Talk:Aviadvigatel PD-14

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Aviadvigatel PD-14. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130731090136/http://www.avid.ru/upload/pages/7234/IB_22A_ENGLISH_gorizont_ECRAN.pdf to http://www.avid.ru/upload/pages/7234/IB_22A_ENGLISH_gorizont_ECRAN.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

PD-35?
I think it's inappropriate to call the PD-35 a derivative. The PD-35 is 77k thrust where the PD-14 is ~30k. They are in different classes entirely. The PD-14 is LEAP-class where the PD-35 is GEnx-class. The PD-35 deserves a separate page. Jetlife2 (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * For now the PD-35 is a paper concept, and while it may be more powerful it's still a scaled-up PD-14, not a new design. It could deserve its own page when it will be completed, at first run for example.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi again. You can't design a 77k engine by scaling a 30k engine. You have to start from scratch. Like an SUV is not a scaled up Miata. But OK it can wait. Jetlife2 (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree more than doubling the thrust does not seem to be straightforward, but the source (not the best one indeed) is "The plan is to scale up the core of the PD-14 engine". The PW4000 ranges between 222 and 441 kN (a 2:1 ratio), the Rolls-Royce Trent family between 240 and 430 kN (1.8:1) and the GE CF6 is 185-310 kN (1.7:1). The CFM LEAP is scaled down from the GEnx, so it would be the other way around. Anyway, WP:NOTFORUM and the PD-35 is nothing more than a concept for now, it doesn't deserve its own page. Certainly not a threat for your company for the foreseeable future :) .--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The LEAP was not scaled from the GEnx, that is my point exactly. It's not possible to design an engine that way when they are that far apart. You can scale about 10% and after that physics will stop you. I was the LEAP program leader and supervised the design. Anyway it's fine, the page can wait. Thanks Jetlife2 (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The Russian Wikipedia seems to contain some information regarding your discussion, particularly that the gas-generator of the PD-14 is to be re-used for the RD-35 (to some extend) and that additional compressor stages will be added. They also write about using carbon and 3D-printing, etc. I'm sure you can get it translated (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%94-35). It does not sound much as "scaling up" to me and they also have some updated info about the project progress and funding. Appears to be going forward, not just a paper-project anymore. But I totally agree with both of you - in the end the PD-35 may/will deserve its own page, but for the moment it's not enough. On the other hand I'm not sure it really is a derivative of the PD-14 as long as we ignore that it has the same origin. Otherwise many products of many manufacturers could be called derivatives of their older products since often designers, philosophy etc. rather evolve than truly change completely. But I think it is better to have the PD-35 mentioned here instead of not having it at all. BTW: Regarding the PD-14 a lot seems to hinge on EASA and FAA acceptance and it would be great if the article could extend on that, particularily what the chances are given the situation.


 * I'll add this link (http://bastion-karpenko.ru/engine-pd-35/) which has a nice graphic about the derivatives, not just the PD-35, but also some intermediate versions. There is also more material, like here (https://naukatehnika.com/plany-superdvigatelya-pd-35.html) which describes new metalurgy related to the project ... and so on. Still probably have to wait a year or two. JB. --92.193.210.70 (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * For now those are mostly paper concepts. Wait for a real first run and coverage by WP:RS news, preferably english-speaking, established aviation media, thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * As I wrote too, we have to wait. Obviously we can only write things in the Wikipedia that are most probably true. I have added the links because they provide interesting details. And no, obviously these projects are not paper projects anymore. If you want to discard any and all sources in the language of the country you intend to write about ... well, in that case you'll just have to wait. But that does not mean that all other people have to follow the same believe, right ? And when not only investments in the order of billions of dollars are confirmed, but also the corresponding order of the ministry is given, then this at least in my opinion is more than just gospel, it is something that can be checked. Anyway, I can wait. It is not important that Wikipedia writes about it, it's important that those engines get made and work well. God speed. JB. --92.195.116.119 (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)