Rostec State Corporation is developing an Il-96 project with two domestic PD-35 engines

The Rostec State Corporation is currently considering the possibility of creating a twin-engine, more economical wide-body long-range Il-96 aircraft with new Russian PD-35 engines. A prototype aircraft engine - a technology demonstrator successfully passed the first stage of testing in 2024.

Currently, the Il-96 is actively used by the special flight squadron "Russia". In addition, Russian aircraft designers have created a modernized Il-96-400M, which made its first flight in 2023. The passenger Il-96-400M will complement the line of UAC civil aircraft.

It is noteworthy that Russia has the technology to create blades, which are among the most science-intensive and complex components of gas turbine power plants. Thus, Russia is among the 5% of countries capable of producing these components. One engine can have more than three thousand different blades: from miniature compressor blades, the height of which is about 20 mm, to engine fan blades more than a meter high. For example, the height of the working fan blade of the PD-35 engine is 1,3 meters.

Russian enterprises produce hundreds of types of compressor and turbine blades for aviation engines. The rate and volume of production of these parts for power plants, which are used to equip domestic aircraft and helicopters, is constantly growing.

Comments

[novel66]

Currently, the Il-96 is actively used by the special flight squadron "Russia".

One or two?

[Andrey62]

Currently, the Il-96 is actively used by the special flight squadron "Russia".

They wrote it cleverly there😊, the Il 96-300 is about 33 aircraft, and the Il 96-400, I read somewhere, was released 4 aircraft (?), but they are in no hurry to release them because they are not competitive, etc. on 4 engines, and if you make it for 4 engines, you can’t remake it for two PD-35. With PD-35 it will be a different aircraft…

[Pankrat25]

PD-35 does not exist yet. Bench tests could only confirm something in the range of PD-25 - 28, they did not pull out more. Even this result is very good, why they returned it for revision, it is not clear, they would have called it PD-25 and forward, even such engines do not exist now.

[Alexey Lantukh]

They could have called it PD-25 and gone ahead, there aren’t even engines like that available now.

They would be useful for the AN-124

[Kail.kail]

Where did you get the info? I only know about the gas generator....

[Andrey62]

“Nevertheless, in August 2024, the press service of the United Engine Corporation (UEC) reported that during bench tests, the Russian experimental high-power aircraft engine PD-35 confirmed the design thrust level at takeoff mode of 35 tons.”
From the article on 25.08.2025/2023/2024. In general, Manturov was very doubtful in 2025, and you are right, but at the end of 35 and in 35 they were already “confident” that the PD-XNUMX would give XNUMXts

[huginn]

Thus, the PD-35 smoothly transformed into the PD-26

[shikin]

According to the register, 11 are in operation, 2 are in storage.

[Stas157]

A carbon fiber wing should still be made and the C929 (ShFDMS) will be produced, which they wanted to make together with China.

[olegff68]

And the most interesting thing that was not mentioned in the article is that the IL-96 was originally designed as a two-engine aircraft. It was converted into a four-engine aircraft at the request of the ICAO, which, by the end of the aircraft's development, banned two-engine aircraft from flying across the Atlantic... and when the aircraft was presented with four engines, this restriction was lifted.

[olboop]

And where did those engines from the original IL-96 go? After all, the documentation, technologies, and expertise should have been preserved. But no, the PD-35 was developed from scratch.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

They haven't gone anywhere, they continue to be released.

[olboop]

Why then the PD-35, if these nameless engines are capable of pulling the IL-96 together?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

This is exactly what they are trying to discuss here. But now they are installing four engines.

[olboop]

What are these unnamed engines (if it is not a myth) and where are they used if they continue to be produced? And why not on the IL-96?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

What kind of strange questions are these? Perm PS-90A are installed on both Il-96 and Il-76.

[olboop]

So they install four (!) PS-90. And I'm asking about the engines, of which there were two on the original IL-96, which are mentioned in olegff68's post.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

?
The comment text is too short.

[Vladislav_V]

The thrust of the PD-35 is twice as great as that of the PS-90.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Did I ask about this? A comrade asked what engines they are installing now, I answered. What is the question?

[Vladislav_V]

The discussion was about the twin-engine IL-96, and the discussion was about what kind of engines could have been installed there at that time!

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Once again, my friend asked what engines they are installing now, I answered that they are installing PS-90A.
What do you want from me?

[Vladislav_V]

Quote: olegff68

But the most interesting thing that was not mentioned in the article is that the IL-96 was originally created as a twin-engine aircraft.

Quote: olbop

And where did those engines from the original IL-96 go?

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

They haven't gone anywhere, they continue to be released.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

This does not seem true. There were no powerful engines capable of pulling such a large aircraft.
I admit my mistake, I didn't figure it out. I joined a discussion about a spherical horse in a vacuum.

[Vladislav_V]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Two PS-90s won't do it.

[Pankrat25]

Two PS-90s are only capable of pulling an aircraft to the airfield in emergency mode, and that is in the accelerated version, and it has a short service life.

[TermNachTer]

Were there engines of such power then? The most powerful D-18, this is from relatively civil ones. We will not talk about military ones, they have their own requirements. Converting Il-96 to a twin-engine configuration now is not the most reasonable decision. It will be necessary to completely redesign the planes, and possibly the center section. Wouldn't it be easier to make a new plane?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The final decision will be made when the engine is ready. Right now this is just a throw-in for discussion.

[bayard]

Quote: TermNachTER

Wouldn't it be easier to make a new plane?

And it was made - CR-292, which was designed mainly by designers of the Ilyushin Design Bureau. China refused to pay a share of the aircraft that would be purchased by Chinese companies and suggested that Russia manufacture this aircraft itself, since the contribution to the development is 50/50 and we have all the design documentation ... But domestic "dentists" prefer to fill a tooth through the anus. Such is our irreplaceable and unsinkable Manturov and Co. He withdrew the Russian Federation from the project and ... now commits sabotage, sabotage and other perversions with the constant raising of "and we can attach two PD-96s to an Il-35."
WHY ??
Why does an old plane need such engines, the thrust of which is also insufficient (a thrust of at least 37 t.s. is needed, not 35 t.s.), which will have to radically redesign the wing and center section, which has an old cabin and which is generally excessive for our airlines? After all, there is the newest, modern and fairly well-designed 929, which can be christened the Il-929 (for pride and rightfully) and these planes can be built in Russia independently. The engine is already on the way, the component base for the MS-21 and Superjets has already been developed, the capacity for producing titanium airframe parts is available and idle ... So what's the question?? Manturov (!!!) what's the question?? Why, instead of a new aircraft for which the PD-35 is being developed, which is modern, efficient, much more aerodynamic and has high export potential... Manturov does not want to build??? Why?!!!
But does the old aircraft developed in the late 80s want to be reincarnated?
So as not to accidentally become a competitor to Boeing and Airbus??
So that Russia does not develop a high-tech manufacturing industry?
To drench Russia with indelible shame?
There is a new aircraft, which has cost a lot of money and design effort to develop. China will build it for itself and in its own country, it needs at least 1000 of these aircraft for its domestic market. And it will never be able to produce 100 aircraft per year (if it does manage to launch them into series production). This means that not only the domestic market, which needs 100 to 200 of these aircraft, will be open to our aircraft (our domestic version), but also the foreign market. But for this, it is necessary to launch our own aircraft manufacturing industry, build our own aircraft of all classes and develop their service. Restore the ministries, disperse the Ministry of Industry and Trade with a dirty broom, so that industry ministries will emerge from each department again... I can't forget how, back in 1992 (in the fall), one of Gaidar's friends told me how they were going to form a new government and what ministries. Hearing "Ministry of Industry" I asked again with surprise, "What industry? We have more than two dozen industrial ministries." And she responded, "We decided to gather all the industrial ministries into one..." And that was back then, Trade hadn't been attached to this Frankenstein yet...
As long as such miracle workers as Manturov and Co. are responsible for the industry and development of the country, we will have no aircraft manufacturing, no mechanical engineering, no machine tool manufacturing, no engine manufacturing. There will be nothing. Except for Manturov on the forum with promises and projects. They can do nothing, do not know how, do not want and do not want to want.
We need to build a new aircraft, for which we have all the technical documentation.
But he doesn't want to.
And irreplaceable.
And also to start developing a military transport aircraft of the size and class of the American C-17 with two PD-35. With a carrying capacity of 70 tons, so that a tank with body kit would fit freely. Because the Il-76MD-90A has a narrow cargo compartment, and there are few Ruslans and there won't be any new ones. And the PD-35 engines will find a wider application. And they'll be snapped up on the foreign market.
But they don’t know how, they don’t want to, they can’t, and at the same time they are extremely aggressive.
These are the kind of statists they are.
In wartime.

[Andrey62]

Why does an old plane need such engines, which, moreover, will not have enough thrust?

Now the thrust of the Il96-400 with 4 PS 90(1A) engines is 17,4 tf each x 4 = 69600 tf. PS-35 at 35 tf x 2 = 70 tf. The thrust-to-weight ratio is about 0,265 with both the old and new engines.
The plane definitely needs to be redesigned, as does the wing, everything is designed for 4 engines in terms of units, etc., as does the wing in terms of loads and aerodynamics. And the weight of the airframe will probably decrease ... Even now, even if we take the same 96 kg (maximum takeoff weight) from the IL 400-265000, two engines provide less drag, etc., so the plane (conditionally) will fly no worse, and by the time it comes to full serial production, the engines will probably be improved in terms of power. The first models of both planes and engines are always improved (and quite quickly), the law of life. Operational tests will do their job. The maximum range with a full load will also increase. Any planes and engines of the first series are always being improved, this is definitely true. Earlier it was discussed that even if the PS-35 had not worked out so quickly, they would have made the IL96-400, and then converted them into "trucks", there is a great need for them too. Everyone understands that if we don't do it ourselves, no one will. So it's too early to grieve, the road will be mastered by the one who walks it.

[bayard]

Quote: Andrey62

Currently, the thrust of the Il96-400 with 4 PS 90(1A) engines is 17,4 tf x 4 = 69600 tf. The thrust-to-weight ratio is about 0,265 with both the old and new engines.

The PS-901A thrust is literally enough at the limit - "for a thin one", without any reserve, and this is a big risk. The estimated thrust of the engines for the Il-96-400 should be 18 or better 18,5 t.s., but we do not have such an engine.
Moreover, if we now start working on the new modification of the Il-96-400, no financial or design resources will be enough to work on the Il-929, which is much more promising, much more in demand, optimal in terms of loading and has good prospects for export.
It would be reasonable to continue building the Il-96-400 with PS-90-1A in Voronezh at the previous planned capacity of 2 aircraft per year. This will give us wide-body aircraft for the transition period, after which, with the launch of the new Il-929 into series production, they can be re-qualified as transport/cargo aircraft and even continue their production for some time. To build the Il-929, we will have to build a new plant and build up all the cooperation with an estimated production rate of about/at least 20 aircraft per year. For our own needs, we need at least 100 of these aircraft (at the request of airlines), and taking into account cargo aircraft and development for the future - 200 units. And export. This aircraft may have a good niche, but with the condition of organizing high-quality service centers, and this already means that production and service must be scaled up immediately taking all this into account. Africa, South Asia, Latin America - in the conditions of a splitting world and an approaching global economic crisis, both European and American aircraft manufacturers may for some time completely fall out of the loop or, due to political divisions and sanctions imposed on everyone, their products will become undesirable or unclaimed in entire regions. This is a chance to revive our aviation exports, if we manage to overcome the crisis, restore the industry, science, personnel training and educate sane leaders. This is a chance that gives a chance. Because our domestic market is limited.
Similar plans were in place 10-12 years ago and seemed more than realistic, but the political leadership and Manturov's team have lost EVERYTHING, and even much more. New professionals with a high degree of responsibility are needed. Even criminal. Times are tough and the methods for solving vital issues must correspond to the degree of threats and challenges.
For now, I see only merry sybarites, wasting time, budgets and the fate of the Country.

[mark1]

bayard, stop talking nonsense about the Il-929. Our joint development with China included a composite wing and we tried to attach the PD-35 (but not completely), so the role of the Ilyushin team (who, by the way, couldn't cope with the Il-112 and Il-276) shouldn't be extolled. If they manage to "bolt" a composite wing with two PD-35 to the fuselage of the Il-96, then they will get a new aircraft and rest assured with new avionics (no one will keep the old one, as well as the three-member scheme)
I agree about Manturov - there are many questions.

[anatolv]

Why talk about such nonsense! Let the person fantasize, but what else can he say if he doesn't understand anything?

[bayard]

Quote: mark1

From our joint development with China, we had a composite wing and tried to fit the PD-35 (but not completely), so the role of the Ilyushin team (who, by the way, could not cope with the Il-112 and Il-276) should not be extolled.

The program for a joint aircraft with China has been going on for many years, and a large group of the best design personnel from the Ilyushin Design Bureau was sent for this purpose. And they designed the entire aircraft. Yes, with Chinese wishes and with their engineers simultaneously gaining practical design experience. And the financing of this work was 50/50. So we intended to PRODUCE not only the wing, but also the wing and tail unit within the framework of production cooperation, leaving the final assembly to the Chinese side. And the profit from the sale of the aircraft was supposed to be 50/50. But China, having received an almost finished aircraft, refused to pay us a share of the profit from the aircraft purchased by Chinese companies, offering a choice of receiving 50% of the export deliveries, or organizing the construction of the aircraft separately - each at home. Manturov could not find anything smarter than simply exiting the project. He generally likes to invest abroad with murky consequences. And he was categorically against organizing complex production in Russia. He simply does not want to build airplanes, and this unwillingness is very purposeful, assertive, consistent and gives its result - the Russian Federation does not build airplanes. He does not even want to build the Il-76MD90A in series.

Quote: mark1

Il-112 and Il-276

At that time, the Ilyushin Design Bureau had almost no design personnel left (the best were involved in the Chinese project, the rest were simply "not fed"). Well, the choice of the project, the illiterate drafting of the technical specifications, all this is still up to the customer. Why, instead of adapting the An-140 project, which was developed with money from the Russian Ministry of Defense and for which we had a license (even the first two An-140s were assembled in Russia before the coup in Kyiv), the customer started gushing with ideas about an inflated fuselage, increasing the load capacity ... not paying attention to the fact that we do not have engines of the required power and cannot have them in principle ... The An-140 was created precisely to replace the An-26 and An-24, and the engines that are available to us are quite capable of pulling it. Why was it necessary to sculpt this misunderstanding with a bloated fuselage? We spent a lot of money, time, design forces, ruined the most experienced test crew ... and that's it. And Manturov is a great guy! An irreplaceable great guy!!
If you want to get an airplane with the dimensions of the Il-112 cargo compartment, then you need to rework the project for AI-20 engines. In this case, even the fuselage can be slightly lengthened (and thus balance the overweight stern with the ramp). More powerful engines will provide good takeoff characteristics and even increase the load capacity somewhat. And there will be something to transport the engines for repair. Because now sometimes they fly an entire Il-76 with one such engine, because there are no other airplanes for this.
Nobody even tried to design the Il-276. And there was no one to do it.

Quote: mark1

. If you manage to "bolt" a composite wing with two PD-35s to the Il-96 fuselage, you will get a new aircraft and be sure of new avionics

Where to attach them?? It has a low-slung wing, the PD-35 simply won't fit under it. The entire center section will have to be redesigned for adaptation. And together with the new onboard equipment, the new cockpit, it will truly be a "new aircraft", based on the technologies of the 80s. This is a sure loss. It will take 10-15 years for R&D, testing and fine-tuning of such a Frankenstein (we can't do it any faster) and as a result, by 2040 we will have a "new aircraft" with technical solutions from the late 80s of the last century.
I propose to prepare the Il-929 (or whatever you want to call it) for serial production, which will also take time, but it will be a truly new aircraft. And it will even be able to take off and go into serial production earlier. And we can talk about cross-cooperation with the Chinese, although it is better to do everything ourselves. We have an engine and a wing with a tail unit for this aircraft. And the capacity of AVISMA, which is idle without orders from Boeing and Airbus. So in any case, it is more profitable to launch this aircraft into serial production.
And Il-96-400 should be produced in 2 units with four engines in the previous form - as insurance for the first period and for cargo needs. And even then, if Voronezh can handle this meager order.

Quote: mark1

stop talking nonsense about Il-929

No need to be rude, young man, you've even made a big deal out of this short post, it's better to get familiar with the topic.

[mark1]

Quote: bayard

No need to be rude, young man.

Hmm... "young man" - we were trotters once too...
And everything else... - The Ilyushin team has already discredited itself by 2015 Il-214 for the Indians. Who was sent there from UAC given the presence of ho.x.ls from Antonov in China, that is a great secret, but they worked as always in a swing and everything threatened to turn into a long, long, protracted construction project. I suspect that this is the real reason.
You are referring to the fact that the Il-96 has a low-wing configuration. Let me ask you what configuration the CR-929 has?
And what technical solutions for the fuselage, I wonder, are dragging the Il-96 into the dump? By the way, in terms of materials, everything is recyclable and can be improved.
Whether the Il-96 2PD-35 will appear or not is 50/50, tomorrow there will be a change of priorities and yeah...
Regarding the An-140. I dare to assume that it "leaked" to our production in the form of a derivative - TVRS-44 (and we are not looking for easy ways!) with the help of the same Manturov.

[bayard]

Quote: mark1

- The Ilyushin team has already discredited itself by 2015 with the Il-214 for the Indians.

The one that was re-faced in Il-276?
In my opinion, the An-12 should have been replaced by a turboprop with a fuselage cross-section like the C-130 Hercules with 4 AI-20 engines of the latest modification with a thrust of 5500 hp (the Hercules has engines of the same power). And we would have received an economical transporter with excellent takeoff and landing characteristics and a load capacity of 25-30 tons, capable of being operated from shortened and unpaved runways. Economical and unpretentious. And based on the same An-12, but in a modern look. Capable of taking on board a BMP-3M in body kit ... But they wanted a jet and for Indian money. The result is logical. Yes, by that time Ilyushin had significantly lost its design personnel and scattered them, including on the wide-body project with the Chinese.
Now about the Il-96-400 with two PD-35.
Of course, it is possible to make such an airplane. With a new wing, a redesigned center section, an updated cockpit and hardware saturation. But two problems arise:
1) The design of the aircraft itself is from the mid-to-late 80s, it is already archaic in many ways and given that a redesigned aircraft will not appear for another 10 years (we simply cannot do it any earlier), just imagine HOW it will look in the late 30s against the background of the rest of the world's aircraft fleet. The Il-96 is a step back. No matter how you update it.
2) Dimensions and capacity of the passenger cabin. Do we have many destinations for SUCH a load on an airplane? Under 400 passengers? And flying half-empty airplanes, isn't that ruining airlines? The 929 has a more rational capacity and can be used profitably on a much larger number of destinations, which is why the payback of these airplanes will be higher, and airlines will also demand such airplanes. And not the Il-96, which is simply excessive for most destinations. And if our airlines' need for the 929 is estimated at "at least 100 units," then I'm afraid there won't be even half a hundred orders for the Il-96. So why bother when you can't offer such a miracle for export. The Il-96's time is up. But the 929 is in high demand and if it goes into production, it will be possible to offer it for export. But why bother with the Il-96 for the sake of building 40-60 units at a rate of... 2-4-5 planes per year (and we won't be able to do it any faster, even if we strain our navels)... to master the budgets?
We need to build modern aircraft. Our contribution to the 929, including financial, was 50/50, so we either need to return to the project or just finish it ourselves and launch it into production. Together with the prospect of exporting such aircraft, at least 300 units will be needed. And this definitely makes sense and will pay for the program. But the Il-96 - never.

Quote: mark1

Whether the Il-96 2PD-35 will appear or not is 50/50, tomorrow there will be a change of priorities and yeah...

That's what I mean, this is more propaganda, stirring up the topic against the backdrop of the inability to launch even a small, light-engine car into production. People writing on these topics often don't even come close to understanding what they're smudging the pages of the Internet about.

Quote: mark1

Regarding the An-140. I dare to assume that it "leaked" to our production in the form of a derivative - TVRS-44 (and we are not looking for easy ways!) with the help of the same Manturov.

Who knows where and what flows from them. There was information that we had agreed with the Iranians on production cooperation on the "Simurg" - the Iranian licensed version of the An-140. Therefore, there were hopes that we would launch it, albeit under a different index. And in order for the cooperation to get going faster and pay for itself - cooperation with the Iranians on their "Simurg", which is essentially the same thing. But since then (and at least a year has passed) so far there has been no news on this topic. Imitators imitate, show off on forums and live happily. Work is at a standstill, the planes are not taking off. Stability?
She .

[faiver]

continue building Il-96-400 with PS-90-1A in Voronezh at the previous planned capacity of 2 aircraft per year

- Could you indicate the year in which VASO produced two Il-96s?

[bayard]

Quote: faiver

Could you please indicate the year in which VASO produced two Il-96s?

This is in their state-appointed plans. And I don't believe that they are capable of building even at this pace. That's why I don't believe in the prospects of the Il-96. But if they can build 2 units over time, let them build them. For a special air squadron and as cargo planes. The plant is more dead than alive.

[Puz Big]

And what two engines were supposed to pull the IL-96 across the Atlantic?

[Andrey62]

redesigned according to ICAO requirements

In general, ICAO is not a legislative body, but rather a recommendatory one... After the 1980s (as far as I remember), they flew across the ocean for safety on 4 engines, and the USA was the first to fly on 2 engines, since the reliability of the engines was already at a high level. And while the IL-96 was being created, these rules were removed. The USSR still did not have an engine at that time to make the IL-96 two-engine, and the USSR did not buy engines from capitalists at that time. Even the IL-86, when it started flying, had very weak engines. Because of this, it even flew at the beginning of its operation not with a full load. And the engines, until they were brought to mind, were not very reliable.

[Chromis]

Everything is great. And WHEN will it go into production?

[spektr9]

When the engine goes into production, and that will be a long time coming

[anatolv]

Don't be afraid, don't miss out!

[Boa kaa]

And there is no need to invent a new wide-body airliner. Everything is fine, only the PD-35 still needs to be certified (type certification). And the ICAO is full of enemies, the Stars and Stripes, and EU-dependent...
I wish they would get all this done sooner, otherwise Boeing and Airbus are asking to go back...

[Vladislav_V]

Yes, the main thing is to finish the engine.

[topol717]

Well, PD-14A is better than PS-90A, of course, PD-14A loses a little in terms of thrust, but it is much more economical, you can take less fuel.. It is much easier to install 4 PD-14A units, which are already there. In addition, mass production will reduce the cost.

[Evgeny_4]

Much more economical, by how much?
Give the numbers.

[Pavel57]

And have you forgotten about the An-124? The PS-35 would have suited it as well.

[Dilettante grandfather]

And have you forgotten about the An-124?

Unfortunately, the Antonov company is located on enemy territory.

[anatolv]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

Unfortunately, the Antonov company is located on enemy territory.

But we have all the documentation for production! And it was produced in Ulyanovsk.

[Dilettante grandfather]

But we have all the documentation for production! And it was produced in Ulyanovsk.

I don’t argue, but the right to produce An aircraft does not belong to us.

[anatolv]

Belongs to. It was produced in the Russian Federation.

[Dilettante grandfather]

We also produce Chinese cars, but we don’t own the rights.
A company that has patented an airplane or a car as its own development can issue a production license. And also take away this license.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

They also forgot about the Il-112 transport plane. They could at least stick AI-222-25 engines from the Yak-130 on it. At least something would fly. Because there is no certification for these engines or the transport plane.

[bayard]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

They should at least slap AI-222-25 engines from the Yak-130 on it.

Where would it fly?
He needs a turboprop engine with a thrust of about 3750 hp. We don't have anything like that and don't expect to have it. But we have the old, proven AI-20 with a power of 4000 hp to 5500 hp depending on the modification. They are now being produced in China under license for their clone of our An-12. If you're too lazy to resume production yourself, you can just buy one. In this case, the airplane's characteristics will improve, and its lifting capacity may increase. That way you'll have something to transport the engines for repairs.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Actually, NPC "Salut" stated that the improved engine will be designed for transport aircraft as well. But you are probably smarter than their specialists, so only you can believe it.

[bayard]

The Il-112 has a straight wing, is designed for turboprop engines and a speed of about 550 km/h. For a turbojet engine, the wing and not only will have to be completely redesigned. If Salut wants to make a high-bypass engine based on the AI-222-25 ... or does it not? Does it want to install it as is? And what is the value of such a replacement then? The efficiency will be disgusting compared to turboprops, the aircraft will have to be radically redesigned. The Ministry of Defense needed an inexpensive, fuel-efficient light transport aircraft. It will definitely not be inexpensive and fuel-efficient. And the takeoff and landing characteristics will probably also deteriorate due to the inevitable swept wing.
If you need an unpretentious, economical and easy-to-use light transport aircraft, redesign the project for the AI-20. It will be faster, cheaper and will turn out exactly what the Ministry of Defense wanted - a light transport aircraft capable of transporting engines for repairs. After all, it was for this purpose that they required a fuselage of such a cross-section - so that a standard container with an engine would fit during transportation for repairs. It did not fit into the An-26, nor into the previously ordered An-140. So the rational way out to get the required aircraft is to redesign the project for the AI-20. The aircraft will be slightly larger, but at the same time with greater capabilities. And redesigning the project for jet engines is simply surreal and profanation.
AI-20 engines are in stock in warehouses, they are mass-produced in China, so to start the R&D on adapting them for this airframe, they can be obtained right now. And during this work, their production can be organized/resumed. No need for exotics, we need proven solutions and units. Which will allow such aircraft to be operated from shortened and unpaved strips, in any climatic conditions and serviced at any airfields. With a high resource and reliability.
The AI-20 has a service life of 40 engine hours. And the military transport aviation doesn't need speed, altitude or fashion records... these are the workhorses of military logistics. And in wartime, all the advantages of a proven, reliable engine with a long service life and the ability to operate from any airfield are worth a lot.

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

You are probably smarter than their specialists, so it is up to you to believe.

These specialists just want to sell their engine. Because the Yak-130 is not produced in large quantities, and they want to put the engine somewhere else. Have you seen where they (or the "girl designers") decided to mount these engines? Like the An-72/74 - above the wing. Can you imagine what it will be like to service them? All these projects from the "Manturov team" are just a fountain of madness. And the simplest and most reasonable solution is ignored... It is not difficult to be smarter than such a company. But pushing the right solution through to implementation is almost impossible.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

You are taking on too much. How can you know what the military wanted? I have a completely opposite opinion. If they manage to certify the SM-100 or AI-222-25 and install it on a transport aircraft, then its fuel efficiency will be irrelevant. The main thing is that it flies.
And your ideas about purchasing from China do not fit into the import substitution strategy.

[bayard]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

How do you know what the military wanted?

From their dear ones. From a conversation with them on this topic - why did they order the Il-112 to be so pot-bellied.

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

If they manage to certify the SM-100 or AI-222-25 and install it on a transport aircraft, then its fuel efficiency will not matter.

If they do something like that, it will be a completely different plane. With a different wing. Because of low fuel efficiency, they will have to carry more fuel on board, and that means less payload. With a swept wing (and there is no other way), the takeoff and landing speed, the takeoff and landing run, and the time to the runway will increase. In addition, the service life of a turbojet engine is at least a multiple, if not an order of magnitude lower than the service life of a turboprop engine. The AI-20 has a service life of 40 engine hours. And how many is the AI-000-22? Even if it is 25 engine hours, it is an order of magnitude less.
Now just put it all together and THINK if stubbornness and stupidity are worth this result.

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

The main thing is that it flies.

So it flew anyway.
But it fell.
Because the engines were weak even for lifting off an empty plane, and those overpowered to the limit simply caught fire, unable to withstand the load.
AI-20, although twice as heavy, has 1,5-2 times more thrust. The record holder for fuel efficiency - on the same level as NK-12. And the power range, depending on the modification, is from 4000 hp to 5500 hp.

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

Your ideas about purchasing from China do not fit into the import substitution strategy.

There are still plenty of these engines on the warehouse shelves, I even came across offers for sale on the Internet. You can definitely find enough for several experimental aircraft. And while the R&D work on the new version of the aircraft is underway, production can be restored. And about China, I reminded you that if used ones are not suitable, you can order new analogues from China, they are serially produced under license for several types of aircraft. But it is better to restore production ourselves, use new heat-resistant materials, electronic control, plasma ignition. And you will get a real beauty.
And if such an engine appears in production, then we can safely sculpt a new improved version of the medium transport aircraft on the basis of the An-12. Which will take off from any dirt strip. Its engines in a modification of 5500 hp, and make the fuselage wider - so that the BMP-3 fits in, like the C-130 "Hercules". And we will get a medium transport aircraft with a carrying capacity of 25-30 tons - a workhorse of the military transport aviation, of which our Army and economy need several hundred. Not a jet Il-276, which no one even designs, but a completely working and very unpretentious workhorse. Which can be used from any dirt strip and in any latitude. We will immediately get another extremely necessary aircraft on the same engine and immediately plug two holes in the military transport aviation in the light and medium class.
The Il-112 in its new form will be a little larger, but the load-carrying capacity will increase and the thrust-to-weight ratio will be high - somewhere around 7-8 tons. And if a lighter one is needed, then don't be cunning, just launch the An-140 into production under its own index. We have all the technical and design documentation, as well as a license. Before the coup in Kyiv, we managed to assemble 2 of them under license. There are engines for it - the same TV7-117 as for the Il-112, they just didn't need to force them - the thrust will be enough.
I am not pulling this out of thin air, but formulating an optimal program for the development of the aviation industry in this segment. And everything else is from the Evil One.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Oh my! Ukraine promises a 40-hour service life for its engines!
And Ukraine didn’t forget to note that on the An-24 their engines stopped right in flight and passengers saw it?
Whether it is from the devil or not, we will see when Salut certifies the engine and produces a prototype.

[bayard]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

Ukraine promises a service life of 40 engine hours for its engines!

This is the official resource of Soviet engines.
And if you believe the engine index, then the AI-20 was developed by the same "Salut" that developed the AI-222-25. So, as the patent holders, they should prepare an updated version of the AI-20 for production. If they haven't forgotten how. And in this case, the budget will be much bigger, and the result will be much more useful and correct.

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

And Ukraine didn’t forget to note that on the An-24 their engines stopped right in flight and passengers saw it?

What year was this An-24 manufactured? What kind of maintenance did it receive? Were engine maintenance regulations followed?
If the event was recent, then all claims are to the operator. But the fact is the fact - the entire fleet of An-24, An-26 and An-12 is long overdue for replacement, because they are as old as mammoth dung. And they need to be replaced with higher-quality analogs in the class, and not with whatever comes to hand.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

During the Soviet era, the An-24 engines stopped in flight, but even then they demonstrated miracles of reliability.

[bayard]

Although these engines were assembled in Zaporozhye, the developer was from the RSFSR, and the engines seem to be from Kuznetsov.
I am not familiar with the engine failure statistics back then. And I am not particularly interested now. But the Zaporozhye plant was rightfully considered then, and more recently, one of the flagships of world aviation engine building.
I certainly don’t intend to defend or accuse anyone, because that’s not my area.
Moreover, the Zaporizhzhya region is already legally part of the Russian Federation. But for now it is under occupation.

[Sky strike fighter]

Quote: Pavel57

And have you forgotten about the An-124? The PS-35 would have suited it as well.

For the An-124, they promise to start serial production of the D-18T localized in Russia, previously it was made in Zaporozhye. In 2027, they promise to start its production. Thrust 24 tons. PD-35 is more powerful, it has a thrust of up to 37 tons, so it will not be suitable for the An-124.

[bayard]

Quote: Sky Strike fighter

.PD-35 is more powerful, it has a thrust of up to 37 tons, so it is not suitable for An-124.

It has a thrust of up to 35 tons. They started talking about a modification with a thrust of 37 tons when they started talking nonsense about a twin-engine version of the Il-96.
But for the Mriya An-225, four PD-35 would be just right. But we will never make something like that. But we can make a heavy transport aircraft with two PD-35, with a fuselage wider than the Il-76 (so that a tank with bodywork would fit) and a lifting capacity of 70 tons. It could be a very interesting machine.
But there is simply no one to design something like this now.
And there are no Soviet designers left alive.

[anatolv]

Why the hell do we need Mriya? What tasks do you think of for it?

[faiver]

it does not matter
but neither Mriya nor PD-35 exist yet...

[bayard]

Quote: anatolv

Why the hell do we need Mriya?

This is no longer up to me. We still need to provide the old Ruslans with engines.
"Mriya" was cited as an example of where 35 PD-4s could be suitable. They would be quite suitable for the An-225 (24 tf x 6 = 144 tf, 35 tf x 4 = 140 tf).
I don't think of any special tasks for the Mriya, but there are more than enough reasons to resume construction of the Ruslans. But the PD-35 is not needed for that.

[anatolv]

As I understand it, you are an aircraft builder...

[bayard]

Quote: anatolv

an aircraft builder among you...

I didn't even identify myself as such. My basic education is different, although it is related to aviation.

[Sky strike fighter]

"Initially, the PD-35 project assumed the development of a wide range of critical technologies and the creation of a unified gas generator on their basis. The gas generator is the "heart", the central part of the engine, on its basis it is possible to create a whole line of products: engines with a thrust of 35 tons are suitable for wide-body passenger aircraft, 24-ton engines - for super-heavy military transport aircraft. Everything will depend on the technical specifications issued by aircraft manufacturers. At the same time, the demonstrator engine, which produced a thrust of 37 tons on the stand, showed that the main technical problems within the framework of R & D were solved, and now it is possible to begin creating a "commercial" engine," says Oleg Panteleev, executive director of the AviaPort agency.

[bayard]

This is all good, of course. And if the lineup includes a 24 t.s. engine to resume construction of the Ruslans, I will be happy. But when will that be?
And the fact that the stand achieved a thrust of 37 t.s. does not mean that the serial model will be able to confidently produce such a thrust with the required service life. The test reports of "Product-30" indicated the achieved thrust at afterburner of 19,5 t.s., but the service life was not serious. Therefore, even achieving a thrust of 18 t.s. in the serial model ... is still in question. Most likely, they will be somewhat lower. And an immeasurable amount of time was spent on fine-tuning. And now the work continues.
The problem with the Il-96-400 with two PD-35s is not the engines themselves, but the archaic design of the aircraft itself (late 80s), the low-lying wing and the overall feasibility of this project, which will be more of a step back than a prospect for the future. That is why I am for serial production of the Il-929 or whatever you call it. This aircraft is much more promising, and in terms of the number of passengers, it is much more rational.

[anatolv]

Quote: bayard

in a low wing

And what didn't you like about the low-wing of the 96th?

[bayard]

Quote: anatolv

And what didn't you like about the low-wing of the 96th?

The fact that the original version of the PD-35 will not fit into it even in principle. And the redesign of the wing and center section is a serious R&D project, deadlines, price. And as a result - an airplane from the mid-80s in a new look in at least 10 years. Did you imagine the Il-96 in the late 30s as a "novelty of the Russian aviation industry"? Will you like it?
And what flights will you put this monster on? With its capacity? Fly the planes half-empty? How many destinations do we have for such a load and how often will they be able to fly? And how many of these planes will our airlines want to BUY? Foreign ones definitely won’t want to. Pieces... 10? 20? 40? I think that definitely no more than 40-50 units. And this will not pay for the program, the planes will be monstrously expensive both to purchase and often redundant in operation. 929 has a rational cabin capacity and will definitely not fly half-empty, it can be put on many routes and therefore it will pay for itself faster, they will be ordered much more and more willingly, and the entire program for launching it into production will pay for itself and will provide synergy for the development of the entire industry and all cooperative enterprises. Our market will need about 929 200 units. , taking into account the prospect of export - not less than 300 units. This will ensure the project's payback.

Quote: anatolv

What didn't you like about the low-wing of the 96?

The fact is that by the time the Il-96 appeared with a new wing, center section, cockpit, avionics and updated component base, it would look like a dinosaur of the gloomy domestic aviation industry at the end of the 30s.
And don't forget that the 929 is our plane to the same extent as the Chinese one. And ours to a greater extent. And in terms of money invested in the project, we are 50/50 with China. So I am offering OUR plane for the series. But at the same time, it is much more modern, promising and in demand by the market.

[Bad_gr]

I don’t understand the logic of all these initiatives.
We put the Il-76MD-90A on the conveyor belt with great difficulty - and this aircraft becomes modern with the replacement of engines with the PS-90A turbofan engines. The Il-96-400M has a version of these engines (PS-90A1 turbofan engines) from the start - are they already outdated? Do we have nowhere to put our money? Instead of producing the same Il-96-400M with its native engine, saturating our market with a domestic aircraft, we are starting another project, with an unknown result.

[Lt. Air Force stock]

Quote: Bad_gr

I don’t understand the logic of all these initiatives.
We put the Il-76MD-90A on the conveyor belt with great difficulty - and this aircraft becomes modern with the replacement of engines with the PS-90A turbofan engines. The Il-96-400M has a version of these engines (PS-90A1 turbofan engines) from the start - are they already outdated? Do we have nowhere to put our money? Instead of producing the same Il-96-400M with its native engine, saturating our market with a domestic aircraft, we are starting another project, with an unknown result.

Airlines need a long-range aircraft with 2 engines.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Lt. air force reserve

Airlines need a long-range aircraft with 2 engines.

The twin-engine is cheaper to operate, but it doesn't exist. But the four-engine is, and flights on the four-engine are considered safer. When there are several hundred people on the plane, this is not unimportant.

[Azim77]

Quote: Bad_gr

The twin engine is cheaper to operate, but it doesn't exist.

What does that mean?
And there is news about this in the article. Even in the title.

[Oldrover]

and flights on 4-engine aircraft are considered safer. When there are several hundred people on the plane, this is not unimportant.

Well, there is a big book of excuses here, abstractly in a vacuum, yes, the probability of failure of all four engines is less than two, but in reality everything is calculated, and the overwhelming majority of pilots in their careers have never encountered the failure of even one engine.

[faiver]

the vast majority of drivers don't get into accidents, let's get rid of seat belts, airbags, why do crash tests.....

[Architect]

The vast majority of road accidents are committed by sober drivers, let's legalize drinking alcohol while driving.

[Oldrover]

You have a stupid manipulation here, you need to count the number of sober drivers who have caused accidents to the total number of sober people and do the same with drunk drivers.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: faiver

the vast majority of drivers do not get into accidents

Well, accidents - both in cars and in planes - precisely because of engine failure are more of a unique case than a practice... more because of the "pilots"... plus before there was no plane that could fly across the Atlantic with 1 engine, but now there are such engines...

[Oldrover]

There are no statistics against you, they say that only a third of drivers (in Russia) have not been involved in a single accident in ten years.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

I've had five accidents in my driving career. Most drivers get into accidents. The example doesn't quite fit. But still, you get a plus, the direction is right.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

A lie, and an extremely brazen one at that. Pilots do encounter engine failures to varying degrees. If passengers saw the An-24 engines stop in flight, what can we say about pilots?

[Oldrover]

All materials are available online, as are all discussions and calculations from the very moment when they began to switch to a two-engine design in world aviation.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Where and who started to switch, I don't care so much. The lie is that pilots don't encounter engine failures.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

Where and who started to switch, I don't care so much. The lie is that pilots don't encounter engine failures.

where is it written like that? if you are talking about me, then I wrote it

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

Well, accidents - both in cars and in planes - precisely because of engine failure are rather a unique case

You understand the difference between an accident and a disaster, right?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

To whom I replied, he wrote, Oldrover (Illia)

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

To whom I replied, he wrote, Oldrover (Illia)

understood, accepted

[kaban7]

I'm embarrassed to ask - how many engines does the 777 broiler have, not 2 by any chance?

[Puz Big]

The airline's main goal is to make money and not go broke. Flights on 4 engines are currently relevant either at uncompetitive exorbitant ticket prices or on subsidies from the state (where to get the money?). Which option do you prefer?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Nonsense. Four engines are not much worse than two in operation. Only the flight range can be critical, for example, not allowing a direct flight Moscow-Vladivostok.
Operation does not only consist of the costs of current repairs and fuel. It is easier to keep a twice smaller engine in stock due to the low price of one unit. It is easier to transport and so on, so on, so on.

[Puz Big]

And why does the entire world practice say strictly the opposite? And only the opinion of local experts completely disagrees with it, yes.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

I have already explained this as the practical implementation of the philosophy of progress, when the idea of ​​dividing nations into advanced and backward is realized. They managed to make a big engine and declared themselves advanced, the rest are made to catch up.
And there is no need to refer to world practice. No one has authorized you to make such statements, to speak on behalf of world experts, and especially all of them together.
If you have a midsize airplane with two engines and a large airplane with four of the same engines, you are already winning on parts and maintenance.
And your exorbitant prices will be formed for stocks of a large engine.

[spyder100]

We like to publish news in the future tense... We will develop by... year, we will build in... year..
It has never come true on time.
Better do it first and then write.
At least something like this: "The new wide-body Il-96M airliner with two PD-35 engines has been certified"... or better yet, "Serial production has begun..." Otherwise, it's being "worked on" again...

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

It's good that you're so passionate about the cause. But I'd give your initiative a big minus, not a plus.
Experts and amateurs can use such publications to assess the prospects and make their comments and suggestions at the earliest stage of the project.

[spyder100]

What specialists need these publications? None.
These publications are intended to create a corresponding information picture for the average person about the development of the aviation industry and nothing more. Now almost all the news is like this.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Your opinion is just your opinion. Others are not obliged to follow your preferences. I find such articles interesting.

[jovanni]

Quote from: spyder100

"Or else it's being 'worked through' again...

It's being worked on, worked on, but it's not being worked on... It smacks of Manilovism...

[Nexcom]

...be glad that the news doesn't say "A new device-airplane-steamboat with unique characteristics has been CONCEIVED"...

[spyder100]

Sometimes even such "news" slips through.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: Nexcom

...be glad that the news doesn't say "A new device-airplane-steamboat with unique characteristics has been CONCEIVED"...

Well, in general, the Rostec State Corporation is currently is considering the possibility of creating twin-engine, more economical wide-body long-range aircraft Il-96 with new Russian engines PD-35."
here it is exactly as you say and written - in other words... CONCEIVED

[Nexcom]

that's what I'm saying - why write something like that to them?? They should write about the result, at least an intermediate one - developed, a prototype created, being tested... etc.

and so it sounds like - I'm planning to go to the toilet... but I'm not sure whether I'll save it or not, but I still thought about it.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Which Rostec specialist will read the comments posted here. What's wrong with that?
One of the problems of modern Russia is that projects are accepted for implementation without proper analysis and preliminary discussion.

[jovanni]

The passenger Il-96-400M will complement the UAC line of civil aircraft.

EEEH, and when will this be? Right now this line is still in the plans...

[Yuri_I]

Rostec is currently considering the possibility of creating a twin-engine, more economical wide-body long-range aircraft Il-96 with new Russian engines PD-35

And in the picture there is a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III

[Voronezh]

Yeah, and it has UAC written on both sides...

[Nexcom]

Well, either someone is whistling and throwing something, or this plane is clearly a trophy, being tested by the UAC....

[Yuri_I]

Boeing, and it says...

[Volunteer Marek]

I have long since caught myself thinking that every message about our "airline industry", about how 100500 planes will soon start flying off the assembly lines every month, gives me a toothache and annoyance. Maybe it's time to stop dreaming and finally do something really massive?

[Nexcom]

This is for Manturov and others, please. Or for journalists - they like to present what hasn't been done as if it were just a little bit and that's it - it will fly... In flocks...

[RondelR]

Why the IL-96? If we were working on a new project with the Chinese, where we did almost everything, then the Chinese left the project. It is better to continue it alone.

[faiver]

where we did almost everything

-

[RondelR]

Well, except for the presentation. They are Chinese.

[Victor Alien]

Can anyone explain this - why can't you carry more than 9 people on a small plane with one engine, and when you have 200-400 passengers, are 2 engines safer than 4?! Fuel savings at the expense of safety?! The PD-35 would be suitable for the An-124, from which it would be possible to launch spacecraft into space - it would be easier. Although this is a purely theoretical view from the couch. But I think it is more realistic to do this. It is one thing to launch a rocket from the ground, another from a height of 10 km. But this is not for the locals to comment on. I don't particularly see any experts in simpler matters.

[faiver]

air launch of spacecraft

- We can’t establish normal production of the 50-year-old Il-76, the 25-year-old Be-200, the 35-year-old Il-114, and you want an air start...

[Nexcom]

because there is no real controlling body...

[esl462]

About 9 on the motor - thanks to the American "friends". Their covenants are unshakable.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Here you are dealing with the concept of progress in a philosophical sense. Not in the sense of releasing better technology, but in a philosophical sense.
That is, this is how developed Western countries provide themselves with an advantage, artificially making others play catch-up.
They managed to make a large engine before the rest, they declare the rest to be backward and demand that they catch up even to the imaginary lag.
Then one can quite expect a sharp turn in the other direction.
One of the striking examples is when the DuPont company set up production of R134A freon, they came up with the idea of ​​ozone layer destruction and forced people to switch to their freon at ten times the cost.

[Pavel57]

Quote: Bad_gr

Quote: Lt. air force reserve

Airlines need a long-range aircraft with 2 engines.

The twin-engine is cheaper to operate, but it doesn't exist. But the four-engine is, and flights on the four-engine are considered safer. When there are several hundred people on the plane, this is not unimportant.

Twin-engine aircraft have long been safe. The first was the B2.

[Nexcom]

...and if the rudder and elevator fall off, then even four engines won't help. JAL, 1988. Or 1985. I don't remember exactly - the entire tail was torn off, all four engines are in good condition, so amen to all...

[Azim77]

Because it's not about arithmetic - 2,3, 4, or 4. Engines of unequal thrust, so that 2 is exactly 2 times safer than 2 for the same aircraft. A 2-engine aircraft usually has easier maintenance, a simpler aircraft design, and the chance of one engine failure for a 4-engine aircraft is mathematically lower - the more engines, the higher the chance of failure. Of course, with equal technologies and loads. Yes, a failure of one engine out of 2 has less effect on the loss of overall thrust. But even in XNUMX-engine aircraft, stopping one engine allows you to fly. Because the engine thrust is sufficient and calculated. Usually, its lack forces engineers to increase the number of engines.

[Puz Big]

The first was the Airbus A-300. It was the first wide-body aircraft with two engines.

[Pavel57]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

And have you forgotten about the An-124?

Unfortunately, the Antonov company is located on enemy territory.

All the documentation for the An-124 is in Russia. But I also don't know who could redesign it for other engines.
Then, from the entire line of transport aircraft, a heavy transport aircraft is most likely not the first priority.

[Nexcom]

They already tried to cut it under the code name Elephant. They gave out money, time passed and..... Tishanaaaaa.... And there are not even any dead people with scythes. And they don't even remember.

[mark1]

Quote: Pavel57

I also don't know who could remake it for other engines.

So it seems that they are going to produce D-18 here. So there is no need to invent anything new for a localized "Ruslan".

[Pavel57]

Quote: Nexcom

They were already trying to cut him down under the code name Elephant. They gave him money, time passed and..... Tishanaaaaa.... And there are not even any dead people with scythes.

Not much money was spent on the Slon, as well as on the Il-106. The question is whether they are needed now, and how much more important is replacing the An-26 and An-12.

[faiver]

and how much more important is the replacement of the An-26 and An-12

- so we don’t have a replacement for either the first or the second....

[Puz Big]

There is so much insanity and nonsense in the comments here...

[km-21]

Rostec State Corporation is developing an Il-96 project with two domestic PD-35 engines

Another cut dough.

It is absolutely obvious that the PD-35 will not fit under the wing of the Il-96 due to insufficient clearance. A complete redesign of the entire airframe will be required, which will lead the project to a dead end due to the loss of competence. But Rostec will modestly remain silent about this today. And it will admit its mistake only in about ten years, when the allocated money will be squandered, and it will be impossible to return the lost resources.

And yes, today the PD-35 itself does not exist in reality.
Whether he will ever appear in sufficient condition is a big question.

[Nexcom]

They will put it above the wing, like the Honda Jet. Honda later said a lot of praise for this installation of engines above the wing, and not under it.

[Kravets Vyacheslav]

I have a feeling that this news is 10-15 years old. And this topic with 2 engines and bad 4 on the IL-96 is used as an excuse for the lack of large-scale production. But the following doubt arises: if these planes are now made individually, then what will happen that the two-engine version will be produced in large series. And the volume of changes in it can be quite large, which accordingly does not simplify the possible serial production.

[vadivm59]

well, well, well))))!!!! First, sort out the TU-214 and others. Or are they running out of money there? And here you can beg the president for new money. And he will allocate it, the good old man, and won't ask about the results. Another scam.

[Zaurbek]

If you approach it from the point of view of industry and economy, I would make an analogue of the A320XL from the MS21 and for this you need more powerful PD14... then I would make the IL96-400 with such turbojet engines and a cabin with two pilots. At the same time, simply resuming production of the IL96 is a task... And then the PD35
And then