NK-93 - PD-14 - PD-35
Author's articles
Will the PD-14 engine be better than the NK-93?

“PD-14 - engine held. In Perm, the Russian motor for the MC-21 is being prepared for the series and they are starting to create a PD-35 high-thrust engine. According to A.Inozemtsev, the PD-14 project is the most serious for the entire domestic aircraft engine industry. ”

Self-esteem is high, the beginning of the promising - let's hope that it will not befall the fate of the outstanding NK-93, about which the gene. The PD-14 designer unflatteringly replied:

“Apparently, I do not belong to the number of“ competent engine operators, ”because I do not consider the NK-93 project to be innovative, since The methodology and design tools, production technologies of NK-93 production belong to the middle of the 80-s of the last century. Respectfully, General Designer, Member of the editorial board of the journal “Engine” A. A. Inozemtsev

And it seems to be so, but for some reason, the most up-to-date PD-14, however strange it may seem, has not surpassed the “outdated” NK-93 in specific fuel consumption and cannot even put it on equal terms. And to the customer, no matter what time was used in the design of this product, he is interested in the final result: price and fuel consumption!

At the same time, I believe that PD-14 was indeed a success and the calculated characteristics were confirmed, but only in comparison with its older brother PS-90, which has the highest fuel consumption in its class: “As a result, the specific fuel consumption during cruising flight from PD-14 will fall according to preliminary estimates, by 15% compared to existing engines: up to 0,53 – 0,54 kg / (kgf · h) against 0,595 kg / (kgf · h) in PS-90 (RUSSIAN WEAPON).

“During the tests, we evaluated the characteristics and performance of the engine in flight conditions MC-21 - confirmed the reliability of the engine and its systems, the characteristics of the launch in flight in accordance with the requirements of the specification. The engine is currently undergoing overhaul to continue testing at ground stands. ”

The conclusions on PD-14 are patterned, another thing on the NK-93 engine, completely different reviews:

* Vladimir Bychkov, Leading Engineer for Flight Testing, LII named after MM. Gromov:

“When the engine worked in the sky, it was time to be surprised - accidentally the“ human factor ”worked, in one of the modes NK-93 gave traction under 20 tons. And they believed that for a specific sample the 18 limit ... And the pilots wondered - the thrust is one and a half times higher than that of the standard engine (PS-90А) Il-76, and the fuel consumption is one and a half times less. Potential enviable " (Arguments of the Week, 22.06.2011).

*“The screw-fan engine, which has no analogues in its design, showed high performance during the flight tests in 2007. The degree of bypass at the NK-93 is 16,7. The specific fuel consumption according to measurements is at the level of 0,49 kg / kgf / h. ”

Theoretically, the PD-14 in price should be inferior to Samara, as the engine is lower class, but there it was:

* “The cost of NK-93 is about 4.5 mln. USD, similar engines of foreign manufacturers have prices 5 mln. USD and above” (Wikimedia Foundation).

* “A very subtle issue is pricing. The cost of one PD-14 is about six million dollars, and the PW1400G is 5,4 million. Would lessors agree to overpay 1,2 million dollars for a plane with a domestic engine that has the worst performance? It’s not long to wait for an answer to the question: the PD-14 series should have been launched this year. ” ("Military Industrial Courier"). Yes - there is no place more expensive!

“According to Alexander Inozemtsev, the PD-14 engine will be sold for a starting customer with a discount of 15-22% compared to competitors”.

Discount (eng. Discount): "Discount on the list price of goods or services provided by the seller to the consumer" (Wikipedia) It is easier to say corruption will first be paid by the State, and then the customer - where will he go!

Another curious detail!

If the Perm engine is built according to the most up-to-date technologies and assembled from the most modern materials, then it is on 1kg. Its own weight and thrust will produce more than the “outdated” NK-93 engine, respectively.

And so:

* PD-14. - 14 000kgs (thrust): 2870kg (weight dv.) = 4,878 kgf, or on 1kg. dead weight engine PD-14 produces thrust 4,878 kgf.

* NC-93. - 18 000kgs: 3650kg, which is equal to 4.93kg.

And on the test issued a thrust equal to 20 TC, which means:

20 000kgs: 2650kg, which is equal to 5.479 kgf. respectively NK-93 on 1kg. Weights issued traction - 5.479kgs.

Here you have a more "perfect" PD-14, and yet the modified NK-93 will be even easier: “At present, the fans of five experimental engines are equipped with magnesium blades. However, it is supposed to install fans with blades made of epoxy graphitoplastic, with fins of the input edge made of titanium on serial and experimental engines that are planned to be produced in the future. ” (Wikimedia Foundation).

So you believe Professor A.A. Inozemtsev that their PD-14 is built with the latest technology and "is the most serious for the entire domestic aircraft engine building"? In our village, in a similar version, they said: “The ruble swings, but a kick!”

And on the horizon looming project PD-35

“In early January, ODK-Aviadvigatel (Perm) received from the parent United Engine Corporation an order for the production of engine-demonstrator technology (DDT) PD-35, intended for long-haul wide-body aircraft, reports bmpd with reference to the portal Aviation of Russia.

I would be happy, but the trouble is that liberal officials (like liberal designers) who rule Russia today, from small to large, are more interested in financial start and zero responsibility for the final result. It must be assumed that PD-35 will have the same “outstanding” final as PD-14: loud-sounding, but with performance characteristics inferior to foreign analogues, although for Russian engines this will be really progress. And in the price too! In addition, in this engine today there is no that extreme need for the State, which was and is in the NK-93 engine. Why? Yes, because the same IL-96 with 4 engines is much safer in the air than with the 2 PDA-35, and most importantly the HK-93 is almost ready, and today it still remains the best engine in the world, and PD 35 is a distant and unknown future. Its diameter outside is about 4. (18 March 2018, Aviation EXplorer). And if he will not touch the concrete during taxiing and takeoff! At NK-93, the outer diameter of the engine is equal to 3150mm, i.e. it will be almost half a meter higher from the ground than PD-35.

Judging by the amount allocated for the implementation of the PD-35 project, the government has plenty of money and let this project advance, good path for him, but only for the joint project of the Russian-Chinese ShFDMS, and for the IL-96 first of all, Samara is necessary engine!

And more importantly: “NK-93 has patent clearance, does not require licensing for sales both in the domestic and foreign markets. Creating a competitive engine NK-93 will allow the development of domestic aircraft and sell them for export without being tied to a specific Russian aircraft. "

And in parallel, without delay, increase the thrust of the NK-93 to 23,5 tf. for Ruslan airplanes, which today require these engines and there is no sense for him to bother with future PD-35 engines when they are still on paper, and the designers of NK-93 promise to increase the thrust of NK-93 to 23,5 tf without problems. What the output will be PD-35 - this is another question, because earlier and for PD-14 no one doubted that it would be more modern and more economical than NK-93, but in fact - strictly the opposite!

And if we need to build more powerful engines for our planes, then, in my opinion, Samara NK-65, already forgotten, will be preferable to PD-35. Why? PD-35 is scaled PD-14, the basis of the NK-65 engine is taken from the NK-93 propeller-fan group and the gas generator from the unsurpassed NK-32 engine, which stands on the outstanding Tu-160 strategic bomber. Therefore, it will be not only smaller in diameter, but also much lighter than the PD-35 engine with the same thrust.

Weight PD-35 = 8 T. (VPK.name vpk.name ›library / f / pd-35). And if we add the weight of two engines NK-32 and NK-93: 3650 kg + 3650 kg = 7300 kg, i.e. together they already weigh less than 8, but when the gas generator from NK-32 and the screw-fan group from NK-93 are “laid down” separately, then such an engine is unlikely to pull more than 5. and the outer diameter will remain from the NK-93, which is also very important, especially for the IL-96.

About noise NK-93

I watched on Samara television report from the test shop NK-93. A test engineer directly at a running engine tells the journalist, without raising his voice, that “While another engine was running, you would not have heard me, but this engine doesn’t roar, but hiss!”. I testify: it is the "hiss" and I doubt very much that in the PD-14 engine A.A. Inozemtsev can repeat the acoustics of the NK-93?

In conclusion, it should be noted that due to the efforts of “B. Khristenko, Deputy Manturov, Head of Russian Technologies S. Chemezov, General Director of OPK Oboronprom OJSC A. Reus and UAC President M. Pogosyan "(Arguments of the Week, 22.06.2011)" Currently, such aircraft engine schemes are being actively developed abroad . This promises unattainable for modern engines, fuel economy and noiselessness. An example is the promising engine "Rolls-Royce" Leap, already released for flight tests. According to the design scheme, he copies the NC-93. At the beginning of 2000, the NK-93 overtook its time and, therefore, including, obviously, was not supported by the leadership of the domestic aviation industry ”(MIC News).

So the works of these destroyers of our aircraft industry were not in vain, and after their retirement, the West will accept with open gates and will not arrest their unjustly acquired financial fortunes!

Vitaly Belyaev, especially for Avia.pro

It seems to me pointless to compare engines of different classes, different eras and different operational qualities.
Nevertheless, the NK-93 was the last century's bow (with all due respect it was made using old technologies) and did not go into production. And the figures for cost and expenses are taken from nowhere. :-)
It would be better, probably, to take some useful developments from it for new developments, the rest is a waste of time ...
Just an opinion, no more.
I’m not proving anything to anyone.

Lord! I read your comments and didn’t understand anything. If
ps-90a engine worse than nk-93 why not replace it but upgrade it! I’m not a constructor, but I worked in government agencies and I know how to lobby interests).

Yes, our love to lobby projects with which they receive kickbacks, and it turns out that the invention is better for someone who comes out more expensive because there will be more kickback! And after the rollback, another rollback and more, and then he will get his West passport and say: “Lord, I am a citizen of England!”
So it turns out that our inventors do not need the state, but in fact they don’t need a bunch of brainless, greedy reptiles, whom if you check how you checked the OBHSS before then they have cattle - everyone will have a firing squad !!!

Yes, calm down already, Samara mute sweepers, you still TU = 344 return to the masses. Let us improve the past practices, not revive them. After the NK-93 there is no development - upgrade, offer, and do not pair the development of the 80s. PD to be and is already there, and your mythically good NK irrevocably went down in history. Just cry

The article does not mention one parameter that puts an end to NK-93 - noise. It is very loud, like any fan-fan, albeit a hood. In civil aviation, this is a sentence. Only in the military if, but then what's the point of spending money on it, if you can make one move for both the military and ordinary mortals. Yes, and it can not be called ready. In addition, the replacement of PD-14 it can not be any side because of the size and power. But the PD-14 gas generator can easily be used in different versions from 7 to 35 tf. If in doubt, remember D-36 and D-18. Unification is convenient for both operators and manufacturer.

Loud? What kind of nonsense? Why so brazenly lie? Objective data just the same point to the opposite. This is one of the quietest engines. In fact, it is simply fascinating who, and most importantly why, organized this purposeful disinformation campaign NK-93.

He flew on the Ka-27 coaxial and Mi-8T, and so the Ka-27 compared to the Mi-8 and all other single-rotor helicopters, where the rear screw is a buzzer, just a "noiseless" helicopter, and if you put the screws from the Black Shark, then beyond 500 meters you barely hear it))

Already tired of this NK-93. At first he was better than PS-90A. Now he is better than PD-14. 25 years he is the best!

In the memoirs of the shipbuilder Academician Krylov it is clearly stated that the larger the diameter of the propeller, the more efficient the engine. This is due to the fact that the kinetic energy of the gas stream behind the engine is an irretrievable loss. Since energy is proportional to the square of the velocity, it is necessary to have a smaller gas velocity and a lot of gas mass. Therefore. NK-93 engine should be more efficient.

Right! But why then limit the size of NC-93? He's just something 3,15 meter. Make the engine 5 meters in diameter. A better 6. It will be even more effective.

There was such a development as high-frequency transmission, it was tested, everything worked, drove, sailed, flew, energy consumption was more cost / benefit than if you work with hydroelectric power stations, thermal power plants, and the same people as you said: - Why do we need this? In the west there and we do not need!
And so here are the developments and die.

On ekranoplanes it is necessary to put it, there it is the place.

Well? When will they shoot for sabotage? Not targeted use of public money?

How long, I ask? In the Union, they would have made both engines and tools would have found them without problems. It seems that the name of this professor corresponds to his essence. Is it not time to stop his anti-state activities until he caused irreparable damage to the domestic engine-building in favor of the Americans? Where are Putin and the FSB? With such a “specialist” Russia will not make a technological breakthrough. Under Stalin, would have sat - it is at best.

Under Stalin, Korolev and Tupolev all worked out in well-known places. And Sikorsky managed to dump So let's not talk about Stalin

Well, yes, they were located in the building of today's GIPRO NII Aviation industry. In Kazan, exactly opposite the entrance of today's Kazan Motor Plant. They lived there too. By the way, all the beds were single-tier. And Tupolev had a personal room with a bathroom.

And the fact that you are Vladimir is not working as a cleaner for John, somewhere in a run-down concentration camp, do not forget to say thanks to Comrade Stalin

Who cares where they worked if the result was achieved. And remember - slaves can not build, so do not la la about famous places.

All criticism that is directed against the design and "new" aircraft engines imposed by the Russian management is considered by the opponents as anti-patriotic and non-constructive!?! All over the world, it is customary to develop our old air engines by improving and modernizing, and our home-grown managers who have undergone internship in the United States consider that they must forget all their Russian and build a new efficient technology using Western technologies ... And where is the result? Sawed huge budget money and the new PD-14 aircraft engine in terms of fuel consumption loses to the old Russian aircraft engine NK-93 which can simply be digitized and modernized using new materials and it has no equal in the world market in economic efficiency and it has no foreign components maybe this is the case ?? ...

This is the point: "he has no foreign components." How, then, "patriotic ... opponents" grab $ to themselves?

How long has Leap become the Rolls engine? Not to mention the outstanding lies about 20 tons allegedly shown in some kind of flight. What kind of horseradish pilots could measure in flight to state certain figures? And if it is forgotten that in the only real flight, the NK-93, due to the lack of a standard SAU, was equipped with a single-mode SAU from the gas-pumping unit and worked strictly on one, fixed mode and not for long. We took off on three full-time D-30, launched this miracle in the air, gave it a dozen minutes on one fixed mode of the low gas, turned it off and sat down again on three. Congratulations, citizen, lied!

And where do you get such data about the number of real flights, single-mode ACS (gas pumping), about launching in air and low gas?
Vladimir Bychkov is me.
I tell:
-The flights were 4, including the 1 flight for entering LL;
- in part 20 tons in flight, and even pilots - of course fiction. But the 20 tons engine showed not in flight, but in a land race. Traction is determined by depending on the fan speed;
- single-mode ACS - what is it? There was a normal ACS that they say FADEC. It is not native, but adapted from NK-31. Native did not happen. But there is no difference whatsoever;
They took off on 4-x engines! Because of fears to drive the engine on an uncleaned taxiing before the start, NK-93 was launched during the taxiing process. He took off on 0.4 mode. He recalled - far from MG, 20 minutes buzzed, then on MG and stopped through feathering. These are quite normal modes for test flight, where they go from simple to complex. And starting the engine in the air for such an engine, and even on the first flights, is a big risk.
So, that inaccuracies are present at you too.

The author of the article modestly kept silent about the resource of the engine PD-14, which several times exceeds the resource of NK-93. But in general, it is clear that a custom article, I would even say provocative, aimed at forming discontent among the population and forming a protest movement in Russia.

What resources are we talking about? Resources are assigned after the endurance tests of single specimens controlled by operation on a batch of operating facilities, based on the results of normal operation of serial samples. All this takes time. And where is the operation of existing samples? Engines have worked out "without a week for two hours" - "more resource!" ??? You can declare anything, and there "either the donkey will die, or the padish will die!"

On the resource of the engine, of course. Hours before overhaul.
Kuznetsovtsy have a good school of creating engines for military aircraft. Well, they squeezed the superbag, well, their engine worked for some minutes at elevated temperatures in the hot part, and the total resource of all Russian military engines is always an order of magnitude less.

Of course, the 14 PD copied and devoid of “childhood” diseases at the production stage is somewhat larger than NK-93, but if the latter, even without the usual adjustment to factory production, gives less fuel consumption indicators than PD-14, and the power gives more than the declared , here, comments as they say are superfluous ...

Tell me please. The diameter of the fan NK-93 - 2,9 meter. The diameter of the fan PD-14 - 1,9 meter. That is, along with the gondolas, the difference will be about the same 1 meter. Now the question. How can NK-93 be placed on MS-21 or Tu-214 so that it does not cling to the ground? Top wing? How do you imagine that?

NK-93 has nothing to do with MC-21. Under the NK-93 planned projects Tu-330 and IL-106. In the future, there were plans to install the IL-96.

Judging by the latest publications in the private Russian media in the aviation industry of Russia, the same thing happens as the "best" capitalist economies of the world ... Namely, money from the budget is successfully developed for the development and implementation of "absolutely" new aircraft engines, when everything new is absolutely forgotten old ... Why spend a lot of money on the development of new aircraft engines from scratch when it is possible to convert the old best ones to numbers, thus increasing their economic efficiency .. Here is an example of a completely "new" designed by Western av models The PD-14 engine and the old NK-93 engine with the best characteristics ... I understand that the Perm plant has protection in the government, therefore they made the PD-14, drawing back huge money from the budget for the design and production of this aircraft engine and the Samara plant does not have a roof in but there are good proven economical engines in the government, for example NK-93, which do not want to develop the lobby in the Perm factory in the government ... What the Russian government is waiting for in this matter is not clear ... We need to use the capabilities of the Samara factory Yes, and allocate funds for digitizing at least the finished proven NK-93 and everywhere where it is possible to recommend for use in new, at least military transport aircraft ...

The government correctly says a lot of money, so it is not very capable of thinking. A billion to the left, then again to the left - if we come up with a new tax, or simply increase the fees. I propose that those who do not know how to properly spend should move away from squandering public money, and the president is responsible for this. And to be honest, if there are two options, the government or the KLA should finance two projects, and then the customers will choose which is more profitable. And it has always been and always will be: "What son is nicer than that and poppy for more satisfying."

Relax and stop arguing. The NK-93 engine will never be created. The Samara Design Bureau and the associated motor-building plants have long been incapable of reproducing it. KB collapsed, factories in Samara and Kazan on the last legs. Production and design technologies have been lost and cannot be restored. Of the 3000 specialists of the Samara design bureau in the 80s, no more than 300 now remains. What can they do? Factories hardly repair 60-80 development engines and are not able to make a new engine without problems and defects (NK-36CT and NK-38CT are well-known examples of the disastrous quality of these plants). Therefore, NK-93 now exists only as a great idea. And for any money it is no longer possible to reproduce it. And the Perm engines (the entire D30 range - D30 2ser, D30-KP for IL-76, D30-KU for TU-154М and especially PS-90) have always been famous for their weak design and mediocre reliability. This is a disease of the Perm school of aircraft engine building. I think with PD-14 the situation will not change. And the mediocre characteristics of this engine will be covered with corruption and propaganda.

Though someone knows the truth: (

Attempt to pull an owl on the globe.
The NK-93 bandura can be inserted only on the same IL-76 or IL-96, it will not fit on the same MC-21.
Who needs it?
We were pleased with the inserts about the comments of some pilots about the superiority of NK over PS-90A.
Given the fact that the IL-76 LL on which he was tested are DK30 KP.
Gas generator from NK-32 to civilian engine ??? Well, well)) Cost effective)
About the fact that it is safe to fly on 4 engines instead of two, tell Boeing and Airbus.
These snot about the "outstanding" engine, which "Putin specifically did not show" to stretch for many years.

In fact, the project is interesting, subject to the investment of a lot of money, perhaps even promising.

What to tell Boeing and Airbus?
They have all the major long-haul with 4-i engines.

There used to be. In the 90-x, they quickly began to crowd out the 2-x motor liners. 767, 777, 787, 330, 350. Four-motor on the fingers, and those of this size, under which there is no engine of the desired power, to put 2. Now new widebody with 4 engines are bought only in extreme cases.

MC-21 has already flown to Iran.) NK-93 is a relative of NK-12, the designer is there, not managers. RF needs engines on the same AN-124, wide-body long-haul aircraft!

there will be an nk-93 engine, it is possible to upgrade the ms-21 to the top plane. (ms-21)

The old song, each designer, to the detriment of the country, is trying to promote his child, or maybe someone is financially interested. Requires a commission and a thorough investigation.

In the Soviet Union, I think, both projects would be implemented, which would contribute to the breakthrough development of domestic aviation. And this current rat race is akin to elementary sabotage of irresponsible officials for the benefit of foreign competitors. And no one will bear any responsibility for the harm caused to the prestige of the national avivtsii. Yes, today's Russia is, unfortunately, not the USSR: the scales are not the same, and the contingent is not the same.

Incorrect comparisons at every step. The diameter of the NK-93 over 3 is compared with the more powerful almost 2 times PD-35 - type 4, and PD-14 has just 2 with more than a meter ... and so on in every phrase. Some custom article ...

And again, false statements about the cost of PW1400 and the cost of PD-14, having roots, by the way, back in the 2012 year are thoughtlessly copied. The total cost of PD-14 was never called, and the cost of PW1400G, as well as its competitor LEAP-1, is at least 12-15 $ million, and not 5.

I agree! somehow cf6-80 on 767 pinched us at all is not new and there were 6 million dollars on the invoice

Dear Gregory!
Firstly, PD-14 is not in the series; it is only at the “finish line” to the series and I am afraid that the series will be even worse. Also praised the plane SSZH-100 overflow issue, but today it is not needed by anyone; they also praised the Mi-28H, and it turned out to be the most emergency helicopter, not considering its unimportant maneuverability in comparison with the KA-50.
And secondly, here my conversations about the IL-96 relate to the engines NK-93 and PD-35 and the grandmothers galosh here really nothing to do with!
Finally, take a closer look at the diagram, and there in the rightmost column you can see about PD-14 with 18 ™. for IL-96, but beats. fuel consumption will be less than the 10-15%, and only on the 3-5%. - this is again in comparison with PS-90А.

Guest: "To talk about NK-93 as a competitor to PD-14 is stupidity and stupidity."

And besides you, no one puts these engines into competitors. We are talking about the economic return of PD-14, as a super-modern engine. Previously, it was compared with PS-90, and I compared it with NK-93. And the flight speed you stuck out of place here, for it will be the same for them. Or do you think that PD-14 will carry planes in supersonic?
In diameter: 4-meter PD-35 is planned for IL-96, though two instead of four, apparently because NK-93 has a large diameter in 3.

The first time I forgot to enter the name, alas.
"Will it be better?" - the question is about competition, is it worth wagging?
To compare the project and the engine, ready to production, on economic return - perfectly well.
Cruising (optimal) speed, even in the same type of engine can be very different if you did not know. And in this case, the engines of different types. To think out for the interlocutor is not necessary, it is completely superfluous.
PD-14 was developed for MC-21, what have the IL-96 to explain?

Yes ... Talk about the cost of mass production of an engine that exists in one (!) Instance - truly epic.

Again, they scratched the subject ... The NK-93 engine did not pass a single (!) Test phase. Almost all given parameters are calculated. The diameter of the motor is 3 meter ... PD-14 - 2,1 meter. There is simply no place to stick it on the low plane - there will be a scrape on the ground. In terms of fuel consumption and load, the question of which modes are these parameters achieved. About this - not a word. Fuel consumption is given per hour ... And how much distance will be covered in this hour? Roughly - an engine with high fuel consumption but more speed may be more economical than an engine that spends less fuel, but also develops a much lower speed.
And besides the above, PD-14 has been tested and is ready for mass production. Characteristics confirmed repeatedly.
NK-93 - not a single valid instance, not a single test stage has been completed, the characteristics have not been confirmed, no one is ready to produce it, many planes cannot be delivered at all due to large dimensions. At the moment, the engine is "paper". That is, it is on paper, but in reality it is not. The idea of ​​such an engine is not unpromising, but in fact now there is no such engine, it must actually be developed anew. And this is at least 5-8 years of work. And faster than anything. Talking about NK-93 as a competitor to PD-14 is stupidity and stupidity.

The comparisons are completely wrong with the Guest. Both here and there, the refinement of the engines to the operating state is great, all this raw material. It is not necessary to compare with respect to anything, but to give the opportunity to bring both NK-93 and PD-14 to standard. Unfortunately, the junta Manturovsko-Pogasyanovskaya only harms the cause. Tov. Stalin would quickly stop this wrecking.

PD-14 is almost ready, NK-93 must be done anew. NK-93 would like to bring up to standard, but even so, work on various aircraft engines is more than enough (the resumption of production of NK-32 for Tu-160, TV7-117 for IL-112В and Il-114-300, VK-800 for light helicopters and to localize the production of L-410, which we plan to produce in our company, the second stage engine for Su-57), at least something to launch into the series first. About sabotage you know better.

The guest is cunning ... It was made 10 (ten) aircraft engines PC-93 and this model of the engine passed all ground bench tests with confirmation of all technical characteristics and one engine passed flight tests on the Il-76 aircraft and confirmed all the declared parameters .. This "unpromising" engine (NK-93) is currently trying to replicate in the west ...