Why do Soviet and Russian aircraft engines for high-performance

>>34276389
>Why do Soviet and Russian aircraft engines for high-performance aircraft have such a shitty reputation when compared to Western equivalents?
Because they usually get less maintenance.
Next question please.

>>34276389
Doesn't a Russian jet engine have the record for most thrust produced?

>>34276389
technical deficiency

File: slavshit engines.png (172KB, 772x359px)

172KB, 772x359px

Because they're usually dirtier, less reliable, and less durable. In exchange, they're a fair bit cheaper to buy.

>>34276435
Yeah they probably tested those old as mammoth shit german mig29's

>>34276449
These are planned overhaul cycles not test results.

>>34276508
im dissapointed

File: 32n3a02f13[1].jpg (40KB, 400x354px)

40KB, 400x354px

metallurgy.

western engine companies can produce mono crystalline turbine parts. which have superior properties for heat and expansion.

File: res_TurbBlade_ChartLg.jpg (128KB, 679x577px)

128KB, 679x577px

Chart of various alloys used in turbine blade construction.

A good portion of these are American made.

>>34279259
Holy shit!

>>34276432
Record thrust =\= reliability

Reliability builds good reputation, to a point

>>34276389
So I repaired a few exhaust ducts for some Russian jet, and the tolerances are fucking hilariously bad.

Not only where the tolerances basically non existent, but they didn't even require X-ray or penetrant tests.

They claimed it was made from inconel 718, but I can tell you that it definitely wasn't. Inco718 doesn't weld as shitty as that duct did.

So basically:
Shit tolerances
Shit design
Shit materials
Shit QA checks

>>34276432
I thought the most powerful jet engine was the GE90 series on the Boeing 777

>>34281419
>Shit design
Actually.. In many cases it's good design bad construction.

>>34281419
>Shit design
I'd say it's just shit materials and shit execution

>>34281447
>>34281537

Honestly though, the science of turbines is pretty well understood, and can be modelled by powerful computers. The problem is having the materials and the manufacturing processes to realise those designs in a reliable, long service life way. Making blades that don't start deforming outside tolerances after a few hundred hours operating at high power is the hardest part.

>>34276389
Because Slavs were more concerned with meeting performance goals and not serviceability.

Not to mention they've always lagged behind in the blade metallurgy

>>34282152
This

Had a relative in the NVA (east germany) and they had a specific term for this "Gut auf dem Papier" ("Good on paper"), he explained it with that a lot of people were in their positions rather because of their political career or opinion than their performance and people who dont know shit love to have something good on a paper rather than how it actually performance.

>>34276389
Here's the secret.
Russians don't feel bad when they cut corners.

The only way to get something as best as you can is if you trust the people making it to actually try. Russian workers don't. If they had a choice of not doing something and pretending they did, and actually doing it, they'll choose the pretending thing EVERY time. Americans, well you have a 50/50 chance that the worker actually has pride and does their job well even if no one is looking.

And as bad as Eastern Euros are at that type of thinking, the Chinese are 100x worse

>>34281419
None of that is true. The loose tolerances were intentional to simplify maintenance in the field, and materials were chosen based upon what was cheap and plentiful and what would've been easy to produce during a war.

sounds like US made stuff stuff is superior because of the metal construction and the understanding that turbines NEED tight tolerances to be most effective. commie scum gonna scum

>>34282948
>None of that is true
Proceed to explain why it IS true.

>>34282948
its not an AK you twat, provide proof please- i think they just sucked at QC and the understanding of mechanics.

>>34276432
Due to sheer engine size, if you want thrust to weight for the engine look elsewhere.

>>34282928
>The only way to get something as best as you can is if you trust the people making it to actually try. Russian workers don't. If they had a choice of not doing something and pretending they did, and actually doing it, they'll choose the pretending thing EVERY time.

It's funny how this is the case and is widely known to be the case, yet you still have people jerking off over >muh Arsenal AK is so gucci and high quality! Bunch of dumb fucks.

File: 32_4_b2.jpg (334KB, 1300x1810px)

334KB, 1300x1810px

>>34276435
This thing meanwhile was built to a life expectancy of 7.5 hours.

>>34283433
>a fucking DUCK FAGGOT

>>34282948
Mikhail Kalashnikov pls go

>>34282948
That's not how aerospace works you fool.
Jets aren't ak47s

>>34276389
why do ladas have a poor reputation?

>>34282928
True

>>34281445
>comparing turbofans to turbojets
It's like comparing small 4 cylinder turbocharged engines vs wankel engines

>>34276389
Because they have no money to maintain them.

File: 1480605228265.jpg (37KB, 260x476px)

37KB, 260x476px

Free market competition

at least until Lockheeb created a choke-hold monopoly

>>34282928
>the Chinese are 100x worse
someone post that greentext about the steel in china

File: 1469813791577.gif (2MB, 500x314px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x314px

>>34286326

Better yet post chinese webms/gifs

Here we can see the Common Chinese Man-Eating Sidewalk

>>34279539
I don't understand much about metallurgy, but how can they not have that figured out since decades? With the NK33 they built an oxidizer rich staged combustion engine, in the late 60s. If they managed to do something like that how can they fail at producing blades with decent service life?

File: chinese steel.jpg (91KB, 1200x351px)

91KB, 1200x351px

>>34286326
part one of a fucking million

File: chinese steel2.jpg (117KB, 1200x470px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1200x470px

>>34287441

>>34286297
There are three companies doing military aerospace in the US.

Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and Northrop-Grumman.

>>34287225
It's a constantly moving target, because you want to put extreme temperature and stress on engine parts to increase efficiency.

File: chinese steel3.jpg (108KB, 1200x440px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1200x440px

>>34287459

File: chinese steel4.jpg (113KB, 1200x511px)

113KB, 1200x511px

>>34287484

File: chinese steel5.jpg (106KB, 1200x456px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1200x456px

>>34287500

File: chinese steel6.jpg (133KB, 1200x433px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1200x433px

>>34287514

File: chinese steel7.jpg (84KB, 1002x489px)

84KB, 1002x489px

>>34287529

>>34276435
Looks like they don't have the investment needed to produce competitive engines.

File: chinese steel8.jpg (111KB, 1200x417px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1200x417px

>>34287542
fucking finally, last part

File: chinks.png (946KB, 1400x5552px)

946KB, 1400x5552px

Woah hey look, that entire image chain in a single picture.

>>34287618
oh thank fuck, now I can get rid of the individual ones.

>>34279259

Doesn't sound fancy. I guess it is. Mono crystalline does sound like a term they could use in science fiction.

>>34281419
>Uses the term "tolerances" completely wrong.
Fuck off, lie elsewhere.

>>34282882
lol
reminds me of all the autists comparing stats on shit
the SU was run by engineers
the west is run by people whose jobs it is to run shit

>>34286385
this needs to happen to all cell phone users

>>34285808
The dealer (L.A. auto show) suggested I buy two, one for spare parts.It could fit an oil drum in the back.

This did not inspire confidence.

>>34288823
Not that guy but isn't his use correct?
Not an Anglophone myself so I might have misunderstood what he was wrong about, but I've noticed shit tolerances in russian gear when I service russian shit.
>inspect russian turbine
>use calipers to check for abrasion
>some blades look worn beyond acceptable levels
>suddenly find blades thicker than what a new blade is supposed to be
>check unused spare parts
>thickness varies way beyond what is specified in the papers
>ask older guys, get new numbers to check for, way below what is probably safe
>russian engineering
Tolerances on russian stuff is notoriously bad.

>>34285999
Both the most powerful afterburning (Kuznetsov NK-32), and non-afterburning (GE90) engines are both turbofans.

>Turbojets BTFO