Inefficient Russian Engines Options

[mnztr]

I was surprised to find out how much less efficient Russian engines are. The example I found was with the AN-140 turboprop which is a pretty modern aircraft. With Russian engines, range is 2100KM with P&W Canada engines 2500km, I suppose this may also be due to the ability to carry more fuel with the P&W engines? Is it possible that they are still 2 decades behind?

[bernoulli]

I was surprised to find out how much less efficient Russian engines are. The example I found was with the AN-140 turboprop which is a pretty modern aircraft. With Russian engines, range is 2100KM with P&W Canada engines 2500km, I suppose this may also be due to the ability to carry more fuel with the P&W engines? Is it possible that they are still 2 decades behind?

They may be behind in efficiency, but what they lack in efficiency, they certainly make up in utility. I have always loved the AN-32 with those HUGE Ivchenko turboprops. Screw efficiency!

http://www.aeronautics.ru/a/an24001.jpg

But, yes. Russian engine makers will (and probably already have, due to fuel prices being what they are) begin to move the once pesky efficiency issue a few notches up the priority list. But you seriously gotta love their "approach" to POWER.

Some more good info:

http://www.aeroworldnet.com/1ra10160.htm

[milehigheric]

Russian aircraft? Do they still have like 10 people in the flight deck?

[bernoulli]

Russian aircraft? Do they still have like 10 people in the flight deck?

The AN-32 originally had three, but has been modernized down to two.

Get your point, though...

[mnztr]

They may be behind in efficiency, but what they lack in efficiency, they certainly make up in utility. I have always loved the AN-32 with those HUGE Ivchenko turboprops. Screw efficiency!

http://www.aeronautics.ru/a/an24001.jpg

But, yes. Russian engine makers will (and probably already have, due to fuel prices being what they are) begin to move the once pesky efficiency issue a few notches up the priority list. But you seriously gotta love their "approach" to POWER.

Some more good info:

http://www.aeroworldnet.com/1ra10160.htm

Damn!! Those engines are HUGE!!!

[dmd747]

Russian aircraft? Do they still have like 10 people in the flight deck?

That was a good one needed a laugh, you should see what the IL-62M has. I think it's a crew of four in the flight deck! And no none of those guys are jumpseaters.

[charliepapa]

Yup. Two Pilots, a Flight Engineer and a Navigator... I love IL62s though... i've been on one long haul :D

[ChillSpiller]

Hehe, the IL-62 even had a five man cockpit. Two pilots, a navigator, a flight engineer and radio operator. But don't forget that we started out the same way. Nevertheless russian engineers were/are brilliant people. They had to make up for the lack of technology and did. The Antonov Design Bureau or Succhoi are great examples.

[AirRabbit]

It goes back to the end of WWII. When the "east" and "west" divided up the spoils of that victory, including the brilliant technical minds that had been harnessed by the German war-making machine. For the most part the "east" got the heavy-loads-require-massive-amounts-of-brute-force thinkers, and the "west" got the lets-be-as-accurate-as-possible-because-we-don't-have-enough-precious-materials-to-waste-on-errors thinkers. And you can see that in both the aircraft and the rocket/missile families that were developed. The old USSR could launch the Empire State building, but would be lucky to hit the moon; where the US could only launch a small car, but could put it within inches of its target on the lunar surface.

[bernoulli]

It goes back to the end of WWII. When the "east" and "west" divided up the spoils of that victory, including the brilliant technical minds that had been harnessed by the German war-making machine. For the most part the "east" got the heavy-loads-require-massive-amounts-of-brute-force thinkers, and the "west" got the lets-be-as-accurate-as-possible-because-we-don't-have-enough-precious-materials-to-waste-on-errors thinkers. And you can see that in both the aircraft and the rocket/missile families that were developed. The old USSR could launch the Empire State building, but would be lucky to hit the moon; where the US could only launch a small car, but could put it within inches of its target on the lunar surface.

History proves you correct Mr. A! That proof is even evident today. But we DID manage to "employ" Wernher von Braun who brought us the incredible Saturn V rocket. Now THERE'S a heavy lift vehicle. And power? Twelve TONS of propellent per second thrusted this machine well beyond escape velocity with incredible stability and accuracy. Something the Russians lacked until 1987 with the Energia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

[kc135dood]

They may be behind in efficiency, but what they lack in efficiency, they certainly make up in utility. I have always loved the AN-32 with those HUGE Ivchenko turboprops. Screw efficiency!

http://www.aeronautics.ru/a/an24001.jpg

But, yes. Russian engine makers will (and probably already have, due to fuel prices being what they are) begin to move the once pesky efficiency issue a few notches up the priority list. But you seriously gotta love their "approach" to POWER.

Some more good info:

http://www.aeroworldnet.com/1ra10160.htm

my god those are like.......well to me look like.......well wait.........my gosh those are HUGE............... 3x no like 7x of what they need to be in size............oMG THOSE ARE HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-Dave

[

[charliepapa]

my god those are like.......well to me look like.......well wait.........my gosh those are HUGE............... 3x no like 7x of what they need to be in size............oMG THOSE ARE HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-Dave

[

OMG!!!!!!1111111ONEONEONE JUS LYK UR RYTIN1111ONEONETWOTWO

Hahaha... only joking.

If I was an airline's fleet manager, i'd probably go for the IL96M with a English flightdeck, and some rollers/PW... cheap and cheerful. Wont break either