fan (the front fan) does consume fuel, but not as much as the combustor does. The by-pass stream is propelled by fan and provide thrust in addition to the exhausted hot stream.
Check this paper from NASA:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/aturbf.html
Quote:” Because the fuel flow rate for the core is changed only a small amount by the addition of the fan, a turbofan generates more thrust for nearly the same amount of fuel used by the core.”
It’s not a scientific paper really, literally the first line says it’s a kids page meant for students.
Either way, WTH?
Now I definitely know that your understanding of even the basics of a turbofan is incomplete.
Your own link says nothing about the fan consuming any fuel.
Basic english comprehension skills. The fuel flow rate is changed by the “addition
of the fan”, NOT “addition
to the fan”. So change in the fuel flow rate does not automatically mean direct consumption of fuel by the fan. LOL
What the article you posted basically states is that the fuel flow rate changes(most likely decreases as compared to a turbojet) with the inclusion of a fan in a turbofan engine(hence the name). The fan doesn’t need to burn the fuel to augment the thrust, as your own link states, “ The air that goes through the fan has a velocity that is slightly increased from free stream. So a turbofan gets some of its thrust from the core and some of its thrust from the fan.”
You keep posting links but you barely read them.
This could have all been avoided if you had just seen the vid like I told you to. The LPT runs the fan so no, no fuel is consumed by the fan.
Please stop twisting the subject. No one is talking about the overall efficiency. Instead, I clearly pointed out: turbojet perform better efficiency than turbofan engine in SUPERSOINIC speed because the fan will generate more drag in supersonic speed which decreases the efficiency significantly. So, the VCE’s concep is working as turbofan in subsonic speed and transfer to turbojet model in supersonic speed. That is the whole idea.
See this is why I say you don’t know what you’re talking about.
You
ABSOLUTEY HAVE to talk about the overall efficiency or else you are just missing the point of a VCE. Your problem is when you talk about a VCE you only talk about one aspect of it, and not about fuel efficiency or the MFR or everything else in between, which is the whole point of a VCE and NOT JUST THE THRUST or the other more advertised features.
SO no, the idea is not just speed and thrust, it is to provide high consistent thrusts in most if not all flight conditions and give superb fuel consumption which allows the fighter to fly fast and fly longer and farther.
Honey, have you read the tile of your paper? – “Flat rating concept in GTX engine” on the top.
And?
You clearly saw the variable cycle bit in the paper but still you spew a strawman argument about a completely irrelevant point to reinforce that confirmation bias. Refute what’s written in the paper or just stop.
Don’t judge a book by its cover and don’t judge a scientific paper by its heading.
Ok, based on this paper, I agree that varying turbine entry temperature is kind of VCE. However, as this paper points out: this kind of VCE only achieve 3.6% of improvement in its SFC. And the whole study is about sub-sonic stage. And to me this kind of temperature varying function is already available in modern turbofan engine with FADCE.
Stop with the strawman arguments. What part of the VCE the paper is specifically explaining is besides the point. The crux of the matter is whether if VCE can be achieved by increasing the temperature, and it can be.
It really doesn’t matter what any of these things mean
TO YOU, you are just one person without the sufficient qualification, experience or scientific literature to make any claim of the sort or even question the experts in this particular field and unless you can prove that increasing the temperature in Kaveri doesn’t make it a VCE, anything else you say beyond this is just moot.
The VCE everybody is working on at the moment is more focus on the supersonic speed.
Your myopic view on VCE is just killing me with this oppressive sense of ennui.
As I have told you for the umpteenth time, speed and thrust is nigh half the purpose of a VCE.
As per GE.
https://www.geaviation.com/military/engines/ge-adaptive-cycle-engine
Developed under the U.S. Department of Defense’s Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (ADVENT) and Adaptive Engine Technology Development (AETD) programs, the GE Adaptive Cycle Engine is the only engine that combines outstanding fuel burn with increased, fighter-level thrust, enabling next-generation military combat aircraft to go greater distances and engage more targets.
Unlike traditional engines with fixed airflow, the GE ACE is a variable cycle engine that will automatically alternate between a high-thrust mode for maximum power and a high-efficiency mode for optimum fuel savings. And that means a whole new book of operational possibilities for the U.S. Air Force.
Well, I don’t need to, because your research paper only tell how “flat rate” is achieved, didn’t explain how to change the “MAXIMUM” temperature in the flight.
As my understanding, the “maximum” temperature is more related to the limit of material.
Yes you need to.
Now you are nit-picking about the temperature while completely ignoring the fact that Kaveri in all its paper has the term VCE plastered on it.
We weren’t debating how much temperature Kaveri can withstand but whether if it’s a VCE or no.
Again, your own understanding of ‘what a VCE means’, means
squat. If you have written a peer reviewed paper on the subject then do show it.
The variable cycle function is being brought on by increasing the temperature yes, but that doesn’t mean you definitely have to keep on increasing the temperature indefinitely to achieve the VCE function. As
THIS ALREADY HAS BEEN PROVEN in DRDO’s High Mach facility. Kaveri is a VCE with the stated TET and the variable geometries. PERIOD.
As for how to increase the temperature.
That’s a silly question, you even answered it. You increase it by getting better materials.
The paper is from the 80s, and is about the GTX 37-14U we have since then moved from DS blades to second and third generation SCBs and are currently on the K9, K10 variants of the far more advanced GTX-35VS.
Ok, so there is nothing special about this Kaveri’s variable cycle function
.
As I had already explained many comments ago, compared to ACE-ADVENT, no, Kaveri doesn’t even come close, as don’t most turbofans, VCE or no.
But compared to any other conventional turbofan, yes, it is relatively advanced, it’s a VCE.
When and where did I claim that, please point it out. I simply question the claim that Kaveri is a variable cycle engine. And now I agree Kaveri is a variable cycle engine even though it is kind of wired.
You can definitely ask a question, there’s nothing wrong with that, but what you can’t do without appearing disingenuous is make a definite empirical statement claiming DRDO is wrong when they say Kaveri is a VCE, and say that without a single iota of proof from any legitimate scientific author agreeing to your pov.
But now that we agree that Kaveri is a VCE there’s no use for this debate, as it rightly never was.
And base this definition, there are quite a lot of engines which are operational now can be called variable cycle engine.
Again, don’t just make arbitrary claims borne out of your own opinions.
If a turbofan developer is achieving the set parameters with their particular design however it may be and calling it a VCE, then it’s a VCE.
And if you have any doubts, bring out the relevant scientific literature from an organisation both having access and adept at auditing the machine, thereby validating your doubts. Maybe then we can talk.
Until then, opinions aren’t facts.
