I wonder why such a promising project has been killed. Better performance than Western equivalents at half the price? How could it possibly not find customers? India, China, anyone?
niiiiiiice. i love this plane, it achieves tremendous lift by directing propwash from those beasts of engines straight onto the wings.. a quite obvious concept really, why hasn't anyone else tried this??
Noise the fast spinning blades moving past one another. The GE experimental engine had this very same problem excess cabin noise. Turboprops though quite efficient move less volume of air as compared to turbofan engines which can spin at a much higher rate. This is somewhat Antey22 explained earlier. A turbofan in its casings spin much faster without causing too much fan tip disturbances when the blades move faster than sound.
@nanchoengineering A prop whose blades move faster than the speed of sound will be less efficient and create a hell of a lot of noise. Think of a bull whip that crack is infact a shockwave!
Most plane manufacturers will be tempted to stick two turbofans on instead of the four turboprops. Meaning less maintenance costs and lesser components. There are so many pros and cons of either very difficult to list them here but hope it helps.
@narlzp: Russia's OTHER turboprop, the TU-95, it's blades ARE supersonic at the tips, Mach 1.08, making it, by far, the noisiest, and fastest production turboprop ever. 17.5 ft diameter at 750RPM = 687mph at the blade tips!!! The fastest experiemental turboprop was the Boeing XB-47D. They converted two B-47B models from six turbojets to two turboprops and two turbojets. Top speed was 598mph. USAF lost interest especially with the B-52 (BUFF) coming on line.
Because these are contra-rotating propellers (better efficiency than conventional ones) and also fast rotating - had they been longer, the end of blades would have gone supersonic and cause problems.
Anyway, it was brilliant design but dropped to early in prototyping stages and under unfavourable circumstances.
Impressive aircraft, built with same specifiactions as the A400m but the result is better and first flight 10 years before the A400m....Was a better choice for europe as the A400m...but politics take another choice...
i think the sound that this plane makes alone would be a pretty effective psychological weapon, especially if the ukrainian air force has a team of highly trained special ops assassins on board
Specifications Ukrainian AN-70: Capacity: 47,000 kg, 300 troops Length: 40.7 m Max takeoff weight: 145,000 kg Powerplant: 4: 10,350 kW each ***** Specifications A400M: Capacity: 37,000 kg, 116 troops Length: 45.1 m Max takeoff weight: 141,000 kg Powerplant: 4: 8,250 kW each The AN-70 is better.
@MingGuoLi I think the takeoff's so short because the plane was empty and with low amount of fuel on board, just for a demo flight. The roll would be longer if the plane was fully loaded.
I love the noise those props make, I hope this project will be a success for Antonov, they make very good transport aircraft.
viteksin 1 week ago
Great video and a great plane :) It sounds like a sports car going through a tunnel :)
shashair 1 month ago
BLADEZ! RAROZ SHARP!
ultragaming1993 2 months ago
That sounds insane
FPVsean 3 months ago
I wonder why such a promising project has been killed. Better performance than Western equivalents at half the price? How could it possibly not find customers? India, China, anyone?
r8wing 4 months ago
@r8wing If money's no object, i'll buy one! I'll make it my own personal aircraft :)
TheOz91 2 weeks ago
Propfan
sergtex 4 months ago
very powerfull
ololoshenkilolo 8 months ago
dual props wow!
Alsmaku 9 months ago
Russian always make freak airplane!
vandeso 9 months ago
When do we get to see it crash at an airshow?
ruger2275 10 months ago
OMG
offmessy 1 year ago
A little bit like AN-124 fitted with 4 turboprops but anyway,nice video!
Ch3at3rN00b 1 year ago
@Ch3at3rN00b
Umm,correction!
Contra-rotating turboprop!!
Is it correct??
Ch3at3rN00b 1 year ago
@Ch3at3rN00b
Nope :) PropFan Engines. Not Turboprop.
AIRdomination 1 year ago
niiiiiiice. i love this plane, it achieves tremendous lift by directing propwash from those beasts of engines straight onto the wings.. a quite obvious concept really, why hasn't anyone else tried this??
nanchoengineering 1 year ago
@nanchoengineering
Noise the fast spinning blades moving past one another. The GE experimental engine had this very same problem excess cabin noise. Turboprops though quite efficient move less volume of air as compared to turbofan engines which can spin at a much higher rate. This is somewhat Antey22 explained earlier. A turbofan in its casings spin much faster without causing too much fan tip disturbances when the blades move faster than sound.
narlzp 10 months ago
@nanchoengineering A prop whose blades move faster than the speed of sound will be less efficient and create a hell of a lot of noise. Think of a bull whip that crack is infact a shockwave!
Most plane manufacturers will be tempted to stick two turbofans on instead of the four turboprops. Meaning less maintenance costs and lesser components. There are so many pros and cons of either very difficult to list them here but hope it helps.
narlzp 10 months ago
@narlzp: Russia's OTHER turboprop, the TU-95, it's blades ARE supersonic at the tips, Mach 1.08, making it, by far, the noisiest, and fastest production turboprop ever. 17.5 ft diameter at 750RPM = 687mph at the blade tips!!! The fastest experiemental turboprop was the Boeing XB-47D. They converted two B-47B models from six turbojets to two turboprops and two turbojets. Top speed was 598mph. USAF lost interest especially with the B-52 (BUFF) coming on line.
SSD99 3 months ago
@SSD99 tu-95 only two is in service
principal its tu-160 totally modernised in 2006
su-25sm
su-25sm3
and su-34 in bomber category
but in us army b1nb its fail but have problem with auto-security protection
TATARSTAN59500 4 days ago
@SSD99 mig-skat probably in coming in special escadron in 2014
TATARSTAN59500 4 days ago
us army prefer simply a-10
time of big bomber aircraft is finish no like ww2 b-29 lancaster and other
TATARSTAN59500 4 days ago
@SSD99 look f-35 devlepoment and f-22 is for bomber work too
like future pak-fa and eurofigter and many other
TATARSTAN59500 4 days ago
propfan
Eduarquitects 1 year ago
why are the props so small? btw. they look like a bunch of brushes... :D
22fret 1 year ago
@22fret
Because these are contra-rotating propellers (better efficiency than conventional ones) and also fast rotating - had they been longer, the end of blades would have gone supersonic and cause problems.
Anyway, it was brilliant design but dropped to early in prototyping stages and under unfavourable circumstances.
AnteyPL 11 months ago
Nice! It's like a modern version of the AN-22
zedextreme8177 1 year ago
Amazing STOL
peibol6 1 year ago
Wow those engines has alot of power, man it just took of after 400 meters man!! Thats just amazing!
MrYoyi96 1 year ago
Impressive aircraft, built with same specifiactions as the A400m but the result is better and first flight 10 years before the A400m....Was a better choice for europe as the A400m...but politics take another choice...
oiseautempete 1 year ago
i think the sound that this plane makes alone would be a pretty effective psychological weapon, especially if the ukrainian air force has a team of highly trained special ops assassins on board
amtrak101 1 year ago
I love the noise those props make, I hope this project will be a success for Antonov, they make very good transport aircraft.
OttoCarryUs 2 years ago
VR225 2 years ago 2
Dang! That was a takeoff roll of 400m?
Do you think adding jet engines, say D-18Ts, would allow it to compete with the C-17 (77 tonnes + STOL.)?
MingGuoLi 2 years ago
@MingGuoLi I don't know the wings can take the weight of that D18T engines.
43447 1 year ago
@MingGuoLi I think the takeoff's so short because the plane was empty and with low amount of fuel on board, just for a demo flight. The roll would be longer if the plane was fully loaded.
ta666ak666 1 year ago