I think PD-14 engine is being promoted by Russians as something extraordinary.

What is so special about PD-14 that the West doesn't have?

Can you explain this in layman's terms?

  • 13
    $\begingroup$ Well, it's high performance, and Russian. Achieving both at the same time is something unprecedented indeed. $\endgroup$ – user3528438 Mar 21 '18 at 4:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Videos get removed, please add quotations to what is being said. Also to keep the question in one place, not everyone will watch the videos. Thanks. -- Related: How do contemporary Russian jet engines compare to Western ones? $\endgroup$ – ymb1 Mar 21 '18 at 21:00

Well, development of any large high bypass turbofan is something extraordinary. It probably took thousands of engineers and specialists working for many years to develop this engine, with a development cost measured in billions of dollars. Only a handful of companies in the entire world are able to achieve this.

But, if you compare the publicly available specs for PD-14 to a similar size modern engine such as LEAP, you'll find that while the PD-14 engine is competitive, it's not anything that will have P&W, GE, or RR too worried.

  • Thrust to weight ratio is comparable to LEAP
  • Bypass ratio is a little lower than LEAP, which would be expected to translate to slightly worse fuel efficiency.
  • Overall engine pressure ratio is comparable to LEAP
  • Thrust specific fuel consumption looks a little worse.

There are also several key parameters that are not publicly available, such as the manufacturing cost, purchase price, the lifetime of the major components (i.e. how many flights before you have to replace the turbine blades), the cost to repair the major components, and the reliability (how often to you have to cancel a flight because something broke just as you were loading passengers). Because this data is not easily available to the public, I'm sure they will claim it's great, but there is no easy way to verify. Probably they are comparable in all regards and it's just marketing spin.

  • $\begingroup$ Looking at the video, looks like part of the "extraordinary" claim is the "common core" of the engine, which is reused in many variants with different thrust outputs as well as fuel efficiency. If true, and if other manufacturers don't reuse the same major components, it could indeed lead to cost savings as well as other efficiencies. $\endgroup$ – SnakeDoc Feb 4 at 1:04
  • $\begingroup$ "Common core" is certainly a concept used by other manufacturers. E.g. GEnx-1B and GEnx-2b have identical cores and different fans. LEAP-1A and LEAP-1B are almost identical cores, just one is about 3% smaller than the other. $\endgroup$ – Daniel K Feb 5 at 2:32
  • $\begingroup$ Good to know! Although, 3% smaller is probably not trivial with these types of machines, so that's not really "common" in regards to part sharing. The video made it look like the "common core" had more than just different fans/nacelle's bolted on, but I could be wrong. Looks like they currently have 8 different variants using the same core - including turboshafts, geared turbofans, and turbine generators. $\endgroup$ – SnakeDoc Feb 5 at 16:41

Its main advantage as far as I can see will be its comparative simplicity even if it falls a fraction short in terms of Specific Fuel. They claim its cheaper to produce and cheaper to maintain. Durability and reliability will be the big questions. Its estimated price has been released. Far cheaper than Western Equivalents. Less than half from memory. They have gone very quite in recent times. Aeroflot must be confident. Apart from there first deliveries all there subsequent aircraft are now going to use the PD-14.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy