Mpacha..the Cheetah C airframe, if indeed a Kfir, would then have been built to house the J-79 turbojet in a fatter, shorter fuselage. The J-79 requires a higher airflow than even the 9K50. How did they reduce the airflow on the C model? Did they reduce the size of the inlets down to a midway point between the 09C and J-79 to suit the 9K50?

Kurt, thanks for the PM. The Cheetah and Cava/Carver saga interests me greatly. I share your frustration over the Cheetah C secrecy!!

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.

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…?

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…

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…