The first delivered 
737 MAX 9, MSN 42991/LN 6771, reg. HS-LSH (test reg. N1786B), with the cabin configuration Y215 and powered by two 
LEAP-1B28, twin-shaft, high-bypass turbofans (fan diameter: 69,4 in / 1.762,8 mm; BPR: 9,0:1; eng. architecture: F+3LPC–10HPC〧2HPT–5LPT), OPR: 43,68:1, each 130,41 kN / 13.298 kgf / 29.317 lbf, flying on the route BFI–HNL–GUM–DMK (FLT SL1), was delivered to Thai Lion Air on 21. Mar 2018. The aircraft first flew on 09. Mar 2018, and it was produced at the Boeing Renton Factory.
Indonesia-based Lion Air Group took possession of its first Boeing 737 MAX 9 plane this week during a ceremony held in Renton, Washington. This is the first Boeing 737 MAX 9 to be released for use to the industry. Lion Air Group has also recently launched the first Boeing 737 MAX 8 plane under its discount carrier Batik Air Malaysia (known previously as Malindo Air).
The new Boeing 737 MAX 9 is the latest in the long history of the 737 jet. For over 50 years, the Boeing 737 has been the most popular jet made by Boeing. The aircraft manufacturing company recently celebrated the completion of its 10.000th completed plane under this classification.
The Boeing 737 MAX 9 is a single-aisle plane that can carry up to 220 passengers. It has a range of 3.550 mi / 5.713 km and has been a preferred plane for many airlines for short- and medium- haul flights. The 737 MAX 9 is very fuel efficient and is easily customizable to meet the needs of airlines.
The Lion Air Group has already ordered 200 of the MAX family of airplanes and has stated that it will commit to at least 50 of the Boeing 737 MAX 10 jets. The Lion Air Group has created most of its fleets strictly using these Boeing jets.
….… a few articles (please click on the images for reading)
The delivery flight was divided into three parts:
SL‘s Boeing 737 MAX 9, reg. HS-LSH – delivery FLT SL1 – part 1 (BFI–HNL) – click on the image
SL‘s Boeing 737 MAX 9, reg. HS-LSH – delivery FLT SL1 – part 2 (HNL–GUM) – click on the image
SL‘s Boeing 737 MAX 9, reg. HS-LSH – delivery FLT SL1 – part 3 (GUM–DMK) – click on the image
…a couple of images of the aircraft
Nice regards
Mario
A closer look at the MIG and Kinzhal:
An highly interesting video! Thank You, haavarla.
I can’t not to connect this video file with those we could have seen a few days ago:
….
….
and conclude that at least free MiG-31 aircraft have been involved, so far, in the story on the new hypersonic missile Kh-47M2 “Kinzhal” (Х-47М2 “Кинжал”) launching …
….The first one, MiG-31DZ (изд. 01ДЗ), Борт № 592 синий (blue), Заводской № 5902, Серийный № 38400160189,
….
…………..and the other two aircraft, both visible in this video…
…………..Please click on the image for the link
…………..
………..MiG-31BM, Борт № 91 красный (red), reg. RF-95216
………..
………………………….
………………….and MiG-31BM, Борт № 93 красный (red), reg. RF-92454
On their return from the mission, before the landing, it is visible that one of the aircarft doesn’t have its Kh-47M2 “Kinzhal” missile attached anymore while the other one still has…
The aircraft which has launched the missile during the mission was MiG-31BM, Борт № 91 красный (red), reg. RF-95216
In those video files it is possible to notice that two aircraft are visible without Kh-47M2 “Kinzhal” missile attached after the landing, but we can’t be sure that each of the video files shows just a single flight’s sequnces, and not the sequences that would include more than one flight. Anyhow, we can conclude that at least one Kh-47M2 “Kinzhal” missile was launched during the several missions …
Some source claim that the Kh-47M2 “Kinzhal” missile is similar in size and structural characteristics to the 9K720 Iskander-M (9К720 “Искандер-М”) missile system, inheriting the base elements from its 9M723-1F short-range ballistic missile…
Although the engines for the MiG-31 are not pruduced in Russia anymore, OJSC “Perm Engine Company” (АО “ОДК-Пермские моторы”) claims that, if necessary, they can quickly resume the production of the key parts, systems and aggregates of the D-30F-6 (изд. 48) powerplants for the 
MiG-31 interceptor.
According to the factory, there is nothing difficult in this task because the past three or four years, the company has restored the production of turbine modules for this engine. If necessary, the manufacture of an engine compressor could also be restored. Since the MiG-31 is actively used in the RuAF, the industry is pushed to develop the most effective options for repairing their power plants. What is clearly visible in the second video file, those MiG-31 aircraft are very thoroughly refurbished and some parts are replaced by those new. The overall appearance of the aircraft gives the impression the word is about brand new aircraft…
When it comes to its 
D-30F-6 (изд. 48) engines, I am deeply convinced that OJSC “Perm Engine Company” (АО “ОДК-Пермские моторы”) hasn’t done anything on their modernization for the time being, something that could be, in any sense, comparable with that what 
JSC “Kuznetsov” (ПАО “Кузнецов”) has been doing with their NK-32-2 (НК-32 серии 02) engines aimed for the 
Tu-160M/M2 aircraft…
The increase in the take-off mass of the, at that time improved and modified, aircraft, MiG-31M (изд. 05), to 52 t required the installation of the more powerful Soloviev D-30F-6M (изд. 64), twin-shaft, afterburning, low-bypass, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 1.020,0 mm / 40,2 in; BPR: 0,57:1; engine architecture: 5F–10HPC〧2HPT–2LPT), OPR: 21,15:1, each rated at 93,20 kN / 9.500 kgf / 20.945 lbf dry and 161,80 kN / 16.500 kgf / 36.376 lbf with the afterburner. The engine received an enlarged diameter of the afterburner, and the design of the nozzle was changed (a harder nozzles were installed on the outside).
Undoubtedly a lot of attention was paid in the NABP “Sokol” (Авиастроительный завод “Сокол”) plant, in Nizhny Novgorod, to the refinement and modernization of the MiG-31 (изд. 01/изд. 06/изд. 12) aircraft to MiG-31BM (тип 28/тип 78) and MiG-31BSM (тип 58) (without retractable in-flight refuelling probe) standard, so I would not find myself surprised if it would be decided that the future fleet of the modernised aircraft will get a modernized engines.
Since the JSC NPO “Saturn” (ПАО “НПО “Сатурн”), formed by merging the JSC “Rybinsk Motors” (ОАО “Рыбинские моторы”) and JSC Lyulka-Saturn (ОАО “А. Люлька-Сатурн”), is a basic company for a serial production, maintenance, repair/overhaul and modernization of the
D-30KU/KP engines (D-30KP and D-30KP-2 engines for Ilyushin Il-76/78 cargo/transport aircraft family, D-30KU and D-30KU-2 engines for Ilyushin Il-62M long/middle-range commercial jets and D-30KU-154 engine for Tupolev Tu-154M middle-range commercial airliner), and which was also working on the development of the D-30KP-3 “Burlak” engine, enjoying the right of the D-30KU/KP engines’ designer, JSC “UEC-Aviadvigatel” (АО “ОДК-Авиадвигатель”), I see no reason why the modernization of the D-30F-6 (изд. 48) engine would not be entrusted right to JSC NPO “Saturn” (ПАО “НПО “Сатурн”). I believe they are capable of implementing a lot of modern technology, in a relatively short time, in this excellent and reliable, but technologically pretty obsolete, engine.
Besides, to whose surprise would it really be, since there is still no aircraft comparable to the MiG-31 in terms of speed, climb speed, practical ceiling and other performance characteristics, as well as efficiency in the given interval of its combat use, if Russia would restore the production of this aircraft the same way they did the one of Tupolev Tu-160?
Here is more detailed talk from Putin about new weapons …
Megyn Marie Kelly, an American journalist, political commentator and former corporate defense attorney, in front of her country, the one which was participtaing or still does in 117 (one hundred seventeen) war conflicts all over the world since The United States Declaration of Independence in 1776, and which has between 750 to 800 overseas military bases and installations all over the world, here in the role of the “state investigator in the criminal proceedings” against Russian President Vladimir Putin and his country because of their possible interaction in U.S. presidential elections in 2016 … her way of talking and manner in this interview is the peak of hypocrisy, impudence, crudiness, unculturation of conversation, arrogance, self-assumption and vanity … just my humble opinion and impression …
….Mario
In the recent days, we have heard a lot about new types of tactical and very powerful weapons Russia represents to the world sending clear message that they are not able only of catching a step but to be a one or two ahead. One of those systems is “Kinzhal” (“Кинжал”) …
The video begins with the frames of take-off of the interceptor MiG-31DZ (изд. 01ДЗ). Already during the takeoff it is clear that under the bottom of its fuselage is suspended not the familiar and standard ammunition, but some kind of new weapon. The interceptor raises into the air a large and massive rocket of a new type. Part of the further flight with the exit to the launch point, however, was shown using simplified computer graphics. But then again there was a video recording of real tests with a real launch of the rocket.
There are several facts about the “Kinzhal” (“Кинжал”) that can be learned from the video. The launch platform appears to be the MiG-31DZ (изд. 01ДЗ), Борт № синий 592, Заводской № 5902, Серийный № 38400160189, airframe to have been outfitted with an inflight refueling system, which passed trials in the late 1980s for subsequent adaptation onto the MiG-31B production standard in 1990. Apparently, this particular airframe, later underwent considerable modification to its central fuselage section to install a single hardpoint instead of the four standard launchers for R-33 490 kg air-to-air missiles.
Today, the MiG-31BM (тип 28/тип 78) / MiG-31BSM (тип 58) is one of the most versatile interceptor fighter in the world. It was designed to detect and destroy the enemy at maximum altitudes under any conditions. The work on the MiG-31BM began in 1997. The aircraft was equipped with an armament management system, modernized with the use of a technical reserve, obtained during the work on the creation of an armament control system, “Zaslon-M” (СУВ “Заслон-М”). The first public display of the MiG-31BM took place on 12. Jan 1999, simultaneously with the demonstration of the prototype fighter of the 5th generation МиГ 1.44 МФИ.
The MiG-31BM is capable of simultaneously supporting up to 10 air targets, six of which can be simultaneously fired with R-33S or R-37 missiles. The MiG-31BM is also capable of carrying up to 4 RVV-AE missiles (R-77) on underwing pylons. In the assortment of weapons to defeat low-speed air targets two R-40TD are kept. The aircraft’s range includes anti-radar missiles Kh-31P, Kh-25MP or Kh-25MPU (up to six units), anti-ship missiles Kh-31A (up to six), air-to-surface missiles Kh-59 and Kh-29T (three) or Kh-59M (up to two), up to six corrected aerial bombs KAB-1500 or up to eight KAB-500 with television or laser guidance. The maximum mass of the combat load is 9.000 kg.
Initially, the interceptor MiG-31BM could hit targets in daytime. Gradually the navigation equipment was improved. Later on it was decided to introduce new electronic tracking devices into the software package of the aircraft. Thanks to this, the combat capabilities of the fighter expanded. So on board was a radar with a phased antenna. The aircraft was built according to the “tandem” scheme, that is, the crew was supposed to accommodate two members. The pilot was assigned the functions of piloting, and on the navigator – the processing of operational data. The MiG-31BM have a number of important distinctive features from the original MiG-31. First of all, this concerns the airborne radar complex. In addition, the distinctive features of the series can include a modernized laser guidance system. For the comfort of the crew, a special layout of the cabs was developed. Now the pilot has the opportunity to receive timely information about tactical training. Previously, the commander could not know what his navigator was doing. To monitor the situation, the pilot’s cabin is equipped with a multi-function indicator with a diagonal of 10 in / 25,4 cm. The navigator, in turn, was able to display radar information on the screen.
The MiG-31BM glider was developed on the basis of the MiG-25. During the design, special attention was paid to the hull, which is capable of withstanding the lifting load by 25% more than previous versions. The shell consists of 50% of steel, 33% of a high-strength aluminum alloy and 13% of titanium. The aircraft MiG-31BM is powered by two D-30F-6 (изд. 48), twin-shaft, afterburning, low-bypass turbofans (fan diameter: 1.020,0 mm / 40,2 in; BPR: 0,57:1; engine architecture: 5F–10HPC〧2HPT–2LPT), OPR: 21,15:1, each rated at 93,20 kN / 9.500 kgf / 20.945 lbf dry and 152,05 kN / 15.500 kgf / 34.172 lbf with the afterburner…
… being on the set course and maintaining a certain height and speed, the carrier dropped the “Kinzhal” (“Кинжал”) missile. In free flight, it “fell through” in height, then dropped the tail fairing and launched a marching engine. The flight of the rocket again did not begin to be shown in the form of documentary frames and depicted schematically. In the next episode, the computer model of the plane dropped an animated rocket, and that on a ballistic trajectory headed toward the ship of the conventional enemy. It is worth noting that the painted target ship had a recognizable appearance and looked like some real pattern.
The “Kinzhal” (“Кинжал”) weapon drops away from the MiG-31BM. After a release an aerodynamic fairing covering the missile’s exhaust is jettisoned before the motor fires.
The last stages of the flight of the X-47M2 rocket, which goes to the target area, and then is pushed onto it, were shown using graphics. And the “camera” this time was directly on board the rocket. The product went to the enemy ship, went into a dive, and then the video signal, expectedly, disappeared. However, the video showed the defeat of the goal, although different. The munitions fell on the overland fortification and blew it up. The MiG-31BM carrier aircraft, in turn, returned to the airfield and landed.
The missile shown in the video appears to be about 26 ft / 8 m long, with a central body diameter of around 3,3 ft / 1 m. The span between its stubby wings is around 6,6 ft / 2 m. The shape and dimensions have led some experts to believe that this missile might represent an air-launched version of the 9M723, which was accepted into service in 2004 and is employed by the Iskander-M (NATO: SS-26 “Stone”) tactical strike system that is normally mounted on a wheeled chassis. The 9M723 weighs 3.800 kg / 8.380 lb, has a length of 7,2 m / 23.6 ft and a maximum diameter of 0.92 m / 3 ft. It carries a 480 kg / 1.058 lb warhead over a maximum distance of 500 km / 270 nm. Terminal guidance is provided by the 9E436 optics correlator or 9B318 active radar head. Its maximum speed at the top of a typical fight trajectory is given as 2.100 m/s, which is seven times the speed of sound.
While the air-launched missile appears to be of similar length (after its protective tail cone comes off shortly after release from the launching platform), its body is a bit wider. It is believed that the air-launched weapon is likely to have a booster and a detachable self-propelled projectile instead of the single-stage configuration for the 9M723.
The “Kinzhal” (“Кинжал”) comes as an addition to the hypersonic strike weapons revealed earlier; the 3M22 “Tsirkon” (3М22 “Циркон”) and the Kh-32 (Х-32). There are some distinct differences between them. The 3M22 “Tsirkon”, which seems to have provided the basis for the Indo-Russian BrahMos II exportable version, represents an air-breathing projectile with large air intake(s) for its scramjet propulsion. Intended primarily for naval platforms, it may also be carried by strategic bombers. The latter also serve as launch platforms for the 6.000 kg Kh-32, which is a reworked Kh-22 Burya missile with a dual-mode engine running on liquid fuel…
I believe there is an excellent reason why was MiG-31BM aircraft chosen for this trial launch. The speed and the height from which the aircraft is capable of launching this rocket was probably crucial in the choice of this aircraft, before 
aircraft Su-34 or Su-35. This is just another proof of how many RuAF seriously count on this aircraft in the future.
….Mario
… so apparently the co-pilot probably forgot to turn on the pressure management equipment, which led to the chaos in the air as the pilots had conflicting speed readings. It does seem that the pilots did not seem to cooperate in the final seconds… Very unfortunate indeed.
Cockpit recordings transcribed and published by the RBC business outlet on Tuesday reveal the harrowing last conversation between captain Valery Gubanov and co-pilot Sergei Gambaryan. RBC confirmed the authenticity of the recording with sources at the Federal Air Transportation Agency and the Interstate Aviation Committee.
…………………..click on the images to read the articles
….Mario
The Russian Defense Ministry reported that 33 passengers and 6 crew members were killed on Tuesday as a Russian transport plane crashed in Syria. The Russian media has quoted the Russian Defence Ministry as saying that the 
An-26, reg. RF-36162, MSN 9204, plane crashed during landing at Hmeimim airbase, near Latakia around 15:00 (Moscow time). Preliminary data suggests that a technical malfunction could be the reason for the crash. The plane had not come under fire according to a report from the ground. The transporter was around 500 metres from the runway, the statement said. A commission will investigate the causes of the crash. Initially it was reported that 32 persons were onboard.
This is the second time an Antonov An-26, a military transport aircraft capable of carrying up to 38 passengers and some 5.500 kilograms in cargo, crashes in Syria. A Syria-operated one crashed while landing at the besieged Abu al-Duhur military airport in Idlib in January 2015.
The Antonov An-26 is a twin-engine, high-wing turboprop utility transport aircraft that first flew in 1969. Since then, nearly 1.500 have been built by Russian aircraft company Antonov ASTC (АНТК ім. Антонова). In the nearly half-century since the aircraft has been flying it has established a somehow good record for dependability and the ability to operate from undeveloped, rough field airstrips. The aircraft is powered by two 
AI-24VT, single-shaft, turboprop engine (engine architecture: P]G[–10HPC〦3HPT), OPR: 7,65:1, rated at 2.860 PS / 2.103 kW.
………………..The images are the links to the articles …
….Mario
The Airbus A350-1000 – 1st delivery
Qatar Airways‘ first 
A350-1041 – MSN 088, reg. A7-ANA (test reg. F-WZNR), with the cabin configuration C46 Y281, powered by two 
Trent XWB-97, three-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 118,0 in / 2.997,2 mm; BPR: 9,6:1; engine architecture: 1F–8IPC=6HPC〨1HPT=2IPT–6LPT), OPR: 50,0:1, each 431,48 kN / 44.000 kgf / 97.000 lbf, flying on the route TLS–DOH (FLT QR3351), was delivered to the customer on 21. Feb 2018. The aircraft first flew on 07. Dec 2017. At the same time this is the first aircraft of this type delivered to any of the customers.
The first Airbus A350-1000 comes two decades after Qatar Airways took delivery of its first Airbus plane, the Airbus A300B4-622R, MSN 668, reg. A7-ABO, powered by two 
PW4156, twin-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engines and just over three years since Qatar Airways took delivery of the first Airbus A350-941 aircraft, MSN 006, reg. A7-ALA. The Qatari carrier has been a big Airbus customer at every step of the way, and the Airbus A350 is the tool by which the airline will continue its climb.
……………Qatar Airways‘ Airbus A350-1041, MSN 088, reg. A7-ANA
……………………..
……………………..[SIZE=1]Qatar Airways‘ 1stAirbus A350-1041 – MSN 088, reg. A7-ANA – delivery FLT QR3351 (TLS-DOH)[/SIZE]
The 
with its length of 73,78 m is the largest variant of the Airbus A350 family. It is to seat 366 passengers in a typical three-class layout with a range of 8.000 nmi / 14.800 km. With a 9-abreast configuration, it is designed to replace the Airbus A340-600 and compete with the aircraft 777-300ER and 777-9. Airbus estimates a 366-seat -1000 should have a 35 t lighter operating empty weight than a 398-seat 777-9, a 15% lower trip cost, a 7% lower seat cost, and a 400 nmi / 740 km greater range. Compared to a Boeing 777-300ER with 360 seats, Airbus claims a 25% fuel burn per seat advantage for a A350-1000 with 369 seats. The 7 m / 23 ft extension seats 40 more passengers with 40% more premium area. The -1000 can match the 40 more seats of the 777-9 by going 10-abreast but with diminished comfort.
The Airbus A350-1000 has an 11-frame stretch over the -900 and a slightly larger wing than the -800/-900 models with trailing-edge extension increasing its area by 4%. This will extend the high-lift devices and the ailerons, making the chord bigger by around 400 mm, optimising flap lift performance as well as cruise performance. The main landing gear is a 6-wheel bogie instead of a 4-wheel, put in a one frame longer bay.
In 2011, Airbus redesigned the A350-1000 with higher weights and a more powerful engine variant for more range for trans-Pacific operations which will boost its appeal to Cathay Pacific, Singapore Airlines which committed to 20 777-9 and United Airlines which could turn to Boeing 777-300ERs to replace its 747-400s. Emirates Airlines was disappointed with the changes and cancelled its order for 50 A350-900s and 20 A350-1000s instead of converting the whole order to the larger variant. Instead of Airbus A350s, Emirates on 12. Nov 2017 announced its commitment for 40 Boeing 787-10 Dreamliners.
The A350-1000 flight-test programm planned for in 1.600 flight hours; 600 hours on the first aircraft, MSN 059, for the flight envelope, systems and powerplant checks, 500 hours on MSN 071 for cold and warm campaigns, landing gear checks and high-altitude tests and 500 hours on MSN 065 for route proving and ETOPS assessment, with an interior layout for cabin development and certification.
Type Certification was awarded by EASA on 21. Nov 2017, along with FAA’s certification. The first serial unit was on the final assembly line in early December. After its maiden flight on 07. Dec 2017, delivery to launch customer, Qatar Airways, slipped to early 2018. The delay was due to issues with the business class seat installation. It was delivered on 20. Feb 2018 and entered commercial service on Qatar Airways’ Doha to London Heathrow route on 24. Feb 2018.
The aircraft features an automatic emergency descent function to around 3.000 m (approximately 10.000 ft) and notifies air traffic control if the crew fails to respond to an alert, indicating possible incapacitation from depressurisation. The avionics software adaptation is activated by a push and pull button to avoid mistakes and could be retrofitted in the smaller A350-900. All performance targets have been met or exceeded and it remains within its weight specification, unlike early −900s. Its basic 308 t / 679.024 lb maximum take-off weight was bumped to 311 t / 685.638 lb before offering a possible 316 t / 696.661 lb version.
…………..Brand new Qatar Airways’ Airbus A350-1041, reg. A7-ANA, accompanied by a smaller brother from the fleet, Airbus A350-941, reg. A7-ALY, on its way home
The Trent XWB-97 is the highest thrust engine ever certified by the factory, the highest operating temperatures and the most advanced cooling systems Rolls-Royce has ever designed in a civil engine. For the engine operators’ point of view there is deliberately very little visible difference, or indeed operating difference, between the models XWB-84 and XWB-97. All the mechanical systems are the same for both engines, so from a basic maintenance point of view, the airlines will find that 80% of the replacement line items and tools are identical. Physically the engines look the same; in fact you may need to look at the nameplate to tell the difference from the outside. However, inside the Trent XWB-97 engine the changes are notable. The front fan has the same number of blades (22) and is the same diameter at 2.997,2 mm / 118,0 in, but it runs around 6% faster. The engine core has been scaled up in size to cope with the consequential increased airflow into the compressor and, in this engine, the combustor and turbines run hotter than in the XWB-84. Another difference in the XWB-97 is the wider use of blisks (bladed disks) across both the HP and IP compressors. Blisks improve aerodynamic efficiency, whilst having a reduced weight over conventional assemblies. The first stage intermediate compressor blisk of the Trent XWB-97 is the largest that Rolls-Royce has produced to date on a civil application. The innovations don’t stop at the compressor though, the high-pressure turbine gets additional technology too. The XWB-97 engine development programme has also featured components produced by additive layer manufacturing (ALM, or sometimes commonly known as 3D printing). Rolls-Royce claimed a world record for the largest aero-engine component assembly ever manufactured in this way with a 1,5 m diameter front bearing housing for the XWB-97 engine. The ring of ALM vanes form the inlet to the engine’s core and each vane has an intricate series of heating passages inside them that can be used by an anti-icing system to protect the engine during adverse weather conditions.
To get the performance and efficiency from this machine Rolls-Royce needed to grow the turbine temperature capability to a level higher than with any large aero engine in the past. Maintaining thermal efficiency at those higher temperatures is critical, so it was invested in new materials and coatings for the high-pressure turbine blades, but in employment of an intelligent cooling system that provides the right amount of cooling air to the blade throughout the flight cycle. Modulating the cooling air means the engine can always operate at maximum efficiency, whilst protecting the turbine blade and maximising its on-wing life. Very aggressive endurance testing on the turbine were conducted all to achieve the balancing durability against efficiency. Except being a very robust, in the same time Trent XWB is currently the world’s most efficient turbofan engine.
…………………………………Please scroll down the linked page to see the video file
The Airbus A350-1000‘s engine – the 
Trent XWB-97 was successfully flight-tested, mounted on the inner left, No. 2 (port-side inboard), engine pylon of the 
A380-841 aircraft, MSN 001, reg. F-WWOW, dedicated A380 Flying-Test-Bed, replacing one of the aircraft’s Trent 900 turbofans. The flight testing of the 97.000 lb thrust engine started on 05. Nov 2015, twelve months before the first flight of the new Airbus A350-1000, on 24. Nov 2016. The flight-test program was including evaluation in hot weather, as well as in icing conditions. As well as demonstrating operability and performance, the tests confirmed the engine relight envelope. Subsequent tests was concentrating on maturity tests, including further thermal-endurance and cyclic trials. The specially enhanced Trent XWB engine produces 431,48 kN / 44.000 kgf / 97.000 lbf of thrust on take-off, thus making it the most powerful engine ever developed for an Airbus aircraft. Rolls-Royce has plans to “build in” technologies developed from the Trent XWB-97 testing into the Trent XWB-84.
The Trent XWB-84 EP (Enhanced Performance) goes beyond the original Trent XWB-84 performance target levels, offering a fuel consumption improvement of 1%. The Trent XWB-84 EP incorporates technologies from the higher thrust Trent XWB-97 engine, the Advance engine programme and other future technology research. The first Trent XWB-84 EP delivery will be in Q4 2019 to Singapore Airlines and the upgraded engine will also be offerable to other existing customers with deliveries after this date.
Technology improvements on the Trent XWB-84 EP include:
– Improved turbine cooling and aerodynamics from the Trent XWB-97 and Advance programmes
– Improved secondary air system and interstage sealing from the Trent XWB-97 programme
– Further optimisation of Trent XWB-84 turbine tip clearance control system, based on recent improvements on other programmes
The Trent XWB-84 and the Trent XWB-84 EP are entirely interchangeable and intermixable – any A350-900 can be powered by a combination of both engines – to enable simplicity in service…
This is a video of the world’s very first Airbus A350-1000‘s flight from Toulouse to Doha Hamad International Airport on the brand new Qsuite, really clear and with a lots of details…
………….
….Mario
Boeing‘s 737 MAX 9 aircraft – the second variant of its upgraded 737 MAX family of single-aisle planes is finally ready for action after the American aerospace multinational corporation announced that the FAA had issued an amended type certificate for the MAX 9 on Friday, 16. Feb 2018. This will allow The Boeing Company to begin deliveries of the aircraft to the customers, including rapidly rising Southeast Asian carrier Lion Air, 737 MAX 9‘s launch customer, as to one of the major U.S. airlines, United.
The first Boeing 737 MAX 9 test aircraft achieved the first flight in March 2017, only two months before the 737 MAX 8 entered the service with Malindo Air. The 737 MAX 9 will be followed into the service next year by the 737 MAX 7, the first of which rolled out of Boeing’s factory on 05. Feb 2018. The 737 MAX 10, featuring another landing gear extension and fuselage stretch, will begin assembly next year, with a scheduled in-service date in 2020. Boeing is also developing a the 737 MAX 200 as a sub-variant of the 737 MAX 8, with an mid-aft exit door to accommodate emergency egress requirements for up to 200 passengers.
However, the 737 MAX 9‘s sale did not go well so far, and probably will not. Why? Boeing has also launched a slightly larger model last year, 737 MAX 10, to better compete with the A321neo. Now the 737 MAX 9 fills a tiny niche market segment between the 737 MAX 8 and 737 MAX 10, which will make it very difficult to gain additional orders.
Even though the 737 MAX is the fastest-selling plane in Boeing‘s history, only a small percentage of its orders the company has taken have been for the MAX 9. In fact the Airbus A321neo is out-selling the MAX 9 at a rate of five planes to one. The Boeing 737 MAX 9 is by no means a bad airplane; in fact, it is objectively an very good airplane. The MAX 9 features the latest avionics, upgraded aerodynamics and powerful new engines, and it is expected to be 25% more fuel-efficient than the Boeing 757-200. Unfortunately for the MAX 9, the Airbus A321neo has struck a nerve with customers looking for a larger aircraft without the added costs of a widebody jet. The extended-range variant of the A321neo, Airbus A321LR (Long Range) has become popular with airlines looking to replace aging Boeing 757-200 fleets and for low-cost carriers looking for an affordable way to reach long-haul markets. With further options, combining an increased MTOW of 97 t and a third Additional Centre Fuel Tank (ACT), the aircraft’s range extends to 4.000nm / 7.400 km, allowing airlines to tap into new long range market opportunities. That’s the reason why has Boeing moved with its larger model called the 737 MAX 10.
Boeing‘s previous and now outgoing generation of 737 short to medium-range twinjet narrow-body airliner, 737NG (Next Generation), came in four basic sizes: the 737-600, 737-700, 737-800 and 737-900. The smallest of them (-600) sold very poorly, with fewer than 100 orders. By contrast, the 737-800 and its variants accounted for more than 5.000 orders (as of November 2017, 4.659 737-800, 90 737-800A, and 21 737-800 BBJ2 aircraft have been delivered, with 402 unfilled orders) – roughly three-quarters of the total. The 737-700 and 737-900 size classes both sold in respectable numbers as well, with more than 1.200 orders for the former (including business jets) and nearly 600 orders for the latter. Not surprisingly, when Boeing designed an upgrade program for the 737, it dropped the smallest model. However, it left the other three model sizes unchanged, which proved to be a mistake.
…………………………………………………
TCDS A16WE Revision 61– Boeing 737 (click on the image to see the full certification sheet)
The 737 MAX 7 attracted little interest from airlines, as its relatively small size means unit costs are higher. Boeing eventually changed the MAX 7, increasing its commonalities with the larger 737 MAX 8 to reduce development costs. Originally based on the 737-700, Boeing announced the redesign of the MAX 7, now derived from the MAX 8, at the July 2016 Farnborough Air Show, accommodating two more seat rows than the 737-700 for 138 seats, up 12 seats. The redesign uses the 737 MAX 8‘s wing and landing gear, a pair of overwing exits rather than the single-door configuration, a 46 in / 117 cm longer aft fuselage and a 30 in / 76 cm longer forward fuselage, structural re-gauging and strengthening, but also the systems and interior modifications to accommodate the longer length. Boeing plans to improve its range from 3.850 nmi / 4.430 mi / 7.130 km to 3.915 nmi / 4.505 mi / 7.251 km after 2021. The first 65 ft / 19,8 m wing spar for the 737 MAX 7 entered production in October 2017. Entry into the service with launch operator Southwest Airlines is expected in January 2019.
Demand for the 737 MAX 9 was a little better, but still underwhelming. Boeing doesn’t provide an official breakdown of its 737 MAX orders by variant, but one third-party analysis pegged the number of MAX 9 orders at approximately 410 as of a year ago. For comparison, Airbus currently has 1.920 orders for its competing, but somewhat larger, A321neo.
At last year’s Paris Air Show, 
launched the 737 MAX 10, a model that can fit 12 more seats than the MAX 9. The MAX 10 has roughly the same capacity as Airbus‘ largest narrow-body, single-aisle airliner, A321neo and will likely have the similar unit costs. Not surprisingly, airlines and aircraft leasing companies responded much more positively to the 737 MAX 10 than to the MAX 9. Boeing garnered 361 orders and commitments for the 737 MAX 10 in the span of a week during the PAS-17. In theory, it might have made sense for Boeing to scrap the 737 MAX 9 in favor of the MAX 10, just as it had abandoned the original 737 MAX 7 concept. Unfortunately, by the time it made the decision to go ahead with the 737 MAX 10, the MAX 9 was less than a year away from entering service. In other words, it was too late to completely change the course. This has left the MAX 9 in a nobody’s land where it isn’t likely to get more orders. In fact, the size gap between the 737 MAX 8 and 737 MAX 10 is less than the gap between the 
models A320neo and A321neo. Most airlines prefer the 737 MAX 8 which hits a sweet spot in terms of the trade-offs between size, unit costs and performance. Meanwhile, airlines that want to minimize unit costs will move all the way up to the 737 MAX 10, bypassing the MAX 9.
The tough outlook for the 737 MAX 9 can be seen from the evolution of United Airlines‘ fleet plan. Back in 2012, the carrier ordered 100 737 MAX 9s, making it one of the two primary customers for that variant, along with Indonesia’s Lion Air. However, United converted 39 of those orders to the 737 MAX 10 last June, along with another 61 737 MAX orders that didn’t previously have a variant specified. United Airlines will still add the 737 MAX 9 to its fleet starting this year, but that’s probably just because the 737 MAX 10 won’t be available until 2020. Going forward, the MAX 8 and MAX 10 look like better fits for the carrier’s needs.
Lion Air has also ordered some 737 MAX 10s. While it did so as a new order rather than a conversion, this suggests that it won’t have as much need for the 737 MAX 9 in its long-term fleet plan as previously expected. Many other Boeing customers converted smaller numbers of the existing MAX 737‘s orders to the MAX 10 last year, further reducing the 737 MAX 9 backlog. Once 737 MAX 10 production ramps up in the next few years, the 737 MAX 9 will probably loose most of its appeal. As a result, its production run could come to a premature end within the next five years or so.
Boeing 737 MAX 10‘s configuration was firmed up by February 2018. Its modified landing gear will require additional flight-testing. To fit the 9 in / 22,9 cm taller main landing gear in the same wheel well, at the lower end the semi-levered gear includes an additional shock absorber strut to keep the wheels on the ground as the aircraft rotates and move the pivot point aft, and at the upper end a shrinking, translating mechanical linkage enables it to be drawn in and shortened while being retracted, inspired from carrier aircraft designs. The MAX 10 takes the existing MAX 9 and stretches the fuselage by 64 in / 162,6 cm (143 ft 8 in / 43,8 m). It weighs 5.500 lb / 2,500 kg less than the Airbus A321neo, which has 7.000 lb / 3.200 kg more takeoff mass and 5.000 lbf / 22 kN more thrust to fly the same mission.
……………………………………………………………….(click on the image for reading the article)
Like the already existent and to the several customers delivered, 737 MAX 8, the newly certified 737 MAX 9 aircraft is powered by the same models of 
LEAP-1B, twin-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 69,4 in / 1.762,8 mm; BPR: 9,0:1; eng. architecture: F+3LPC–10HPC〧2HPT–5LPT), OPR: 43,68:1. Considering that from the existing design of the engine is drawn almost its maximum, it will be interesting to see how much more thrust the engineers will be able to pull out of it for the needs of the larger and heavier Boeing 737 MAX 10 aircraft ….
…..
The LEAP-1B has been selected by Boeing as the exclusive powerplant for the new 737 MAX single-aisle jetliner. It offers 737 MAX operators advance technical, economic and environmental performance, with a 15% reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions versus current 
CFM56-7B engines, a 50% cut in NOx emissions, and compliance with the most stringent noise standards (the ICAO’s Chapter 14 regulations).
By selecting of the LEAP-1B engines, Boeing in 2011 continues a long-established partnership between CFM International, a joint venture between GE Aviation, a division of General Electric of the United States and Safran Aircraft Engines (formerly known as Snecma), a division of Safran of France. The joint venture was formed to build and support the CFM56 series of turbofan engines. This trust was shown to be well-founded in June 2014 when ground testing of the LEAP-1B started three days ahead of the original schedule at Safran Aircraft Engines‘ Villaroche facility. In May 2016, the LEAP-1B engine was simultaneously awarded Type Certificates by both the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The engine has entered commercial service in May 2017 with Malindo Air‘s Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft.
With its MAX 9 model, Boeing has not been able to compete with the Airbus A321 notably, but it will surely help the factory to satisfy most of its traditional customers until the apeearance of the Boeing 737 MAX 10 …
….Mario
Saratov Airlines’ Antonov An-148-100V, performing flight 6W-703 from Moscow Domodedovo DME to Orsk Airport OSW on 11. Feb 2018, with 65 passengers and 6 crew, was climbing out of Moscow’s runway 14R when the aircraft reached a maximum altitude of 6.000 ft / 1.830 m then descended again and disappeared from radar at about 14:28L (11:28Z). The aircraft was subsequently found crashed in an open field about 18 nmi / 33,3 km southeast of the aerodrome near the village Stepanovskoye in Dergayevo in the Ramensky District.
The aircraft in question is An-148-100V, MSN 27015040004 / LN 40-06 / 02-04, reg. RA-61704, with the cabin configuration C8 Y60 and powered by two D-436-148, high-bypass, three-shaft, turbofan engine (fan diameter: 1.373 mm / 54,1 in; BPR: 5,6:1; engine architecture: 1F-6IPC=7HPC〨1HPT=1IPT-3LPT), OPR: 21,9:1, rated at 68,76 kN / 7.012 kgf / 15.458 lbf. The D-436-148 engine features improved accessory gearbox and thrust reverser as well as composites introduced on the core fairing and main jet with noise-suppressing coatings and FADEC control. The engine entered flight tests in March 2004 and performed its maiden flight, powering the Antonov An-148, on 17. Dec 2004. The aircraft registered as RA-61704 first flew in May 2010. It was delivered to the first customer, OJSC Rossiya Airlines (АО “Авиакомпания “Россия”), on 10. Jun 2010.
Some early reports were pointing out on the possibility of a mid-air collision with a Russian Post Office helicopter. The theory may have been triggered by the fact that the A/C was carrying mail. Says pieces of helicopter was found on crash site, but it turned out to be incorrect. Russian Post denied reports that their helicopter was involved in the plane crash, claiming they have no helicopters. It appears that the airframe MSN 27015040004 / LN 40-06 / 02-04 had severe reliability problems due to being one of the very first aircraft off the line. It was grounded for several years until OJSC “Saratov Airlines” (ОАО “Саратовские авиалинии”) took it up from OJSC Rossiya Airlines (АО “Авиакомпания “Россия”).
It was also reported that the crashed aircraft was not treated with anti-icing fluid. According to some reports, the captain of the plane refused this. In addition, there was information that the aircraft had problems with the mechanization of the wing, but officially this information is not confirmed. Also, the pilot requested an emergency landing in Zhukovsky.
CCTV footage of the moment of the crash. According to Russia’s Investigative Committee, “when the plane crashed it was intact, there was no fire, and the explosion happened on impact”. It seems to be a very high speed impact with a lot of forward motion…
All but a simple and enjoyable job for those who have been involved in looking for dead bodies of the passengers and parts of the aircraft …
The data from the recovered flight data recorder (FDR) and the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) could give a lot of answers to what really happened…
The Russian investigators reported that the preliminary results of the flight data recorder indicate that the last minutes of flight the aircraft experienced substantial variation of IAS (Indicated airspeed) and pitot heat was off during the entire flight for all three tubes (Failure to follow the check-list?). You get the picture.
ArmenPress reporting specifics of FDR information confirming ASI (airspeed indicator) disagreement including multiple “The Instrument Panel – Compare!” warnings. They also state that the disagreement escalated to the point of one ASI showing 0 and another showing in between 540-560 km/h. Also mentions that a criminal case resulting in deaths due to negligence has been opened. Sounds like the final conclusion of what has happened has already been adopted.
Problems that consider the causes of the crash of the Antonov An-148 plane in the Moscow region are also found in SSJ 100 airliners. The Kommersant newspaper cites a telegram from Rosaviatsia that was sent to the management of airlines, aerodrome operators and territorial authorities.
The telegram of the Federal Air Transport Agency states that similar problems were revealed by SSJ 100 Aeroflot planes on 4-5. Feb in Moscow. For two days of heavy snowfall on these liners revealed seven such problems were detected at Sheremetyevo Airport with this type of aircraft, and from 2011 – 14. The crews noted the discrepancy between the speed commander and the co-pilot. Incidents occurred during takeoff for take-off or at the initial stage of climb. In all cases, the crews stopped taking off or returned to the departure aerodrome.
As Kommersant points out, Federal Air Transport Agency – Rosaviatsia (Федеральное агентство воздушного транспорта – Росавиация) has no claims to the Sukhoi Superjet 100 aircraft, but at the same time, the agency demands paying attention to the poor quality of the preparation of the airfield for receiving and releasing aircraft. However, the Federal Air Transport Agency is in no hurry to apply measures to aircraft, considering the root of the problems the poor operation of airports.
On 13. Feb 2018 the The Commission of the Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC) / Комиссия Межгосударственного авиационного комитета (МАК) reported that the flight data recorder needed to be torn down, the memory modules were removed from the FDR and inserted in a new electronics. Thereafter it was possible to read out all data which consist of 16 flights including the last, accident flight. The work to decode the data has started. The media of the voice recorder are currently being prepared for download.
In the afternoon of 13. Feb 2018 the МАК reported, that decoding of the FDR data has been completed. Preliminary analysis shows, that the pitot heatings for all three pitot probes were off while the pitot heatings had been turned on prior to departure on the previous 15 flights. About 2:30 minutes after becoming airborne a special situation developed at about 1.300 meters of height and a speed of 465-470 kph (250 KIAS – “Knots-Indicated Air Speed”) when a disagreement between the speed readings #1 and #3 developed with the speed reading #2 not registering, #1 was showing about 30 kph (15 knots) more than #3, an according message was issued. No significant altitude deviations between the pitot systems were noticed. At about 2.000 meters height speed reading #1 began to reduce while #3 increased, another speed disagree message was issued. The crew disconnected the autopilot and continued in manual control. Speed readings from #3 reached 540-560 kph (290-300 KIAS), #1 speed readings continued to decrease. 50 seconds after the autopilot was disconnected the aircraft experienced vertical loads between 0,5 and 1,5G, the #1 speed reading reached 0, the #3 began to decrease reaching 200 kph (108 KIAS), the aircraft pitched down to about 30-35 degrees below horizont, the vertical load was 0G. Before collision with the ground, #3 speed readings began to rapidly increase reaching 800 kph (432 KIAS) just before impact, #1 speed readings remained at 0. The pitch angle remained at 30 degrees below horizont until impact, 5 seconds prior to impact a right bank of 25 degrees developed. The МАК wrote: “A preliminary analysis of the recorded information, as well as an analysis of similar cases that occurred in the past, suggest that the development of a special situation in the flight could be caused by incorrect data on the flight speed on the pilots indicators, which in turn was apparently due to icing of the pitot probes when the heating systems are off.”
On 13. Feb 2018 Russia’s Ministry of Emergency Situations reported that all 30 hectares of the crash site have been surveyed, the recovered body parts have been sent for DNA identification, more than 500 fragments of the aircraft have been found in the survey. DNA samples from 66 relatives of the victims have been collected. More than 1.000 people and 200 pieces of equipment participated in the search so far. In the afternoon the Ministry reported the search area has been expanded, 663 fragments of the aircraft have been found so far.
Klaeui Ulrich 11.02.1985
Акназаров Тамерлан Турибекович 30.11.1985
Алексеенко Крискентия Николавна 01.10.1992
Александров Илья Юрьевич 17.11.1965
Анохин Виктор 15.01.1950
Анохина Зоя 19.08.1950
Бойкова Екатерина Михайловна 18.11.1995
Булатова Лилия 30.07.1984
Ведиборенко Илья Владимирович 22.11.1984
Ведякина Мария 09.04.1973
Гаусс Альфия Акзамовна 31.01.1946
Гахраманов Намиг 05.05.1971
Грачев Алексей Евгеньевич 10.09.1965
Гришова Ирина 21.09.1961
Громов Игорь 24.06.1964
Давыдова Елена Васильевна 25.04.1986
Дмитренко Юлия 07.09.1988
Долбин Виктор 05.09.1953
Драгина Маргарита 31.01.1948
Иванов Вячеслав Анатольевич 22.06.1986
Ильинов Евгений 26.05.1986
Калашник Марина Александровна 09.02.1965
Кармалеев Борис Александрович 26.12.1938
Карпухин Анатолий 01.09.1949
Карпухина Татьяна 03.07.1950
Киселева Екатерина 22.08.1986
Ковчуга Людмила Сергеевна 02.06.1964
Козупица Антонина Ивановна 10.04.1962
Колодяжный Анатолий 19.06.1966
Коротков Евгений 20.03.1978
Красова Надежда 24.12.2012
Красова Оксана 10.01.1986
Курепов Олег 04.04.1968
Леонова Ольга 11.11.1982
Ливанов Евгений 13.09.1979
Ливанов Евгений 10.03.2005
Мачнева Светлана 19.03.1978
Мещерякова Наталья 04.05.1979
Момзикова Кристина 22.06.1994
Назаров Максим 22.03.1985
Насырова Екатерина Павловна 13.05.1986
Никитенкова Галина 23.08.1988
Никитченко Алексей 31.07.1988
Николаенко Любовь Фоминична 10.07.1941
Нормантович Александр 12.09.1981
Нормантович Владимир 17.01.1958
Панченко Сергей 28.03.1973
Полетаев Илья Сергеевич 27.07.2000
Радчук Инна Евгеньевна 18.02.1975
Ремарчук Владимир 25.03.1990
Севоян Варсик 23.06.1970
Сергошко Александр 03.11.1987
Синицына Татьяна 15.08.1966
Сон Ульяна 10.05.1990
Ставский Илья 11.02.1985
Толкачев Вячеслав 20.10.1961
Толкачев Иван Владимирович 23.05.1983
Толкачева Любовь 28.11.1960
Толмасова Дарья 29.05.1995
Тулькубаев Фиргат Ринатович 28.09.1993
Уразаева Марина 11.09.1977
Усачев Владимир Павлович 25.10.1970
Хохлова Ольга Анатольевна 21.03.1983
Цигичко Ольга 16.04.1976
Ямаев Юрий Рифович 25.11.1974
…….Mario
why syrian markings? it has david star on the flank (where it’s blkurred, but at one moment you can see it
it looks like some type of arab marking, syria, iran etc…i cannot see a star there
It is one of the Israeli Air Force‘s Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion Yas’ur 2025, registration 979…
IAF operates 23 helicopters of that type. This number includes two versions of the helicopter:
The Yas’ur 2000 version are helicopters upgraded and improved by the Israel Aircraft Industries to extend life span past 2000. The Yas’ur 2025 is a further upgraded version with new systems and new gearboxes. Israel has 18 CH-53 Yas’ur 2000s and 5 CH-53 Yas’ur 2025s in service.
The General Electric T64 turboshaft engine was introduced in 1964 and pioneered a number of technical innovations that influenced future generations of General Electric engines. These technical innovations included corrosion resistant and high-temperature coatings, front-drive free turbines and film air-cooled turbine blades and nozzles. The T64 pioneered a number of technical innovations that have influenced generations of GE engines, such as corrosion resistance and high temperature coatings,front drive free turbines and film cooled turbine nozzles and blades. Though no longer in production, T64 engines of today incorporate new design and material technologies that have improved performance and reliability and have doubled the engine’s original power rating. More recently, an erosion resistant titanium nitride coating has been developed for compressor airfoils, with a time on wing improvement demonstrated of at least 2 times. The engine features a high overall pressure ratio, yielding a low specific fuel consumption for its time. Although the compressor is all-axial, like the earlier General Electric T58, the power turbine shaft is coaxial with the HP shaft and delivers power to the front of the engine, not rearwards. Fourteen compressor stages are required to deliver the required overall pressure ratio. Compressor handling is facilitated by 4 rows of variable stators. Unlike the T58 engine, the power turbine has 2 stages.
Two 
T64-GE-413, twin-shaft, turboshaft engines (engine architecture: P]G[–14HPC〧2HPT«2PwrT), OPR: 14,9:1, rated at 3.936 shp (3.990 sPS) / 2.935 kW, power the CH-53D Sea Stallion, which has six main rotor blades. The newer CH-53E Super Stallion is a seven blade main rotor / four-blade canted tail rotor helicopter is powered by three T64-GE-416A turboshaft engines, each rated at 4.380 shp (4.440 sPS) / 3.266 kW. The CH-53D/E helicopters are capable of both land and ship-based transport of heavy equipment, supplies and personnel. One of the newest versions of the T64 engine, the T64-419, provides increased power 4.750 shp (4.816 sPS) / 3.542 kW for U.S. Navy MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopters.
The next generation CH-53 helicopters, currently being developed by Sikorsky, will not be powered by the T64 engine. In 2004, it was determined that a new-build airframe would be a more cost-effective solution relative to upgrading existing CH-53 helicopters. The future CH-53K King Stallion will be powered by three General Electric T408-GE-400 (GE38-1B) twin-shaft, turboshaft engines (engine architecture: P]G[–(5+1r)HPC〧2HPT«3PwrT), OPR: 18.6:1, rated at 7.500 shp (7.604 sPS) / 5.593 kW. The T408 provides 58-71% more power than the T64 engines that power the CH-53E/MH-53E with 18% lower fuel consumption and 63% fewer parts. On 4. Aug 2011, GE Aviation delivered the first engine for Sikorsky‘s CH-53K Ground Test Vehicle.
Mario
…..Thank You, Austin!
At the MAKS 2015 Airshow, Sukhoi Civil Aircraft Company – SCAC (АО “Гражданские самолеты Сухого”) has announced that the new version of the Sukhoi Superjet 100 (SSJ100) regional aircraft, with the more powerful engines, range extension and winglets, will join the family (SSJ100-95, SSJ100-95B, SSJ100-95LR and SSJ100-95SBJ) and will be designated as SSJ100 V100. Installing of the higher thrust engines, developed for the long-range version of the jet, on the aircraft having the same takeoff weight will allow the customers to have more flexibility in terms of aircraft configuration. Optimization of its characteristics allows operating SSJ100 under conditions of high temperatures and high altitudes.
The new model was developed in order to provide the jet with the new capabilities required by the customers in some specific geographical regions. The major distinctive feature of the SSJ100 V100 aircraft is the higher thrust engine – 
SaM146-1S18, twin-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engine (fan diameter: 1.224 mm / 48,2 in; BPR: 4,4:1; engine architecture: F+3LPC–6HPC〧1HPT–3LPT), OPR: 28,0:1, rated at 73,32 kN / 7.477 kgf / 16.483 lbf, offered as an option for the liner having the basic range. The takeoff thrust was increased thanks to the adjustments made to the engine’s software developed by the PowerJet, 50/50 joint venture between Safran Aircraft Engines (previously SNECMA) and JSC NPO “Saturn” (ПАО “НПО “Сатурн”).
Sukhoi Civil Aircraft Company gradually expands its product line, and in the addition to the existing members of SSJ100 family, having different takeoff weights and ranges, it is going to offer another model to its customers, the one with the the basic takeoff weight, but improved takeoff performance.
The technical solutions used for the development of the new model may become a deciding factor for some users because an opportunity to increase payload while operating the aircraft from airfields located in mountainous regions could be of a great importance to them. First of all, this refers to South and Central Africa, where many airports are located in mountainous regions. India and China are also of the great importance for the program because these countries have high passenger traffic and many airports are located in mountainous regions too. Average height of these airports is over 1.500 m above the sea level; that is why they need a liner with relatively low takeoff weight and high thrust engines. Moreover, the new aircraft was expected to be in demand in countries with hot and humid climate. Taking into account the performance of the SSJ100 V100, it may also meet the requirements of the European carriers, which have many airports with short runways in their route network.
SSJ100 V100 supposed to have the range of 3.048 km / 1.893 mi, maximum takeoff weight of 45.880 kg / 101.148 lb and the takeoff distance 10% shorter compared to the basic version.
Since 2017 a new wingtips was expected to be offered as an option for all SSJ100 airliners; the wingtips will improve the jet performance and fuel efficiency.The wingtips’ design optimization, including calculations and testing carried out using wind tunnels of TsAGI and SibNIA. Several variants having vertical or horizontal configuration were considered. The work took around one and a half years. A junction between the wing and the wingtip has been designed as well as the composite wingtip itself. Even a manufacturer was being chosen; probably one of the Russian enterprises involved in SSJ100 program will start the mass production of these wingtips. The wingtips will deliver up to 4 % in fuel savings. Moreover, the optimized wingtips should improve the takeoff and landing performance. Business – SSJ100-95SBJ and long-range versions – SSJ100-95LR of the SSJ100 liner will also be fitted with the wingtips.
At the time the aircarft was considered, I was sure that, in addition to the mentioned aerodynamic improvements of the plane, there was a room for the aircraft’s further optimization and efficiency improvement, primarily through the replacement of its engines. The current engines, SaM146, largely based on CFM56 engine tecnology, is an reliable and well proven engine, but the one which in its efficiency lags behind the new generation of the engines.
Possible engine options? Aviadvigatel PD-10, twin-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engine (fan diameter: 1.677 mm / 66,02 in; BPR: :1; engine architecture: F+1LPC–8HPC〧2HPT–5LPT), OPR: :1, rated at 106,89 kN / 10.900 kgf / 24.030 lbf, based on the new 
PD-14, two-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engine (fan diameter: 1.900,0 mm / 74,8 in; BPR: 8,5:1; eng. architecture: 1F+3LPC–8HPC〧2HPT–6LPT), OPR: 41,0:1, rated at 137,29 kN / 14.000 kgf / 30.865 lbf, aimed for the Irkut MC-21-300 aircraft or maybe some version of the PurePower engine, similar to Mitsubishi MRJ‘s Pratt & Whitney PW1217G, geared, high-bypass, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 1.422 mm / 56,0 in; BPR: 9,0:1; engine architecture: F]G[2LPC–8HPC〧2HPT–3LPT), OPR: :1, rated at 75,72 kN / 7.722 kgf / 17.023 lbf.
I saw Aviadvigatel PD-10 as the main engine option, especially for the larger and heavier Superjet. This engine would be heavier than the current PowerJet SaM146 (2.200 kg compared with the latter’s 1.708 kg), but it woud also feature a 35 % increase in takeoff thrust and a 14 % reduction in specific fuel burn. The PD-10‘s fan’s diameter of 1.677 mm will enable bypass ratio of 7,5 (the SaM146 – 1.224 mm fan enables bypass ratio of 4,4). Compared with the baseline Aviadvigatel PD-14 engine and its architecture: 1F+3LPC–8HPC〧2HPT–6LPT, the PD-10 engine’s architecture will be: 1F+1LPC–8HPC〧2HPT–5LPT.
Sometime later, the aircarft got the new name, Sukhoi Superjet 130 NG (SSJ130NG) jet airliner (length: 33,8 m / 110,9 ft; wingspan: 28,6 m / 93,8 ft; fuselage max diameter: 3,35 m / 11 ft; cabin width: 3,24 m / 10,6 ft; MTOM: 55,7 t / 122.798 lb), work on which was carried out by Sukhoi Civil Aircraft Company – SCAC (АО “Гражданские самолеты Сухого”) and PJSC United Aircraft Corporation (ПАО “ОАК”). The SSJ130NG was imagined to have an aluminum fuselage and use composite materials for its, not only Irkut MC-21‘s derived composite wing, but the center section, elevator and rudder. The aircraft was conceived as a link between the already exploited Sukhoi SSJ100 and the new airliner Irkut MC-21-300. In the original Superjet plans, three versions of the aircraft were planned: -65, -75 and -95 seat versions. Finally, the 95-seat version was realized as SSJ100-95…
Now You can forget all about Superjet 130 NG because the new, smaller version of the aircraft was launched …
………..Please click on the images for the articles …
SCAC president Alexander Rubtsov revealed to FlightGlobal at the Singapore Airshow 2018 that a launch decision for the 75-seat derivative was made last week, following a 100 aircraft commitment from an undisclosed Russian airline. Because of the strong interest in a smaller Superjet, SCAC has shelved the plans to develop a larger Superjet, more than that the previously considered variant would enter into the Bombardier CSeries‘ market. The Bombardier CSeries with advanced engines, aerodynamics and structures is now operational both in a 100-seat (CS100) and 130-seat (CS300) version. Within weeks, the 100-seat version of the updated Embraer E-Jet, the E190-E2, is starting service with Norwegian carrier Widerøe while the 120-seat Embraer E195-E2 follows next year. Building a competitive larger version would call for an injection of new technologies into the SSJ, to come to the operational costs of these aircraft. In the sector below 95 seats, there is no new technology aircraft in the market until the Mitsubishi MRJ70 and Embraer E175-E2 arrives in 2021. The largest market for 75-seat regional jets is the US regional jet market. Embraer delivered 79 E175 76-seaters during 2017, of which 71 went to US regional airlines and eight to KLM Cityhopper in Europe. The real challenge for the SSJ75 is not the cabin, wing or engines, nor is it the fuel consumption or operating costs in general. It will require the experience of a number of Western SSJ operators over several years to tell whether SCAC can deliver, service and support a regional jet to the level where it can compete in the US market.
.
……………………….Mitsubishi Regional Jet MRJ90……………………………………………………Embraer E190-E2
The current competitors of the future Sukhoi SSJ75 are Embraer E175, Bombardier CRJ700 and Bombardier CRJ900. Of these, the SSJ has the better cabin comfort and engines which are half a generation newer, since the PowerJet SaM146 is 10 years younger in design than the CF34-8C(E) engines used on the Bombardier CRJs and Embraer E175.
It will be interesting to see how a 5-across airplane will be able to compete with 4-across in that market segment in terms of weight efficiency, especially with the same engines pushing a bigger crosssection through the air. It makes hard to see it being any more efficient or more likely to hit the scope clause weight than the Embraer E175-E2 or Mitsubishi MRJ70. Granted, if it did manage to hit that weight, then I think we’d be looking at a possible game changer for breaking into the US market. It wouldd truly be the only next generation plane that meets it.
For marketing purposes, the 75-seater may be called the MC-21-75, but it’s not decided yet.
It’s interesting to notice that intends to use the same avionics suite as the Irkut MC-21-300 from Concern Radio-Electronic Technologies KRET rather than the Thales they currently use (Russia’s Radio-Electronic Technologies Concern (KRET), a subsidiary of the state-run corporation Rostec, is also building a new avionics system for 
Tu-160 strategic bomber. The modernization project aims to include elements of integrated modular avionics). This could be a direct result of the refusal from the USA to approve the sale of the SSJ100 to Iran. This aircraft is not imagined just as a shrink, since a new wing will be designed, and fuselage will be deeply redeveloped. Those more informed say that Sukhoi has no background in civil aircraft, and SSJ100 contains pretty much errors in its design. A simple shrink would have perpetuated those errors into other models, so SSJ75 will be as clean sheet as realistically feasible. Some go so far and claim that current SSJ100 design will be retired, and SSJ75 will become the core for the family of jets, including new SSJ100. We’ll see …
It seems to me SCAC is trying to route the new aircraft towards the larger Irkut MC-21-300, a bit like BBD is doing with Airbus, meanwhile taking care of a ‘deep Russification’ of the design, so that foreign providers are no longer an issue in the production chain. I wonder how interesting this new variant will appear to be to the rest of the world operators? If anything the SSJ needs to broaden its international appeal, and not ‘ingrow’ into deep Russian technology to sell in bigger numbers.
Although it was said the Superjet‘s current PowerJet SaM146 engine would be “a bit too big” for the smaller version of the aircarft, the main reason for the engines vendor’s replacement decision lies in the fact that Sukhoi is not happy with the PowerJet JV, and in particular with the priority that Safran Aircraft Engines gives to CFM LEAP ramp up and fixing the Silvercrest engines. Potential engines under the evaluation include the Aviadvigatel PD-7, twin-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engine rated at 77,47 kN / 7.900 kgf / 17.417 lbf, based on the new Aviadvigatel PD-14, two-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engine (fan diameter: 1.900,0 mm / 74,8 in; BPR: 8,5:1; eng. architecture: 1F+3LPC–8HPC〧2HPT–6LPT), OPR: 41,0:1, rated at 137,29 kN / 14.000 kgf / 30.865 lbf, aimed for the Irkut MC-21-300 or Pratt & Whitney PW1217G, geared, high-bypass, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 1.422 mm / 56,0 in; BPR: 9,0:1; engine architecture: F]G[2LPC–8HPC〧2HPT–3LPT), OPR: :1, rated at 75,72 kN / 7.722 kgf / 17.023 lbf, aimed for Mitsubishi MRJ. It had been rumored that JSC NPO “Saturn” could buy out the Safran‘s stake or take upon a higher industrial share of the program. PowerJet SaM146 engine is very dependent on the Western technology as Safran Aircraft Engines is in charge of the core, control system (FADEC), power transmission (accessory gearbox, transfer gearbox), engine integration and the flight testing while JSC NPO “Saturn” is responsible for the components in the the low-pressure section, engine installation on the aircraft and the ground testing. Allegedly, there seems to be a margin for a larger fan, and in addition to that the question is if the wing can take the heavier engine. Some Russian aviation-related forum discussions point to problems due to the lack of Sukhoi’s experience in the design of the passenger aircraft, and just one of them is actually the inability of SSJ100 to get larger diameter engines. The basic message is that the existing engines are nearly too low, making them “vacuum cleaners/open invitation to FOD problems”, and larger fan diameter is out of the question, as frame design does not permit it. But again, these are just discussion points, and do not need to be taken as a real factual state…
The 2022 EIS of the SSJ75 (4 years development time) suggests some pretty extensive redesign of what is already a very good airframe in terms of aerodynamics and weight. A smaller and optimized wing, using the same composite manufacturing methods from the Irkut MC-21, paired with a new generation of the engines, might end up with Sukhoi having the most competitive product in the 75-seat segment. Personally, I wish them all the luck in this world to succeed in this endeavor.
Mario
Yesterday, on 22. Jan 2018, The Boeing Company announced their 787-10 Dreamliner received an amended type certificate (ATC) from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), clearing the airplane for commercial service. On 18. Jun 2013 The Boeing Company officially launched the 787-10 Dreamliner, at the Paris Air Show. The first 787-10 was rolled out on 17. Feb 2017. The variant’s first flight took place on 31. Mar 2017 and lasted 4 hours and 48 minutes.
The awarding of ATC caps a successful flight test program that began in March 2017 and involved three flight test airplanes that accumulated about 900 test hours. Boeing‘s flight test program team took the airplanes through a series of tests to confirm the airplane’s handling, systems and overall performance met internal requirements and certification standards to ensure safety of flight. Other aviation regulatory agencies are expected to follow the FAA’s lead and certify the airplane before it enters service.
The 787 Dreamliner is a family of super-efficient airplanes with new passenger-pleasing features. As a stretch of the 787-9, the 787-10 retains over 95 %commonality while adding seats and cargo capacity, setting a new benchmark for fuel efficiency and operating economics at 25 % better fuel per seat and emissions than the airplanes it will replace. The airplane can fly 330 passengers in a typical two-class configuration, up to 6.430 nm / 11.910 km. The aircraft powerplants’ options are either two Trent 1000-TEN, three-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 2.844,8 mm / 112,0 in; engine architecture: 1F–8IPC=6HPC〨1HPT=1IPT–6LPT) or two GEnx-1B, twin-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 2.821,9 mm / 111,1 in; engine architecture: F+4LPC–10HPC〧2HPT–7LPT).
Rolls-Royce Trent 1000-TEN engine features a scaled version of the A350‘s Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-84 IP and HP compressor and Advance3 core technology including a ‘rising-line’ compressor and three-stage bladed disc (blisk) at the front of the high-pressure compressor. The Trent 1000-TEN promised a 3-percent fuel burn advantage over the Trent 1000, the original Rolls-Royce engine option for the Boeing 787-8 and Boeing 787-9. Fuel burn is reduced through its improved intermediate pressure compressor where the rear stages spin at higher speeds. Three blisk stages were introduced in the new compressor and 75% of its parts are new or changed from the Trent 1000. The HP turbine architecture is shared with the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-97 engine, the A350-1000‘s powerplant, and will provide better component life results for the Trent 1000s in service.
To date, Boeing has over 170 orders for the 787-10 Dreamliner from nine customers worldwide. First delivery is expected to Singapore Airlines in the first half of 2018.
Some articles on the yesterday’s Boeing 78X‘s certification …
Please click on the images.
Boeing finished final assembly and painting of the first production Boeing 787-10 Dreamliner in October 2017, in Charleston, before its certification. It is scheduled to be delivered to launch customer Singapore Airlines in May 2018.
The images below: the first Singapore Airlines‘ Boeing 787-10 Dreamliner, MSN 60254 / LN 622, powered by two Trent 1000-J3, three-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 2.844,8 mm / 112,0 in; BPR: :1; engine architecture: 1F–8IPC=6HPC〨1HPT=1IPT–6LPT), OPR: 50,0:1, rated at 347,54 kN / 35.439 kgf / 78.129 lbf.
Please click on the thumbnails for the larger view
….
….
….
….
….Click on the image to get the latest certification sheet on Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft
….Mario
Emirates orders 36 Airbus A380 aircraft
Recently, Airbus was declaring its readiness to phase out its A380 model if fails to win Emirates‘ deal …
… epilogue: 20 Firm + 16 Options for Emirates. Deliveries will start from 2020. Some of the new Airbus A380s will be used as fleet replacements.
This order should secure production for another 10 years and this will most certainly keep the program alive until Airbus finally push forward with the NEO (New Engine Option) program. Shame they couldn’t get this done and dusted for the Dubai air show.
Airbus needed that Emirates’ order, but Emirates needs A380s just a s bad. Time may well show that in the end there will still be a place for the A380s. Anyway, a win for the passengers, especially those in Y-class. For the right price there might be a group of re-orders from early customers. New customers might get second hand ones for cheap instead of expensive new ones. We’ll see if China’s market could accept more aircraft. The France-based manufacturer was reportedly offering China an industrial partnership with the company if Beijing places orders for its largest passenger jet. Airbus Chief Operating Officer, Fabrice Bregier, was in China to hold talks after traveling to the country as part of French President Emmanuel Macron’s trade mission. Rami Myerson, an analyst at Investec, said that there had been speculation for some time that Beijing will invest in the Airbus A380 superjumbo. There is a view that aircraft and airspace are becoming more and more congested and given the strong growth in China that could be an attractive plane for the country.
The media have devoted a lot of attention to this news …
Please, click on the images for the articles
So far, 101 aircraft have been delivered to 
, 90 of them powered by four 
GP7270, twin-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 116,0 in / 2.946,4 mm; BPR: 8,8:1; engine architecture: 1F+5LPC–9HPC〧2HPT–6LPT), OPR: 36,1:1, each rated at 332,44 kN / 33.899 kgf / 74.735 lbf and 11 aircraft powered by four Trent 972B-84, three-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 2.946,4 mm / 116,0 in; BPR: 7,7-8,5:1; engine architecture: 1F–8IPC=6HPC〨1HPT=1IPT–5LPT), OPR: 39,0:1, each rated at 356,81 kN / 36.384 kgf / 80.214 lbf.
……The Emirates‘ A380 aircraft have six different cabin’s configurations:
…………..
….Mario
Thanks a lot Haavarla, Msphere and Mfranjic for your detailed and elaborate answers. As usual another great post, Mfranjic…
You are very welcome, just as always, Arihant! Thank You very much for Your kind words!
… And isn’t the AL-31 FN meant for J-10A and B? …
In the early 1992, after the first visit to Beijing, the general designer of JSC Lyulka-Saturn, V.M. Chepkin and his associates were actively helding talks with the Chinese side on a new AL-31F (изд. 99) engine, and consequently of which, on 31. Mar 1992, was signed a contract between AVIC Chengdu Aerospace Corporation and JSC Lyulka-Saturn (ОАО “А. Люлька-Сатурн”) to develop and supply nine engines for a single-engine fighter. The Chinese side, in contrast to the AL-31F engine, chose the lower location of the engine’s and aircraft’s accessory gearboxes, and the engine began to be called the AL-31FN (АЛ-31ФН). The letter N (in Russian Cyrillic: Н) in the engine’s designation comes from – нижни расположение коробки приводов – lower drive box location.
The 
then bought ten AL-31F (изд. 99) engines and redesigned them to AL-31FN (изд. 39) standard. The engine passed the whole complex of necessary tests, the engine layout and nine test AL-31FN engines were delivered to Chengdu’s facilities. Before that, a large course of training for the Chinese specialists for the engine features and operation was conducted. Chinese themselves were also converting some of the recycled AL-31F engines to the AL-31FN standard, aimed for their 
J-10 aircraft, in Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) Overhaul Plant Number 5719 at Chengdu, where the service life extension modifications for the engine were also developed. The key to the service life extension is a specific set of improved, Chinese-made components that were a part of what was described as a “re-manufacturing kit”, and that was introduced during the process of a full-scale remanufacturing and overhaul process. The modifications of the AL-31F/FN P.2 series engine increased its operational limits by more than 65 % – from 900 to 1.500 flight hours, according to the privately owned Centre for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST).
A few images of Salyut AL-31FN (изд. 39) engine (please click on the thumbnails for a larger view)
…
…
…
…
…
…
In the comparison with the JSC NPO “Saturn” (ПАО “НПО “Сатурн”), the company “MMPP “Salut” (“ММПП “Салют”) was receiving pretty much smaller part of the cake on the Russian market with their AL-31F M1 (АЛ-31Ф серии 42/изд. 99M1) engine, and which found its place on the Russian Su-27SM/SM2/SM3, Su-33M and those later produced Su-34 aircraft, but was recording notable successes on the Chinese market with the custom-made engine on which the engine’s and aircraft’s accessory gearboxes were mounted beneath, and was aimed for the Chinese Chengdu J-10, lightweight, multirole fighter aircraft, capable of all-weather operation, configured with a delta wing and canard design, with fly-by-wire flight controls, where the Chengdu J-10A aircraft was powered by Salyut AL-31FN (изд. 39), twin-shaft, afterburning, turbofan engine (fan diameter: 905,0 mm / 35,6 in; BPR: 0,56:1; engine architecture: 4F–9HPC〧1HPT–1LPT), OPR: 22,87:1, rated at 122,58 kN / 12.500 kgf / 27.558 lbf on the afterburner, and those later models of the aircraft, Chengdu J-10B and J-10C, by Salyut AL-31FN series 3 engine, rated at 134,35 kN / 13.700 kgf / 30.203 lbf on the afterburner, with a 2.250 hour service life. “MMPP “Salut” also offers AL-31FN M1 (изд. 39M1), twin-shaft, afterburning, turbofan engine (fan diameter: 924,0 mm / 36,4 in; BPR: 0,61:1; engine architecture: 4F–9HPC〧1HPT–1LPT), OPR: 24,00:1, with the new KND 924-4 fan/LP compressor (FPR: 3,68), rated at 132,39 kN / 13.500 kgf / 29.762 lbf on the afterburner. This is the custom-made version of the already very well known and above mentioned Salyut AL-31F M1 (АЛ-31Ф серии 42/изд. 99M1), twin-shaft, (TVC), afterburning, turbofan engine, but with the engine’s and aircraft’s accessory gearboxes mounted beneath, the same way as on the Salyut AL-31FN (изд. 39) engine and its sub-series. To my knowledge, China was receiving, so far, the engines with the conventional nozzles only. The current version of the Salyut AL-31FN (изд. 39) engine, the one with the TVC (Thrust Vector Control), has a thrust of 124,54 kN / 12.700 kgf / 28.000 lbf on the afterburner.
There are also some minor differences in between dimensions and masses of the basic Saturn AL-31F (изд. 99) and Salyut AL-31FN (изд. 39) engines. Salyut AL-31FN engine is 57 mm longer (5.002 mm vs. 4.945 mm) and has 50 kg more of the mass (1.538 kg vs. 1.488 kg) than the Saturn AL-31F engine…
To the forum members and all our readers, I wish a blessed, joyful and with the many beautiful moments, those that can not be easily forgotten, fulfilled 2018. year.
God bless You and keep You all !
Mario
Which engine is installed in SM3? AL-31FM2 or AL-41F1S?
Unfortunately (I wish it was!), none of these two, Arihant. This aircraft is powered by two AL-31F M1 (АЛ-31Ф серии 42/изд. 99M1), twin-shaft, (TVC), afterburning turbofans …
The 
AL-41F-1S (изд. 117С), twin-shaft, afterburning, TVC, turbofan engine (fan diameter: 932,0 mm / 36,7 in; BPR: 0,65:1; engine architecture: 4F–9HPC〧1HPT–1LPT), OPR: 23,10:1, originally known as the AL-37FU, now being marketed under the designation AL-41F-1S, is one of the most sophisticated and powerful variant of the AL-31F (изд. 99В) engine produced to date. It features 86,30 kN / 8.800 kgf / 19.401 lbf of dry thrust, 142,20 kN / 14.500 kgf / 31.967 lbf with the afterburner, Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system for the enhanced aircraft maneuverability, similar to that of the Saturn AL-31FP (изд. 96) engine. The Saturn 117S turbofan engine introduces a wider fan (932 mm compared with 905 mm in AL-31F), advanced low- and high-pressure turbines, and all new digital control system (FADEC). The service life of the AL-41F-1S (117S) engine is 4.000 flight hours with the time between overhauls (TBO) increasing by 2 x to 1.000 flight hours compared with AL-31F service life of 1.500 flight hours and TBO of 500 hours. The new engine time for the first overhaul is 1.500 flight hours. JSC NPO “Saturn” (ПАО “НПО “Сатурн”) built five prototype engines, with the first engine entering the test program in March 2004. The engine development was funded by Sukhoi (40%), NPO Saturn (30%) and UMPO (30%). The first production Saturn 117S engine was shipped to KnAAPO (now 
KnAAZ) in early 2007 to undergo flight tests, powering the first Sukhoi Su-35BM (Изделие Т-10БМ) prototype. The engine is produced by 
. Currently, this engine is the powerplant of the RuAF‘s Sukhoi Su-35S and PLAAF‘s Sukhoi Su-35SK aircraft only.
The Salyut AL-31F M2 (изд. 99M2/99СМ), twin-shaft, TVC, afterburning turbofan (fan diameter: 924,0 mm / 36,4 in; BPR: 0,61:1; engine architecture: 4F–9HPC〧1HPT–1LPT), OPR: 26,09:1, rated at 142,20 kN / 14.500 kgf / 31.967 lbf on the afterburner, could be a low-cost option for the remotorization of Su-27, Su-30 and Su-34 fleet, now operated by the Russian military and is likewise deliverable to the foreign customers. The technical specifications and requirements of Su-27SM/SM2/SM3 and Su-34 aircraft, currently powered by Salyut AL-31F M1 (АЛ-31Ф серии 42/изд. 99M1), twin-shaft, afterburning turbofan (fan diameter: 924,0 mm / 36,4 in; BPR: 0,61:1; engine architecture: 4F–9HPC〧1HPT–1LPT), OPR: 24,00:1, rated at 132,40 kN / 13.500 kgf / 29.762 lbf on the afterburner, call for the engines with the increased thrust and improved fuel consumption, with the Salyut AL-31F M2 fulfilling these needs. The installation can be performed without any rework of the aircraft and could take place in the field conditions. My personal opinion is that this engine is quite comparable and on a par with the Saturn AL-41F-1S (изд. 117С) engine.
The Salyut solution looks lighter in weight compared to AL-31FP as the only thing move is the nozzle petals while AL-31FP and prob 117S move the whole nozzle assembly.
… two pretty different, but both very interesting, designs of the nozzles …
…..
……….
……….Image above: One of the Salyut AL-31F engines during the testing
The next two images clearly show the difference in between JSC NPO “Saturn” AL-31FP‘s (left) and “MMPP “SALUT” AL-31F M1‘s variable convergent-divergent TVC nozzles …
On the Salyut engine’s nozzle, the deflection section is quite short …
… because of the fact the design of the nozzle applied on “MMPP “SALUT” (“ММПП “Салют”) engines are much more compact …
… than the one on the JSC NPO “Saturn” (ПАО “НПО “Сатурн”) engines …
Image above: The mechanism closer to the core of the Saturn AL-31FP engine is aimed for the directing of the nozzle, while the one closer to the nozzle’s petals controls the geometry of the convergent-divergent TVC nozzle in the different modes of operation.
The next two images show variable convergent-divergent nozzles of two pretty different engines, with the cylinders of the actuating mechanism. On the left-hand side is the nozzle of the Saturn AL-41F-1, twin-shaft, afterburning, TVC, turbofan engine designed for the propulsion of the Sukhoi “PAK FA” / T-50 aircraft and on the right-hand side is the one of the NK-32, three-shaft, afterburning, turbofan engine of theTu-160 supersonic, variable-sweep wing, heavy strategic bomber .
AFAIK domestic Su-30SM use AL-31FM1 engines with TVC …
Not really …
… 
IAPO – Irkutsk Aircraft Production Assocaition (ПАО “Корпорация “Иркут”) produced Sukhoi Su-30SM is powered by two AL-31FP (изд. 96), twin-shaft, TVC, afterburning turbofans (fan diameter: 35,6 in / 905,0 mm; BPR: 0,56:1; engine architecture:
4F–9HPC〧1HPT–1LPT), OPR: 22,87:1, each rated at 74,56 kN / 7.600 kgf / 16.756 lbf dry and 122,62 kN / 12.500 kgf / 27.558 lbf with the afterburner.
The aircraft that are powered by two AL-31F M1 (АЛ-31Ф серии 42/изд. 99M1), twin-shaft, (TVC), afterburning turbofan (fan diameter: 924,0 mm / 36,4 in; BPR: 0,61:1; engine architecture: 4F–9HPC〧1HPT–1LPT), OPR: 24,00:1, with the new KND 924-4 fan/LP compressor (FPR: 3,68), rated at 80,90kN / 8.250 kgf / 18.188 lbf dry and 132,40 kN / 13.500 kgf / 29.762 lbf on the afterburner, are Russian fighter jets Su-27SM/SM2/SM3 and Su-34. The engine has the option to be equipped with the 
KLIVT thrust vector nozzles (also used on the MiG-29 derivatives: MiG-29M OVT-TVC demonstrator and recently presented MiG-35.
Sukhoi Su-34, twin-seat, all-weather, supersonic, medium-range fighter-bomber/strike aircraft has the engines with the conventional nozzles.
… while export MKI/MKM/MKA use standard AL-31F with TVC.
… and this engine is called Saturn AL-31FP (изд. 96). Yes, the same one used on the above mentioned Sukhoi Su-30SM aircraft…
All the Su-27 aircraft’ two-seat derivatives with the canards, and which You have mentioned, use the same type of the engine – Saturn AL-31FP (изд. 96).
Mario
Sign In
