U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

Very well said this time.
Il-114-300 needn't be better than ATR-72. Better than An-24 and An-26 will be enough. More important is that it is available NOW...

Using Russian engines: how import substitution is proceeding for Ansat and Ka-226T helicopters, by Alexey Latyshev for Russian RT. 06.21.2024.

UEC supplied the first VK-650V engines for the import-substituted Ansat helicopter.

The United Engine Corporation supplied the first VK-650V engines to begin testing the import substituted Ansat helicopter. The new units will replace the American PW207K. Also, the VK-650V will be installed on Ka-226T helicopters, which currently use the French Arrius 2G1. According to analysts, over the years of operation, Ansat and Ka-226T have proven themselves well. Import substitution will increase the competitiveness of these machines in the market and eliminate dependence on foreign supplies, experts are sure.

The United Engine Corporation (UEC, part of Rostec) has supplied the first prototype VK-650V engines to begin flight testing of the imported Ansat helicopter, the company's press service reported.

“The first prototypes of the VK-650V, produced at the St. Petersburg enterprise ODK-Klimov, have successfully passed preliminary and life tests. Today at the stands of CIAM named after P.I. Baranov power plants undergo certification tests. In parallel, the VK-650V is being prepared for ground testing as part of the Ansat helicopter, after which a conclusion will be received for the first flight,” the release says.

Director of the VK-650 program at the UEC-Klimov enterprise, Evgeniy Prodanov, noted the importance of the development of this engine for the development of domestic civil aviation.

“Last year, the UEC-Klimov enterprise successfully completed engineering tests of the VK-650V , all the necessary parameters were achieved. Now the equipment is preparing to begin flight design tests. By the end of 2024, we plan to obtain a type certificate and begin mass production next year,” the UEC press service quotes him as saying.

VK-650V is the first Russian engine in the 650-750 hp power class. With. On Ansat it will replace the American PW207K from Pratt & Whitney. After the introduction of Western sanctions, these units are no longer supplied to the Russian Federation.

“Compared to foreign analogues, the VK-650V will have greater take-off power and better specific characteristics,” the UEC emphasized.

In addition, as the corporation notes, the VK-650V can be used on other domestic and foreign helicopters with a take-off weight of up to 4 tons. The design of the engine allows modifications to be created on its basis for various aircraft. In particular, the VK-650V has already been tested as part of an innovative power plant that combines a gas turbine engine and an electric motor, the UEC added.

“They will conduct ground and flight tests”

Let us remind you that Ansat is a light twin-engine multi-purpose helicopter developed by specialists from the Kazan Helicopter Plant (KVZ, part of the Russian Helicopters holding company).

The device is designed to carry passengers and transport cargo (inside the cargo compartment or on an external sling). It can also be used for pilot training, firefighting, search and rescue operations, patrolling, transporting VIP passengers and in air ambulances.

The vehicle can carry up to seven people (or 1166 kg in the transport cabin) and has the most spacious passenger cabin in its class. The design of the helicopter allows it to be quickly transformed into cargo or passenger versions. Ansat's flight range is 505 km, cruising speed is 220 km/h.

“From the very beginning, Ansat-type helicopters were equipped with imported engines. Relevant agreements and contracts were signed with foreign partners. But due to the deterioration of international relations, UEC-Klimov began developing a domestic analogue. Today’s statement by UEC means that the VK-650 has been shipped to the Kazan Helicopter Plant for installation on the Ansat, after which ground and flight tests will be carried out there,” Andrei Fomin, editor-in-chief of the Vzlyot magazine, said in an interview with RT.

For doctors and police

It is worth noting that the VK-650V will replace foreign engines not only on Ansat, but also on the Ka-226T helicopter, which is equipped with Arrius 2G1 units from the French company SAFRAN HE.

The Ka-226T modification was created in 2008 by designers of the National Helicopter Manufacturing Center named after M.L. Mil and N.I. Kamov (part of the Russian Helicopters holding company). The helicopter is made according to the traditional coaxial design for the Kamov Design Bureau, due to which it does not have a tail rotor.

The Ka-226T is a multifunctional machine that can be easily converted to perform various types of tasks. This is achieved due to the modular design, which allows you to change one module to another in about two hours.

In the transport version, the Ka-226T can transport 1 ton of cargo inside the fuselage or on an external sling, and for the transportation of oversized cargo, a cargo platform is installed instead of a transport cabin.

The passenger module allows you to comfortably transport up to seven people. In this segment, the developers envisage the release of a corporate passenger version.

For air ambulances, two versions of the Ka-226T were created: evacuation and resuscitation. The evacuation modification can carry two victims on stretchers and is equipped with all the necessary medical equipment, including oxygen cylinders. The resuscitation helicopter is designed for one patient and two doctors who can provide assistance to the patient during the flight.

A special version of the Ka-226T was also provided for law enforcement officers. The police modification can be used for patrolling, detecting and prosecuting criminals, as well as for traffic control.

In 2023, plans were announced to create a modification for agricultural needs. The corresponding agreement was signed by the Russian Helicopters holding company and the Aerokhimflot aviation alliance.

“It will increase the competitiveness of devices”

Analysts note that Ansat and Ka-226T turned out to be successful projects that found their niche in the market.

“These helicopters are successfully operated in Russia and are widely used, for example, in air ambulances, where they help save lives and provide assistance to victims,” explained Oleg Panteleev, executive director of the AviaPort agency, in a commentary to RT.

According to Andrey Fomin, the VK-650V engine will be a worthy replacement for foreign models.

“There is no doubt that our engine industry will be able to meet this challenge, given the extensive experience in this area. We have been producing helicopter engines for many decades, so I am confident that the problem will be solved,” said Andrei Fomin.

In turn, Oleg Panteleev added that after import substitution and the appearance of domestic engines, Ansat and Ka-226T will become even more reliable and will no longer depend on imported components.

“This will increase the competitiveness of the devices and expand the prospects for their use in various fields,” the expert concluded.

https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/1331148-dvigatel-vk-650v-ansat-ka-226t

More indications that the program to resurrect the D-18T engine is for real.

Large-scale works have been completed at the facility "Construction of a test stand for aircraft engines of JSC UZGA" in Yekaterinburg

29.06.2018

From 2016 to 2018, our company carried out work on the construction of unique buildings and structures of a new test stand for ground testing of the D-18T engine of JSC Ural Plant of Civil Aviation within the framework of the State Program for Import Substitution in the Aircraft Industry.

The developer of the working and design documentation, as well as the general contractor for the construction of this facility, is the leading domestic company in this industry, OAO GIPRONIIAVIAPROM, Moscow, with which AO SOYUTEPLOSTROY has already collaborated in the implementation of reconstruction projects at the enterprises of AO Kuznetsov, Samara, and AO MKB Fakel, Khimki.

https://zaosts.ru/news/zakoncheny-raboty-po-betonirovaniyu-sha/

It makes no sense to spend too much energy reviving this engine.

It is not a great engine and when the PD-35 is working then it becomes an unnecessary engine.

As a stopgap being able to assemble a few of these things to keep their An-124s flying makes good sense, and will enable the An-124 to continue to be used for the next decade or two, but what they need is an An-22 replacement and a An-124 replacement in the form of the Slon... that is two PD-35s and four PD-35s... so when both of those aircraft are in serial production the An-124 can be used till their airframe lives run out and be withdrawn.

The production capacity to make An-124 should be shifted to produce an An-22 replacement and then an An-124 replacement... so after refurbishing the An-124s in storage and into service they can then start making prototypes of the aircraft to replace Soviet types.

The thing is the power level of the PD-35 is still not decided. After Russia left the CR929 project the demand for a 35 tf engine ceased. They could just as easily go for a 28 tf engine. And then this can be detuned and used in the An-124.

A 28 tf engine would have enough power level to make the Il-76 a twin engine. It could be used in a higher power 32 tf version in a short twin engine Il-96-300. And it could be used in a detuned 24 tf version on the An-124 quad engine.

This would basically be an engine with twice the power of the PD-14. Much like you have the 12 tf  PD-14A, the 14 tf PD-14, the 16 tf PD-14M, you would get a 24 tf PD-28A, a 28 tf PD-28, and a 32 tf PD-28M.

It is what Manturov said. The size of the engine has not been decided.

“By 2030, an engine with the working name PD-35 should already appear. It is not a fact that it will be 35 tonnes, it will probably be smaller, with a thrust of 26 tonnes to 35 tonnes. We will understand in March next year more precisely in what form the engine will be created. The engine demonstrator is planned to be produced in March 2024,” he said.

https://ruavia.su/the-second-stage-of-tests-of-the-pd-35-engine-gas-generator-was-held-at-ciam/

Alexander Inozemtsev who is the head of Aviadvigatel also basically confirms as much.

The PD-35 gas generator has already passed the tests and in the future will become the basis for the creation of engines in the thrust range from 24 to 38 tonnes.

https://ruavia.su/alexander-inozemtsev-told-about-the-timing-of-the-pd-35-engine-testing-start-date/

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Exactly, and soviet Union and its successors spent massive amount of money for the civil certification of that aircraft.

Western certifications of Russian aircraft are worthless since they just voided them. Certifications for military planes are always much more simplified than for commercial ones. So we should not over emphasize their importance on the An-124 or its replacement.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:The D-18T has some issue, but a modernised version of it could solve a lot of problems for that aircraft, while not requiring to redo the majority of the tests.

It is an extremely complicated engine. A modern engine would have less parts and be much cheaper to manufacture. It could also solve the D-18T issues with engine surges.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:At the moment no new engine is planned in exactly that thrust range (around 23- 25 tons takeoff thrust). There could be something in the future, but at least not for the next 10 years. Current priority is certification of the PD-14 and PD-8, followed by PD-35 and either PD-16 or PD-18R.

Some variants of the PD-35 would have that thrust level. But unlike what the head of Rostec says I think the engine would only be available by 2030 at best. As for PD-16 aka PD-14M that is a minor modification of the PD-14 so it should be available quickly. The PD-18R will require a lot of research to make a geared turbofan so it might take longer to show up than the PD-35 engines.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:The slon with 4 PD-35 is also not a priority. Those engines will be more needed for the new large twin engine widebody derived from the il-96, which I hope will also come in a military transport /tanker version.

Well it depends on what they decide to do. There seem to be multiple ideas of what the next large transport aircraft will be.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:First priority now is the Il-212 (an-72 replacement), then the An-12 replacement (in whatever form it will be, i.e. two turbofans, 2 large turboprops (PD-8S?) of about 10000 hp (or more) or 4 PDV4000 turboprops (about 5000 ho each), which would mean a similar configuration to the An-12.

Il-212 still does not have an engine. The PD-8 is delayed. They claim the engine will be ready by the end of next year but that is kind of optimistic. They only started the flight tests late last year and they do not seem to have gone that well. If you want a large turboprop the only thing available is the NK-12MPM used in the Tu-95 upgrade program.

An An-12 replacement could be the Il-276 with the PD-14M engines. I think it was a huge mistake of them to cancel this aircraft. It might lead India to buy the KC-390. And they had an engine. Even if the PD-14M hadn't been available they could have used some PS-90 variant.

I do not think the lack of the PD-8 is that much of a big deal. The Russian market already has basically all the SSJs it needs. They can use the same proven engine core in the PD-14 to make a PD-10 engine. This was originally planned for the SSJ-130 stretch version with new composite wings. They would keep the fuselage (stretch it) and rest of systems, but with a new composite wing, and PD-10 engines for carrying 130 passengers instead of 95 plus a longer range. This would compete with aircraft like the Airbus A220. I think this would be a much better fit for Russia. The aircraft would require the new wing because the current wing just too low on the runway which means you need to have a reduced engine diameter that would not fit PD-10 and a larger aircraft needs a new wing anyway.

The main issue with not having the PD-8 is what would happen to the Be-200 and Mi-26. But those are mostly niche capabilities.

I still think PD-8 engine will show up eventually. Saturn is usually pretty reliable. But it might take a while.

New aircraft are a pain in the ass. An-124 is very good. What they need is new and modeen engines and a rework to include modern stuff.

It is an old Soviet design they have already spent too much money on upgrading... putting the D-18 engines back into production means they would be spending money to revive an old jet engine from the 1970/80s that wasn't amazing to begin with. They had problems with them at the time... pissing more money down that hole is a total waste of time and money.

What they need is to get their new engines working and tested and into serial production, and to get new aircraft designs into serial production so they can take advantage of their experience and the new technology and capabilities the new designs can offer.

They already have their hands full with new projects that are much more important like russianised ssj-100, MS-21, il-112, Il-114... they need to prioritize money spending on them and new engines rather than on very limited aircraft like a pak-ta that will be bought in small numbers and used very little.

They have plenty of talent and expertise and making Russian planes is what they should be doing, rather than resurrecting old Soviet types that are dead ends.

Being able to service D-18s so they can put the An-124s they do have into service makes sense but no other aircraft type they have any plans for would use an engine in that thrust range of 24-25 tons so being able to remake the entire engine does not make sense at all.

Il-112 and Il-212 and Il-114 were waiting for engines... and from what they have said about the Il-114 it seems the engines are sorted, which means they are likely good enough for an Il-112 as well, though I think the Il-212 should go ahead anyway as a replacement for the An-72 and as a long range heavier and faster Il-112 type.

The Il-476 is already all Russian and the Il-276 should be straight forward to design and produce.

With the Tu-214/204 family being improved and adapted to what the customers wanted means they are less like a stop gap measure and more like a viable alternative for companies and countries that don't want other types.

For their heavy military transporters they will be good with updated il-76, il-96-400M and An-124 for the next 50 years. Il-96-400M is the better since it comes in a civilian version that is really needed.

The Il-96-400M only makes sense with PD-35 engines and those same engines will power the replacement for the An-22 and the An-124 in the form of a Il-106 and Slon type respectively.

The D-18T has some issue, but a modernised version of it could solve a lot of problems for that aircraft, while not requiring to redo the majority of the tests.

It is an old engine based on a dead end design, investing money to bring it back to service is a waste of funds.

The PD-35 is vastly more promising and more useful and could be used on three aircraft types instead of the D-18s one.

Actually its fuel consumption is not bad compared to foreign equivalent (GE CF6). The main problem from what I understand is that it had some maintenance issues (lower time on wing ans shorter maintenance interval)and possibly vibration/noise issues but this is only because ivchenko-progress and motor sich never worked properly on the issue.

It was unreliable and not a great engine... it was used because there was no other engine type in that thrust rating in production in Russia/Soviet Union.

At the moment no new engine is planned in exactly that thrust range (around 23- 25 tons takeoff thrust).

Which suggests they don't plan to continue using the An-124s, or might be going to switch them to PD-35s... perhaps as an An-22 replacement.

There could be something in the future, but at least not for the next 10 years. Current priority is certification of the PD-14 and PD-8, followed by PD-35 and either PD-16 or PD-18R.

The lack of a requirement for such an engine thrust class type suggests that putting the D-18 into production is a waste of resources too.

The slon with 4 PD-35 is also not a priority. Those engines will be more needed for the new large twin engine widebody derived from the il-96, which I hope will also come in a military transport /tanker version.

The An-22 was very useful as it filled a niche above the Il-76 but was not as expensive as the An-124... and was probably easier to fill than the larger aircraft... which suggests an Il-106 type would be more useful and more urgent.

The retirement of the An-22 meant the An-124s would be used more for lighter loads, so introducing an Il-106 to take over that  role would reduce the need for An-124s and get things moved around cheaper and faster.

Furthermore a new large aircraft which is just a bit larger than the An-124 is not worth.

With Russia dealing directly more with the Global south, longer ranged aircraft are only going to become more useful.

That video I posted with the new engine that could be used on the Tu-214 to extend its flight range to 13,000km would make it an ideal replacement for the Il-38 May, and a range of other types in the Russian military. In fact AWACS and Inflight Refuelling tanker might be useful jobs for such a type too in the future.

Russia can just build An-124 and could start working on an modernised version of it.

They are not using all of the An-124s they have now so putting it into production is a bit premature.

Taking that production potential to make a dozen Il-106 prototypes makes rather more sense... perhaps a half dozen Tu-330 prototypes too to speed up development and get those ready for production and use... making more An-124s does not make any sense at all... it is a dead end.

By all means keep them operating, but they have no long term future.

First priority now is the Il-212 (an-72 replacement), then the An-12 replacement (in whatever form it will be, i.e. two turbofans, 2 large turboprops (PD-8S?) of about 10000 hp (or more) or 4 PDV4000 turboprops (about 5000 ho each), which would mean a similar configuration to the An-12.

The original An-72 was supposed to replace the An-24/25/26 types and the An-32 hot and high model, so if they can get the Il-212 right it could largely replace most of those types in one go, with Il-114 and Il-112 being also made to replace the lighter types as its engine gets better.

The last report about the Il-114 seems to suggest the reliability of the engines has improved and the power rating is also better too... So if that continues the Il-112 might be good to go without any radical changes, but I think a jet Il-212 makes sense anyway.

The thing is the power level of the PD-35 is still not decided. After Russia left the CR929 project the demand for a 35 tf engine ceased. They could just as easily go for a 28 tf engine. And then this can be detuned and used in the An-124.

If they want an An-22 replacement and an An-124 replacement then the PD-35 makes good sense, and can also be used on the Il-96 to make a heavy twin jet that will be rather useful too.

Reducing the engine power would not make much sense unless you are trying to find a use for An-124s, and why would they?

Once the Il-106 and Slon designs are ready to go (and the Il-106 was ready for prototyping and testing) then they can make test prototypes in the factories that would have made An-124s... side by side with refurbishing Antonovs from storage... using them up makes sense rather than scrapping them.

This would basically be an engine with twice the power of the PD-14. Much like you have the 12 tf  PD-14A, the 14 tf PD-14, the 16 tf PD-14M, you would get a 24 tf PD-28A, a 28 tf PD-28, and a 32 tf PD-28M.

Which does not make sense making engines for power ratings that are not needed by any planned or existing aircraft type.

PD-18s and PD-14s make sense, but the others are just fancy.

What is the advantage for having a brand new engine for the An-124 if they can produce the D-18T in a modernised version which solves the and short maintenance interval issue?

The efficiency of the D-18T is not bad at all, that was the least of the issues.

The An-124 doesn't need new engines... once Il-106 and Slon are ready they can sell the An-124s to western companies who can put western engines and avionics in them and service western transport needs... undercutting A-400M and C-17s used in the role.

Why on earth should Russia then finalise the PD-35 as a 28 tons thrust engine?

If Russia is keeping the An-124s there is no need for PD-35s... the Il-96s could have four D-18TMs...

I repeat: as long as the production and maintenance interval issues of the D-18T are solved, there is no need of a completely new engine for the An-124, just moderate upgrade to the existing engine (i.e. new fadec, possibly improved materials, similar to the PS-90A2 and A3M versions in comparison to the original PS-90).

Agree, there is no other platform that would use an engine in that power rating and they are better off developing new aircraft than continuing to use these planes forever.

It is what Manturov said. The size of the engine has not been decided.

They have already said that options for engines including going up to a PD-50... perhaps instead of changing ratings for engines they should stick with the naming convention and rather than calling a 28 ton thrust engine a PD-35 they should name them more accurately... PD-28.

It is an extremely complicated engine. A modern engine would have less parts and be much cheaper to manufacture. It could also solve the D-18T issues with engine surges.

Then they should focus on simplification upgrades to keep them running until the PD-35 is available and new aircraft that use the new engine can displace and then replace the aircraft and its problematic engines.

Il-212 still does not have an engine. The PD-8 is delayed. They claim the engine will be ready by the end of next year but that is kind of optimistic. They only started the flight tests late last year and they do not seem to have gone that well. If you want a large turboprop the only thing available is the NK-12MPM used in the Tu-95 upgrade program.

The Il-114 seems to be making progress and they said the engine is more reliable and more powerful so maybe the Il-112V can be pursued at the same time.

An An-12 replacement could be the Il-276 with the PD-14M engines. I think it was a huge mistake of them to cancel this aircraft.

Who said it was cancelled?

It makes no sense to cancel the aircraft... it could just use the same engines the Il-476 uses and they could all upgrade to a new PD type engine when such an engine is ready and available.

In theory such engine could be used on the An-2 (derated) and on the An-38.

If there is only one An-38 operating then I would say a twin engined Baikal might be a better alternative with this engine...

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:they are going probably to reverse engineer the Honeywell TPE-331 (even if it is an old engine and it will probably need until 2028) for the TVS-2MS (modernised An-2).

In addition Russia mentioned possibly making a turboprop (aircraft engine version) derivative of the VK-1600 of the Ka-62. Such engine will have a takeoff power of 1400 hp (derated version 1200 hp).
In theory such engine could be used on the An-2 (derated) and on the An-38.

I do not understand the meaning of reverse engineering the foreign TPE-331 when another company is planning to do a turboprop derivative of the VK1600, but possibly it is because they are different companies and they do not want to put all eggs into one basket.

VK-1600 will be much more advanced than the Honeywell engine and should have higher lifetime and lower fuel consumption. For example it has film cooled turbine blades. The main issue is it is not proven as an engine yet, and it is not in serial production yet.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:the engine department of the Ural civil aviation plant is developing the VK-800SM, while its original designer (Klimov) stopped working on it.

The same Ural company is going to produce the D-18T engine. They seem to be shaping up as some sort of Motor Sich replacement. As for Klimov they are busy with VK-650, VK-1600, and the TV7 and VK-2500M engine programs. The helicopters which were supposed to use VK-800 got cancelled. And the engine is an older design they made before modern computer design methods. I think that is why Klimov dumped it.

Once they have a VK-1600 turboprop engine they could make an aircraft with it. In the 1990s there was the Su-80 transport aircraft which used such power level engines.

The An-38 could be considered redundant, unless there are airlines that want exactly an airplane for 26-30 passengers instead of a smaller one for 19 passengers or a larger one for about 40 passengers.

The purpose of the exercise is to get rid of the old and bring in the new and offer Russian alternatives to foreign designs that have so far dominated the Russian market and the world market.

The An-28 and An-38 were failed attempts to replace the An-2, so no need to get them flying again.

The An-124 is an amazing design and it is much more modern and with more modernisation potential than the Il-76.
Its main limitation was the engine.

With the knowledge and experience of using them they should be able to develop a slightly smaller rather cheaper twin engined model (IL-106) and with the more powerful engines, create a larger heavier aircraft that is even better (Slon).

Once they have those two types, the type in the middle no longer makes a lot of sense other than they will already have them and might as well continue to use them until they are worn out and not replace them. Another option would be to sell them to western companies who can replace their engines with Rolls Royce or GE engines of their choice and take jobs from C-17 operators and A400M operators.

Concerning the engine, the main problem was that it was made in country 404 and it was never properly upgraded.

They just need to be able to keep the engines running for another decade or two and then it wont matter. Investing in putting the engine into production and presumably digitalising the design is a waste of time and money... stopgap engine for a stopgap plane.

If you put it back into production then those production facilities wont be available to make the new Russian designed planes that will replace it.

Anyway there is no chance that a An-124 replacement of new development can be ready before 2035.

Well that is your opinion, but I disagree... with proper support and funding the Il-106 should not be that far from testing and production... remember they have supercomputers now and digital engine and aircraft models that should speed up the design and testing process.

In the meanwhile the An-124 can be produced ideally in a modernised version (similarly to what has been done for the Il-76). Furthermore by 2035 new generation engines will be available in that thrust range (24- 28 tons), and the An-124 could be further upgraded then.

They don't have a lot of An-124s in use, and yet they have over a dozen in storage, but you want them to make more for an engine Russia does not produce?

I would say putting the An-124 production facilities to work making other types they do want made would make more sense... in addition to making a few prototypes of new aircraft for testing.

They were not producing new An-124 because they could not, not because they did not want.

They weren't making them because they don't have engines for them and they have them in storage because they weren't using them that much.

Their new focus on trade with the rest of the world will mean large transport planes will only become more useful over time.

They could probably need engine in the thrust range of the D-18T.

But a PD-24 or PD-26 would make more sense than digging up a corpse.

Russia don't have the capacity to create so many aircraft at once... even russianization of the ssj-100 will be hard.

Design bureaus design. Aircraft families can share designs and design solutions. The Il-276 is an Il-476 with fewer engines and shorter wings and fuselage... in many ways it is the same plane.

The Il-106 was essentially already developed and the Slon can be to the Il-106 what the Il-476 is to the Il-276... longer, wider, double the number of engines.

Or if they think they can do better they can design a Slon four engined heavy transport and then make a smaller twin engined version for the An-22 role.

Everyone is complaining it wont be done by 2035... well so what if it takes that long?

Why is everyone in such a hurry?

Big miliatary cargo planes are barely used. An-124 or pak-ta who really cares.

So why are they even talking about PD-35s... why not just save money and cancel An-124s and just make even more Il-476s?

VK-1600 will be much more advanced than the Honeywell engine and should have higher lifetime and lower fuel consumption. For example it has film cooled turbine blades. The main issue is it is not proven as an engine yet, and it is not in serial production yet.

Well a Russian reverse engineered American engine is not ready yet either, so instead of wasting money copying a foreign engine, it would make more sense to invest more resources into speeding up the Russian design with more prototypes and more testing, and then the money that would be used to put the American engine into production could be used to increase the production base for the new Russian engine which can not only go in new aircraft and drones, but also be made in numbers to replace the old engines in existing aircraft to purge that engine from the inventory.

The same Ural company is going to produce the D-18T engine. They seem to be shaping up as some sort of Motor Sich replacement

What a waste of time and money. Motor Sich is dead and its products are being replaced with Russian engines... there is not need to raise corpses.

Regarding the VK-800 being cancelled...

VK-800SM engine becomes key for turboprop regional jets
25.05.2024, 16:17
Photo by CIAM Press Service

The history of the turboprop engine VK-800CM originates from the project of helicopter engine VK-800B development of the St. Petersburg enterprise FSUE Plant named after Klimov. The power plant was to replace the turboshaft engine PW-207K, which was used for Ansat helicopters until 2022.

The work at Klimov was carried out in the period from 2003 to 2007. During this time a complete set of documentation for VK-800V was developed, a preliminary design was produced, a prototype engine was manufactured and successfully passed bench tests.

Since 2008, work on VK-800V was carried out on a proactive basis at the expense of the company’s own funds. It can be said that during the next ten years the work on the engine was practically cancelled, and it was decided to adapt the VK-650 engine for Ansat. In fact, work on a new version – the VK-800SM for the LMS-901 Baikal aircraft began at the turn of 2018-2019.

The decision on the VK-800C project was made in the spring of 2018, its reconfiguration for the Baikal required a significant redesign of the turboshaft VK-800B. UZGA carried out this work together with LLC “Research and Production Centre Blades. Compressors. Turbines”. On the part of UZGA, the VK-800SM was developed by specialists from its St. Petersburg propulsion division, the backbone of which was made up of the former staff of the Pratt-Whitney Russia branch (PWRus), which was closed in 2014 by overseas sanctioners. Having analysed the design documentation for the VK-800B, the design engineers came to the conclusion that for the aircraft version, the project required a complete redesign, which was done in the shortest possible time.

In September 2019, TsIAM issued approval for an advance design for the use of the VK-800C engine as the aircraft’s propulsion system, with a recommendation to develop both twin-engine and single-engine versions of the aircraft. In the same month, the technical documentation of the VK-800C engine for adaptation to the Baikal was transferred to UZGA.

The VK-800SM is designed according to the traditional scheme for engines of this size: a compressor with one highly loaded high-efficiency centrifugal stage and a single-stage turbine. The free turbine is a two-stage turbine.

A distinctive feature is the use of film cooling in the design of the VK-800SM combustion chamber, which reduces the cooling air consumption and significantly increases the engine efficiency. Modern technologies of casting turbine blades using heat-resistant alloys will contribute to the improvement of resource characteristics. The most careful attention is paid to engine reliability, given its use as part of the propulsion system of the single-engine LMS-901 Baikal.

At the end of 2022, UZGA delivered the first prototype VK-800SM to the TsIAM bench. In the period from 15 January to 17 March 2023, the autonomous engine combustion chamber unit was successfully bench tested as part of the development work. The tests were conducted to confirm the calculated parameters of the combustion chamber operation and to verify its ignition in the entire range of operating altitudes. The results obtained during the tests showed a serious exceeding of the launch altitude in relation to the technical specification. Reliable ignition of the combustion chamber at altitudes up to 8000 m was confirmed. During the tests of the gas generator on the test bench, UZGA and CIAM specialists performed more than 100 launches with testing of ignition from a single spark plug and with reduced mains voltage. All of them were successful.

It was planned to transfer the VK-800SM for flight testing as part of the Yak-40LL flying laboratory to SibNIA at the end of 2023. In the third quarter of 2024, the first flight of the Baikal aircraft with the new engine should take place, and the completion of certification of the VK-800SM is scheduled for the end of this year. However, so far there have been no reports on the start of flight tests either from Novosibirsk or Yekaterinburg, which may suggest that the certification of both the engine and the Baikal aircraft will be delayed, and the start of serial production of the aircraft will also be delayed.

In addition to the LMS-901 Baikal, the VK-800SM engine is awaiting the projects of the joint Russian-Belarusian aircraft LMS-192 Osvey and the UTS-800 training aircraft, which makes this propulsion system key for the further development of both small aircraft for regional air transportations and the prospective training aircraft.

Source

While looking up the above article I also found this:

“The TV7-117ST-01 engine is an aviation turboprop engine with a free turbine, designed for use as part of the power plant of the IL-114-300 aircraft. It is based on the engine TV7-117S/SM, equipped with a modernized digital control unit BARK-65SM and adapted for the propeller AV112-114 development of NPP Aerosila, which is also undergoing certification, “- said in the message Rosaviatsiya.

Turboprop engines are divided into twin-shaft or free turbine and single-shaft. In the first case there is no mechanical connection between the gas generator and the transmission, the drive between the compressor turbine and the free turbine is only gas-dynamic. From the free turbine there is a separate shaft, which transmits the torque to the propeller through a reducer. In the second case, the turbine with the compressor and the propeller are on the same shaft.

The use of a free turbine has several advantages, including the possibility of operating the power unit of the aircraft on the ground as an auxiliary power unit – without the rotation of the propeller, with the working gas generator provides the aircraft with electricity and high pressure air for on-board systems.

So not only is the engine a widely used helicopter engine used in fixed wing, helicopter and also drone platforms, but it can also be used as an APU generator supplying electricity and compressed air for ground functions too..

Source

I do not understand why the An-124 is a old soviet project and a stop gap while the il-76 is not.

The An-124 started as a 120 ton payload aircraft with foreign engines (foreign to Russia). It is currently about a 150 ton payload capacity aircraft still with foreign engines.

Russia has to spend money to be able to keep the engines going by adapting the engines to Russian parts, or to make parts Motor Sich and other companies made for it to run.

They are making a new engine... the PD-35 which is in a completely different power class... not quite powerful enough to keep the An-124 and make it a twin jet, and rather too powerful to put four engines on an An-124... perhaps a fuselage stretch and significant weight increase... a redesign basically.

The Il-476 was not shifting that much, the 60 ton payload model had already been designed and really all it is is an Il-76 with various upgrades and improvements but also more engine power... which is normal because that is why they developed the PD family of engines, to upgrade their aircraft.

If you look at the list of aircraft needing replacement, they are mostly foreign types... An-24/25/26/32/72, An-22, An-12, and An-124.

The new aircraft don't mention An even when based on them like Siberian upgrades of the An-2 which are essentially An-3s really.

This is because the An-2 is an amazing design optimised perfectly for a niche role that hasn't really changed a lot.

The Baikal can't match its short field performance and flight safety... if you have total engine failure in an An-2 you just get her into level flight and pull the stick back hard as the speed drops to below stall speed... it will descend at a safe landing speed... if the ground is flat you have a very good chance of survival.

Of course with only on wing the Baikal will fly faster which means it will get from place to place faster which I am sure the passengers will appreciate.

They have developed new engines and the fact that they didn't develop an engine in the An-124 class suggests they don't intend to have an aircraft in that category... the PD-35 means an An-22 like aircraft with two engines and a bigger heavier aircraft in the 180 ton payload class above the An-124 would make sense, but unless they have some exotic flying wing design with three engines it would not make sense to have an aircraft in the An124s 150 ton payload class.

Maybe a tail mounted single engine and two pylon under wing engines where the three engines are used for takeoff but the tail mounted engine is shutdown for flight to reduce fuel burn for efficient long range cruise flight...

It is not the priority now, but in my opinion a Il-76 replacement is more important than a An-124 replacement (which only needs a modernisations).

I would say the opposite... the upgraded Il-476 fully meets the requirements of a new aircraft in that weight and payload class... any improved performance with a brand new from scratch design would be marginal as both would be using new engines which is where a lot of performance improvements come from.

Equally it is not just the Il-476 but the Il-78 replacements and the A-100 platforms all using the upgraded design that are new and don't need replacing any time soon.

This is further compounded by the Il-276 design which would make no sense at all if the Il-476 is to be replaced, so you would not only ruin all the money invested in boosting the Il-476 production (and other variant types), but you would also have to restart any work on the Il-276 that has been done already which would mean replacements for the An-12 wont be meeting their 2030 deadlines either.

In comparison the An-124 is in service and they have a dozen or so in storage, so they clearly don't need them desperately or they would have been taken out and cleaned up and put into service.

The delays of copying the D-18T and the costs would be better spent speeding up PD-35 development, because that is the long term solution leading to an An-22 replacement and a Slon replacement for the An-124... they could be scaled versions of the same type... depending on where the Slon design actually is it could be a scaled down Slon and a Slon in two and four engine configuration, or it may be that they are Il-106 aircraft with two and four engines in the two different models each scaled to different lengths with the same cargo cross section, but longer fuselages and longer wings etc.

A third model that can carry oversized loads on its back to perform An-225 type missions makes sense IMHO, but perhaps large airships might assume that role as they are not as fast obviously, but don't require runways or roads or rail lines etc etc.

Furthermore they have already put a lot of efforts in acquiring the capability to fully produce An-124 (and they still have the tooling and equipment in Ulyanovsk).

And that capacity will not be wasted... it can upgrade and maintain the existing An-124s and those in storage for a couple of years and then make some prototypes for the An-22 replacement and the Slon... the lighter An-22 replacement should be a very useful aircraft that will be rather popular because it will be able to do most jobs the An-124 can do, but will be cheaper and lighter. They could also include inflight refuelling for very long range missions around the world. The Slon is probably not going to be made in enormous numbers but I think it will still be useful and worth the investment.

As far as the engine if Russia is in 2 or 3 years capable of fully producing D-18T then they should just do that, and then in 2035 or switch to the new PD-24/PD-26/PD-28, once those will be made for civilian planes.

The money and effort is wasted on a stopgap engine they wont ever develop further. Russia seems to be able to maintain the engines... if there are only a dozen more aircraft in storage... even assuming they don't have engines then they can stay in storage and just maintain those aircraft in use.

Developing PD24/26/28 should not receive funding for a long time because it will just reduce the requirement for PD-35.

If you are looking at a two and four engine aircraft combination the 24/26/28 ton thrust engines are probably only viable with two 28 ton engines for an An-22 like aircraft with perhaps 70 ton payload options... which makes it a bit too close to the Il-476.

With PD16s the Il-476 could probably expand to 70 ton payloads as that is the equivalent of giving them an extra engine at takeoff... (with the Il-476 having 12 ton thrust times four at takeoff now). With two 28 ton thrust engines it might work but then you lose commonality with the Il-276 and need a redesign of the wing...

It still takes a lot of time. You have seen how much the import substitution for the MC-21 and SJ100 is lasting.
In aerospace all programs are very long, with new aircraft requiring about 10 years and new engines even more.

I am not amongst the children who demand concrete results tomorrow or everyone gets fired.

I do think that they should be looking forward and looking to Russian rather than looking back and remaking old American or Soviet gear because it was easier.

When the conflict in the Ukraine and the west races to drop sanctions so they can go back into the Russian market and start selling western aircraft an western engines are you happy for them to just forget everything and buy Boeing and Airbus and western engines?

Whether you are happy or not I would suggest that Russia is done with the west in that regard and will prefer to work with their own designs and technology and that includes future Ukraine and new Russian regions that used to be Ukrainian.

If you want old names revived like Antonov and Motor Sich then you will have to expect other names to be revived too like Bandera and Zelensky and Poroshenko.

I agree on the an-22 replacement being important, possibly called again il-106, but they need to decide if it will be a 4 engines airplane (using PD-18R) or a 2 engines airplane (using PD-35). Neither engine will be available before 2030 and probably the development of the aircraft will take even more (because all the work done until 2022 was basically into doing a An-124 under another name).

I think they would end up making rather more An-22 replacements than they would making An-124s or An-124 replacements and I think for export it will prove a rather more popular aircraft because its extra size can be converted into extra flight range or reduced range with extra load meaning it could be a C-17 equivalent, or a very short ranged An-124 if it offsets some fuel it might be able to carry say 110 tons with inflight refuelling. Or if you limit the payload to 60 tons you could carry extra fuel to extend the flight range to strategic ranges (10,000km plus) for very long flights without landing for fuel.

Here in New Zealand we could use longer ranged aircraft... our C-130 hercs sound good but when we fly to Australia that is a 2,000km trip in each direction... when we visit pacific islands we often have to island hop to refuel... which is terrible because most of the islands use fuel for electricity generation and fuel is already expensive so having our aircraft arrive and take even more fuel is a bad thing really.

If we had Il-76s or now Il-476s we could fly in one trip without hopping and we could deliver fuel to some places instead of using up their expensive reserves.

It would also be faster and more comfortable... flying over the weather instead of through it, and carrying a useful payload too.

The extra payload capacity means when you are flying to the islands you can carry a bit of extra fuel to deliver rather than using up their supplies.

The Il-276 has not been cancelled, but the project has been frozen. Possibly it will stay frozen until the Il-212 is certified or close to it.

It is probably more important to replace the the lighter Antonovs... like the An-24/25/26/32 types first so the Il-212 will actually be a good plane to get going first... especially as it can also replace the An-72 as well... which adds the interesting option of perhaps a new version of the unsuccessful An-71 perhaps...

A replacement for the An-12 makes sense and there were enough different variants and modifications of the An-12 to justify making it in relatively large numbers too... but it possibly is not quite so urgent.

It will increase demand for the engines the Il-476 uses, but then it can transition to different engines if needed... for instance the Il-476 is using PS90 engines of different types AFAIK but can eventually transition to PD engines of 12 or 14 or 16 or perhaps even 18 depending on what the customer wants, and the smaller lighter Il-276 could probably use any of those types too... with the more powerful engines perhaps boosting payload and MTOW to allow better range performance and payload class.

I imagine that there will be a complete revision of the il-276 program anyway, since it was done in the years in which Ilyushin had several issues, and they do not want to repeat the problems that hampered the il-112 and other programs.

The concept behind the Il-276 is to just make it a smaller lighter Il-476... complete revisions would be counter productive.

A slightly more powerful engine could make up for any performance shortfalls allowing extra fuel and extra payload options.

As I said, for that they have the turbofan engines (PS-90 or PD-14/PD-14M), but it could be also possible that it might have a different configuration (4 PDV-4000 turboprops or 2 PD-8S turboprop derived from the new Mi-26 engine (PD-8V turboshaft, still in development).

With the experience of completing the Il-212 I would say the only modification I would think was worth while for the Il-276 would be to move the engines to the top of the wing like the Il-212/An-72 for short and rough field operations.

Those turboprop engines are not ready yet, but the decision on the plane is still unclear anyway.

Honestly I think such designs would mainly appeal to the VDV for paradrop roles and in that situation rather than Il-276 platforms being considered, they will more likely think about Il-476s with turboprops instead.

To be clear I am not saying anyone else is wrong and I am right, I am just stating my opinion in what I think is best for Russia and her future.

Composite air intake for PD-35 engine to undergo testing as part of PD-14, 10.14.2024.

Specialists from the Voronezh Joint-Stock Aircraft Manufacturing Company (VASO) have manufactured a prototype, fully composite air intake for the PD-14 aircraft engine. The work was carried out by order of the Perm enterprise UEC-Aviadvigatel as part of the creation of a scientific and technical reserve for the high-power PD-35 engine. This was reported by the press service of the United Engine Corporation.

"Preparation for production and manufacturing of the air intake for the PD-14 engine nacelle with natural laminar flow were carried out at the request of our Perm partners to create a scientific and technical reserve for the PD-35. Traditionally, the design of the nacelle air intake includes an aluminum heated nose, but at its junction the air flow breaks off and creates aerodynamic resistance, which increases fuel consumption.

The new development is designed to dramatically reduce this effect by changing the design and technological scheme," said Dmitry Mitin, head of the PD-14 and PD-8 VASO programme.

A liquid or gas flow in which the trajectories of the particles of the medium are almost parallel to the direction of the main flow is called laminar. The maximally smooth surface of the airframe units ensures the creation of a laminar flow, which does not allow the air to break into swirls and increase aerodynamic resistance. According to specialists from UEC-Aviadvigatel and TsAGI, laminar flow around the surface of the composite structure of the fairing will reduce the loss of effective engine thrust in the aircraft to one percent.

The implementation of the design solution required VASO specialists to propose to the nacelle fairing developers to make original changes to the working drawings. Complex equipment was manufactured, a method was thought out to achieve uniform heating in the autoclave of a large-sized unit laid out on equipment made of prepregs. In just one month, VASO technologists and manufacturers implemented many other ideas and improvements.

The PD-14 engine with an experimental air intake will be installed on the Il-76 flying laboratory to conduct a series of tests and measurements. Based on their results, it will be possible to evaluate the real effect of natural laminar flow.

https://aviation21.ru/kompozitnyj-vozduxozabornik-dlya-dvigatelya-pd-35-projdyot-ispytaniya-v-sostave-pd-14/

If it is not used for Cruise It Is a useless complication and you do not save as much.

Yes during takeoff on a 2 engine aircraft either engine has tò be able tò ensure a successfull takeoff even in case of failure of the other engine, but in normal condition It Is not like the engine Is resting in comparison tò takeoff condition.

At cruise it is not running at low Power, It Is running at the most efficient condition for that altitude and Speed

If you think about the afterburner on a fighter plane that is on a ferrying mission... it would takeoff full of fuel and with no external ordinance and probably a few full drop tanks.... this will make it rather heavy so it will use afterburner to takeoff quickly and be able to climb to altitude, but it wont keep the after burner on for the entire flight, it will use it to accelerate quickly but once it is in the air and the undercarriage is retracted and the aircraft is climbing at a steady rate and the takeoff flaps have been retracted the pilot will turn off the afterburner but keep a relatively high thrust setting to continue climbing till it gets to an altitude where it can cruise efficiently.

The Afterburner is like carrying an extra engines worth of thrust to increase power when needed... specifically takeoff, or if it needs to climb urgently for whatever reason.

The engine specifications for three engines based on the D-30 are listed in a book I have and it states the three engines as being the D-30KU (Il-62M Air liner), the D-30KU-154 (Tu-154M), and the D-30KP(2) for use on the various Il-76 platorms including the transport, the inflight refuelling aircraft and the AWACS aircraft, and also the A-40 amphibian aircraft.

The takeoff power for the three engines respectively is 11,000kgf, 10,500kgf, and 12,000kgf, while their thrust at 11km altitude and mach 0.8 for all three engines is the same 2,750kgf.

Now the wording is important I think... it says takeoff power rating, and cruise power rating... it does not say that the max power rating in both cases is the figures given.

One of the enormous advantages of a jet engine compared with a solid fuelled rocket is the engines ability to vary thrust depending on the conditions to avoid wasting fuel.

At 11km altitude the cruise thrust setting is 2,750kgf for each engine and that cruise thrust setting is determined by the flight speed potential of the aircraft... none of these aircraft will be supersonic and the difference between having 100% thrust and 60% thrust in terms of top speed might be only 100 or 150km/h, while the fuel burn might be rather significant. The cruise thrust setting is determined to avoid wasting fuel trying to go a little bit faster, but burning rather more fuel..

Having extra engines to provide extra thrust at takeoff is use on the A-40 Amphibious aircraft... it actually has four engines... two external and two internal that are only used during takeoffs to get airborne faster and easier.

The only time commercial or transport planes need lots of thrust is on takeoff and to climb up and gain speed and altitude... once speed is attained and altitude is achieved the engine thrust levels are significantly scaled back for a long range cruise flight... in the case above with the Il-76 it has four 12 ton thrust engines but in cruise flight each engine is only generating just under 3 tons of thrust. 3 tons of thrust from engines able to provide four times that thrust at sea level.

In other words if one engine could provide full thrust at 11km altitude you could fly running one engine and shut the other three engines down... of course that wouldn't really work because the three engines shut down would create a lot of drag.

There have been designs of aircraft with twin separated vertical tails with two engines between the tails and engine pods under the wings. The engines between the tail surfaces would not create a lot of drag if they were shut down... especially if they could be designed to be lowered down into the tail structure out of the airflow.

For an engine for a320 or mC-21 aircraft the max takeoff thrust is around 14 tons, while high altitude cruise will be around 2.5 tons.

I think you are mistaken. With the figures I have given which are figures from the engine maker, it does not say that the max engine thrust at 11km and mach 0.8 is 2,750kgf, it describes that as its cruise thrust level. The max thrust at that altitude and speed might be reduced from its rating at sea level but it wont be as dramatic as a four fold reduction in power... a MiG-31 wont be flying at almost double that height with 4 tons of thrust from each engine at mach 2.86.

Maybe after the war is finished Russia will build a new production facility for UEC in Zaporozhye or in the Donbass (there is already a turbine blades production facility previously owned by Motor Sich in Lugansk oblast).

I suspect the Russians will want to demilitarise the entire region, with shipyards making river boats and fishing boats etc. Maybe they could make light aircraft instead.

Composite air intake for PD-35 engine to undergo testing as part of PD-14, 10.14.2024.