By: paralay
- 1st March 2016 at 16:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, if with a little higher BPR, easily goes with a thrust of 17.5-20T. Then twin engine configuration may have a MTOW of 140-160T.
Normal combat load Russian bomber:
6 X 101 + multiposition launcher = 16600 kg.
4 RVV-SD + 4 UVKU-50U, 4 x 190 kg + 117 kg x 4 = 1228 kg.
2 RVV-MD 2 x 110 kg = 220 kg.
16600 kg + 1228 kg + 220 kg = 18048 kg
The relative weight of the normal payload bomber 8 - 10%
18048 kg : 0.1 or 0.08 = 180 480 or 225 600 kg
the ratio of thrust to weight ratio of 0.25.
thrust one motor 11280 - 14100 kg
By: haavarla
- 1st March 2016 at 16:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
New engines = new wings, see Il-76MD-90A
Yes i am aware of that, but it looked like they do other overhauls on Il-76 without putting the 90A engines on it, like TR1 said, its probably from an economical outset, if the airframe have limited life left, it is not viable to put newer engine on it.
The Il-476 probably have so many improved features like, lighter empty weight, longer airframe life, etc. That they consentrate proper engine and funding on them in stead.
New
Posts: 2,171
By: Berkut
- 1st March 2016 at 16:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We have known for years now that they wouldnt be putting PD-90A's on Il-76MD-M's - this is hardly shocking. And makes sense. They plan to fly them for only ~15 more years, they will be replaced by Il-76MD-90A's and PAK-MTA/PAK-TA and whatnot. Why put brand new engines on them? Will easily cost ~20 mil USD and with 10% fuel economy over those 15 years it wont matter.
By: TR1
- 2nd March 2016 at 00:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Zvezda is being ****e again they have footage from like half dozen places and event in there.
You know, I suspected that was the case, but did not look closely enough. Figured they were actually accurate for once, but nope, that same stock Kh-31 old footage....a classic resuse of theirs.
Why put brand new engines on them? Will easily cost ~20 mil USD and with 10% fuel economy over those 15 years it wont matter.
I assume that in Il-76MD-M the D-30 engines have been refurbished, and not fully replaced. PS-90 demand is high for new Il-76MD-90A and other aircraft.
New
Posts: 2,171
By: Berkut
- 2nd March 2016 at 15:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, D-30's were refurbished. I was talking about that there is little point of putting on PD-90A's, which would be new.
By: TomcatViP
- 3rd March 2016 at 01:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fund for what? Ru has already a potent trainer fleet. It's all about Yacks, no? This one looks sexy with shape borrowed everywhere that flatter any enthusiast imagination but the construction methods are archaic. I do agree however that with a potent budget and partnerships for improved materials, it would do a nice private jet.
By: Flanker_man
- 3rd March 2016 at 09:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Former Sukhoi test pilot Anatoly Kvochur in the front seat - looking a bit old now.
Ken
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 3rd March 2016 at 09:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fund for what? Ru has already a potent trainer fleet. It's all about Yacks, no? This one looks sexy with shape borrowed everywhere that flatter any enthusiast imagination but the construction methods are archaic. I do agree however that with a potent budget and partnerships for improved materials, it would do a nice private jet.
Yak is a twin-engine advanced LIFT.. Way overkill for most forces.. This SR-10 is single AL-25-powered bird, it could prove as a good basic trainer, a cheapish alternative to L-39NG, S.311 or K-8.
New
Posts: 645
By: Scar
- 3rd March 2016 at 09:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Former Sukhoi test pilot Anatoly Kvochur in the front seat - looking a bit old now.
By: Flanker_man
- 3rd March 2016 at 12:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe not on Sukhoi's payroll but .... (from Wiki) ... From 1978 to 1981 he worked as a test pilot at Komsomolsk-on-Amur, testing Su-17 aircraft and its modifications.
Lets just say he flew Flankers.... and he courteously autographed my Andrei Fomin Su-27 book at MAKS.
... and autographed my 'Soviet X-Planes' at Boscombe Down in 1992.
Posts: 645
By: Scar - 1st March 2016 at 09:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No
Posts: 2,171
By: Berkut - 1st March 2016 at 15:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Even though the quality is ****, we can see two things;
1; The spine is clearly much larger.
2; It has a russian flag on the tail.
3; It is not "MiG-29UBT" (they are just MiG-29UB's still btw) but an actual MiG-29UBT;
Zvezda is being ****e again they have footage from like half dozen places and event in there.
Posts: 1,344
By: paralay - 1st March 2016 at 15:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
New engines = new wings, see Il-76MD-90A
Posts: 1,344
By: paralay - 1st March 2016 at 16:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Normal combat load Russian bomber:
6 X 101 + multiposition launcher = 16600 kg.
4 RVV-SD + 4 UVKU-50U, 4 x 190 kg + 117 kg x 4 = 1228 kg.
2 RVV-MD 2 x 110 kg = 220 kg.
16600 kg + 1228 kg + 220 kg = 18048 kg
The relative weight of the normal payload bomber 8 - 10%
18048 kg : 0.1 or 0.08 = 180 480 or 225 600 kg
the ratio of thrust to weight ratio of 0.25.
thrust one motor 11280 - 14100 kg
[ATTACH=CONFIG]244433[/ATTACH]
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 1st March 2016 at 16:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes i am aware of that, but it looked like they do other overhauls on Il-76 without putting the 90A engines on it, like TR1 said, its probably from an economical outset, if the airframe have limited life left, it is not viable to put newer engine on it.
The Il-476 probably have so many improved features like, lighter empty weight, longer airframe life, etc. That they consentrate proper engine and funding on them in stead.
Posts: 2,171
By: Berkut - 1st March 2016 at 16:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We have known for years now that they wouldnt be putting PD-90A's on Il-76MD-M's - this is hardly shocking. And makes sense. They plan to fly them for only ~15 more years, they will be replaced by Il-76MD-90A's and PAK-MTA/PAK-TA and whatnot. Why put brand new engines on them? Will easily cost ~20 mil USD and with 10% fuel economy over those 15 years it wont matter.
Posts: 6,186
By: Austin - 1st March 2016 at 18:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Upgraded Il-76MD-M Airlifter Makes First Flight in Russia
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-03-01/upgraded-il-76md-m-airlifter-makes-first-flight-russia
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 2nd March 2016 at 00:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You know, I suspected that was the case, but did not look closely enough. Figured they were actually accurate for once, but nope, that same stock Kh-31 old footage....a classic resuse of theirs.
Nice pic:
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 2nd March 2016 at 01:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1767861.html
Algeria might buy two Il-76MD-90 in the near future.
Posts: 150
By: SergeyL - 2nd March 2016 at 04:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Posts: 374
By: a89 - 2nd March 2016 at 08:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Volga-Dnper fields 5 Ilyushin-76-TD-90-VD, an upgraded variant with PS-90 engines. No new wings are neded to install PS-90.
http://www.volga-dnepr.com/en/fleet/IL-76/
I assume that in Il-76MD-M the D-30 engines have been refurbished, and not fully replaced. PS-90 demand is high for new Il-76MD-90A and other aircraft.
Posts: 2,171
By: Berkut - 2nd March 2016 at 15:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, D-30's were refurbished. I was talking about that there is little point of putting on PD-90A's, which would be new.
Something for TR1 to fanboy. ;)
Moar; http://russianplanes.net/st/SAT/SR-10
Posts: 906
By: stealthflanker - 2nd March 2016 at 16:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Would love to see that little bird mature and operational. Though yes.. Yakovlev are pretty much monopolizing the field in Russia.
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 2nd March 2016 at 23:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1768923.html
A million large photos of the SR-10! Looks damn sexy from some angles. Admittedly hideous from quite a few others though.
I bet 1/50th of the money the gov is blowing on stupid projects like the Il-114 could fund the SR-10 for years.
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 3rd March 2016 at 01:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fund for what? Ru has already a potent trainer fleet. It's all about Yacks, no? This one looks sexy with shape borrowed everywhere that flatter any enthusiast imagination but the construction methods are archaic. I do agree however that with a potent budget and partnerships for improved materials, it would do a nice private jet.
Posts: 3,652
By: Flanker_man - 3rd March 2016 at 09:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Former Sukhoi test pilot Anatoly Kvochur in the front seat - looking a bit old now.
Ken
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 3rd March 2016 at 09:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yak is a twin-engine advanced LIFT.. Way overkill for most forces.. This SR-10 is single AL-25-powered bird, it could prove as a good basic trainer, a cheapish alternative to L-39NG, S.311 or K-8.Posts: 645
By: Scar - 3rd March 2016 at 09:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not Sukhoi but MIG and Gromov LII.
Posts: 3,652
By: Flanker_man - 3rd March 2016 at 12:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe not on Sukhoi's payroll but .... (from Wiki) ... From 1978 to 1981 he worked as a test pilot at Komsomolsk-on-Amur, testing Su-17 aircraft and its modifications.
Lets just say he flew Flankers.... and he courteously autographed my Andrei Fomin Su-27 book at MAKS.
... and autographed my 'Soviet X-Planes' at Boscombe Down in 1992.
Ken
Posts: 150
By: SergeyL - 3rd March 2016 at 16:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00