Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 110 of 131 FirstFirst ... 1060100106107108109110111112113114120 ... LastLast
Results 3,271 to 3,300 of 3922

Thread: RuAF News and development Thread part 15

  1. #3271
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,883
    Quote Originally Posted by Trident View Post
    Why would a tanker aircraft ever need to? Landing an expensive high-value asset at a frontal airfield that is almost within enemy artillery range is a stupid thing to do - hence why no other airforce (which has a choice) expects its main tankers to do so. Tanker-configured KC-130s, KC-390s, A400Ms? Variously intended to refuel primarily helos as a supplement to a proper tanker like the KC-767/A330MRTT (Russia does not have AAR capable helicopters...) or as a band aid solution to having a tanker at all for air forces that simply cannot afford a dedicated refueling fleet.



    Take-off distance for the Il-96T is quoted as 2700m (at MTOW!), landing run is considerably shorter still. Latakia has a 2800m runway. So, yes it can - even though it is questionable why you would want it to do so, as pointed out above.
    Well, i think Latakia AB is too short eighter way for a Il-96.
    You need to be able to do a sharp angle ILA to not risk(minimize) being shot down by the ussual suspect.

    And why would a VKS tanker need a tactical short range Landing/Take-off..?? I'm not even gonna answer this. Too freakin obvious.

    VKS will never in the near and distant future go for AAR tanker capability. Pretty obvious when we look at T-50.
    Last edited by haavarla; 18th April 2017 at 22:07.
    Thanks

  2. #3272
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    Ukraine never offered a full An-70 buy out for a reasonable sum- it was a prize they did not want to let go, see MZKT/Belarus. It is sad to see the project end up nowhere though.
    Define "reasonable sum" - what was their offer? How did it compare to the cost of the Il-476 project, new final assembly line, structural mods, re-certification, delays and all? How did it compare to an appropriate fraction of the A400M development cost (you do have to take into account what the money buys you, and the An-70 compared quite favourably with the A400M)?

    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    I think you are underestimating the desire for the Russian mil for a high wing convertible transport/tanker. Expanding production @ Voronezh vs bringing it over from Uzbekistan would have been easier, and no reason they would not have gone that route had it satisfied the mil's desires.
    Inefficient and not-ideal it might be, the Il-76MD-90 does adequately what the Russian mil needs it to do today.
    I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I find it telling that rough field capabilities and conversion are not required to explain the Il-78. Given the circumstances at the time, you end up with the Il-76 as the basis for a tanker even if you apply the same criteria which make the Il-96 a better choice today. Bearing that in mind, what is the evidence that the RuAF is in fact looking for a high wing convertible transport/tanker? Until there was a pressing need for the Il-96 freighter airframes for other purposes, they were apparently very interested in them for the refueling role, even though they were also going to get Il-478s...

  3. #3273
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,196
    An-70 is a Christmas present compared to what the A-400M has dealt with, but AFAIK the Ukrainian side never really offered a full buy out, wanted to maintain a stake, wanted to keep participation of Antonov and other enterprises, I think the "offer" was a negotiation tactic to get some media traction. Also I have a nagging suspicion there are issues to work through we never heard about, otherwise given the mil and international potential you'd think the program would have gotten more priority. I mean, they established An-148 production in Russia without too much of a hitch (and that plane is a civilian flop) and are now going along with economically dubious projects like Il-96/Il-114.....when oil was expensive and Ukraine was friendlier the fact that the An-70 got no love raises some eyebrows. It's not like they could not have arranged to have some funds "dissapear" along with Ukrainian officials, so the corruption angle doesn't seem too evident.

    I could be wrong though and we could have Rogozin-level decision makers calling the shots, which would explain some things.

    Maybe Aviastar was persuasive that it needed work (and it certainly did) but Voronezh was reluctant to be sidelined as far as Il-96 production was concerned....
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  4. #3274
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,388
    Sudan has conducted 2 weeks exercises with 29 (MIG29/Su-24/Su25) Russian made aircraft. To put so many aircraft in air with small budget.

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20..._136194467.htm

  5. #3275
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Trident View Post
    What does that have to do with where their engines come from? Hint: Wing Loong I is AFAIK the only large Chinese UAV for which the engine type is known with reasonable certainty, but that's ok, since it's also the most widely exported: Rotax 914, like Predator.

    Non-Chinese: I rest my case. Another example is the TAI Anka, which is powered by a Centurion heavy fuel engine - decidedly non-Turkish. Need more examples?

    (Of course you do, since you are notoriously unable to concede anything whatsoever, but I think the above should suffice for any sane person that might otherwise be misled by your nonsense.)
    you didnot understood what i wrote. and i am not surprized at all calling Civilian airlines K767/A330 as proper airrefuellers. these cost fortune to modify and need access to large airports to properly operate and certainly 11 meter antenna conversion will take another couple of decades. An-70 is 500km/hr which is way slower than IL-476 and shorter range.

  6. #3276
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,196
    New to me: Su-34 has lugged 2.3 tons of payload past 16km altitude.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  7. #3277
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,388
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Well, i think Latakia AB is too short eighter way for a Il-96.
    You need to be able to do a sharp angle ILA to not risk(minimize) being shot down by the ussual suspect.

    And why would a VKS tanker need a tactical short range Landing/Take-off..?? I'm not even gonna answer this. Too freakin obvious.

    VKS will never in the near and distant future go for AAR tanker capability. Pretty obvious when we look at T-50.
    its is not just the main base but smaller bases where alot of all kind of helicopters, UAV , vehicles (do UAVs and communcation and health systems not need electicity?) that need fuel for the bases where airtanker is more efficient and quicker than crossing with trucks on thousands of kms of zigzag routes. couple of years back it cost over $1000 per gallon for NATO forces in Afghanistan. Any airtanker with rough field and short takeoff has big advantage for overall war operation. Trident ideas not so bright.

  8. #3278
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    I mean, they established An-148 production in Russia without too much of a hitch (and that plane is a civilian flop) and are now going along with economically dubious projects like Il-96/Il-114.....when oil was expensive and Ukraine was friendlier the fact that the An-70 got no love raises some eyebrows.
    Not mine - An-148 could safely be allowed to enter the market as the Russian domestic counterpart (SSJ) was superior by a sufficient margin that there was no serious danger to its success. Work for VASO and Russian airframe and engine suppliers made the An-148 worth a couple of CIS sales poached from Sukhoi (I disagree, but there it is).

    An-70 vs. Il-76? Talk about the wholly Russian alternative being in over its head! Where the An-148 is a technically creditable jet that simply doesn't quite match the SSJ (or E-Jets), the Il-76 on a level playing field is so markedly inferior against the An-70 that it may well not have sold at all.

    I genuinely believe it was pure and unfettered industrial nationalism, even at the expense of military considerations.

    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    I could be wrong though and we could have Rogozin-level decision makers calling the shots, which would explain some things.
    Indeed it would!
    Last edited by Trident; 19th April 2017 at 16:57.

  9. #3279
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,196
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    I am curious as to what setting the 10% fuel consumption reduction is at.

    http://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/314227.html

    Some info on the Motor-Sich- Russia helicopter engine situation.
    In 2015 they exported 540 (!!!) TV3-117 engines to Russia, worth 327.5 million dollars.
    In 2016 the number went down to 250 engines, worth 145 million dollars.
    Some more info comes out:

    http://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/517848.html

    January 2017- 16 engines (TV3-117) sold to Russia
    Feb- 36 engines
    March- 44 engines
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  10. #3280
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Trident View Post
    Not mine - An-148 could safely be allowed to enter the market as the Russian domestic counterpart (SSJ) was superior by a sufficient margin that there was no serious danger to its success. Work for VASO and Russian airframe and engine suppliers made the An-148 worth a couple of CIS sales poached from Sukhoi (I disagree, but there it is).

    An-70 vs. Il-76? Talk about the wholly Russian alternative being in over its head! Where the An-148 is a technically creditable jet that simply doesn't quite match the SSJ (or E-Jets), the Il-76 on a level playing field is so markedly inferior against the An-70 that it may well not have sold at all.

    I genuinely believe it was pure and unfettered industrial nationalism, even at the expense of military considerations.



    Indeed it would!
    Pay attention to specification. The new Civil version of IL-476 need only 1300 meter of runway with ICAO Chapter 4. flight crew of 3. offcourse Ruaf version will be much heavier with all the self protection and communication features. IL-476 has upgrade road map with new engines.
    http://www.ilyushin.org/en/aircrafts/projects/6293/

    An-70 short takeoff performance is acheived with very low fuel capacity. the range reduces to 1/3. An-70 engines are defective for operations thats why Chinese putting those D30KPs on Y-20.
    http://www.antonov.com/aircraft/tran...70-performance

    these specifications are highly unreliable. look at difference between maximum speed and cruising speed. it is like inflating figures. An-70 airframe is simply not suitable for heavy AESA antenna. it simply dont have range to refuel long range fighters at certain distance.

  11. #3281
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    you didnot understood what i wrote. and i am not surprized at all calling Civilian airlines K767/A330 as proper airrefuellers.
    If I didn't, it may have been related to the fact that you did not address the tanker discussion in the post which I was responding to at all...

    I suggest more coherent posting. Or was that merely a crude deflection?

  12. #3282
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    Pay attention to specification.
    You ought to heed your own advice.

    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    The new Civil version of IL-476 need only 1300 meter of runway with ICAO Chapter 4. flight crew of 3. offcourse Ruaf version will be much heavier with all the self protection and communication features. IL-476 has upgrade road map with new engines.
    http://www.ilyushin.org/en/aircrafts/projects/6293/
    So the RuAF variant will need a longer runway? It's also worth mentioning that the take-off distance specs Ilyushin quote on their homepage are very optimistic (they credit the Il-96 with a run of 2000m, rather than the more realistic 2700m), so 1300m is almost certainly not at MTOW and definitely not from an unpaved field.

    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    An-70 short takeoff performance is acheived with very low fuel capacity. the range reduces to 1/3. An-70 engines are defective for operations thats why Chinese putting those D30KPs on Y-20.
    http://www.antonov.com/aircraft/tran...70-performance
    Paying attention to the specs, short take-off for the An-70 means an unpaved run of 700m or less - from a (paved) runway of more than 1300m, the An-70 will be able to take-off almost at MTOW and therefore achieve most of its range potential.

    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    An-70 airframe is simply not suitable for heavy AESA antenna. it simply dont have range to refuel long range fighters at certain distance.
    Why would it need to? For AEW and refueling an option better than *both* the An-70 and Il-476 is available. Using a platform for tasks to which it is poorly suited is precisely the problem!

  13. #3283
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    .de
    Posts
    2,625
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    Pay attention to specification. The new Civil version of IL-476 need only 1300 meter of runway with ICAO Chapter 4. flight crew of 3. offcourse Ruaf version will be much heavier with all the self protection and communication features. IL-476 has upgrade road map with new engines.
    http://www.ilyushin.org/en/aircrafts/projects/6293/

    An-70 short takeoff performance is acheived with very low fuel capacity. the range reduces to 1/3. An-70 engines are defective for operations thats why Chinese putting those D30KPs on Y-20.
    http://www.antonov.com/aircraft/tran...70-performance

    these specifications are highly unreliable. look at difference between maximum speed and cruising speed. it is like inflating figures. An-70 airframe is simply not suitable for heavy AESA antenna. it simply dont have range to refuel long range fighters at certain distance.
    Il-76TD taking off from Canberra Airport's 2683 metre runway in 2001 - and using every inch of it.


  14. #3284
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,883
    When on the Il-76 subject. I like this one better:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPFmPJ0mi8M

    Just a good example on what the Il-76 was designed to do.
    Get down on or go home. The Il-76 got down alright.

    So any source on why the Il-476 will be heavier over the legacy Il-76?
    First time i've heard of it.

    In fact i heard it will have heavier MTOW and more Cargo weight.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFczcIJSQiw
    Thanks

  15. #3285
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Trident View Post
    You ought to heed your own advice.
    i am always accurate.
    So the RuAF variant will need a longer runway?
    It could be as heavy militarized version will be alot heavier than Civilian version.
    It's also worth mentioning that the take-off distance specs Ilyushin quote on their homepage are very optimistic (they credit the Il-96 with a run of 2000m, rather than the more realistic 2700m), so 1300m is almost certainly not at MTOW and definitely not from an unpaved field.
    optimitic? 1300m is from the paved runway for the newer model Civilian version and its full load.

    Paying attention to the specs, short take-off for the An-70 means an unpaved run of 700m or less - from a (paved) runway of more than 1300m, the An-70 will be able to take-off almost at MTOW and therefore achieve most of its range potential.
    Minimum distance is over 1500m for MTOW on paved runway for An-70. on unpaved runway An-70 range is practically worthless.


    Why would it need to? For AEW and refueling an option better than *both* the An-70 and Il-476 is available. Using a platform for tasks to which it is poorly suited is precisely the problem!
    pay attention. Chinese use 50 years old D-30 engines on its cargo and AWACS fleet and not the so called efficient engines of An-70.
    IL-476 is high speed long range frieghter. that is the most suitable for Air refueller and AWACS.



  16. #3286
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,196


    Pantsir-SA
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  17. #3287
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by Austin View Post
    Looks like little support for Il-96 Tanker from top brass but take this with salt unless officially confirmed

    Russia Drops Plans for a Strategic Air Tanker


    http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...gic-air-tanker
    I so far have not read a single thing from any other source, Russian or not. There seems to be a stream of news very hard to verify these days.

  18. #3288
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post


    Pantsir-SA
    i would think they are better off spending money on ASW capabilities..

  19. #3289
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    So any source on why the Il-476 will be heavier over the legacy Il-76?
    First time i've heard of it.

    In fact i heard it will have heavier MTOW and more Cargo weight.
    There are a couple of reasons why it is likely to be a bit heavier empty, among them the structural mods for said higher MTOW and payload, plus the PS-90A is a few hundred kg heavier than the D-30KP (higher BPR - it comes with the territory). But as for why there should be a huge difference, ask JSR - it was his idea...
    Last edited by Trident; 21st April 2017 at 21:04.

  20. #3290
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,196


    And the Tor-M2DT
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  21. #3291
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    17
    In 2010, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation announced a specification for a new generation of large reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Two parallel specificall programs were created; BAK-SD (Bespilotnyj Aviatsionnyj Komplex Strednij Dalnosti) and BAK-BD (Bespilotnyj Aviatsionnyj Komplex Bolšoj Dalnosti). While the program BAK-SD data reveal its take-off weight close to 1 t, i.e. analog to the American type RQ-1 Predator, the program BAK-BD had come to take-off weight close to 5 t or analog to the US MQ-9 Reaper.

    The specifications of BD-BAK proposals were submitted to the two design offices, OKB Simonov (formerly known as Sokol), specialized design office for the development of UAVs and to the aircraft design bureau RSK MiG. For the winner, at the beginning of the October 2011, it was declared the proposal made by the workshop of the Kazan´s design bureau OKB Simonov (АО НПО "ОКБ им. М.П. Симонова"). This was followed by the signing of the contract in the amount of 1 billion rubles (about $35 million) that covered not only the development costs, but the cost of the building a technological demonstrator. The UAV designed by the design office OKB Simonov and the program BAK-BD became known as the Altius-M, further jointly developed by the Nizhny Novgorod - based PJSC Sokol (НАЗ "Сокол") and St. Petersburg - based Tranzas ZAO ("Транзас"). The commencement of the production was planned in 2017 or 2018. The aircraft system features a long wing design with the two under-wing turboprop engines and a V-shaped tail.



    Most on-board systems or some of their components, UAV Altius-M reportedly shares with a parallel-type UAV Pacer that emerged from the BAK-SD program. Prototype of the UAV Altius-M, also known as Altair, was constructed by the JSC "KAPO Composit" (АО "КАПО-Композит"). In August 2014, the machine was first spotted at the Kazan airport.
    Date of commencement of that test demonstrator flight was set for December 2014. In December of the same year it was reportedly slightly damaged during high speed scrolling. Flight testing of the first UAV Altius-M prototype was launched in mid-July 2016 and suspended in December of the same year. Flight tests will be reinstated in the spring or summer of 2017, with a modified prototype based on the results of the first prototype´s tests. Currently are ongoing intensive works on the other two test machines. Their completion has already reached an advanced stage of technical preparedness. According to the current plans, the serial production of the UAV of type Altius-M should run in 2018.

    .......

    .......

    .....

    .......

    .......

    .................

    The newest UAV is entirely made of the composite materials and has a takeoff weight of up to five tons. The length of the Altair-M is about 11,6 m / 38 ft, the wingspan about 28,5 m / 93 ft 6 in and the span of the V-tail about 6 m / 19 ft 8 in. The aerial vehicle is equipped with the two liquid-cooled diesel RED A03/V12 turbocharged diesel engines, which have a take off power of about 500 horsepower and are equipped with the airscrews. The flying range of the Altius-M is about 10.000 km / 6.213 mi, and the flight duration up to 48 hours. Supposedly, the Altair is equipped with a station of optical imagery intelligence with an optoelectronic system based on a gyro-stabilized platform, while a side-looking position-radar station, with an active phased antenna array, is mounted in the forebody. The Altius-M aerial vehicle system uses a modular approach with a variety of payloads to perform strike, reconnaissance and electronic warfare (EW) missions using the Khibiny or Borisoglebsk-2 jamming systems. The new UAVs will be put into service by The Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation and The Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation.

    .....

    As already mentioned, UAV Altius-M (Altair) is powered by two Raikhlin Aircraft Engine Developments GmbH (RED aircraft GmbH) RED A03/V12 turbocharged diesel engines (eng. architecture: 90°V 12-cylinder; eng. displacement: 6.134 cm3 / 374 in3 * bore: 86,00 mm / 3,39 in, stroke: 88,0 mm / 3,46 in), CR: 16,5:1, rated at 493 hp (500 PS) / 368 kW at 4.000 rpm on take off (2.127 prop rpm), with four overhead spur-geared camshafts (double overhead camshaft - DOHC). The air is compressed into the engine by two intercooled turbochargers. The fuel system is operated by the common-rail direct injection, and the engine can operate on a jet-fuel and kerosene-type/diesel. Liquid cooling system is of a dual-circuit and for that purpose uses water and oil. For the safety reasons each cylinder bank possesses an independent exhaust, cooling, air induction and fuel system. The oil system incorporates a dry sump and features suction pumps and one pressure pump. The engine’s operating characteristics are controlled and monitored by means of an EECU. The redundant engine management system features DAL B software and a hardware layout. The RED A03/V12 is equipped with an electric starter and two alternators. The propeller is single-stage, gear-driven (1/1,88 ratio) by a flanged transmission. Full spec. engine dry mass at the moment is 363 kg / 800 lb (base aero engine weights around 250 kg / 551 lb nett).
    The engine dry mass is based on the basic engine specification which includes engine loom with brackets, electrical engine starter, oil-coolant heat exchanger, integrated oil tank, exhaust systems with turbochargers and wastegates, oil pumps and water pumps. This mass does not include propeller, governor, water coolers, coolant piping, charge air coolers, oil catch tanks, exhaust gas tailpipes, Electronic Engine Control Unit (EECU) and Glow Plug Power Unit (GPPU), adapter loom, alternators, belt drives and engine fluids. The engine´s length is 1.100 mm / 43,3 in, height 750 mm / 29,5 in and width 850 mm / 33,5 in. RED A03/V12 diesel engine is equipped with a FADEC/EECS that is controlled by the Electronic Engine Control Unit (EECU) processing unit. Maximum operating altitude of the engine is 7.620 m / 25.000 ft. Fuel consumption of 210-220 g/kWh means it is a very good diesel engine, comparable to those best. This engine is just one more proof that, if you need an amazing piston engine of any design, you have to knock at the door of some of the German factory. If they don´t have it at the moment, just say what you need and they will create it. This one, RED A03/V12, diesel engine reminds me a lot of Audi´s V12 TDI Turbocharged Direct Injection (TDI) DOHC diesel engine (eng. architecture: 60°V 12-cylinder; eng. displacement: 5.934 cm3 / 362,1 in3 * bore: 83,0 mm / 3,27 in, stroke: 91,4 mm / 3,60 in), CR: 16,0:1, rated at 493 hp (500 PS) / 368 kW at 4.000 rpm, once used in Audi R8 TDI Le Mans concept car and Audi Q7 V12 TDI quattro luxury crossover SUV. Audi R10 TDI race car that won 4 constructors´and 4 drivers´championships of the (American) Le Mans series was also using V12 TDI engine, though those two engines are completely unrelated (bore, stroke and the angle between the cylinder banks) and do not share a single component.

    Just a few more words about UAV Altius-M ... if I would find myself in a situation I have no choice but to shoot down Altius-M aerial vehicle, I would surely take care to do that very gently and carefully just not to damage its engines. And, if anywise possible, to save them ... :-)
    ----------------------------------------------
    At the Dusseldorf Boat Show in 2011 there was a not so well publicized world premier of a new RED A03/V12 marine diesel engine, newcomer to the marine world, at the present only available as an aero engine, originally developed to fill a niche market between aircraft gasoline piston engines and the more expensive turboprops and, as such, was certified as an aero engine so far.

    A marine version of the aero engine was planned to have an output power of cca. 700 hp (710 PS) / 522 kW at 3.900 rpm. Weight of the engine has not been announced, but its aluminum construction with the carbon fiber inlet manifolds means it is very light.

    Caption: Front view of the RED A03 engine showing 90 degree.....................................Caption: Side view of the engine showing turbocharger and common rail
    between cylinder banks and carbon fibre inlet manifolds..............................................fuel injection system.
    Photo credit: Keith Henderson.................................................. ...............................Photo credit: Keith Henderson

    ..

    RED A03/V12 marine engine is also a V12 liquid cooled turbocharged diesel engine with 90° between the cylinder banks and twin double overhead camshafts. A bore of 86,0 mm / 3,39 in and stroke of 88,0 mm / 3,46 in gives a swept volume of 6.134 cm3 / 374 in3. The engine is electronically controlled with a common-rail direct fuel injection system. Operating on JET A fuel, a specific fuel consumption of 210-220 g/kWh was reported. There are a dry sump lubrication system, twin fuel pumps, twin turbochargers and an integrated oil-water heat exchanger. Dimensions of the base engine are length 800 mm / 31,5 in, width 840 mm / 33,1 in and height 650 mm / 25,6 in.
    ----------------------------------------------
    The Yak-52 training aircraft (reg. LY-RAD) was chosen by the RED AIRCRAFT as the first engine flight test platform for the newly developed RED A03/V12 engine. The design for the engine installation has been undertaken in cooperation with the JSC A.S. Yakovlev Design Bureau (ОАО "Опытно-конструкторское бюро им. А. С. Яковлева"). The main goal to create the most compact engine installation packaging concept was successfully realized. The acceleration loads typical for training aircraft gave a chance to test engine performance, durability and interface in critical conditions. RED AIRCRAFT has successfully flight tested a prototype and confirmed declared high performance characteristics of the RED A03/V12 engine.





    ........

    … a couple of years back, the Russian aircraft manufacturers have agreed with the German company Raikhlin Aircraft Engine Developments GmbH (RED Aircraft GmbH) for the development of the promising engines for the light piston aircraft. The contract provides for a 2-aircraft diesel engines, known under the designations RED A03/V12 and RED A05/V6. The main difference between these engines is the number of the cylinders. RED A03/V12 has 12 cylinders arranged in V-shaped system, and RED A05/V6 has 6 cylinders arranged in V, as reflected in their titles.
    For the first time that the work on the project has even started, it became clear in autumn 2010, when the news from those most informed came from Germany about the end of the assembly of the standard 12-cylinder diesel engine. Soon it was installed on a little modified Yak-52 plane, which received the latest engine mounts. In November 2010 it was reported that the new engine has a capacity of 500-700 horsepower, and the fuel consumption is about 30 l/h at a flight speed of 250 km/h at 2/3 of the capacity of the engine. Such a numbers were intrigued by the aviation enthusiasts, but soon the enthusiasm was lost as the new messages have appeared. The next few months RED Aircraft was working on a fine-tuning of the new engine and demonstrate it at the air shows. Otherwise, Yak-52 aircraft was standard powered by the Vedeneyev M-14P, piston, four-stroke, supercharged, petrol engine (eng. architecture: 9-cylinder, single-row radial; eng. displacement: 10.131 cm3 / 618,2 in3 * bore: 105, 0 mm / 4,13 in, stroke: 130,0 mm / 5,12 in), CR: 6,3:1, rated at 360 hp (364 PS) / 268 kW at 2.950 rpm.

    ..

    In that time, there was only a piece of news about the RED A03/V12 engine. Management development company announced that by the end of 2012 the new engine tests have been completed, and that in the next year assembly of the first aircraft Yak-152 will begin. Following the production of the new training aircraft, the testing and work to obtain all the necessary documents started.
    In June 2016 manufacturer IAPO - Irkutsk Aircraft Production Assocaition has revealed that the Russian Ministry of Defense has ordered 150 Yak-152 basic trainers. The company unveiled that three aircraft were under the various stages of assembly at their plant in Irkutsk. Operated by a single pilot, the cockpit can accommodate two crew members in a tandem configuration. The aircraft is intended to provide primary pilot training, professional selection and the occupational guidance for the future pilots of military fighter aircraft. The Yak-152 is a single-engine, two-seater, low-wing monoplane of a classical configuration with a retractable tricycle landing gear with nose wheel and, at that time anticipated, M-14H engine. Shock-absorbing properties of the landing gear with the low pressure tires, short take-off and landing run make it possible to operate the aircraft on small unprepared airfields.

    However, the prototype was powered by a turbocharged diesel engine built by Raikhlin Aircraft Engine Developments GmbH (RED aircraft GmbH), A03/V12, from Germany. As I have already mentioned, the engine was available in two versions, A05/V6 and A03/V12. The latter provides sufficient power for the Yak-152 to fly with four underwing weapons pylons and up to 550 kg / 1.100 lb of munitions on them. In one of the possible configurations, the inner attachment points could be occupied by rocket pods or R-73 air-to-air missiles, and the outer ones with a 50/100 kg (110/220 lb) caliber bombs. On a reconnaissance mission, the Yak-152 can take pods for aerial photography, radiation, bacteriologic and chemical warfare. On 27. Aug 2016, at the IAPO - Irkutsk Aircraft Production Assocaition (ПАО "Корпорация "Иркут"), the first completed Yak-152 trainer aircraft prototype (serial number 0001), equipped with a RED A03/V12 diesel engine was rolled out.

    ............

    The requirement from the Russia’s Air and Space Force is for 150 aircraft in the roles of screener and basic trainer. For this and other domestic customers, there was a plan that the Yak-152 will be powered by the M-14H, piston, four-stroke, supercharged, petrol engine (eng. architecture: 9-cylinder, single-row radial; eng. displacement: 10.131 cm3 / 618,2 in3 * bore: 105, 0 mm / 4,13 in, stroke: 130,0 mm / 5,12 in), CR: 6,3:1, rated at 400 hp (405 PS) / 298 kW at 2.950 rpm, built by the PJSC "OKBM" (ООО "ОКБМ") from Voronezh, and based on the Ivchenko AI-14 nine-cylinder, air-cooled, radial piston engine. The M-14H version (used on Yak-52M aircraft) is the recent and more powerful version of the popular Vedeneyev M-14P engine which develops 360 hp (364 PS) / 268 kW at ´maximum´ mode and 400 hp (PS) / 298 kW at the ´emergency´mode. The engine is air-cooled with a single-speed pump and mechanical reduction gear of airscrew shaft drive, equipped with the system of automatic start and the system of the automatic condensate drainage from the lower cylinders to avoid hydroblows. There is also a Vedeneyev M-14PF slightly modified version of the engine, rated at 400 hp (405 PS) / 298 kW, with the larger, 104,1 mm / 4,1 in, power booster (M-14P has 91,4 mm / 3,6 in. booster) and a higher supercharger´s (centrifugal, single-stage) gear ratio (supercharger turns at 10,5 times of the engine´s speed rather than 8,16), used to produce a mildly higher manifold pressure. Prop gear ratio of the M-14 engine is 0,658:1. Engine´s diameter is 985 mm / 38,8 in, length 924 mm / 36,4 in and dry mass 214 kg / 471 lb.

    .........

    The M-14H-powered version of the Yak-152 aircraft is lighter, with gross weight (compared with the RED A03/V12 engine) reduced from 2.125 kg / 4.684 lb to 1.400 kg / 3.086 lb. It has g limits of +9/-7 (the g limits of the diesel version are +5/-3). While the maximum diving speed remains at 500 km/h / 270 kn, the maximum level speed drops from 380 km/h / 205 kn to 335 km/h / 181 kn (Maximum Level Speed is the maximum speed an airplane can attain in level flight. In almost all cases, an airplane is flying faster or slower than this speed, and if it levels out and flies straight/level, at full power, it will slow down/speed up to this speed). The maximum climb rate rises from 8 m/s to 11 m/s (1.575 ft/min to 2.165 ft/min). Take-off run decreases from 300 m / 990 ft to 200 m / 660 ft. The landing run is reduced from 450 m / 1.485 feet to 250 m / 825 ft, as a result of the landing speed going down from 145 km/h / 78 kn to 115 km/h / 62 kn.

    Since the M-14H engine production was ceased in the meantime, it seems Yak-152 aircraft will have to deal with the READ A03/V12 engine´s greater weight and yet the factory can be overjoyed to come into the possession of such a magnificent peace of the engineering since the Russian aviation industry has, not nearly, anything similar in the production programs of their factories.

    ..

    In the end, I cannot resist not to ask myself what is the maximal propulsion power the Yak-152´s airframe can endure and how would this, by my humble opinion great, aircraft behave with, for example, an PT6A-114A twin-shaft, free-turbine (PwrT), turboprop engine (engine architecture: (3+1r)LPC1LPT«1PwrT–]2G[–P, CPR: 7,0:1, rated at 675 shp (684 sPS) / 503 kW at 1.900 rpm of the Output Speed.
    The P&WC PT6A-114A turboprop engine is the member of the PT6A ´Small´ series of the PT6A turboprops. Single-stage power turbine is connected to a two-stage epicyclic output reduction gearbox, which drives the propeller at a speed of 1.900 rpm. Gas generator shaft´s speed is 38.100 rpm. Engine´s length is 1.341 mm / 52,8 in, diameter 596 mm / 23,5 in and dry mass 163 kg / 359 lb...
    If will the Yak-152, with the turbodiesel engine, be a true workhorse, I am sure with the ´proposed´ turboprop it would be a true … DogFighter? ... :-)

    Kind regards

    Mario
    Last edited by mfranjic; 22nd June 2017 at 19:24.
    'Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile' - Albert Einstein

  22. #3292
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,196
    Hmm, I never connected that Raikhlin engines are on both Altius and Yak-152.
    That's two major programs, anyone know if they are looking at localizing the engines?
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  23. #3293
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,148
    A-100LL flew few days ago;

    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4203067

  24. #3294
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    India
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by paralay View Post
    It's not Zircon
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	brahmos-2-image10.jpg 
Views:	117 
Size:	59.4 KB 
ID:	252802

    Is this the Zircon?


    Is the Brahmos 2 K itself the Zircon/an Indian variant with some Indian components like the Rlg-INS,etc in the manner of Brahmos being a variant of the P-800 Oniks OR

    Brahmos 2 K will share some of the core technologies from the Zircon like the intake design,scramjet combustor,exhaust nozzle,materials but will be a different design hypersonic missile ?
    Last edited by Arihant; 23rd April 2017 at 12:42.

  25. #3295
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,883
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkut View Post
    A-100LL flew few days ago;

    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4203067
    Interesting.
    Is that the final product, or is it more of a prototype?
    I thought the was to be three Arrays positioned inside a dome..
    Thanks

  26. #3296
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Arihant View Post
    Is this the Zircon?
    Probably somehow so ...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	KRGS_23042017.jpg 
Views:	156 
Size:	1.57 MB 
ID:	252803

  27. #3297
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Interesting.
    Is that the final product, or is it more of a prototype?
    I thought the was to be three Arrays positioned inside a dome..
    Should be a prototype (LL -> "flying laboratory") - looks like D-30KP engines, too? So possibly a refit of an existing A-50 airframe? Also, the rotodome is simply not installed yet, Indian A-50EIs were ferried to Israel for radar installation in a similar state.

    EDIT: https://img.planespotters.net/photo/...Net_202138.jpg
    Last edited by Trident; 23rd April 2017 at 13:55.

  28. #3298
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    Hmm, I never connected that Raikhlin engines are on both Altius and Yak-152.
    That's two major programs, anyone know if they are looking at localizing the engines?
    Yes, OKB Simonova (Altius-M producer) reported that they were setting up production circa June 2016. First engines should roll out in 2017.

    Source: http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3346231

    Should be a prototype (LL -> "flying laboratory") - looks like D-30KP engines, too? Also, the rotodome is simply not installed yet, Indian A-50EIs were ferried to Israel for radar installation in a similar state.
    I thought the was to be three Arrays positioned inside a dome..
    It's a first prototype based on used-to-be A-50. Production models will be based on MD-90A.

    According to Butowski it'll feature S-band AESA with electronic scanning in elevation and mechanical scanning in azimuth. Rotation rate is 12 evolutions per minute (twice as fast when compared to Shmel).

  29. #3299
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    India
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by paralay View Post
    Probably somehow so ...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	KRGS_23042017.jpg 
Views:	156 
Size:	1.57 MB 
ID:	252803

    What is the source of this pic? Did this figure appear in any of the official literature emanating from NPO Mashinostroyenia or any other allied OKB?

    Will you kindly post some more pics of the Zircon or provide a link where I can find them.

    Isnt there also an air launched variant of this missile ? And thanks for the reply.

  30. #3300
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,125
    About the missile "Zircon" is very little known.
    - it is retracted into a standard launcher
    - it has hypersonic speed
    - it can not be intercepted by a ship's anti-aircraft missile system
    - there are no images on the network
    - there is no information on the official website

    this picture is speculation

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES