RD-33 Engine & Design Problems

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

20 years 4 months

Posts: 6,186

Well as a casual observer of the Mig-29M2/MMRCA approaching to land at the AeroIndia 2005 , after performing so magnificently at the show ( I remeber many LCA scientist praising the 29MRCA performance ) and since I was standing at the tarmac , and while the 29 was approaching to land , tail of Black Smoke was clearly visible ( I wouldnt call it a dense smoke ), but neverthless very much visible ones clearly marking the 29MRCA out from other aircraft.

If one looks at the old Mig-29A footage ,it was more densely smoked a clear give away for defence system ( ack-ack , missile etc ) .

Now that was the 29A and this is the 29MRCA at AE2005 , If it was a minor issue it would have been sorted till its latest avtar , Though the IAF uses a low smoke variant of the RD-33 , Think its called RD-333 , But How low smoky is another question.

Also it had reliablity issue and may be design issue since they couldnt solve the problems till now , I am not aware if the latest variant of the RD-33 has completely solved it , But the near latest I saw at AE2005 was smoky.

Also CAG has pointed to the RD-33 engine problem in the IAF Indian Airforce Mig-29 XPerience may be by now they might have solved it by and large.

But Does the RD-33 engine in general faces Design Problems ?????
Something which cannot be overcome completely , Or is it some other reasons like low quality of spares,fuel and maintainence issues which creates this problem ?????????

Since MIG-35 or MMRCA ( what ever may be its avtar ) is a top contender for IAF requirement , It becomes more serious issue.

Original post

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 521

You start worring when the engines don`t smoke anymore! That`s a bad sign that the engine might not work anymore

From what I know...the latest RD-33 that equips the OVT demonstrator has redesigned combustion chambers that make less smoke.

Member for

20 years 4 months

Posts: 6,186

From what I know...the latest RD-33 that equips the OVT demonstrator has redesigned combustion chambers that make less smoke.
Reply With Quote

well the problem here is that its visibly smoky , with that kind of smoke you can make out from a long distance with your naked eye that its a Mig-29 , and that smoke does leaves a trail.

I wouldnt make the same statement for an Su-30MKI or a Mirage-2000 . Thats the difference. And I am making that statement for the 29MRCA present at AE2005 and not some old variant.

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 815

It is true that the older RD-33 had a lot of anomolies that troubled the IAF ... but the new RD-33 for the Mig-29K's of the Indian Navy have all these flaws verified. ... and the same is true for the 3D 360 degree all axis thrust vectoring RD-33's that will power the Mig-35 that is being offered to India with ToT in the MRCA tender.

check this out about the new RD-33's that will find their way into the Navy's Mig-29K's >>>

Initially plagued with reliability issues and 'smokiness', the Klimov RD-33 has spawned several updates for the latest in MiG-29 series such as the RD-33K,the RD-33-3M and the RD-33-10M as well as version that uses. These feature [i]full corrosion protection[/i] and a [i]smoke-free combustion chamber[/i] and the latter have highly uprated thrust for use on carrier based MiG-29K aircraft whose intakes have been enlarged for the purpose. HAL's Engine division set up an overhaul facility for RD-33 engines in 1997.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_228.shtml

_________

New MiG engine for India to be tested by Russian experts
Moscow | September 27, 2005 6:57:43 AM IST

Russian experts will today begin testing a new engine for the MiG 29 aircraft destined for India at a plant in St Petersburg.

The new Box Jellyfish engine, an upgraded model of the RD-33 engine for MiG-29 Fulcrum fighter, would be used for MiG-29s for the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier, which Russia is currently modernizing for the Indian Navy.

The new engine will be superior to the previous models in terms power and will retain all the advantages of the basic model, the RIA Novosti agency quoted a spokesman as saying.

http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=121582&n_date=20050927&cat=India
_________

Here are some sad stories about the IAF's horrid experiences with the RD-33 prompting thr Russians to offer India a better engine this time ..

The Indian Air Force (InAF) MiG-29 Experience:

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India published on 31March1993 the results of an in depth study on the operational performance and reliability of the MiG-29 aircraft. This study was first reported in Aviation Week & Space Technology during 25July1994 (pg.49), and has been obtained by author from Mr. Pushpindar Singh, of the Society of Aerospace Studies, New Delhi.

65 x MiG-29 single-seat and 5 x dual-seat trainers with 48 x spare engines (sparing factor of 0.7/aircraft) were delivered between 1986 and 1990 at a total program cost of approximately $600 million that included initial spares and support. These aircraft were the first MiG-29's to ever leave the Soviet Union and were not up to the weapons system standard of those that went later to the Warsaw Pact allies. The aircraft were sent disassembled by sea, and re-assembled, and test flown in India. By 1990 three squadrons were operational. Two Flight Data Ground Processing Units were included to help pilots debrief their utilization of flight controls and systems. Expectations were that single-seat aircraft would fly 15 hours per month (180 hrs/yr) and dual-seat aircraft 20 hours per month (240 hrs/yr).

There were extensive problems encountered in operational and maintenance due to the large number of pre-mature failures of engines, components, and systems. Of the total of 189 engines in service, 139 engines (74%) failed pre-maturely and had been withdraw from service by July 1992, thus effectively shutting down operations. 62 of these engines had not even accomplished 50% of their 300 hours first overhaul point. Thus the desired serviceability showed a steadily decreasing trend.

Engineering reports mainly attribute RD-33 failures to design/material deficiencies causing discolored engine oil (8), cracks in the nozzle guide vanes (31), and surprisingly, foreign object damage (FOD). The eight material deficient engines (discolored oil) were repaired by the contractor under warrantee provisions, but the engines had to be recycled to the manufacturer. The thirty-one engines with cracks in their nozzle guide vanes were fixed in the field by contractor teams and adjustments were made to the entire engine fleet. But even though the incidents reduced the occurrences of the cracks, they continued. But the FOD situation is the most interesting, especially after the inlet FOD doors received world press coverage, but there were other concerns about production quality control that led to problems.

Since the Indian Air Force received early model Fulcrum A's, some just after the 200th production article, there were quality control deficiencies that resulted in numerous pieces of FOD (foreign object damage) and tools being left behind after final construction inside of the aircraft. Remember that the Fulcrum skeleton is made first and then the skin is riveted over top, in the way aircraft were made in the fifties and sixties in the West. Nuts, bolts, tools, etc. all made their way to the engine bays and inlet ducts and when they were loosened up after accelerations they damaged engines and equipment.

On top of all this, it was discovered that the unique FOD doors on the MiG-29's inlets were not stopping material from getting into the engine ducts. Since the doors retracted "up" into the inlet, debris that was kicked up by the nose wheel lodged on or at the bottom of the door seal and then was ingested into the engine when the door opened during the nose gear lifted off the ground during takeoff.

This problem was known from the earliest days. After the first four MiG-29 prototypes were evaluated, the nose gear was moved further back, but nose wheel "mud-flaps" or guards were still required to protect the engine from flying debris. It took until 1988 before all delivered aircraft were so equipped, therefore the initial batch of InAF aircraft had to be locally retro-fitted with mud guards and that activity was not completed until June 1992. All costs were supposed to be re-imbursed by the contractor but Mikoyan reneged and left the InAF with $300,000 in liabilities. In subsequent MiG-29K/M models the FOD doors were replaced by screens that closed "down", forcing any debris out of the louvers repositioned to the lower side of the inlet duct..

The Indian Air Force procurement contract was concluded in September 1986, and the first engine was expected to go into overhaul in 1989. However, four engines prematurely came up for overhaul and no repair facility had been prepared. As time went on, 115 of the 122 engines (94%) prematurely failed and had to be re-cycled through engine depots in Russia at great cost. Backlogs were created and only 79 (65%) engines returned on schedule. Even when a regional Indian repair facility was completed in August 1994, the high failure rates continued and the majority of broken engines had to be sent back to Russian depots. Self-sufficiency was achieved in 1994, only after the operations tempo was significantly reduced on a permanent basis. In the process of refurbishing failed engines, the total technical life of most of the engine fleet was effectively reduced from 800 hours / 8 years to 400 hours / 4 years, at a minimum.

Non-availability of radar and weapon system components also resulted in the grounding of seven aircraft for a period of six to twenty months. Two may have been damaged for life due to cannibalization. Besides this, a large number of subsystems and computers experienced unpredicted failures in the last four years which adversely effected the operational readiness of the squadrons. Some of the computers were field-repaired by specialists from the manufacturers, others were replaced. These repair costs were all in excess to the initial contract costs. It was noted that the 10 additional computers, which were imported, cost the InAF around $806,000. Two Flight Data Ground Processing Units quickly became unserviceable during their warranty period and have been lying un-utilized and un-repaired for over two years.

The InAF Headquarters also noted in March 1991 report that a severe shortage of product support equipment had resulted in the decline of fleet availability by 15-20%, which in turn, took negative effect on operational readiness and mission requirements.

So in general, lessons learned from this first out-of-country operation of a Russian front line fighter were:

1. The MiG-29 had intensive problems in operation and maintenance since its induction due to premature failure of engines, components, and systems. 74% of the engines failed within five years, were out of supply pipeline for three years, and reduced aircraft availability by 15, to 20%. This led to a decision to restrict flying efforts and therefore compromised operational and training commitments.

2. There were significant shortfalls in the performance of the MiG-29 fleet resulting in operational and training inadequacies. The shortfall ranged from 20 to 65% in respect to combat aircraft availability and 58 to 84% in trainers between 1987 - 1991.

3. There was a mismatch between induction of the aircraft (1987) and the establishment of its repair facilities (end of 1994). Until that time engines had to be continually sent to manufacturers abroad at great monetary cost, reduction of one-half total life, and a significant stretch of schedule.

4. Non-availability of critical radar components and spares resulted in the grounding of significant numbers of aircraft. Five aircraft were out of action for over six months while two were in the hanger for over two years. Unserviceability of computers and the inability to fix them cost excessive amounts of money to rectify.

5. The pilot debrief Ground Data Processing Unit, imported at high cost, was left lying around unserviceable and unused since its reception in August 1990.

6. The lack of nose wheel mud guards had to be solved by importing upgrade kits and expensive local re-design after material deficiencies could not be overcome.

With a regional support capability in place (regardless of how tenuous it was) and having one of the few respectable MiG-29 operating legacies, the Indian aerospace companies, especially Hindistan Aeronautical Ltd. (HAL), and the InAF became natural partners for MAPO in consummating the sale of MiG-29's to Malaysia. They were offered the opportunity to get involved with providing training and logistics support for the new Malaysian MiG-29 program. India, of course, gives greater credibility to MAPO in convincing customers that the MiG-29 is a viable fighter candidate for Pacific Rim nations. It remains to be seen, however, what solutions the new joint venture brings to the Indian Air Force problems.

^^ an excerpt from Easy Tartrar's Mig-29 analysis

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 815

More about the older RD-33 ...

The MiG-29 Thumansky RD-33 Engine:

The MiG-29 utilizes the RD-33 family of aircraft two-spool bypass turbojet engines that feature air flows mixed in a common afterburner, variable area nozzles, and a modular design which facilitates maintenance. RD-33 engines now serve in 22 nations: Belarus, Bulgaria, Cuba, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Korea DRP, Malaysia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Syria, Ukraine, Yeman, and Yugoslavia. Only South Africa does not use the MiG-29, but has reconfigured the RD-33 in their F-1 Mirages. V. Chernyshev Machine-Building Enterprise literature, builder of the RD-33 engine, discuss engine replacements for the Cheetah and early model Mirage III/V's.

Historically Russian fighter engines have been designed for high performance and short life spans. Since they were designed for real war conditions and not the convenience of peacetime, they had relatively short Mean Time Between Overhauls (MTBO) of a few hundred hours and/or short total life spans. Since aircraft were rotated out of rough forward areas as their limited operating time expired, maintenance was rarely done in these areas and engines were produced in larger quantities thus lowering unit costs. It also kept the engine manufactures closer to war rate production levels as opposed to the slowly responsive, market oriented, peacetime rates. Hence their design quality, manufacturing quality, technology and performance levels, all steadily improved. Characteristics of the RD-33 engine are listed below.

RD-33 Engine Characteristics :

Inlet Diameter 730 mm
Length 4250 mm
Fan Stages 4
Compressor Stages 9
High / Low Pressure Turbines 1 / 1
Max Sea Level A/B (wet) Thrust: 18,300 lbs (8,300 kg / 81.4 kN)
Specific Fuel Consumption @ Max Thrust 2.05 kg/kg-hr
Max Sea Level Mil-Pwr (Dry) Thrust: 11,240 lbs (5,098 kg / 49.9 kN)
Specific Fuel Consumption @ Mil Thrust 0.77 kg/kg-hr
Inlet airflow at max thrust 168 lbs/sec (76 kg/sec)
Max Turb Inlet Tempt (°K) Takeoff 1530
Max Turb Inlet Tempt (°K) in Flight 1680
Bypass ratio & pressure ratio 0.49 & 20:1
Specific Weight 0.127
Weight of 2 x RD-33's 6613 lbs. (3000 kg)
Engine + Accessory Package 3305 lbs. (1500 kg)
Engine Thrust / Weight Region 7.4 to 8.0
Response Time, idle to full A/B 4 sec
Total Air Compression Ratio (fan & comp) 21
Maximum Flight Mach number 2.35 Mach
Maximum Indicated Airspeed 800+ knots (1500 kph)
Max Service Ceiling 56,000 ft (17,069 m)
Max Velocity Suction Head 11,000 kg/m
Ground Idle Fuel Flow 26 lbs / minute
Max afterburner at Sea Level (0.9 M) 2500 lbs / minute
Max afterburner at 30,000 ft (0.9 M) 700 lbs / minute
Engine Change (claim) 2.0 hours

The FOD protection doors are controlled automatically from engine start. As soon as hydraulics come on line, from a given engine, the door closes. During start, taxi, and takeoff the door is kept closed by hydraulic pressure and is controlled by a compressed nose gear strut switch. After nosegear unstick during takeoff (around 200 kph), the inlet doors open and are then controlled by airspeed & engine demand for air. The lourves function by gravity and required air being sucked into the inlet. They are made of composite materials, have 887 perforations, and respond to the slightest change of air flow demand. If the engine inlet doors fail closed the aircraft can continue flight but is limited to 0.8 Mach or 800 kph in speed. Once open, the doors become part of the three-ramp variable inlet geometry scheme. Downstream from airflow there are three exits for air from the ramp perforations. The inlet doors, once adapted with nosegear mud-flaps, have actually eliminated the problem of external FOD on Russian airfields. Likewise, they cannot be manually deployed by the pilot. Advanced models use screens as mentioned. The new Sarkisev engines (RD-33K) are equipped with full authority digital electronic engine controls (DEEC). Engine power input has been increased but overall fuel specifics have not been improved.

The two fundamentally different approaches have come together in Malaysia where the Russians are expected to deliver RD-33 engines featuring a considerable longer life span, and much extended MTBO's. MAPO is also offering to provide a test program to assess at what point this western mimic logistics and support approach will not work any more, thus forcing them to reverse course, on behalf of customer, and recover the program in a more traditional Russian style. Malaysia has received two MiG-29's in 1992, for just such testing program as well as maintenance training duties. Malaysia has asked to start with an MTBO of 750 hours. They would be assisted by the Indian Air Force who to date have only been able to maintain their engines at a 200 hour MTBO rate.

RD-33 design history dates back to the early 1970's when Pratt & Whitney and General Electric were working towards the F-15, F-16 and F-18. The Russians selected, what they say, was a similar configuration approach for the RD-33; a two shaft low bypass ratio turbofan (0.4 : 1), with a four stage fan without inlet guide vanes, but with an inlet cruciform supporting structure for the front fan bearing. The high pressure compressor features nine stages, of which the first three have variable geometry stator vanes giving a pressure ratio of 20:1. There is also the annular combustion chamber, two single staged turbines , and an afterburner that burns both fuel and core flow with by-pass air in a mixture. Hydromechanical controls on the engine have built in diagnostics for ease of maintenance. The RD-33 has eleven modules with all HP and LP blades capable of being replaced.

Russian efforts at attaining improved maintainability and reliability were reviewed in a MilTech article (Aug93, pg. 63), produced on the MiG-29 that said the mean time between maintenance operation (MTBO) for the MiG-29 in 1989 was 7.8 hours, by 1990 it rose to 9.4 hours, and at present is tabulated at 18.6 hours. Combat readiness of Russian units was said to be now over 90%. The article goes on to say that because of the militarized economy of that time, the amounts and frequency of inspections as specified in the aircraft manuals were well beyond that required to maintain high readiness and efficiency due to the availability of spares, test equipment, and consumables. This is hard to believe, but with the limited amount of flying there might have been a way to keep ready aircraft on the ground and in a "up" status for long periods of time.

A recent V. Chernyshev (RD-33 manufacturer) add says that the German Air Force has found that the RD-33 MTBO can be held at 700 hours if the engines are properly maintained (MilTech 12/94, pg. 18). With this experience or hype, Mikoyan is confident that they can quickly bring the service life of the MiG-29 up to 4000 hours with mod provisions taking this to 6000 hours. Likewise the overhaul cycle of the RD-33 engine for all customers could be quickly lifted from its original 350 hours to 700 hours to first overhaul and life out to 1400 hours. The new German Air Force has been working together with DASA and V. Chernyshev to set-up modern computer-based MiG-29 supply system that would further increase their engine MTBO to 1200 hours.

In practice however, because of the relatively low total flight hours, under a million hours for all MiG-29's, the RD-33 failed far more often then advertised and the Russian supply system could not keep up to the customer demand and turn around time required, as experienced by the Indian Air Force. Every overhaul began to cost the InAF Force over $480,000 dollars.

Simply put, the original war-based Soviet logistics system pumped completed engines and new aircraft into the forward area at rates consistent with projected utilization that always kept in reserve the hours necessary to fight the NATO war. It was a system of long trains and thousands of aircraft crates and engine coffins, but very few isolated parts and even fewer trained technicians. As you can see this entire system is now transitioning towards a western based concept with very little regard for an exact audit or tracking of component production, refurbishment, inventory, storage, retrieval, and transportation.

When we first learned at Farnborough 1988, that the RD-33 engine weighed 3305 lbs., it bothered many engineers. It was said to be too heavy for a single-engine fighter and too light for a twin. The un-installed thrust-to-weight was 7.47:1 and the installed around 5.53:1, more like a GE J-79 than a F-100. Modern engines were supposed to have eight or nine to one uninstalled thrust-to-weight ratios. But the Russians, while working with older engine technology and manufacturing techniques, were ready to pay a weight penalty because they knew they could use other available high technology in composite manufacturing to make up for it. They were also being hard pressed to get into production a higher performing fighter to counter the F-15 and F-16. Correspondingly that penalty re-directed the weight saving efforts by the design team. The MiG-29, therefore, obtained a high percentage of composite structure because of weight savings needed to offset heavier engines that were uncharacteristically heavy by western standards. The RD-33 then, may have more in common with the J-79 level of technology than the F-100.

Engine Oil Sampling was directed at 100/150 hour level maintenance inspections with an average consumption rate listed at 1.76 lbs/hr (0.8 kg/hr). Oil Level check gauges are located in the left wheel well. There is a high pressure quick dis-connect refueling point located just inside of the left landing gear well. The quick disconnect attachment point immediately splits into two fuel lines, one to the wings and the other to the fuselage tanks. However, all advanced and naval variants of the MiG-29 have been fitted with retractable fuel problems. Just forward of the high pressure refueling point in the landing gear door (remember left side of the aircraft looking forward), is a drop down fastener door that is located just under the strake near the gear well that exposes the computer access panel for the INS Loading and additional maintenance test switches. There is a white matrix of 3 x 3 white keys, and adjacent to the right is another 4 x 4 matrix of black keys. There are other switches there also.

Spool-up from idle to full afterburner takes a flat four seconds, even though the pilot's check list on takeoff requires a mandatory 10 seconds to wait and watch indicators. The "linear" type of throttles, that are power boosted, moved very easily when the boost system is on, but is very hard when off. The transition from MIL to A/B zones is almost un-noticeable, except for a quick knuckle grab "up" to clear the detent stops on the forward side of the throttle grip, which is effortless and smooth.

MiG-29 Fuel System Summary: (@ 6.5 lbs/US gal)

Model Var. Lbs. Kg. US Gal. liters
Internal Fuel:
Fulcrum A (1) 07384 3200 1136 4300
Fulcrum B (2) 07384 3200 1136 4300
Fulcrum A (3) 07384 3200 1136 4300
Fulcrum C (4) 07514 3408 1156 4376
Fulcrum C (5/6) 07384 3200 1136 4300
Fulcrum C (7/8) 07926 3595 1219 4616
Fulcrum A (9) 07384 3200 1136 4300
Fulcrum D (10) 11023 5000 1696 6419
Fulcrum E (11/12) 10979 4980 1689 6394
External Fuel:
1 x Centerline 02610 1184 0402 1520
1 x Wing Tank 01975 0896 0304 1150
2 x Wing Tanks 03949 1792 0608 2300
3 x Ext Tanks 06559 2976 1010 3820

[b]RD-33 Engine Start:[/b]

For normal day-to-day operations from a flight line, RD-33 Engine start is accomplished primarily from stored air/nitrogen with battery ignition. There is however, an onboard 98 hp GTDE-117 APU (rarely used) and a battery electronic-spool capability. The APU is fed air via an inlet projecting above the rear fuselage with its ventral exhaust air is vented through the centerline tank if fitted. Engines can be started with bleed air from an external impingement air-start cart or from an operating engine bleed air crossover-valve switch. There are 3 x four-liter bottles of pure oxygen at 150 atmospheres pressure for the pilot's life support system that can be used for emergency engine starts at altitude.

The MiG-29 regenerates its bottled pneumatic replacement air from engine bleed. These pneumatics run canopies, engine starts, emergency braking, and emergency landing gear/flap extension. Nitrogen air is serviced before each flight by a standard nitrogen cart. The pilot would go through a brief cockpit check-out, then work on the start switches on the right side console bulkhead. An air/nitrogen crank would commence with the battery automatically engaged for ignition. Idle is reached 12 to 13 seconds after the throttles are cracked, idle fuel flow is 772 lbs/hour (350 kg/hr). In scramble situations the number two engine could be started while taxing. The inlet doors rapidly close as engines come on line and the auxiliary over-inlet louvers sucked open.

All external connections are done with NATO standard interfaces to the aircraft. The APU appears to be the weak-link in the engine start arena. Ground crews complain about it during air shows and it has an exhaust vent that is routed through the rear portion of the centerline tank.

Member for

18 years 7 months

Posts: 21

its quite normal for russian engines to smoke after drinking some some vodka, its that invincible russian smoke stealth technology :diablo: sometimes it smokes more sometimes less. it all depends stealthiness of the smoke. :cool: see,the more it smokes the more stealthy it is :dev2: ha, much more stealthy than the F-22 ever hopes to be that's for sure :D

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 515

shaggy! What did you smoke? mind sharing?

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 2,282

Austin, I did'nt notice any such smoke and the pics don't show it as well. An isolated incident? Certainly not anything like the MiG-29A or An-32.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 3,652

I can't speak for the technicalities of their respective engines - but the MiG-29 is significantly smokier than the Su-27 - you can make out the MiG arriving miles before the Sukhoi - despite the latter being much bigger.

I was at a recent display at Lipetsk - and was treated to a magnificent show consisting of MiG-29's, Su-24's, Su-25's and Su-27's - and as you can see from the attached photos - the efflux from the Fulcrum's RD-33 and Fencer's AL-21F engines are much more visible as they approach.

The Su-27's AL-31F's are much cleaner...... there were a few puffs of smoke - but only during maneouvres where the throttles were being used violently.

One easy way of telling whether the Swifts or the Russian Knights are arriving for their display is by the smoke trails - smokey and it's the Strijhi, clean and it's the Ruskii Vityazi !!!

Ken

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 3,652

I just found a couple of my pics to illustrate the point......

Strijhi = dirty, Vityazi = clean....

Ken

Member for

20 years 4 months

Posts: 6,186

Austin, I did'nt notice any such smoke and the pics don't show it as well. An isolated incident? Certainly not anything like the MiG-29A or An-32.

Harry , If one was standing at the Tarmac and was watching the 29MRCA making an approach to land , The smooky aspect was very much visible , Certainly not the kind of smoke you will see from the 29A , but still *visibly* smooky , I had definately noted this fact time and again there.

Also what i noticed was when the 29MRCA was taxing for takeoff with those Russian pilots in there , and when the 29 was sufficiently far away , with the nozzle pointing towards my side ( it was quite hot ) , there were black smoke in the air , I mean not the same thing you would find with an MKI which were parked almost at the same side and when it taxing for take off.

Also if you also noted the fact that the Mig-29MRCA engine had a very distict noise ,I always had to put my hands on my ear as it was unbereable , again I would not say the same for the other aircraft which took part in the display.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 326

Agggg! Please i hate smoke.....

I was with this Indian SU-30 MKI driver when the MRCA performed. I joked, buy the catalytic converter and use unleaded fuel for the MiG-29. He told me unfortunately this is the biggest drawback of MiG-29's. The smoke can give you away.

Clearly the MRCA was the most smoke emiting bird there. It was a big turn off.......

But the brighter part was, if we dont buy the MRCA and since our neighbours are planning to use these engines, its a blessing.

Member for

19 years 8 months

Posts: 272

first of all it's not smoke but fuel vapors not compleately burn in the engine.I remember the F-4 phantom was famous for it's vapors trails in the vietnam wars.mig fighters can spots one miles aways.wonder how the RD-93 perform?.

Member for

18 years 5 months

Posts: 61

I have read in one article about the new MiG-29 engines and it says they are not smoky anymore.

You can read it too,but it's in german:
http://www.airpower.at/news03/0316_mig-flug/index.html

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 3,652

The MiG-29OVT and MiG-29M2 at MAKS 2005 displayed without any smoke trails........

And the engines were thoroughly inspected...... :diablo:

Ken

Member for

20 years 4 months

Posts: 6,186

The MiG-29OVT and MiG-29M2 at MAKS 2005 displayed without any smoke trails........

Flanker_man . The Mig-29 which was displayed at AeroIndia 2005 was a MRCA/M2 , If memory serves me right its the same Aircraft as shown in the 2nd pics ( being towed and twin seater ) , It would be very difficult to make from the pics if indeed it smoked/fuel vapour , As during the aerobatics it was performing you didnt see the vapour trial , But you could clearly make it out from miles as it was approaching to land as the trail was visible .

Hmmmm.... So how deep was the thorough inspection :rolleyes:

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 12,009

There's a picture of the MiG-29OVT in the November issue of Combat Aircraft, and it is most definitely smoking up a storm with it's engines.

Member for

19 years 5 months

Posts: 183

Lookie lookie, it does not reveal smoke even in a snowy white background.

Martin Rosenkrantz, who flew in the rear of the UB immediately shouted, "that this MiG really DOES NOT smoke!" And indeed, the photos later showed that the new engines of the MiG-29M2 have nothing like the smoke emissions of the original RD-33s.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_293.shtml

http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/pic06_001.jpg

http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/pic08_001.jpg

http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/pic07_001.jpg

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 326

Except for ACIG and some feel good references, I have not seen any credible source claiming the smokeless MiG-29 MRCA Engines. IMO seeing is believing. I am yet to see the OVT video, so i have no information.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 326

Since this dicussion came up, I had clicked 2 pics of MRCA in AI-05.

Have a look..
http://frontierindia.com/album/cpg134/albums/userpics/10001/MiG-29%20MRCA%20Aero%20India%2005.JPG

http://frontierindia.com/album/cpg134/albums/userpics/10001/MiG-29%20MRCA%20Rear%20View.JPG