Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+49
sepheronx
Podlodka77
wilhelm
caveat emptor
Swgman_BK
bac112
Krepost
Lennox
Autodestruct
Broski
Big_Gazza
limb
Backman
Arrow
tomazy
ALAMO
Russian_Patriot_
x_54_u43
Kiko
Rodion_Romanovic
KoTeMoRe
thegopnik
JohninMK
AJ-47
Isos
dino00
miketheterrible
william.boutros
flamming_python
medo
PhSt
marcellogo
Gazputin
LMFS
Hole
kvs
Cyberspec
higurashihougi
PapaDragon
George1
TheArmenian
magnumcromagnon
Austin
TR1
GarryB
Viktor
bhramos
Stealthflanker
Admin
53 posters

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38475
    Points : 38975
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  GarryB Wed Dec 06, 2023 12:33 pm

    The failure of the TV7-117 in the Il-112V is actually a good thing because they were trying to recreate the An-24/25/26, when what they should have been doing was to create a replacement for the An-72, a the Il-214 should be a rather good replacement for the An-72 and the other light Antonovs.

    Its enlarged fuselage creates more drag but should mean there is plenty of internal space for bigger loads and the extra power the PD-8 engine provides and locating it above the wing should make it very good for short and rough airstrips.

    It will probably actually be good experience for them and could also lead to the Il-276 using the same engine location for the same benefits in terms of rough airstrip operations and shortening its airfield requirements with a bit of engine thrust vectoring using the wing control surfaces.

    Called the coander effect or something the engines mounted on top of the wing deflect the engine thrust downwards improving takeoff and landing performance by allowing liftoff and landing at lower flight speeds using engine thrust vectoring essentially.

    The Il-112 can wait for a more suitable turboprop engine to be developed and in the mean time the Il-214 should allow older Antonovs to be withdrawn from service and scrapped, while still being able to operate in short and rough airstrips.
    avatar
    Swgman_BK


    Posts : 162
    Points : 184
    Join date : 2022-02-10

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  Swgman_BK Thu Dec 07, 2023 12:35 pm

    There is nothing to consider... Russia wont be using General Electric engines any time soon. wrote:

    Make that NEVER.

    GarryB likes this post

    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 2352
    Points : 2519
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Thu Dec 07, 2023 1:30 pm

    Swgman_BK wrote:

    Make that NEVER.

    That is obvious, even if until recently they were using small Honeywell and GE (formerly Czech) engines on some prototypes and on the let-410.

    I mentioned the CF6 only as an example of what independent Ukraine had planned (even if the D-18T had been designed and produced in Zaporozhye).

    The original design of the CF6 is 10 years older than the the D-18T and I doubt that even the latest version would be better than the slightly modernised D-18T that Russia should be able to produce now.

    I mentioned it only as an example for the thrust rating chosen for that proposed version (26.8 tons of takeoff thrust) since the CF6-80C2 exists in versions rated from about 23.6 tons (practically the same thrust of the D-18T) to 28 tons of thrust, so it was intentional from Antonov to choose (for that proposed version of the An-124) an engine rated with about 15% more thrust than the existing one.

    Swgman_BK likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38475
    Points : 38975
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  GarryB Fri Dec 08, 2023 12:26 am

    Ukraine is hardly known for its sensible and commercially sound choices....

    If Ukraine had Russian engines as an option they would be looking at PD-35s and an enlarged An-124 with four PD-35 engines and a scaled down model with just two engines that would mimic the Il-106 and Slon Russian projects... and then say the Russian aircraft would not be needed because obviously Russia should buy the Ukrainian aircraft and stop Russian development of transport and cargo aircraft because that is Ukraines thing.

    The Ukrainian engine and transport plane industry is dead... even if the people involved are still alive, Boeing and GE and other western companies would be hunting them down to hire them for their skills... if not their politics...

    BTW I bet it was the Russian military that was pushing for the Il-112V to have the TV7-117 engine because it is going to be used in Mi-38 helicopters and Il-114 aircraft and also Altius drones and likely also the civilian Ladoga light twin engine plane too, so they probably wanted a bit of engine commonality and standardisation... but the TV7-117 is not a PD series that is designed to be scalable between engine thrust classes, so of course there were problems boosting power.

    A PD-8 powered version to replace the An-72 is an excellent solution and when a 4-5K hp engine is ready then the Il-112V can be revisited... probably in the 8-10 ton payload class.

    Rodion_Romanovic likes this post

    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 2352
    Points : 2519
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Fri Dec 08, 2023 11:31 am

    GarryB wrote:Ukraine is hardly known for its sensible and commercially sound choices....

    If Ukraine had Russian engines as an option they would be looking at PD-35s and an enlarged An-124 with four PD-35 engines and a scaled down model with just two engines that would mimic the Il-106 and Slon Russian projects... and then say the Russian aircraft would not be needed because obviously Russia should buy the Ukrainian aircraft and stop Russian development of transport and cargo aircraft because that is Ukraines thing.

    The Ukrainian engine and transport plane industry is dead... even if the people involved are still alive, Boeing and GE and other western companies would be hunting them down to hire them for their skills... if not their politics...
    the Ukrainian Antonov is dead anyway. Their associated plants (Kiev and Kharkov aircraft plants) are either destroyed or derelict, and at best they can produce some drones.
    The only thing that still works is Antonov Airlines, but that is only a cargo airline (which is less capable than Volga Dnepr).

    But the An-124 was a Soviet project, not an Ukrainian one. That is one of the bullshits done by Eltsin and his entourage during the fall of Soviet union. Russia should have taken all the IPs, and legal ownerships and moved the design bureau and at best left there the plant to act as a potential contractor.

    Anyway Russia has all the designs and capabilities to produce new modernised An-124 in Ulyanovsk.

    It does not need anymore Ukraine for that.

    Slon could be interesting, but it is counterproductive to dedicate resources to develop from scratch something to replace the An-124 when they still need to design, develop and test an An-12 replacement, and a An-22/il-106 replacement. Not too speak of the il-212, which still require additional work to fix.

    Actually working on a il-76 replacement would make more sense than working on a An-124 replacement.

    It could even be something like a twin engine configuration to be ready to enter in service sometimes around 2035. They can even think again what payloads and in which niche those aircrafts need to be, since by 2030 they will have possibly:

    • Nothing or TVRS-44 Ladoga with 2 TV7-117 turboprop for the 5 tons payload niche.

    • Il-212 with 2 PD-8 turbofan (around 10-12 tons payload)
      (Possibly to be paired later with a new aircraft with 2 PDV-4000 turboprop

    • ??? In the 20-35 tons payload range.

      Possibly tu-330 with either 2 PD16 or with modern propfan (core of PD-14 with modernised NK-93 architecture) I doubt it can be in service by 2030 but at least it could be in already in flight tests.


    • Il-76 (up to 60 tons payload, but with restricted max width of payload in comparison to newer project like Tu-330 and An-70. (3.2 m Vs 4m)


    • An-22 replacement in development with 80-100 tons payload (To be ready after 2035) Probably revamped il-106 with wither 4 PD-18R or with 2 PD-35.


    • An-124 (120 to 150 tons of payload) with 4 D-18T turbofan possibly slightly increased range if the engines are modernised.
      Possibly modernised version to be produced after 2030 with 4 PD-28 turbofan.

    • Slon???

    Actually they could think about a Il-76 replacement as well from mid 2035. It could be a twin engine transport which could share the same engines as the modernised An-124 (PD-26 or PD-28 engines).

    I do not like the il-276 project instead (even if there could be commonalities with the il-76).



    GarryB wrote:
    BTW I bet it was the Russian military that was pushing for the Il-112V to have the TV7-117 engine because it is going to be used in Mi-38 helicopters and Il-114 aircraft and also Altius drones and likely also the civilian Ladoga light twin engine plane too, so they probably wanted a bit of engine commonality and standardisation... but the TV7-117 is not a PD series that is designed to be scalable between engine thrust classes, so of course there were problems boosting power.

    A PD-8 powered version to replace the An-72 is an excellent solution and when a 4-5K hp engine is ready then the Il-112V can be revisited... probably in the 8-10 ton payload class.

    I agree, and that was also what I was hoping all along. It will end up covering a similar role as the old An-8.
    I do not know how when the PDV-4000 engine will be ready and if they will do first the turboprop or turboshaft version first, but that is the engine in question.

    kvs and owais.usmani like this post

    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 2554
    Points : 2552
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  lancelot Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:00 pm

    Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
    • Nothing or TVRS-44 Ladoga with 2 TV7-117 turboprop for the 5 tons payload niche.
      ...
    • ??? In the 20-35 tons payload range.

      Possibly tu-330 with either 2 PD16 or with modern propfan (core of PD-14 with modernised NK-93 architecture) I doubt it can be in service by 2030 but at least it could be in already in flight tests.

    • Il-76 (up to 60 tons payload, but with restricted max width of payload in comparison to newer project like Tu-330 and An-70. (3.2 m Vs 4m)

    • An-22 replacement in development with 80-100 tons payload (To be ready after 2035) Probably revamped il-106 with wither 4 PD-18R or with 2 PD-35.

    Actually they could think about a Il-76 replacement as well from mid 2035. It could be a twin engine transport which could share the same engines as the modernised An-124 (PD-26 or PD-28 engines).

    I do not like the il-276 project instead (even if there could be commonalities with the il-76).
    I really hate that old steaming pile of shit airframe design in the TVRS-44 Ladoga. Just cancel that shit. Same thing with L-410. Kill it with fire.
    Someone should unfreeze the Il-114 project. If the problem is the engines, then why is the TVRS-44 Ladoga proceeding while that is frozen?

    The Il-276 is meant to be an An-12 replacement. Would use twin PD-16 engines. Its closest competitor would be the Brazilian C-390. Since Russia has like over 100 such An-12 airframes there is certainly a requirement for it.

    They need aircraft with these engines:
    - twin PD-8s. An-72 replacement.
    - twin PD-14/16. An-12 replacement.
    - twin PD-28/35. Il-76 replacement.
    - quad PD-28/35. An-124/225 replacement.

    They also need something smaller with turboprops. Either one or two aircraft.

    kvs and owais.usmani like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38475
    Points : 38975
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  GarryB Sat Dec 09, 2023 12:26 pm

    But the An-124 was a Soviet project, not an Ukrainian one. That is one of the bullshits done by Eltsin and his entourage during the fall of Soviet union. Russia should have taken all the IPs, and legal ownerships and moved the design bureau and at best left there the plant to act as a potential contractor.

    The way white European colonial powers would have, but Russia is not your average white colonial european power are they?


    Anyway Russia has all the designs and capabilities to produce new modernised An-124 in Ulyanovsk.

    It does not need anymore Ukraine for that.

    To put it in Rocket terms however they have Grad and Smerch in planning there is no need to keep Uragan.

    When you have Il-106 and An-124 and Slon it becomes pretty clear that the Il-106 will be the cheapest plane to operate and to buy so of the three types they can buy more of them than the others. The Slon may be comparable in operational costs to the An-124 simply because of its efficiency and engine performance and size potential, though that of course also depends how it is used. If it flys 300km with 1 ton of post then of course it wont be cost effective, but being bigger and with more capacity it can do all the jobs the An-124 can do plus a few other things it can't and an H tail version would be useful to replace the An-225 for large external payloads.

    The point is that when all are fully operational then the middle one is the best one to phase out because the bigger one carries more and further and the smaller one is cheaper.

    With the middle one being the oldest I would say it would be retired first, but only after the airframe hours are used up which will take a while because they have not been used a lot with the issues with the engines. That has been sorted now so get using them...

    They will be designing and building Il-106 and Slon types when the PD-35 engines are ready and the engine parts for the An-124 are sorted so keep using them till they are worn out and then sell them on or scrap them... the point is that the factories that made the An-124s will likely be busy making rather more Il-106 and the Slon types so making more An-124s would be a waste of resources.

    Slon could be interesting, but it is counterproductive to dedicate resources to develop from scratch something to replace the An-124 when they still need to design, develop and test an An-12 replacement, and a An-22/il-106 replacement. Not too speak of the il-212, which still require additional work to fix.

    All those projects are necessary, the Il-106 is already designed but adaptation to be a bit like the Slon so they are related aircraft designs with the same engine types would be useful.

    I don't see how putting An-124s back into production helps at all.

    The factories that would be making An-124s will be making Il-106 and Slon types... the Il-276 wont be made in factories with the capacity to make such big aircraft... in fact it makes sense to make the Il-276 in factories making Il-476s, so you could build a new factory and have it make a couple of prototypes for testing and while they are testing they could make Il-476 aircraft to boost production capacity. Once the Il-276 is sorted out and ready for pre serial production that factory can produce a half dozen for testing and then go back to making Il-476s till the design is finalised and serialised and then it can go into full serial production for the Il-276.

    Having factories that can make either is useful for future fleet planning, but the smaller aircraft would be in demand to replace the An-12s around the world... especially if they have overwing jet engine arrangements like on the An-72 and Il-214... this should massively improve its rough field capability.

    Actually working on a il-76 replacement would make more sense than working on a An-124 replacement.

    Does it need a replacement? The Il-476 seems a good aircraft and replacing the tankers and AWACS and other versions, not to mention the Il-276 development, I would say more factories are likely needed to keep up with international demand. The Il-76 was a popular transport plane and was widely successful. The C-17 was successful because of corruption...

    An Il-476 and Il-276 combo would be amazing for many countries... here in New Zealand we had C-130s but they are theatre airlifters and not strategic airlifters... we would have been much better off with Il-76s but politics prevent such common sense decisions.

    Nothing or TVRS-44 Ladoga with 2 TV7-117 turboprop for the 5 tons payload niche.

    Il-212 with 2 PD-8 turbofan (around 10-12 tons payload)
    (Possibly to be paired later with a new aircraft with 2 PDV-4000 turboprop

    The Il-112V is likely still going to be made or they would not have needed to change the designation... with 4,000hp to 5,000hp engines it will be fine in the 6-8 ton payload weight range,

    Il-212 in the 12-15 ton payload range.

    Il-276 in the 20 ton payload range.

    Tu-330 perhaps in the 35 ton payload range with all the Tu-214s being built it makes sense, and for export of users of Tu-204/214 based military aircraft like AWACS or tankers or VIP or a JSTARS like aircraft or an Il-38 replacement or Il-20/22 replacement then a Tu-330 would make more sense than an Il-276 if they don't also want an Il-476.

    Il-476 in the 60 ton payload range... it is up to a 210 MTOW, but more powerful engines could allow heavier weights with better payloads or more range or both.

    Il-106 in the 90-110 ton payload range with two PD-35s... perhaps with inflight refuelling so it can carry heavier payloads by reducing fuel weight for takeoff and be topped up in the air to restore range.

    An-124 for the 120-150 ton payload range... being able to support their engines should keep them flying long enough to get the Il-106 and Slon into service in sufficient n numbers to not need more An-124s.

    And Slon with four PD-35 in the 180 ton payload class, but of course inflight refuelling could allow it to take off with reduced fuel and top up in flight... in fact one role could be inflight refuelling tanker for other transports or for strategic bombers.

    I do not like the il-276 project instead (even if there could be commonalities with the il-76).

    The Il-476 is the only transport worth keeping... it is still relatively new and fully Russian. Making a reduced size model is the quickest and easiest way of getting a replacement for the An-12 and would appeal to existing users of Il-76 and An-12s, which never had commonality before.

    You could even give the Il-276 more powerful engines to increase its payload to the 30-35 ton range or increase its fuel capacity so it can fly further.

    I really hate that old steaming pile of shit airframe design in the TVRS-44 Ladoga. Just cancel that shit. Same thing with L-410. Kill it with fire.
    Someone should unfreeze the Il-114 project. If the problem is the engines, then why is the TVRS-44 Ladoga proceeding while that is frozen?

    AFAIK it is not frozen, it will be the passenger aircraft to replace the AN-24/5/6 in the passenger role. The Il-112V was to replace those Antonovs in the cargo roll with rear ramp door for loading vehicles and pallets.

    I wonder why they are using the Ladoga when the 114 is being developed for the military too...

    Sounds like factory owners have their favourites...

    They need aircraft with these engines:
    - twin PD-8s. An-72 replacement.
    - twin PD-14/16. An-12 replacement.
    - twin PD-28/35. Il-76 replacement.
    - quad PD-28/35. An-124/225 replacement.

    The Il-212 will replace the An-72, the Il-276 will replace the An-12 (preferably both with above wing mounted jet engines like the An-72).

    The Il-476 is not going to get replaced any time soon because it is pretty much good enough and commonality with the Il-276 will help sales and domestic use with commonality.

    And the Il-106 and Slon would replace the An-124, but of those planes the An-124s are the newest and now their engine issues are sorted there is no reason to get rid of them quickly.

    I would say for the military that the Baikal single engined aircraft in the small single engine category, then the Il-114, perhaps with extra high lift and short field operations adaptations, and then the Il-112V when it is ready and the Il-212 which will be ready sooner, then the Il-276 and the Tu-330, the Il-476, the Il-106, the An-124, and then the Slon and they are good to go.

    Perhaps a cessna type conversion of the Yak-152, or the Yak-103.

    There is plenty of talent and potential and soon they will have the engine options they need to make them work.



    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11233
    Points : 11203
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  Isos Sat Dec 09, 2023 12:31 pm

    An-124 are very important. Either keep building more or create a replacement.

    owais.usmani likes this post

    avatar
    Swgman_BK


    Posts : 162
    Points : 184
    Join date : 2022-02-10

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  Swgman_BK Sat Dec 09, 2023 1:12 pm

    Either keep building more or create a replacement. wrote:

    Replacement works better. Just gotta wait for that PD35 with a high bypass ratio.. Should make for something capable of lifting 150-200 tons if 3 are mounted on each wing..
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 2352
    Points : 2519
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Sat Dec 09, 2023 1:44 pm

    Isos wrote:An-124 are very important. Either keep building more or create a replacement.

    Most of the advantages that Slon would have over An-124 would be due to the engines.
    Sometimes in the next decade  Russia will do an An-124M with PD-28 engines.

    Russia spent a LOT of money to get also civilian certification for An-124. Repeating it for the SLON would be counterproductive when they have first other projects to concentrate on.

    As far as Il-106, at the moment it is only a paper plane and manufacturing was never planned or or organised.

    All of the work been done in the past few years was not for a An -22 replacement, but for a An-124 under another name (in order to avoid problems with country 404, but that is not a concern anymore)They announced many times in the period between 2018 and 2022 that this plane would have the same cargo size as the an-124 and up to 120 tons payload. That has nothing to do with the original il-106 project.

    So a new 80 tons payload transport aircraft could also need many years before it is in service.

    Il-76 Is a good plane, but the internal dimension of the cargo bay (max payload width 3.2 meters, half of the width of the cargo bay of the An-124) limits a bit the type of payload that can be carried.

    Just as an example both the Tu-330 and the An-70 were planned to have a cargo hold with 4 m internal width.

    Russia restarted production of those also because it was the only large transport plane for which there were no parts coming from Ukraine and both the old and new engines were made in Perm. Assembly of the aircraft (and of il-114 passenger plane) was previously only done in Tashkent (Uzbekistan) but the Uzbek government provided all the necessary material and info needed by Russia to move production once they converted TAPO into a mechanical plant only.


    Basically I see the Il-76 as a good plane, but also as only a stop gap since nothing else could be produced in a short time by Russia. Commonality with it is not that necessary for a medium transport plane if by the time the smaller aircraft enter production, the il-76 production is stopped.

    Tu-330 could perfectly cover the role of An-12 and also some of the one of the Il-76 (actually tu-330 could also carry some loads which are wider than those that il-76 can).

    Also Tu-330 will need several years of work, but at least there are commonalities with Il-204/214 which should simplify things for production.
    And I still hope for a new generation NK-93 with the PD-14 core.


    I mean if there will be il-212 with PD-8 engines and 10-12 tons of payload and Tu-330 with PD-16 engines (or PD-18R or the old PS90) and 30/35 tons of payload, then a il-276 with 20 tons of payload (and PD-14 (or PS-90) engines) seems redundant.

    kvs and owais.usmani like this post

    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 14949
    Points : 15086
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  kvs Sat Dec 09, 2023 5:02 pm

    Unlike colonial powers, Russia had legitimate claims to Soviet IP. Antonov is a Russian aircraft company moved to the fake state called
    Ukraine by Soviet clown deciders. That does not make Antonov indigenous Ukr and does not given them full rights to all of its IP.

    No piece of a unitary state can claim exclusive rights to any IP. All the pieces have equal rights to such IP. Clearly most of the pieces
    of the USSR have no capacity to do anything with various IP. But they should not have the legal right to block Russia from applying all of the
    USSR IP. This grotesque nonsense is what is happening.



    Big_Gazza, Rodion_Romanovic and LMFS like this post

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11233
    Points : 11203
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  Isos Sat Dec 09, 2023 5:32 pm

    Antonov is a failed company today maintained artificially by the ukrainians. No one cares about it, russians have invested massively in SSJ-100, il-76, MC-21...and others.

    No need to add a campany and loose money on it.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 2352
    Points : 2519
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Sat Dec 09, 2023 5:59 pm

    Isos wrote:Antonov is a failed company today maintained artificially by the ukrainians. No one cares about it, russians have invested massively in SSJ-100, il-76, MC-21...and others.

    No need to add a campany and loose money on it.

    Nobody wants to do anything with the Ukrainian Antonov, but Russia invested a lot in the last years in maintaining and improving both An-124 aircrafts and D-18T engines and being ready to restart production independently from country 404.

    Should they throw away all of that just because the Antonov Design bureau was based in Kiev after being moved there from Novosibirsk?

    Furthermore there are no fully independent companies in the UAC, all of them (Tupulev, Ilyushin, Beriev, etc) belong to the big umbrella. By the way, since a few years ago Ilyushin is responsible for the airworthiness of the An-124 in Russian service. The same is true for the maintenance and modernisation of D-18T engines, which is carried out independently from Ivchenko-Progress and Motor Sich.

    kvs wrote:No piece of a unitary state can claim exclusive rights to any IP. All the pieces have equal rights to such IP. Clearly most of the pieces
    of the USSR have no capacity to do anything with various IP. But they should not have the legal right to block Russia from applying all of the
    USSR IP. This grotesque nonsense is what is happening.

    I do not fully agree. Russia is the legal successor to soviet union (and also its only predecessor). Furthermore is the only country that took the soviet union debt and paid for it.

    Russia should have been the only country having rights on Soviet IPs, independently to where the Design Büros were based.

    How moron and corrupt have been russians politicians in the 90s that they took the entirety of Soviet union debt without anything in return?

    Big_Gazza, kvs and LMFS like this post

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11233
    Points : 11203
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  Isos Sat Dec 09, 2023 6:20 pm

    They can easily restart the production. An-124 or Il-1000, name doesn't matter.
    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 2554
    Points : 2552
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  lancelot Sat Dec 09, 2023 9:14 pm

    There is an An-124 production facility in Russia. Aviastar-SP at Ulyanovsk.
    Aviastar-SP was supposed to have a full production cycle. They were supposed to build everything there. Including engines. But because of the Soviet Union collapse, the facilities to produce the engines and avionics there were never built. But they have the assembly facility and production for basically every other component.

    Aviastar-SP also has a separate production area which used to build the Tu-204. This was where the Tu-204SM was also supposed to be built. But because no one ordered that aircraft, the production area was shut down and switched over to building the Il-76-MD90. Which is why the airlines now have to buy the Tu-214s made at Kazan Aircraft Corporation, and they can only produce a couple of them yearly there. Expanding production will require a larger work area to be built, and they are doing that. Kazan Aircraft Corporation is likely using most of the available space for the bomber programs. Tu-160, Tu-22M3, PAK DA, etc.

    In Soviet times the Il-76 used to be built in Uzbekistan at Tashkent.

    GarryB, kvs, JohninMK and Rodion_Romanovic like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38475
    Points : 38975
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  GarryB Sun Dec 10, 2023 11:05 am

    An-124 are very important. Either keep building more or create a replacement.

    They have had quite a few in storage because of engine support issues, but now they make their own parts they should be able to get most of the aircraft out of storage and improve their engines and keep them running till the Il-106 is ready.

    The Il-106 is an An-22 replacement which will take a lot of strain off the An-124 being lighter and cheaper to operate and buy I would assume.

    Replacement works better. Just gotta wait for that PD35 with a high bypass ratio.. Should make for something capable of lifting 150-200 tons if 3 are mounted on each wing..

    The Slon will likely have four PD-35 engines, which works out at 140 tons of thrust, compared with just under 25 tons of thrust per engine for the An-124 and An-225 meaning about 96 tons of thrust for the An-124, and 144 tons thrust for the An-225.

    In comparison a Slon with 140 tons of thrust with an H tail should be able to replace the An-225 too.

    Fitting 6 x PD-35s would mean 210 tons of thrust... which would be enough thrust to make an Il-476 VSTOL at MTOW of 210 tons...

    Il-106 with two PD-35s should be in the 90-100 ton payload class, while the Slon will be in the 180 ton payload class.


    As far as Il-106, at the moment it is only a paper plane and manufacturing was never planned or or organised.

    The An-22 was very useful and cheaper to operate than the bigger heavier An-124. The Il-106 would be rather more use than the Slon to start with and will likely be built in rather larger numbers than either the An-124 or the Slon.

    They announced many times in the period between 2018 and 2022 that this plane would have the same cargo size as the an-124 and up to 120 tons payload. That has nothing to do with the original il-106 project.

    The Il-106 had 4 x 16 ton thrust engines so a new model with 2 x PD-35 should be able to carry more.

    Heavier loads possible with reduced fuel loads using inflight refuelling to top up after take off to restore range.

    Just as an example both the Tu-330 and the An-70 were planned to have a cargo hold with 4 m internal width.

    The An-70 was only ever intended for the VDV where its propfans allowed lower flight speeds to drop troops and armour in a smaller footprint.


    Basically I see the Il-76 as a good plane, but also as only a stop gap since nothing else could be produced in a short time by Russia. Commonality with it is not that necessary for a medium transport plane if by the time the smaller aircraft enter production, the il-76 production is stopped.

    Strange you want the Il-76 replaced when there are no aircraft shown or mentioned anywhere in the 60 ton payload class to replace them, while the weight classes to replace An-12, An-22, and An-124s there are suitable designs that were waiting for appropriate engines before they could be further developed.

    The engines are coming on line but you think now is a time to forget about them and start something that isn't even on a drawing board yet?

    Also Tu-330 will need several years of work, but at least there are commonalities with Il-204/214 which should simplify things for production.

    Well if the Tu-330 made no sense because no one was buying the Tu-204 and Tu-214, well now those planes are being built so logically it makes sense to look at the Tu-330 again.


    I mean if there will be il-212 with PD-8 engines and 10-12 tons of payload and Tu-330 with PD-16 engines (or PD-18R or the old PS90) and 30/35 tons of payload, then a il-276 with 20 tons of payload (and PD-14 (or PS-90) engines) seems redundant.

    I disagree... that would be like saying the original Il-76 had a payload of 40 tons so doesn't that make the Tu-330 redundant?

    The Il-212 replaces the An-72 but likely wont have the range of the Il-276 or the payload capacity.

    The commonality of the Il-276 will make it quick to develop and produce because they can use the factories for Il-476 production to produce both types.

    They could probably play around with the engine types for the Il-276 and get either 30 tons over 2,000km flight range or perhaps 20 tons over 4,000km range.

    Inflight refuelling could extend range even further.

    Inflight refuelling versions of the Il-276 and Tu-330 would be interesting too.

    The An-12 came in a very wide range of types and versions so it would make sense to replace those too.

    But they should not have the legal right to block Russia from applying all of the
    USSR IP. This grotesque nonsense is what is happening.

    Sad for Antonov, but ironically they are essentially killing their own brand... they are making replacing Antonov and Motor Sich etc etc a priority.

    Should they throw away all of that just because the Antonov Design bureau was based in Kiev after being moved there from Novosibirsk?

    They don't need to throw it away... the An-12s and An-24/5/6 will be falling from the skies soon and the An-2s need replacement too.

    Develop replacements and get the old obsolete stuff out of service first, the An-124s will last longer but the factories that would make the An124s should instead be making Il-106s and Slons.

    They can easily restart the production. An-124 or Il-1000, name doesn't matter.

    When the PD-35 engines are available it will make smaller and heavier designs more efficient, in which case the An-124 will not be the most useful... they can keep using it till it is worn out, but no need to invest in new engines.

    Spending money making PD-28s would not have a huge effect on performance. Perhaps higher operating weights with more fuel for extra range or slight increase in payload... but more range and payload just use the Slon.

    There is an An-124 production facility in Russia. Aviastar-SP at Ulyanovsk.

    But once the PD-35 is available it will likely be used to make Il-106s and then later Slons.

    kvs likes this post

    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 2352
    Points : 2519
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Sun Dec 10, 2023 12:01 pm

    GarryB wrote:The Il-106 had 4 x 16 ton thrust engines so a new model with 2 x PD-35 should be able to carry more.

    Heavier loads possible with reduced fuel loads using inflight refuelling to top up after take off to restore range.
    the original il-106 project was supposed to have 4 NK-92 propfan (military version of the "civilian" NK-93), with 18 tons of takeoff thrust each.

    So actually 2x35 tons engines would mean a total of 2 tons less of thrust at takeoff rating. Not a lot, of course, but definitely not more than the original plan.

    The engines could be uprated at 36- or up to 38 tons apparently in the plans of UEC, but that possibly would require a modified version in order not to compromise too much engine life.

    I am not that sure planning for inflight refueling in normal operations makes sense. If it is for an emergency or for extra long range maybe, but when the extra load or range is needed, using a larger an-124 (if available) would cost much less than doing inflight refueling in an il-106.

    owais.usmani likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38475
    Points : 38975
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  GarryB Mon Dec 11, 2023 8:40 am

    the original il-106 project was supposed to have 4 NK-92 propfan (military version of the "civilian" NK-93), with 18 tons of takeoff thrust each.

    So actually 2x35 tons engines would mean a total of 2 tons less of thrust at takeoff rating. Not a lot, of course, but definitely not more than the original plan.

    Max thrust is only used at takeoff, plus having only two engines means less drag area and less weight... if you can have two engines putting out practically the same thrust as four would be producing then improvements since the 1990s in terms of composite materials and new electronics and avionics etc etc I would say a 2028 Il-106 is going to be lighter than a 1996 Il-106.

    The engines could be uprated at 36- or up to 38 tons apparently in the plans of UEC, but that possibly would require a modified version in order not to compromise too much engine life.

    Most of the time the aircraft is unlikely to be carrying max weight so max power wont be critical, but if they are carrying max weight then an inflight refuelling probe means you could offload 30 tons of fuel to take off from a shorter strip and take on that 30 tons of fuel or perhaps even more once you are in the air.

    I am not that sure planning for inflight refueling in normal operations makes sense.

    It would not be for every flight, but only on the few flights where there is a short airstrip or the payload requirement is bigger than expected, or flight range requirement is greater than expected.

    It adds flexibility.

    Often rather than using two aircraft... one as a transport plane and one as an inflight refuelling top up aircraft, you could just split the load and use both aircraft as transports with full fuel loads.

    They have options and choices.

    If the load is too heavy then they can always get an An-124 or Slon.

    If it is for an emergency or for extra long range maybe, but when the extra load or range is needed, using a larger an-124 (if available) would cost much less than doing inflight refueling in an il-106.

    Agreed but the smaller lighter cheaper Il-106 should be available in much larger numbers so availability should be better too with less drag and better fuel economy.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 2352
    Points : 2519
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Mon Dec 11, 2023 10:30 am

    Very interesting (and long) interview with the head of the Department of Helicopter Design at Moscow Aviation Institute (MAI) Alexander Belsky

    https://aviation21.ru/intervyu-s-zavkafedroj-proektirovanie-vertolyotov-mai-aleksandrom-belskim/

    I will report here some extracts
    – Have the sanctions affected the work of your department?

    - Yes, sure. We need to switch from foreign calculation programs to domestic ones, take into account the use of domestic materials and components, including the element base, raw materials and supplies.


    – What is the biggest difficulty you encountered in the process of import substitution?

    – Perhaps the most difficult task is the transition to domestic software. Recently, almost all calculations were performed using foreign software. Now we will gradually switch to analogues of Russian developers. The second is domestic units for helicopters and, first of all, a new generation of gas turbine engines.


    – Are there organizations in Russia that could take on this work?


    – Of course, they exist, but you need to understand that the creation of any engine is almost comparable in complexity and time to the creation of an aircraft. The implementation of a propulsion project requires a very long time, a large number of theoretical calculations and applied solutions, technology development, etc. It takes about ten years to create a full-fledged helicopter engine. This task is currently being carried out at the United Engine Corporation, but time and, of course, appropriate funding are needed.


    – Could such a delay in engine production negatively affect the development of helicopter manufacturing in our country?

    – We look at this situation positively, knowing that in the near future domestic engines will be created for lighter types of helicopters (with a maximum take-off weight of 3-4 tons and 6-8 tons). Rotorcraft will be designed on the basis of these engines until 2030. Such developments are underway. It is also necessary to create gas turbine engines in the 4–5 thousand horsepower class for heavy types of promising rotary-wing aircraft (with a maximum take-off weight of 12–15 tons).

    3-4 tons of max takeoff weight means exactly Kazan Ansat and Ka-226, for which the VK-650 is being finished. (I posted about it earlier)


    6-8 tons of max takeoff weight means the Ka-62 (MTOW 6500kg)
    The VK-1600v is being created for it and should be ready in 2025.




    10-12 tons of MTOW means
    Something like mi-8, ka-52
    mi-24/35, mi-28, ka-27 all currently powered by various versions of  the TV3-117 /VK-2500 (rated between 1900 and 2400 HP) and which was first developed in the 1970s (but continuously upgraded)


    The only helicopter Russia has in development around 15tons MTOW is the Mil Mi-38, with a MTOW of 15.6 tons.

    However it was not supposed to use a 4000-5000 hp engine.

    The engine of the Mi-38 should have been the TV7-117 / VK-3000, rated at 2800 HP, turboshaft derivative of the il-114 engine.
    (And a version of this engine was also supposed to be used in an eventual upgrade of the Ka-52 and mi-28 as a replacement of the TV3-117/Mi-28
     
    The last engine mentioned is the PDV-4000, but there are no news on its stage of development and noone until now associated it with the Mi-38.

    It is also strange because, as an example,4700 hp is the power of each of the 2 engines of the Boeing CH-47 Chinook, which has a MTOW of 23 tons and a max payload of 11 tons (basically one third more than the Mi-38).


    To have some  references the MTOW of the old Mi-6 was about 42 tons, it had 2 engines with about 5500 hp and a payload of 12 tons.


    Mil-26 has a MTOW  56tons, max payload of 20 tons and 2 engines with 11400 hp each.


    So unless the new PDV4000 will be used in a very high speed helicopter, possibly this could mean that Russia wants to redesign the Mi-38 and make it considerably bigger (about 30% more).


    By the way the core of this engine could be also used to make a turbofan engine for business jets, for small regional jets or even for drones.

    As an example the former Allison (now Rolls-Royce) AE 3007 turbofan (which has between 3 and 4 tons of thrust) which is installed, among the rest, in the global hawk drone, the Cessna citation X and the embraer ERJ family regional jets (37 to 50 passengers) shares a common core with the turboshaft T406 (AE 1107) and with the turboprop AE 2100 (used on C-130 and C-27J).

    GarryB, kvs, LMFS and Kiko like this post

    George1
    George1


    Posts : 18222
    Points : 18723
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  George1 Mon Dec 11, 2023 4:52 pm

    The Perm enterprise UEC fulfilled the annual production plan for ground engines

    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4781435.html

    GarryB, kvs and LMFS like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38475
    Points : 38975
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  GarryB Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:15 am

    – Could such a delay in engine production negatively affect the development of helicopter manufacturing in our country?

    If Russian helicopter making organisations and Russian businesses and organisations using helicopters supported Russian engine makers and Russian helicopter makers they could have all the engine types and helicopter types they need.

    The only helicopter Russia has in development around 15tons MTOW is the Mil Mi-38, with a MTOW of 15.6 tons.

    However it was not supposed to use a 4000-5000 hp engine.

    The engine of the Mi-38 should have been the TV7-117 / VK-3000, rated at 2800 HP, turboshaft derivative of the il-114 engine.

    Perhaps a PD-8 based turboprop engine could eventually be developed for medium helicopters and perhaps in a four engined version to replace the An-12?

    The PD-8 would be used on the Il-212 to replace the An-72 and An-24/25/26, but a turboprop based version with perhaps 5,000hp would be useful too.

    The ATM-121 looks like a good new light aircraft:

    https://ruavia.su/atm-121-helicopter-the-russian-answer-to-airbus/

    There was also this article that was interesting too:

    UEC will produce more than 1,500 helicopter engines by 2030
    12.11.2023, 13:15
    TV7-117V engine. Photo by © United Engine Corporation (UEC)

    Since 2022, imported technologies and components of the aircraft industry have become unavailable to Russia due to political reasons of its former partners. At the same time, import substitution and transition to domestic aircraft and helicopters ensures technological sovereignty, reliability, independence and safety of the Russia aviation industry. The comprehensive program for the development of the aviation industry until 2030, adopted in the summer of 2022, provides, in particular, an increase in the production of helicopters and turboshaft engines for them.

    Adjustments made to the program in August 2023 take into account the forecasted needs of helicopters for operating companies, as well as the growth of production capacity of the United Engine Corporation enterprises. As a result of these changes, the total number of turboshaft engines produced, excluding the production of replacement propulsion systems, should total 1,528 units, and helicopters – 764 machines.

    The most mass turboshaft engines used in Russian helicopters are the TV3-117 and the VK-2500. Both engines were developed by the Klimov Design Bureau, only the first one was developed in the USSR, the second one – in Russia. The TV3-117V was produced in Zaporozhye at the Motor Sich plant, and after the 2014 Maidan, when Ukraine began to wind down its cooperation with the Russian Federation, serial production of the VK-2500 engine began at UEC-Klimov in the St. Petersburg. Both engines have similar technical characteristics and are used on the same types of helicopters. Therefore, in the tables of the Integrated Program they are indicated with a slash, which emphasizes their interchangeability.

    VK-2500 has increased power, is equipped with a digital control system and is capable of operating at high altitudes. This engine was tested in the mountains of Tibet as part of the Mi-17-V5 helicopter power plant and proved its reliability and efficiency in extreme high altitude conditions. According to UEC-Klimov, the engine has a rated life of 9,000 hours and an overhaul life of 3,000 hours. VK-2500 has become the standard choice for new serial helicopters, it is also offered for remotorization of previously produced machines.

    The production of the VK-2500 engine is organized in cooperation with the Ufa-based UEC-UMPO, while the V.V. Chernyshyov Helicopter Plant produces the free turbine modules. The axial compressor module is produced by MMP named after V.V. Chernyshyov. The final assembly of the propulsion system is carried out at the St. Petersburg-based UEC-Klimov. It is planned to produce 934 VK-2500 engines by 2030, as well as 160 replacement engines. About 100 power units will be produced annually and will be installed on various types of helicopters, including Mi-8MTV1, Mi-8AMT, Mi-171/A2/A3, as well as Ka-32A11M and Ka-32A11BC. As a result, by 2030, the total number of helicopters produced for which the VK-2500 is designed should reach 428 units.

    The TV7-117V turboshaft engine is a helicopter version of the TV7-117SM free turbine GTE and is designed for installation on the Mi-38 helicopter. The certificate for the TV7-117V was issued in 2015. The engine is equipped with a new digital electronic control and monitoring system BARK-6V of FADEC type, created on the basis of a single unit of automatic regulation and control.

    The engine is operated according to the technical condition in accordance with aviation rules AP-33 until the assigned resource of any of the main parts is reached without mandatory removal of the engine for repair. The assigned resources of the main parts are specified in the data card of the type certificate. On June 29, 2023 the approval of the main change of the type design was issued, according to which the resources of main parts were increased.

    The peculiarity of the TV7-117B engine family development is to ensure the safety of helicopter flight in extreme situations by introducing a 2.5-minute emergency mode of 3750 hp. This was achieved by optimizing the design of the inlet guide tube and the first stage of the axial compressor, as well as changing the material of high-pressure turbine blades. The corresponding changes to the type certificate data card were made on July 1, 2022.

    It is planned to gradually increase the production volume of TV7-117B engines from four units in 2025 to 16 power units annually from 2028. A total of 78 TV7-117V engines, plus eight reserve engines, which corresponds to 39 Mi-38 helicopters, are planned to be produced in the Comprehensive Program.

    The design of the VK-1600V engine for the Ka-62 helicopter began in 2019, at which time a preliminary design was developed. Calculations of all elements of the power unit’s flow part were performed using 3D optimization techniques, and composite materials and additive technologies are used in its production. In 2020, the technical specification was defended and design documentation for the engine-demonstrator was prepared. In mid-2021, the demonstrator itself was assembled and tested.

    The first VK-1600V prototype was manufactured in 2022, and in 2023, UEC-Klimov plans to assemble two more prototype engines. Currently, preparations are underway for a set of certification tests and the release of proof documentation. The start of tests as part of the Ka-62 helicopter is scheduled for June 2024. According to the plan, in 2025 it is expected to receive a type certificate and start serial production of the VK-1600V engine.

    UEC notes that the powerplant will have a power output of 1,400 horsepower in takeoff mode and 1,750 horsepower in 2.5-minute power mode. The VK-1600B will have high fuel efficiency and low life cycle cost. According to the Integrated Program, by 2030 it is planned to produce 180 propulsion units, as well as 12 replacement units. This corresponds to the production of 90 Ka-62 helicopters.

    The new VK-650V helicopter engine is designed for installation on Ansat and Ka-226T light helicopters. Like the VK-1600V, one of the key features of the VK-650V is the use of 3D-optimization techniques in the development of the flow section. This allows to achieve the optimal shape and geometry of elements, which in turn increases the fuel efficiency of the engine. Another feature is the presence of an autonomous closed-type oil system, which provides reliable lubrication of engine parts and increases its service life.

    Work on the VK-650V began in 2018, and in May 2023, a set of tests of the demonstrator was completed. Now specialists of UEC-Klimov conduct engine tests and prepare proof documentation for obtaining a type certificate already in 2024. UEC-Klimov plans to build 10 prototypes in 2025, four of which will be used in flight tests as part of the Ansat helicopter. Also, in the same year it is planned to start delivery of serial engines. According to the Comprehensive Program, from 2025 to 2030, 336 VK-650V power units and 34 substitutes should be produced, which corresponds to the construction of 167 Ansat helicopters and one Ka-226T.

    Which is here: https://ruavia.su/uec-will-produce-more-than-1500-helicopter-engines-by-2030/

    So it mentions the TV7-117 and the VK-2500 have similar characteristics, it has more power and is good for use at higher altitudes than the TV7-117, but it also has improved fuel system management... so moving forward I would like to see the Russian VK-2500 replace the Soviet TV7-117.

    (Edit, My mistake... it mentions the VK-2500 is an improved version of the TV3-117... I wonder if they can do the upgrades of the TV3 to make it the VK-2500 to the TV7... perhaps that is what they did for the Il-112V but tried to increase power too much. The old figures I have for the TV3-117VMA is emergency rating of 2,400hp and takeoff rating of 2,200p and cruise rating of 1,500hp, while the same figures for the VK-2500 are 2,700hp, 2,400hp, and 1,750hp... which is not a massive performance increase... but pretty good for a weight increase of 1kg (dry weights are 294kg and 295kg respectively. The takeoff power rating for the TV7 in the same book is 2,500hp, but the ratings for the TV7 improved models for the Il-112V were 1,000hp more which is perhaps why they are having problems when the VK-2500 could only boost performance by 250 to 300hp in all regimes, expecting a TV7 upgrade to boost power by 1,000hp is an obvious problem... with hindsight.).


    They shouldn't build dozens of factories to mass produce all the engines they are talking about, but once they have these engines in use and they appear to be working to spec then perhaps a few more production facilities to replace existing engines on older aircraft and also to allow ramping up production of new aircraft would be good.

    So unless the new PDV4000 will be used in a very high speed helicopter, possibly this could mean that Russia wants to redesign the Mi-38 and make it considerably bigger (about 30% more).

    Well honestly, the Mi-8 and Mi-17 continue to sell and be used around the world so perhaps upping the weight class of the Mi-38 might be a good idea moving forward.

    The Mi-8 and Mi-17 are good aircraft even today and could continue to be used for quite some time.


    Last edited by GarryB on Mon Dec 18, 2023 4:54 am; edited 2 times in total

    kvs and Rodion_Romanovic like this post

    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 2352
    Points : 2519
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Tue Dec 12, 2023 8:31 am

    GarryB wrote:Perhaps a PD-8 based turboprop engine could eventually be developed for medium helicopters and perhaps in a four engined version to replace the An-12?

    The PD-8 would be used on the Il-212 to replace the An-72 and An-24/25/26, but a turboprop based version with perhaps 5,000hp would be useful too.


    They are doing a turboprop/turboshaft engine of that class, as I wrote as well, the PDV-4000.

    As for a turboshaft version of the PD-8, according to official info, it is in development as well, but it will be much more powerful, something around 11400 hp (8500 KW), as it must replace the soviet/ Ukrainian engine on the mi-26.

    Just as an example, the original mi-26 engine, the D-136, 
    is derived from the D-36 turbofan engine (rated at about 6.5 tons of takeoff thrust) of the An-72 /An-74.
    The D-36 turbofan of the An-72 and the D-136 turboshaft of the Mi-26 share the same core.

    To have a rule of thumb, when they derive a turboshaft or turboprop engine from a turbofan, sharing the same core, they normally get a turboprop which takeoff power in MW is a bit higher than the takeoff thrust in Tons of the original turbofan. I know that I am talking about different units of measure, but it is just to have some references.


    A PD-8S turboprop would be enough to make a 2 engine version of the An-12.
    And probably if needed they could easily get a turboprop derivative of the PD-8 turbofan up to 10MW (about 13500hp).


    GarryB wrote:So it mentions the TV7-117 and the VK-2500 have similar characteristics, it has more power and is good for use at higher altitudes than the TV7-117, but it also has improved fuel system management... so moving forward I would like to see the Russian VK-2500 replace the Soviet TV7-117

    There is a bit of confusion here. The VK-2500 is basically the latest version of the TV3-117.

    The VK-3000 is a different designation for the TV7-117 (il-114 engine, which turboshaft version was planned for the mi-38 and in eventual upgrades to mi-28 /ka-52.



    GarryB wrote:Well honestly, the Mi-8 and Mi-17 continue to sell and be used around the world so perhaps upping the weight class of the Mi-38 might be a good idea moving forward.


    The Mi-8 and Mi-17 are good aircraft even today and could continue to be used for quite some time.
    I totally agree.
    With the current planned spec the mi-38 would be just a replacement for the mi-8 /mi-17, which continues to be upgraded and sells also quite well all around the world.

    However there is a big difference between mi-28 size and payload and mi-26 size and payload. A transport helicopter in the middle with around 10 tons payload would be probably more useful (to pair with modernised versions of the mi8) than how the mi-38 was previously planned.

    GarryB likes this post

    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 2352
    Points : 2519
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Sun Dec 17, 2023 10:52 pm

    Some info on the AI-22, which was the engine planned for the Tu-324.

    The engine itself was never certified and was originally planned to be build in conjunction between 2 enterprises in Zaporozhye (motor sich and ivchenko progress)  and 2 in Kazan (KAZ and KMPO).

    https://web.archive.org/web/20090713030210/http://trade.tatcenter.ru/flagman/tu324/ai-22.htm

    ZMKB "Progress" manufactures parts and components of external piping (pipelines, pipes, fittings, self-made units, cable plan), performs final engine assembly, prepares test benches, tests and overhauls of engines, and also carries out experimental, development and special tests and certification work.

    Motor Sich
    OJSC manufactures a high-pressure compressor, a combustion chamber, a high-pressure turbine, an air starter, an air separator, a start valve and an air bypass valve, incoming parts for piping pipelines, fasteners for engine assembly.

    JSC "KMPO" manufactures a low-pressure compressor with a fan, a low-pressure turbine, a rear support with a mixer and stacker, transmission units (KPMA, KSA, c/drive), middle support, engine mounting components, oil system units (oil tank, oil unit, centrifugal breather, etc.), and also purchases purchased components manufactured in the Russian Federation.

    KAPO
    im. S.P. Gorbunova (now called  KAZ) manufactures thrust reversers, jet nozzles, hoods (shells with noise-attenuation panels).

    Furthermore its core comes from the Slovak DV2 engines from 1987.
    Of course it did not make sense for Russia to concentrate on that in 2015, when Tatarstan was trying to lobby to restart the Tu-324 project. 

    The related AI-222 for the Yak-130 was already certified and in production instead, so it is a completely different matter.

    But I believe that Russia definitely needs a (high bypass) turbofan engine around this thrust level (3.5 to 4 tons of takeoff thrust).

    If Kazan motor company is still able to do the fan and low pressure turbine of the engine, and KAZ the nacelle and thrust reverser, maybe it would really not be a bad idea to do a new version of this engine with the new core from the SM-100 (new russian derivative/modernisation of the AI-222).

    Declared specific consumption for the  AI-22 was no worse than the one of the SaM-146 (which has twice the thrust, and generally larger engines have better specific fuel consumption).


    Just as a reference, here the technical characteristics of the AI-22 engine.

    TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF AI-22 ENGINE
    MAXIMUM EMERGENCY MODE
    (Н = 0, Мп = 0, Рн = 730 mm Hg, tн = 30°С)
    - Thrust, kgf (kN)4200 (41.16)
    TAKE-OFF MODE
    (Н = 0, Мп = 0, Рн = 730 mm Hg, tн = 30°С)
    - Thrust, kgf (kN)3755 (36.82)
    - Overall total pressure rise ratio15.49
    - Temperature of gases in front of the high pressure turbine, °K1450
    - Total air flow, kg/s125.85
    - Bypass ratio4.94
    CRUISE MODE
    (H = 12000m, MP = 0.75, MSA)
    - Thrust, kgf (kN)775 (7.60)
    - Specific fuel consumption kg/kgf·h (kg/kN·h), no more0.63 (64.2)
    - Overall total pressure rise ratio19.16
    - Temperature of gases in front of the high pressure turbine, °K1249
    - Total air flow, kg/s45.6
    - Bypass ratio4.57
    ENGINE DIMENSIONS, mm
    - Length3060
    - Fan diameter1020
    DRY MASS, kg, no more765
    EMISSION CHARACTERISTICS
    Specific emission of harmful substances during the takeoff and landing cycle, g/kN
    CO = 110 (118 - according to the permissible current ICAO standards)
    CH = 12 (19.6 - according to the permissible current ICAO standards)
    NOх = 45 (56.2 - according to the permissible current ICAO standards)
    SN = 20 (31 - according to the permissible current ICAO standards)
    In terms of noise level at airports, the Tu-324 aircraft with AI-22 engines meets ICAO requirements

    kvs and lancelot like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38475
    Points : 38975
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  GarryB Mon Dec 18, 2023 4:43 am

    My mistake, that article I posted led to be confusing myself.

    Perhaps a better question would be if the TV3-117 was upgraded to the VK-2500 engine with slightly better performance with similar dimensions and one kg extra weight, is the TV7-117 engine modified to be used on the Il-112V upgraded in the same way.

    Rather than upgrading older engines to fit new roles I would rather see them introduce new engines scaled for the role that could then potentially be scaled up in power in the future when needed.

    I mean if you are making a new family of engines based on all new technology and materials, then why revive an old engine type that is no longer suitable.

    When they get the PD-35 working and in full serial production they are going to need planes so building the Il-106 first makes sense because the An-22 was a popular and useful aircraft and being smaller and lighter than the An-124 should be more fuel efficient except for the loads you need an An-124 for or the flight range.

    When they start building Il-106s and perhaps build a few prototype Slons the factories that can currently build An-124s will be busy making the new aircraft and their prototypes, and once the designs are ready for serial production making the Il-106s will be a priority because they will be cheaper to operate and better suited to most loads that the An-124 carries.... I rather doubt every An-124 flight is 120 tons plus payload weights. Sometimes it will just be 80 tons where a smaller lighter aircraft could have gotten the job done cheaper.

    So rather than an Al-22 engine, I would say a PD-4 or PD-5 might be a better idea in the scheme of things as that could lead to a turboprop model in the 4-5K hp range maybe.

    They know what they are doing... but the problem of course is that it is often cheaper and simpler at the time to just keep making what you are making, but the cost of upgrading and retooling and redesigning new engines means better performance and better production efficiency.

    Adding robots to the manufacturing process just shifts people from operating cranes and machinery to move heavy parts around to people monitoring the robots and making sure they operate without problems.

    Progress creates new jobs even when it eliminates old jobs. Robots should be used in dirty and dangerous and smelly jobs that are unpleasant to do anyway.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38475
    Points : 38975
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  GarryB Mon Dec 18, 2023 5:02 am

    I am still hoping they might make an Mi-14 upgrade based on the new Mi-38. The Mi-14 was a very capable aircraft and the Mi-38... especially if they boost its engines into a 10-12 ton helicopter payload category would be rather interesting and potentially very useful.

    Obviously as an anti sub helicopter it would not need a 12 ton payload capacity, but 4 tons for weapons and 8 tons of extra fuel would give it excellent endurance and range.

    I always thought helicopters like the Mi-14 or amphibious aircraft like the Albatross that could land on the water surface could be rather more effective at finding subs by using a dipping sonar.

    The electronic power of new technology is amazing with cellphones able to edit live video in real time with cat faces etc, so modern sonobouys could be made much cheaper than they used to be and also rather more capable.

    In fact related to a drone swarm... a sonobouy swarm that hunts for underwater targets but when done migrate under their own power to gather together to be scooped up by the helicopter that released them to be recharged and reused later on.

    You could have individual drones carrying a sonobouy each that lands on the water surface and releases the sensor on a cable to a specific depth. When done it can retract the bouy and fly back to the ship it operates from.

    Or just make them super cheap and either bio degradable or edible.

    Sponsored content


    U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines - Page 17 Empty Re: U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Feb 23, 2024 2:06 am