Il-112V/Il-212 light military transport

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:I was having a look at the available data for the EASA / CASA C-295. Compared to the il-112 the c-295 has a similar size and max take off weight, and about the same engine power but apparently it has a longer cargo cabin size (with just only 10 cm less wide cabin), better payload, range and short take off capability.
Is it possible? Where's the catch? Is it just a better aircraft or are the data a bit "engineered"?

Do you have reliable numbers. Range depend of payload and on wikipedia most of the time they don't provide range in fonction of load.

For exemple rafale is cited to have similar range than su-35. While it is when equiped with 3 or 4 tank fuel.

Isos wrote:Do you have reliable numbers. Range depend of payload and on wikipedia most of the time they don't provide range in fonction of load.

The C925 have an Empty weight of11000kg and a
Max. takeoff weight of 23,200 kg (51,146 lb)


The Il-112V (from Wikipedia

Length: 24.15 m (79 ft 3 in)
Wingspan: 27.6 m (90 ft 7 in)
Height: 8.89 m (29 ft 2 in)
Wing area: 65 m2 (700 sq ft)
Max takeoff weight: 21,000 kg (46,297 lb)
Fuel capacity: 7,200 l (1,600 imp gal; 1,900 US gal)
Powerplant: 2 × Klimov TV7-117ST turboprop, 2,610 kW (3,500 hp) each
Propellers: 6-bladed constant-speed reversible pitch propellers
Performance

Cruise speed: 450 km/h (280 mph; 243 kn) to 500 km/h (310 mph; 270 kn)
Range: 2,400 km (1,491 mi; 1,296 nmi) with 3,500 kg (7,700 lb) load; 900 km (560 mi; 490 nmi) with max load
Service ceiling: 7,600 m (24,900 ft)

In the EASA website they write 2000NM (3700 km) with a 6tons payload for the C295.
In Wikipedia, but I do not know if the data are correct there, it is reported:

C295 wiki page wrote:
Length: 24.50 m (80 ft 3 in)
Wingspan: 25.81 m (84 ft 8 in)
Height: 8.60 m (28 ft 3 in)
Wing area: 59 m² (634.8 ft²)
Empty weight: 11000kg ()
Max. takeoff weight: 23,200 kg (51,146 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PW127G Hamilton Standard 586-F (six bladed), 1,972 kW (2,645 hp) each

Performance

Maximum speed: 576 km/h (311 knots, 358 mph)
Cruise speed: 480 km/h (260 knots, 300 mph)
Range: with 3,000 kg (6,600 lb) payload, 4,600 km (2,500 nmi / 2,875 mi); (with 6,000 kg (13,200 lb) payload, 3,700 km (2,000 nmi / 2,300 mi))
Range with max 9,250 kg (20,400 lb) payload: 1,300 km (700 nmi / 805 mi)

Ferry range: 5,400 km (2,900 nmi / 3,335 mi)
Service ceiling: 9,100 m (30,000 ft)
Takeoff run: 670 m (2,200 ft)
Landing run: 320 m (1,050 ft)

GarryB wrote:

Where's the catch? Is it just a better aircraft or are the data a bit "engineered"?

It is intended to replace an existing type with existing performance levels and they made it as such.

If it was competing with the C-295 it would win, despite the latters better specs simply because it is sanction proof, which the C-295 is not.

Of course, that is the importance of having a local production. I was just wandering what they have traded to get better range and payload for a otherwise quite similarly sized aircrafts, and what the russian have instead decide to optimise. E.g, some overload capabilities or a different flight envelope.. etc.

Unless, it is instead a problem of design, as the experience with this size and class of aircrafts was before only in Antonov and Russian engineers have to relearn it the hard way

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Missions you would use an Il-112 for or an Il-276 for you would never consider using an An-70 for....

A shorter & lighter twin engine An-70 derivative could have 15-20T payload with longer range, another stretched variant could have 25-35T payload with shorter range & be used as cargo/passenger/tanker, etc. The 1st would be heavier than the Il-112 but it's still worth to have extra capacity for cargo, passengers & fuel.

A variant of the original IL-76 with turboprop engines allowing lower flight speeds and a 40-50 ton capacity would be the ideal replacement for the An-70..

I don't think there r prop engines that powerful to be used on it, except those from Tu-142/An-22, & the wings, wiring, fuel system, instruments, + longer landing gear for ground clearance,etc. will need to be redesigned/changed.
Easier to build 4/2 engined modernized An-22 in several variants & under a different name.

I wrote in the il 106 thread that they are doing a turboshaft engine for the heavy helicopter Mi26, the PD12V, derived from the PD14. From turboshaft to turboprop the step is not that big.

The Ivchenko-Progress/Motorsich D-27 propfan of the An-70 (and of the Yak-44) had a similar power (14000 shp) of the PD-14 derivative turboshaft that Russia is developing to replace the engine on the Mi-26 helicopter (that engine will be capable of 14500 shp, but flat rated at 11500 shp to match the Mi-26 gearbox).

As the actual fan of the D-27 (from Aerosila) and many other parts were designed and manufactured in Russia, probably Russia could without too many problems create a new and more modern Prop-fan engine of that class (also to help (re)start development and construction of aircrafts like Yak-44 or An-70 if the situation with Antonov and contry 404 changes).

I believe that an aircraft like the An-70 (47 tons of payload) would be a good complement to the transport fleet of Russia and could also be produced and used in parallel to the Il-76.

Such propfan engine (or an uprated version) could anyway be also used to replace the NK-12 of the Tu-95, in order to have more commonality between different classes of aircrafts

Il-112V problems:
https://vz.ru/society/2019/4/5/971692.print.html via Yandex

A few days after the first flight of the new Russian military transport aircraft, it turns out that it did not make the proper impression on the customer. The defense Ministry is dissatisfied with a number of parameters of Il-112V. What exactly needs to be corrected and whether the release of this much-needed air force aircraft will be completely disrupted in the end?

Despite the flattering review of the chief pilot of PJSC "Il" Nikolai Kuimov, who on March 30 successfully completed the first test flight and made a regular landing at the airport of the Voronezh joint-stock aircraft company (VASO), to Il-112V the military remained a number of questions. The wording of the pilot that "a great plane, the flight went well", the selection Committee was not satisfied.

Actually, even before rolling out on a test flight defects of new Silt were well known. In particular, at one time personally the head of the defense Ministry Sergei Shoigu expressed his comments on this matter. Repeatedly there were reports of disruption of production time and a number of technical problems. It was necessary to concentrate on details (as occurred), and the customer and the producer only documented problem parties and came to consensus on their elimination. And then, they say, fly!

On the merits and in particular the need for the early appearance of Il-112V, Vzglyad newspaper has already written exactly under his first test flight. Its obvious shortcomings were also identified. They, in fact, noticed "voenproekta" which "nakovyryat" the new freighter is still a bunch of problems to be addressed. From obvious minuses – plane output was too heavy, imperfect motor (rotor and engine) and next to invisible at first sight defects. On correction gave no more than a year.

It all began with the timing in anticipation of the take-off of light military transport aircraft, which were delayed in the modern version for at least a year. Instead of the declared first half of 2018 (as it was publicly said at MAKS-2017), the plane took off only a year later in the presence of members of the Commission and spectators. Why was the promise not kept? Due to the poor quality of project documentation and the presence of a large number of errors in the drawings.

Plus, as it turned out, in the manufactured body of the aircraft found defects that lie in the weight distribution in the center of gravity of the aircraft. The banal – nasal part of the Il-112V was much easier than the tail and to prevent a catastrophe you need to "weigh down the nose". Accordingly, the total weight of the aircraft increases with a minus sign for the lifted cargo. The declared six tons in the end are reduced not even to five, but to a maximum of 3.5 tons of payload (pessimists estimate the carrying capacity of this aircraft just a ton).

Recognizes that light transport aircraft Il-112V will be too heavy, and he is the chief designer of "Il" Nikolay Talikov. To speak on this subject, Nikolai Dmitrievich not particularly fond of. Nevertheless, he finds his explanation for the fact that the resulting machine does not correspond to the tactical and technical task, in particular by weight of the cargo transported. The reason, in his opinion, lies in the General trend of objective reasons associated with the change in the aviation industry, the generation of designers, which "went weak".

Okay, in this case this is only a personal opinion, even the chief designer. If we consider that the minds and hearts invested in the Il-112B still come from the old school of hardening of Soviet aircraft designers, then there is probably need to blame for something else.

No offense to aircraft designers – "rivet" on the Assembly line, they are slightly forgotten how. And it's not even their fault when the prototypes died down before the stage of the experimental flight. Then on the new-old planes recalled and they tried to reanimate, to bring to mind for other people – the new generation of engineers, whose calculations technology 4 plus, 5-th generation, and the need of "sewing machine" to make a decent air technique. Exhale, beaver, secondary structures will be replaced, composite materials will be introduced, repackaging will be done and Il-112V will receive the same three main parameters – range, load capacity and category of airfields.

"Any aircraft passes the stage of improvements throughout its operation, – says test pilot, one of the few pilots of the Il-96 Sergei Knyshev. – Even received a series of air machines hone and improve with each flight. Designers take all the factors and parameters of the aircraft for drawings on the climbers is simply impossible. The main criterion is flight safety, the rest is being finalized over the years.

Take the same Soviet still An-26, which is now to be replaced by Il-112, and he from the first test flight to the beginning of operation has passed the way in four years. I am sure that the new transport will also fly, after appropriate improvements. Here I'm more important than to a greater extent the opinion of the pilot who picked up the plane – he is confident in it. The rest is just a matter of time."

There is still such a nuance: Il-112V is simply obliged to get rid of the identified shortcomings and enter the service of military transport aircraft. And there are simply no other options now to replace those one and a half hundred An-26S that still "twist the sky with screws". Buy imported – not an option, and no one by and large. Is to bring to your mind. Moreover, the identified "flaws" are removable.

Let's be optimistic: the aircraft will reach due to weight reduction and fine-tuning of engines to the declared five–six tons of load capacity. It will replace not only the An-26, which is superior in most parameters by 30-40 percent, but will also compete with world transport aircraft of this class. The final cross on this air car nobody is going to put.

And in summary, the Il-112V is now much closer to implementation than to oblivion. And the first pancake – not a clod.