Il-106/PAK VTA Heavy transport

At the time the plan was to replace the 40 ton payload standard Il-76 with the 47 ton payload An-70..

To clarify:
The first modifications of the IL-76 had a take-off weight of 170 tons, a payload of 28 tons and a range with a maximum load of 4,200 km. In the course of modernization, the take-off weight increased to 190 tons, carrying capacity up to 43 tons, and the range with this load reached 4,000 km. ..
Characteristics of the IL-76 allowed to work on the establishment of aviation world records. In July 1975, the crew of the Honored Test Pilot of the USSR Hero of the Soviet Union Ya.I. Bernikov in the flight with a weight of 70 121 kg reached an altitude of 11 875 m. On a closed route, M. Tyuryumin showed a record average flight speed of 857.657 km / h with a load of 70 tons at a range of 1,000 km and with a load of 70 t at a distance of 2,000 km reached a record average speed of 856.697 km / h A few days later, the crew of A. M. Tyuryumin in flight with a load of 40 tons on a closed route of 5,000 km reached a record average flight speed of 815,968 km / h.
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/craft/il76.html

..the IL-76M version virtually resembles the IL-76 basic aircraft, but has a maximum payload of 47t, compared to 28t for the IL-76.
https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/il76/

The Il-76MD is an Improved military transport version, (modifitseerovannyy Dahl'ny – modified, long-range).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-76#Military_variants

The ADS installed onboard the IL-76MD-90A facilitates dropping of parachutists from an altitude of 8,000m at 220km/h to 400km/h speeds
https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ilyushin-il-76md-90a-il-476-aircraft-russia/

Russia decided to use IL-76s for those missions, so absence of the AN-70 didn't compromise anything, at least for now, IMO.

I was thinking, probably the new Il-106 will have a double deck layout, like the An-124 and the boeing 747, with cockpit, relief crew compartment and troop cabin in the upper deck, and cargo hold in the lower deck.

Maybe a derived big civilian passenger aircraft, similar to a modernised b747 can be realized, with most parts in common with the military cargo.

Could be, the Il-76 was originally planned to be a passenger-cargo plane.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Could be, the Il-76 was originally planned to be a passenger-cargo plane.

China could also be interested in it, and the production of the A380 will stop after 2021.

They'll produce An-225 under license & could make a smaller jumbo variant of it with 4 engines.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/china-build-the-worlds-largest-plane%E2%80%8A%E2%80%94%E2%80%8A-ukraines-help-17583

The idea of a combined passenger and cargo plane is interesting but not as useful as it sounds.

If you need a cargo plane you need a cargo plane... it would be quicker and easier to use cargo planes and normal passenger planes to transfer hardware and personnel large distances... the exception is transporting paratroopers in which case you can just use more cargo planes.

A large cargo plane is shaped for carrying bulky outsized cargo, not for very long range high subsonic cruise like a passenger plane.

An An-124 might sound like a great B747 replacement but in actual fact its aerodynamic shape wont be ideal and it will be slower and less efficient than an upgraded Il-96 or something similar.

It makes more sense to custom make a large long range passenger aircraft...

High-flying truck: Russia is preparing to replace the An-124 and An-22

New jet aircraft is being created for military transport aviation

Sources in the military-industrial complex and the military department told Izvestia that tactical and technical requirements for a promising aircraft of military transport aviation have already been approved. The vehicle should come to replace the heavy An-124 and An-22.

Currently, research work (R&D) has been opened to determine the characteristics of the Advanced Aviation Complex of Military Transport Aviation (PAK VTA). The creation of its preliminary design was entrusted to PJSC "Il", sources in the military department and the military-industrial complex told Izvestia. According to the plan, it must be prepared by December 2020. From 2021, it is planned to begin the next stage - experimental design work (ROC). Ilyushin has already spent at least 250 million rubles to determine the parameters of a promising aircraft and create its preliminary design.

The tactical and technical requirements for research and development (available at Izvestia's disposal) indicate the mandatory requirements that the Ministry of Defense put forward for the new aircraft

One of the most unusual is the possibility of in-flight refueling from air tankers. Previously, this technology has not been used for large military transport aircraft in our country. The new aircraft must carry at least 80 tons of cargo over a range of 5 thousand km. The length of its cargo compartment will be at least 27.5 m. Width and height - 5.8 and 4.4 m, respectively.

PAK VTA will be equipped with four turbojet engines with a thrust of 20-25 thousand kgf. They will give the aircraft the ability to fly at altitudes up to 12 km and a cruising speed of 850 km / h. Such an aircraft engine in Russia has yet to be created. The promising PD-35, which is now being developed, is indicated as a contender in the documentation.

https://iz.ru/1043474/anton-lavrov-roman-kretcul/gruzovik-vysokogo-poleta-rossiia-gotovit-zamenu-124-i-22

This is great news but on the other hand the figures don't make much sense, unless they are talking about a plane substantially smaller than An-124... in which case neither the engine type nor the thrust would fit...

An-124 can carry 120 t to 5000 km and has a cargo compartment of 36 m... Slon would be quite bigger (180 t to 5000 km and cargo compartment > 45 m)

Will this be a continuation of Il-106?? Are they really going to make two big transport planes, when they already have the Il-76 with 60 t cargo capacity?

LMFS wrote:This is great news but on the other hand the figures don't make much sense, unless they are talking about a plane substantially smaller than An-124... in which case neither the engine type nor the thrust would fit...

An-124 can carry 120 t to 5000 km and has a cargo compartment of 36 m... Slon would be quite bigger (180 t to 5000 km and cargo compartment > 45 m)

Will this be a continuation of Il-106?? Are they really going to make two big transport planes, when they already have the Il-76 with 60 t cargo capacity?

Well this could be mainly an An22 replacement...

The il 76 is a good plane but has a relatively small width of the cargo area... around 3.2 meters if I am not wrong... there are many types of loads that are too large for the il76, even if their weight would not be a problem...

Having the il-106 would free the An-124 (and it the successor, the slon or whatever) for only the kind of flights that really need them....but yeah if they plan to have an aircraft with those loads capacity the engines mentioned seems to be too large and powerful.

Unless it is all "maskirovka"...


Anyway, It is possible that they realised that they need both a new aircraft in a size between the an22 and an124 and also one larger than the An-124...
With also the work going on for the smaller cargo planes, there is a lot of of design and development work for the ilyushin bureau...

The An-22 was very popular and was heavily used because its 80 ton payload capacity was a useful size and meant it could carry very substantial loads over reasonable ranges...

I suspect they are thinking about making an An-22 replacement that is sort of a C-17 equivalent but much much cheaper.

As they retired their An-22s they had to basically use An-124s for the jobs and so sometimes you had an aircraft with a 120 ton payload capacity carrying 60-70 ton payloads.

Most planes do not operate at max payload capacity all the time...

I would think an An-22 replacement with a payload capacity of perhaps 100-110 tons would actually be more use than new build An-22s.

It would use PD-25 type engines... four of them would actually give it more power than the An-124, but that is OK as they would have better engine power margins for operating from shorter airstrips like in the arctic and antarctic.

The An-124s could then be replaced with the Slon which is really a plane in a slightly higher weight class... instead of 120 ton and then 150 ton payload ranges for the An-124 and upgraded models it might have a payload of perhaps 180 tons and with four PD 35s with 35 tons of thrust each they should have rather good performance too... with perhaps an H tailed model produced in small numbers of perhaps 4-6 for the Russian Space Industry to carry fuel tanks and rockets and shuttles externally...

Having the il-106 would free the An-124 (and it the successor, the slon or whatever) for only the kind of flights that really need them....but yeah if they plan to have an aircraft with those loads capacity the engines mentioned seems to be too large and powerful.

They used the An-22 because it is cheaper and a better size fit for the loads they were carrying. I think their Il-106 sized An-22 replacement should be produced in larger numbers than the bigger aircraft because I think they will both have lower operating costs but still get the job done most of the time.
The bigger Slon types would still be useful to replace the An-124s, but they could delay the need for replacements by fitting their An-124s with PD-25s which should improve fuel costs and improve range.

The D-18 engines they use are about 23 tons thrust and not amazingly reliable or fuel efficent, so new engines would be valuable, but ultimately the goal is the get these Antonovs out of service... just the same as at the other end the An-2, An-24/26, and An-12 also need to be replaced as well.

Well the existing an 124 could still be useful for another 30 years, especially with new engines... no need to retire them if they can serve their purpose... just use them together with the new large cargo planes that will be built...

And concerning the 24 tons takeoff thrust engines, that could go both on those and on the il106... as we were discussing on the other thread (Ukrainian aviation), at the moment there is not yet a Russian engine officially announced on this range of thrust ...

they spoke of engine derived from the NK32 (originally proposed as PD30) since at least 2012
http://fantasylab.ru/take-off-en/news/107-june2012/728-pd30futurerussianthirtytonner

And it is not clear if work on it has been stopped when they started working on the PD35 (based instead on a scaled up core from the PD14)

It would make sense that Russia would pursue both path, one (PD35) mainly driven from aviadgavitel/perm engine company, and the latter, more conservative, mainly lead from Kuznetov (in Samara) ....
The core of the Nk32 could be reused for this purpose, even if some upgrading and possibly new materials would need to be used, since the core will need to run hotter and faster to be able to be paired with a larger fan and LP turbine...
Work on such engine could make sense, especially if they plan anyway to reuse the same core for the Pak-Da bomber...

It is true that there have been no official updates on this, but it is possible that it is because it is a more secret military project and because Russia wanted instead to focus the news on the PD14 and on the PD35, that are needed on the civil aviation as well.

PapaDragon wrote:It said "at least 80 tons"

Yeah, it is possible that they are "inviting" Ilyushin to convince them to make a bigger aircraft...

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Well this could be mainly an An22 replacement...

Certainly looks like it is

The il 76 is a good plane but has a relatively small width of the cargo area... around 3.2 meters if I am not wrong... there are many types of loads that are too large for the il76, even if their weight would not be a problem...

True, cargo hold is 3,4 х 3,45 х 20 m, substantially smaller than An-124. The dimensions proposed for the PAK-VTA are nevertheless also not so much better for the military, because they don't allow to place armoured vehicle on two rows. For this, internal width in excess of 6 m is needed.




Besides, range of the Il-76MD-90A with 60 t load is only 4000 km, it falls short in that regard by a fair margin too.

Anyway, It is possible that they realised that they need both a new aircraft in a size between the an22 and an124 and also one larger than the An-124...

Yes, if you consider Il-106 vs An-124, it does not make much sense:



But if you substitute the An-124 with the Slon, then the whole starts looking more reasonable:



Key question for me is whether the An-124 or Slon can operate from unprepared runways, that is a requirement military could no let go of.

With also the work going on for the smaller cargo planes, there is a lot of of design and development work for the ilyushin bureau...

Maybe too much, that is the issue...

they spoke of engine derived from the NK32 (originally proposed as PD30) since at least 2012
http://fantasylab.ru/take-off-en/news/107-june2012/728-pd30futurerussianthirtytonner

And it is not clear if work on it has been stopped when they started working on the PD35 (based instead on a scaled up core from the PD14)

I have seen talk in both ways, PD-24 and NK-23D:

Work on such engine could make sense, especially if they plan anyway to reuse the same core for the Pak-Da bomber...

Exactly, in fact I don't see a reason why the PAK-DA could no use essentially the same engine. It would benefit from a high bypass engine the same as a transport plane (if it is going to be subsonic as they keep repeating) and work is ongoing which could produce a direct substitute for the D-18T

Hi LMFS, the slide about the various engine that should replace foreign ones is very interesting, thanks.

And most of them are in advanced stage of development pr already realized, so if that was also the case for the NK23D it would be really positive.. unfortunately there are no recent news about it...

One of the posts or articles found on internet about it mentioned it having worse specific fuel consumption than the old D18T, but I don't believe it is possible

And about the other Perm engines derived from the PD14, I knew that presentation... it is not clear however how far are they in the UEC priorities (the PD24 and the PD28 I mean)... it is possible that serious design work on them will be done only after PD35 is already in testing phase...

It does not make any sense to downsize the An-124. I can see that a successor design is worthwhile for the An-124 which
dates back to the 1970s and 1980s. But it will have more payload for the same range and not less.

The 80 ton figure is for sure for the An-22 replacement. It is possible that both the An-22 and An-124 will be replaced
by some sort of unified (scaled) design. I have not seen such concepts implemented before (but I may have missed them).
It makes no sense to replace both the An-22 and An-124 by one model since the An-22 can have longer range and using
the An-124 for An-22 jobs is rather a waste of money.

The An-22 can currently lift 80 tons so if this payload is kept fixed, the range of the successor will increase from the
current 5,000 km.

According to this post there were plans to test the engine for the pak da on the il76 flying testbed before end 2020...

If so there are good hope for the il106


https://topwar.ru/166489-dvigatel-dlja-pak-da-ispytajut-na-letajuschej-laboratorii-il-76.html#comments

Well the existing an 124 could still be useful for another 30 years, especially with new engines... no need to retire them if they can serve their purpose... just use them together with the new large cargo planes that will be built...

I suspect they are keen to get rid of foreign gear from their inventory so they will get rid of them as fast as they can.

Remember the An-22 was a popular aircraft and they pretty much make the engines for them because they also are on the Bear.

Logically it would make sense to keep using them and start to retire the newer but bigger An-124s with the foreign engines, but the An-22s went first.

Certainly an An-124 can do everything an An-22 can do, but the reverse is not true...

I suspect when replacement engines become available they will likely re-engine most of them and perhaps re-engine the An-124s in use by civilian Russian companies to get a performance boost and reduce operating problems, but I rather suspect they will introduce a replacement as quick as they can.

The An-124s are relatively new planes, while in the case of the An-12s and An-24/26 aircraft they are replacing they are pretty old and worn out and near their end of life period, so replacing them with Il-276 and Tu-330s and Il-112 and IL-114s will simply just make sense...

And concerning the 24 tons takeoff thrust engines, that could go both on those and on the il106... as we were discussing on the other thread (Ukrainian aviation), at the moment there is not yet a Russian engine officially announced on this range of thrust ...

They did describe the PD family as scalable making engine development in different power ranges reasonably straight forward if there is enough of a demand.

For an aircraft designed to carry 80-110 tons I don't think two PD-35s would be enough, which would be a shame as having commonality with the bigger plane would be useful. Having four 18 ton PD-18s would give it similar power to what the Il-476 might end up with eventually which means it is probably not enough...

Certainly a PD 22-25 would be interesting... the A-42 could use a PD-18 to make it simpler and a better performer (instead of having four engines it could have two)...

they spoke of engine derived from the NK32 (originally proposed as PD30) since at least 2012
http://fantasylab.ru/take-off-en/news/107-june2012/728-pd30futurerussianthirtytonner

And it is not clear if work on it has been stopped when they started working on the PD35 (based instead on a scaled up core from the PD14)

The thing is that there were two engines they were deriving from the NK-32... one was a high power supersonic engine for the Tu-160M2, to also be used on the Tu-22M3M, while the other was a high bypass turbofan for large heavy subsonic aircraft like the PAK DA and the Slon transports.

It would make sense that Russia would pursue both path, one (PD35) mainly driven from aviadgavitel/perm engine company, and the latter, more conservative, mainly lead from Kuznetov (in Samara) ....

Both should be advanced state of the art technology, but clearly one for supersonic bombers and one for subsonic bombers and transports...

Both should be modern sophisticated new generation engines.

The core of the Nk32 could be reused for this purpose, even if some upgrading and possibly new materials would need to be used, since the core will need to run hotter and faster to be able to be paired with a larger fan and LP turbine...

No... just extending the shaft forward out the front of the engine and put enormous blades on that in about 4-5 rows and put a cowling around that and the job is done. The problem is that it is not just taking the bomber engine and putting a big enclosed fan on the front... you need to upgrade the engine first to improve materials and design and optimise the speeds and gearing to suck the max cold air via the big front fans to generate lots of thrust.

Work on such engine could make sense, especially if they plan anyway to reuse the same core for the Pak-Da bomber...

That is the point... a jet engine that can perhaps be the new bad boy for supersonic planes... imagine the Tu-160M2 with new engines that instead of 14 tons dry thrust and 25 tons thrust in full AB, it has 25 tons dry thrust and 35 tons in full AB... as long as the exhaust velocities are right it should be able to supercruise quite nicely at its current full speed....

Key question for me is whether the An-124 or Slon can operate from unprepared runways, that is a requirement military could no let go of.

Most Soviet transports can but at reduced weights normally meaning less payload and much less fuel.

For instance the MTOW for the Il-76 in its later models is over 200 tons, but I seem to recall the limit for rough airstrips is about 170 tons MTOW.

Of course this could be compensated for with inflight refuelling just after take off or on the way.

It makes no sense to replace both the An-22 and An-124 by one model since the An-22 can have longer range and using
the An-124 for An-22 jobs is rather a waste of money.

Agreed, the An-22 was popular because it could do the job cheaper than the An-124 and you could carry more than the Il-76 could manage.

Having a 60 ton payload capacity Il-476, and a 90-100 ton capacity An-22 replacement, means perhaps instead of the 120-150 ton capacity An-124 they could go with a 180 ton capacity model with a normal tail and one with an H tail... both with four PD-35 engines with the H tail model optimised for external loads like the An-225 for the space industry... Might even sell a few to China for their space industry... moving around rocket motors and fuel tanks in one piece...

According to this post there were plans to test the engine for the pak da on the il76 flying testbed before end 2020...

If so there are good hope for the il106

That flying testbed Il-76 for testing engines is cool...

GarryB wrote:Most Soviet transports can but at reduced weights normally meaning less payload and much less fuel.

For instance the MTOW for the Il-76 in its later models is over 200 tons, but I seem to recall the limit for rough airstrips is about 170 tons MTOW.

Of course this could be compensated for with inflight refuelling just after take off or on the way.

I have seen the Il-76 doing that but not the An-124, even when I find some places where this capability is stated. That it needs to be done below MTOW is understandable

perhaps instead of the 120-150 ton capacity An-124 they could go with a 180 ton capacity model with a normal tail and one with an H tail... both with four PD-35 engines with the H tail model optimised for external loads like the An-225 for the space industry... Might even sell a few to China for their space industry... moving around rocket motors and fuel tanks in one piece...

The normal tail version is Slon, 180 t load @5000 km, 150 t @ 7000 km. Such plane would be very effective as strategic airlifter but a smaller one akin to C-17 that can actually land closer to the front makes sense too, if they can allow themselves to develop both.

LMFS wrote:
The normal tail version is Slon, 180 t load @5000 km, 150 t @ 7000 km. Such plane would be very effective as strategic airlifter but a smaller one akin to C-17 that can actually land closer to the front makes sense too, if they can allow themselves to develop both.

Well, they don't need to be put the same amount of resources on both projects exactly at the same time...

I believe for the Slon they are doing now mostly future programmes work with a relatively small team of people working on it... (e.g. preliminary design work and other studies on technologies needed for some products that will be ready in 5 to 10 years time), while for the il-106 they are trying to put more effort on having a finished program (including all the testing) in less than 5 years... after the il-106 is operational, the bulk of the team could then concentrate on detailed design and development work on the Slon, also having the advantage of the experience on the previous project and on the An-124 modernisation...

Those times would also fit the availability of the engines..., especially if the NK23D will be available a few years before the PD35...

I have seen the Il-76 doing that but not the An-124, even when I find some places where this capability is stated. That it needs to be done below MTOW is understandable

Possibly part of the problem is that where there is no pave runway there are not many settlements so the need for 120 tons of supplies in one plane load is diminished, whereas 40 tons might be a useful payload.

Inflight refuelling probes will expand range and payload performance potential from all sorts of surfaces.

The normal tail version is Slon, 180 t load @5000 km, 150 t @ 7000 km. Such plane would be very effective as strategic airlifter but a smaller one akin to C-17 that can actually land closer to the front makes sense too, if they can allow themselves to develop both.

Sorry, I wasn't clear... I was suggesting that a conventional tailed Slon would be useful, but an H tailed large aircraft would also be needed but not in numbers significant enough to warrant a whole new design... so I was suggesting a few extra Slon aircraft could be built... if they have PD-35 engines then they don't need any more power, but an H shaped tail would allow big and bulky but not necessarily heavy external loads to be carried on its back... like this:



Most of the time the loads are not actually heavy.... they are just really really big and wont fit inside a normal aircraft, so a fairing on the back of a big transport plane is what is needed... so they could make 60-80 Slons plus perhaps 3-5 Slon-Hs... and probably 100 An-22 replacements...

Some more details about the latest PAk-VTA news:

https://aviation21.ru/pak-vta-tyazhyolyj-transportnyj-samolyot-s-fyuzelyazhem-ovalnogo-secheniya/

The advance project also requires taking into account the possibility of basing the BTA PAC on dirt and snow airfields. All modern aircraft of the Russian military transport aviation are capable of this. The defense Ministry has set a task to develop a vehicle capable of transporting all possible types of weapons and equipment that are generally intended for air transport. The technical specification specifies not only the equipment of the ground forces, but also the VTA MUST take on Board helicopters and aircraft, including MiG-31BM fighters, air defense systems and radars of the radio engineering troops, as well as ensure the release of airborne troops.

Is interesting.

Throughout the article it keeps referring to different versions of this Myashishev oval fuselage design... including versions wiht engines on a V tail and versions with engines under the wings and in different size and payload weights from a twin PD-35 tail mounted engine version with a payload of 60 tons through to a four engines under wing plane with PD -20-25 engines in the 80 ton payload capacity range called PAK VTA... which makes it an An-22 capacity design.

The oval fuselage shape appears more aerodynamic with the added bonus of increasing the width and volume of the cargo bay... which sound pretty good all round if you like that pun...

At least it confirms their planes are designed for rough or snow covered strips, though it doesn't list the operational penalties of doing so like flight range and payload limit restrictions...

The Il-76 was too small to move heavy armour so the value of an An-22 would be just that very role... even though previously it was not used much as ship or rail movement is much more efficient if not as fast.

I think the oval body design is a good idea and perhaps will be used on the PAK DA bomber... it will make it subsonic only but will also give it the internal capacity to take a wide range of weapons internally as well as strategic loads plus fuel.

LMFS wrote:Some more details about the latest PAk-VTA news:

https://aviation21.ru/pak-vta-tyazhyolyj-transportnyj-samolyot-s-fyuzelyazhem-ovalnogo-secheniya/

The article linked mentions that there is no engine in that class yet.. as if forgetting the engine of the Pak-Da (unless they do not want to use it for some reasons.... e.g. not to compromise the technology used in a strategic bomber... but that would be strange, since the D30 engine used on the tu134 airliner and on original il76 was modified to make the d30f6 engine for the mig31 interceptor.... (but in that case the development went on the other direction...e.g. from civilian engine to military engine)

PAK VTA will be equipped with four turbojet engines with a thrust of 20-25 thousand kgf. They will give the aircraft the ability to fly at altitudes up to 12 km and a cruising speed of 850 km / h. However, there was no information about the design of such an engine (PD-23?), It has yet to be created. The promising PD-35, which is now being developed, is indicated as a candidate in the documentation.

So here some links about the pak-da engines (23 tons of take-off dry thrust).

I was wrong mentioning in my previous email the flying test bed... we are not that far yet...
If anything goes up to plan they will start before year end with the bench test of the engine (but it is already a good news, even of it means that that the engine (and an eventual aircraft powered by it will not be in operation (if it was a ship we would say "commissioned") before at least 3 years and probably  4 to 5 years...

So the test on the flying test bed will only come much later(minimum 1 or 2 years later), and possibly in 2022.
https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=524984&lang=RU

So maybe they mean that before 2022 in addition to the the bench tests of the engines they will also do some runs of the engine on the il76 flying test bed, but on the ground....

https://aviation21.ru/predvaritelnye-ispytaniya-dvigatelya-dlya-pak-da-nachnutsya-v-2020-godu/

https://www.popmech.ru/weapon/news-545964-pervyy-dvigatel-pak-da-postupit-na-ispytaniya-v-2020-godu/

The first PAK DA engine will go to testing in 2020

So far , however , we are talking only about bench tests of the latest power unit.

Unfortunately there are no data about it, like size of fan, bypass ratio, planned consumption, etc

etc... it is not clear if it will be called NK23D or if it will have another name ...

At the moment the development name of the Pak-Da is "product 80"
(Изделие 80), but we do not have a name for the engine

https://m.tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201810011041-85e8.htm

https://aviation21.ru/izdelie-80-v-samare-pristupili-k-razrabotke-dvigatelya-dlya-pak-da/


if they decide to use it also on the il-106 they could finish some of the testing together, after certifying the engine and testing it on both ground and flying test bed..

(And finally, even if they use the Pak-da engine and keep the same fan size also on the pak-vta/ il-106, they will need a different nacelle and pylon....)

Anyway, it's not like that the il-106 will be ready to fly in 2 years... engine or not....

Actually the engine would also be perfect to be used on the proposed frigate ecojet (the original twin engine configuration), then frozen because of lack of modern engines  of this class, even if it is not clear if it would be ideal to use the same engine also in civilian projects...



And now instead just some anecdotes...
some of the older info I read about a replacement engine for the An-124 based on a NK32 core mentioned that due to trying to adapt the engine to the Nacelles and pylon of the D18T, the preliminary data showed it having limited bypass ratio and worse consumption than the D18T,  so not having real benefits of a better engine core and higher temperatures, but probably it was still about something done in cooperation with Motor Sich, so the ukrainian firm was not really working on the best interests of Russia

GarryB wrote:The oval fuselage shape appears more aerodynamic with the added bonus of increasing the width and volume of the cargo bay... which sound pretty good all round if you like that pun...    

It is interesting because the cylindrical shape is best from a structural point of view, but it seems they get a lot of lift from that oval shape

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:unless they do not want to use it for some reasons.... e.g. not to compromise the technology used in a strategic bomber

They can use the same gas generator and include some technologies in the engine control or whatever they need different in the strategic bomber... the same core design is used from power plants to ships to planes

Unfortunately there are no data about it, like size of fan, bypass ratio, planned consumption, etc

etc... it is not clear if it will be called NK23D or if it will have another name ...

By the development schedule and due to the need to replace the D-18T I think it is fairly reasonable to think it could be a further development of the NK-32-2 with increased bypass ratio. The original engine has already the right size and with the proper materials and modern technologies it should be quite OK by now, even if stage count or general design is not 100% modern. It would serve as a first step towards the production of newer, clean sheet designs.

LMFS wrote:Some more details about the latest PAk-VTA news:

https://aviation21.ru/pak-vta-tyazhyolyj-transportnyj-samolyot-s-fyuzelyazhem-ovalnogo-secheniya/

Interesting...