Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The IL-96-400 With NK-93 Engines: A Hidden Winner?  
User currently offlineNCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 14937 times:

There has been a recent thread on IL96-400/IL96/93 looking at potential improvements.
Now that that question has been answered by some knowledgeable members, let's contemplate the sales potential of the IL96-400 powered by NK-93 engines.

List price: around $70M, $150M less than B772ER, over a certified operating life of 60 000 hours it would mean 2500$ lower ownership cost on every operating hour or half that if the B772ER is certified for an operating life of up to 120 000 hours total time.
Operating empty weight 20 ton lighter than B772ER.

The NK-93 engines are in development since 1992 and are rumoured to have unprecedented efficiency with the lowest SFC of the industry, bypass ratio 16.6:1 and FAA stage IV compliance.
It is expected to enter service this year on the TU204

Modern technologies such as EFIS, FMS, TCAS, GPWS, FBW, etc..

Contrary to what many people tend to speculate, Ilyushin is ready to supply the necessary support for maintenance and parts: http://www.ilyushin.org/eng/products/passenger/96400.html
Nevertheless, important sales will be necessary to improve the network.

This aircraft has huge potential, and could be the ideal aircraft for ambitious operators looking at growing in longhaul without huge investments.

Also, the aircraft may require an updated interior with a central overhead bin with air/light supply to passengers sitting in the middle seats, and IFE systems eventually.

[Edited 2009-06-26 12:55:56]

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 14810 times:

The problem with Russian aircraft doesn't just come from the lack of performance vs. Boeing/Airbus, but the very anemic support/service network on Russian Aircraft. If Russia could offer the same level of support, then the cost difference alone would offset the performance shortfalls of the Russian aircraft. Just my  twocents 


We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 14661 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

That NK-93 is a funky-looking engine, but it would have to be as a UHB.

As a 777-200ER and A340-300 replacement, I suppose an IL-96-400 with four NK-93s could be a possibility, but as EA772LR noted, the Russians would really have to up their game in terms of service and support - especially for AOG issues - in order to make serious inroads.


User currently offlineLegoguy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 3314 posts, RR: 39
Reply 3, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 14599 times:

Interesting! It's a shame that their isn't more Russian metal flying about, especially from an enthusiasts point of view! Would the NK-93 even fit under the wing of an IL-96? It looks like a pretty large engine hanging off the IL-76 wing! Also is their sufficient thrust from the NK-93?


Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 14539 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The NK-93 offers just under 20kN more thrust than the current PS-90A engines powering the IL-96-400. Fan diameter is a meter larger (2900mm vs. 1900mm) as is length (5972mm vs. 4964mm). The NK-93 also weighs 700kg more (3650kg vs. 2950kg). Claimed SFC for the NK-93 was 14.59g/kNs vs. 16.85g/kNs for the PS-90A.

(All figures from an article dated December 2000 published in Interavia Business & Technology.)


User currently offlinePylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 1609 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 14162 times:

As I already said in the previous related thread the RUS aviation industry is hardly able to manufacture and provide service for almost all kinds of planes and helicopters.

Still a good engine product would be very important for asessment of potential of RUS industry and technology - after years of emigration and brain drain.


User currently offlineNCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 13686 times:

I think that if the product is feasible, some western aerospace company may become interested in establishing the necessary network for parts and maintenance.
After all it's not that complicated: training facilities, parts stocks, inventories and the necessary services are pretty easy to setup once the product is finalised.


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 13539 times:



Quoting NCB (Reply 6):
I think that if the product is feasible, some western aerospace company may become interested in establishing the necessary network for parts and maintenance.
After all it's not that complicated: training facilities, parts stocks, inventories and the necessary services are pretty easy to setup once the product is finalised.

Absolutely, and there would be very minimal logistical or practical difficulty in achieving that. It would certainly be a tremendous, and very welcome, advance/addition to the aviation world.


User currently offlinePylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 1609 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12777 times:

Maintenance/parts delivery used to be the weakest chain of any RUS aviation product.
Still things change. Military export experience + Sukhoi SuperJet maintenance experience may change things for better.


User currently offlineFlylot From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 187 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 12373 times:

has anyone seen this engine? it quite freaky looking. And from what I understand, it can change pitch.


"In Soviet Russia, airplane flies on you"
User currently offlinePylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 1609 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 12096 times:

http://www.aviapedia.com/forum/field...t-efficient-in-the-world-1088.html

I am not a specialist in engines - but it looks good. Intersting info also.


User currently offlineR2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2771 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 11931 times:

Really, it's not about the Il-96, it's about the engine. Pretty much any aircraft fitted with this engine (Tu-204...) could be very competitive - provided it performs up to its very high expectations. And that's the big IF here. The engine has been under intermittent development since 1992. It would have to be certified (which is doable), then win some sales with Russian carriers (the only ones likely to sign up in the beginning), then prove itself in service not only as a fuel efficient engine, but also as a reliable & low maintenance one. Obviously, you'd need to set up a good support, parts & maintenance network. Then, and only then, could other Western customers overcome their fears and start considering an aircraft powered by the NK-93...

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 1):
f Russia could offer the same level of support, then the cost difference alone would offset the performance shortfalls of the Russian aircraft.

This is probably the best one-sentence summary I've read of what is the Russian industry's main problem.


User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 18
Reply 12, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 11786 times:

Interesting engine, looks like its cousin from the Tu-95/114 with a noise mitigation.  Smile

User currently offlineUsair330 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 830 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 11289 times:

I don't think you'll see this plane flying in the west. Look at the amount of room for a stow away.  duck 

User currently offlineTony Lu From China, joined Sep 2000, 534 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 11054 times:

Great engine, I'd love to see it applied to a airliner.

User currently offlinePylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 1609 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 10983 times:

I checked all Russian sources related to the engine.

It appears that Engine Manufacturer in Kazan is working on certification.
It terms of engeneering it is quite complex. Blades are supposed to turn within 110 degrees.

We should keep our attentive a.netters' eye on it.


User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4575 posts, RR: 41
Reply 16, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 9954 times:



Quoting Aero145 (Reply 12):
Interesting engine, looks like its cousin from the Tu-95/114 with a noise mitigation.

According to the link provided by Pylon101 in Reply 10, that's very much what it is:

Quote:
It is a completely new Propfan design that is based on the old NK-12 Turboprop engine of the Tu-95 bomber and old Tu-114 airliner.
The NK-12 had good long range characteristics(15,000km range) and was more fuel efficient than the jet engines that replaced it. It achieved amazing speeds of 950km per hour using propellers(faster than some jet engines).
The NK-93 is a major improvement over that design. The internal shape and placement of the blades is very similar. The engineers at the Kuznetsov Design Bureau were never satisfied with the performance of their low bypass jet engines and they obviously wanted to improve their old successful design.
The new engine has a thrust capacity of 18,000kgf, making it the most powerful civilian Russian aircraft engine. The D-30 by comparison has about 12,000kgf and the newest variant of the NK-12 the MP variant 10,000kgf. The most modern Russian civilian engine in service, the PS-90 has 16,000kgf.

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6965 posts, RR: 76
Reply 17, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9858 times:

A hidden winner that will likely remain a hidden winner... the production rates are too low to make it attractive for airlines wanting to pose the aircraft as a winner.
All it needs is 5 airlines ordering like 20 of them to be delivered within 4 years and Ilyushin/Kazan/whoever is going to make it will scream... and then if they start to produce the Il96-400 at different plants to meet the demand, the customization rights demanded by each plant will create at least 4 different sub-versions of Il96-400, making spares support a total nightmare... no matter what they say!

Just my prejudicial 2 cents...



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineR2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2771 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 9679 times:



Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 17):
A hidden winner that will likely remain a hidden winner... the production rates are too low to make it attractive for airlines wanting to pose the aircraft as a winner.
All it needs is 5 airlines ordering like 20 of them to be delivered within 4 years and Ilyushin/Kazan/whoever is going to make it will scream... and then if they start to produce the Il96-400 at different plants to meet the demand, the customization rights demanded by each plant will create at least 4 different sub-versions of Il96-400, making spares support a total nightmare... no matter what they say!

Well, prejudice or not, you do have a good point there actually. As I said, the hidden winner here is the engine, not the aircraft. If the design works out, I think any chances of success outside Russia would require a new aircraft design to go along with the engine. I'm thinking MC-21... by the time the plane flies, this engine would be certified and any likely teething problems sorted out...


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Ilyushin Il-96-400 Is Now Flying! posted Thu Aug 16 2007 20:52:17 by SIBILLE
When Will Aeroflot Retire The IL-96? posted Mon Feb 27 2012 17:28:50 by Gonzalo
10 Ilyushin Il-96-400 Cargo For Britain? posted Tue Aug 18 2009 06:57:01 by SIBILLE
How To Improve The Il-96? posted Wed Jun 10 2009 18:50:42 by 7324ever
IL-96-400 For Polet Airlines(Pic) posted Thu Apr 23 2009 01:15:21 by Vendsyssel
Does Aeroflot Still Fly The IL-96 And TU-154? posted Thu Apr 9 2009 10:23:36 by Sankaps
Aeroflot Cargo Il-96-400. posted Fri May 9 2008 05:31:54 by SIBILLE
What Is The Il-96-400T? posted Wed Jun 28 2006 19:31:07 by Johnny
Cubana And The IL-96? posted Wed Oct 12 2005 19:53:38 by B742
Can The IL-96-300 Be Stretched? posted Thu Feb 12 2004 20:30:25 by KL808