Il-106 is the Russian equivalent to C-17 Globemaster III?
Pretty much yes... but the new plan for three aircraft with the same engine but 2 engines in the 80 ton payload range, four engines in the 150 ton payload range and 6 engines in the 250 ton payload range would mean the Russian C-17 equivalent would have only two engines instead of four.
Garry, the article i read since this topic began seemed to say the PD-30 is the engine based on the upgraded NK-32 core. The article seemed to be speculating based on the debriefing given to Putin if i recall correctly. I'll see if i can find it again and post it up later.
You already posted in in post 11 on this thread.
So the question then becomes why bother developing a new powerful engine to just reengine the An-124s?
Introducing the Il-106 would result in a large aircraft with four engines that are different from the four engines being fitted to upgraded An-124s... don't you agree that new engines are actually the hardest part of a new aircraft and building a scaled family of transports using the same engine makes a lot of sense?
Interesting. I thought I read somewhere that there would be a prop version too. Maybe a prop one could takeoff from rough and short runways.
You might be confusing turboprops with VSTOLs... most modern turboprops actually have jet engines to turn the external propeller blades... so sucking up dirt and crap will screw a turboprop plane just as easily as a turbojet.
When talking about 80 ton capacity aircraft you don't usually talk about operating from rough fields.
Even from a very pragmatic view... who wants to fly a big slow heavy transport within small arms fire of the enemy?
If you need to supply troops well away from a concrete runway then use parachutes...
Having said that both the Il-76 and An-124 have quite respectable performance on rough air strips.
I remember reading that an An-124 at farnborough was turned around and rolled over wet grass at one stage... the western commentators shocked when it didn't disappear in the mud like a western aircraft would.
Soviet aircraft weren't designed to operate from mud, but heavy snow on the runway was a constant issue and lots of wheels spreading the load made ice and snow and mud less of a barrier to operations.
Of course for aircraft like the Su-25 that would operate on forward mudstrips they were designed so they could operate on the softest ground.
Anyway, I wonder how it would fit into the overall strategy of cargo planes.
I'd like to see a supersonic stealth cargo plane in smallish numbers. I know its a radical leap, but its not THAT radical if you see some of Tupolev's capabilities eg Tu-244 design and the Tu-160.
Not going to happen.
To fly at supersonic speeds you need something called area rule... sometimes called the coke bottle shape. It is just not practical to shape an aircraft for supersonic speeds and large internal load carriage.... they are conflicting requirements and when you have conflicting requirements you evaluate what is most important and you sacrifice that which is not for that which is... supersonic speed is not important for air transport... payload capacity is.
How often do you see a transport aircraft design stretched to allow larger cargo to be carried?
How often do you see a transport aircraft made narrower so it will fly faster?
"First mover advantage" would be a serious force multiplier if Russia could move moderate quantities of particular hardware and troops very quickly in a military situation. The traditional cargo planes could then follow up, while a supersonic transporter did a repeat movement.
Yeah... the obvious problem is that to be supersonic those transports will have to fly at medium to high altitude... the enemy will see them coming from thousands of kms away... all they need to do is park a tank every 500m down all their hard runways that are more than 2km long and those supersonic transports will have no where to land... if they are not shot down first they will crash when they run out of fuel. Then the rest of your transports arrive with the enemy nicely alerted and ready.... nahh... not a good idea at all.