Military Review

The best aircraft engines for fighters in terms of thrust

97

It is impossible to determine which aviation the engine is better and which one is worse, because these are complex engineering products characterized by many different characteristics and created for different types of aircraft designed to perform different tasks. Therefore, they can only be compared by individual parameters. If you choose the three leaders among engines for fighters, taking into account their thrust, then it will include products from Russian and American manufacturers.


Thrust is one of the key parameters of a combat aircraft engine


In aviation, thrust is the force that pushes an airplane in the air. It is opposed by frontal resistance. If the car is flying straight and horizontally at a constant speed, then the thrust will be approximately equal to the drag.

Most often, thrust is measured in kilonewtons (kN) or kilogram-forces (kgf). There are roughly 10 newtons per kilogram-force. And to be precise, then 1 kgf = 9,80665 N.

Using this indicator, we select the three best engines in terms of thrust. To simplify the task, we will compare their maximum thrust in afterburner mode.

Engines for the Su-27 family of fighters


Russian fighters Su-27, Su-30 and Su-35 belong to the same family. The Su-30 became the basis for the design of the later Su-35 and Su-27.

The Su-27 combat aircraft uses an AL-31F bypass turbojet engine with an afterburner. Each fighter is equipped with two such engines. They are also used to equip Su-30 fighters. Such an engine in afterburner mode is capable of developing a maximum thrust of 122,6 kN.


The newer Su-35 fighter uses a different engine - AL-41F1S, which has a controlled thrust vector. This product, like the previous one, has a length of 4,9 meters and a diameter of 1,2 meters. Despite the fact that the new unit has the same dimensions, it is capable of developing much more thrust than its predecessor. It is already 142,2 kN.

American champion F-22


F-22 fighters manufactured in the United States are powered by Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 engines. To date, more than 500 units have been produced. This product is a twin-shaft engine equipped with counter-rotating high and low pressure rotors.

In terms of thrust, which is almost 155 kN, the F119-PW-100 has every right to be the leader among engines for fighter aircraft. True, with some reservations.


As stated earlier, thrust is far from the only characteristic. Therefore, due to the greater mass, the maximum speed developed by the F-22 is lower than the speed of the Su-35, although the American develops more thrust than the Russian.

In addition, as it turned out, the F119-PW-100 engines develop their resource faster than expected. Therefore, the US Air Force is already beginning to experience a shortage of these products.

On the other hand, if the service life of the engines is coming to an end, this indicates their intensive operation. And the active use of products testifies to the fact that it has found its place in the American military aviation and is quite satisfactory in its characteristics to its users.

Unified Russian aircraft engine


In July of this year, Evgeny Semivelichenko, Managing Director of the Lyulka Experimental Design Bureau at the Ufa Motor-Building Software, told the agency RIA News on the beginning of the development of a new universal aircraft engine for the Su-27, Su-30 and Su-35 fighters. In this case, the product can be installed on any of the three types of aircraft without modifying the airframe.

It is planned to improve the technical characteristics of the engine compared to its predecessors, and it will use the components already involved in the previous models.

The unification of engines for different types of fighters is a positive factor in terms of the economics of their production. At the same time, it will become cheaper and easier to service this equipment in parts.

And when the first prototype of the new engine is created, it will be interesting to know its technical characteristics, including the developed thrust.
Author:
Photos used:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/, Минобороны РФ, U.S. Air Force
97 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. D16
    D16 6 September 2020 10: 14 New
    17
    But what about the F-35 with its engine? There is a thrust of EMNIP 19,5t.
    1. Harry.km
      Harry.km 6 September 2020 10: 19 New
      10
      Quote: D16
      But what about the F-35 with its engine?

      Yeah, I also read the article and the feeling that the essence of the article is another promise to overtake and overtake ...
      F-135-PW-100/400 19500kgs afterburner.
      1. D16
        D16 6 September 2020 10: 22 New
        +1
        Although if the product is finished 30 with its 18000 kgf, then the specific thrust will make amers.
        1. Harry.km
          Harry.km 6 September 2020 10: 32 New
          25
          It may well be. But the article itself is one-sided. I began to compare the thrust, so write that the engines are more powerful on the F-35. And if, as an argument that the amerskoye is worse, the conversation about the resource began, then it is necessary to add that the f-22 has a flat nozzle, but the pitch only in one plane changes in contrast to our all-aspect ones. For an instant-25, the thrust was much less, but it flew faster than the current f-22 and su-35. In general, not a single thrust ...)
          1. Grazdanin
            Grazdanin 6 September 2020 10: 50 New
            -4
            Quote: Harry.km
            on the f-22 flat nozzle, but the pitch only in one plane changes in contrast to our all-aspect.

            Well, such an advantage, as in the joke about the elusive Joe. Whoever wanted to do, he did.
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 6 September 2020 12: 29 New
              +4
              Quote: Grazdanin
              Whoever wanted to do, he did.


              There really is not much sense, which was confirmed by the Americans themselves, having abandoned the flat nozzle.
              1. Grazdanin
                Grazdanin 6 September 2020 18: 06 New
                +1
                Quote: Cyril G ...
                abandoning the flat nozzle.

                They refused not everywhere, everywhere it makes no sense to sculpt it for sure. This nozzle has enough disadvantages, the advantages are not always obvious.
            2. D16
              D16 6 September 2020 14: 25 New
              -3
              Whoever wanted to do, he did.

              Exactly. No one is going to fight with us, but they will do it against the Papuans. Moreover, from the level of development of the Germans, given to the amers to us as to the moon. laughing
              1. Kasym
                Kasym 6 September 2020 16: 19 New
                +3
                In the article ... in addition to air resistance, there is gravity.
                The Chinese began to copy exactly the Soviet engines because of the mass-dimensional characteristics and thrust that they gave out - this proportion was in favor of the Soviet engines. Take that RD-33 from the MiG-29 - an outstanding engine, in my opinion. The resource is up to 4000 hours, the weight is 1 ton, and the thrust is 5,4 ton. (9,4 - CHVR (max. Afterburner)). Take the F-135 with a weight of 1,7 tons. with thrust 13t. (19t-CHVR). In proportion, 33 wins. And why do the Americans put restrictions on the speed (thrust) of the F-35?
                Actually, the thrust of the engine depends on the temperature, or rather the materials that can withstand the maximum parameters, which depend on pressure and temperature.
                1. D16
                  D16 6 September 2020 17: 10 New
                  0
                  The Chinese began to copy exactly the Soviet engines because of the mass-dimensional characteristics and thrust that they gave out.

                  They are copying into the insolent CFM-56 (WS-20) and F100 (WS-10), made on his YG. They make RD-93 under license. It seems like they tried to do D-30KP2 (WS-18) but nothing is heard about the results.
                2. lelyk72
                  lelyk72 10 September 2020 10: 18 New
                  0
                  5,4/1<13/1.7, a 9.4/1<19/1.7.
                  Che, then I do not appear that "33 is better" ......
                  Please explain.
          2. VO3A
            VO3A 6 September 2020 11: 57 New
            11
            Can't tell which aircraft engine is better

            It looks like the author has no technical education! The engine is characterized by specific thrust, specific consumption and resource ... The best engine on a military serial combat aircraft is on the F35 Pratt & Whitney F135! Very good engines on Rafal and promise even better on the new modification ... We must not forget about the cost ... Those that are not on serial ones, we do not take into account ...
          3. dauria
            dauria 6 September 2020 12: 25 New
            11
            In general, not a single traction.


            I would like to mention simple school physics in the article. And it would become clear why it would not be possible to put an engine with a huge thrust from a transport aircraft on a fighter. Thrust is the mass of gas per second multiplied by the speed of the jet at the exit. You can increase the mass, you can increase the speed. In this case, it is more convenient to increase the mass for reasons of energy (fuel) consumption. Everyone remembers that energy is Um VE square?
            But the trouble is - as soon as the plane went (flew), the plane's speed must be subtracted from the jet speed at the nozzle exit. And at the same speed, the thrust will turn to zero. (Well, not quite - it will equal the resistance) And that's it, you can't jump further.
            Therefore, it is stupid to put a jet engine on a maize - just an empty translation of kerosene. And on the screw you can't jump for the sound. And with a large double-circuit fan you will save kerosene, but you will not accelerate quickly.
            1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 6 September 2020 11: 59 New
          -7
          Quote: D16
          product 30 with its 18000kgs, then the specific thrust will make amers.

          They won't. The XA100 from General Electric and the XA101 from Pratt & Whitney have more than 200 kgf.
          1. Lontus
            Lontus 6 September 2020 12: 38 New
            +5
            Quote: Grazdanin
            Quote: D16
            product 30 with its 18000kgs, then the specific thrust will make amers.

            They won't. The XA100 from General Electric and the XA101 from Pratt & Whitney have more than 200 kgf.

            200, but not kgf, but N or less than 000 kN.
            1. Grazdanin
              Grazdanin 6 September 2020 17: 49 New
              0
              Yes, thanks, I wrote it wrong.
          2. bayard
            bayard 6 September 2020 12: 54 New
            +3
            Specific thrust is the ratio of thrust to unit weight. With equal thrust (and for "Product-30, the thrust at the maximum temperature regime on the turbine blades is just 19,5 tons, but in a gentle mode, for a longer resource - 18 tons), the weight of" Product-30 "is slightly less than the AL-31F (which is 1300 kg.) ... we will assume that 1250 kg.
            And what about the F-135?
            More than one and a half times higher!
            But the product is being tested ...
            Here are the prototypes you gave ... so far only prototypes. And as they appear serially, then we will weigh and compare.
          3. D16
            D16 6 September 2020 14: 04 New
            +2
            They won’t do it.

            Specific thrust is determined not only by the maximum thrust, but also by the weight of the power plant. So it's not a fact at all. And they will be sawing for another 10-15 years.
          4. Kasym
            Kasym 6 September 2020 16: 54 New
            0
            Citizen, here, too, something depends on weight. How can the force of gravity be eliminated - you are related to physical-mat. disciplines or what ?! hi
            1. Grazdanin
              Grazdanin 6 September 2020 17: 48 New
              0
              The weight of the new XA100 / 101 engines will be approximately equal to the F135, but at least 10% more powerful, it will definitely have more than 19500 kgf. What was written earlier is a typo.
              1. D16
                D16 6 September 2020 18: 42 New
                0
                The new XA100 / 101 engines will weigh approximately equal to F135

                Directly there are proofs, but somehow I can't believe it. winked
                1. Grazdanin
                  Grazdanin 6 September 2020 18: 53 New
                  0
                  The task is to make a new engine for the F35. It should be approximately equal to the mass-dimensional characteristics of the current one.
                  1. D16
                    D16 6 September 2020 19: 50 New
                    +3
                    So this does not mean that it will be crammed into the old F-35. Surely they will arrange some kind of airframe modernization for this business. Think for yourself. The 135th motor itself is the ultimate design. How long the F-35 was limited to overload due to the motor. In any case, the third circuit should increase its dimensions and weight. I don’t believe in alternative physics. I don't understand the meaning of this modernization at all. What will the new motor give? The penguin cannot fly faster. Payload weight is limited by the volume of internal weapon bays. There are simpler methods to improve maneuverability than a new motor. They basically finished the OBT. The F-16 VISTA won't let you lie. Refueling is in the air. Do you think they are going to save kerosene or improve overclocking characteristics? laughing
                    1. Grazdanin
                      Grazdanin 6 September 2020 20: 05 New
                      +1
                      Quote: D16
                      So this does not mean that it will be stuffed into the old F-35.

                      The task is as follows.
                      The General Electric XA100 is a three-flow adaptive cyclic demonstrator engine developed by General Electric (GE) for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and the US Air Force's sixth generation fighter program.
                      Quote: D16
                      Do you think they are going to save kerosene

                      Yes, they are going to save fuel.
                      AETP's goal is to demonstrate 25% improved fuel efficiency, 10% additional thrust and significantly better thermal management.
                      According to GE, the engine could offer up to 35% longer range and 25% lower fuel consumption compared to current turbojets.

                      I recommend to google on the English-speaking segment of the Internet: Adaptive Engine Technology Demonstrator (AETD), Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP), General Electric XA100
                      1. D16
                        D16 6 September 2020 20: 14 New
                        0
                        According to GE, the engine could offer up to 35% longer range and 25% lower fuel consumption compared to current turbojets.

                        When I see the article "before" in front of the number 35 and the wording "in comparison with the current turbojet engines", then I immediately remember the anecdote about my grandfather, whom the doctor recommends:
                        - The neighbor speaks three times a night, so you say laughing ... You never know these "current" turbojet engines laughing
          5. Herman 4223
            Herman 4223 6 September 2020 19: 03 New
            0
            With such a thrust, a supersonic aircraft weighing 200 tons can be made.
      2. Orange
        Orange bigg 6 September 2020 13: 00 New
        0
        Quote: Harry.km
        Quote: D16
        But what about the F-35 with its engine?

        Yeah, I also read the article and the feeling that the essence of the article is another promise to overtake and overtake ...
        F-135-PW-100/400 19500kgs afterburner.


        More modest.
        19 100 kgf on afterburner for F-135-PW-100/400 and
        18 200 kgf on afterburner for F135-PW-600.
        Specifications (F135-PW-100)
        Data from F135engine.com

        General characteristics
        Type: afterburner turbojet engine
        Length: 220 inches (559 cm)
        Diameter: 46 "(117 cm) max., 43" (109 cm) fan inlet
        Dry weight: 5400 lb (2449 kg)
        Components
        Compressor: 3-stage fan, 6-stage high pressure compressor
        Combustion chambers: annular combustion chamber
        Turbine: 1-stage high pressure turbine, 2-stage low pressure turbine.
        Performance
        Maximum thrust:
        Military thrust 28000 lbf (128 kN),
        43000 lbf (191 kN) with afterburner
        Total pressure ratio: 28: 1 total pressure ratio
        Thrust-to-weight ratio: 5,185: 1 (dry), 7,963: 1 (wet / afterburning)
        Specifications (F135-PW-600)
        Data from F135engine.com

        General characteristics
        Type: Turbojet afterburner with external lift fan driven by shaft
        Length: 369 inches (937,3 cm)
        Diameter: 46 "(116,8 cm) maximum, 43" (109,2 cm) fan inlet, 53 inches (134,6 cm) lift fan inlet
        Dry weight:
        Components
        Compressor: 3-stage fan, 6-stage high pressure compressor, 2-stage, reverse rotation, shaft driven lift fan
        Combustion chambers: annular combustion chamber
        Turbine: single stage high pressure turbine, two stage low pressure turbine
        Performance
        Maximum thrust:
        Military thrust 27000 lbf (120 kN),
        41000 lb (182 kN) afterburner
        40650 lbf (181 kN) hover
        Total pressure ratio: total pressure ratio 28: 1 (normal), total pressure ratio 29: 1 (mechanical lift),
    2. EnGenius
      EnGenius 6 September 2020 10: 34 New
      +5
      Then remember the "veteran" D-30F6 from the MiG-31 with a maximum thrust of 15,5 tf.
      1. D16
        D16 6 September 2020 14: 09 New
        0
        And then there was the R-79-300 from the Yak-141. The same 15,5 tf.
    3. lucul
      lucul 6 September 2020 12: 55 New
      0
      But what about the F-35 with its engine? There is a thrust of EMNIP 19,5t.

      Well, an airplane with such an engine (thrust) must be one of the fastest in the world, why then the F-35 are inferior to many fighters in maximum speed? )))))
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 6 September 2020 13: 52 New
        +3
        It's not that simple, it is important to take into account the specific thrust-to-weight ratio, that is, the ratio of thrust to mass.
      2. D16
        D16 6 September 2020 14: 17 New
        +2
        an aircraft with such an engine (thrust) must be one of the fastest in the world

        Firstly, he is there alone, and secondly, the penguin has become a victim of stealth. Weapons and fuel should be placed around the engine and air passages. Hence the large midsection and high drag.
        1. lucul
          lucul 6 September 2020 14: 44 New
          +2
          Firstly, he is there alone, and secondly, the penguin has become a victim of stealth. Weapons and fuel should be placed around the engine and air passages. Hence the large midsection and high drag.

          Even the MiG-21 managed to accommodate all this without problems, with a much weaker one engine too. And the speed of the MiG-21 is better than the F-35 ...
      3. Herman 4223
        Herman 4223 6 September 2020 19: 37 New
        +1
        The engine thrust at different altitudes will be different, the higher the aircraft, the less thrust the engine will give. For different models, the thrust drops with height in different ways, so the Mig-31 with a relatively low thrust develops such a speed at a height that other machines with similar or greater thrust cannot handle.
    4. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 6 September 2020 14: 17 New
      0
      There is no direct analogue in the Russian Federation ... and it is necessary to compare the turbojet engine on the MiG-29/35 with the turbojet engine on the F-18 / Rafal / Typhoon and the turbojet engine on the Su35 with those on the new F-15.
    5. Hwostatij
      Hwostatij 6 September 2020 17: 43 New
      0
      And is it nothing that the F-35 is single-engine, and ours are 2?
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 7 September 2020 10: 37 New
        0
        So the F-22 - two-engine! .... We just do not have a turbojet engine in such a class as the F-35. There is nothing to compare.
  2. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 6 September 2020 10: 16 New
    0
    "On the other hand, if the resource of the engines is coming to an end, this indicates their intensive operation. And the active use of the products indicates that it has found its place in the American military aviation and is quite satisfactory in its characteristics to its users."
    Based on this statement by the author, we can conclude that the M-105 (VK-105) engine was quite satisfactory for the "users", since it was built in thousands of copies. Although it is well known that there was a constant search and design of new engines to replace the too low-power and heavy M-105. There was simply nothing better. And with the fu-22, the same situation is quite likely.
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 6 September 2020 11: 08 New
      +4
      Rather, they want to replace the motors with XA100 from General Electric or XA101 from Pratt & Whitney. The US Air Force has long wanted to modernize the F22, Congress is pressing money.
  3. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 6 September 2020 10: 25 New
    +3
    It is desirable for the plant that the mastered product does not change. Then the production costs are minimal, the technologies are well-established, the production is rhythmic. Operators want something new, simpler, more economical, more resource-intensive, less time consuming to maintain. Well, engine developers want new topics on which to grow professionally and administratively, and in general ... the design bureau must constantly develop something, and "not on the table", but to be serialized ... And all this horror costs how much .. The art of management consists in the fact that all these contradictions are compromised ... It will turn out - there will be a synergistic effect, it will not work ...
  4. grandfather_Kostya
    grandfather_Kostya 6 September 2020 10: 43 New
    +6
    Non-afterburning engine thrust is an equally important parameter. It determines the flight range, practical altitude and carrying capacity, but not a word about it. The ability to overcome the supersonic barrier without afterburner, a sign of the 5th generation, is also worth mentioning.
  5. mi ah
    mi ah 6 September 2020 10: 46 New
    +1
    If you judge only by thrust - how do you like the D-18 with its 23430 kN? It's also a motor for a military plane! Ahh, an article about fighter engines? all the same extremely one-sided!
    1. Orange
      Orange bigg 6 September 2020 12: 16 New
      0
      For the An-124 transport aircraft, its task is to transport goods of any purpose, including military ones, as a maximum it can be attributed to military transport aviation.
  6. Operator
    Operator 6 September 2020 10: 53 New
    +7
    What was that? laughing

    Aircraft engines in the same power categories have been compared in terms of specific thrust and specific fuel consumption for the second century already.
    1. Soho
      Soho 6 September 2020 11: 03 New
      +9
      Do not bother the people to discuss the spherokonin. After all, they think that if a more powerful engine is screwed onto the glider, the plane will fly faster. In reality, this does not happen often.
    2. bayard
      bayard 6 September 2020 13: 08 New
      +9
      Quote: Operator
      What was that?

      Another evidence of the squalor of modern journalism.
      Intellectual.
      And banal laziness.
      Well, they ordered you an article about aircraft engines, so treat your essay like a student - work on the sources ... well, you don't need to go to the library for a week - everything is digitized in Google.
      Yes, even look through Wikipedia, you will already avoid shame ...
      Moderators, well, this is already completely unbearable, well, at least put up old articles 7-10 years ago on your own site for re-discussion if there are no normal authors ... Well, how many "threesomes from a rural school" can be printed?
    3. Eug
      Eug 6 September 2020 13: 39 New
      +3
      I would also bring the air flow. And the thrust to diameter ratio. And resource. Perhaps, in the first approximation, everything.
      1. Operator
        Operator 6 September 2020 13: 54 New
        0
        The resource - yes, but the air consumption and the ratio of thrust to diameter are caught through the specific fuel consumption.
        1. Eug
          Eug 6 September 2020 14: 46 New
          0
          Please clarify. If I don’t know about the air flow, but I seem to see a chain, how can I “catch” the diameter through the specific flow rate? Unless knowing a number of other parameters (rpm, etc.) .. I'm not an engine manager.
          1. Operator
            Operator 6 September 2020 15: 36 New
            0
            Air consumption and engine diameter are compared not in absolute terms, but in relative values ​​per unit of thrust, since they directly depend on the degree of improvement of the engine, i.e. specific fuel consumption per unit of thrust.

            Naturally, all indicators should be given for the same speed limits.
  7. wow
    wow 6 September 2020 10: 58 New
    +2
    Engines, engines, aircraft engines ... How much did I suffer with you in the service in the IAS of the USSR Air Force!
  8. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 6 September 2020 11: 00 New
    10
    Why not mention the Pratt & Whitney F135, which is about 9% more powerful than the F-22 engine?
    And its next version, which is now in continuous testing, will give an increase of about 10% more.
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 6 September 2020 11: 54 New
      +2
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Why Pratt & Whitney F135 is not mentioned

      The maximum thrust figure of 191 kN will ramp up the local thrust.
      1. Orange
        Orange bigg 6 September 2020 12: 19 New
        +2
        The main thing is that this number of placoloks pleases and they finally stop crying with or without.
      2. bayard
        bayard 6 September 2020 13: 26 New
        +3
        Why can this figure upset, if on the same site it has already been discussed, analyzed and compared hundreds of times?
        The F-35 has a good engine.
        But heavy.
        And overall.
        Therefore, if we compare it with what is being prepared under the "Products-30" program, namely, their SPECIFIC thrust (per kilogram of weight), the picture is completely different. The "product" is made in weight and dimensions of the AL-31 - a little lighter, a little shorter and a little more in diameter.
        And the thrust is the same as that of the F-135 (19500 kgf at the maximum temperature on the turbine blades, and 18000 kgf - with a more gentle mode).
        And if you consider that the weight of the latest version of the F-135 is not less than 2200 kg. , and for "Product-30" - 1250 - 1300 kg. wink ?
        So it turns out that in terms of specific thrust it will be ahead of that version. their opponent, which is now being intensively prepared and tested.
        Soviet-Russian engines always had one problem - resource.
        But there is not a word about this parameter in the article (as well as about many other things).
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 6 September 2020 17: 55 New
          0
          The prototype must be compared with the prototype. Pratt & Whitney F119 also plans to upgrade in a similar way to the XA100 / 101 as well as the engines for the F15 / 16.
          1. bayard
            bayard 6 September 2020 21: 29 New
            +1
            We have no other fifth generation engine. The AL-41F is a transitional engine that appeared 5-6 years earlier than the F-22 engine, they are similar in characteristics, but the American one is still better.
            And "Product-30", it will already be an engine of at least generation 5+.
            And it is precisely in terms of specific thrust that the prototypes available in the USA and England cannot be compared to them yet.
            How not to compare the new engines for the F-15X with our good old AL-31F. In terms of thrust, he just caught up, but in terms of WEIGHT - no.
            But excellent performance in terms of resource ... which is not surprising, because it has a higher heat capacity due to its weight. lol ... a joke.
            So, in terms of specific thrust, the engines of the 4th generation are either at the level of RD-33 compared to the "Saffron" from "Raphael" or F-404 \ 414 from the F-18, or better - AL-31F, AL-41F ...
            But in the 5th generation it is necessary to wait for the "product-30", then we will see, but according to the information available now, ours will be much better in terms of specific thrust.
  9. askort154
    askort154 6 September 2020 12: 18 New
    0
    Unfortunately, Russia has never been one of the leaders in engine building, either piston (automobile-aviation) or turbo-jet aircraft. We have always been in the role of "catch-up", just like China is now. The engine is a bunch of technological achievements of the state .. Starting with the quality of the metal, the technology of its processing - and so on increasing. The main stumbling block of aircraft engines is
    became, the temperature limitation of the turbine blades. The engine power also depends on the temperatures of the turbine exhaust gases. The higher the temperature of the exhaust gases, the greater the thrust. Our first jet MiG-15, flew on an English engine. We cloned everything, but the resource was 2 times less.
    Even now, for a decade now, we have not been able to create the required engine - for the Su-57 and MS-21. Therefore, the powerfully developing China has bypassed us, and other countries, in electronics and other technologies, but still lags far behind in engine building. (In a nutshell on this topic).
    1. Orange
      Orange bigg 6 September 2020 12: 22 New
      0
      Can't create? Product 30 on flight tests, and the first serial PD-14s were installed on the MS-21.
      1. askort154
        askort154 6 September 2020 12: 30 New
        +1
        OrangeBigg ....Can't create? Product 30 on flight tests, and the first serial PD-14s were installed on the MS-21.

        Thank ! I know. These are the first steps of a child. When hundreds of aircraft will fly only on our engines, and with high performance - a long resource, low specific fuel consumption, affordable service anywhere in the world,
        then it will be possible to say - Yes, we did everything! hi
        1. Orange
          Orange bigg 6 September 2020 12: 38 New
          +4
          I replied to you that we, from your words, supposedly cannot create engines for the Su-57 and MS-21. You immediately refute this statement of yours, saying thank you, I know everything (about Product 30
          and PD-14) and for some reason start talking about “we made everyone” and “hundreds of planes anywhere in the world.” A strange conversation turns out.
          1. askort154
            askort154 6 September 2020 13: 47 New
            +6
            I replied to you that we, from your words, allegedly cannot create engines for the Su-57 and MS-21. You immediately refute this statement of yours, saying thank you, I know everything (about Product 30 and PD-14) and for some reason start talking about "we made everyone" and "hundreds of planes anywhere in the world." A strange conversation turns out.

            Apparently I poorly stated my thoughts.
            I'll start from the "stove". "Superjet" - on whose engines it was created, and after the sanctions it entered the "exhausted series" ?!
            "MS-21" - on whose engines did it begin to be created and was it tested at the factory? The last of 6 flew, American)
            Su-57 - why did not it go into series production in full - there is no engine providing a non-afterburner cruising mode at supersonic speed. (One of the priorities of the 5th generation fighter) Be-200 - why does not it go into a large series - there is no engine of its own.
            To summarize, in the USSR (Russia) there have never been problems with airplane gliders, there has always been a problem with engines - a short resource, high fuel consumption, high decibels.
            In Soviet times, this was not a "problem" - especially the price of fuel.
            Now Russia has moved to capitalism, you have to pay for everything.
            And the worst thing is that they destroyed the entire production base of the country.
            Yes, now we are close to the "exhaust" - PD-14 and PD-35 and the "second stage" engine for the Su-57. But this has been going on for more than 10 years. What's the hindrance?
            1 - the collapse of the country - the collapse of production structures,
            2 - instead of restoring them, they decided to build aircraft and ships on foreign engines.
            Everything was happy - full partnership! And suddenly, instead of kissing passionately sanctions!
            And finally it came - not for the purpose of the collapse of the USSR, so that Russia would take its place. We are in many respects "scratched out" of the situation at the expense of the baggage that still survived from the USSR. And although they put a spoke in our wheels, they can no longer break Russia. The main thing is that we have not lost the military-industrial complex. Therefore, my "lamentations" about the lag in engine building were based mainly on this. But I see that this problem, the last 5 years have begun to be dealt with closely, I am sure that in the next 5 years there will be a problem with engines, for aviation and the fleet
            will be resolved. hi
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 6 September 2020 14: 01 New
              0
              Well, couldn’t it have been supposed? Pursue an active foreign policy with increments of territories by military / paramilitary means, threats to use nuclear weapons (albeit in passing).
              When preparing to launch the 2014 scripts, what were you thinking about?
              1. Sergey_G_M
                Sergey_G_M 6 September 2020 14: 49 New
                +1
                The 2014 scenario was not launched by the RF. We just adjusted it a little.
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 6 September 2020 16: 21 New
                  -1
                  Ok, preparing for the "correction", the result of which was the increment of territories, did not assume such consequences? Is it naivety or incompetence?
                  1. Sergey_G_M
                    Sergey_G_M 6 September 2020 16: 27 New
                    0
                    The fact is that if we had not carried out the correction it would have been worse, not to understand this is naivety and incompetence.
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal 6 September 2020 18: 14 New
                      0
                      You do not understand..
                      Everything was happy - full partnership! And suddenly, instead of kissing passionately sanctions!

                      That is what it is about.
                      did not expect such consequences?
                  2. Cyril G ...
                    Cyril G ... 7 September 2020 01: 03 New
                    +1
                    You have beguiled the cause with the effect.
                    In terms of the Crimea, clearly did not stand - see helicopter carriers at least. However, at some point, the United States again went on the offensive by organizing a coup in Ukraine. Moscow was forced to respond by liberating Crimea and providing assistance to an armed uprising in Donbas ...
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal 7 September 2020 02: 27 New
                      0
                      organizing a coup in Ukraine.

                      How does the (conditionally) coup of 2004 differ from 2014? In the 00s, they continued to interact normally. You will be surprised, but even now the relations are not broken off.
                      And the governor-general does not rule there. What if Soloviev, Kiselev and Skobeeva are misleading us?
                      1. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 7 September 2020 11: 27 New
                        +1
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        What if Soloviev, Kiselev and Skobeeva are misleading us?


                        I learned about Solovyov after the many cries of all kinds of Ukrainians. In my opinion, Solovyov is watched exclusively by all kinds of natsiks, city madmen, and citizens who are sick with liberalism of the brain. What category do you belong to?

                        Than (conditionally) coup

                        Everyone. wipe your glasses ...
                      2. 3danimal
                        3danimal 8 September 2020 04: 57 New
                        0
                        Than everyone? We were told that the Nazis captured everything there. How many are there in the Rada ??
                        IMHO, it was with us that they started fanning hysteria (it's easy) in 2014. A number of politicians spoke about Crimea much earlier (even Luzhkov).
                        Again, IMHO, it was possible to maintain the norms of attitude by acting ... more intellectually. Let me remind you that Yanukovych got out a few years after the 2004 Maidan.
  10. Grazdanin
    Grazdanin 6 September 2020 12: 27 New
    +3
    Quote: askort154
    Russia has never been among the leaders in engine building

    In the sense? We were and are one of the leaders. Not the best as uryakly shout, but at least in the top three. How many countries in the world are making modern jet engines? Fingers on one hand are enough.
    Quote: askort154
    China has bypassed us, and other countries, in electronics

    Whom did he go around? As they were maximally secondary, they remain. Their + price, it is important for the masses of the market. Electronics of the USA, South Korea, Japan, France, Germany and so on is a cut above.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 6 September 2020 14: 03 New
      -1
      There is a simple comparison: Which countries have the most powerful supercomputers?
      1. Sergey_G_M
        Sergey_G_M 6 September 2020 14: 52 New
        0
        A supercomputer is a lego made of ready-made components. Who designs the processors?
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 6 September 2020 16: 24 New
          0
          Intel, AMD, Apple, Qualcomm, on a significant scale. We have a small production.
          70% of the market for chip bases is Taiwan and the USA.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 7 September 2020 01: 20 New
            +2
            Quote: 3danimal
            Intel, AMD, Apple, Qualcomm, on a significant scale.

            And Intel processors, forgive whose genes they have, do not tell me? Do you mean that such names as Pentkovsky or Babayan, for example, do not say anything? Have the mattresses stolen the technologies that were implemented in the USSR on the first, second and most importantly the third Elbrus?
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 7 September 2020 02: 36 New
              -1
              surnames like Pentkovsky or Babayan, for example, do not say anything? Have the mattresses stolen the technologies that were implemented in the USSR on the first, second and most importantly the third Elbrus?

              If so, then it all belonged to the 90s.
              Modern Intel and AMD have gone far ahead. Not to mention Qualcomm and Apple (ARM processors)
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 7 September 2020 03: 12 New
                +2
                Quote: 3danimal
                If so, then it all belonged to the 90s.
                Modern Intel and AMD have gone far ahead. Not to mention Qualcomm and Apple (ARM processors)

                You are mistaken in a couple of moments. The first is Babayan and several of our engineers who once worked at MCST in the 2000s, and then, chasing a long dollar, ran to Intel, they still work there. The second moment ... is that with regards to the processors themselves ...
                I'll throw you a video here ... everything is very clearly explained and shown there.

                And I agree with the author, if necessary, the same Elbrus will become faster and more productive than the newest Intel processors and AMD, and very quickly. Only our Ministry of Defense does not set such tasks yet.
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 7 September 2020 08: 22 New
                  0
                  if necessary, the same Elbrus will become faster and more productive and the newest Intel processors and AMD

                  Wishes ... These two companies have huge research and production facilities. Operating time. And huge series, which allows you to make an affordable price.
                  As a consequence: Elbrus will be, will lag somewhat (in terms of performance and process technology), it will be expensive, and for limited use (military, special encryption)
      2. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 7 September 2020 11: 31 New
        +1
        Today's aircraft engine is the most impossible high-tech in comparison with the rest.
    2. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 6 September 2020 14: 38 New
      0
      Quote: Grazdanin
      in the top three at least


      And how many countries make their engines ... 4 like?
    3. askort154
      askort154 6 September 2020 15: 16 New
      +2
      Grazdanin ....In terms of? We were and are one of the leaders. Not the best as uryakly shout, but at least in the top three. How many countries in the world are making modern jet engines? Fingers on one hand are enough.

      Here leadership is not like in sports - 1st, 2nd, 3rd place.
      Here is leadership in the basis of product creation. You will simply plunge into the history of engine building, whether piston or turbojet. Then you will understand the edge. Who is the founder, who is the copier, who is the finalizer. I am a patriot no less than you, but here it is not about patriotism, but about truth. During his life, he exploited a lot of engines, and piston, and turbo-screw, and turbo-jet. I know what I'm talking about, not by hearsay. hi
      1. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 6 September 2020 17: 57 New
        +1
        In general, I agree, the question here is what is meant by the word "leadership".
    4. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 7 September 2020 11: 30 New
      +2
      Quote: Grazdanin
      Not the best as uryakly shout, but at least in the top three. How many countries in the world are making modern jet engines? Fingers on one hand are enough.


      Quite right. First USA. then we are conventionally Europeans ... Europeans are ahead of us in terms of resource, we are in terms of aggregate capacity.
  • gvozdan
    gvozdan 6 September 2020 12: 19 New
    +2
    "But what about the F-35 with its engine?"
    F-135-PW-100/400 19500kgs afterburner. weight 2450 kg. 7,95 kgf / kg
    AL-41F1S - 14000 kgf, weight 1608 kg. 8,7 kgf / kg
    But there is also the NK-32 from the Tu-160 with a tag of 25000 kgf
    As for the engines of the second stage for the Su-57, many were in vain upset when the announced (misunderstood by the majority) 30% of the increase in thrust turned out to be 15-17%. Because the fuel consumption has decreased (efficiency has increased), which is even better for a fighter in which a third of the mass is fuel. A decrease in the mass of fuel with an equal flight range gives an increase in thrust-to-weight ratio the same as from an increase in thrust, but at the same time, with a lower TV, the aircraft can fly farther than if only the thrust had grown.
  • engineer74
    engineer74 6 September 2020 12: 44 New
    +1
    The article is about nothing! sad
    If we compare engines for fighters, then there is one more or less objective criterion: specific thrust, i.e. the ratio of thrust to engine mass. You can also add specific fuel consumption here: fuel consumption per unit of thrust for a certain time.
    According to the author, the best engine for a fighter jet is the Trent 9000 and its analogues. And don't care if it's bigger and heavier than a fighter wassat
    1. Eug
      Eug 6 September 2020 13: 47 New
      0
      And the geometric dimensions? An engine with a higher thrust, but its diameter increases midship and leaves no room for thermal insulation, and the length, taking into account the required length of the air supply channels, turns the fighter into a monster .. So only a set of engineering, technical and production and operational parameters!
  • orionvitt
    orionvitt 6 September 2020 13: 45 New
    0
    Thrust is one of the key parameters of a combat aircraft engine
    The author is clearly somewhat far from the topic. On any test bench for aircraft engines, thrust is indicated as the main parameter. All other parameters, if not secondary, are already indicated by their names. Type "air pressure behind the compressor" (P-2), or "gas temperature behind the turbine" (t-4).
  • iouris
    iouris 6 September 2020 13: 45 New
    +2
    Why did he decide to write specifically about aircraft engines?
  • certero
    certero 6 September 2020 13: 55 New
    0
    Quote: askort154
    Unfortunately, Russia has never been among the leaders in engine building, either piston (automobile-aviation) or turbo-jet aircraft.

    If Bro piston and automobile agree, then with aviation not. Russia, or rather the Soviet Union before it, was a real leader in the production of such engines.
    A simple example, When for the first time in 89 our moment 29 appeared on Faberge, then everyone present simply opened their mouths when our fighter went straight up straight from the takeoff
  • Aleks2000
    Aleks2000 6 September 2020 14: 08 New
    +3
    Not enough. It’s poor. 3 planes, 3 motors and water?

    Is this the whole article? In principle, you can look at WIKI with the same result.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 6 September 2020 14: 19 New
    +1
    the beginning of the development of a new universal aircraft engine for the Su-27, Su-30 and Su-35 fighters. Moreover, the product can be installed on any of three types of aircraft without modifying the airframe..

    It's good that we came to this! I hope that other systems will unify as well. How will the UHT issue be solved for those aircraft where it is not and how the Su34 will be developed. They forgot about him.?
  • silver_roman
    silver_roman 6 September 2020 14: 26 New
    +4
    An article for the sake of writing something. Let's talk about an even more meaningless topic "which plane is the most beautiful." If AT LEAST the author considered the issue of specific thrust, it would be at least slightly useful.
  • locos
    locos 6 September 2020 14: 50 New
    +2
    Apparently the example of Dave Majumar is contagious. wink That Polonsky Top-3 is. And Kuzmitsky decided to keep up.
  • NF68
    NF68 6 September 2020 16: 14 New
    0
    Another drawing of the owl on the globe. ...
    1. iouris
      iouris 6 September 2020 21: 59 New
      0
      It's good that an owl is being pulled over the globe. It is known: whatever the child is amused ...
  • Svetoslav
    Svetoslav 17 September 2020 18: 11 New
    0
    Quote: dauria
    But the trouble is - as soon as the plane went (flew), the plane's speed must be subtracted from the jet speed at the nozzle exit. And at the same speed, the thrust will turn to zero. (Well, not quite - it will equal the resistance) And that's it, you can't jump further.

    I haven't laughed like that for a long time)))) You should return to school, friend))) To study the law of conservation of momentum.