What's new

Kaveri engine to fly futuristic unmanned aircraft

Not interested in explaining you anything. The concerned people here already know what I mean.

If you cannot tell me the objective of Kaveri, than you be able to tell whether it reached or failed in its objective. So you also agree that Kaveri is a failed project?
 
Where are the mods ??

3 or 4 threads in this section has been destroyed by chinese a$$holes.
 
If you cannot tell me the objective of Kaveri, than you be able to tell whether it reached or failed in its objective. So you also agree that Kaveri is a failed project?

Faithful,

The first mistake made was to link our engine development program with a program which was under development without any expertise in the same.

The primary objective defined during that stage was to power the LCA. As expected, this has proven to be futile.
The secondary objective was to develop in-house engine development expertise. Are we there yet? Not completely.

Has this been a total failure? No. Finally there has been realisation that we need to first de-link the 2. This has been completed. Now, can the engine knowledge we received be used in some other place? Yes. But, in aircraft with lower requirements.

Does this mean the end of the Kaveri program? No. You will see further investments to improve the existing. Will this power the LCA-II? Though we hear optimistic noises, I would say no, its still too early to say it can. It should remain what it should have been right from the start, a knowledge building program, which 'may' have operational use in future projects.

This knowledge should be now provided downstream into universities which can then work independently to build human resources and future projects. Ofcourse, this is my personal opinion.
 
Faithful,

The first mistake made was to link our engine development program with a program which was under development without any expertise in the same.

The primary objective defined during that stage was to power the LCA. As expected, this has proven to be futile.
The secondary objective was to develop in-house engine development expertise. Are we there yet? Not completely.

Has this been a total failure? No. Finally there has been realisation that we need to first de-link the 2. This has been completed. Now, can the engine knowledge we received be used in some other place? Yes. But, in aircraft with lower requirements.

Does this mean the end of the Kaveri program? No. You will see further investments to improve the existing. Will this power the LCA-II? Though we hear optimistic noises, I would say no, its still too early to say it can. It should remain what it should have been right from the start, a knowledge building program, which 'may' have operational use in future projects.

This knowledge should be now provided downstream into universities which can then work independently to build human resources and future projects. Ofcourse, this is my personal opinion.

As much I know, the thrust requirement by IAF was increased with time which couldn't be achieved with already frozen design and specs. So I will say that Kaveri met the thrust for which it was aimed initially. For current/future thrust requirements, a new engine should be designed
 
If you cannot tell me the objective of Kaveri, than you be able to tell whether it reached or failed in its objective. So you also agree that Kaveri is a failed project?


Pass and fail based on objective.

If you go with initial RFP , The kaveri was expected 50KN/80KN power. Its delivering it. So its not failure, Since IAF changes its requirement form 50KN/80KN to 60KN/90KN and now 60KN/100KN, that couldn't achieve.

The only problem Kaveri has is 150 kg extra weight. The LCA also became heavier by 200-300 Kgs, so summing up, the weight is 400KG extra now.


50-80KN Kaveri is of no use for LCA (coz LCA ppl changed there requirement) but still it can used for different purpose...




Now u decide its failed or passed product. My dear Taiwani brother, don't see it black and white...

Faithful,

The first mistake made was to link our engine development program with a program which was under development without any expertise in the same.

The primary objective defined during that stage was to power the LCA. As expected, this has proven to be futile.
The secondary objective was to develop in-house engine development expertise. Are we there yet? Not completely.

Has this been a total failure? No. Finally there has been realisation that we need to first de-link the 2. This has been completed. Now, can the engine knowledge we received be used in some other place? Yes. But, in aircraft with lower requirements.

Does this mean the end of the Kaveri program? No. You will see further investments to improve the existing. Will this power the LCA-II? Though we hear optimistic noises, I would say no, its still too early to say it can. It should remain what it should have been right from the start, a knowledge building program, which 'may' have operational use in future projects.

This knowledge should be now provided downstream into universities which can then work independently to build human resources and future projects. Ofcourse, this is my personal opinion.




I agree completely, But like to add one thing, Kaveri program was linked with LCA because........

No one was ready to give us engine.. Our Marut died because of the same reason, DRDO/HAL wanted to play safe this time, thats why they decided to have one engine program as well.
 
Pass and fail based on objective.

If you go with initial RFP , The kaveri was expected 50KN/80KN power. Its delivering it. So its not failure, Since IAF changes its requirement form 50KN/80KN to 60KN/90KN and now 60KN/100KN, that couldn't achieve.

The only problem Kaveri has is 150 kg extra weight. The LCA also became heavier by 200-300 Kgs, so summing up, the weight is 400KG extra now.


50-80KN Kaveri is of no use for LCA (coz LCA ppl changed there requirement) but still it can used for different purpose...




Now u decide its failed or passed product. My dear Taiwani brother, don't see it black and white...






I agree completely, But like to add one thing, Kaveri program was linked with LCA because........

No one was ready to give us engine.. Our Marut died because of the same reason, DRDO/HAL wanted to play safe this time, thats why they decided to have one engine program as well.

I would have to agree that India produce world class engineers but managed by a bunch of morons. As a result, the Kaveri project is a failure as it does not meet the initial goal of powering LCA. As for a research project, its a success as India learn that it had learned the lesson that it cannot build a modern engine for a modern plane. I would have to agree that LCA itself is also a learning project. The fact of MMRCA is needed speak volumes about the failure of this project.
 
If you cannot tell me the objective of Kaveri, than you be able to tell whether it reached or failed in its objective. So you also agree that Kaveri is a failed project?

The Objective is to Fly LCA , but IAF said it don't want engine with 80KN trust and would like 100 KN trust engine , So Kaveri which is designed /achieved 80KN trust , will be used to other purpose and upgraded version with 100KN trust is under development.

while IAF don't want plane with 80KN Trust , PAF /Chinese like 80KN trust engine.

Project is considered failed it not achieved it required gone, Kaveri engine is design 80KN and its achieved 80KN , but user required 100 KN trust , so upgraded version is now made with 100 KN, like you have first made WS-10 and now you are making WS-10A , WS-10B etc.

Now the question arises , that why IAF don't want 80KN trust while PAF /Chinese considered 80KN trust as interim measure.

So Technically, india made engine of 80KN trust much earlier then Chinese which still cant make engine of so called JF-17

now, tell since when Chinese are trying to make engine for JF-17? or its failed thats why you are using Russian engine in JF-17 because Chinese engine has failed.
 
The Objective is to Fly LCA , but IAF said it don't want engine with 80KN trust and would like 100 KN trust engine , So Kaveri which is designed /achieved 80KN trust , will be used to other purpose and upgraded version with 100KN trust is under development.

while IAF don't want plane with 80KN Trust , PAF /Chinese like 80KN trust engine.

maybe you should export Kaveri to Pakistan and the Chinese.
 
I would have to agree that India produce world class engineers but managed by a bunch of morons. As a result, the Kaveri project is a failure as it does not meet the initial goal of powering LCA. As for a research project, its a success as India learn that it had learned the lesson that it cannot build a modern engine for a modern plane. I would have to agree that LCA itself is also a learning project. The fact of MMRCA is needed speak volumes about the failure of this project.

Your JF-17 engine is also failed because it not able to power JF-17 plane.

maybe you should export Kaveri to Pakistan and the Chinese.

Sure , you Applied for buying for it , we will look into your application

still you didn't answer the question why PAF/Chinese want sub power engine in JF-17 i.e. 80KN while IAF don't want 80KN engine ?

ANswer because Indian unmanned plane will power by 80Kn engine which PAF/Chinese uses to fly manned plane.. what a advancement.
 
Kaveri is a failed engine until now, seen what will happen in the future. Miracle always happens.

Looks like you have finally devolved into a chinese troll ....I was just wonder how long you would take :lol:

...there is another Chinese from UK ....let's see how long his devolution takes :P
 
Your JF-17 engine is also failed because it not able to power JF-17 plane.



Sure , you Applied for buying for it , we will look into your application

still you didn't answer the question why PAF/Chinese want sub power engine in JF-17 i.e. 80KN while IAF don't want 80KN engine ?

ANswer because Indian unmanned plane will power by 80Kn engine which PAF/Chinese uses to fly manned plane.. what a advancement.

I was reading up in the other thread about Kaveri on a drone. you should check it out. In any case, if Kavari failed on this drone, I wonder would it be considered for a car engine.
 
I was reading up in the other thread about Kaveri on a drone. you should check it out. In any case, if Kavari failed on this drone, I wonder would it be considered for a car engine.

Already replied you, you Chinese talk only on assumption on your engine , which using link of our engine. nowhere govt state that WS-10 engine is successful after 2009 statement.
 
If it can power a car and founds to be economical , why not ??

Already there is a marine version of this engine .

Meanwhile , India could test Kaveri engine on Tejas by end-2013

well, great, when is the car version coming out? Does it have an ejection seat if the engine fails.

Already replied you, you Chinese talk only on assumption on your engine , which using link of our engine. nowhere govt state that WS-10 engine is successful after 2009 statement.

First of all, I'm an American. I am not from China so I don't know what you mean by "your engine"

As for Ws-10 engine, there are several variation. you should query the Chinese guys about them. But be specific on the exact model because they are not all the same.
 
Another article on the same by Mr. Thakur:

Kaveri Engine: Drowning in Failure, GTRE Desperately Clutches at Straws?

Initially sanctioned in 1989 as LCA power plant, the Kaveri is still undergoing flight certification 23 years later, with a thrust that is woefully short of LCA requirements.

The engine has been dropped as prospective power plant for the LCA because of it's thrust deficit, but GTRE is keen to push ahead with the development of the engine in order to... justify its existence!

After the initial de-linking of the Kaveri from the LCA, a desperate GTRE proposed the Kaveri as power plant for ships, even railway engines.

Chastised by the CAG for wasting government funds on the Kaveri, MOD has decided to continue development of the engine as a technology demonstrator engine for the LCA, still hopeful of retrieving some of the investments in the project.

Luckily for GTRE, the Kaveri project has been dropped a lifeline by DRDO's near quixotic ambitions and a questionable international regime - the MTCR - which prohibits sale to another country of technology that maybe used in a missile or unmanned vehicle exceeding 300 km in range.

Yet to successfully implement the LCA project, the DRDO has embarked on the development of a UCAV matching the capabilities of the X-47B and nEuron. The Indian analog is called Unmanned Strike Air Vehicle (USAV).

The MTCR precludes the import of a powerplant for the USAV, so GTRE has proposed a dry thrust only variant of the Kaveri on the USAV.

In a statement to Parliament on December 10, 2012, Defense Minister AK Antony confirmed that a Kaveri variant would be used to power the USAV, which incidentally was also the first time the GOI acknowledged the existence of the USAV.

On December 25, 2012, Business Standard reported that the decision to use the Kaveri as the USAV power plant was prompted by the engine's relatively good performance when operating without reheat during its flight testing.

During testing at the Gramov Flight Test Center, the Kaveri had demonstrated a dry thrust of 49.2 KN against a designed 51KN. With reheat the thrust deficit was substantial; 70.4 KN against the designed 81 KN.

UCAVs use unreheated engines in order to minimize their heat and noise signatures. Also, the thrust requirement for the USAV is more modest.

"Since the USAV will weigh less than 10 tonnes, the Kaveri's 50 KN will suffice. And, with the afterburner removed, we would significantly reduce the weight of the Kaveri," a top DRDO scientist told the Business Standard.

The DRDO plans to tweak the Kaveri to remove shortcomings noticed during its flight testing, ground test the engine at GTRE, send it back to Russia for flight testing and certification, and then fit it on a LCA (PV1) for more flight testing.

"After extensive ground testing at GTRE, the Kaveri will go back to Russia for flight-testing to ascertain that all the problems have been solved. This is essential for airworthiness certification. Finally, we will test the Kaveri in the single-engine Tejas fighter," said Dr CP Ramnarayanan, Director, GTRE.

GTRE has sought a sanction of Rs 595 crore from MoD for developing the "dry thrust only" versions of the Kaveri engines. The money will be utilized to build two prototypes at a cost of Rs 50 crore each and send them to Russia for flight testing, which cost Rs 80 crore back in 2010-11 and is likely to cost even more now.

"We will take 48 months from the date we get clearance from the government, for completing 50 hours of testing the Kaveri on the Tejas LCA. During the last 12 months, we will actually fly the Tejas with the Kaveri," added Ramnarayanan.

Stealthy UCAV with an Unstealthy Engine?

There is one big problem with using Kaveri dry to power the USAV - the engine is not designed for a low RCS aircraft. USAV, it is claimed, will be a stealthy UCAV. Typically, stealth aircraft powerplants use shaped intakes to prevent enemy radar from reflecting off their compressor blades. Also, the engines are designed to operate with shaped exhausts to reduce stern radar and heat signature The design changes for a stealthy engine are not trivial. Three years after it started test flying the T-50, it's fifth generation fighter, Russia has yet to fit a stealthy powerplant on it. GTRE inspires little confidence with its ability to incorporate these engines without killing the engine.

Kaveri as LCA Mk 2 / AMCA Power Plant?

GTRE has held talks with SNECMA of France to co-develop and co-produce a 90 kN thrust class upgraded Kaveri engine.

The proposed engine will be based on Snecma's 'Eco' engine core and serve as the power plant for LCA Mk II and AMCA.

It is claimed that the SNECMA variant of the Kaveri, referred to as K-10, will match the performance of the F414 and EJ2000 throughout the flight envelope of Tejas.

So far the K-10 project has made no progress, one reason being SNECMA's own skepticism about GTRE's ability to absorb the 'Eco' engine technology.

Kaveri Engine: Drowning in Failure, GTRE Desperately Clutches at Straws?
 
Back
Top Bottom