Read the forum code of contact
By: - 1st June 2006 at 10:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If this is the case, does anyone have any thrust figures? I know that South Africa previously did work to improve TBO and engine life figures. This gives the impression that thrust has now been improved.
By: - 2nd June 2006 at 08:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ok..so I take it no-one here knows anything about this. Perhaps then somebody knows something of French or SNECMA projects to update the original 9k50..I remember Deino normally took an interest in the more obscure...
By: - 2nd June 2006 at 14:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ok..so I take it no-one here knows anything about this. Perhaps then somebody knows something of French or SNECMA projects to update the original 9k50..I remember Deino normally took an interest in the more obscure...
Yes ... and I'm alse very much interested here, but - SORRY :( - I have no further information !
Cheers, Deino :)
By: - 2nd June 2006 at 15:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks deino..I wonder if this uprated ATAR was originally intended for their Chheta successor that was planned to be in operation in the mid 1990's? As the Atar 9K50 is quite an old engine , I'd imagine that refanning it and a few other modern improvements would perhaps increase the thrust. Or, the previous improvements to increase engine TBO and life figures could have been traded to ensure higher performance with the same TBO figures as before..ala russian engines.
By: - 5th June 2006 at 08:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Trident..the SMR-95 apparently caused centre of gravity problems when installed. The SAAF were also unhappy with it's TBO figures.
Is there any other reason to increase airflow to an engine other than to increase its thrust? Remembering that this is a turbojet and therefore has zero bypass, does increasing the airflow to the engine definitely point to a re-fanning? C'mon all you engine experts out there...
By: - 5th June 2006 at 08:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Trident..the SMR-95 apparently caused centre of gravity problems when installed. The SAAF were also unhappy with it's TBO figures.Is there any other reason to increase airflow to an engine other than to increase its thrust? Remembering that this is a turbojet and therefore has zero bypass, does increasing the airflow to the engine definitely point to a re-fanning? C'mon all you engine experts out there...
Hmmm ... :confused:
Did You get Your PM ???
Cheers, Deino :D
By: - 5th June 2006 at 09:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks Deino..check your PM.
By: - 5th June 2006 at 10:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wilhelm,
After the AAD 2004 show I had the same questions after hearing a Cheetah C take off. The Cheetah's engine definately had a louder, deeper rumble to it than the Mirage F1AZ that took off before it.
This piqued my curiosity as both aircraft were supposed the run the same engine, the ATAR 09K50. I asked one of my ex-technikon friends who's now employed at DENEL Aviation to see if he could come up with any answers.
Unfortuanately, info on the Cheetah C is still very much classified, so it's scarce to come by. What he did find out was:
that the motor is listed as an "ATAR Plus", official designation being 09K50-C11 (or C13), has plenty of local (South African) components, allows far more mishandling of the throttle (slamming it open or closed without fear of surge or flameout), faster spool-up time from idle to afterburner, and a thrust increase anywhere from 8-12% over the original Atar. Still no FADEC, though.
Please remember I got this info from two DENEL Aviation employees who still work under the threat of non-disclosure agreements, so bear with me if the info isn't accurate...
By: - 5th June 2006 at 14:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wow..thanks Kurt. That answer also explains a cryptic reference I found while trawling the CSIR site concerning some work labelled as "Atar Plus". I suspected that it was a local upgrade of sorts. That possible 8 to 12 % increase in thrust...you wouldn't know if that was dry or afterburning thrust would you...?
By: - 5th June 2006 at 14:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wilhelm,
That would be full PC (Post Combustion) as the local pilots call it.
The standard 7200kg + 12% (8064kg total with afterburning) puts it close to the Gripen's RM12, doesn't it?
I would have loved to have seen the Cheetahs and F1's with thrust ratings similar to the F-16's GE's and P&W's. That would have been just too lovely for words...
By: - 6th June 2006 at 09:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Kurt..of course, the ATAR is much heavier than the RM12. I have also seen that the Cheetah C's empty weight is over 8000kg. Is this true?
I don't suppose you would "ask" your friend at Denel if they have any info on the Cava or Carver project would you? A Cheetah replacement project cancelled in the early nineties. Apparentely there was a wind tunnel model at the CSIR a few years back that was quite openly displayed.
By: - 6th June 2006 at 09:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wilhelm,That would be full PC (Post Combustion) as the local pilots call it.
The standard 7200kg + 12% (8064kg total with afterburning) puts it close to the Gripen's RM12, doesn't it?
I would have loved to have seen the Cheetahs and F1's with thrust ratings similar to the F-16's GE's and P&W's. That would have been just too lovely for words...
Yes, indeed.
Kurt, do you know if South Africa still has F1s in store? IIRC, all ideas of upgrading them were dropped in favour of buying Gripen, weren't they?
I'm still not sure that was the right decision. I like the Gripen a lot, & it's nice to see it getting export sales, but I wonder if S. Africa might have been better off with an upgrade of the F1s for now, & a new fighter some time in the future. As long as the F1 airframes were up to it, of course.
By: - 6th June 2006 at 10:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Swerve,
If memory serves, the 21 or 22 surviving F1AZ airframes are still stored at Hoedspruit AFB. There was some talk (seen in AFM magazine) of selling them as spares (or complete airframes) to possibly Libya, but I have no idea if this has ever taken place.
At least one is still "operational" in a sense. One used by Aerosud (Super Mirage F1) to promote the F1-SMR95 engine combination.
I'd assume the Atar engines are still available, because the Cheetah C programme was completed before the F1's were withdrawn from service.
I'd like to refer you to a website that has an enormous amount of information regarding the Cheetah and Mirage F1 ( http://www.ipmssa.za.org ). Just browse through their "Knowledge Base" section.
By: - 6th June 2006 at 11:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was wondering if anybody knows anything about the upgrading/uprating of the SNECMA ATAR 9K50 fitted to the Cheetah fleet in South Africa. a few years ago I read in a journal that certain engine componants were re-engineered and improved on this engine. I was browsing IPMSSA and found this:"During 2002 Cheetah D no 859 was used for development work with new intakes as part of “Project Recipient” to increase the airflow through the original Cheetah D intakes. The air intakes feature modifications to some areas of the intake shape to improve the airflow. Basic outer shape remains the same. The main feature of the “Recipient” upgrade is the fitment of an up-rated 09K50 engine, by improving a number of individual components of the engine. The fitment of the 9K50 engine was as a follow on project to feasibility studies carried out by DENEL in 1994 as a private venture by mating Cheetah D no 844 with 836 (a Mirage III RZ which received a 9K50 engine in a separate upgrade). Increased airflow and the up-rated engine give the “Recipient” upgraded Ds a significant increase in performance."
The picture shows a new curved splitter plate. Picture courtesy of ipmssa.za.org.
Hate to burst your bubble, but Project Recipient came about when the original ATAR 09C was replaced with the 9K-50C-II and thus the increase in power and need to redesign the engine air intakes. This had been done previously when the 9K-50 was fitted to the R2Z. This actually had more to do with SAAF standardisation than the actual improvement in power. The South African improvements to the 9K-50 have more to do with maintenance and improved fuel efficiency than anything else.
As for the SMR-95, to quote the test pilot, it was not accepted due, "several different reasons, not because of technical problems but rather logistic support philosophies and politic's."
By: - 6th June 2006 at 11:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Swerve,If memory serves, the 21 or 22 surviving F1AZ airframes are still stored at Hoedspruit AFB. There was some talk (seen in AFM magazine) of selling them as spares (or complete airframes) to possibly Libya, but I have no idea if this has ever taken place.
At least one is still "operational" in a sense. One used by Aerosud (Super Mirage F1) to promote the F1-SMR95 engine combination.
I'd assume the Atar engines are still available, because the Cheetah C programme was completed before the F1's were withdrawn from service.
I'd like to refer you to a website that has an enormous amount of information regarding the Cheetah and Mirage F1 ( http://www.ipmssa.za.org ). Just browse through their "Knowledge Base" section.
The F1-AZ's at Hoedspruit + spares are believed to have been sold to Gabon.
By: - 6th June 2006 at 11:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mpacha...I'm aware of the replacement of the Atar09C with the Atar9K50. The air intakes were enlarged on the Cheetah C (Atar9K50) as opposed to the Cheetah E which was powered by the AtarO9C. I'm aware that the D's got the 9K50 after the C.
What I'm asking now is why change the intake design to increase airflow when the original half cone splitter is/was deemed good for the Cheetah C model. It also does not explain references I have seen (and clearly Kurts friend) to a programme called Atar Plus.
By: - 6th June 2006 at 11:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mpacha...I'm aware of the replacement of the Atar09C with the Atar9K50. The air intakes were enlarged on the Cheetah C (Atar9K50) as opposed to the Cheetah E which was powered by the AtarO9C. I'm aware that the D's got the 9K50 after the C.What I'm asking now is why change the intake design to increase airflow when the original half cone splitter is/was deemed good for the Cheetah C model. It also does not explain references I have seen (and clearly Kurts friend) to a programme called Atar Plus.
The Cheetah C is not a Mirage airframe, so you would have to see how the spec's compare with that of the Mirage. ATAR Plus is not part of “Project Recipient”
By: - 6th June 2006 at 11:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mpacha/Wilhelm -
Why is info on the Cheetah C so hard to come by? :mad:
Nobody has let slip any info on the Atar Plus, the radar (EL/M-2032 or 2035), or the data-link capabilities. I'm just dying for the day I can get a good hi-rez photo of the cockpit (all I've managed to get a good view of so far was the HUD and the UFC. Also a pilot telling me at African Aerospace '94 that the C-model had three colour displays in the cockpit.)
The Cheetah C was first introduced in 1993, now 13 years later with the Gripen about to be introduced, there's still almost no info. :confused:
By: - 6th June 2006 at 14:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi!
Its interesting to note the engine modifications but does anybody has any info on the wing modifications with LERX & wing-tip mounted WVR missile that Denel did in the early 90s??
I had read them in some issues of Air Power International/Journal in the early 90s, does anybody know about it??
Posts: 1,620
By: wilhelm - 1st June 2006 at 09:51
I was wondering if anybody knows anything about the upgrading/uprating of the SNECMA ATAR 9K50 fitted to the Cheetah fleet in South Africa. a few years ago I read in a journal that certain engine componants were re-engineered and improved on this engine. I was browsing IPMSSA and found this:
"During 2002 Cheetah D no 859 was used for development work with new intakes as part of “Project Recipient” to increase the airflow through the original Cheetah D intakes. The air intakes feature modifications to some areas of the intake shape to improve the airflow. Basic outer shape remains the same. The main feature of the “Recipient” upgrade is the fitment of an up-rated 09K50 engine, by improving a number of individual components of the engine. The fitment of the 9K50 engine was as a follow on project to feasibility studies carried out by DENEL in 1994 as a private venture by mating Cheetah D no 844 with 836 (a Mirage III RZ which received a 9K50 engine in a separate upgrade). Increased airflow and the up-rated engine give the “Recipient” upgraded Ds a significant increase in performance."
The picture shows a new curved splitter plate. Picture courtesy of ipmssa.za.org.