What's new

RD-93 Engine: Strength or Weakness?

RD-93 ,I predict that it must be gradually replaced in 5 years.
Pakistan's military leadership must be considered "independent" products,rather than worry about other countries 'blockade of the key technologies .
:azn:

Pakistan should have bigger vision... there is a big market for JF-17 and this is right catalyst to under take step towards local production of engines.
 
Can PAF use single engine versions of "Snecma M88" (used in Rafeal) or "Eurojet EJ200" (Used in Eurofighter) for JF-17.
Why not? The EJ 200 is already on offer for LCA MK2 and the M88 is pretty similar in size, but at the moment it offers only 75kN afterburner thrust which is less than the RD93 (83kN) engine of JF 17. A better version of M88 with higher thrust will only come if UAE funds it for Rafale, but it will need some years to be ready. Another French possibility is the Snecma M53 (95kN) of Mirage 2000, more thrust, but maybe older in techs. Not likely but also possible is GE 414 from F18SH with 100+kN now, which is also on offer for LCA MK2.
 
^^ I guess he asked in reference to JF-17 and not LCA ... any how we must know that airframe changes may require to replce engine.. choice has to be made very carefuly accounting diplomatic relations and risks of embargo.
Changes in airframe may have cost and time involved.. i don't think we have any of those.. available in hand!
LCA ro MCA can afford to change engine because they have to design airframe from scratch not JF-17 which is built considering RD-93.
If it was so simple PAF should have gone for western engines during the development phase, why waste money and time now!
JF-17 will be sold in hundreds to foreign nations and some of those may have arms embargo from west, and may not buy JF-17.
We have to keep western stuff out of JF-17 simply because current avionics package is better than F-16 in PAF inventory.
RD93 is better in performance than M88, fuel efficiency is much better, thrust is higher and 1000hrs. MTBO is also reasonable.
 
One question from PAF!
Can we use RD-93 in mirrages? if not than what is the difference between the RD-33N which were produced for south african mirages!
 
One question from PAF!
Can we use RD-93 in mirrages? if not than what is the difference between the RD-33N which were produced for south african mirages!

It will need major fuselage changes for jf-17 to fit RD-33N. See the difference.

RD-33N:
Length 5,440 mm (214.17 in)
Max diameter 1,040 mm (40.94 in)

RD-93:
Length 4,230 mm (166.54 in)
Max diameter 1,040 mm (40.94 in)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and lastly here the data from Jane's Aero Engines about the difference between RD-33 and RD-93.
RD-33
Initial production version. Ratings (max dry) 49.4 kN (11,110 lb st), (a/b) 81.4 kN (18,300 lb st).
Powers MiG-29 and MiG-29UB. Deliveries were initiated in 1976, and mass production at Chernyshov
and Omsk followed in 1981. TBO for the RD-33 Series 1 was 300 hours, increased in Series 2 engines
to 1,600 hours and to 2,000 hours in the Series 3.

RD-93
Accessories on underside and other minor changes. Thrust ratings as RD-33. Engine of Chinese (Chengdu/Mikoyan) FC-1 (Super-7).
 
It will need major fuselage changes for jf-17 to fit RD-33N. See the difference.

RD-33N:
Length 5,440 mm (214.17 in)
Max diameter 1,040 mm (40.94 in)

RD-93:
Length 4,230 mm (166.54 in)
Max diameter 1,040 mm (40.94 in)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and lastly here the data from Jane's Aero Engines about the difference between RD-33 and RD-93.
RD-33
Initial production version. Ratings (max dry) 49.4 kN (11,110 lb st), (a/b) 81.4 kN (18,300 lb st).
Powers MiG-29 and MiG-29UB. Deliveries were initiated in 1976, and mass production at Chernyshov
and Omsk followed in 1981. TBO for the RD-33 Series 1 was 300 hours, increased in Series 2 engines
to 1,600 hours and to 2,000 hours in the Series 3.

RD-93
Accessories on underside and other minor changes. Thrust ratings as RD-33. Engine of Chinese (Chengdu/Mikoyan) FC-1 (Super-7).

What are the other details of the Series III besides the TBO of 2,000 hrs?
 
What are the other details of the Series III besides the TBO of 2,000 hrs?
Rest remains the same. Since you are interested in RD-33 I am posting the entire variants here. But that really deserves a thanks:azn:

RD-33
The contract for this important fighter engine was won in competition with two other engine bureaux,
and it was designed before Isotov's death. Detail design began in 1968, meeting the requirements of the
MiG-29, and the first bench run took place in 1972. Development of new versions continues in 1999
under the direction of Chief Designer Valentin Stavroitenko.

RD-33
Initial production version. Ratings (max dry) 49.4 kN (11,110 lb st), (a/b) 81.4 kN (18,300 lb st).
Powers MiG-29 and MiG-29UB. Deliveries were initiated in 1976, and mass production at Chernyshov
and Omsk followed in 1981. TBO for the RD-33 Series 1 was 300 hours, increased in Series 2 engines
to 1,600 hours and to 2,000 hours in the Series 3. Basis for SMR-95

RD-33K
Uprated version, with greater air flow and increased turbine entry temperature; 86.0 kN (19,335 lb st).
Powers MiG-29K and -29M. Special anti-corrosive coatings on all blading.

RD-33N
Klimov designation for SMR-95 (see below). Accessories on underside and modified lubrication
system. Thrust ratings as RD-33. Powers Super Mirage F1 and Super Cheetah D2. Available from
Klimov for MiG-21 upgrades.

RD-93
Accessories on underside and other minor changes. Thrust ratings as RD-33. Engine of Chinese
(Chengdu/Mikoyan) FC-1 (Super-7). Possibly to be produced under licence by LMC (see under China).

RD-133
This is basically an RD-33 to the latest production standard, fitted with KLIVT (Klimov's Vecloring
Thrust) axisymmetric nozzle with vectoring to any position within a cone of 15º semi-angle. Control of
nozzle angle is effected by the conventional hydromechanical flight controls of the MiG-29 by a simple
interlink. The RD-133 is installationally interchangeable with the RD-33, and the nozzle can be
retrofitted to existing RD-33 engines. T-O rating (a/b) 88.25 kN (19,841 lb st), max dry 54.89 kN
(12,346 lb st).

RD-333
Though derived from the RD-33 this is regarded by Klimov as a new `fifth-generation' engine. Features
include a new fan handling 85 kg (187.4 lb)/s, a rebladed compressor, an HP turbine with entry gas
temperature up to 1,527ºC and a rectangular 2-D nozzle vectoring in the vertical plane. Maximum thrust
is to be 98.1 kN (22,057 lb st). Testing complete engines is to start in 1999. The RD-333 is intended for
the LMFI (Light Multirole Fighter), also known as the MiG-35.

RD-43, VKS
Derived from the RD-33, this two-shaft turbofan has been described as a `fourth-generation engine'.
Designed for retrofitting to all versions of MiG-29, it is also to be marketed in an unaugmented version.
The designation VKS stands for Vladimir Klimov, Sarkisov.

SMR-95
This engine is a derivative of the Klimov RD-33 with installational changes to enable it to serve as a common
engine able to power the later versions of the MiG-21, and the Mirage III and 5 and Mirage F1. Features include a
completely new accessory gearbox, on the engine's underside, gas-turbine starter, oxygen injection for automatic
relight under all flight conditions, twin 40-kVA alternators to give greatly increased electrical power,
high-capacity fuel and hydraulic pumps, and an advanced hydromechanical fuel control giving `carefree'
handling. Development began in 1990.

SMR-95A:
The first SMR-95 was configured to fit the Mirage F1.AZ. The accessory drive gearbox is the
AADG-52. No change in aircraft centre of gravity or thrust line was necessary, and only a slight shortening of the
fuselage was needed to match the new and more efficient multiflap nozzle. Flight testing began in mid-1994, and
has been brilliantly successful. The extra thrust transforms flight performance, while the combat radius is
significantly extended by the greatly reduced fuel consumption, reduced engine weight (about 200 kg, 440 lb) and
increase in permissible take-off weight of about 1,000 kg (2,205 lb). Further advantages are better stability during
gunfire and dramatically faster engine acceleration, the time from flight idle to maximum rpm being only 3.5
seconds, with another 2.0 seconds being needed to bring in full afterburner.
Some 70 test flights were made with the re-engined F1.AZ, and the results were outstanding. Overall, radius of
action was increased by 25 per cent, and combat effectiveness increased by factors from 1.2 to 3.0. However, the
final decision was to retire the 30 F1.AZ aircraft and put them up for disposal (the replacement being the Gripen).
This decision remains in 2001, but Marvotech (see separate entry) is conducting a phased flight-test programme in
support of an upgraded F1 initiative which will involve not only the new engine but also a glass cockpit and new
avionics matched to Vympel R-73 missiles. This is seen as applicable to other Mirage F1 users.

SMR-95B:
Flight testing in Super Cheetah D2 (South African Mirage III derivative) began in early 1995. In
this case, the accessory gearbox is the AADG-53. This resulted in even greater improvements, the increase in
permissible take-off weight being approximately 3,000 kg (6,615 lb). Later in 1995 Marvol, Aerosud and Armscor
(the South African defence procurement and marketing agency) collaborated in a contract to upgrade Cheetah
fighters of the SA National Defence Force. By 2001 the Marvotech group was engaged in marketing activities not
only for the Cheetahs - some of which are being retained by the SANDF pending the delivery of Gripens,
postponed from 2002 until 2007 - but also for other users of Mirage 3 and 5 family aircraft. The immediate
prospect is Chile, with the Pantera (Mirage 50).
While flight testing was in progress the SANDF decided to purchase new-generation fighters (Saab/BAE
Gripen) and retire the Dassault aircraft. The SMR-95 project was terminated. However, the improvements
conferred by the Russian engine made the old French aircraft so much better than prediction that in 2000 it was
decided not only to resume testing but also to seek foreign buyers, and Chile at once expressed interest in an
SMR-95 upgrade of the FAC's Panteras (Mirage 50s).
The Klimov designation of the SMR-95 is RD-33N. Compared with previous RD-33 versions, the main
difference is that the accessories are grouped underneath, driven by a tower shaft through the 6 o'clock strut. Less
obvious are a modified lubrication system and altered control inputs to suit the airframe.
These are the first single-engine installations of engines of the RD-33 family. In such applications Klimov had
established TBO at only 150 hours, but in 1994 a slightly modified RD-33 passed a 600-hour test, and following
the introduction of a new combustion chamber the design goal has been raised to 2,000 hours. Moreover, the
SMR-95 is expected to be re-rated at the same level as the RD-33K, of 88 kN (19,335 lb st).

Dimensions
Weight, Dry Similar to Klimov RD-33
Complete power plant 1,225 kg (2,701 lb)
Performance Ratings (S/L)
Max augmented 81.4 kN (18,300 lb st)
Max dry 49.4 kN (11,110 lb st
Specific Fuel Consumption
Max dry thrust 21.66 mg/Ns (0.765 lb/h/lb st)
 
Rest remains the same. Since you are interested in RD-33 I am posting the entire variants here. But that really deserves a thanks:azn:

Thanks indeed. The forum "whatever" could not let me thank you twice. I was looking too and this is what I have found from here: aero vodochody | 2003 | 0874 | Flight Archive . The 20,000 lbs is about the same as the 90kN the Chinese were asking for the RD-93.

bfa102756bb62d3d1cfc94359d521726.jpg
 
^^ than it is perfect!
German luftwaffe tuned the engines in two ways one with less smoke but low life for war one with more smoke and more life for peacetime use.
in any case given TBO of 2000 hrs. is good enough!
 
It will need major fuselage changes for jf-17 to fit RD-33N. See the difference.

RD-33N:
Length 5,440 mm (214.17 in)
Max diameter 1,040 mm (40.94 in)

RD-93:
Length 4,230 mm (166.54 in)
Max diameter 1,040 mm (40.94 in)

MY question was if it is possible to fit RD-93 in mirrages and not fitting RD-33N in JF-17.
Any how considering your stated senario where RD-93 have shorter length than RD-33N, changes has to be made in engine (RD-93) length and not in fuselage of mirage.
Considering higher thrust of RD-33N PAF may consider to order some for its mirrages.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the South African/Israeli used the RD33 on their version of the Mirage.
 
^^^ Please read my previous post

 
Last edited:
MY question was if it is possible to fit RD-93 in mirrages and not fitting RD-33N in JF-17.
Any how considering your stated senario where RD-93 have shorter length than RD-33N, changes has to be made in engine (RD-93) length and not in fuselage of mirage.
Considering higher thrust of RD-33N PAF may consider to order some for its mirrages.
Sorry my bad.. Carefully read all the SMR-95 variants in my earlier post. It was especially produced to power Mirages.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the South African/Israeli used the RD33 on their version of the Mirage.
It was RD33N specially developed for mirage.
RD33 have gear box on top where as mirage required it at bottom same as JF-17.

RD-33
646e835b65db801d4cf2ebfa6cb2f6df.jpg


RD-33N
78091ef208f1cfb9923445a8be96c516.jpg
 
well so do they come as an improved opion for our JF17s.
the russians offered an improved engine with TV to china, however i cannot remember whether it was for FC20 or the JF17!!
in both case, the engine will eventually come to us!

regards!
 
Back
Top Bottom