Indian aeronautical research – is it still at X roads



I can only write about the Indian aeronautical scene with particular reference to the National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL), with which my association spans about three decades. In the five decades of its existence, NAL has seen through seven Directors. In these last fifty years, the institution had only one best Director, Dr. S.R. Valluri. His association of two decades with the institution has really changed the face of Indian aeronautics with quite a few policy decisions at national level taking shape during his tenure. He was the voice of aeronautics, commanded highest respect and influence at both national and international level. It is not my intention to belittle the other Directors of the Institution and neither to highlight one, though it is a fact. In actual fact my current writing is the result of stray thoughts that keep swaying in my mind about whether the institution is going through appropriate direction and policy or whether an alternative thinking may put NAL in a much higher pedestal than it is today. With this end in view, I ventured into reading through the annual reports of the NAL on its website. Also thought what would be the sense of direction if Dr. Valluri is to be in the saddle. If a dispassionate vie3w is to be taken, NAL’s capabilities at present are almost the same as it was a couple of decades ago except for a very few spin-off advancements in research such as in control laws, enhanced/advanced product developments in FRP technology. These spin-off research benefits are as a result of the Light Combat Aircraft development programme of the country.

A beautiful bride all decked up but no where to go was what Dr. Dhawan said; a jewel in the crown was what Dr. Mashelkar said about NAL. A beautiful bride at that time - may be, no where to go – may be but appropriate now perhaps is ‘could not go anywhere! A jewel in the crown – may be due to capital intensive nature of the projects taken up. However the moot point is which one is fake – the jewel or the crown or both?

Reading through the Director’s Report of the annual reports of NAL, though makes an interesting reading, seem to indicate that the laboratory’s capabilities largely support the civilian aircraft development – SARAS. Is this, if it is a fact, good for a premier aeronautical research institution. Has this action of channelising all activities towards only SARAS resulted in inaction of research in aeronautics per se? Has NAL compromised research in the name of SARAS.

SARAS is perhaps an ambitious programme taken up by the Laboratory when it first took the drafting table. To the extent that it is to be viewed in the context of showcasing to the country that the country is capable of developing civilian aircraft on its own, thereby developing the indigenous technology in aircraft design and fabrication, excepting dependence on importing engines, is a commendable exercise. However NAL obviously does not have aircraft design staff which has resulted in contracting retired HAL staff. In essence it would appear that NAL has the capabilities to develop technologies but no capability in actual design of aircraft as NAL has scientists but not design engineers. Good that NAL did so with a 12-14 seater executive aircraft programme and imported engines for the same. Was this successful? It is perhaps yes and no. To the extent that it took to the skies and applauded indicated that the answer in affirmative. It is no because it is not pursued (due to either snags or falling short of design expectations) or no takes or no industry coming forward to buy the technology or perhaps even HAL was not prepared to manufacture or absence of domestic market for such an aircraft or a host of other things not coming to light.

HANSA, another all composite trainer aircraft – a two seater, was demonstrated earlier, a precursor to SARAS and a smaller number of this aircraft too were supplied to flying clubs. It is however noted that HANSA has been taken to Australia for trials and possible collaboration with interested parties there probably in an effort to prove that it is a good aircraft for use by the Flying Clubs. The strategy is not well explained. The roll of Taneja Aviation Limited in the development, financing, marketing is not clearly evident. What efforts have been made to transfer technology to TAL is also missing.

It is heartening to read that NAL proposed 50-50 tie-up with Mahindra Plexion Technologies for development of 4-5 seater general aviation aircraft. What is the scope? Would it be a limited to financial participation or the entrepreneur will be taking over technology for subsequent production, marketing and distribution?

NAL has also taken up a 50-70 seat aircraft development only goes to show that they can put this kite too into the skies. If this also goes the way of the 12-14 seat aircraft, would the institution be embarking on a much larger aircraft and eventually end up designing, developing and flying world’s largest passenger aircraft! Or if it is successful, who will productionise the aircraft, who would market it and what are the projected requirements for such an aircraft?

The right course of action should have been to persuade HAL to take up the manufacture of 12-14 seat aircraft as originally conceived removing the snags in design specifications as that PSU has a fulfledged design bureau and a separate unit which was manufacturing civilian aircraft under licence.

The dependence of NAL for its Civil Aviation Unit on retired staff from HAL and NAL on contract and channelising all activities of NAL towards one product compromising research does not seem to be ideal or the need of the hour or it is in consonance with the priorities for which NAL was conceived and established.

It is good to see from the annual reports that the institution has grown over the years showcasing to the country its capabilities to live up to its expectations to serve the aeronautical industry and support the Indian space research programme, be it in wind tunnel testing of scaled models or HAL/NAL/ISRO/DRDO, acoustic test facilities for spacecraft, composite structural component manufacture for TEJAS, control laws for LCA, test facilities for rolling element bearings, development of sunshield mirrors for sensors, high speed combustor test facility for ISRO/DRDO, tropical weather monitoring and monsoon prediction, wind energy programme, fatigue test facilities, and failure analysis investigations facilities and so on.

Getting back to the capabilities or developments that have taken place in NAL during the last decade or two or for that matter even ever since its inception, the institution should certainly be viewed as a supporting role player whether it is for aircraft industry or spacecraft requirements. It is a good exercise that NAL has taken up development of both HANSA and SARAS. This itself should show that it is capable of providing adequate support facilities, technology expertise to the industry. If this argument is acceptable, it is time that NAL should abandon the current aircraft programmes and get back to research mode for development of advanced technologies for future generation civilian 9r military aircraft and more strongly in the space vehicle reentry technology to help ISRO. Establishment of hypersonic test facilities could also be an addition. Materials research too seem to have taken a beating and not mujch activity seems to be taking place for development of newer materials. Certain activities related to monsoon modeling/prediction and wind energy development need not really form part of NAL activities.
The above are my personal views and should not necessarily be looked upon as a criticism of NAL's efforts.