Russian Civil Aviation: News #4

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
i believe  it is not sanctioned,  but that is mainly because Russia has a domestic alternative now. Sanctioning it would only cause a mild delay (and a lot of losses for pratt&withney)

It would be great if Toray sues the USA for lost business and increased competition from sanctions. Russia should highly subsidize this compsite tech and bankrupt a few western companies to set a few examples.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

limb wrote:What do you guys think about this article about the cr929? Apparently  the author is skeptical  about it being credible competition to the airbus neo and Boeing 787 simply due to have 1500  to 2000km less range. Meanwhile he ignores stuff like ease ofaintenance, passenger comfort and fuel economy. Is squeezing out every last km really that important for widebodies, or is the author grasping at straws?

https://simpleflying.com/cr929-airbus-boeing-challenge/amp/

It can't be competitive lol? I didn't read the blogger-blabber, but the cost of production in both Russia and China is more cost effective than in the US or the EU. On the fact alone the author is an idiot. Cr929's will be cheaper than their Western competitors.  

Just idiocy... the range is a design choice... if needed they can do later and extended range model, but 12000 km are enough for direct flight Moscow - Rio de Janeiro, Capetown Sydney or Beijing New York, just to name a few examples... of course it will not be able to do a direct flight from London to Sydney (about 17000 km), but not many people are interested in a 20 hours flight without stop.

limb wrote:What do you guys think about this article about the cr929? Apparently  the author is skeptical  about it being credible competition to the airbus neo and Boeing 787 simply due to have 1500  to 2000km less range. Meanwhile he ignores stuff like ease ofaintenance, passenger comfort and fuel economy. Is squeezing out every last km really that important for widebodies, or is the author grasping at straws?

https://simpleflying.com/cr929-airbus-boeing-challenge/amp/

I didn't see it that way. It's not that bad of an article.

It didn't explicitly state that it wouldn't be credible competition. All it was saying is that there isn't an exact comparison size and configuration wise to the Boeings or Airbuses.

The Airbus 330 Neo is the absolute peak in high tech efficiency. If CRAIC can't exactly match it , that doesn't mean its not viable.

Backman wrote:

limb wrote:What do you guys think about this article about the cr929? Apparently  the author is skeptical  about it being credible competition to the airbus neo and Boeing 787 simply due to have 1500  to 2000km less range. Meanwhile he ignores stuff like ease ofaintenance, passenger comfort and fuel economy. Is squeezing out every last km really that important for widebodies, or is the author grasping at straws?

https://simpleflying.com/cr929-airbus-boeing-challenge/amp/

I didn't see it that way. It's not that bad of an article.

It didn't explicitly state that it wouldn't be credible competition. All it was saying is that there isn't an exact comparison size and configuration wise to the Boeings or Airbuses.

The Airbus 330 Neo is the absolute peak in high tech efficiency. If CRAIC can't exactly match it , that doesn't mean its not viable.

Maybe you mean the A350.

A330 neo is the original a330 from the 90s with a new engine (and some minor improvements as better winglets, etc)

An twin engine aircraft derived from the il96, with PD35 engines and with other improvements introduced in the MC21 will be for sure more advanced than the a330 Neo, especially if it will have brand new wings.

The CR929 will also have a new fuselage, also because the Chinese want to design and build it, but that is a minor improvement compared to a twin engine il96 (if it gets a new wing MC21 style)

The most efficient widebody today is the 787-10 however Boeing is having some serious quality issues with manufacturing right now and 88 787's are sitting undelivered becasue of this. The estimates of the cost to repair the problems range from several hundred million to possibly billions and a fleet grounding.

magnumcromagnon wrote:
It can't be competitive lol? I didn't read the blogger-blabber, but the cost of production in both Russia and China is more cost effective than in the US or the EU. On the fact alone the author is an idiot. Cr929's will be cheaper than their Western competitors.  

Cost of the plane is just one element of the whole deal. Residual values, stability of the company, field support, reliability and effficiency are all massively important.

mnztr wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:
It can't be competitive lol? I didn't read the blogger-blabber, but the cost of production in both Russia and China is more cost effective than in the US or the EU. On the fact alone the author is an idiot. Cr929's will be cheaper than their Western competitors.  

Cost of the plane is just one element of the whole deal. Residual values, stability of the company, field support, reliability and effficiency are all massively important.

The MC-21 is intended to be more efficient than anything in its class. It is faster also. And its the widest.

A330 neo is the original a330 from the 90s with a new engine (and some minor improvements as better winglets, etc)

Yeah i thought it had a new wing. We know Russia is going all out with the MS-21 but we don't know as much about the CR929.

Backman wrote:

The MC-21 is intended to be more efficient than anything in its class. It is faster also. And its the widest.


Yeah i thought it had a new wing. We know Russia is going all out with the MS-21 but we don't know as much about the CR929.

I don't think it can be the most efficient without the P&W engine. As far as the A330 goes it has some major upgrades to the wing as well as a lot of aero cleanup.

mnztr wrote:

Backman wrote:

The MC-21 is intended to be more efficient than anything in its class. It is faster also. And its the widest.


Yeah i thought it had a new wing. We know Russia is going all out with the MS-21 but we don't know as much about the CR929.

I don't think it can be the most efficient without the P&W engine. As far as the A330 goes it has some major upgrades to the wing as well as a lot of aero cleanup.

Care to back that claim up.

The usual knee-jerk dismissal of Russian technology based on Cold War stereotypes.

MS-21 - news for February 2021
2 days ago

February began with information that the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) issued an addendum to the PD-14 Engine Type Certificate to UEC-Aviadvigatel, confirming its full compliance with the requirements for emissions of harmful substances.

The type certificate for PD-14 was issued by the Federal Air Transport Agency in 2018, and at that time the product complied with ICAO standards. In January 2020, a new international standard came into effect, in which the smoke and non-volatile particle emission standards were changed, which required additional certification.

Measurement of PD-14 emissions was carried out by specialists from ZHAW (Graduate School of Applied Sciences, Zurich, Switzerland). The measurements showed: the margin for the maximum value of the mass concentration of nonvolatile particles, obtained when testing one PD-14 engine, is 5% (according to the 2020 standard). In terms of the emission parameters of nonvolatile particles, PD-14 has a margin of more than 85%.

On February 5, the state corporation Rostec announced that the Center for Additive Technologies launched 24 new pieces of equipment for the manufacture of aircraft engine parts using industrial 3D printing. The center also received the status of a full-cycle service company and intends to organize mass production of products for the PD-14 turbojet engine and other domestic turbojet and turboshaft engines.

On February 9, UEC-Perm Motors received a certificate of approval from a production organization, which gives the right to serial production of PD-14 and supply them to customers for installation on MS-21 aircraft. As part of the certification of production, the Federal Air Transport Agency conducted qualification tests of one of the new PD-14 engines, during which the compliance of its technical characteristics with the design documentation was confirmed.

On February 16, the Irkut corporation posted a new video on YouTube video hosting, continuing the story about the beacons and headlights of the MC-21 aircraft. Leading engineer for testing lighting equipment, Yuri Pushkarev, spoke about why taxi lights are needed and how you can scare birds away from an airplane with the help of landing lights.

On February 19, during a visit to the Alabuga special economic zone, Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov noted that, starting in 2019, a complete import substitution of the component base for the creation of a composite wing, mechanization elements, center section and tail of the MC-21-300 aircraft has been completed.

At present, Alabuga-Fiber produces carbon fibers containing from 3,000 to 50,000 elementary fibers in a bundle, with a strength of up to 4.9 GPa and an elastic modulus of up to 260 GPa. This material consists of thin filaments with a diameter of 3 to 15 microns, formed mainly by carbon atoms.

On February 21, Minister of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation Denis Manturov said that Russia and Kazakhstan are negotiating the supply of SSJ100 and MS-21 aircraft. According to him, at the moment Russia does not plan to "aggressively enter foreign markets" with the export of aircraft, but nevertheless such work is underway, and first of all the Russian Federation will consider the EurAsEC markets, but it is too early to talk about the quantity and timing of deliveries.

On February 23, the head of Rostec Sergey Chemezov told in interview with Russia Today on the timing of the completion of certification tests of the MS-21 composite wing made of Russian materials.

“Today the wing for the MC-21 is undergoing certification tests. I hope that by the end of this year we will complete them and in 2022 we will start mass production of the car. The aircraft is already equipped with its own engine, which is now undergoing certification, ”Chemezov said.

On February 24, on the sidelines of the IDEX-2021 arms exhibition (Abu Dhabi, UAE), Minister of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov said that Russia is interested in opening the production of composite products by vacuum infusion in the United Arab Emirates and later place an order in this country for the manufacture of composite components ...

"We switched to our own raw materials for the production of composite parts. And we are ready with our colleagues. We also touched on this topic of technology transfer and consider it as additional suppliers. Taking into account the expansion and increase in production volumes, we will need to either expand capacity ourselves or attract partners ", - said Manturov.

In his opinion, Russia is interested in setting up the production of composite products using infusion technology in the UAE and later placing an order for their supply in this country. "This will facilitate the task of scaling up our own production," he said.

In February, experimental MC-21 aircraft were mainly on the ground. According to Flightradar24, one flight on 17 February lasting more than 30 minutes was performed on board 73051 and three flights on board 73054: 03.02 3:23, 10.02 3:44 and on February 15 the plane was in the air for 4 hours and 20 minutes.

https://zen.yandex.ru/media/aviaru/ms21--novosti-za-fevral-2021-goda-603c69fa49b4e72890f54488

Nonvolatile particle emissions are a function of fuel quality and efficiency of the engine. Assuming that the fuel quality is a fixed
external parameter, the PD-14 passing the soot (and sulfate) emissions test standard of 2020 was to be expected. It is a very efficient engine
aside from the bypass aspect. Russia has very advanced metallurgy and materials science. It can use higher combustion temperatures
to get more out of such heat engines. Something the "better in the west" crowd does not even understand.

The sulfur content of the aviation kerosene used determines directly the amount of nonvolatile sulfate particulate emitted.
So they are referring to carbon (soot) particulates.

kvs wrote:

mnztr wrote:

Backman wrote:

The MC-21 is intended to be more efficient than anything in its class. It is faster also. And its the widest.


Yeah i thought it had a new wing. We know Russia is going all out with the MS-21 but we don't know as much about the CR929.

I don't think it can be the most efficient without the P&W engine. As far as the A330 goes it has some major upgrades to the wing as well as a lot of aero cleanup.

Care to back that claim up.  

The usual knee-jerk dismissal of Russian technology based on Cold War stereotypes.

The efficiency targets of the PD-14 are less then the P&W engines. There is no major increase in bypass ratio or any extreme developements in the hot section and bypass ratio. The leap has an 11:1 bypass ratio and the P&W 12.2. The P&W achives this with a gearbox to slow down the larger fan. The GE slows down the compress RPM but increases the number of stages. PD-14 does nothing really special. They have plans for it but these are all futures. I was hoping they would restart the NK-93 project.

kvs wrote:Nonvolatile particle emissions are a function of fuel quality and efficiency of the engine.    Assuming that the fuel quality is a fixed
external parameter, the PD-14 passing the soot (and sulfate) emissions test standard of 2020 was to be expected.   It is a very efficient engine
aside from the bypass aspect.   Russia has very advanced metallurgy and materials science.    It can use higher combustion temperatures
to get more out of such heat engines.   Something the "better in the west" crowd does not even understand.

The sulfur content of the aviation kerosene used determines directly the amount of nonvolatile sulfate particulate emitted.
So they are referring to carbon (soot) particulates.

Temps to high result in NOx which is also not good. Increasing compression ratios and temps can increase efficiency, but not the huge gain that bypass ratios bring. The latest western engines have as much as a 50% higher bypass ratio.

mnztr wrote:

kvs wrote:

mnztr wrote:

Backman wrote:

The MC-21 is intended to be more efficient than anything in its class. It is faster also. And its the widest.


Yeah i thought it had a new wing. We know Russia is going all out with the MS-21 but we don't know as much about the CR929.

I don't think it can be the most efficient without the P&W engine. As far as the A330 goes it has some major upgrades to the wing as well as a lot of aero cleanup.

Care to back that claim up.  

The usual knee-jerk dismissal of Russian technology based on Cold War stereotypes.

The efficiency targets of the PD-14 are less then the P&W engines. There is no major increase in bypass ratio or any extreme developements in the hot section and bypass ratio. The leap has an 11:1 bypass ratio and the P&W 12.2. The P&W achives this with a gearbox to slow down the larger fan. The GE slows down the compress RPM but increases the number of stages. PD-14 does nothing really special. They have plans for it but these are all futures. I was hoping they would restart the NK-93 project.

You have to compare the range increase offered by a further increment in weight and size (so also drag) when you increase the bypass to the range of the engine with a bypass like PD14 (still high bypass, but not so extreme).

For 1 or 2 hours flight probably the advantage of the PW1000 is minimal or not existing... maybe if you talk about longer flights there could be actual advantages, but I am sure the Russians took this into account (also thanks to the experience with extreme high bypass engines like NK93 (that on paper was exceptional, but apparently not so interesting)

Yes its true that the engines affect the efficiency differently depending on the type of flying. I think lower bypass loses less on long segments cruising at altitude. We shall see what kind of efficiency they can deliver but they have not talked very much about where gains might come from other then the proposed future geared fan variant

kvs wrote:

mnztr wrote:

Backman wrote:

The MC-21 is intended to be more efficient than anything in its class. It is faster also. And its the widest.


Yeah i thought it had a new wing. We know Russia is going all out with the MS-21 but we don't know as much about the CR929.

I don't think it can be the most efficient without the P&W engine. As far as the A330 goes it has some major upgrades to the wing as well as a lot of aero cleanup.

Care to back that claim up.  

The usual knee-jerk dismissal of Russian technology based on Cold War stereotypes.

United Engine Corporation claims that the engine matches the performance of products from foreign competitors and surpasses them for noise and emissions.

mnztr wrote:

kvs wrote:

mnztr wrote:

Backman wrote:

The MC-21 is intended to be more efficient than anything in its class. It is faster also. And its the widest.


Yeah i thought it had a new wing. We know Russia is going all out with the MS-21 but we don't know as much about the CR929.

I don't think it can be the most efficient without the P&W engine. As far as the A330 goes it has some major upgrades to the wing as well as a lot of aero cleanup.

Care to back that claim up.  

The usual knee-jerk dismissal of Russian technology based on Cold War stereotypes.

The efficiency targets of the PD-14 are less then the P&W engines. There is no major increase in bypass ratio or any extreme developements in the hot section and bypass ratio. The leap has an 11:1 bypass ratio and the P&W 12.2. The P&W achives this with a gearbox to slow down the larger fan. The GE slows down the compress RPM but increases the number of stages. PD-14 does nothing really special. They have plans for it but these are all futures. I was hoping they would restart the NK-93 project.

The bypass ratio of the PD-14 is slightly lower than CFM and PW. Its not a huge difference.

PD-14 does nothing really special.

The 3D aerodynamics shaped first high-pressure turbine stage has advanced cooling channels. Twenty new materials were developed for the powerplant, including monocrystalline alloys for vanes, and high-strength nickel and titanium alloys for shafts and disks.

These are airliner engines. Its about quietness and efficiency. There isn't anything really special about CFM or PW either

I was hoping they would restart the NK-93 project.

Why would they start looking for trouble ? The MC-21 engine has to be boring and efficient. There was a lot of interest in the NK-93 from around the world. But that was awhile ago now. The problem is, they havn't found a way of making it work at the higher average cruising speeds

The frenzy about differences in bypass efficiency is pure pap for morons. There is no physics that limits the bypass ratio
in a manner that would support the "Russians cannot into tech" BS. Clearly this ratio was an engineering choice. That begs the
question about why was the choice made. Maybe, just maybe it has something to do with the efficiency of the combustion in this
engine and consideration for total engine efficiency.

Higher bypass, by definition, requires more propeller surface area in the bypass channel assuming the same engine core. That gives a
larger engine diameter and thus more form and channel drag. We see the usual lying by omission here. The bypass ratio is fixated on,
but the actual efficiency of the whole engine is ignored or numbers pulled from the anus as with thousands of other issues involving
Russia.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviadvigatel_PD-14
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_PW1000G

The fan diameter on the PD-14 is 75 inches and on the PW-1000G/1400G is 81 inches. The magic bypass ratio is not a direct
measure of engine efficiency. There is no free lunch and the propulsion requires fuel burning. The PD-14 clearly gets more
thrust out of its core than the bypass fan. The assumption that this implies it wastes more fuel is not only not demonstrated but
contradicted by the total fuel consumption numbers. The PD-14 does not consume 12.5/8.5 = 47% more fuel than the PW-1400G.

It looks like there are games with the definition of the bypass ratio even though it is nominally a trivial concept.

https://www.aex.ru/docs/3/2019/8/26/2950/

Specific fuel consumption, kg / kgf * h for PW-1400G is 0.51
Specific fuel consumption, kg / kgf * h for PD-14 is 0.525

For some strange reason Wikipedia does not give the fuel consumption number for the PW-1400G or any of the PW engines.
The thrust tuning for a given level of fuel consumption is basically the same for these two engines. That leaves other
factors to control the overall efficiency, which these fuel consumption numbers do not relate. These are static consumption
numbers under ideal burn conditions. The only place you see how efficient the engines are is out in the field.

Backman wrote:

The bypass ratio of the PD-14 is slightly lower than CFM and PW. Its not a huge difference.

8.5

43% is not slightly lower, its a massive difference.

Backman wrote:
The 3D aerodynamics shaped first high-pressure turbine stage has advanced cooling channels. Twenty new materials were developed for the powerplant, including monocrystalline alloys for vanes, and high-strength nickel and titanium alloys for shafts and disks.

These are airliner engines. Its about quietness and efficiency. There isn't anything really special about CFM or PW either

They are very special, bleeding edge in fact. But yes they have to be reliable or they are useless. Its probably more challanging then a fighter engine as there is greater tolerence for risk in military programs. All that stuff and more is done in western engines. GE also has some very advanced CMC materials and the P&W has a gearbox that enables a higher bypass ratio and actually lower cost materials to be used on the fan because it is spining slower. I am sure the PD-14 has some good tech in it. Making a 10-15% leap in efficiency purely on combustion efficiency and turbine aerodynamics is unlikely, but the current Western engines were developed over the last 10 years so perhaps the PD-14 has some solutions that were developed in the iterim that enable this.

Backman wrote:
Why would they start looking for trouble ? The MC-21 engine has to be boring and efficient. There was a lot of interest in the NK-93 from around the world. But that was awhile ago now. The problem is, they havn't found a way of making it work at the higher average cruising speeds

Why? because the airliner market is a very powerful duopoly and they need to be MUCH better to break into the market. Look at the Bombardier Cseries. A truly excellent plane, carbon wing, AlLi fuse, P&W GTF engines and still they had to sell the program to Airbus for 10 cents on the dollar in the end. The Cseries was much better then A320 and light years better then 737. And it was from a Western country!!! So for Russia to break in, the plane has to be revolutionary. That is the reality.

kvs wrote:The frenzy about differences in bypass efficiency is pure pap for morons.   There is no physics that limits the bypass ratio
in a manner that would support the "Russians cannot into tech" BS.    Clearly this ratio was an engineering choice.   That begs the
question about why was the choice made.   Maybe, just maybe it has something to do with the efficiency of the combustion in this
engine and consideration for total engine efficiency.

Higher bypass, by definition, requires more propeller surface area in the bypass channel assuming the same engine core.   That gives a
larger engine diameter and thus more form and channel drag.   We see the usual lying by omission here.   The bypass ratio is fixated on,
but the actual efficiency of the whole engine is ignored or numbers pulled from the anus as with thousands of other issues involving
Russia.  



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviadvigatel_PD-14
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_PW1000G

The fan diameter on the PD-14 is 75 inches and on the PW-1000G/1400G is 81 inches.   The magic bypass ratio is not a direct
measure of engine efficiency.   There is no free lunch and the propulsion requires fuel burning.    The PD-14 clearly gets more
thrust out of its core than the bypass fan.   The assumption that this implies it wastes more fuel is not only not demonstrated but
contradicted by the total fuel consumption numbers.    The PD-14 does not consume 12.5/8.5 = 47% more fuel than the PW-1400G.  

It looks like there are games with the definition of the bypass ratio even though it is nominally a trivial concept.

https://www.aex.ru/docs/3/2019/8/26/2950/

Specific fuel consumption, kg / kgf * h for PW-1400G is 0.51
Specific fuel consumption, kg / kgf * h for PD-14 is 0.525

For some strange reason Wikipedia does not give the fuel consumption number for the PW-1400G or any of the PW engines.  
The thrust tuning for a given level of fuel consumption is basically the same for these two engines.    That leaves other
factors to control the overall efficiency, which these fuel consumption numbers do not relate.   These are static consumption
numbers under ideal burn conditions.   The only place you see how efficient the engines are is out in the field.

Yes some of what you say is true. But the specific fuel consumption ratio is kinda irrelevant as these engines generate different levels of thrust at different speeds and temperatures. They are also optimized to the most typical flight profile. Bypass ratio increase is not a 1:1 correlation, but its simple to see how bypass increases efficiency. If it did not we would not bother with turbofans at all to start with. The higher bypass allows much quicker time to atitude. It is possible on a much longer leg a low bypass engine can match the high bypass as the weight and air resistence offset the higher time to climb, but also at cruise altitude in the thin air, air resistance drops. So its a complex interplay of the engine and the flight profile. BUT real world operational testing has shown these new engines are indeed delivering the efficiency gains they promised. The standard plane with the old engine (A320 CEO) is still available and much cheaper, but only 18 left in backlog.

some real world NEO vs CEO info:

https://www.flightglobal.com/analysis/analysis-what-operators-have-to-say-about-the-a320neo/130587.article

kvs wrote:Clearly this ratio was an engineering choice. That begs the question about why was the choice made.

Certainly it was a conscious choice. IMO the reason is the need to create an engine family based on the PD-14 from the PD-8 to the PD-18R. The core should therefore not bee too big or it would be overkill for the 8 tf engine, or too small and not be able to move the fan of the 18 tf one. The final design is a very reasonable compromise as far as I can see it.

mnztr wrote:They are very special, bleeding edge in fact.

Bleeding edge is F135 or advent engines, commercial aviation needs reliability above anything else.

Why? because the airliner market is a very powerful duopoly and they need to be MUCH better to break into the market. Look at the Bombardier Cseries. A truly excellent plane, carbon wing, AlLi fuse, P&W GTF engines and still they had to sell the program to Airbus for 10 cents on the dollar in the end. The Cseries was much better then A320 and light years better then 737. And it was from a Western country!!! So for Russia to break in, the plane has to be revolutionary. That is the reality

What market? To break into the Russian market they just need to be roughly equivalents, but even if was not, it is a state decision and fuel is very cheap in Russia so they could still pull it off. But the idea was not to make an underpar design, but one according to the state of the art, so it can be sold internationally. There will foreign airlines that don't have almost any choice for buying a modern plane but choosing the MC-21, others in a neutral position will check procurement costs and other advantages offered. And in the Western ones the decision will be political, so the merits of the design will be irrelevant. There is absolutely no need to create a world beater to enter the "market", but it is critical that it is reliable and enables the whole Russian engine roadmap.

The PD-14 is not an under-performer. That is a lie designed to secure western market space. Competition is very, very bad for
the precious west so it engages in slander and smear. And useful idiots parrot the drivel on internet fora, thereby spreading the
gospel of hate.

We have zero numbers on the functional efficiency of this engine relative to the allegedly superior western counterparts. The
characteristics we do know simply do not support any western superiority.

From the table in the cited link:

Engine:

CFM-56-7 CFM-56-5 LEAP-1B LEAP-1A PW1400G SaM-146 ПС-90А1 ПС-90А2 ПД-14

Bypass ratio:

5.11 5.7 8.5 11 12 4.4 4.5 4.5 8.5

Thrust specific fuel consumption:

0.62 0.6 0.53 0.51 0.51 0.629 0.604 0.6 0.525

You see a correlation of higher fuel consumption with lower bypass for older and lower thrust engines.
The PD-14 has more thrust than the LEAP-1B with the same bypass ratio but with the same (round off) fuel
consumption. The higher thrust LEAP-1B improves on this slightly by having a bypass ratio of 11 instead of 8.5.
There is no western analogue of the PD-14 in that table. The PD-14 achieves higher thrust compared to the LEAP-1B
without requiring a bypass ratio increase. The large increase in bypass ratio gives a fuel consumption savings of
0.015 at best from 0.525 (0.53). But that comes at the cost of a larger diameter, nominally 6 inches for the PW-1400G.

I think we will see an increased bypass ratio in the PD-35.

LMFS wrote:

mnztr wrote:They are very special, bleeding edge in fact.

Bleeding edge is F135 or advent engines, commercial aviation needs reliability above anything else.

I don't agree, F-135 is bleeding edge for performance and power to weight ratio etc. The LEAP and GTF are bleeding edge for efficiency. You do not  get effficiency without pushing engine temps and pressure ratios up. Also a lot of really bleeding edge metallaurgy, ceremaic matix composites, extreme combustion technology etc is in these engines.

LMFS wrote:
What market? To break into the Russian market they just need to be roughly equivalents, but even if was not, it is a state decision and fuel is very cheap in Russia so they could still pull it off. But the idea was not to make an underpar design, but one according to the state of the art, so it can be sold internationally. There will foreign airlines that don't have almost any choice for buying a modern plane but choosing the MC-21, others in a neutral position will check procurement costs and other advantages offered. And in the Western ones the decision will be political, so the merits of the design will be irrelevant. There is absolutely no need to create a world beater to enter the "market", but it is critical that it is reliable and enables the whole Russian engine roadmap.

A lot of countries use fighters and other weapons from Russia, most of these countries buy Western airliners. If there was a world class product, would it not be a great market if for example, Vietnam Airlines would buy them, or Turkish airlines, Egypt Air, Air Algerie, Iran Air, Syrian Airlines, the many airlines in Venezuela. Should Russia not aspire for more then,"I know you want an Airbus, but they won't sell you so you HAVE to buy this MC-21"
Every western airline that has tried the Superjet has failed to make it work. Some with pretty good reputations. WHY WHY WHY?? The plane even has French engines.

The initial contactual committment for dispatch reliability for MC-21 is 96% in the west 96% is an UNMITIGATED DISASTER and would cause chaos at most airlines.

mnztr wrote:You do not  get effficiency without pushing engine temps and pressure ratios up.

Try running a commercial engine at 3600F...

Also a lot of really bleeding edge metallaurgy, ceremaic matix composites, extreme combustion technology etc is in these engines.

Who says PD-14 is worse in that regard?

A lot of countries use fighters and other weapons from Russia, most of these countries buy Western airliners. If there was a world class product, would it not be a great market if for example, Vietnam Airlines would buy them, or Turkish airlines, Egypt Air, Air Algerie, Iran Air, Syrian Airlines, the many airlines in Venezuela. Should Russia not aspire for more then,"I know you want an Airbus, but they won't sell you so you HAVE to buy this MC-21"

From what we know the MC-21 is world class product, an airliner is a more complex thing than the bypass ratio of the engines. Technically the plane is in conditions to compete, but we know there are many more factors that play a more important role. The duopoly is not going to be broken in a few years.

Every western airline that has tried the Superjet has failed to make it work. Some with pretty good reputations. WHY WHY WHY?? The plane even has French engines.

That was the best the Russian industry could do back then, now things have improved.

The initial contactual committment for dispatch reliability for MC-21 is 96% in the west 96% is an UNMITIGATED DISASTER and would cause chaos at most airlines.

Do you have a source for that figure? In any case, the initial deployment will be done in a controlled way in Russia, while the service structure is grown and optimized. It has been said many times already that they will not repeat the failures of the Superjet program of going abroad before having all factors under control at home.