U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

The turboprop engine for TVS-2MS will be created using reverse engineering, 12.18.2023.

On December 15, 2023, a specialized round table was held at the Novosibirsk State Technical University (NSTU), organized by the Rusaviaprom company together with NSTU. The main purpose of the event was to discuss options for creating a Russian turboprop engine using the reverse engineering method.

"Company "Rusaviaprom" Already successfully mass-produces TVS-2MS aircraft in Novosibirsk, which are a modification of the legendary An-2. However, in order to improve the aircraft's performance, it is necessary to replace the ASh-62IR piston engine with a more modern Honeywell turboprop engine. Considering the lack of a domestic engine with similar characteristics, Rusaviaprom decided to take the initiative to develop a Russian turboprop engine using reverse engineering,” the company’s press service said.

The round table was attended by specialists from various organizations who have competence in the aviation and engine building fields, and their knowledge and experience can be useful for this project. Among them are the Faculty of Aircraft of NSTU, the Institute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics named after. S.A. Khristianovich SB RAS, Institute of Thermophysics named after. S.S. Kutateladze SB RAS, OKB im. A. Lyulki - branch of PJSC "UEC-UMPO", Institute of Engines and Power Plants of Samara University, Tomsk Polytechnic University, CIAM, S7 Space, Center for Technological Competence of Additive Technologies, Rosatom fuel company TVEL.

Director of Rusaviaprom Alexey Kryukov emphasized that the purpose of the event is to collect up-to-date information about the capabilities and competencies of various organizations to create a family of turboprop engines. This will allow us to determine the most effective development path and ensure high quality and reliability of the final product. Reverse engineering of the American TPE331-12 turboprop engine, which is installed on TVS-2MS aircraft, can take from three to five years. Rusaviaprom is ready to provide a Honeywell engine for studying and recreating the technology.

“We understand that 3-5 years is a very good time to produce an engine. We believe that the development of an engine of this class will give impetus to very serious light aviation - both passenger aircraft carrying from nine to 12-19 people, and to move into the category of aerobatic aircraft, both civil and military. This class is currently in short supply in the Russian Federation, because Diamond aircraft are are leaving the resource,” Kryukov said.

According to him, Russia now needs at least 60 such engines. In the world, about 50 thousand power plants of this class are produced annually. “If we take at least 5% of the market, it will be two and a half thousand, and this is already a good volume to produce them in series,” noted the head of Rusaviaprom.

The domestic aviation industry has experience in creating technology using reverse engineering. In the second half of the 1940s, the Tupolev Design Bureau developed the Tu-4 bomber based on the American heavy bomber B-29 Superfortress (except for engines).

https://aviation21.ru/turbovintovoj-dvigatel-dlya-tvs-2ms-sozdadut-metodom-revers-inzhiniringa/

Quite strange, since the Honeywell TPE331 (previously Garret TPE331) is an engine designed in the 1950s, basically 70 years old.

I have to agree... any money they might put towards reverse engineering this engine and the production would be better spent on potential Russian options... especially if they offer better performance... even if they need to be de-rated.

They could even just put a limiter on it that has an emergency block so you can use the extra power if you are overloaded or in trouble because you are running out of runway...

Most aircraft only use max power during takeoff and the climb out, and operate at a much lower rating for the cruise flight so having a bit more power on the takeoff wouldn't be so bad as long as the cruise rpm is efficient it shouldn't matter a lot.

The domestic aviation industry has experience in creating technology using reverse engineering. In the second half of the 1940s, the Tupolev Design Bureau developed the Tu-4 bomber based on the American heavy bomber B-29 Superfortress (except for engines)

Copying makes sense in specific cases but not in this case IMHO.

They copied the B-29 because they had neglected development of new four engined heavy long range bombers... even though they had more than most other countries at the start of the war, they were the ancient DB bombers. The Pe-8 wasn't bad and had real potential but reverse engineering the B-29 was seen as being a faster solution to something that was urgent.

Ironically the Tu-4 had better self defence guns than the American original because US cannons were unreliable so they had HMGs, while the Tu-4 had 20mm cannons which were rather better and more powerful.

They also copied the Sidewinder too because before the Sidewinder copy Soviet AAMs were complex messes with everything all over the place. In comparison the Sidewinder was modular and simple so seeker in the nose, guidance system and control surface equipment near the front fins as well as warhead and then rocket motor at the rear. That was a complete design shift that the Soviets embraced and actually took to extremes in missiles like the R-27 which was about the most modular AAM ever made.

The point there was that the Sidewinder design made the AA-1 Alkali design obsolete... though it lived on in the form of the Kh-66 and Kh-25 missiles which were also modular. They all had side mounted rocket nozzles because the rear portion had to have datalink antennas back to the launch aircraft, where the original AA-1 was a beam riding missile. The R-3 and R-13 copies of the Sidewinder had Soviet seekers and Soviet rocket motors, but there were several things they copied from the missile including gyros that were very clever and small and cheap.

The point is that there are Russian alternatives in the pipeline and reverse engineering is not just a case of copying all the parts and putting them together and using them as an engine... Chinese copies of German diesel engines for ships shows the problems there.

The money to be spent on reverse engineering this engine as well as its serial production would be better spent speeding up testing and developing existing engine projects... preferably the more powerful engine de-rated to a suitable level.

Russia needs to resume the Il-114 aircraft testing program. Hopefully the issues with this engine have been resolved but I wouldn't bet on it.

As for using the VK-3000 engine based on TV7 as a replacement engine for the Mi-28 and Ka-52 I think that isn't going to happen. It is way more likely that the VK-2500M engine will be used in this case.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Furthermore even the Mi-38 like this make too little sense, since it is too close in performance to the Mi-8

The Mi-38 is way more capable than the Mi-8. Compare the speed, flight ceiling, and payload of both.
For example payload of Mi-8 is 4 tons and Mi-38 is 7 tons.

The problem is the Mi-38 still has teething issues aka "childhood diseases".

I would like to see them shift engines... so they had TV3 (VK-2500) engines in the Hips, Hinds, Havocs and Hokums and Helixs and were going to have the TV7 (VK-2500M) in the Mi-38, Altius drone, and Il-114 and a boosted model in the Il-112V.

But now they are making the Il-212 with PD-8 engines and a new engine based on the PD-8 for the Mi-26 that is going to be 10-12khp.

They were talking about engines in the 4-5 thousand hp power range which is double the TV3 but half the engine power of the new Mi-26 PD-8 based engines.

If that is the case then I would like to see the PD-8 used in the Il-212 and the GT version in the Mi-26, and perhaps the aircraft with the VK-2500 could keep using them and perhaps their new high speed helicopters in their weight range could use the VK-2500M (TV7), while the Mi-38 could probably benefit from the increase power new 4-5Khp engines.

The Mi-8 could continue to use the VK-2500 and the Mi-17 could use the VK-2500M and they could have two models of the Mi-38... the current one and perhaps an Mi-14 navalised version could use the current engine because 7 ton payload is pretty good, but perhaps an improve version... maybe even a flying crane type could use the new 4-5Khp engine and do some of the jobs the old Mi-6 used to perform.

It comes down to performance... if you put a V8 in a mini you ruin it. The Mi-28NM and Ka-52M already seem rather good and I don't think putting engines that are a lot more powerful would improve their performance very much... their speed limits are not based on engine power really...  of course I could be wrong on that.

The problem is the Mi-38 still has teething issues aka "childhood diseases".

I would say its biggest problem is that the helicopter it is replacing still has growth potential and is very good at what it does and it is widely deployed and widely used and support is in place.

It is a bit like trying to replace the An-2... many of the variously proposed replacements have been superior in some aspects but few have succeeded because there are some things about the An-2 that make it attractive. Cheap and simple are virtues away from high tech workshops in the big city.

Every new engine they keep talking about using it for things they are working on other engines for...

The top of this page they are talking about reverse engineering American engines for the An-2, when the VK-1600V would be a good alternative in terms of power and it is already Russian and already being made for other projects anyway.

I remember in the 1990s reading about the new proposed LMFS from MiG and they talked about the RD-45, which is either a guess or suggestion for the replacement of the RD-33. I seem to remember they talked about new generation engine in the 11-12 ton thrust range for a new light fighter, which they were certain was going to be a single engined fighter.

So an 11 ton thrust engine in a light single engined fighter would be interesting and its performance in terms of fuel consumption and weight and reliability would make it a better choice than say an Al-31 or Al-41 or Al-51. Reducing weight is better than just having more power to haul around more stuff... any experienced camper or hunter will tell you that.

And having two of those engines in a carrier based twin engined aircraft would be impressive if they can reduce the dry weight, its flight performance would be astounding even without thrust vectoring.

Of course Klimov are going to invest and develop brand new engines even when they are very busy because the new technology and materials they develop for their new engines can be used in existing engines to make them even better.

They will likely have access to super computers to test models and shapes and designs rapidly and make good educated guesses as to what will be good and what is not worth trying.

Would be interesting to set up a spreadsheet with all the new and promising engines they are developing and to have a range of columns of aircraft in service and future potential aircraft that might use those engines. There will be a lot of overlap, but it would show any gaps in engines and aircraft.

Gaps in engines is bad but gaps in aircraft might be for a good reason because that gap does not need to be filled.

Now that Russian airlines have been cut from their western suppliers this will be good for Russian engine developers and makers... and probably a few older designs can be pulled out of storage and dusted off and digitised and updated and achieve things the original design might have struggled with.

cam across this obscure article by accident
it seems that there is a play by the Omsk region to establish it as the centre of small civil engine production
and even small civil aircraft

generally they feel miffed that the Soviets moved all small civil aircraft and engines to Poland Czechs etc

anyway it seems that the "reverse engineered" Honeywell engine is more an attempt to reincarnate a certain

Powerplant: 2 × Glushenkov TVD-10 turboprop engines, 708 kW (949 hp) each

that was used to power the Be-30 that lost out to the L-410

this Glushenkov character seemed to be a real guru re small engines


The domestic compact aircraft Be-30 was also unlucky. Its successor, the Be-32,
equipped with two Omsk engines, accommodated twelve to seventeen people.
However, it competed with the Czechoslovak L-410, which Russia began to actively
purchase, but due to Western sanctions, the supply of foreign spare parts and
engines stopped.
However, experts believe that the production can be resuscitated using an engine
manufactured by the Omsk Engine Building Association named after Baranov.

It is possible to solve the issues of the revival of small aircraft in cooperation with the
BRICS countries, which are also interested in the development of aviation.
"Chinese, Indian, Brazilian colleagues have already expressed interest in the project,"
said Igor Glushkov, Head of the BRICS Center for the Omsk Region. - Six months ago,
a group for the implementation of the "Regional Aviation" project was created. The
main activities of the PIU are the joint solution of the problems of organizing the
production of aircraft, as well as passenger and cargo transportation in the spaces of
the Commonwealth countries.

We propose to resume production of the Be-32 and
Yak-40 aircraft. For this purpose, the country has specialized design bureaus,
technical documentation, and production facilities. A new engine with improved
characteristics has been developed for the Yak-40. We hope to resume the assembly
of the device together with the Republic of Belarus.

Omsk plans to focus on the design and production of piston, turboprop, jet aircraft
engines. To do this, Omsk State Technical University will create a specialized
department and a youth design bureau. In addition, they will be able to offer foreign
partners special professional education."

from what I have read
it seems UZGA want to make a plane similar to the Twin Otter with fixed landing gear to replace the L-410
rather than go with a design with retracting landing gear like the L-410 and Be-32
makes sense too .... re easy to make floatplane versions etc

The Omsk design bureau used to design competing small engines. The engines which the Russians today use in their cruise missiles, TRDD-50, are based on their original designs from the 1970s.

The Russians have small turbine engine designs at all basic power levels from Omsk, and Saturn. You could also in theory convert APU turbines, like the ones made by Aerosila, into small turbine engines.

For example the Omsk TVD-10 is a 940 hp turboprop engine, while their TVD-20 is a 1380 hp turboprop engine. The problem is Omsk doesn't have their own production facilities. It is just a design bureau. I think I saw the TVD-20 being used in An-2 turboprop conversions at one point. But these An-2 conversions all seem to be using US Honeywell TPE331 turboprops now.

Saturn has the RD-600V 1500 hp turboshaft engine, the TVD-1500 1300 hp turboprop engine. But that RD-600V turboshaft engine had lots of teething issues as the main power unit in the Ka-60 helicopter. They were probably never completely solved.

Aerosila makes the TA14 100 kW (134 hp), TA18-100 250 kW (335 hp), TA18-200 350 kW (469 hp) APUs. While these are used for different applications it is still a gas turbine engine which you could probably modify.

The thing is those engine designs would probably need modernization at this point. They also likely weren't produced at enough numbers to solve childhood diseases. There is a reason why the Russian small helicopter and aircraft designs didn't use them in the first place. Lack of availability, spare parts, high fuel consumption, and low engine lifetime.

The Klimov VK-1600 is a really modern engine with ventilated turbine blades and everything. Something no other engine in this weight class even uses. It probably can reach much higher core temperatures than other similar sized engines and have much better efficiency as a result. The risk is it might end up without an aircraft that uses it.

It is less about a lack of engine designs but a lack of mature ones. And for that you need orders. Which don't exist basically. Unlike with large transport aircraft, where the Russian government just directs Aeroflot to make a large bulk order, there is nothing like this in the small aircraft segment. It is hugely fragmented. And it doesn't help when for example the government orders Ansat helicopters with Western turbine engines when they need to buy air ambulances for example.

As for the Yak-40 you could just use two Al-222 or SM-100 engines. They have enough power.



This is a Yak-40 modified to use two US Honeywell TFE731 turbofan engines and a composite wing made by SibNIA.

But anyway there is a more modern design than the Yak-40 for the small aircraft segment. I already talked about this the Tu-324.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:TVD-10 I could still understand, if you really need a 950 hp engine.

However there is the 800 to 850 hp VK-800S that is going to enter soon serial production for the Baikal (amd could be also used on a twin engine aircraft of the size of the twin otter.

As for the TVD-20 it does not make any sense. The VK-1600 has 1400 hp in takeoff mode. The turboshaft version will be soon in serial production. It is much more sensible to do a turboprop version of it (it was already planned anyway, both in the standard 1400 version and in the derated 1200 hp version) than to try to reuse an old engine which is not in production anymore.

Yeah basically these engines have been replaced with the VK-650, VK-800 and VK-1600. Which should in theory use more modern construction techniques and materials. The Omsk and Saturn engines I talked about are basically 1970s or 1980s designs.

The more modern designs are expected to have lower fuel consumption and be more reliable and be more competitive with Western engine designs.

But the current situation is still a bit of a mess. For now the VK-650 and VK-1600 only have turboshaft versions for helicopters. Turboprop versions are planned for both engines but they aren't currently being worked on. While the VK-800 only has a turboprop version and is being worked on by a company which has no prior experience with working on such engines.

Some of the aircraft designs which are meant to use these engines are also kind of questionable. I think you can pretty much be certain with regards to the Ansat and Ka-226 helicopters using the VK-650. The Russian government regularly orders these helicopters. The Ka-62 had a huge amount of imported components so I kind of doubt it will enter service any time soon. It has had a tortuous design since the Ka-60 came out almost three decades ago. The VK-800 is supposed to be used in the LMS-901 Baikal and the UTS-800 trainer aircraft. So if they get the engine to work I think it might be used.

The lack of the VK-800 turboshaft for helicopters isn't too much of an issue because there are no current helicopter designs which would use it. At one time there was a proposal to make the Mil Mi-54 helicopter which would use that class of engine but it never went anywhere.

The Ka-62 was basically all chock full of imported items. Good luck replacing those. After the original 1990s Ka-60 with Russian components was a disaster they redesigned the helicopter with Western components including an Austrian gearbox, and French turboshaft engines. Not that this helped much. Private companies in Russia just bought imported helicopters, and because of all the imported crap in it the Russian government didn't buy any either.

it seems that there is a play by the Omsk region to establish it as the centre of small civil engine production
and even small civil aircraft

And that hits on the problem, not all the actors in this play are interested in getting new modern Russian equipment into service... some companies that used to make stuff want to make that stuff again because it is simpler and cheaper and doesn't need a complete retooling and retrained workforce so you can pay them less too.

The factory that wants to make An-124s should be wanting to make Il-106s and Slons instead as an example.

Companies that want to make Russianised American Honeywell engines should be wanting to make new Russian engines.

The problem for the people with money making the orders is that sometimes getting work to a depressed region is more important than other factors... it was how western agents in Russian airlines could whisper in ears to say that Russian engines are perceived as unreliable and unsafe so if you go with french engines that are mature it will be cheaper because they are mature engines with an existing production base and customer support network in place around the world... if you want to pay extra for new Russian engines then you will need to pay for the development and then go through the painful period of achieving maturity and of course have to pay for a new support network everywhere your airlines fly... so of course it was easy to convince others that western equipment made sense... it would also help get western customers for new Russian aircraft if they had safe reliable western avionics.

Of course those western systems were never cheap... those western companies charged top dollar for their products and their services they got good income from Russia and probably have lots of assets in Russia still that Russia will be able to seize if the west wants to cross that red line of stealing Russian assets in the west.

Now that western companies are blocked from the Russian market, Russian companies who make parts need to fill the gaps before this opportunity ends and other foreign suppliers are found.

yeah Rus are no different to any other country
every regional government wants to retain its own design bureau .... components section .... final production line
which is just crazy re duplication of scarce resources

this is the right direction - the last line is the right strategy ..... Competence centres (so aren't continually reinventing the wheel)

"VASO-UAC
5600 employees, 3 Il-96s under construction, the first experimental passenger Il-96-400M on flight tests, 8 aircraft in service,

dozens of units and aircraft kits for MS-21, IL-114, SJ-100, Il-76,

Competence centers for engine nacelles and pylons! All these are Voronezh aircraft manufacturers!"

from UAC Telegram channel ...

(yeah I didn't know they had 3x Il-96s in assembly .... )

Like I said before there is loads of duplication in the Russian engine portfolio and yet there is a severe shortage of both high and low power engines.

Try looking at how many 25 MW gas pumping turbines there are. I last counted at least four models. These are based on the AL-41, PS-90, PD-14, NK-32 engine cores. Then there are the marine gas turbines. For example the M90FR has roughly similar power as those engines. But good luck finding gas turbines of either lower or higher power rating.

The US and the UK manage to use the same aero engine turbine core to make marine engines. But in Russia they just have to design specific marine engine cores for whatever reason. As if they had more design engineers and production facilities than they knew what to do with them.

I also think they should be more aggressive trying to switch production to the PD-14 engine family. Last I read the PD-14 requires a lower amount of man hours to build than the PS-90. Probably because it has less parts. It also consumes less fuel in operation. So you would think they would be jumping at producing it. But instead they are manufacturing Il-76 and Tu-214 aircraft with PS-90 engines. Each Il-76 has like four PS-90A76s. They could be running with PD-14s.

Right now the PD-14 and PS-90 are being assembled in the same factory. They are basically assembling a worse engine that takes more man hours to build.

I think they need to put the PD-14 into larger serial production and use it in the Il-76 and to replace the PS-90s that are being produced for gas pumping facilities. They also need to finish development of the PD-14M and put that in the Tu-214, Il-96-300, and the MC-21-400.

They should also be considering re-engine programs for the Il-76. At one time this was being done with PS-90 engines. Then they stopped doing it. I think they should continue doing it but with PD-14 engines.

Now that the engine contract to sell D30 engines to China for the Y-20 and H-6K has basically stopped, other than producing engines for the MiG-31 and maintaining the legacy Il-76 fleet, they have a giant factory which is probably doing little much of anything. Maybe they should start producing PD-14 engines at that factory which used to make the D30 as well.

As for Kuznetsov, the sooner they switch from producing three engines for the bombers, to a single one for the PAK DA the better. And hopefully they could then use the spare capacity and technical staff to develop the turboshaft PD-8V that they are working on, plus maybe make a geared turbofan version of the PD-14 for long range versions of the MC-21-400.

this is logical - but it does reinforce that there are quite a lot of engines with similar characteristics
PS, AL, NK ...

The United Engine Corporation has conducted acceptance tests of the new generation UGPA-16(25) unified gas compressor units. The equipment has confirmed the declared characteristics and is now ready for the start of serial production.

The state-of-the-art unified modular gas compressor unit UGPA-16(25) was developed by UEC in cooperation with Gazprom. One of the advantages of the development is the ability to use various types of gas turbine engines of the PS, AL and NK series with a capacity of 16 and 25 MW. At the same time, regardless of the installed drive, the design of the unit remains unchanged.

At present, there is a demand for this equipment from the market and the first technical specifications for the production of products are being drawn up. We estimate the demand for UGPA-16 (25) until 2030 at more than 120 units," said Andrey Vorobyov, General Director of UEC Engineering.

more than 120 by 2030 .....

sounds to me like this unit was designed to take the pressure off Perm
as
I'm sure I read a few years ago Perm delivered its 1000th PS-90 based compressor to Gazprom.
And it said that it was in fact Gazprom that kept Perm afloat during the bad years .... so there will be plenty of PS-90s needing repairs or replacement ....

full article here

https://rostec.ru/news/rostekh-gotov-k-seriynomu-proizvodstvu-gazoperekachivayushchikh-agregatov-novogo-pokoleniya/

Right now the PD-14 and PS-90 are being assembled in the same factory. They are basically assembling a worse engine that takes more man hours to build.

I suspect it is a case that so many orders for both engines right now means taking one out of production to focus on production of the other will cause a gap where less engines are delivered... plus while we know the PD-14 is a fully tested engine, do we know its cost... it might be two or three times the price of the PS-90.

I remember that was the problem with the PS-90 replacing the D-30 because the PS-90 was 6 million dollars per engine, while the D-30 was 800 thousand dollars per engine... so for an aircraft like the Il-76 that means 24 million for four engines vs 3.2 million for four engines... now I suspect maintenance costs will be higher but countering that engine life might be better, buy you are going to have to fly those two planes for quite a long time before the one with the more expensive engines burns 21 million dollars less fuel... especially with military planes that probably get fuel at a cheap rate and are not worried by noise and pollution legislation in western countries.

I think the goal is to get aircraft out as fast as possible and then start changing engines and production... because changing engines will delay production right now when they want flyable planes to replace the foreign planes they have. Once they have Russian planes in service they can look at optimising their performance to get better profitability... or perhaps the Air Force might want to buy some and fund the development for better engines and the airlines can get it done for them on the cheap the way the Boeing and Airbus does things.

Now that the engine contract to sell D30 engines to China for the Y-20 and H-6K has basically stopped, other than producing engines for the MiG-31 and maintaining the legacy Il-76 fleet, they have a giant factory which is probably doing little much of anything.

Should point out the D30 engine in the old Il-76 and the D30 engine in the MiG-31 are not the same... the D30s in the civilian aircraft are the D-30KU on the Il-62M, the D-30KU-154 on the Tu-154M and the D-30KP(2) which is used on the Il-76, Il-78, A-50, and A-40, while the engine in the MiG-31 is the D-30F6... AFAIK they are not related except for a simile designation.

As for Kuznetsov, the sooner they switch from producing three engines for the bombers, to a single one for the PAK DA the better.

They should be producing two now because the Backfire and Blackjack should be able to operate with the same engine, but the introduction of the PAK DA will likely require its own engine.... the engine on the Tu-160 is not ideal for a subsonic long range bomber... a high bypass turbofan would be better, but I suspect higher flight speed could be achieved with a low bypass turbofan.

As far as having a lot of different companies only interested in working at their previous capabilities, even if we have (at least in paper) too many old (but non competitive alternatives) for some power or thrust range, but nothing in important niches, that is to be corrected.

Hopefully companies can be lured to produce newer engine models with a factory upgrade and retooling fund package that would be probably needed to get them making the newer engines...

It is a waste at this moment to try to dedicate resources to either copy a foreign engine or to restart production of an engine from the 1960s, if something in that power range is already being developed by another russian company.

Totally agree... the effort to properly reverse engineer an existing engine should not be underestimated... countries don't do that for fun, they do that because they have not alternative and don't have the 10 years to develop and get working properly their own engines.

Russia has its own engines in development and the extra money and resources put into copying something they are using should be put into the new stuff to replace it instead of copying the old stuff. If some operators want to keep using the old engines they can buy up the engines of all the companies and customers that want the new engines so they should be right for the old engine for the life of the airframes they have. They will of course have to work out supply and support issues for parts etc to keep those running, but that is why they probably want to keep them because they are familiar with how they work and they are simple.

I was thinking at the VK-650 since it is a simple engine and they do not need to use too advanced technologies in this. They just need to make in a relatively short time a new engine which is better than engines designed 50 years ago.

Agree, they need to set up support so it works out cheap and easy to support, which is what I think the current users are worried about and wanting to stick with the old engines.

It is like a Lada car... nothing amazing about it, apart from its simplicity and ease of repair with basic tools. With a modern European car you need a computer and they wont just let anyone access to the software that is needed to use a laptop to find faults and work out how to fix them.

John Deere are the same with their new farm equipment that is all electronic and they wont allow the owner to do anything at all... which is partially understandable because you let some idiot have full access to the systems and their capacity to stuff things up would make support a nightmare, but for little things you would think they would add remote access so a farmer in the middle of nowhere doesn't need to send his tractor 1,000km to the nearest service centre to find it was only a minor problem that the farmer could have fixed on site and not lost access to his tractor at a critical period of his harvest for a week.

I am sure most bush pilot would love to be able to sort most basic problems themselves and then leave more important stuff to full overhauls.

Was watching a Youtube video the other day with a pilots whose plane of choice had moved from a piston propeller to a turboprop design and he said his overhauls now cost $800K which he can't afford with his current business model, so it is important to perhaps have training for overhauling new engines in Russia available so airlines can perhaps pay for an engineers education or two to support these engines so they can do the work inhouse and not keep throwing money at the engine makers for minor things... obviously if they pay for their education then those engineers would be contracted to those airlines till they got their moneys worth.

I did hear a case of a chap who joined the Army in the officers programme and they paid for his University time and paid his wages too so he was earning much more than your average student was and when it came to the final exam in a critical paper he failed... quit the army and completed that last paper with his own money. I believe they managed to sort things out, but what a dirty thing to do... some people have no shame.

Moving forward part of the issue with engines is design... what I mean is you see a lot of single engined fighter aircraft and also a lot of twin engined fighter aircraft, but the triple engined fighters are restricted in modern times to exotic aircraft like Yak-38s and Yak-141s, and four engined fighters are rare... Tu-128s aside.

In civilian aircraft singles and twins and triples and four engined aircraft are normal but the trend is for fewer engines.

In a future where a jet engine stops being the main form of propulsion but instead becomes the electricity generator on an aircraft that has electric motors... propellers or jet engines and then there becomes more flexibility.

A VK-1600 might be too powerful for smaller aircraft, but could be just right for a small aircraft that needs to be VSTOL.

Having four electric motors running four electric propellers on the wingtips of a plane with two main wings that can rotate left to right by maybe 10-15 degrees but can rotate from directly forward to directly backwards is going to need power so a VK-1600 might do better than four smaller engines on each wing.

You might even just have wings that can be angled up to 45 degrees like a Crusader with wingtip motors that can be angled left and right 15-20 degrees... would be an interesting bush plane.

The point I am trying to make is that engines can be APUs in the future too which expands their potential.

AFAIK the idea behind the PD series is that they are modular and scalable so any engine size and power you want you can create an engine based on the existing model without having to start from scratch so it might take 4-5 years instead of 10-15 years.

That is a good idea.