Russian Civil Aviation: News #5

They should see this as an opportunity to get rid of some old obsolete stuff like foreign engines, and get some new better more efficient Russian engines into service and widespread use.

Even MiG made an upgraded version of the An-2 where they made both wings fully articulated with leading edge flaps and slats, so you could have thinner wings that still generated a lot of lift for low speed landings and takeoffs from short rough strips, but also could raise the flaps and slats and have thin low profile low drag wings for higher speed flight to get places faster as well as operate from short rough airstrips when needed.

Playing around with this or that aircraft design is a waste of time without a decent cheap reliable engine to put into it.

The VK-650 is supposed to be rather simple and cheap, so making an An-2 replacement with two engines of this type... perhaps in the back running an electric motor in the nose might work out to be a good solution.

Continuing to use Ukrainian planes and American engines is not progress.

They need to sort out the domestic production of composite materials for civilian aircraft too... but engines should be a focus.

The core problem is that this area was neglected for so long and was not seen as a problem... even now as mentioned in the article it says the An-2 can continue for another decade with overhauls...

Too many companies and people with vested interests in American and Ukrainian products.

Yes but this turboshaft (helicopter engine) is not the RD-600v, but the VK-1600V. The RD-600V was a stillborn Saturn project, but it has been probably canceled in favour of the the Klimov VK-1600.

According to UAC the VK-650V are going to be used on the ANSAT and Ka-226 helicopters, while the rather more powerful VK-1600v is for the bigger Ka-62 and other medium helicopter types.

https://www.uecrus.com/products-and-services/products/vertolyety/dvigatel-vk-650v/

Of course, the An-2 will need special exceptions in the rule to allow 12 or 13 passengers instead of 9 (max allowed by current rules for single engine aircrafts).

Or just limit them to 9 people plus cargo... or using two engines in a new configuration the limit is no longer a problem.

The VK-650V has completed tests and is being tested on the Ansat. It will also be used on the Ka-226 helicopter, the Altius twin engined drone, and the Yak-152 trainer instead of the german engine.

How did we miss this video about the R 579-300 engine?

https://aviation21.ru/rospatent-zaregistriroval-izobretenie-osnovnaya-opora-shassi-samolyota/

Rospatent has registered the invention "Main landing gear of an aircraft"
03.09.2024,

Most modern passenger aircraft are designed with engines mounted under the wing. Because of this, the main landing gear legs must be high enough to keep the large-diameter turbofan engines at a safe height above the runway surface. In the event of an abnormal landing, the wing may be subjected to forces from the landing gear leg, which experiences impact loads higher than the design values, which may cause the wing structure to fail, fuel to leak from the fuel tanks located within it, and it may catch fire.

On May 5, 2019, as a result of a rough landing of the Superjet 100 aircraft at Sheremetyevo Airport, the main landing gear pierced the fuel tanks located in the wing consoles. As a result, the fuselage and engine nacelles touched the runway, the resulting sparks ignited the leaking fuel, and 40 passengers and one crew member died in the crash.

The RA-89098 accident was caused by a three-runway landing with overloads of at least 2.55 g, 5.85 g and 5.0 g. The Superjet received its type certificate taking into account that the design of the chassis attachment to the rear wing spar must withstand impact loads of 3.75 g. When this value is exceeded, the fuel tank damage protection system is activated: the safety pins of the main landing gear attachment to the rear wing spar are cut off, as a result of which they are in an unfixed state relative to the rear spar.

The first touchdown of the runway did not exceed the design value. After the second touchdown with a load of 5.85 g, the safety pins of both landing gear legs were cut off. During the third touchdown of the runway, also with an excess of permissible vertical loads, the condition of the structure did not allow the landing gear legs to safely withstand the landing impact, they broke, the wing was destroyed in the areas of the suspension units of the retraction/extension hydraulic cylinders of the legs, the aircraft lowered and moved further along the runway surface on the engine nacelles and the tail section of the fuselage, which led to a kerosene leak and its ignition.

The design of the aircraft's main landing gear, for which PJSC Yakovlev received a patent on August 16, 2024, makes it possible to prevent such destruction.

In accordance with the requirements of the Aviation Regulations (AP-25, section 25.721, p. 91) the chassis must be designed in such a way that their destruction during takeoff and landing due to exceeding the design loads does not cause a fuel leak in an amount sufficient to create a fire hazard. In the patentRU2824229The design elements of the main chassis support with hinge joints located in a certain way are described.

In the event of an abnormal situation during landing of an aircraft with the landing gear extended, made according to the proposed solution, the shock absorber strut housing moves upward and forward until it contacts the curved surface, which will lead to the destruction of the hinge assemblies and separation of the chassis strut housing with the shock absorber from the strut, the description of the invention states.

In this case, the destruction and separation of the shock absorber housing will occur before damage to the wing structure elements begins, thereby reducing the likelihood of fuel leakage and fire.

The old landing Gear was made by Safran landing system (formerly Messier-Bugatti-Dowty).

I remember that the airline S7 wanted a redesign of landing gear and tanks after that tragic accident, in order to guarantee a relatively large order for the shortened 75 passenger version of the SJ-100.

That video is interesting... the R79 engine used in the Yak-141 was compromised and China is using its technology to make engines.

The R-579 is a 21 ton thrust engine and they are talking about using it for commercial aircraft (Tu214) which would give it a flight range of 13,000km, and also as a potential engine for the Su-75... an 18 ton MTOW aircraft with a 21 ton thrust engine... its performance would be rather eye watering.

And further developments of the engine to 23 tons thrust and for new strategic drones up to mach 4... so maybe such engines could be used on the MiG-41?

Mention of adaptations to civilian airliner engines using the R579 core up to 45 tons thrust.

Seems like they are getting more engine options... this is a very good thing.

Regarding the delays in the Baikal, they should be careful... a factory that made aircraft designed and built the Ansat helicopter on their own... imagine if some factory that makes light aircraft did the same to create a suitable cheap An-2 replacement?

It would have the same issue as the Baikal. There are no appropriate Russian engines of that power level.

GarryB wrote:Regarding the delays in the Baikal, they should be careful... a factory that made aircraft designed and built the Ansat helicopter on their own... imagine if some factory that makes light aircraft did the same to create a suitable cheap An-2 replacement?

They have it already, as I wrote in an earlier post.

It is the SibNIA TVS-2MS (turboprop conversion of the An-2, first flown in 2011).
At least 16 are already in service. It is a metal plane, so no issues or complications with composite (the same institute also made the composite versions, but I believe they were mainly as a study).

The only issue with this plane is the foreign engine (the Honeywell TPE331-12UHR (1100 hp).

In theory the turboshaft engine of the Ka-62 (VK-1600V) could be converted into a turboprop and derated from 1400 hp to 1200hp or similar.
Apparently in Russia a separate group is also going to do a reverse engineered version of the old Honeywell engine.

Eventually Russia will have both the modernised An-2 (up to 12 passengers and the Baikal (up to 9 passengers)

GarryB wrote:That video is interesting... the R79 engine used in the Yak-141 was compromised and China is using its technology to make engines.

The R-579 is a 21 ton thrust engine and they are talking about using it for commercial aircraft (Tu214) which would give it a flight range of 13,000km, and also as a potential engine for the Su-75... an 18 ton MTOW aircraft with a 21 ton thrust engine... its performance would be rather eye watering.

And further developments of the engine to 23 tons thrust and for new strategic drones up to mach 4... so maybe such engines could be used on the MiG-41?

Mention of adaptations to civilian airliner engines using the R579 core up to 45 tons thrust.

Seems like they are getting more engine options... this is a very good thing.

Here there are also some info (article from 2021) on that engine.

https://en.topwar.ru/184990-sovetskoe-nasledstvo-turboreaktivnyj-dvigatel-pjatogo-pokolenija-na-baze-izdelija-79.html

Is Soyuz still involved with its development?
Furthermore it will be used first for military applications
Deriving from it a civilian turbofan will be probably not easier than developing the PD-18R based on the PD-14.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:the SibNIA TVS-2MS (turboprop conversion of the An-2, first flown in 2011).
At least 16 are already in service. It is a metal plane, so no issues or complications with composite (the same institute also made the composite versions, but I believe they were mainly as a study).

The only issue with this plane is the foreign engine (the Honeywell TPE331-12UHR (1100 hp).

This video talks about how they are working on cloning the Honeywell engine at Samara.



See the video segment starting at 30:06.

It would have the same issue as the Baikal. There are no appropriate Russian engines of that power level.

Except now they do... the VK-1600V will be a 1,400hp engine that will be ready in a couple of years which gives them a couple of years to develop and aircraft shell to put it into.

Equally two small engines could be used in a twin engined version that would allow 19 passengers instead of the current limit of 9 for a single engined type.

More importantly the VK-1600V and the VK-650 are going to be widely used in light helicopters, so while they wont be in wide scale use to start out with they soon will be, which will have economic and supply benefits moving forward.

They have it already, as I wrote in an earlier post.

It is the SibNIA TVS-2MS (turboprop conversion of the An-2, first flown in 2011).
At least 16 are already in service. It is a metal plane, so no issues or complications with composite (the same institute also made the composite versions, but I believe they were mainly as a study).

I thought the price was ballooning and becoming no longer viable...

Plus I meant my example... the Ansat essentially replaced the Mi-2 and is a different design, not a copy.

The TVS-2MS is just a Russian produced An-2.

Deriving from it a civilian turbofan will be probably not easier than developing the PD-18R based on the PD-14.

The makers of PD series engines are already spoken for, these engines can be produced in addition and fill gaps faster... with a modern useful engine.

The PS90 engine family were useful but seem to be a dead end and the PD family was supposed to replace them with better performance and potential future growth.... and I would guess this new engine offer even more potential as a turbojet core for a high bypass turbofan design.

This video talks about how they are working on cloning the Honeywell engine at Samara.

A turboprop based on the VK-1600V would make more sense IMHO. It is Russian.

Again about the An-2

https://aviation21.ru/aviakompaniya-sibaerokraft-poluchila-ocherednoj-serijnyj-samolyot-tvs-2ms/

SibAeroKraft Airlines Receives Another TVS-2MS Serial Aircraft
12.09.2024

Flight tests of the re-engined aircraft took place in Tomsk at the Berezkino airfield. The aircraft was manufactured by the Novosibirsk enterprise OOO Rusaviaprom for the Tomsk airline SibAeroKraft, this is already the third TVS-2MS in the carrier's fleet,the press service reported"Rusaviaprom".

The Novosibirsk plant continues re-engining the fourth aircraft for the Tomsk aviation enterprise, which is the final batch. The aircraft are intended to revive regional aviation in the Tomsk Region and the West Siberian region.

The aircraft with detached wing consoles was transported from Novosibirsk to Tomsk by road. Upon arrival at the Berezkino airfield, Rusaviaprom specialists mated the wing consoles with the fuselage, ran the engine and checked the aircraft systems on the ground. Upon completion of ground testing and flight tests, TVS-2MS was handed over to its owner.

"The TVS-2MS passenger transport aircraft is a modernized version of the An-2 biplane. By installing a turboprop engine, it was possible to significantly reduce the cost of a flight hour and improve the characteristics of the aircraft. The TVS-2MS allows for more cost-effective aviation work and passenger transportation," Rusaviaprom told the Aviation of Russia website.

Today, the TVS-2MS is the only Russian aircraft for small aviation that is in serial production; the aircraft transferred to SibAeroKraft is the 27th manufactured in Novosibirsk. During its operation, the TVS-2MS has proven its reliability and efficiency; the total flight time of the type is more than 25,000 hours. Passenger transportation on socially significant routes has been carried out from Irkutsk, Chita, Magadan and Blagoveshchensk for more than eight years.

I wonder where they do get the Honeywell TPE-331.

Anyway, until 2027 this is the only small aircraft in production.

I hope they solve the problem with the engine in the near future (either adapting the VK-1600 for It) or reverse engineering the tpe-331.

I believe it has still a niche together with the new Baikal.
Maybe they could even go back to the original naming An-2
(An-2M2?)

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:I wonder where they do get the Honeywell TPE-331.

Anyway, until 2027 this is the only small aircraft in production.

I hope they solve the problem with the engine in the near future (either adapting the VK-1600 for It) or reverse engineering the tpe-331.

I believe it has still a niche together with the new Baikal.
Maybe they could even go back to the original naming An-2
(An-2M2?)

LMS-901 Baikal is way more advanced technically. But it too lacks an engine.

I believe it has still a niche together with the new Baikal.
Maybe they could even go back to the original naming An-2
(An-2M2?)

The article says a turboprop engine makes operations cheaper... that should apply to all turboprops, not just reverse engineers copies of American turboprops.

I would also say naming it An anything is an insult to the name, but being Mr Pedantic if you were to revert to an Antonov label it would be An-3.

I hope they solve the problem with the engine in the near future (either adapting the VK-1600 for It) or reverse engineering the tpe-331.

Considering both will take time and neither are instant solutions I would wonder why they bother with the American engine type at all.

How many years have they had by now to come up with a design that can at least field an analogous Chinese-made engine as a stop-gap until a Russian-engine comes online?

Instead they're still running around like a bunch of headless chickens years after the P&Ws and Honeywells supplies have been cut-off to them and a decade since it became obvious that they were going to be.

Useless bunch of pencil pushers..

flamming_python wrote:How many years have they had by now to come up with a design that can at least field an analogous Chinese-made engine as a stop-gap until a Russian-engine comes online?

Instead they're still running around like a bunch of headless chickens years after the P&Ws and Honeywells supplies have been cut-off to them and a decade since it became obvious that they were going to be.

Useless bunch of pencil pushers..

It typically takes at least 5 years to develop a new engine. So these things take time. And where were these Chinese engines you are talking about? They certainly did not exist in 2014.

Priorities. Klimov first established VK-2500 production in Russia proper. This way they could continue making engines for actual in service helicopters from the Ka-52, to the Mi-28, the Mi-17, basically every existing helicopter of significance. This replaces the TV3 engines which used to be built by Motor Sich in Ukraine.

And it is not like there is a single variant of VK-2500 but several of them depending on which helicopter you are talking about.

The next priority was the TV7 engine. Meant to be used in the Mi-38 and the Il-112/114.

The VK-1600, VK-800, and VK-650 were lower priorities. Back then the supply of Western engines had not been cut yet. The VK-800 back then had no aircraft which would use it. So they dropped its development. Since the VK-1600 could be used in the Ka-62, and the VK-650 in the Ansat and Ka-226, those were given priority. And that is why Klimov already delivered VK-650 and VK-1600 engines this year for testing with those helicopters.

Like I said it takes roughly 5 years to design and make a new engine. So if you had them deliver working prototypes to the customer in 2024 you can bet engine development was started before 2-2-22.

The Russian military mostly does not use these kinds of light and medium helicopters. At most they could be used in military training units. The civilian government uses them for air ambulances. That is why they were low priority vs the military combat and transport helicopters.

How many years have they had by now to come up with a design that can at least field an analogous Chinese-made engine as a stop-gap until a Russian-engine comes online?

Of course, they have been doing nothing... Klimov has only developed and put into production a replacement engine to be used in the Mi-8/17/24/35, Mi-28, Kamov Ka-27/28/29/31/32 families of helicopters to keep them flying and in serial production and of course the new engine for the Mi-38 and has been working on a range of other types, not to mention their other engine makers have been making engines for existing types and also taking on developing new engines to replace all the engine types Motor Sich used to make and replacing western parts in all of their products while upgrading their production facilities.

If only they had been working as hard as arse holes on the internet who complain about the things they haven't gotten done yet.

Instead they're still running around like a bunch of headless chickens years after the P&Ws and Honeywells supplies have been cut-off to them and a decade since it became obvious that they were going to be.

Or maybe they have been making engines that are currently in use as well as developing the next generation of engines to replace existing current types, while getting new demands placed on them because western engine companies are a bunch of ... not to mention the politicians in the countries those mounts of shit were excreted on.

But lets just blame the engine companies whose crime was that they didn't make these specific engines before... except any engine they might have made before would not have been adopted because the foreign engines they would have replaced are already widely in use and they already have spare parts for them and they know how to support them.

Useless bunch of pencil pushers..

Says all the whiny internet bitches everywhere.

The Russian military mostly does not use these kinds of light and medium helicopters. At most they could be used in military training units. The civilian government uses them for air ambulances. That is why they were low priority vs the military combat and transport helicopters.

Reminds me of idiots who think the Soviets couldn't make their own trucks during WWII and had to rely on lend lease.

Of course the Soviets could make everything they needed, but when you are buying trucks via lend lease from production factories out of range of enemy attacks you would be fucking stupid to also make trucks of your own as well. They took the western trucks because western tanks of the time were shit.

Modern stuff isn't easier to make, it is harder, and they are doing it after an economic collapse where tens of thousands of westerns pinched vast amounts of money from them and then tried to sell off anything of value left, and then the naughties came and the west encouraged dependence on oil and gas sales because that would make Russia dependent on selling cheaply to the west and they could then sell stuff to the Russians and make even more money from the situation.

But Russia didn't conform and gradually the west revealed its evil face and did everything it could to break Russia... and they had two super powers... the US and EU and the military organisation called HATO that spends over a trillion dollars per year on defence... and Russia was spending 65 billion a year on a good year for half that time.

They are short a few engines for light aircraft, but otherwise they are doing it on their own... turning the whole world against the west... well to be fair the west did most of the heavy lifting in that for the last few centuries...

Many other countries would have struggled.

Of course Russia was helped by China and even Turkey and India and lots of other countries, many of whom felt loyalty to the Soviet Union or what Russia had done for them in the past... I would say quite a few also helped because they have been where Russia was and they didn't like the west for it...

Together they are in a position where Russia could be stripped from the west and Russia survived and the west was damaged!!!

China probably wouldn't have survived such an economic shock on its own because it was much more tightly linked to the west with rather more ties, but now they see Russia not only survived but benefited from the separation.... and they can too.

And why?

Because they are independent countries that should not be ordered around and told what to do like non US members of the west for instance...

All the US had to do was treat Russia with a bit of respect and let them have the occasional win and the US dollar would be the standard and they would control almost everything... but now they might end up with nothing.

But all those Russian companies sitting doing nothing... I mean I have completed development and serial production of two engines while I was typing this... what a bunch of lazy pricks... fire them all.

The point is that you do what you can, so if you can make an An-2 replacement because the engines are now ready then it makes sense to start making them... even if it is in tiny numbers that is not going to replace the fleet in 20 years... starting production gets factories working rather than sitting idle and it gives work and income to companies making the other parts for each aircraft and engine and it also gets operational experience so any bugs or issues can be looked and and sorted.

Experience producing products leads to improvements in speed and quality and often short cuts are found that can speed things up without sacrificing quality.

In the production process there are things that need to be done in order and there are things that need to be done in parallel... the best way to speed up production is to convert serial production to parallel production.

There was a ship with composite super structure and the first one they made took a month to make because each piece had to be attached and glued and cured overnight before the next piece could be added and it needed to cure over night.

They did this because that was the construction instructions they received to make it right.

After the first one was made it was realised that they could attach multiple parts together at one time and cure them overnight and so in the end the construction was taking three days with no reduction in quality or performance.

The point is that a lot of innovation happens on the factory floor because they better understand the production process and can identify bottlenecks or issues, which, if resolved can greatly speed up production.

AESA t/r modules also get smaller with both production and lab developments... and when made in bulk the costs go down too.

Plus that Sukhoi drone that can carry 250kgs 1,000km and can land vertically but flys like a plane for efficiency and reduced costs would make a lot of AN-2 trips redundant and also save use.

The number of rail lines and new airfields will also effect the size and type and number of aircraft that are needed.