Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
 
tu204
Posts: 2169
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: MC-21 Development Thread

Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:07 pm

Wayfarer515 wrote:
73056 has been painted, what a beauty

Image

Image


Does this one have PD14 engines or PW?
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: MC-21 Development Thread

Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:27 pm

tu204 wrote:
Does this one have PD14 engines or PW?

The engine has the PW logo on the side ... so I'm guessing it's a PW engine.
 
User avatar
TheZ
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:26 pm

Re: MC-21 Development Thread

Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:34 pm

This plane looks the part. Then again, so did the SSJ. I really hope they can succeed with the aftermarket support.
If you have to say "pun intended," it's not a good enough pun.
 
anrec80
Posts: 2759
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: MC-21 Development Thread

Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:47 am

Silverstreak wrote:
Good luck MC-21! Remember - your overseas success will depend on tech assistance and - parts availability. Welcome to the fold.

:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:

But glad to see MS-21 progressing!!!
 
Wayfarer515
Posts: 797
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:56 pm

Re: MC-21 Development Thread

Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:36 pm

 
AndoAv8R
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:29 pm

Re: MC-21 Development Thread

Mon Jul 20, 2020 2:11 pm

I'm very interested in how they can offer both a Russian engine and modern engine in the same air frame. How much commonality is there that can be used on the basic air frame/systems and how much is different? Also what would the PD14 be compared to as far as how old the design is?

Also I assume the PW1000 version is more-so for possible sales outside Russia? I'm surprised the SSJ program wasnt offered with a western engine given it was designed for world wide sales.
 
acos24
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 1:53 pm

Re: MC-21 Development Thread

Mon Jul 20, 2020 2:28 pm

AndoAv8R wrote:
I'm very interested in how they can offer both a Russian engine and modern engine in the same air frame. How much commonality is there that can be used on the basic air frame/systems and how much is different? Also what would the PD14 be compared to as far as how old the design is?

Also I assume the PW1000 version is more-so for possible sales outside Russia? I'm surprised the SSJ program wasnt offered with a western engine given it was designed for world wide sales.


The SaM146 was manufactured by Safran Aircraft Engines of CFM fame, and was developed from the CFM56. There are some Russian components, but the engine is western designed and built. Unfortunately, the aftermarket support for the engine was severely lacking, they should have gone with a CF34 or similar engine which already has wide distribution of spares.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: MC-21 Development Thread

Mon Jul 20, 2020 2:40 pm

acos24 wrote:
The SaM146 was manufactured by Safran Aircraft Engines of CFM fame, and was developed from the CFM56. There are some Russian components, but the engine is western designed and built. Unfortunately, the aftermarket support for the engine was severely lacking, they should have gone with a CF34 or similar engine which already has wide distribution of spares.

The Sam146 is said to be a relatively efficient engine, better than the CF34 but slightly behind the PW GTF. It wasn't just the engine that lacked aftermarket support, or else one could try to improve sales by reengining the SSJ with the smaller GTF variants.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4257
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: MC-21 Development Thread

Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:02 pm

AndoAv8R wrote:
I'm very interested in how they can offer both a Russian engine and modern engine in the same air frame. How much commonality is there that can be used on the basic air frame/systems and how much is different? Also what would the PD14 be compared to as far as how old the design is?


A modern and a Russian? So a Russian can't be modern? :scratchchin:

AFAIK, the PD-14 is a newer design than the PW1000. When given the resources, the Russians can certainly build aircraft and engines that are on par with the best we have in the west. See the NK-93 if you want an example. Throw in a dabble of western technology that they have almost certainly gleaned from imported aircraft and engines, like the 777-300ERs GE-90, A350s Trent XWP, A320neo's CFM LEAP/PW1000 and the SSJs SaM-146, and there should be little doubt that they could produce something worthwhile and modern.
IMO, the PD-14 will be a slight step behind the PW1000 family in efficiency, but made without US parts and much cheaper to acquire, so not something to be sneezed at.
 
acos24
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 1:53 pm

Re: MC-21 Development Thread

Tue Jul 21, 2020 1:11 pm

mxaxai wrote:
acos24 wrote:
The SaM146 was manufactured by Safran Aircraft Engines of CFM fame, and was developed from the CFM56. There are some Russian components, but the engine is western designed and built. Unfortunately, the aftermarket support for the engine was severely lacking, they should have gone with a CF34 or similar engine which already has wide distribution of spares.

The Sam146 is said to be a relatively efficient engine, better than the CF34 but slightly behind the PW GTF. It wasn't just the engine that lacked aftermarket support, or else one could try to improve sales by reengining the SSJ with the smaller GTF variants.


As far as I know, it was issues with the engines that caused InterJet the most trouble with their fleet, getting repairs and overhauls done was tough I think.
 
Wayfarer515
Posts: 797
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:56 pm

Re: MC-21 Development Thread

Wed Jul 22, 2020 6:00 am

acos24 wrote:
AndoAv8R wrote:
I'm very interested in how they can offer both a Russian engine and modern engine in the same air frame. How much commonality is there that can be used on the basic air frame/systems and how much is different? Also what would the PD14 be compared to as far as how old the design is?

Also I assume the PW1000 version is more-so for possible sales outside Russia? I'm surprised the SSJ program wasnt offered with a western engine given it was designed for world wide sales.


The SaM146 was manufactured by Safran Aircraft Engines of CFM fame, and was developed from the CFM56. There are some Russian components, but the engine is western designed and built. Unfortunately, the aftermarket support for the engine was severely lacking, they should have gone with a CF34 or similar engine which already has wide distribution of spares.


Dead wrong, stop spreading fake news please. The Sam146 is a Russian-French design by Safran and Saturn which forms up Powerjet. The hot part (combustor+HPT+FADEC) is designed and built in France. The rest of the engine is Russian, and the entire unit is exclusively assembled in Rybinsk, Russia. Funny thing is, the failing part belongs to Safran, so much so they had to provide a new combustor design for free.

As for alternatives, there will be a Russian PD-8 engine for the SSJ-NG, supposedly to be certified by 2023.
 
Wayfarer515
Posts: 797
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:56 pm

Re: MC-21 Development Thread

Wed Jul 22, 2020 6:10 am

VSMUT wrote:
AndoAv8R wrote:
I'm very interested in how they can offer both a Russian engine and modern engine in the same air frame. How much commonality is there that can be used on the basic air frame/systems and how much is different? Also what would the PD14 be compared to as far as how old the design is?


A modern and a Russian? So a Russian can't be modern? :scratchchin:

AFAIK, the PD-14 is a newer design than the PW1000. When given the resources, the Russians can certainly build aircraft and engines that are on par with the best we have in the west. See the NK-93 if you want an example. Throw in a dabble of western technology that they have almost certainly gleaned from imported aircraft and engines, like the 777-300ERs GE-90, A350s Trent XWP, A320neo's CFM LEAP/PW1000 and the SSJs SaM-146, and there should be little doubt that they could produce something worthwhile and modern.
IMO, the PD-14 will be a slight step behind the PW1000 family in efficiency, but made without US parts and much cheaper to acquire, so not something to be sneezed at.


The current iteration of the PD-14 that has been certified and tested on the IL76LL for the MC-21 is only 3% lower in SFC than the PW GTF certified for the MC-21. The 3% difference comes due to the loss of the combustion chamber provider they had from Ukraine, so they had to go with a slightly less efficient Russian one for the initial version, with the newer combustor I think the difference is less than 1%. Russian metallurgy and materials science is on par or I'd even venture to say slightly higher than the West. There's a reason why their rockets don't blow up every couple of years as happens with everyone elses'. They might lack the funding, but they definitely don't lack the knowledge.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 1208
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: MC-21 Development Thread

Wed Jul 22, 2020 7:33 am

Wayfarer515 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
AndoAv8R wrote:
I'm very interested in how they can offer both a Russian engine and modern engine in the same air frame. How much commonality is there that can be used on the basic air frame/systems and how much is different? Also what would the PD14 be compared to as far as how old the design is?


A modern and a Russian? So a Russian can't be modern? :scratchchin:

AFAIK, the PD-14 is a newer design than the PW1000. When given the resources, the Russians can certainly build aircraft and engines that are on par with the best we have in the west. See the NK-93 if you want an example. Throw in a dabble of western technology that they have almost certainly gleaned from imported aircraft and engines, like the 777-300ERs GE-90, A350s Trent XWP, A320neo's CFM LEAP/PW1000 and the SSJs SaM-146, and there should be little doubt that they could produce something worthwhile and modern.
IMO, the PD-14 will be a slight step behind the PW1000 family in efficiency, but made without US parts and much cheaper to acquire, so not something to be sneezed at.


The current iteration of the PD-14 that has been certified and tested on the IL76LL for the MC-21 is only 3% lower in SFC than the PW GTF certified for the MC-21. The 3% difference comes due to the loss of the combustion chamber provider they had from Ukraine, so they had to go with a slightly less efficient Russian one for the initial version, with the newer combustor I think the difference is less than 1%. Russian metallurgy and materials science is on par or I'd even venture to say slightly higher than the West. There's a reason why their rockets don't blow up every couple of years as happens with everyone elses'. They might lack the funding, but they definitely don't lack the knowledge.


By 3% less did you mean 3% worse?
Because in terms of SFC, the lower the better.

Also, where did you find this data?
 
Wayfarer515
Posts: 797
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:56 pm

Re: MC-21 Development Thread

Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:54 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
Wayfarer515 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:

A modern and a Russian? So a Russian can't be modern? :scratchchin:

AFAIK, the PD-14 is a newer design than the PW1000. When given the resources, the Russians can certainly build aircraft and engines that are on par with the best we have in the west. See the NK-93 if you want an example. Throw in a dabble of western technology that they have almost certainly gleaned from imported aircraft and engines, like the 777-300ERs GE-90, A350s Trent XWP, A320neo's CFM LEAP/PW1000 and the SSJs SaM-146, and there should be little doubt that they could produce something worthwhile and modern.
IMO, the PD-14 will be a slight step behind the PW1000 family in efficiency, but made without US parts and much cheaper to acquire, so not something to be sneezed at.


The current iteration of the PD-14 that has been certified and tested on the IL76LL for the MC-21 is only 3% lower in SFC than the PW GTF certified for the MC-21. The 3% difference comes due to the loss of the combustion chamber provider they had from Ukraine, so they had to go with a slightly less efficient Russian one for the initial version, with the newer combustor I think the difference is less than 1%. Russian metallurgy and materials science is on par or I'd even venture to say slightly higher than the West. There's a reason why their rockets don't blow up every couple of years as happens with everyone elses'. They might lack the funding, but they definitely don't lack the knowledge.


By 3% less did you mean 3% worse?
Because in terms of SFC, the lower the better.

Also, where did you find this data?

Sorry, I meant higher, and this information was released by UEC after the completion of the test flights of the Il76LL.
 
Wayfarer515
Posts: 797
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:56 pm

Re: MC-21 Development Thread

Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:56 pm

The first flight of the Russian-er MC-21 is nearing It's official designation will be MC-21-310.

https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transp ... 49.article
 
Noshow
Posts: 1512
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: MC-21 Development Thread

Thu Jul 23, 2020 7:03 pm

I would support it if they could finally call it by it‘s original name in the west as well: MS-21 and not MC please. To them it is MS-21 as well.
 
744SPX
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: MC-21 Development Thread

Thu Jul 23, 2020 7:35 pm

The PD-14's bypass ratio is somewhat lower (not sure why) than both the PW and LEAP, so I expect the consumption will be not quite as good. Getting to within 3% would actually be very competitive given the comparative costs.
 
Wayfarer515
Posts: 797
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:56 pm

Re: MC-21 Development Thread

Fri Jul 24, 2020 6:38 pm

Where did the chevrons go??

New version:
Image
Image

Initial test version on IL76-LL:

Image

Video of the assembly process:
https://irkutskmedia.ru/news/975123/
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19759
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: MC-21 Development Thread

Fri Jul 24, 2020 6:57 pm

Wayfarer515 wrote:
Where did the chevrons go??

New version:
Image
Image

Initial test version on IL76-LL:

Image

Video of the assembly process:
https://irkutskmedia.ru/news/975123/

Cheverons cut noise (but not much, 2dB at most) at a small (0.12% or less) fuel burn penalty and a small weight penalty. If the engine proves to have margin on noise, it is best to remove chevrons before the certification testing, as once that is completed, it is too costly to perform.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
Wayfarer515
Posts: 797
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:56 pm

Re: MC-21 Development Thread

Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:50 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Wayfarer515 wrote:
Where did the chevrons go??

New version:
Image
Image

Initial test version on IL76-LL:

Image

Video of the assembly process:
https://irkutskmedia.ru/news/975123/

Cheverons cut noise (but not much, 2dB at most) at a small (0.12% or less) fuel burn penalty and a small weight penalty. If the engine proves to have margin on noise, it is best to remove chevrons before the certification testing, as once that is completed, it is too costly to perform.

Lightsaber


Hey man, what is you opinion on the PD-14? From what I have read so far it seems to be a very decent engine in terms of performance vrs cost vrs weight. I do wonder if it has any components subject to possible sanctions, as it seems it will become the basis for the development of all future civilian engines including the PD-35 for the CRAIC project and the PD-8 for the SSJ NG and the BE-200. I've even heard it might even be used for the IL-76 in the near future. As a matter of fact, India was pressuring Russia to iniclude the PD-14 in the tanker and AWACS tender which they finally ended up losing, since Russia plainly refused and offered the PS-90 engined versions instead.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19759
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: MC-21 Development Thread

Sat Jul 25, 2020 12:06 am

Wayfarer515 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Wayfarer515 wrote:
Where did the chevrons go??

New version:
Image
Image

Initial test version on IL76-LL:

Image

Video of the assembly process:
https://irkutskmedia.ru/news/975123/

Cheverons cut noise (but not much, 2dB at most) at a small (0.12% or less) fuel burn penalty and a small weight penalty. If the engine proves to have margin on noise, it is best to remove chevrons before the certification testing, as once that is completed, it is too costly to perform.

Lightsaber


Hey man, what is you opinion on the PD-14? From what I have read so far it seems to be a very decent engine in terms of performance vrs cost vrs weight. I do wonder if it has any components subject to possible sanctions, as it seems it will become the basis for the development of all future civilian engines including the PD-35 for the CRAIC project and the PD-8 for the SSJ NG and the BE-200. I've even heard it might even be used for the IL-76 in the near future. As a matter of fact, India was pressuring Russia to iniclude the PD-14 in the tanker and AWACS tender which they finally ended up losing, since Russia plainly refused and offered the PS-90 engined versions instead.

I assume you are asking my opinion.
1. Low bypass ratio than PW1100G, by a lot
2. Lower pressure ratio than LEAP-1A or PW1100G.
3. I am not aware of any variable cycle technology (variable turbine cooling in LEAP-1A, proposed variable fan nozzle deleted from the PW1100G as not enough benefit for the per cycle maintenance on a 2 hour mission).

So we are looking at an engine half way between a V2500 and PW1100G in fuel burn. An engine with unknown aftermarket support and durability.

I understand why there is a Russified MC-21. However, if the Pratt is allowed, it will save money, break even in about 36 months in high utilization. In moderate utilization (more typical in Russia), break even in 6 or 7 years. After break even, the airline would do better with the Pratt.

Obviously, these are just my estimates.

Russia needs this as I believe the MC-21 will likely be the basis for a future tanker, AWACs, and other military aircraft that a large narrowbody could do the role. More specifically, a high MTOW MC-21-200. I only discuss as this is why I believe the investment in the PD-14.

The MC-21 is a much more exciting aircraft. I am biased as I was hired to consult on it for parts on the Pratt engine that are specific to the airframe.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
Wayfarer515
Posts: 797
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:56 pm

Re: MC-21 Development Thread

Wed Aug 05, 2020 8:37 pm

Some more nice videos from UAC, btw the first flight of the PD-14 engined version will take place before end of year.

Water deflection/ingestion testing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySUvXXx8QkI&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NSetjfoQf0&feature=youtu.be

Cockpit Video and Interview with Chief Test Pilot (Russian):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTXMTKkA1ag
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos