It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Russian PAK TA, Dream big or go home.....

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:26 PM
a reply to: drwire

It's a hybrid electric with a gas turbine. The only thing is that hybrid electric is brand new technology and isn't close to ready to go supersonic.

posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:41 PM
Is there a point when a larger engine becomes inneficcient?

posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:47 PM
a reply to: Forensick

Yes. the engine has to overcome its own drag and weight as well. If you go too big you have to have more engines to make up for it.

posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 10:04 PM
a reply to: Sammamishman

promo video and stills is about all the Russians can afford to do under Putin.

posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 03:39 PM
a reply to: Forensick
Yes, that's partly why for example the earlier CFM powered A-340's had better fuel consumption figures even after allowing for the admittedly higher thrust of the later -600's with larger Trent 500's. In fact I was surprised to hear when talking with some ground engineers in HK a couple of years back they reckoned that the 340-600's didn't burn much less than a T900 powered A-380 over intermediate distances of 6-8hr sectors. The weight and drag from the fan as a proportion of the aircraft's size being blamed. Fuel burn on the LHR to SYD run with 340-600's was cited by Virgin Atlantic as the reason they closed the route last year, they just couldn't make money with that engine/airframe combination.

If you look at what Boeing is doing with the 777X, at least one of the feasibility options see's a lighter engine with a smaller fan than the current GE-90's partly for this reason.

posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 11:17 PM
a reply to: neformore

Nice to see that American Superiorty Syndrome still exists.... (yawn)

Err,... what are you talking about? Nobody actually went pro US, "let’s bash Russia” on us. You made that up. Responses up until your post ranged from, "interesting", "to not practical" , "not technically possible", and “are they boasting again?”, with the proposal they have given us. Nobody was beating a pro US line, period.

Given that they built this,

Antonov An-225 Mriya

Yes they did and a marvellous achievement it was, but they only ever built one and that was over 25 yrs ago before the WarPac and Soviet Union collapsed that threw tens of thousands of their aerospace engineers out of work, closed design bureaus and factories, most of which has never been recovered. So its little wonder that people regardless of what they think of the design are sceptical such an idea can be pulled off today and in less than 9 years. How long has the F-35 program been running now and with how many more resources and cash available?

With Russian technology, and russian engines, I would suggest that they can build what they propose.

Given only just what I have said above, how do you propose they will do it? Russian engines are by their own admission inferior. What they propose propulsion wise has never really been achieved, and it has flaws I will discuss later.

But then again, because it’s not an American proposal, let’s just piss all over the idea of it, right?

Again, what are you talking about? Nobody was "pissing" all over it. It was pointed out the technical flaws by most with a couple of responders making reference to Russia's propensity to make outlandish technical boasts that never see the light of day. Russia has come up with some very good ideas and developed plenty of interesting technology, but there are two, no actually make that three problems with this proposal. Firstly the artist rendition they have floated goes against just about every conceivable aerodynamic principle to build a supersonic transport that large, in fact that wing at any size will not go supersonic. Not unless it turns out to be a swing or morphing wing, which I doubt. Secondly, the technical requirements to build a supersonic transport capable of lifting a 200t payload 4000 miles is probably beyond the reach of everybody at this time, even if it was a collaborative effort. The technology doesn't exist for much of what they are proposing and the power plant being put forward is untried and untested at that scale and those speeds. And thirdly Russia has a serious skills shortage as a direct result of their own government’s enormous cutbacks in the 90's, not to mention they seem to be having trouble paying for all their other programs, let alone this. Many of the best and brightest exited the industry or went to work in the west. So who exactly is going to design, prototype the technology required and build this, all in less than 9 years?

Grow up people.

Hmmm,.... less said the better me thinks.

posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 11:19 PM
a reply to: neformore
Now as to why this proposal has serious flaws to overcome we need to consider the following.
1) The wing. It isn't a supersonic aerofoil. It would however appear to have good efficiency at long range cruise and as Boomer1947 pointed out those winglets are not made for +Mach 1. Plus the flap drive canoes which you can see between about 1:35-1:45min in the video are a low speed type, not unlike Airbus 330-380 or Boeing 777. At high supersonic speed they will create unacceptable drag and I predict very large shock waves, therefore more drag. Also I noticed the flying surfaces (upper surface spoilers and trailing flaps/ailerons) appeared traditional subsonic like on any Russian or western air lifter/airliner.

2) Fuselage. It appears great as a lifting body and has a good load carrying cross section but as others pointed out, with that huge frontal area it will be like trying to slam a Mack truck through the transonic wall and beyond. Totally the wrong shape unless you plan on strapping some Saturn V first stage engines to it. I also question whether there has been a boast too far or a translation error as in the video the fuselage is shown with a cross section graphic that states "7m X 4m 90T". To me this indicates that the actual payload is 90 tonnes in a 7meter X 4meter cargo hold. This sounds credible.

3) Engines. As far as I know nobody has ever managed to create a hybrid of the required power we are looking at and make it work successfully. And why would you want to? Firstly there is the inherent loss of taking a gas turbine and converting its energy into electrical power generation. It works fine in a ground based power station or ship where thermodynamic loss isn't critical, but in an aircraft it’s a pointless exercise in diminishing returns. It makes infinitely more sense to simply use it the way we always have. There are also a number of critical flaws I feel with the layout. Firstly having just one gas turbine to power two electric fans gives you absolutely no primary power generation redundancy. If that sole glowing hole goes dark you better have some super-efficient batteries of the type not yet invented or you go down quick. And if you do have those batteries why aren't you marketing them and capturing the world energy storage market overnight? All we saw was some pretty blue graphic named "energy storage". I don’t think Russia has ever even made a gas turbine anywhere near the size you would require even in conventional form. I doubt that even a -115B version of the GE90 could do it unless there were at least 3 of them let alone one driving two electric motors remotely, and certainly at least not at those speeds.

Then there is the engine layout. Far, far too big in fan size to create an efficient Mach 2 cruise speed over distance. Everybody knows that a turbojet at altitude does better at high supersonic speed than a turbofan because of smaller cross section. That massive frontal area on those electric fans will eventually act as an aerodynamic brake. And as for the intakes? What are they thinking? Those have a considerable wetted area that will create drag and you can’t tell me they are DSI type intakes. Couple that with the aforementioned fuselage shape and you are talking a massive amount of drag. The exhaust is an interesting idea and worthy of research though as it would appear to give the trailing edge a blown flap advantage to reduce take off/landing distance.

If this design does get off the ground it will be more conventional in nature, being powered by 3 gas turbines. It will carry considerably less than 200 tonnes but possibly as high as 120-140 I'm guessing around 90-100. It will possibly have a range roughly equal to what they are claiming around 4000 miles (nautical I assume?), and it will not be supersonic but subsonic to maybe transonic in a manner not too dissimilar to Boeing's Sonic Cruiser concept of the late 90's, early 2000's. Just because a couple of graphic artists and industrial designers create a thought exercise, it doesn’t mean it is practical to do. Concepts like this are being dreamed up all the time and it pays to remember that Russia has a propaganda machine every bit as sophisticated as the US to make you “think” they are doing something in a particular area.

Personally if they want to build an air lifter capable of delivery 200 tonnes or more it would make far more sense for them to revive their very successful research and commanding lead in designing and building Wing In Ground Effect (WIG’s) aircraft. If I recall correctly they had designs scaled up that could shift up to 1000 tonnes at high subsonic speeds over thousands of miles efficiently. I suggest that makes a far better and real world practical investment than this thought exercise.

edit on 23-3-2015 by thebozeian because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in