New Beriev TANTK carrier-based AEW project

[flateric]

designation and details are not available

 

[AeroFranz]

ooooo....four engines
too bad there is no info. I'd be curious to know what drove the designers to this number of engines

 

[flateric]

with MTOW of 28 tons you want to be sure to continue take-off even if one of those four TV7 derivatives will go off...do you remember number of catapults on Kuznetcov?

 

[frank]

"New" as in a new (current/recent) design or "new" as in newly discovered?

designation and details are not available

 

[Jemiba]

I'd be curious to know what drove the designers to this number of engines

Perhaps to get the prop wash nearly all over the wing ?
Maybe a similar concept to the Breguet 941 ?

 

[Grey Havoc]

On the other hand, given the Russian Navy's current shortage of carrier decks, it may also be intended to double as a shore based AEW/EW asset.

 

[CJGibson]

Electrical power generation?

Chris

 

[Grey Havoc]

That may be part of it.

 

[Silencer1]

Lack of suitable engines of needed power for twin-engined configuration?
Any details of current project status would be appreciated

 

[AeroFranz]

all of the above hypotheses make sense...I subscribe to takeoff and landing with an engine out on a small-ish deck being the main driver.

 

[frank]

Based on a 56,000 lb weight & if the TV7 is a 2800 shp engine, (curious, where did that come from if no info is available?), then size, weight & power from the 4 engines compares favorably to an E-2 Hawkeye with its two 5000+ shp Allisons & 53,000 lb weight. The Yak-44 was about 88,000 lbs yet had two 13,000 shp engines, so either way its power - weight ration was way better. I can't imagine the assymetric thrust if the Yak-44 were to lose an engine with that sort of power. Maybe this Beriev using four engines has a number of purposes. Similar total power to the E-2, yet ability to do like P-3s & shut down 2 engines for extended loiter time/range, as well as engine failure performance. Otherwise, why wouldn't Beriev use two existing engines in the 5000 or so shp?

all of the above hypotheses make sense...I subscribe to takeoff and landing with an engine out on a small-ish deck being the main driver.

 

[Trident]

Otherwise, why wouldn't Beriev use two existing engines in the 5000 or so shp?

Most likely because there are no modern CIS turboprops in this power class (the last of those would be the ancient AI-20) - unless a bespoke solution is developed the choice is pretty much either the 2800shp TV7 or the 14000shp D-27. As flateric says, STOL is an important concern because the underlying carrier design is probably configured for STOBAR, so you have to achieve a high power-to-weight ratio within these constraints in some way. Although I suppose engine-out handling is a legitimate drawback to reviving the twin-powerplant Yak-44 layout (which this new design does resemble in pretty much every other way), I rather suspect there is a political motive to avoid the excellent D-27 :-\

EDIT: Quite a slender fuselage, though not as small as it initially seems - diameter is slightly smaller than a G550, or Saab 340 territory (well, we already know that works fine for AEW, Eitam or Erieye anyone ).

 

[Silencer1]

Hi!

Small diameter fuselage made such project unsuitable (without major redesign) to carrier-onboard-delivery function, like C-2 Greyhound. From other hand - there is no such type of aircraft on the Russian carrier today, and it still afloat

Just curious to see analogue to Hawkey in all they versatility.