Russian Civil Aviation: News #2

Austin wrote:kvs can you explain the pros and cons of PD-14 Engine Design Approach versus says the GTF design.

Even the PD-35 engine design has not chosen a GTF approach but relying on PD-14 like approach

http://www.rusaviainsider.com/uec-gearing-up-for-a-35-ton-engine/


For one I read PD-14 will have less maintenance but GTF design has more technology advantages on long run ?

kvs wrote:

Austin wrote:kvs can you explain the pros and cons of PD-14 Engine Design Approach versus says the GTF design.

Even the PD-35 engine design has not chosen a GTF approach but relying on PD-14 like approach

http://www.rusaviainsider.com/uec-gearing-up-for-a-35-ton-engine/


For one I read PD-14 will have less maintenance but GTF design has more technology advantages on long run ?

The PD-14 does not have gearing which limits the bypass ratio to under 8.5 compared to the 12 for the P&W PW1000G.
But the fuel penalty is only 2.5% according to one estimate

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-pd-14-revives-russian-hopes-for-commercial-428518/

The gearing issue is obscure.   They talk about reliability but gears add complexity and hence reduce reliability
and engine life.   I see a deliberate choice by the makers of the PD-14 to not dabble with gears for such a
tiny fuel consumption advantage.  The PD-14 use hydrodynamics knowhow to improve efficiency and the use
hollow titanium fan blades, single-crystal turbine blades with cooling is nothing to be scoffed at.

I really do not see this long term technology advantage of GTF.   We will see if ceramic turbine blades are deployed
some time in the future in addition to better combustion design through simulation.    I think there is enough evidence
to prove that Russian designers know what they are doing.  

kvs wrote:

Austin wrote:kvs can you explain the pros and cons of PD-14 Engine Design Approach versus says the GTF design.

Even the PD-35 engine design has not chosen a GTF approach but relying on PD-14 like approach

http://www.rusaviainsider.com/uec-gearing-up-for-a-35-ton-engine/


For one I read PD-14 will have less maintenance but GTF design has more technology advantages on long run ?

The PD-14 does not have gearing which limits the bypass ratio to under 8.5 compared to the 12 for the P&W PW1000G.
But the fuel penalty is only 2.5% according to one estimate

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-pd-14-revives-russian-hopes-for-commercial-428518/

The gearing issue is obscure.   They talk about reliability but gears add complexity and hence reduce reliability
and engine life.   I see a deliberate choice by the makers of the PD-14 to not dabble with gears for such a
tiny fuel consumption advantage.  The PD-14 use hydrodynamics knowhow to improve efficiency and the use
hollow titanium fan blades, single-crystal turbine blades with cooling is nothing to be scoffed at.

I really do not see this long term technology advantage of GTF.   We will see if ceramic turbine blades are deployed
some time in the future in addition to better combustion design through simulation.    I think there is enough evidence
to prove that Russian designers know what they are doing.  

Austin wrote:

kvs wrote:

Austin wrote:kvs can you explain the pros and cons of PD-14 Engine Design Approach versus says the GTF design.

Even the PD-35 engine design has not chosen a GTF approach but relying on PD-14 like approach

http://www.rusaviainsider.com/uec-gearing-up-for-a-35-ton-engine/


For one I read PD-14 will have less maintenance but GTF design has more technology advantages on long run ?

The PD-14 does not have gearing which limits the bypass ratio to under 8.5 compared to the 12 for the P&W PW1000G.
But the fuel penalty is only 2.5% according to one estimate

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-pd-14-revives-russian-hopes-for-commercial-428518/

The gearing issue is obscure.   They talk about reliability but gears add complexity and hence reduce reliability
and engine life.   I see a deliberate choice by the makers of the PD-14 to not dabble with gears for such a
tiny fuel consumption advantage.  The PD-14 use hydrodynamics knowhow to improve efficiency and the use
hollow titanium fan blades, single-crystal turbine blades with cooling is nothing to be scoffed at.

I really do not see this long term technology advantage of GTF.   We will see if ceramic turbine blades are deployed
some time in the future in addition to better combustion design through simulation.    I think there is enough evidence
to prove that Russian designers know what they are doing.  

According to Pitor who is reliable here PW1400G offers 1 % Fuel advantage over PD-14 engine but PD-14 still wins over PW engine due to lower weight and consequently better effeciency.   http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2653756.html

Unless that 2.5 % is a long term goal built into engine for GTF type ,then I would say 2.5 % is not something to scoff at , Even 1 % fuel effeciency of Engine over say a period of 25 years of operation would years more money to operators.

I think PD-14 development may not be static , Already there are talks of using Carbon Fibre blades replacing Hollow Titanium ones which might improve fuel effeciency  perhaps others are under works.

The choice of airliners is go for more complex higher maintenance PW engine but with slightly better effeciency or go for less complex but lower maintenance PD-14 engine but slightly lower fuel effeciency.

I think in the history of engineering Less Complex Less Moving Parts is better than more complex more moving parts irrespective of the small gains.

PErhaps that is the reason they are keeping the PD-14 approach to engineering design for PD-35 engine and not opting of GTF .....They were toying with GTF idea for PD-18 engine but thats now off the chart.

I hope and pray they continue flight testing program of MS-21 without serious issues and on time.  This bird is more technology advanced than any thing its competitor will offer for the next 10 years

kvs wrote:
We don't know the validity of this estimate since we have seen elsewhere a 1% figure.   I think the
fundamentally simpler design of the PD-14 will more than offset any marginal fuel use.   Engines are bloody expensive and have one last
longer is the monetary equivalent of hundreds of thousands of liters of gasoline.

Regardless of the risks, Russia is back into design and production mode.   The toilet years of decline are over and I think for a long time.  

KLA" and COMAC opened yesterday in Shanghai joint venture office CRAIC (China-Russia Commercial Aircraft International Corporation).

CRAIC will perform the program operator function of the new generation of wide-body long-haul aircraft, which together create the Russian and Chinese aircraft manufacturers.




Joint Venture at the ceremony opened by the President "KLA" Yuri Slusar, vice president of civil aviation "KLA", the president of "GSS" Vladislav Masalov, chairman SOMAS Jin Tszanlun and president of COMAC He Dongfeng.




CRAIC as a program operator, in whose activities include the establishment of the production, design, production , marketing, sales, after-sales service, consulting, project management and other related activities to create a wide-haul aircraft.





to date, the parties developed the concept of the family of widebody long-haul aircraft, the characteristic pre-determined iki aircraft. In the base liner will be designed for 280 seats with a range of 12,000 kilometers.

The nearest plans - the transition of the program to the schematic design phase and RFP suppliers of systems and equipment. Final assembly of the aircraft will be manufactured in Shanghai.

Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) and Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (COMAC) have reached another milestone in the joint program to develop a new-generation long-haul widebody aircraft, codenamed C929. On May 22, the partners opened the Shanghai office of their joint venture (JV) that will manage the project.

The JV, known as China-Russia Commercial Aircraft International Corporation (CRAIC), received its operating license on the same day.

“The establishment of the JV is an important practical step signifying the partners’ commitment to long-term cooperation and to ensuring the program’s success,” UAC President Yury Slyusar said at the opening ceremony. “Together with our colleagues at СОМАС we created the organization that will be in charge of the production, sales, and after-sales support of the new airliner; it will also be engaged inmarketing and business planning activities.” The JV agreement was sealed during Russian President Vladimir Putin’s official visit to Beijing in June 2016.

The JV and the entire project are 50/50 owned by the partners. Vladislav Masalov, UAV vice-president for civil aviation and president of Sukhoi Civil Aircraft Company, has been appointed as chairman of the new enterprise’s board.

SCAC will be used as the basis for creating CRAIC’s civil aviation arm. COMAC CEO Guo Bozhi has been appointed as CRAIC general director. He also leads the widebody long-haul program at COMAC. The board of directos will comprise eight members, four from each side; these were appointed at the board’s first meeting on May 22.

Masalov told Russian Aviation Insider that the establishment of the JV has paved the way for launching design work on the future aircraft, and that a joint engineering center will be set up in Moscow for the purpose. UAC will be responsible for designing the wing, high-lift devices, engine pylons, and main landing gear struts. COMAC will develop the fuselage, empennage, nose landing gear strut, nose cone, and wing-fuselage fairings.

“Our agreement calls for UAC to act as the project integrator,” Masalov said. Part of the design work may be outsourced to other Chinese and Russian companies.

Masalov added that the preliminary design review is expected to take place in late 2018. The baseline version for 280 passengers and with a range of 12,000 km will be developed first. The partners are also planning to developed a 230-passenger shortened version and a 320-seat stretch.

According to Slyusar, the partners have already been in contact with Chinese carriers and lessors potentially interested in the C929, for which China is viewed as the primary market. Potential customers are primarily interested in the future airliner’s cost-efficiency. The developers are planning to achieve this with using composites across the airframe, including in the wing, and also by introducing electric systems and new aerodynamic solutions.

The partners are to have identified their project suppliers by year-end. Requests for information have already been sent to a number of companies. Potential Chinese operators would like to have a choice of two powerplants. The developers are mulling GE Aviation and Rolls-Royce as their engine suppliers. Masalov said Russia’s Aviadvigatel PD-35 new-generation turbofan might also be offered as an option.

The final assembly line will be set up in Shanghai. According to Masalov, there is as yet no final agreement on who of the partners will supply which components.

Masalov said the partners assess the global widebody market at 7,000 airframes between 2023 and 2045, with the highest demand in the Asia-Pacific Region, China, Russia, and other CIS countries.

C929 deliveries are expected to begin in 2027.

Firebird wrote:How will Russia's own widebody planes be built?
With the Chinese jt venture?
Or will they be build wholly in Russia?

In other words, is it a bit like the Russian-Indian collaboration on 5g fighters and Brahmos? In that situation, Russia does a joint venture for sale to the partner. BUT Russia does a wholly Russian version for its own market.

A new Russian surveillance system has gone into operation in the Cuban capital’s Jose Marti International Airport, its manufacturer VNIIRA-OVD has told news agency TASS.

“VNIIRA-OVD, jointly with St Petersburg-based Digital Radio Systems (CRTS) research and production enterprise, implemented a project to deliver and prepare Russian equipment for operating in Cuba,” said VNIIRA-OVD chief Tatyana Makarova.

VNIIRA-OVD won a tender among leading air navigation equipment companies to supply the air traffic control system for the Havana airport late last year.

“Cuban air navigation service provider ECASA chose Russian-made equipment. A contract was signed in late October 2016, and two months later all equipment arrived in Cuba,” said Makarova said. In 2014, similar Russian-made systems went on stream in the Cuban resort city of Varadero.

“Last year, many US air carriers resumed flights to Cuba, that’s why traffic at the Havana airport intensified significantly. Under these circumstances, a logical decision was made to modernise the air traffic surveillance system. The Russian-made equipment will make air traffic at the Havana airport more efficient and safe,” said CRTS chief designer Yuri Kapoyko.

In a 2016 contract award statement, the supplier said the crucial advantage of the multilateration-based A-SMGCS system is its ability to support the controller in poor visibility conditions.

Austin wrote:Take Off Magazine June Issue and detailed write up on MS-21 and SSJ program and updates on PD-14 and others

en.take-off.ru/pdf_to/to41.pdf