Some notes on Russian engines

I’d like to tell to all those who dont know that all the Russian engine that powers the new a/c meet the Stage III norms and that include the PS-90 series, the D-30 Series (Tu-154, IL-76 and others) and the D-18 (An-124 & An-225) …… but very few ppl are intrested in the Russian stuffs and hence are ignorant and go by what they got to hear earlier abt the noise and pollution.

The D-30 series now meet the norms but not after getting all the curse and having replaced nost of that by the PS-90 series of engines.

But that said the earlier manufactured aircraft and the still flying a/c which used the old engines is coz of which u guys get to hear abt the Russian engines being noisy and smoky and has kept off from European and American air. Coz these engines have not been replaced b’coz of the obvious – finances. But that should not come in the way to understand the fact that the Russian engines makers all meet the Stage III norms and what they now lack is highter thrust engines which in the class of RR Trent series and the GE series ….

The hightest thrust engine they had was the D-18T which powers the An-124 and An-225 and the western world was no better in that period when these 230kN thrust engines was born in the erstwhile Soviet Union. It will also make u understand as to why the An-225 needed 6 engines as the most powerful engine during that period when the a/c was being designed was the D-18 engines. But after that there was practically a complete HALT on engine development and its from here that the RR and GE raced ahead of the Russian engine makers (civilian ones) in terms of higher power and more efficient engines, where as the Russian makers was badly caught up in the mess starting from 1998 which blew out in 1991 and then a long period of another decade of hardship.

and that also include pulling in the Brits too for the B767 tanker?? …… may have said if not F-35 is gone ….. lol.
————————————————–

U.K. military tanker deal reportedly under threat
Wed 3 November, 2004 02:09

LONDON (Reuters) – Britain may scrap a planned 13 billion pound military air tanker deal with a consortium led by Airbus parent company EADS, the Financial Times reports.

Citing leaked letters sent by British defence ministry procurement officials, Wednesday’s paper said Britain had begun “fall-back studies” to find a possible alternative to the AirTanker consortium.

“A number of the detailed issues that we originally set out last January … have yet to be satisfactorily resolved,” the FT quoted Peter Spencer, Britain’s chief military acquisition officer, as saying in a letter to AirTanker chairman Gordon Page.

“I may recommend cancellation of the programme, continuation of negotiations or announcement of AirTanker as PB (preferred bidder), depending on the extent to which we have reached agreement on the outstanding issues.”

The leaked letters were dated September 2004. But the FT said the dispute was ongoing, citing unnamed people familiar with the situation.

Britain chose European aerospace company EADS as part of a consortium over a Boeing-led bid in a tentative agreement in January, but working out the details has since proved a challenge.

The deal would outsource Royal Air Force tanking services to the group, which would own and run a fleet of Airbus A330 planes fitted to double as tankers for lease to the RAF.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said the department did not comment on leaked documents, but issued a statement that said talks with AirTanker continued.

“A number of issues need to be resolved before a final decision about the PFI procurement strategy can be taken,” the statement said. “We are still in negotiations with AirTanker and this is progressing well.”

EADS Chief Executive Philippe Camus told a news conference last month he expected to sign the key military refuelling contract early in 2005.

AirTanker includes EADS, France’s Thales, aircraft engine maker Rolls-Royce and British engineering firm Cobham.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID=614182&section=finance

Lamps,

Yes the Cairo and TNT have RR engines and so did some of the earlier Tu-204 operated by the Russian airliners. The earlier ones used to have the RB XXXXX painted on the engine side, but now its RR plating on the engines. These are the standard on the Tu-204-120 which also have western avionics.

Except for the Tu-204-120 all other Tu-204 family members are powered by the PS-90A engines

anyone got more info and pictures of the Boeing Blended wing concept

k some more on the Tu-204 affairs

Any person outside the western propaganda machine wud get the fact that Yeltsin was selling off Russia and that also included the Tupolev OKB’s finest civilian airliner Tu-204 …. which is the most probable scenario coz of which the Tu-204 is what it is now.

The exclusive marketing rights to Tu-204 aircraft lies with an Egyptian aerospace company who signed the deal in 1996. In return they were to invest $280 million over two years into the Ulyanovsk aircraft factory, which produces TU 204-120 planes. But ever since the deal was signed in 1996 the factory has only received a mere $5 million.

Also the Aviastar company which manages the aircraft factory also was to invesr $50 million in the production of airplanes and it too failed coz of the home situation coz of which the 25 x Tu-204-120 meant for China is also threatned. The first one was to be delivered in Dec 2003. Hope the deal don get axed.

and I’d say its high time Russia withdrew from the deal and choose some other partner as its almost 9 years and what the Russians have got is a mere $5million out of the promised $280million in 2 years and also lost the right to their own aircraft for international merkets.

Sev,

I meant Akula SSBN, that pic was meant to give a closer look for that silo hatches just to show as to the similarity of the hatches on the Akula SSBN and the Amur 1650 hatch opened in the picture.

What’s the difference between the Tu-204 and 214?

Tu-204 is the baseline family like A320 was the baseline of the A320 family.

All Tu-204 family members Tu-204-100, Tu-204-120, Tu-204-214 except the Tu-203-300 has the capacity to carry 210 passengers The last being the newest member with a 6 m shorter fuselage and a capacity for 166 passengers.

Tu-204-200 or Tu-214 is the longest range version of the above family with additional fuel-tanks and also having the highest payload capacity at 24 t. All other members are in the 21 t catagory.

The Tu-204C which is based on the Tu-214 is the heaviest among them all with a payload of 27t. There is also other cargo version namely tye passenger-cargo version for that swift conversion and thats not what Tu-204C is, its a different a/c specially catering for cargos.

and the Tu-204-120 being Tu-204 with western avionics and Rolls Royce engines.

Like the photos. Shame about you not having the car for the GermanWings 717.

sorry?

The F-22 ‘s advantage is n’t measured on a simple scale, as in the F-15 is twice as good as the F16, and the F-16 is 50% better than the F-4. or one F-15 will beat 2 Mig XX’s.

Ur above Quote regarding the MiGs or the opponents that the F-series faced is only valid when u include the below part of ur quote as an integral part of all the results out till now and in the future.

That’s not really how it’s valuable. When it comes down to it, it depends on how they’re used.

that will fairly tell u all the scores.

the advantage of th eF-22 is that it can be used in situations where other planes cannot. It isn’t simply smaller on radar–stealth would do little if all it did was make a smaller blip. It reduces the range at which it can be detected, and decreaes the range/ability of another radar to track it. It makes it like a slippery snake in the dark–you CAN still see it, but it’s really hard, and once you got it, it’s hard to hold onto.

yes, thats true, and not as what some believ as to that ‘invisible’ stuff.

Up close, 2 F-22’s will be equal to two of any other fighter, stealth will help, as will the decreased drag and increased speed, but not by that much.

also true, but I head some USAF guy saying that it is a lights up brightly coz of the stealthy structure ….

At a distance, the f-22 will be able to shoot first, plain and simple. The stealth also gives it the ability to position itself for optimal engagements without as much risk of detection. It can be sneaky.

If and only if the opponent has got no decent rwr and other stuffs ‘fine -tuned’ for that small flys on the screen which do some abnormal speeds and behaviours …..also only if the Raptor has got the AAMs and the SUPPORT (DON’t EVER FORGET TO INCLUDE THAT) for sneaking in.

So, in a close range fight, 4 F-22’s will be a close match with flankers.
If they are far apart, a single F-22 is fully capable of destroying 8 flankers with no problem. Not likely, but possible.

In close is what the Raptoirs want to avoid as anyway u come out of the stealth , u r just a little more than any other fighter and IRST would be pretty much happy to track u.

It’s all in the situation they are presented in. The #1 advantage of the F-22 is that it enables the US Air force to have greater ability to dictate the situation.

Yes thats what its all about, and u guys are pretty biased and cruel by not giving the ‘supports’ any credit what-so-ever, which they deserve. thats simply cruel.