Yak-152 Trainer Aircraft

eridan wrote:Obviously they've decided not to go with a radial engine. Will they be using a german engine as some media have claimed or has a russian one been found?
Chinese CJ7 is an obvious attempt to go as cheap as possible.

After this one do they jump straight onto the Yak-130? Surely not..

GarryB wrote:

After this one do they jump straight onto the Yak-130? Surely not..

No serious reason why not... the Yak-130 would be capable of basic jet training right up to advanced training.

Having an extra step is clearly something they want, so the cheaper obsolete L39 fills a stopgap role between single engine turboprop trainer where you learn basic single engine control and manouvers and basic navigation, with the L39 moving them up to intermediate step in an aircraft that is simple and cheap and largely manual, with the next step being the Yak-130 with multi jet engine controls and advanced navigation and weapons training as well as advanced aerodynamics.... the next step being a two seat Flanker or Fulcrum... or transport or bomber or whatever depending on the unit they end up in.

hoom wrote:A Diesel Engine!
But then using aviation Kerosene???
Why not use a normal engine then?

How come not a turboprop-powered trainer (that can be lightly armed) like the T-6A/B or Super Tucano?

GarryB wrote:The Yak-152 is a primary trainer with a turboprop engine, the Yak-130 is a lead in fighter trainer that has advanced flight control systems allowing it to simulate the flight performance of anything from an AN-124 to a Su-35 or PAK FA... there is no need for a cheap intermediate trainer between those two.

The best bet for this light trainer is as a cheaper alternative to the Yak-130 for countries that don't need the sophistication of the Yak, and can't afford the operational costs of such a sophisticated light training aircraft.

Would be a cheap light trainer for India where many of its main fighter aircraft are two seat aircraft so the level of training in light training aircraft is not so demanding.

As an airfield hack and early trainer the SR-10 would be excellent for countries that prefer two seat operational aircraft as an intermediate step from a basic turboprop trainer to the full power fully armed two seat model fighter bomber like the Su-30MKI.

A centre pod that simulates guided weapon use would be invaluable for the SR-10... the newer guided munitions from Russia included podded seekers that can be used for training and would be relatively cheap and simple to add to an aircraft.

The M-14X-powered version is lighter, with gross weight (with the RED A03/V12 engine) reduced from 2,125 kg (4,685 pounds) to 1,400 kg (3,086 pounds).
It has g limits of +9/-7; the g limits of the diesel version are+5/-3.
While the maximum diving speed remains at 500 km/h (270 knots), the maximum level speed drops from 380 km/h (205 knots) to 335 km/h (181 knots).
The maximum climb rate rises from 8 to 11 meters per second (1,575 to 2,165 ft/min).
Takeoff run decreases from 300 (990 feet) to 200 meters (660 feet).
The landing run is reduced from 450 meters (1,485 feet) to 250 meters (825 feet), as a result of the landing speed going down from 145 km/h (78 knots) to 115 km/h (62 nots).

kopyo-21 wrote:When compare data sheet of two engine versions of Yak-152, I see the Yak-152 with RED diesel engine has max range of 1,500 km while max range of the Yak-152 with M-14X radial engine is 1,000 km. Both of them use iternal fuel only and suppose they have the same internal fuel weight of 200kg. Does RED engine really save fuel more 50% than M-14X?