Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2441
    Points : 2439
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA) - Page 16 Empty Re: Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:34 am

    They do need to get off their asses and start cranking out Il-76.
    They'll get more in a few years + the modernized older Il-76; After that, the Il-96-500T will later have the same or slower rate of production & won't affect them by much.
    They r hedging their bets against other projects that may not succeed in time.
    Why would you make a Beluga Il-96 just to fly a couple of rocket parts that can be moved by train?
    Look back on posts about the tunnel in Siberia that is too narrow. It'll be more capable than Airbus Beluga, & they can earn a lot of $ with it moving outsized cargo.
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2905
    Points : 3783
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA) - Page 16 Empty Re: Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:42 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    They'll get more in a few years + the modernized older Il-76; After that, the Il-96-500T will later have the same or slower rate of production & won't affect them by much.
    They r hedging their bets against other projects that may not succeed in time.

    Look back on posts about the tunnel in Siberia that is too narrow. It'll be more capable than Airbus Beluga, & they can earn a lot of $ with it moving outsized cargo.

    They have had the order for 39 new ones since 2012, we only just got the first one.

    It is called move it to trucks and reload it.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20889
    Points : 21443
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA) - Page 16 Empty Re: Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:45 am

    They cancelled it- the cost is too high & the benefit gained isn't worth it, otherwise the Il-478 would've been not being pursued/cancelled. A twin engine variant would be more economical, but there's no suitable engine yet.

    When they cancelled the Il-96 tanker it was because they were looking for uses for a few airframes they could finish... this was before PD-35 engines were considered and they were not considering the Il-96 as a tanker instead of the Il-478... all their upgrades of tactical aircraft and all their new aircraft have inflight refuelling probes, which is a pretty useless feature if the only tankers you operate are with strategic aviation.

    Now that they are putting the Il-96 into low scale production and have plans for new engines that should give them quite impressive performance then it makes sense to revisit the idea of a tanker variant because as I said a large long range passenger jet with a large internal capacity for fuel makes a lot of sense for fueling strategic bombers on long range missions and also long range missions with medium and tactical range aircraft.

    The Il-478 is a useful aircraft but the Il-96 cruises at a higher speed at a higher altitude and carries significantly more fuel that can be off loaded to another aircraft... which is not really critical for a tactical fighter but for a strategic cruise missile carrier these are all very useful things... especially when you can design the aircraft to perform cargo carrying roles when inflight refuelling is not needed.

    They may get all that surrounding land back later, after Ms of Russian speakers get RF passports, like those in Donbass. There r no tunnels & none needed whatsoever between Central Russia & Baikonur which is also lot closer than Vostochny.

    Be that as it may, it is currently and in the foreseeable future in a foreign country beyond Russian control and a single coloured revolution or simply a change of government and access might become an issue... which is fine... they have prepared for that eventuality and now they are getting a sea launch capacity too so it is hardly the end of the world.

    The tunnels leading to the far east are part of the silk road from Europe to Asia and will make Russia quite a bit of money so it is worth upgrading the tunnels and the rails too.

    If they get more transit fees from China & Korea, that would be easier to finance.

    It would be more important to get them using the route rather than cranking up transit fees and making alternative options look more attractive. All of the fees should be used initially to upgrade the rails and tunnels to allow a faster and safer transit... and once you have done that then you can increase the fees a little because you have made it faster and safer.

    Otherwise, it can wait- even with delays in transit, it's still faster by 2-3 weeks or more than by sea. Besides, widening the tunnel will close it for the duration, so a new 1 will need to be dug.

    That wiki page mentioned diverting traffic via another route, but building a new tunnel and widening the existing tunnel all at the same time would be pretty stupid...

    new tunnel to Vostochny will take 10 yrs - re train tunnel width ...

    Would like to know where that estimate came from... I remember estimates that it would take 15 years to build the bridge to the Crimea because of currents and storms in the region and they have never done such a big project before blah blah blah...

    so if you use your An-124s less and use these Il-96-500Ts for a lot of their work then you can make your An-124s last longer

    They are not the same and are not used the same way... the Il-96 will carry pallets and will be loaded with forklifts with all sorts of outsized loads a bit like a cargo ship with loads lowered into a cargo bay... An-124 is more like a roll on roll off ferry and much more suited to carrying vehicles... including helicopters (with their rotors removed) and even ships or trains or all sorts of armoured vehicles as well as pallets of equipment or food or ammo or whatever.

    Trying to make Il-96 into a wannabe C-5 Galaxy... it is a waste of time with only 40t load.

    No, they are not trying to make it a C-5 or An-124 replacement... they are if anything trying to make a VM-T replacement with the internal carriage of rockets that are too wide to go into rail tunnels.

    And those rockets are empty so they probably wouldn't weigh anything like 40 tons with their propellant and O2 tanks empty.

    PD-35 is going to power the modernised An-124s with twice the payload. Why would it make any sense to wait that long to put it into an Il-96 with half the load?

    Because they will be using them for different things.

    That would only be an option if An-124 isn't an option. Are they giving up on Ruslan already?

    The An-124 can't take that size an object... not because it is too heavy, but because it doesn't have the internal width to fit such an object.

    They will keep using the An-124 but when they have new engines for it it will become a much more useful aircraft to be honest, but they will use a wider body variant of the Il-96 especially for the space industry that wants lots of funny sized rockets that are relatively light but an awkward size and shape.

    An-124s may or may not be re-engined; if they r, they may carry only ~30t more, extrapolating from data above.

    As mentioned in the data you posted the current model An-124 can carry a 150 ton payload already with four 23 ton thrust ukrainian engines... I would think the performance improvement of replacing those four engines with four engines generating 35 tons of thrust would be pretty significant... 92 tons thrust compared with 140 tons of thrust.

    Bare in mind that the An-225 was rather wider and longer and had two extra engines and could carry 250 ton payloads on its back but it did it with 138 tons of thrust...

    IMO, the Il-96-500T is the transitional plane bebefore the Slon & the Il-106 r supposed to appear.

    I disagree... the Il-96-500T is a direct replacement for the M4 bomber in the VM-T transporter role to transfer outsized payloads for the space industry. It makes rather more sense to use the Il-96 instead of the Bear because with PD-35 engines the Il-96 could have a serious future as a modern and efficient and capable civilian aircraft, while the Bear would be a dead end use of an aircraft that was available (like the VM-T).

    The Slon is a replacement for the An-124, and the Il-106 is a direct replacement for the An-22 and direct competitor to the C-17 and the sooner they can get it into production the more they will likely sell... but a lot of countries tied in to having to buy C-17s to garner US support will be so jealous of the Il-106 as being a much better aircraft than the C-17.

    If they had made the Slon as a three aircraft platform with twin, quad, and six engine version with the twin engine model in the Il-106 weight range, the quad engine model in the An-124 replacement range and a six engine model for the absent An-225 aircraft range then the twin would make the Il-106 redundant, the quad engine model would replace the An-124 and the six engine model with the capacity to carry items on its back would make the Il-96 redundant... but the point is that the Il-96 would still make sense as an airliner with the PD-35 engines so they would end up making them anyway.

    It's of dual use & will carry helos, boats, vehicles, heavy equipment, & other cargoes for the MOD/MChS, as schematics in the links show.

    True, but in those other transport roles they would compete directly with Il-476, An-124, and soon Il-106 and so for plenty of transport roles it wont be the first choice... of course there are things it will be able to carry none of those other aircraft could carry either so it has value and would definitely be used by the space industry at the very least and a few other roles as well.

    Fine, but the An-124s may not be re-engined in sufficient #s thanks to Kiev's legal obstructions. Also, An-124s r aging & will need replacements.

    The problems with the An-124s is that its engines are Ukrainian... everything else they make in Russia so avionics and wings and other bits are not problem... it is the engines... which is of course the most high tech and complex part of any aircraft...

    An-124 is far wider than an Il-96 and has a cavernous storage deck. If you needed a platform with more room, you would just expand the Ruslan. If you need to put it on top of something, you would put it on top of the Ruslan.

    From what I understand the problem is height. The point is that an Il-96 even with PS-90 engines can carry the weight, but they don't want to use the Ruslans too much because they use Ukrainian engines at the moment... when they have PD-35s it would make sense to make a four engined An-124 with PD-35s with an H shaped tail like the An-225. The PD-35s would give it practically the engine power of the An-225... it might need a bigger wing for extra lift but it would not need extra engines unless they wanted to take some prestige away from the Orcs.

    They could get the job done with four engines if they wanted but I guess a 6 engine model would give them quite a lot of extra power... 6 PD-35s would have 210 tons thrust compared with the An-225s 138 tons...

    But as I have mentioned most of its external payloads are large and draggy but not that heavy... I think the Buran complete was about 120 tons and it wouldn't be fuelled or anything. Most of the enormous tanks the VM-T carried were empty and were fuel tanks for energyia or oxygen tanks (shorter smaller one).

    The Slon, not to mention the Il-106, will take longer to field; the Il-96-500T will come out sooner & for a lot le$$.

    Exactly... it will be ready to go even with old engines... and when the new engines are ready it will get even better performance... it is actually an excellent aircraft let down because it was Soviet... when the US collapses and the world airline market is all Chinese and French and Russian aircraft the same will happen to Boeings...

    The skills are making aircraft. Whether it is an Il-96 Beluga that makes no sense or what we really need, the Ruslan, then they are still making aircraft. They have plenty of baccklogged work now making the rest of the 39 Il-76s.

    Would be good if they could get those new Candids out because I think they will sell pretty well on the international market too... they will be a fraction of the cost of a C-17 so buying 3-4 Candids you still save money and get much better performance...

    After that, the Il-96-500T will later have the same or slower rate of production & won't affect them by much.
    They r hedging their bets against other projects that may not succeed in time.

    The Il-96 is a big aircraft and they will never be cranking them out in enormous numbers... a couple a year would be fine for them... rocket use will build up so one or two is not going to be enough... they will probably need 8-12 of them... by the late 2020s
    avatar
    Gazputin

    Posts : 73
    Points : 73
    Join date : 2019-04-07

    Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA) - Page 16 Empty so much detail ..

    Post  Gazputin on Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:47 am

    you guys love all this minute detail …

    but at the end of the day as I've said so often on this site
    your aircraft is only the pointy end of a very complex industrial "system"

    why do you think Trump and the fascists in the Pentagon
    are currently trying to destroy the EU's military aircraft business ?
    its not just Russia they are attacking …. open your eyes guys

    you can rant on about detail as much as you like ….

    it is as simple as this ….
    China is the USA threat … its weakness is energy
    Russia has lots of energy
    and according to the "USA Thinktanks"
    the Russians are too dumb to figure how to reach the "hard to get to reserves"
    so they think Russia is screwed in 20-25 yrs …. and will beg for help
    as their "easy to get to reserves" will be bled dry …

    and the USA "Borgs" will never ever allow the EU and Russia to work together as a result ….
    the EU is to remain a USA colony …. end of story
    and Eastern EU will be used as a "block" between the EU and Russia …
    just look … all those cretins buy is USA hardware ….

    once "the Borg" get control of Russia's Arctic energy reserves …. they can control China …
    all the rest is just sideshow stuff … in a circus

    thing is Putin has set the Milplex boffins loose to work on anything that makes money …
    read up on Gazprom …. re Arctic drilling
    this is the really big deal …. and Rosneft and Sechin ….

    the big tech in all this is … the ability to drill out from the land to reach underwater reserves ….
    critical in the arctic …. as you can't plonk offshore platforms in ice …

    and the best way to make Russia "collapse" again …. is insane expenditure on insane on idiotic military projects
    resulting in a CIA engineered "colours revolution " …. again

    and hasn't that gone well for the dimwits in the Ukraine ?
    they used to export to Russia high end engineering
    big ships, big aircraft …. space components

    now they have been absorbed by the Borg …
    they now export sunflower seeds and wheat ….. 1/2 the population wants to emigrate
    their high end industries have collapsed

    as the only reason the CIA staged the "coup"
    was the USSR was too nice and farmed out its key industries to regional countries
    Poland/Czechs did small aircraft and engines
    Ukraine did big aircraft ships and engines …
    (Garry explained this very well elsewhere … think the source material was on Russian Insider ?)

    the "democratic" "egalitarian" Borg …. never does that it
    it centralises all critical tech … its in the USA or France ...
    and Borg colonies provide raw materials and cheap labour (including hookers)
    they are allowed to supply basic produce ….
    provide cheap labour and hookers …
    and eventually they are allowed to produce mindless "components" for Borg projects
    mentally stimulating shit like …. aircraft seats ….

    the West portrays Russia as the Borg …
    but it is in fact the Pentagon who are the Borg ...

    but within the Borg …. the USA is currently trying to destroy France's milplex ….
    this is really interesting ….
    as France and Germany have decided to work together ….
    the USA Borg will attack them endlessly …. watch this space
    tariffs on German cars …. tariffs on Airbus ….

    the real battle is stop the Russian and EU milplexes from merging ….
    all this crap about "democracy" is a load of twaddle …

    anyway time for my barbequed T-bone and red wine …. too old to care

    ciao








    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 3612
    Points : 3594
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA) - Page 16 Empty Re: Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

    Post  miketheterrible on Tue Apr 30, 2019 6:13 am

    Gazputin wrote:you guys love all this minute detail …

    but at the end of the day as I've said so often on this site
    your aircraft is only the pointy end of a very complex industrial "system"

    why do you think Trump and the fascists in the Pentagon
    are currently trying to destroy the EU's military aircraft business ?
    its not just Russia they are attacking …. open your eyes guys

    you can rant on about detail as much as you like ….

    it is as simple as this ….
    China is the USA threat … its weakness is energy
    Russia has lots of energy
    and according to the "USA Thinktanks"
    the Russians are too dumb to figure how to reach the "hard to get to reserves"
    so they think Russia is screwed in 20-25 yrs …. and will beg for help
    as their "easy to get to reserves" will be bled dry …

    and the USA "Borgs" will never ever allow the EU and Russia to work together as a result ….
    the EU is to remain a USA colony …. end  of story
    and Eastern EU will be used as a "block" between the EU and Russia …
    just look … all those cretins buy is USA hardware ….

    once "the Borg" get control of Russia's Arctic energy reserves  …. they can control China …
    all the rest is just sideshow stuff … in a circus

    thing is Putin has set the Milplex boffins loose to work on anything that makes money …
    read up on Gazprom …. re Arctic drilling
    this is the really big deal …. and Rosneft and Sechin ….

    the big tech in all this is … the ability to drill out from the land to reach underwater reserves ….
    critical in the arctic …. as you can't plonk offshore platforms in ice …

    and the best way to make Russia "collapse" again …. is insane expenditure on insane on idiotic military projects
    resulting in a CIA engineered "colours revolution " …. again

    and hasn't that gone well for the dimwits in the Ukraine ?
    they used to export to Russia high end engineering
    big ships, big aircraft …. space components

    now they have been absorbed by the Borg …
    they now export sunflower seeds and wheat ….. 1/2 the population wants to emigrate
    their high end industries have collapsed

    as the only reason the CIA staged the "coup"
    was the USSR was too nice and farmed out its key industries to regional countries
    Poland/Czechs did small aircraft and engines
    Ukraine did big aircraft ships and engines …
    (Garry explained this very well elsewhere … think the source material was on Russian Insider ?)

    the "democratic" "egalitarian" Borg …. never does that it
    it centralises all critical tech … its in the USA or France ...
    and Borg colonies provide raw materials and cheap labour (including hookers)
    they are allowed to supply basic produce ….
    provide cheap labour and hookers …
    and eventually they are allowed to produce mindless "components" for Borg projects
    mentally stimulating shit like …. aircraft seats ….

    the West portrays Russia as the Borg …
    but it is in fact the Pentagon  who are the Borg ...

    but within the Borg …. the USA is currently trying to destroy France's milplex ….
    this is really interesting ….
    as France and Germany have decided to work together ….
    the USA Borg will attack them endlessly …. watch this space
    tariffs on German cars …. tariffs on Airbus ….

    the real battle is stop the Russian and EU milplexes from merging ….
    all this crap about "democracy" is a load of twaddle …

    anyway time for my barbequed T-bone and red wine …. too old to care

    ciao









    You make very good points. Russia kayboshed the plans of USA with their own deep sea and horizontal drilling technologies, along with their own LNG tech as well. This was their first failure against Russia when Russia announced their own tech used for extraction and processing of resources. Then it went to shit when Russia announced PD-14 and their own gas turbines for ships. Then ultimately, rest went to shit when the Russian government gave way for MiC to enter through civil market (since they got the money and talent). Russia was forced into self protectionism and it's working for them. Yes, not all perfect and swimmingly, but it is necessary to continue it's development. The plans for Il-476 and future of Il-96 is fantastic news and will be further important to Russian economy and military.
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 900
    Points : 941
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 31
    Location : portugal

    Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA) - Page 16 Empty Re: Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

    Post  dino00 on Tue Apr 30, 2019 11:35 am

    Russia is developing an unusual aircraft with ultra-short takeoff

    Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA) - Page 16 15555710


    The main feature of the device is the implementation of ultra-short takeoffs and landings. It is reported that the maximum length of the takeoff run and run of the aircraft will be only 15 meters. This result will be achieved thanks to the scheme of the active blowing of the wing. It consists of ten propellers distributed along the leading edge of the wing, which catch the air flow, thereby increasing the lifting force. The plane will be able to reach speeds of 250 kilometers per hour, and the payload mass will reach 500 kg. Flight range will exceed 1000 km.

    The device will be able to carry out takeoffs, landings and the flight itself in a fully automatic mode. As the engine was selected hybrid power plant.

    In FPI said that the first flight of the aircraft demonstrator is scheduled for 2022. It is assumed that the device will be in demand in the structures of the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Russian Federation.

    The program is managed by the Advanced Study Foundation (PFD). To date, the developers have prepared an advance design, and have already begun construction of the first aircraft demonstrator.

    https://topcor.ru/7914-v-rossii-razrabatyvajut-samolet-so-sverhkorotkim-vzletom.html
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20889
    Points : 21443
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA) - Page 16 Empty Re: Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 01, 2019 8:15 am

    why do you think Trump and the fascists in the Pentagon
    are currently trying to destroy the EU's military aircraft business ?
    its not just Russia they are attacking …. open your eyes guys

    This thread is about Russian transport aircraft and the branch of the Russian air force they operate in... why should we give a shit about Trump trying to dismember the EUs military or aircraft business?

    In fact, if Trump could break NATO, that would actually be a good thing for Russia (and the EU).

    it is as simple as this ….
    China is the USA threat … its weakness is energy
    Russia has lots of energy
    and according to the "USA Thinktanks"

    Such complex situations are too much for US thinktanks to come to terms with otherwise the obvious strategy would be to buy Russian energy at a rate where China couldn't get the energy it needs to grow, but instead the strategy was to to keep the EU from developing ties with Russia because the EU with Russian energy... why does it need the US for again? Oh yes... the US protects the EU from Russian aggression... pushing Russia away from the EU and in the direction of Asia... China is spending its energy developing silk road routes from Asia to Europe so it is investing its energy into developing communications and trade links between Asia and the EU... Americas greatest fear is that they get their way because why would Asia trade with the US if it can more cheaply and easily trade with Russia and the EU... more importantly why would Russia or the EU trade with the US when trade with each other and Asia be so easy and cheap and quick.

    So by keeping the EU separate from Russia they are also keeping it separate from Asia and China.... but that can't last... too many people in Asia to ignore them... too many customers...

    and Eastern EU will be used as a "block" between the EU and Russia …
    just look … all those cretins buy is USA hardware ….

    For Russia there are domestic and Asian alternatives aplenty...

    once "the Borg" get control of Russia's Arctic energy reserves …. they can control China …
    all the rest is just sideshow stuff … in a circus

    But now the reserves around Venezuela means they can control the price of oil forever without needing Russian or Saudi help/submission.

    the real battle is stop the Russian and EU milplexes from merging ….
    all this crap about "democracy" is a load of twaddle …

    Yeah, there is no more chance of the Russian Milplex merging with the EU as the Milplex of the UK or France or Germany or Sweden merging... companies get bought out but not too much actually changes...

    Russia is developing an unusual aircraft with ultra-short takeoff

    Back on topic... I wonder how efficient all those small props will be... I rather suspect the same effect could be achieved with a large high bypass turbofan where the cold bypass air is used in blown flaps like the used for small wing jet fighters like the MiG-21 to operate on smaller airfields...

    Burying a high bypass turbofan in the wing with high pressure cold air directed to boost performance at low speeds shouldn't be that hard either...

    I mean if the top speed is only 250km/h then you might as well be looking at the new An-2 composite aircraft with wing mounted high bypass turbofans with blown flaps top and bottom wing arrangements... you could probably achieve a VSTOL aircraft if you do it right.
    avatar
    Gazputin

    Posts : 73
    Points : 73
    Join date : 2019-04-07

    Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA) - Page 16 Empty robotic assembly line Aviastar

    Post  Gazputin on Tue May 14, 2019 9:46 am

    re the concept
    small engines probably electric .... thing is .... drag once in flight ?

    back to Il-76 - news today
    so robotic assembly line going by year end to get production max from 6 to 18 ...

    and they doing a similar one for the Il-114-300 ....
    so you'd bet they are doing same for Il-112

    generally in factories you get your robots to do the big assembly stuff ...
    welding folding drilling holes etc ... first .... the messy bulky stuff

    then the big shell goes from a single robotic line splits into multiple "sub assembly lines" which are inhabited by humans
    who do the fiddly stuff .... so I suspect 1 robotic line preceeding 3 final assembly lines ....
    1 probably specialising in Il-78 .... the other 2 doing Il-76 .... = 18 p.a.

    anyway the buzzword for what the Russians are doing in all of these factories is "concurrent engineering"
    whilst the design is finalised ...... the production plant is concurrently coming up to speed ... re robots etc
    developed by the Moscow CB ZAO "Aviation Consulting-techno" ....

    don't forget too that Klimov and its production associates are already under huge pressure re VK-2500 helicopter engines
    so the "lull" is helping them get skilled staff and systems up to an other level to provide another 50+ engines p.a. for the 114 & 112
    and spares ..... production "lull" for the 114 and 112 .... is probably exactly what they need ...

    and all the other component suppliers ..... hopefully they've managed to commonise as many components as possible






    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2441
    Points : 2439
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA) - Page 16 Empty Re: Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:32 pm

    How Russia was left without an average military transport aircraft

    China didn't make that mistake with her Y-8/9s!
    flamming_python
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3469
    Points : 3553
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA) - Page 16 Empty Re: Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

    Post  flamming_python on Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:28 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Back on topic... I wonder how efficient all those small props will be... I rather suspect the same effect could be achieved with a large high bypass turbofan where the cold bypass air is used in blown flaps like the used for small wing jet fighters like the MiG-21 to operate on smaller airfields...

    Burying a high bypass turbofan in the wing with high pressure cold air directed to boost performance at low speeds shouldn't be that hard either...

    I mean if the top speed is only 250km/h then you might as well be looking at the new An-2 composite aircraft with wing mounted high bypass turbofans with blown flaps top and bottom wing arrangements... you could probably achieve a VSTOL aircraft if you do it right.

    They'll be more efficient than larger engines.
    But efficiency doesn't count for much when they're that small.

    Seems like a solution that will add a lot of expense and maintenance complexity to the aircraft.

    Looks like a good fit for SF needs though.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20889
    Points : 21443
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA) - Page 16 Empty Re: Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 15, 2019 10:58 am

    China didn't make that mistake with her Y-8/9s!

    Well when was the last time China was split up into pieces where the factories they had making medium transports was suddenly in a foreign and hostile country...

    They'll be more efficient than larger engines.
    But efficiency doesn't count for much when they're that small.

    But would they?

    New long range airliners don't have dozens of small engines providing thrust... they try to get the thrust needed with just two engines where possible.

    A forward set engine placed several metres in front of the wing... perhaps level or just behind the cockpit with the high bypass cold air directed via pipes to various points on the wing to blow high pressure cold air through the wing directed down by blown flaps on the wing to generate effectively vectored thrust... could be achieved with just one engine per wing...

    But realistically it just sounds like they need to have another look at biplanes like the upgraded AN-2 with composite materials and lots of lift... with small high bypass jet engines with bypass air being used to provide high pressure cold air for blown flaps could also do the job I suspect rather more effectively than the model shown above.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 275
    Points : 277
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA) - Page 16 Empty Re: Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Sat Jun 15, 2019 11:54 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:How Russia was left without an average military transport aircraft

    China didn't make that mistake with her Y-8/9s!
    The Y-8 is just a chinese reverse engineered clone of An-12, with chinese engines.
    The Y-9 is a modernised and stretched version of the Y-8.
    Russia has still several dozens An-12-active (and some in reserve).

    The new Il-276 should perform the role of medium transport aircraft, replacing the An-12. First flight, according to plans, should be in 2023, and serial production in 2026. Even with a 2 or 3 years delays, this should allow replacement of the An-12 before their exhaustion.

    As Garry was suggesting, they could later develop a variant powered by 2 propfans (ideally a derivative engine of the PD-12V, that is itself a turboshaft derivative of the PD-14, developed for the re-engining of the Mi-26 helicopter).

    If needed, they could also develop a "stretched" version of this aircraft, to bridge the gap between the Il-276 and the Il-(4)76


    China has surpassed Russia in shipbuilding capability, but is still behind in the aerospace industry
    flamming_python
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3469
    Points : 3553
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA) - Page 16 Empty Re: Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

    Post  flamming_python on Sun Jun 16, 2019 1:28 am

    GarryB wrote:
    But would they?

    New long range airliners don't have dozens of small engines providing thrust... they try to get the thrust needed with just two engines where possible.

    A forward set engine placed several metres in front of the wing... perhaps level or just behind the cockpit with the high bypass cold air directed via pipes to various points on the wing to blow high pressure cold air through the wing directed down by blown flaps on the wing to generate effectively vectored thrust... could be achieved with just one engine per wing...

    But realistically it just sounds like they need to have another look at biplanes like the upgraded AN-2 with composite materials and lots of lift... with small high bypass jet engines with bypass air being used to provide high pressure cold air for blown flaps could also do the job I suspect rather more effectively than the model shown above.

    Well larger engines tend to be less efficient not more. Of course with turbofans with bypasses and so on it might get more complicated; as smaller engines might not have the physical space for complex engineered systems designed to increase efficiency.

    But if those small engines are electrically-driven then it's a moot point. They'll be getting their power from what's generated by the larger turbines anyhow.

    Sponsored content

    Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA) - Page 16 Empty Re: Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:26 pm