Created: 3/1/1986

OCR scan of the original document, errors are possible


T] ft Intelligence


The Condor A: New Soviet Heavy Transport

A Technical Intelligence Report


Warning Notice

or Methods involved (WN INTEL)

Securily Information

Disclosure Subjectriminal Sanctions

Disaeainatle* Control

releasable to foreign nationals

relrauble to wliactooorcemtractce/eoritiiltanti

information involved

and caliacitan Of information controlled by originator

information hat been authonicrf for rrleate to...

INTEL-Intelligence icurcet or methods rmol-ed

microfiche copy of thisit available from OCR/ OLB(JS|.ll7Ji. printed copies from CPAS/IMCegular receipteportt in either microfiche or printed form can aKo he arranged through CPAS/IMC


Declaisify; OAOR

Derived from multiple sourer.

material un thitnclassified.

The Condor A: New Soviet Heavy Transport


The Condor A: New Soviet Heavy Transport


Irjormnlton available

asofSsed i* this report

Antonoveavy transport (see figure I) will significantly improve Soviet capabilities to deploy and supply forces rapidly outside (he USSR. Its range and payload are much superior to those of the current Soviet heavy-lift military transport, theock, and are somewhat superior to those of the ieeith Cock. Condor has nearly twice the payload and greater range. Range-payload performance of Condor andJarc almost identical for intermediate payloads. although Condorreater maximum payloadonger range with relatively light payloads

Like Cock. Condor will be able to carry almost all types of vehicles and equipment used by Soviet ground forces. Condor's larger size will allow the Soviets to use fewer aircraft toomparable payload to its destination. For example, an entire Soviet airborne battalion could be carried by four Condors; the same load would require at leastocks. While carrying this load, the four Condors orocks could fly nonstopilometers.

With its maximum payloadetric tons, Condor can fly from Moscow to Kabul,istanceilometers.ayload ofetric tons, Condor can fly nonstop from Tashkent. USSR, to Hanoi without overflying0ondor can carryetric tons nonstop from Budapest to Luanda.0r overetric tons nonstop from Moscow to0ondor's great range makes alternative flight routes feasible if countries along the direct flight routes deny the Soviets overflight permission.

8 and probably will supplement, and eventually replace, the existing fleet ofock transports in the heavy transport role. Our estimates of Soviet military requirements and production capabilities suggest the Soviets will have aboutondors deployed5



The Condor A: New Soviet Heavy Transport


figurei the Air StandardizationCommittee codename for theeavy irHlitary transport roughly equivalent in sire and capability to thealaxy (figuretby the Amonov design bureau, which also designed the current Soviet heavy transport, ihe ANock, and theub medium tactical inns port.hows weipM comparisons of Condor. Cock, andB.

According to public Soviet

statements, however, (he first flightondor prototype look place onhe prolonged prototype construction phase probablyesult of substantial delays in Soviet efforts toarge high-bypass-ratio turbofan engine to power Condor

The first Condor prototype^


displayed publicly in the Wesi in May and Juneat the Paris Air Show

Our analysis of Condor is derived frombased on mformaiioo from severalgreat deal of information was obtained duringdisplayondor prototype athow. Extensive photography of (hearge amount of information aboutprovided by the Soviets was of 1

sc'-'n production could begin within

and that


Full-widlh visor-lype nose cargo doorull-width rear cargo door.

Kneeling capability both for the main landing gear and for the nose gear.


For Condor's airframe, we believe (he extent ofof ideas was limited to generaland some design details,

Technology TransferVsipn Tcchnnloev

Although not smelly technology transfer, theof design featuresomparablethis case, thesaved ibe Soviets some time and effort during the design process. The level of research and development effort probably could be reduced by studying an effective, proven design and modifying it to suit (heir own needs. Furthermore, theight have been ablemprove (he design in some areas with knowledge gained by observingyears of testing and operations of.

Engine Technology

Although the United States has used large high-bypass-ratio engines operationally since ihe, (he Soviets have been unable lo develop such an engine unlil recently/"-

Condor's conaiiOn closely parallels thai of. and ihc Sovicis probablyumber of lesser design features as well. Major similarities between the two aircraft include:

High-mounted swept wing having nearly identical flap and slat configurations and having comparable spoiler arrangements.

Four turbofan engines mounted on pylons under (he wings.

Two-deck fuselage anangemcnt,arge tower cargo deckmaller upper passenger/crew deck.

_sources, such as

NASA reports and international conferences, were almost certainly used by the Soviets during theof. We believe lhat the design and development ofould have been helped considerably by using these sources.



Description and Special Features. General.hows Ihe general arrangement of tbcircraft. Theboth size and generalCondor andre illustrated in figureumber of differences in deiail can be seen, the only observed major externalbetween the designs of Condor andte the tail geometry and the landing gear configuration. As shown inndhe horizontal tail of Condor is fuselage mounted, whileail.hows ihc differencestrui main landing gear arrangement andiire. four-strut configuration

In terms of aerodynamics. Condor andre essentially comparable. The wing planform area of Condor isquare meters. Thisercent greater than that of. The

Figure 6

Three-View Drawing of Condor


wing leading edge sweep of Condor is aboutegrees, compared to aboutegrees for. The ihickness-io-chord ratio of Condor's wing also appears to be somewhat greater than that of. The high-liftto change the shape and characteristics of the wing for optimum takeoff and landingnearly identical to those of. Condor's high-lift devices include trailing


Overhead Comparison of Configuration Similarities of Condor and


edge single-slotted Fowlerverf the span and full-span leading edge slats.

Condor is also fitted withpoiler segments onsurface of eachegments in all).segments are slightly different inthose of. but the two arrangementsthe same. Condor'snboardused for lift dumping to reduce theand possibly as airbrakes for descentas well. Tbc eight outboard spoilerused in concert with Ihe splitlo provide roll control power. The rudderare also split into two segments, likeThe two-segment control surfaces probablyredundancy and reliability, giving the aircraft fail-operative control system should one orsystems fail

Figure 8

Condor andain Landing Gear Arrangement

AN- HiCdui

^Connor's wing uses aAnalysis of photography of Condor's

wing taken at the Paris Air Show suggests thating isupercritical design because features characteristic of typical supercritical sections arc not evident. Second. Condor's cruise speed, as claimed by thelose to that of. We wouldsupercritical Condor" to flyruise speed distinctly higher than that of. Third, the useupercritical airfoil wouldguarantee some publicity by ihe Soviets aboutelatively advanced feature. No such publicity has been noted. The advantage ofupercritical section isigher cruise speed can be achieved without decreasing the wing thickness ratio orthe wing sweep. Alternatively, one canthe wing thickness ratio or decrease the wing sweep without sacrificing cruisehicker wing has more internal volume for fuel and wouldighter wing,hicker wing is more efficient structurally. Decreasing the wing sweep would also save weight

plain trailing edge flapdeflocit downward to Inoraic lilt,o-lci flap motet all and deflectso-kr flap isore effectivelain (lap

Condor was designedisor-type nose cargo door and ramp (Osureimilar in principle to that on. Condor is the firs) Soviet aircraft so equipped. The nose cargo door permits more rapid vehicle and cargo loading and unloading. The "drive-through" capability allows vehicles to enter and exit the aircraft through the nose and tail. Similarly, the nose and tail cargo doors allow cargo to be loaded or unloaded from both ends simultaneously. The front and rear ramps are the same width as the main cargo floor. Figuresndhow how the cargo doors and ramps Operate.


more, we believe that this is little or no disadvantage for what istrategic, not tactical, air-lifter. There is very little needeavy airdrop capability in Condor, because any cargo or vehicle light enough to be airdropped could be dropped by tactical transports such as theub and lL-7fj Candid. By comparison to these smaller transports. Condor wouldore vulnerable and moretargetrop rone.

We do not believe that heavy platform-mounted cargoilograms and over, or vehicles can be airdropped through Condor's rear cargo doors using the conventional method of floor- and ramp-mounted rollers. This is because the aft pressure bulkhead, which doubles as the second section of the cargo ramp, appears to be permanently attached to the first ramp section at the hinge line (see. It is highly unlikely that the ramp can fully unfold in flight, thus the pressure bulkhead is an immobile obstacle preventing the use of the ramp for dropping hciivy cargo V

which is described below in the sectione base this belief on our assessment that, for airdrop purposes, thefloor roller method would require less special equipment, would deploy payloads more reliably, and would be easier and safer to use, and thus would be the preferred methodeavy airdrop capability were desired. We conclude that airdrop of heavy equipment and vehicles wasesign requirement for Condor. Should the need arise, paratroopers and light cargo bundles, up tog. probably could be dropped through Condor's rear cargo doors.


the presence of the nose cargo door complicates the installationeceiver probe. This is because the

is possible, but not probable, that Condor was designed io be able io airdrop heavy cargo by using the cargo bay's rail-mounted overhead crane system.

* Thec of aerial refueling, ihe bourn-receptacle recttuJ. it nui uteeJ ai all b> the Soticu. The Eioom.rcc:[tiic!c

me'.MJ 'he .imfljul rnelliOuec 'jirCrifl. inclmlin-.

ihcC-? i

must be placedocation that willwith the ground operation of the noseaddition, the receiver probe should be easilyboth pilots and should be close enough tothat judging distances between the probeis not difficult. Thus, placing the probethe nose visor probably would makehookups very difficult. In any case, theof an aircraft as large as Condorhinder probe-drogue

Internal Arrangemeni. Figurehows the internal arrangement of Condor. Condor was designedouble-lobed fuselage cross seetion.rjl^ his design resultsarge, low-to-the-ground main deck for cargo or troops in the lower lobe of ihe fuselagemaller deck for the flightcrew and troops in the upper lobe. Two folding access ladders, one forward and one afl. provide access between Condor's cargo deck and the upper deck

The upper deck is Splitorward and an aft section by the wing carry-through structure. The forward upper deck area includes the cockpit and spacerew rest area and passenger seatselief crew, couriers, VIPs, or troops. The aftmost area of the forward upper deck probably houses the aircraft's air-conditioning and pcessurization systems. Figurepassenger layout, based on the space available, for ihe forward upper deck. In ihi.rew rest area was not fitted in order to til more passenger scats.

The aft upper deck, which would not be used to carry cargo, provides enoueh space lo carryoroops. Figurepassengerfor the afl upper deck. There is no direct access between the forward and aft upper decks, except possibly for an cmcreencv "inncl through the wing carry-through area.

As shown Inhe cargo bay is5 meters long (not counting theeters wide,eterselatively light cargo load probably can be carried on the inboard portions of the loading ramps, which would slightly increase the usable length of the cargo bay. For cargo loading and positioning,kg-capacity overheadcranes are mounted transversely on two overhead rails and can travel the length of the cargoEach crane hasg-capacity electric hoists. ,

The cargo floor of the aircraft displayed at the Paris Air Show did notoller system for loading cargo. With the overhead cranes installed, the lackloor roller system probably isignificant limitation. The entire cargo floor and the inboard sections of the loading ramps reportedly can be fitted with removable tiedown fittings for securing cargo.

Compared with Cock, Condor's cargo deck ishird4 meters) and nearly half again as4he height of the cargo bays is nominally the same for the two aircraft, although Cock's curved cargo bay ceiling actuallylightly higher peak height. Cock hasingle deck- however, and reportedly carries onlyassengers outside the cargo bay

Although Cock already can carry almost all types of equipment used tn the Soviet ground forces, the much larger Condor will be able to carry more equipment per sortie.eiric-ton maximum payload permits Condor to carry up to three Soviei main battle tanks such ashe great width of the cargo deck permits turo-abreast loading of vehicles less thaneters wide, which includes most trucks and towed artillery and some light-armored vehicles. Thisignificant advantage over the

which cannot load vehicles two abreast unless they arc less thanetersleep sized. Jeeps or other vehicles less thaneters wide could be cairied three abreast oncargo deck. Such dense loadings help ensureelatively heavy payload can be loadedondor before running out of space on the cargo deck The troop seats on Condor's aft upper deck allow the vehicle crews to accompany their vehicle

The upper and lower decks are pressurizedand the access hatches between the two decks are equipped with pressure seals. Soviei statements indicate that the differential pressure Is5 atmosphere on the uppci deck andn the cargo deck. At nominal cruise altitudes ofoilometers, the cabin altitude would be

equivalent loeters on the upper deck andeters on the cargo deck. The cargo deck can also be left unprcs-surized. '

Although the upper deck pressurization is comparable to thai of. the cargo deck pressun/.ation is much lower. An advantage of ihe lower pressure is lhat the structural weight of the fuselage can be reducedecond advantage is that less engine bleed air is required for pressurization,in lower engine specific fuel consumption.

disadvantage of the low cargo deck pressurization level is that it resultselatively high equivalent cabin attitude, making it impractical to carry troops on the cargo deck. The high equivalent cabin altitude resultsery low oxygen content in the cabin air that would cause adverse physiological effects to passengers1 on the cargo deck. These debilitating (but not fatal) physiological effects could be eliminated by flyingower altitude, but the range of the aircraft would suffer accordingly. Alternatively, iheon the cargo deck could be supplied with oxygen bottles and masks. The passengers on the cargo deck also might have lo wear cold-weather gear, depending on the design specifications and capabilities ofenvironmental control system. We have noabout such specific?lions

Wc believe the low cargo deck pressurizationthat Condor was not intended to carry troops on this deck in normal operations. We do not consider this toajor limitation, however, since as many asroops can be carried on the upper deck.argo bay the size of Condor's is so uniquely valuable for transporting vehicles and heavy equipment that wc would not expect it lo be used to carry troops except in unusual circumstances. If only troops and personal equipment were to be carried, ihe Soviets would find it less extravagant to use any of Iher more medium- and long-range(including airliners) in Military Transport(VTA) and Acroflol.

' Tiooptlima ted lo high altitude! (at ditlinci (turn troops that ate merely physically fit) would tuflcr little or no id.eite ellecit Hi'i-evf i. Ircopsre. this description "OukJ be uncommon. IC Nil

In the unlikely event lhat the Soviets decide to carry troops on both decks, palletized troop scats could be fittedroops on the cargo deck, depending on how tightly the Soviets arc willing to pack their troops. With troops on both decks,troop capacity would beroops.

Landing Gear. The main landing gear of Condoronsists ofheels ontruts. Five struts, with two wheels per strut, are mounted in tandem on each side of the fuselage.iylc main landing gear arrangement is superior for operations from soft fields or light-duty runways because of its softerondor's gearmay be somewhat lighter and more

The wheels on the first (front) main gear strut on each side are believed to be steerabte to facilitate ground handling. The wheels on the fifth (rear) main gear strut are castered; that is, (hey will swivel to trail the forward wheels during ground turns. The Soviets claim that Condor, like, can be turnedegreesfoot-wide)We believe this claim is accurate.

lite nose landing gearonsists of two struts side by side, with two wheels per strut. The Soviets claimed (he unusual (wo-sirui arrangemeni was lighteringle strut having four wheels such asas. The wheels on boih nose struts arc sieerableegrees left or right for ground

Condor's landing gear is able lo "kneel" much like thai of. The height of Condor's kneeling landing gear can be reduced while ihe aircraft is on (he ground lo bring the belly of the aircraft lower to ihe ground This decreases ibe angle between ihe loading ramps and the ground and makes i( easier to load unusually long or bulky cargo or vehicles The iandins gear reportedly is able to kneel and rise when Condor Is carrying its maximum payload and an unspecified fuel load. Thus Condor probably can kneel and riseross weight of atetric tons (loaded with its maximum payload but no fuel! and possibly as muchetric tons, itstakeoff weight.

Figuresad II illustrate ho* Condors landing gear is designed tor lor* arC kneeinghe visor is first raised. Ihcn the nose gear struts begin to pivot to bring the nose wheels forward and upward. While the nose struts are mil pivoting.

support jacks are extended io support the nose of the aircraft. The nose struts continue to pivot unlil they are horizontal, bringing ihe nose wheels forward and upward. When fully kneeled, the forward fuselageeters lower than normal, the aircraft is5egree) nose-down attitude, and the forward loading ramp can be extended

For aft kneelingi, the main gear struts compress ateicr to lower the aft fuselage, which lowers the rear cargo door sill by abouteter Reportedly, both the nose and main gear can kneel nmullaneous'v In bring the aircraftee led" position



can routinely operate from unpre-

pared strips on frozen swamps andowever. Condor's landing gear probably would cause severe rutting on unfrozen sod runways. Therefore, wethat Condor would not use unfrozen sod runways except in emergencies.

Wtinktt. At5 Paris Air Show, the Soviets claimed Condorkg) rnaximum takeoff weightesign load factor limit'sThese are reasonable values, given maximum takeoff weightsetric tons forAetric tons forB.imit toad factor5 G's Overload gross weights ofetric tons may be possible if Condor is restrictedaneuver load factor of's or less.

etric-ton takeoff weightoad factor limit, we calculate that the operating weight empty of* Condor isetric tons.ight is based on our assessment (hat Coetdotredominantly conventional aluminumwithercent of the structural weight composed of composite materials.ore complete weight breakdown of Condorominal maximum takeoff weightetric ions, subtractingetric-ton operatingaximum useful load (fuel plus payloadletric tons.

The Semen have stated that the maximum payload of Condoretric tons, Of IS ten metric-ton sections of palletized cargo. This maximum payload is

'allparkully loaded Condor would roomieeter thickneit oficeupport In weight lor of this thietiteti probably could be found only on arctic lakes that are frozen fix all or mutt of the year for landlafhe ihicknesi e/ Kt rcqui'rd wiT (Okgf'yn aircraft's land factor, eaoressed in G's. it eawal ta the total lifty the aircraft irrleta by ihe awcraft'soe aa sacra It thatfiyo* strasfut aed level, ibe ksaduvil. The load factorreaterhen Ikeurning or pvllmg uponeessushovern*


Table 1

Condor Weights Breakdown


ercent of the aircraft's maximum

with the nominal maximum payloadeiric-ton maximum payloadetric-ton maximum takeoff weightG load factor).

imit. Thus, Condors maximum payload fraction ofercent is comparable to that originally intended for.

Photographs of Condor from5 Paris Air Show suggest that the aircraft has Id fuel tanks located in the wing and probably extending into the wing carry-through structure. Figurehows the estimated fuel tank configuration. No fuel is assessed to be carried in the fuselage, as the volume available for fuel in the wings and wing carry-through structure aloneetric tons or more of fuel to bectric-ton fuel load would cause the aircraft to exceedetric-ton maximum takeoff weight, even if no oavloarl were"


for trie wing plus wing carry through. However.

mail mum fuelo* likely lo exceedetric loru. With an operating weight empty ofetricuel load ofetric tons

would cause the aircraft la exceed its norma)takeoff weightetric tons. Therefore,

the maximum fuel load of theimited by

weight and not by available volume

All rangc-payload computations in ihis reportCondor's maximum fuel weightwhich requires that fuel tanks extend intocarry-through structure. Photography ofof ihe wing carry-through structure,visible from inside tbc cargo bay. suggest* thata valid assumption. The very high ferry rangeclaimed by (hesuggests thai the aircraft is equippedtanks in the wing carry through

aximum fuel weigh: would beetric tons without wing carry-through tanks Withoads of less than JO oretric tons, (be absence of wing carry-through tanks would resultlight reduction in our range estimate. Without carry-through tanks, ihe fuel load Is limited by thetakeoff weight of the aircraft, not by the available fuel volume, for pay loadst JO toetric ions. Thus, for payloads ofoetric tons or more, there would be no reduction in our estimate ofange if in fact (he aircraft docs nol have wing carry-through tanks

Compeiim Vtatt.ssessed to beprimarily of aluminum alloys and lesser amounts of steel and liianium alloys.ercent ofuctural weight of the aircraft being composite materials. This assessment is based on Soviet claims of composites usage for Condor and on previous Soviet practice foe transport aircraft. Data provided by (he Soviets show that composno usage is limited to ncuvfiighi-crnica! components

A Soviet display on composite materials at5 Paris Air Show indicated the location of composite components on Condor. Some photography of Condor at this air show is good enough to distin-gubh between metal and composite parts. These photctraphs indicate that (his display probably is accurate Graphite-epoxy composites were used for Ihe landing gear doors, flap (rack fairings, af(doors, engine pylon skin, wing root fairing, and parts of the wing-fuselage fairing. Graphite-epoxy was also used for many of the accesshe wings and empennage. Organic fiber or glass fiber composites were used for the engine cowlings, flap track fairings, nose and tail radomes, main landing gear fairing, engine pylon skin, wing root fairing, and parts of ihe wing-fuselage fairing. According lo the Soviets, composite components makequare meters of Condor's exposed surface are

Figurelso shows tbc Soviet claim that Condor hasg of composite materials in the airframe. The amoum of composites claimed to be used isercent of the siructural weight of the aircraft. According to theg ofpoxy compositesg of glass fiber and organic fiber composites were used, resultingeight savingsg relative lo metal eomponcnti. The breakdown between glass fiber and organic fiber (for example, uromid fibers such as Kevlar) composites was not further defined

The claimed weight savings amountseduction of aboutercent relative to metal compor-enu. This percentage is typical of weight savings demonstrated on Western aircraft using components matte ofsuch as carbon-cpoxy or Kevtar-epoxy.

Although not indicated on the placard, graphue-epoxy appear) to have been used to reinforce aluminum transverse beams on the ceiling of Ihe cargo bay (figureany of these beams appear toraphite-epoxy stiffener, running the length of the beam, bonded to the lower flange and probably to the upper flange asoviet composites engineer claims this stiffener resultseight savings ofoercent compared lo an unstiffened aluminum beam.

Condor's overall structural weight because ofis small because the percentage of composites usage is relatively small. Because the weightis small, the performance improvement will be correspondingly small Thus the incorporation ofinto Condor conferslim advantage, if arty, relative toH-metal construcison

The weight reduction claimed by the Soviets is of the same order of magnitude as the accuracy range of our weight estimate, which is on the ordei oletric tons.

degree of composites usage claimed by theis comparable to that of current-generationtransport aircraft sucb as ther the McDonnell. The relatively lowpercentage for7 (compared to Western sUte of ihe an)onservative approach to composites. On the basts of the similar conservatism typically shown in Soviet aircraft design, wc believe the low composites usage on Condor is due to conservative design. Thus Condor may notrcftee! ihe Soviet stale of ihc ail in composites.


General. Condor is powered by four Lotaigh-bypass-ratio turbofan engines.

L, _JConsequently, wc judge thats somewhat behind, the US state of the art for this class of engine

general, composite components can reduce both Structural weight and production costs byercent or more per component. However, the reduction m

Some features of. such as the active clearance control feature described below, arcdevelopments in ihe West as wellhc USSR Also, the performance ol ihe compressor

of Soviet engine! historically has been slightly superiorhai of US engines. However, overall, and in the specific areas of durability and turbine inlet temperature, we judgeo be behindtechnology. Because other variables may drive (he design of an engine, wc cannot judge whetherepresents the absolute limit of Sovietfoe this class of engine. These other variables mightesire lo reduce the cost or increase the life ofngine, both of which may lead to reducing the engine's performance The performance claimed by the Soviets may take into account such performance reductions or the claims may be overly optimistic and thus subject to degradation because of, Toresire to increase the engine's life.

t:;iiDtSCripttOH IMsf I'fHmO HI UnltkC tltOS!

Western high-bypass-ratio turbofans.hree-spool turbofan. Soviet statements indicate lhatingle-stage fan drivenour-stage uncooled turbine. The intermediate spool and the high-pressure spool each have seven compressor stagesingle-stage cooled turbine

ajor Western aerospaceota rev design engineer staled ihatses active clearance control on ihc turbine casing. Photography ofn display at the Paris Air Show independently supports this claim. Active clearance control increases turbine efficiency and reducesfuel consumption by precisely controlled cooling of the turbine casing. The controlled cooling regulates the diameter of ihe casing and thus controls the clearance between the lips of the lurbine blades and the casing. An electronic control unit regulates this clearance to maintain optimum engine performance in all flight regimes. The technique of active clearance control has been used on several models of Western engines within the last five years

The Soviets have stated that the firstompressor stages have titanium blades and the last three have either nickel or steel blades AH compressor stater* were said to be made of steel The fan sialors are claimed to be of composite material, which would help reduce the weight of the engine Reportedly. Ihc only variable geometry in the compressor is in the guide vanes to ihc first slage inrmediate compressor to make starting easier

The Soviets claim thatea-level static thrust (uninslalled) of0 kg.oegrees Celsius. Oiher characteristics, obtainedoviet brochure on. are shown in tableonsidering Ihe Soviets' lack of experience with large high-bypass-raiio turbofans. the Soviei claims for specific fuel consumption (SFC) shown inre probably optimistic, since the values quoted are near (he US siaie of the art. Our estimates of tbc probable SFC for tbc engine,with the aidetailed engine cycle analysis based on lurbine inlet temperature, bypass ratio, and other information onwhlisbed by the Sovic'lS, seem more reasonable.

1 Flat-ratios it alien Ihe ihrull of in enfine ia limitediven ambient tempcraiait even Ihouga the engine it capable ol more ihruti "hen the ambient lempernture drop* Thui ihe engineearly constant, predictable thrutiide range of ambient temperature'

On the basil ot the low (by Western standards) design lifetimes of previous Soviet engines and on thesmall foundation or Soviei experience with higb-bypass-raiio engines, we believe that the actual lifetime of current versions ofST islower than the claimed goal00 hours.

As installed on Condor,flT is equippedhrust reverse! that is mounted on the fan duct. When the thrust rcverscr isection of the fan cowling translates aft on rails to expose Ihe thrust reverter. Blocker doors then deflect into the fan airflow to redirect the airflow through the thrust rcverscr cascades The thrust reverscr reverses lhc fan airflow bul not the core airflow

Auxiliary Power Units. To provide power .for (he aircraft's systems when the main engines are shut down, iwo auxiliary power units (APUs) are installed One APU is inside each main landing gear fairing aft of the rearmost main gear strut (seehe APUs can be opeiated in the air or on the ground

Flight Controls and Aiionics Fly-By-Wirt Flight-Control System. The Soviets claim Condoruadruplex fly-by-wire (FBW) flight-control system, with mechanical backups for the primary flight controls. According to at least one coen-sourcc report, the mechanical pitch axis backup haslimited authority due to high controlome sources quote lhc Soviets as saying that the FBW system has an emergency fifth channel,consistingirect electrical link to the control servos, bypassing the flight-control computers Soviei claims regarding ihe type of FBW system used archave claimed (hat the system is both analog and digital. As Condor is the first Antooov aircraft claimed toBW flight-control system, the system probably is the lessanalog 'ype tZ.


rue FBW system, (he pilot's control inputs and data from velocity, acceleration, and position sentori on the .nr.nil are interpretedlight-control computer. The flight-control computer thenthe control surfaces io produce ihe desired

aircraft response. Advantages of FBW night-control systems include "carefree maneuvering" and, for largeighter weight control system.maneuvering is where the flight-control computer is programed to prevent the aircraft from exceeding structural or aerodynamic limits regardless of pilot commandshe contrary. This allows Ihe pilot to concentrate on flying without worrying aboutthe aircraft by inadvertently exceeding thelimits.

An aircraftrue FBW system canis not required loututuble.the night-control system can be programedctively stabilize the aircraft. The advantage of an unstable aircraft is that it can be designed toew percent more efficient aerodynamically than astable aircraft byeduction in trim drag

A mechanical control system undeniably was present on the prototype displayed at the Paris Air Show. We believe mechanical control links exist to all primary nighl-control surfaces. However, without furiherthe existence or absence of FBW channels in the nigh(-control system cannot be confirmed. Based in part on (he fact that Condoranual) mode in the night-control system, we ate almost certain that Condor wa< not designed to be aerodynamically unsuble.

Soviet claims imply that Condorull three-axis FBW night-control systemechanical backup. On the basis of TBW development history in the Wesi. we believe it is more likely that some (but not all) control surfaces have FBW controls.ull three-axis FBW syslem having complete mechanical redundancy to the primary controlA worst case third possibiliiy is thai no true fly-by-wire system is fitted at all Given these three possibilities, we believe that FBW technology at the Antooov design bureau is ai best onpar with Western icchrsology and at worst five toean behind

The full advantages of pure FBW operation cannoi be realized in Condor because of the mechanical backup system. Thus we believe that (he incoiporatian of

FBW technology into Condor does not confer any performance improvement

Cockpit Diiplayt and Controls. Cockpit instruments are conventional needle gauges and vertical (ape instruments not markedly different from the type of iiutiufiveiitition ono electronic flight displays, such as those found on state of ihe-arttransports, are used Conventional control yokes are used, although the Soviets reportedly considered using side-stick controllers. Side-slick contiollers are more consistenture FBW system ratherined mechanical/FBW system such as in Condor

The cockpit is arrangedlightcrew of six: pilot, copilot, two flighl engineers, navigator, and radio operator. This "people-intensive" philosophy is in marked contrast to the standardB crew and to the two-man crew of newer Western transports such us thend7

Soviets have indicated that Condor has at least two radars; one is used primarilyeather radar and the otherround mapping/navigation radar The radomc in the nose of Condor is arranged to accommodate one radarthe weather radar) antenna in the ccntct of the noseecond antennachin" radomc below and aft of the first. The chin radomc ptobablv houses the ground mapping/navigation radar.

Information from open sources and from >at5 Paris Air Show indicates thatsystems on Condor include three, possibly four, inertial navigation units; radio navigation gearincludingnd an asirocoenpau Aradomc on lop of the fuselage (figure 2i) may contain an antennaatellite navigation receiver, although the Soviets deny that Condor hasecond and less likely possibility is that the ladomratellite communications antenna.

A large aft-facing radome on Condor'say be intended to house antennas for radar warning and clecironic countermeasurts (fcCM) gear. Other possible gear concealed by Ihe radomc couldendeivous/station-keeping transmitter or. less probable, an aft-looking search radar

Other clecirofiics carried on Condor, such asequipment, arc not expected lo differIrom other Soviet military Uaauwnftj vuch asandid orock.


Raagt and Payload. In terms of rangc-payloadCondorignificaniovct the current Soviet heavy military transport.


lhcock. Condor outperformsB Tor payloads ofetric tons or underetric tons.ompares our assessment of the range-payload performance of Condor with that ofB and Cock. Figurehows Condor's ground coverage from Moscow when operating with different payloads.

Cruise Speed Improvement. Besides having much better range-payload performs nee than Cock, Condor will fly at significantly higher cruise speeds than Cock. Cock cruises atnots, whilecruises atnots, almostercent faster. These figures are based on Soviet claims and on engineering analysis of the two aircraft. The higher cruise speed of Condor results in shorter flight times and therefore higher productivity

The estimated flight envelope of Condor is compared to that of Cock inhis figure shows the speed and altitude limits of the two aircraftunction of gross weight

paeliy. Figurehows three prospective cargo loadings. The great size of Condor means that intact military units up to company size can beingle aircraft As shown inour Condors would be able toull airborne battalion, withroops riding on the upper decks and with the vehicles being carried on the cargo decks.*

Condor may be able to carry anransporter-erector-launcher (TEL) carrying the missile. Thefactor in this case is the height of the TEL plus missile We cannot with certainty determine if the TEL plus missile can be carried, however, because of the uncertainly in this height estimate. Even if the height of the TEL plus missile is low enough to be loaded on Condor, some special loading equipment (atery long ramp extension) will be required because of the combination of the great length and height of the TEL plus missile. Theock also may be able io carry anEL with missile.

c-Wi airburn* tstUalKmof )S* offiorri ami men and roughly W0 mrl'ic tons ofBMDmfaniry fifhtint vehicles.arki. men ilngle-aile trailers,ight trucks.

although special loading equipment again would be required. TheEL plus missile weighs roughlyetric tons, split more or less evenly between ihe TEL and the missile.

Condor probably will be able to cany anissile and its TEL if the missile is loaded separaicly on its transport dolly. Some special preparations or equipment, suchamp extension, may be required to load the missile dolly. If theissile canister could be loadedpecial (purpose-built) narrow-track air transport cradle, two missile canisterscould be loaded in addition to the TEL. In this case, special loading equiprnent almost certainty would be required. If the TEL and missile arca Cock could carry either the TEL or the missile, but not both, because of space limitations.

Roles and Deployment

Condor probably will begin entering service7t is expected eventually to form the backbone ofeavy airlift fleei. We do not expect Cock to be phased out immediately as Condor enters service Instead, we believe Condor will at first supplement and later completely replace Cock in the heavy airlift role

Besides its obvious roleeavy military transport. Condor probably will be used alsoivil role to support activities in remote areas of the USSR. For example, (he Soviets haveole in support of oilfield operations in remote areas. They claim that Condor can.carryercent of Soviet heavy peiro-leum equipment.

Our estimates of Soviet military requirements and production capability suggest the Soviets will have aboutondors deployedotal production of Condor mayircraft before production ends. The Soviets' current heavy an lift fleet consists ofocks permanently based at three airfields near Moscow. Condor probably will be deployed to the same airfields that support Cock units


The increased capability offered byr morecompared7 Cocks reflects our belief that Soviet heavy airlift requirements have increased This requirement has built up overyear period between the first Cock deployments7 and the first Condor deployments7ajor factor in the increased requirement has been the increase in Soviet overseas commitments

In terms of fleet single-sortie liftircraft haveimes the payload weinht capacity ofock aircraft for state lengths of up tom. Because Cocks payload capability falls off more sharply andower range than doesleet ofjodors is vastly superiorleet ofocks if the stage lengths exceedilometers


Original document.

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic: