Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Share

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  Austin on Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:24 am

    Ilyushin Finance and Red Wings negotiate on 44 Tu-204SM
    Russian Aviaton

    Ilyushin Finance Co. (IFC) says it is going to complete negotiations with Red Wings on 44 Tu-204SM aircraft in February so as to sign a firm order in March 2011.

    Russia’s largest aircraft lessor, Ilyushin Finance has previously placed Tu-204-100 aircraft with Cubana, Air Koryo and Red Wings, Tu-204-300s with Vladivostok Avia and Air Koryo. Besides, IFC leases three Tu-214s (Tu-204-200s) to Transaero.

    Red Wings already operates a fleet of Tu-204-100 and Tu-204-100V jetliners, to which it added one more airframe in 2010. It is the only operator of the Tu-204-100V version, the most recent mutation of the baseline Tu-204-100 model in production at Aviastar-SP. The plant has several “white-tale” Tu-204-100C/120C freighters. These have been on offer for more than a year after intended customer Volga-Dnepr had rejected them.

    Ilyushin Finance says the recent decision by Sergei Ivanov to support the Tu-204SM project is instrumental. It gives the airlines more assurance and allows the lessor to negotiate with the carriers on further deliveries of Russian-made narrow body jetliners.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  Austin on Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:58 pm

    Interjet lays out reasons for selecting Superjet 100

    Interjet chief executive José Luis Garza says the Superjet 100 was selected because it scored highly on a number of criteria that the carrier had set out in its regional jet wishlist. These criteria included a strong operational performance in high altitude locations because, as Garza explains, Mexico City is at an altitude of 7,900ft (2,400m).

    Garza highly rates the quality of the aircraft: "On a typical regional jet you have to degrade the quality, but with this [Superjet 100] we believe the quality standard is very close to an Airbus A320."

    Interjet will start taking delivery of its Superjets in the second half of 2012 and deliveries are scheduled to run until 2014. The carrier has signed a firm agreement for 15 of the jets plus five options.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  Austin on Sat Jan 22, 2011 12:20 pm

    Mexican airline praises Superjet 100 for its quality, price

    "In our opinion, this plane meets all most stringent requirements of an airline," Jose Luis Garza said in an interview with RIA Novosti on Friday.

    The Superjet 100 aims for lower operating costs than its Embraer and Bombardier competitors for the price of about $32 million.

    Garza praised high performance characteristics of the plane, especially considering hot climate and high elevation in Mexico.

    "The Sukhoi Superjet 100 can successfully compete on the global aircraft market and has good chances to penetrate the Latin American market," he added.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  Austin on Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:09 pm

    Airfleet newest issue on website has good info on An-158 program

    Airfleet 5 2010

    Andy_Wiz
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 29
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2010-10-12
    Location : South-West Fringe of the Empire

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  Andy_Wiz on Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:53 pm

    UAC wide body airliner programme (earlier and more conservative than that mentioned in recent Fedorov interview) - 'ShF BSMS'
    Buklet_SF_001.pdf

    Buklet_SF_002.pdf

    Myasishchev long range transport aircraft project -

    http://forumimage.ru/uploads/20110116/129518939074009653.jpg

    http://forumimage.ru/uploads/20110116/129518939074009653.jpg

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  Austin on Sun Jan 23, 2011 4:26 am

    Andy_Wiz wrote:UAC wide body airliner programme (earlier and more conservative than that mentioned in recent Fedorov interview) - 'ShF BSMS'
    Buklet_SF_001.pdf

    Fedrov recently said in the interview that for wide body aircraft they are working on two concept lifting fuselage and flying wing, the wide body aircraft will probably get developed by 2020 time frame.

    I think what ever they develop by that time frame show exceed A350 , B787 and its variant in most technical parameter and should cost lesser then the two , make its own niche in wide body market.

    Much like the MS-21 exceed B737-NG and Airbus A320 in most parameter and yes cheaper ,thats the only way they can remain competitive.

    I personally like the flying wings concept ,here is the Boeing,Lockheed concept for future airliner.

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20028638-71.html

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  Austin on Sun Jan 23, 2011 7:58 am

    I have updated Tu-204SM information on wiki based on latest information, Check the Tu-204SM and Specification part.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-204#Tu-204SM



    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  Austin on Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:07 am

    I have added Tu-204SM pictures and revised some data on SM , I think there is enough data in opensource for Tu-204SM , any suggestions welcome

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-204#Tu-204SM
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-204#Specifications_.28_Tu-204SM_.29

    The Tu-204SM is broadly comparable to Boeing 737-900 and Airbus A-321-200, well if they manage to get more sales beyond 44 for Redwings it would be great , this is a very competitive aircraft in all paramaters and costs lower.

    By 2016 when the MS-21 takes over the Tu-204 series it will be a much better aircraft and as Fedrov mentioned it would be better then then the reengined A-320NEO and 737 variants and will cost lower then both ,that is innovation with competitiveness attack

    KRON1
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 31
    Points : 35
    Join date : 2009-08-12

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  KRON1 on Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:38 pm

    A320 NEO hasnt' even been produced yet and it already has a couple hundred orders. With the 15% fuel economy and Leap-X engine, how is Tu-204 supposed to compete with a plane it is still trying to catch up with older Airbus models? Airbus is king of commercial aircraft closely followed by Boeing. Then Embrear comes in 3rd with smaller aircraft. There isn't much room for Russia especially if they won't buy their own aircraft.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  Austin on Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:45 pm

    Tu-204SM certainly cannot compete with re-engine A-320-NEO , the NEO competes with MS-21. Tu-204SM competes with A-321-200 and Boeing 737-900.

    Well if Russia has to compete it has to start somewhere and gradually move up the stack , Airbus certainly and Boeing are dominant player in single aisle market and with such established player its all the more difficult for newer player to come in and win.

    KRON1
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 31
    Points : 35
    Join date : 2009-08-12

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  KRON1 on Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:53 pm

    Airbus and Boeing are dominant in everything down to single aisle regional and business jets which Embraer has a chunk of.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  Austin on Mon Jan 24, 2011 6:25 pm



    Graphics Warning Dead Bodies: Video of the terminal

    RIP Brothers cry

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:48 pm

    Airbus and Boeing are dominant in everything down to single aisle regional and business jets which Embraer has a chunk of.

    When you take a 20 year break from an industry you can't just walk back in at the top of the game and you can't expect the other players to wait till you get back.

    Of course the Russian aircraft industry is not being supported by its government the way that Boeing and Airbus have been supported by theirs so of course there will be trouble getting back into the market... it is hardly a reason not to do it.

    The Russian government has to realise that without support and funding the Russian aircraft makers would be at an enormous disadvantage to companies that do get such support and if they don't pull finger and start supporting Russian aircraft companies soon then the result will be no Russian alternative when looking for an aircraft for a particular role.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:58 pm

    There isn't much room for Russia especially if they won't buy their own aircraft.

    The military have a lot of older aircraft that need urgent replacement like the Il-38 May, the Il-20M Coot, and lots of other older aircraft. If they can pull finger and start replacing them with new aircraft the subsidy should make production cheaper and make the aircraft more competitive... which is exactly what Boeing and Airbus to to make their airliners cheaper... subsidise their price through government orders.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  Austin on Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:37 pm

    Yes 20 years is a long time and they have almost lost the Wide Body Market during that period. Also we need to understand the fact that even during Soviet Union days building a great commercial aircraft that competes with Airbus/Boeing was really not their forte.

    I think their greatest weakness was their high fuel consumption civil engine , the SU was good with Military engine but could not be the same with Civil Aircraft engine.

    I think Russia realises their weakness and are investing in developing engine that can compete well with existing Western type and future variants , PS-90A2/A1 and PD-14 is something that comes to my mind.

    Where they couldnt develop something immediately they went for co-development like SaM-146 for SSJ. Thats a smart business decision.

    Then there is the An-148/158 that seems to be doing good , not an entirely russian product but significant Russian inputs and components.

    All in all they will do quite well in the coming decade in civil aviation market specially in Regional Jet and Single Isle Market.

    They should invest in reminding their main bottle neck which is to increase production of aircraft to like 50-60 per per year rather then in 10's or single digit for a single type.

    Now what I got from Polet airlines chief interview is that they would like to buy more IL-96-400T as it is doing quite well but Russia production plant cannot make more then 2 in best case per year and right now they have to delay delivering IL-96-400T since 2 new IL-96PU is being developed for production.Rolling Eyes

    If they just end up building 2 aircraft per year in Wide Body market there is no way they can every dream of competing with Boeing and Airbus that can make 25-40 aircraft per year in that segment.

    The other improvement they need to do is to improve their quality standards in materials to match up with the best and keep the cost low compared to the West.

    Once they get rid of the two key bottle neck they will do quite well in the Civil Market.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 26, 2011 3:14 am

    I think their greatest weakness was their high fuel consumption civil engine , the SU was good with Military engine but could not be the same with Civil Aircraft engine.

    I disagree, I think purchases during the cold war had more to do with political sphere of influence than any performance issues... France was hardly going to buy Boeings rather than Airbus's and Aeroflot was hardly going to buy Concordes rather than Tu-144s.

    The rest of the world was divided the same way... Cuba wouldn't take Boeings even if they were free because the US would simply do to them what they did to Hugo Chavez's F-16s and cut off support.
    With its experience with US equipment Iran might want Boeings but it is buying Antonovs because they are not subject to US sanctions.

    I think Russia realises their weakness and are investing in developing engine that can compete well with existing Western type and future variants , PS-90A2/A1 and PD-14 is something that comes to my mind.

    I would think that the lack of investment for the last 20 years effected Russian engines as much as it did Russian aircraft makers.
    They will find that all the new stuff to too expensive for most of its traditional customers and even when they can make state of the art engines again they will find mainly domestic buyers because their traditional clients are now either part of NATO and would reject Russian stuff simply for being Russian, or they are former Soviet client states whose economies have not done as well as Russia and are in no position to spend 6 million dollars on a plane let alone an engine.

    All in all they will do quite well in the coming decade in civil aviation market specially in Regional Jet and Single Isle Market.

    The only way out of a rut created by not spending money for 20 years is to start spending money again. It wont happen overnight (the spending or the getting out of the rut), but it wont happen at all if the money isn't spent or it is spend on foreign companies products.


    If they just end up building 2 aircraft per year in Wide Body market there is no way they can every dream of competing with Boeing and Airbus that can make 25-40 aircraft per year in that segment.

    A natural result of not spending for 20 years. Of course when no one needs your planes you are going to greatly reduce your production capacity. Now that orders are coming however it is time to start spending money to increase production capacity. Increasing too far will lead to as many problems as not increasing production capacity enough. This is where they should go to the current military users of their aircraft and ask them how many they are likely to want and how many they anticipate they will buy and make production expansion plans accordingly.

    The other improvement they need to do is to improve their quality standards in materials to match up with the best and keep the cost low compared to the West.

    Sorry... what? Much of the metal that goes into western aircraft comes from Russia. Without Russian metal the F-35 wouldn't be built. Can you point me to information about the substandard materials Russian aircraft are made of?

    Once they get rid of the two key bottle neck they will do quite well in the Civil Market.

    They can make a profit on the Civil market but I prefer they made replacement for obsolete military aircraft. I would also like to see an inflight refuelling tanker based on the Il-96 and an inflight refuelling aircraft based on a much smaller and cheaper aircraft too so that the number of inflight refuelling aircraft became comparable to the number of aircraft fitted with inflight refuelling probes. Especially if their long range UAVs under development can be programmed to refuel in flight.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  Austin on Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:58 am

    GarryB wrote:I disagree, I think purchases during the cold war had more to do with political sphere of influence than any performance issues... France was hardly going to buy Boeings rather than Airbus's and Aeroflot was hardly going to buy Concordes rather than Tu-144s.

    The rest of the world was divided the same way... Cuba wouldn't take Boeings even if they were free because the US would simply do to them what they did to Hugo Chavez's F-16s and cut off support.

    With its experience with US equipment Iran might want Boeings but it is buying Antonovs because they are not subject to US sanctions.

    Well if you look at how SU civil aircraft got sold it was mostly operated by Warsaw countries ,tradation Soviet client states , the same went for Western/US aircraft.

    But if it was a neutral country Airbus/Boeing sold more aircraft competing compared to SU did , Western Aircraft were more fuel efficient,Technologically Advanced and were more competitive then those built by SU.


    I would think that the lack of investment for the last 20 years effected Russian engines as much as it did Russian aircraft makers.
    They will find that all the new stuff to too expensive for most of its traditional customers and even when they can make state of the art engines again they will find mainly domestic buyers because their traditional clients are now either part of NATO and would reject Russian stuff simply for being Russian, or they are former Soviet client states whose economies have not done as well as Russia and are in no position to spend 6 million dollars on a plane let alone an engine.

    I think what Russia is doing is the right thing , it is co-developing components like Engine where it is known to be weak and involving global companies in avionics other areas to get globally competitive and certified components, Check out Superjet and MS-21 aircraft and how globally sourced components are procured for it , this will make aircraft expensive though less expensive then similar western types but will be equal or better similar western types with Russian and Euro standards certified.

    On the other hand there are cheaper options available from Antonov which build types in Regional Category has mostly Russian and Ukranian components and are cost effective types to procure and operate , it may not have global player on its list but still is a competitive aircraft and sells well in domestic and international market looking for cheaper alternatives.


    The only way out of a rut created by not spending money for 20 years is to start spending money again. It wont happen overnight (the spending or the getting out of the rut), but it wont happen at all if the money isn't spent or it is spend on foreign companies products.

    That is what they are doing right now , putting money where the mouth is and making globally competitive products , it will take time but they will have their own niche market in a decades time , I think their goal is to occupy 15 % of global civil market in the next 15 years.

    This is where they should go to the current military users of their aircraft and ask them how many they are likely to want and how many they anticipate they will buy and make production expansion plans accordingly.

    I agree the military should buy civil types like Tu-204 and IL-96 for new generation AWACS ,Refullers ,ELINT aircraft etc.

    Sorry... what? Much of the metal that goes into western aircraft comes from Russia. Without Russian metal the F-35 wouldn't be built. Can you point me to information about the substandard materials Russian aircraft are made of?

    What I mean by materials is not related to metal but material standards used in entire aircraft be it avionics ,subcomponents and every thing that goes into making the complete aircraft , they should in the long run source all components and materials locally and build local made components to global standards.

    If you check the Sukhoi Superjet and MS-21 aircraft you will realise many components are being procured from western and US companies.

    Russia’s aerospace revival
    http://www.asianaviation.com/articles/60/Russia-s-aerospace-revival

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  Austin on Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:30 am

    Makes an interesting read on An-148 operational challenges

    Supporting An-148
    A Pilot's Passion
    Sharing experience
    An-148 proves worthy of airline service

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:19 am

    Well if you look at how SU civil aircraft got sold it was mostly operated by Warsaw countries ,tradation Soviet client states , the same went for Western/US aircraft.

    Lets face it... back then each aircraft maker had its own captive markets and any supposedly neutral countries were open to bribes or were only officially neutral and it depended on whether a left or right government was in power.

    But if it was a neutral country Airbus/Boeing sold more aircraft competing compared to SU did , Western Aircraft were more fuel efficient,Technologically Advanced and were more competitive then those built by SU.

    I disagree. The difference in fuel efficiency rarely covered the difference in price and ownership costs. If your airfields were not first grade westernised and expensive then you would find your nice sophisticated western aircraft were useless because they had no built in stairs and needed airstairs to get the passengers in and out of the aircraft. No problem in west Berlin, but not so great in the Congo.

    Check out Superjet and MS-21 aircraft and how globally sourced components are procured for it , this will make aircraft expensive though less expensive then similar western types but will be equal or better similar western types with Russian and Euro standards certified.

    Parts of some Boeing aircraft are made in Russia already, there is no aircraft type that has all its parts made in one country any more.

    Russia needs to make sure it reinvests the money it makes in selling aircraft to improve its own ability to make more and more of the aircraft in Russia so the profits stay in Russia and the work.

    That is what they are doing right now , putting money where the mouth is and making globally competitive products , it will take time but they will have their own niche market in a decades time , I think their goal is to occupy 15 % of global civil market in the next 15 years.

    Not really. I don't think the Russian military and the Russian government are doing enough to support their own companies.

    If you check the Sukhoi Superjet and MS-21 aircraft you will realise many components are being procured from western and US companies.

    They used to source those sorts of components from former Soviet states that are now foreign countries. Now they need to get Russian companies to make these parts so they can reduce their costs and spend money in Russia.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  Austin on Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:01 pm

    GarryB wrote:Lets face it... back then each aircraft maker had its own captive markets and any supposedly neutral countries were open to bribes or were only officially neutral and it depended on whether a left or right government was in power.

    Well captive market is all fine there may be political reason in some cases , but by and large many impartial observer would agree that though Soviet aircraft were cheap to procure , they were not cheap to operate ,failure hours were lower compared to western type ,lacked Global MRO , were not fuel efficient and were not as technologically advanced to varying degree.

    May be for SU fuel were not an issue as they have abundant of it and components were totally manufactured in SU so lower component failure was not a issue , but for export customer fuel would be an issue and over a period of 25 years this would increase operating cost compared to western types and lower hours failure rate would mean they would spend more time in maintenance waiting for spared then in air.

    Check even today An-145 are known to have reliability issue link

    The airline has been using the aircraft since June. In the three months to September, including aircrew training flights, the company's five An-148 aircraft flew 1,725h with Rossiya. In that time, 235 problems occurred, requiring over 2,000 man-hours of repair work.

    In one 92-day period, one aircraft was unfit to fly for 89 days, Rossiya says.

    Rossiya says incidence of technical failure in its fleet occurred once every 344h in the An-148, every 5,355h in its Airbuses, and 2,824h in its Boeing 737s.


    One of the key reason Superjet 100 and MS-21 are being built to Western realibility and technologically standards yet keeping cost lower compared to similar western types.


    I disagree. The difference in fuel efficiency rarely covered the difference in price and ownership costs. If your airfields were not first grade westernised and expensive then you would find your nice sophisticated western aircraft were useless because they had no built in stairs and needed airstairs to get the passengers in and out of the aircraft. No problem in west Berlin, but not so great in the Congo.

    Fuel cost does matter specially some times in mid 70 when cost went high exponentially and today its still quite high and in the future it will just rise and resources are used and fuel becomes precious.

    I think having stairs are nice to have feature but not a killer feature , it wouldnt take much to have a vehical with stairs attached and move to the doors when the aircraft lands Smile

    Parts of some Boeing aircraft are made in Russia already, there is no aircraft type that has all its parts made in one country any more.

    Russia needs to make sure it reinvests the money it makes in selling aircraft to improve its own ability to make more and more of the aircraft in Russia so the profits stay in Russia and the work.

    Well we are not taking of small components but really core components , check MS-21 international suppliers

    http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=MS-21


    Not really. I don't think the Russian military and the Russian government are doing enough to support their own companies.

    If you check the Sukhoi Superjet and MS-21 aircraft you will realise many components are being procured from western and US companies.

    True they can do much more.

    They used to source those sorts of components from former Soviet states that are now foreign countries. Now they need to get Russian companies to make these parts so they can reduce their costs and spend money in Russia.

    They did that but again reliability and quality was not upto western standards

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 26, 2011 11:12 pm

    Well captive market is all fine there may be political reason in some cases , but by and large many impartial observer would agree that though Soviet aircraft were cheap to procure , they were not cheap to operate ,failure hours were lower compared to western type ,lacked Global MRO , were not fuel efficient and were not as technologically advanced to varying degree.

    I am sorry but that is nonsense. Every civilian aircraft purchase during the cold war had political implications and decisions made had little to do with aircraft performance.

    Otherwise there would be no need for Airbus AND Boeing. They both make the same aircraft for different markets. If the markets ignored politics then one or the other company would win and the other would die.
    The reality is that Boeing and Airbus mostly survived on enormous military subsidies from their own governments.

    May be for SU fuel were not an issue as they have abundant of it and components were totally manufactured in SU so lower component failure was not a issue , but for export customer fuel would be an issue and over a period of 25 years this would increase operating cost compared to western types and lower hours failure rate would mean they would spend more time in maintenance waiting for spared then in air.

    Fuel price was nothing if your spare parts supplier was Boeing and you happened to be Iranian airlines. Politics came first... if you looked East you bought east and the same for west. After that came the quality of the hookers and bribes supplied by the competing companies (Airbus and Boeing). A distant third was the quality of the aircraft. As long as it could do the job the official that made the decision to buy couldn't care less about fuel efficiency... he already bought a yacht with the money he was bribed with and it never moves from the pier because he gets sea sick.

    Check even today An-145 are known to have reliability issue link

    And even today the F-15, pride of the USAF has wing problems, what is your point?

    Today after being starved of money for 20 years a Ukrainian design has a few reliability issues... I would expect all Soviet aircraft to be grounded by now if you were right, yet there are lots of old aircraft flying and making profits... how can that be?

    You'd think the An-3 would sell in enormous numbers, but it seems that simple operation and most of the engineers working on the An-2 know its engine and don't care about the fuel they would save, what they care about is keeping the aircraft flying which will be harder if they have to change to a new turboprop engine they are not familiar with, don't have the tools or spare parts for, or the training to fix.

    BTW I think you will find that Boeing 737s and Airbuses had a few reliability issues during their first few years of service, this is just part of the process of getting a plane into service. You are comparing a new aircraft to mature designs. Very unfair.

    I think having stairs are nice to have feature but not a killer feature , it wouldnt take much to have a vehical with stairs attached and move to the doors when the aircraft lands

    And your passengers freeze to death because western aircraft don't have cloak rooms for heavy coats on their aircraft so the walk to the terminal in -30 degree temperatures is really fun.

    Like I said Western aircraft are designed for well equipped airfields and there aren't that many if you look at the whole world and not just the west.

    Well we are not taking of small components but really core components , check MS-21 international suppliers

    Who is talking about small components?

    On December 27, 2007 Boeing and VSMPO-Avisma created a joint venture Ural Boeing Manufacturing and signed a contract on titanium products deliveries until 2015, with Boeing planning to invest $27 billion in Russia over the next 30 years.

    Not Titanium ingots or just Titanium, but Titanium products.

    They did that but again reliability and quality was not upto western standards

    Who cares about western standards? Not everything needs to be gold plated.
    These are transport planes for people and cargo, not luxury hotels.

    I would like to see the Russians set their own standards that are different to western standards that western planes have jump through hoops to meet, and then the Russians can talk about western aircraft being upgraded to meet Russian standards and they can be all snotty and upper class like the western aholes that seem to have influenced your attitude so much.

    There are safety standards and there are quality standards.

    Safety standards are obviously important. Quality standards above a certain level are BS.

    No point in aiming for Concorde standard when most passengers will be after budget flights.

    If you want cheap tickets... and 99% of passengers do, then improving "quality" is counter productive.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  Austin on Sat Jan 29, 2011 5:49 pm

    Looks like a new variant of PS-90 i.e. PS-90A3 has been flight tested which meets AP-33, American FAR-33 and European JAR-33 regulations , wonder if this is a ETOPS rated engine , PS-90A2 is ETOPS 180 rather engine but has some hot parts from P&W and PS-90A3 looks like an attempt to make a PS-90A2 rated engine with all Russian sourced components

    PS-90A3 Engine Certified for Flights

    In January 2011 the aircraft engine PS-90A3 has been certified.

    PS-90A3 is a modification of PS-90A2 which was certified in 2009. The new development of Perm Design Bureau has kept all the advantages of PS-90A2 regarding the baseline engine: higher jet pipe temperature margin, higher capacity of major components and improved autopilot system.

    PS-90 has been certified in accordance with the Chapter 6 of airworthiness certification standards - 3 as it localizes the detachment of the shelf part of fan blade. The work is currently being done in Perm to reduce the weight of PS-90A2 fan body.

    More info more details

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  Austin on Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:12 am

    Presidential Air Group buys A319 aircraft
    Maxim Pyadushkin http://ato.ru/

    Special flying squad "Russia" Administration of the President of Russia is planning this year to get two short-haul Airbus A319 aircraft and two helicopters AgustaWestland.

    Information about this is contained in the tender documentation of the tender for the right to a state contract for works on the program documenting the technical state of aircraft for certification of copies of aircraft and the establishment of resources and the tenure of aviation equipment, posted the Arctic Ocean, "Russia" on the site www.zakupki.gov.ru on January 27.

    From these documents show that in the presidential squadron awaiting receipt of A319 aircraft in December 2011, and helicopters AgustaWestland, in October this year. Thus, the squadron expands the use of foreign aircraft for the transport of top officials. Recall that in 2010 the Arctic Ocean, "Russia" has bought two business jet Falcon 7X and the production of the French company Dassault.

    The representative of the European consortium Airbus declined to comment on. But some industry sources confirm the fact of signing the contract and delivery of aircraft. Both sides are ordered in VIP-configuration.Mentioned in the tender documents helicopters are likely to be AW139. Information that the Arctic Ocean, "Russia" can buy these machines appeared in the middle of last year. As is known, AW139 will collect in Russia at the joint venture HeliVert, organized by the Corporation Oboronprom and the Italian company AgustaWestland.

    Assembly plant of this model was built in the suburban Tomilino in 2010, representative of "Helicopters of Russia confirmed that the plant construction is on schedule and the first cars will gather this year, but said that referred to the two helicopters to the Arctic Ocean," Russia " SP has nothing to do.

    In addition, in the tender documents stated that this year the Arctic Ocean, "Russia" is planning to buy a TU-214 (January), one IL-96 (July) and 4 of the Mi-8MTV (October). As available on www.zakupki.gov.ru other tender documents - the choice of insurer Sun Arctic Ocean, "Russia", ended in December 2010, indicates the sum insured on the aircraft hull insurance for certain acquired by Sun, which, according to a representative of insurance companies, in this case coincides with the value of their purchase. Thus, IL-96-300 is priced at 1,979 million rubles. Russian helicopters are estimated at 376 million rubles and imports - to 516 million rubles.

    At the end of 2010, the presidential fleet flying squadron consisted of 46 AC: 4 IL-96-300, 5 IL-62, 6 Tu-214, 6 Tu-154, 5 Tu-134A, 2 IL-18, 4 Yak-40 , 12 Mi-8 helicopters of various modifications and two aircraft Falcon 7X.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  Austin on Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:14 am

    Rather then ordering 2 Airbus A-319 , they would be be better off ordering the new Tu-204SM. See no merit in ordering A-319 for State Officials. angry

    With the new PS-90A3 engine the Tu-204SM would get the same engine reliability as PS-90A2 without the need to use american sourced component.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  Austin on Sun Jan 30, 2011 6:39 pm

    GarryB wrote:I am sorry but that is nonsense. Every civilian aircraft purchase during the cold war had political implications and decisions made had little to do with aircraft performance.

    It had political infulence to some extent but it had great economic infulence as well , government can take a political decision and ignore economic implications but not the private airlines who vouch for "bottom line" and would like to make profit.

    Otherwise there would be no need for Airbus AND Boeing. They both make the same aircraft for different markets. If the markets ignored politics then one or the other company would win and the other would die.
    The reality is that Boeing and Airbus mostly survived on enormous military subsidies from their own governments.

    Airbus and Boeing company belong to different nations and continents and they vigorously compete against each other , Airbus turned out to be niche better than Boeing as they could make more fuel effecient and low down time aircraft.

    Airbus subsidy would probably fade in comparision to what Boeing gets from US Government not to mention unfair trade practices that US Congress/Senate follows for eg recently Airbus won a big order for its A-330 against Boeing in fair competition but due to pressure from Boeing and its lobby with Senators/Congress and Government the order was canceled , so much for fair competition and fair practices that US preaches around.


    Fuel price was nothing if your spare parts supplier was Boeing and you happened to be Iranian airlines. Politics came first... if you looked East you bought east and the same for west. After that came the quality of the hookers and bribes supplied by the competing companies (Airbus and Boeing). A distant third was the quality of the aircraft. As long as it could do the job the official that made the decision to buy couldn't care less about fuel efficiency... he already bought a yacht with the money he was bribed with and it never moves from the pier because he gets sea sick.


    Fuel prices does matter if you operate an aircraft for 25 years which is their designed life , the fuel prices rises exponentially during those decades of operation and then if you operate a fleet of 50 -100 aircraft you can judge for your self the losses will be in billions of dollars.

    Infact MS-21 main claim to fame is its 15 % more fuel effecient against Airbus A-320/21 and Boeing 737-NG.

    Second most important factor is mean time between failure ,which means for x amout of hours you operate you will experience failure y amount of time , leading to aircraft going in maintenance and spares replacement leading to lesser fleet being available for business and more money spent on spares.

    Like the report i have posted for An-148 which experince down time some 400 hours compared to 3000 hours for airbus.

    And even today the F-15, pride of the USAF has wing problems, what is your point?

    Today after being starved of money for 20 years a Ukrainian design has a few reliability issues... I would expect all Soviet aircraft to be grounded by now if you were right, yet there are lots of old aircraft flying and making profits... how can that be?

    Well it did lost a lot of market , check for your self how even state carriers like Aeroflot have added a huge amount of western aircraft and big orders pending with Boeing and Airbus , most private airline players operate only Western Type.

    Infact the Russians have all but moved their their new aircraft development to International/Western Certification Standards in reliability , fuel efficiency and technology a good example will be Superjet and MS-21 , look how they have been developed to match or exceed Airbus/Boeing/Bombardier/Embrarer and yet remain cheaper compared to all in its class.

    An-148/158 is something of Russian/Ukranian attempt to make a cheaper yet good aircraft for countries that may not be able to afford western or russian types build to western standards.


    BTW I think you will find that Boeing 737s and Airbuses had a few reliability issues during their first few years of service, this is just part of the process of getting a plane into service. You are comparing a new aircraft to mature designs. Very unfair.

    I may sound unfair but the world is not sparing either , so it better to beat the best in their game and remain cost competitive , no one will wait for Russia to catch up with them but Russia has to prove it can come up much better after falling down and can beat the best.

    I think Superjet and MS-21 is designed to do exactly that beat the best and remain cost competitive.

    It would take Russia civil airlines about 2-3 decade to capture a good size of market but the process has started.

    On the contrary for Sukhoi or Mig its not as great a challenge they are doing quite well globally specially Sukhoi.

    And your passengers freeze to death because western aircraft don't have cloak rooms for heavy coats on their aircraft so the walk to the terminal in -30 degree temperatures is really fun.

    I am not sure if this is a big issue , check for Western types operated by Russian airlines and they seems to be mostly western types and doing well in Russian climatic conditions.

    Like I said Western aircraft are designed for well equipped airfields and there aren't that many if you look at the whole world and not just the west.

    I think most airfields where there is decent air traffic have basic or better facilities to operate Western types , its only for non-profitable routes or remote routes the infrastructure is not well developed and there where An-148 can fill the niche.

    Who is talking about small components?

    Well these are key components and not small either ,Big and proven names in the field like Honeywell , Snecma or Goodrich adds value to the reliability factor.

    On December 27, 2007 Boeing and VSMPO-Avisma created a joint venture Ural Boeing Manufacturing and signed a contract on titanium products deliveries until 2015, with Boeing planning to invest $27 billion in Russia over the next 30 years.

    Not Titanium ingots or just Titanium, but Titanium products.

    They did that but again reliability and quality was not upto western standards

    Who cares about western standards? Not everything needs to be gold plated.
    These are transport planes for people and cargo, not luxury hotels.

    Well most would care of International Standards like ICAO ETOPS , JAR,FAA etc Sukhoi went out of the way to certify their jets to European ESA standards and similarly Perm improved reliability by opting for P&W sources hot components to make PS-90A2 meets ETOPS standards and Western/Russian/US requirements.

    I would like to see the Russians set their own standards that are different to western standards that western planes have jump through hoops to meet, and then the Russians can talk about western aircraft being upgraded to meet Russian standards and they can be all snotty and upper class like the western aholes that seem to have influenced your attitude so much.

    Russians have their standards and these generally closely match similar Western or US standards for eg Engine certification standards like AP-33 of Russia is similar to American FAR-33 and European JAR-33 , all Western aircraft that operate in Russia has to meet Russian Aviation standards.

    Similarly any aircraft that operate in West needs to meet some basic standards in Noise or opt for top class standards like Sukhoi Superjet went for European EASA certifications after meeting all Russian certification standards so that its product can compete in the West and in the World with Western types

    If you want cheap tickets... and 99% of passengers do, then improving "quality" is counter productive.

    Well we need top notch Quality and Safety standards , cheap tickets or low cost carrier compromise on comfort where instead of 2 seats they would squeeze in 3 or instead of carrying 30 Kg of luggage for business class they would just provide 15 Kg for the cheap ticket and they wont provide any inflight food etc.

    Ultimately both the Business class , First Class and Economy Class or Low fare tickets travel on the same airplane with different configuration ,cant compromise on build quality or safety standards of aircraft

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Civil Aviation: News

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:14 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:14 am