Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

d_taddei2 wrote:

eehnie wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:Your rIghtfield anyone who attended such school will have those skills and your not one of them. And if one did say anything you would of course challenge them because of your illness. You also forgot business management and market research skills of which you also have none. And you also continue to fail to read the original post because of your illness I think it's about time you got some treatment. Because your the only clown on this forum in fact you're the court jester of the forum. You really do make me laugh with your deluded belief that your right and everyone else is wrong. You just copy and paste drivel. And think it's gospel because you posted it..

This comment is again consequence of your complete ignorance. Never bored of showing your ignorance.

Your insults are not allowed, your ignorace will be exposed as deep as it is.

What means a US engine in a project like this?

Like I have already proven multiple times who the ignorant one is. It's you eehnie your the most ignorant person on this forum and I've proven it. It's now a FACT. And do you really think any russian company including Rostec haven't seen the issue with sanctions and are totally incapable of producing such an engine. I thought you were a master at engineering and would have thought of that clearly not. And eehnie you will never overcome your fear of being wrong or your fear of accepting anyone else's views might be right including experts. You will always show your superior complex this is a fact. I can only but pity you because you don't see your illness and therefore without you noticing the problem can never overcome the illnesses you clearly display.

Full of ignorance you proved to know not the meaning of to prove. You know not how to prove anything.

Your insults have been allowed by the administrator and moderators and you now feel entitled to continue the non-sense without any relation with the topic. But your comments are totally absurd, just reflecting your mind.

I insulted not George1. I received insults.

George1 Very happy to.

Just for the record I did on multiple occasions tried to compromise with him and end the discussion but he refused and failed to acknowledge. I even suggested the ignore function he can use. But he also insulted many times before and not just me.

You are ignoring the main weakness of the concept: The lack of sales. The lack of interest and orders of the customers.

The An-2 is in widespread use in Russia in civilian use... as mentioned there have been large numbers of replacements offered but all have generally failed because they were too expensive or not simple enough or simply could not match the performance of the An-2.

If this new plane is only 1.2 million then it should be very very popular as a replacement...

To quote Wiki

Its remarkable durability, high lifting power, and ability to take off and land from poor runways have given it a long service life. The An-2 was produced up to 2001 and remains in service with military and civilian operators around the world.

IN fact you should read the wiki page:

The Antonov An-2 is a mass-produced single-engine biplane that has been commonly used as a utility and agricultural aircraft. It is deliberately furnished with a minimum of complex systems. The crucial wing leading edge slats that give the aircraft its slow flight ability are fully automatic, being held closed by the airflow over the wings. Once the airspeed drops below 64 km/h (40 mph), the slats will extend because they are on elastic rubber springs.[4] Under typical conditions, the take-off is complete within 170 m (560 ft) while the landing run requires 215 m (705 ft); these figures will vary dependent upon various factors, such as the aircraft's take-off/landing weight, the external air temperature, surface roughness, and headwind.[4]

The An-2 is equipped with various design features which make it suitable for operation in remote areas with unsurfaced airstrips. It is fitted with a pneumatic brake system (similar to those used on heavy road vehicles) to stop on short runways, along with an air line attached to the compressor, so the pressure in the tires and shock absorbers can be adjusted without the need for installing specialised equipment.[4] The batteries, while sizable, are relatively easy to remove, so the aircraft does not need a ground power unit to supply power for starting the engine. Likewise, there is no need for an external fuel pump to refuel the aircraft as it is provided with an inbuilt onboard pump, which allows the tanks to be filled from simple fuel drums.[4]
Antonov An-2 (An2-TP)

The An-2 has no stall speed, a fact which is quoted in the operating handbook. A note from the pilot's handbook reads: "If the engine quits in instrument conditions or at night, the pilot should pull the control column full aft and keep the wings level. The leading-edge slats will snap out at about 64 km/h (40 mph) and when the airplane slows to a forward speed of about 40 km/h (25 mph), the airplane will sink at about a parachute descent rate until the aircraft hits the ground."[4] As such, pilots of the An-2 have stated that they are capable of flying the aircraft in full control at 48 km/h (30 mph) (as a contrast, a modern Cessna four-seater light aircraft has a stall speed of around 80 km/h (50 mph)). This slow stall speed makes it possible for the aircraft to fly backwards relative to the ground (if the aircraft is pointed into a headwind of roughly 56 km/h (35 mph), it will travel backwards at 8.0 km/h (5 mph) whilst under full control).[4]

The An-2's ability, looks and flying characteristics, and its status as one of the world's biggest single-engined production biplanes, mean that demand for the An-2 is increasing in Western Europe and the United States, where they are prized by collectors of classic aircraft, making it an increasingly common sight at airshows. Many western countries prohibit the use of the An-2 commercially because the aircraft has not been certified by the relevant national aviation authorities. These restrictions vary by country, but all prevent the An-2 being used for any 'for profit' purpose, with the exception of the United States, where An-2s imported since 1993 are limited to experimental certification

Say it to Ukraine.

Why?

Give specific examples.

I remember you saying the Risachok was the successor of the An-2/4/6. But the Risachok also lacks orders. The numbers of An-2/4/6 are declining with the time, but there are not sales of their supposed successors. These aircrafts are not being useful, are not attracting to the custormers. Not even to the former users of An-2/4/6. While you continue ignoring the main problem, you will continue giving wrong opinions, like at the time of the Risachok.

The Rysachok was supposed to replace the An-2, but then so was the An-3, and also a few other planes, but in the end there were reasons it didn't replace the An-2... most of the time it was cost... the new aircraft were too expensive or couldn't operate in the same conditions.

It didn't replace the An-2 because it never got beyond prototype stage...

As of 2015, there were thousands of An-2s remaining in operation around the world, including over 1,500 in Russia, 294 in Kazakhstan and 54 in Ukraine.[3]

There is plenty of market for a new plane in that performance class...

Then it is not ideal. Well, aircrafts for training of auxiliary/civil aircraft pilots are not a new concept. The development of this concept is leading to aircrafts in the mold of the Diamond DA42, that are under 2.2 tons MTOW. These aircrafts allow to smaller operational costs than the An-2 for the training of auxiliary/civil aircraft pilots.

The DA42 is a foreign aircraft, and would be next to useless for parachute training or light cargo delivery.

Also, new name of that aircraft is Baikal.

Good... TVS-2-DTS is just too much of a mouthful.

Ukrane and the countries that are helping to Ukraine are losing millions in UAVs that are fairly smaller and have smaller signature, but still are shut down by manpads, not by bigger air defense systems.

In the rest of the comment there is nothing that makes to increase the demand of this type of aircrafts that is very low. Unlikel in the case of the helicopters, the number of customers of new aircrafts around this size is very low in this century. The declining in the demand was very strong in the 1990 has has not been recovered in the last years, unlike for other aircrafts.

And the strong competence of the helicopters is only increasing:

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3332966.html
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fbmpd.livejournal.com%2F3332966.html

Continuation of the Ka-62 helicopter program

bmpd
September 8Th, 4:18

As reported on September 6, 2018 PJSC "Russian Helicopters", a flight model of the newest civil multipurpose helicopter Ka-62, manufactured by JSC "AAK" Progress "named after N.I. Sazykin "holding company" Helicopters of Russia "(part of Rostekh State Corporation), made its first flight and landed on Russky Island on the campus of the Far Eastern Federal University (FEFU) in Vladivostok, where it will be presented to the participants and guests of the Eastern Economic Forum.

The first first flight prototype of the Ka-62 helicopter (OP-1, serial number 97876210101) while boarding the Russian Island on the campus of the Far Eastern Federal University (FEFU) in Vladivostok for demonstration in the exposition of the Eastern Economic Forum, 06.09.2018 (с) Yuri Smitiuk / TASS

Further in the release of PJSC "Helicopters of Russia" it says:

The first test flight of Ka-62 took place in May 2017. Over the past year, flight tests were conducted, which resulted in improvements to improve the reliability of the helicopter. In particular, the design of the body of the steering screw and the tail unit has been improved and strengthened, and a transmission of a standard design has been installed. Upon completion of all necessary work, the Ka-62 helicopter performed a series of regular and stable test flights in accordance with the test program, which confirmed its high performance and low fuel consumption compared to its competitors. During the final flight of the test program, the helicopter flew 260 km.

"First of all, I would like to congratulate our employees, testers and designers - they perfectly know what a difficult project this project has. Nevertheless, we decided to continue it, and over the past year we have been able to make significant progress, both in terms of the construction of the helicopter and in determining specific directions for its use. All this is especially important taking into account the tasks to increase the segment of manufactured civil products and to preserve the production load of Progress, "said Andrei Boginsky, General Director of the holding company Helicopters of Russia.

Until the end of 2018, it is planned to complete the factory tests of the Ka-62 and begin certification.

Without repeating the specifications of the
TVS 2DTS but rather cover key points including some criticisms. Copy and pasted from various article's some already been mentioned.

It will be able to land on short unprepared runways, water and snow.

Polar Airlines and Ulan-Ude Aviation Plant (UUAP, part of Russian Helicopters holding) have signed a contract for delivery of TVS-2DTS, the light composite single-engine turboprop airplane, based on Antonov An-2 design. The deal, which is part of a large-scale project to develop local air connections in Buryatiya and Yakutia regions, was announced by Russian Helicopters holding company.

The first deliveries are scheduled for 2021. Within the timeframe between 2021 and 2025 UUAP plans to deliver NO LESS than 200 aircraft for the needs of regional aviation,” the official announcement reads.

The production of the aircraft is expected to be launched by 2019. It is also not excluded that Russia’s State Transport Leasing Corporation (GTLK) may join in the contract

The Rostec Corporation of Russia has launched manufacturing activity of TVS-2DTS light aircraft at the Ulan-Ude Aviation Plant (U-UAZ), a member of the Russian Helicopters holding company.
It will be used for passengers, medivac, fire-fighting missions and for agricultural purposes.
Future applications planned for the aircraft include light reconnaissance and light attack.

According to Seryoznov, new aircraft from the first series will cost about $ 1.5 million, but the price is expected to fall to $1.2 million
He said that the state demand for such an aircraft will stand at about 350 aircraft, due to be supplied to the Russian Armed Forces as well as state bodies dealing with air medical services and forest protection.

In addition to the domestic market, the new aircraft will be supplied abroad, particularly to Mongolia, Indonesia and Malaysia and some other countries, which, to date, have already expressed an interest in the purchases of the new aircraft. According to his calculations, 700 An-2 biplanes are still used in Russia while, globally, this market figure is estimated at 4,500 units.

Denis Manturov, minister of industry and trade, states that a budget of Rb220 million ($3.9 million) has been allocated for the project in 2018, to be followed by Rb230 million over the next two years.

Production is scheduled to start at the Ulan-Ude Aviation Plant, which is more used to building Mil Mi-8 helicopters, by 2019, with an obligation to deliver "at least" 200 aircraft between 2021 and 2025, Russian Helicopters says.

The government is willing to partially subsidise certification expenses to manufacturers of aircraft for local transportation, as well as expenses on implementation of projects for manufacturing preparation and certification," Manturov says.

The prototype TVS-2DTS was presented at the MAKS-2017 airshow, where he was nicknamed the maize of the 21st century. For the first time this aircraft was raised in the air on July 10 this year. It is known that during this time the pilots flew more than 15 hours on it, including an 11-hour flight from Novosibirsk to the Ramenskoye airfield.

Honeywell engine is on consumption 15-20% lower than any domestic engines of this class. Although they are considering full  domestic produced engine

There was concerns of  the composite material not being strong enough but some people - although I don't think that this is out with Russian capabilities to make it strong enough.

Sanctions wars between Russia and the US, hoping they will not affect its segment of aircraft-building. Moreover, SibNIA has an agreement with Honeywell on the localisation of the engine assembly in Russia in due course. At the moment, 30 engines have already been supplied by Honeywell to the Ulan-Ude Aviation Plant for use in the TVS-2DTS. Under the terms of the agreement, local production will begin after the completion of deliveries of a certain number of engines.

Russia by Western countries, SibNIA says it will consider beginning assembling a biplane entirely from local parts and components. However, that will result in increased fuel consumption as well as other problems during its use - yet again I don't think producing a domestic engine of this time to be out with Russian capabilities it's not exactly the most sophisticated type of engine if you take into account what Russia already produces.

Although eehnie stated that
" the strong competence of the helicopters is only increasing"
You only have to look at the fact that Russian Helicopters holding company are the ones producing it which tells you that even they seen the potential in this category. As GarryB and others stated the price point is much cheaper than a helicopter of the similar specs as well distance and speed offered.

I would also point out that a paying passenger on a local flight that flying in a fixed wing aircraft is much more comfortable than a noisy helicopter. I've flown in fairly small aircraft as well as helicopters and I would definitely say a fixed wing is less noisy. Also if there ever was a problem with the engine a pilot has a better chance of landing a fixed wing aircraft full of passengers than a helicopter full of passengers loooooool.

On the point of UAV in Ukraine a UAV and the TVS 2DTS or An-2 serve two completely different roles and nobody in there right mind would flying such an aircraft in a known threat of any air defence. One of the key benefits of a UAV is the fact it's unmanned so therefore they can take more risks flying them near enemy airspace without the risk of loss of life.

As GarryB stated back on another thread on the forum on 5th April 2018
" the US feared the An-2 in North Korean hands as the first stealth aircraft... on a normal look down radar to avoid the massive reflection of the ground and things on the ground most pulse dopplar radars remove slow moving things from the display... if it displayed things moving at 10km/h you would have branches on trees and grass and people jogging... if they displayed things moving 100km/h you would have cars on motorways appearing, so look down radar used to have a speed limit where anything going slower would not be displayed... to be clear the slower targets would be detected, but they would not appear on the display... they would pretty much be removed because they were considered noise.

The An-2 can be flown safely down to about 60km/h... so in a 50km/h head wind it will have a ground speed of 10km/h.

This newer aircraft can probably do even better... there is no wire or strut supports that cause a lot of drag on biplanes"

As I stated previously the north Koreans tested with radar
An- 2 that they had replaced certain parts with wood to reduce signature and although it's a crude method it actually worked. There plans were to use them to paradrop special forces into south korea. Also I remember reading that the soviet army used An-2 to drop special forces onto big snow drifts the An-2 would fly very low and very slow and the troops would jump out without parachutes. Although I would imagine this still to be quite a daunting jump.

I insulted not GarryB. I received insults.

My first call to the moderators to stop the insults was missed

If you are not insulting anyone then you have nothing to worry about.

The basic problem other members have with you I believe is that some of your assumptions are unfounded.

You claim a lack of orders between 1991 and 2001 suggest the An-2 design is obsolete and without purpose, yet Wiki suggests 1,700 were operationally used in Russia in 2015.

Could it not be possible that the lack of orders are actually because they are fairly rugged but also simple machines that really don't require replacement every 5-10 years like a modern motorcar?

The fact that it has not been in production for some time also makes new production unlikely of the old aircraft unless there was a real sudden demand to replace the older aircraft... which their isn't.

Now a new Russian model might appeal to existing customers, though the US engine might be a stumbling block I am sure they can rectify that over time... US sanctions will likely make that necessary rather than desirable.

Ukrane and the countries that are helping to Ukraine are losing millions in UAVs that are fairly smaller and have smaller signature, but still are shut down by manpads, not by bigger air defense systems.

Yet, you are not suggesting UAVs and helicopters are obsolete?

In the rest of the comment there is nothing that makes to increase the demand of this type of aircrafts that is very low. Unlikel in the case of the helicopters, the number of customers of new aircrafts around this size is very low in this century. The declining in the demand was very strong in the 1990 has has not been recovered in the last years, unlike for other aircrafts.

The An-2 hasn't been in production for some time, so there was really no alternative if you already own one... you just spend more money keeping it running... even though it is likely a bit tired.

Now they have a real replacement that actually has even better performance and the potential to do an even better job, so why would they not take the opportunity to replace the aircraft they currently have with a brand new aircraft.

And the strong competence of the helicopters is only increasing:

Helicopters are a different aircraft type... through the operational life of the An-2 the helicopter has appeared and gotten better, yet it has never really replaced the An-2 in a large variety of roles... an An-2 is simply cheaper to operate and safer too.

PAK TA means : "Perspective of Airborne Complex of Transport Aviation"
Is not an specicif airplane is only a generic name for a future undefined program

I know... that is why I hoped they would expand it out into an engine related family of three types to cover the payload ranges of the An-22, An-124, and An-225... using two, four and six new engines...

Also the replacement is underway , An-26 by Il-112V , An-20 for Il-276 , Il-76 for Il-476 and also modernizated to Il-76 and An-124 is being modernized
for opérate at least 40 or perhaps 50 years of life , so Russian Air Force is not in hurry for develop more airplanes rigth now.

They talk about the Il-112 as the replacement for the An-26 and the An-72, but they also refer to the Il-114 as the replacement as well... which is a little confusing. The An-12 will be replaced by the Il-276, and the Il-76 will be replaced by the modernised Il-476.

I agree that modernisation of some aircraft will keep them operational for some time, but the requirements of mobility for the Army suggests lots of transports will be needed, including heavy transports and the current situation with the An-124 using a Ukrainian engine is not acceptable... a brand new engine in that power range could be used in a lighter aircraft to fill the space the An-22 left when it was withdrawn from service... and if you are going to design such an aircraft it would make sense to develop a family of aircraft sharing the same basic design and engines for the three weight classes I discussed above.

This newer aircraft can probably do even better... there is no wire or strut supports that cause a lot of drag on biplanes"

One of the articles about this new aircraft suggest it has no stall speed... if the engine fails then the pilot just pulls back hard on the stick and the aircraft slows and descends at a rate comparable to landing with a parachute till you hit the ground... in a high speed head wind the aircraft can actually fly backwards under full control.

Garry B, there is nothing unfounded in my words. My words are just based in the reality, a reality that Im exposing with real data.

The demand of this kind of aircrafts declined in the 1990s, but has been lower still in the 2000s and the 2010s. You can analize the sales of every case of aircraft that in Included, and you can see how all them failed commercially, not only in the size cathegory of the An-2/4/6, but in all the size cathegories between roughly 2.2 and 45,6 tons of Maximum Take-Off Weight. Not only that, we can see how the sales of some of the previously successful aricrafts, like the An-72/71/74 and the An-24/26/30/32, neither reached 50 aircrafts in the last 25 years.

https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Antonov/An-72/74 (47 units since 1994)
https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Antonov/An-24 (0 units since 1994, uncomplete but production of this variant was stopped before this year)
https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Antonov/An-26 (0 units since 1994)
https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Antonov/An-30 (0 units since 1994)
https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Antonov/An-32 (34 units since 1994)
https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Antonov/An-2 (0 units since 1994, uncomplete, included 15542 of the 15760 of European production and 0 of the 1027+ of Chinese production)
Without concrete data for the Che-22.

All it means not only a rejection of some concrete models based on their features, it means a rejection of the whole concept. And this is not only a trend of the Russian market, is also a worldwide trend.

You talk about the remaining units of the An-2 in service. The source gives reference of 1526+17 still fliying active, but also gives reference of other 13999 that are not flying active. What happened with them? Obviously a big majority of them have not been purchasing neither new units of the supposed successors, neither of the An-2/4/6 (new or used), neither of other aircrafts in the size cathegories around. The whole concept is declining strongly in these size cathegories.

You continue saying it has not been other alternative than to keep the old units running. This is not right. Here again, you have the list of local alternatives, but no-one succeeded. Also foreign options can be included:

eehnie wrote:All the successors of the An-72/71/74 have been unable to reach 50 units produced completed (this is also the Mi-46/AHL size cathegory). The production of the An-148/158/178 is being stopped in Russia by lack of orders:

7th cathegory Airliner aircraft: An-148/158/178 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Antonov/An-148
7th cathegory Transport aircraft: Be-200 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Beriev/Be-200
7th cathegory Transport aircraft: Yak-44 https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1170
7th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Tu-414 https://web.archive.org/web/20070208060848/http://www.tupolev.ru:80/English/Show.asp?SectionID=124

All the successors of the An-24/26/30/32 have been unable to reach 50 units produced completed (this is also the Mi-38 size cathegory):

8th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Tu-324 https://web.archive.org/web/20070208060848/http://www.tupolev.ru:80/English/Show.asp?SectionID=124
8th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Il-114 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Ilushin/Il-114
8th cathegory Airliner aircraft: An-140 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Antonov/An-140
8th cathegory Transport aircraft: Il-112 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Ilushin/Il-112
8th cathegory Transport aircraft: Tu-130/136 https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/tu-136.htm
8th cathegory Transport aircraft: MiG-110 http://avia.pro/blog/mig-110

While the Yak-130 trainer surpassed this level of production successfully, the last successful transport/airliner aircraft in the size cathegory of the Mi-8 and Ka-27 families is earlier still. All the recent projects have been unable to reach 50 units produced completed:

9th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Yak-48 http://avia.pro/blog/yak-48
9th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Il-108 https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1990/1990%20-%201314.html
9th cathegory Transport aircraft: Su-80 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Sukhoi/Su-80
9th cathegory Transport aircraft: Be-112 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/sea/be112.html

All the successors of the Che-22 have been unable to reach 50 units produced completed (this is also the Ka-60/62 size cathegory), and a good number of units of the L-410 remain in stock without finding a customer that purchase them:

10th cathegory Trainer aircraft: MiG-AT http://www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/migat.html
10th cathegory Airliner aircraft: M-302 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aliner/m302.html
10th cathegory Airliner aircraft: M-202 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aliner/m202.html
10th cathegory Transport aircraft: TVS 2DTS https://ruslet.webnode.cz/technika/ruska-technika/letecka-technika/sibnia/tvs-2dts/
10th cathegory Transport aircraft: T-208 Eagle http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t208.html

All the successors of the An-2/4/6 have been unable to reach 50 units produced completed (this is also the Mi-Ansat size cathegory):

11th cathegory Transport aircraft: T-101/130/210 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/craft/t101.html http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t130.html http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t210.html
11th cathegory Transport aircraft: T-207 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t207.html
11th cathegory Airliner aircraft: M-102 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aliner/m102.html
11th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Rysachok http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Technoavia/Rysachyok
11th cathegory Airliner aircraft: MiG-125 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aliner/mig125.html
11th cathegory Transport aircraft: T-115 Niva http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t115.html
11th cathegory Airliner aircraft: T-440 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t440.html

The last successful aircraft in the size cathegory of the Ka-226 is also earlier. All the recent projects have been unable to reach 50 units produced completed:

12th cathegory Transport aircraft: T-517 Fermer http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t517.html
12th cathegory Airliner aircraft: GM-17 Viper http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/gm17.html
12th cathegory Airliner aircraft: M-101 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Myasishchev/M-101
12th cathegory Trainer aircraft: SR-10 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/other/sr10.html
12th cathegory Transport aircraft: SM92 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/craft/sm92.html
12th cathegory Transport aircraft: M-500 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/m500.html
12th cathegory Transport aircraft: T-507 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t507.html
12th cathegory Transport aircraft: T-511 Aist-M http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t511.html
12th cathegory Transport aircraft: LA-8 http://avia.pro/blog/la-8-aerovolga-tehnicheskie-harakteristiki-foto
12th cathegory Airliner aircraft: SA-20P http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/sa20p.html
12th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Be-103 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Beriev/Be-103
12th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Akkord-201 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/akkord201.html

Checking case per case the market reality that these models suffered and are suffering, my words are perfectly understandable.
To note that the far bigger and far more expensive An-124 surpassed 50 units produced completed.

Some people here still ignores the real data despite to have them in front of their face. They have their own narrative and nothing else matters.

A new model is emerging in a rough environment of failed bids in at least the last 25 years. The US engine is not the main problem of this model in order to succeed. The whole situation of the market is instead. Its main problem is the lack of real demand today. Like the existence of units of L-410 in stock proves, the demand of this type of aircrafts is very very weak today, unlike in other cases like helicopters or aircrafts over 45.5 tons MTOW.

GarryB wrote:

eehnie wrote:Ukraine and the countries that are helping to Ukraine are losing millions in UAVs that are fairly smaller and have smaller signature, but still are shut down by manpads, not by bigger air defense systems.

Yet, you are not suggesting UAVs and helicopters are obsolete?

I said clearly before that both auxiliary aircrafts and helicopters must avoid contested areas. Not totally possible still, but achievable in the following 2 or 3 decades.

I said also clearly that I consider the concept of combat helicopter between the less modern modern armament of the Russian Armed Forces. I explained many times how I consider the concept of combat helicopter very likely will evolve toward unmanned technologies in order to avoid the high risks of the current use of manned combat helicopters.

UAVs otherwise can be many times expendable material. It makes not them obsolete.

GarryB wrote:

eehnie wrote:And the strong competence of the helicopters is only increasing:

Helicopters are a different aircraft type... through the operational life of the An-2 the helicopter has appeared and gotten better, yet it has never really replaced the An-2 in a large variety of roles... an An-2 is simply cheaper to operate and safer too.

The competence between aircrafts and helicopters (also aircrafts) is something like the competence between a PC and a MAC. Different systems to solve basically the same roles. In some cases aircrafts prove to be more effective, in other cases helicopters prove to be more effective. And this is the area where helicopters become dominators of the market.

Cheaper... maybe by age in used aircraft markets.
Safer... in doubt.

The introduction of the Ka-60/62 in the same size cathegory of the L-410 and the new project can affect to both strongly. But still reverse engineering of the US engine can be interesting.

GarryB wrote:

AMCXXL wrote:PAK TA means : "Perspective of Airborne Complex of Transport Aviation"
Is not an specicif airplane is only a generic name for a future undefined program

I know... that is why I hoped they would expand it out into an engine related family of three types to cover the payload ranges of the An-22, An-124, and An-225... using two, four and six new engines...

I think you are confusing different projects.

The characteristics on the An-2 make it safer than a helicopter and much much easier to fly than a helicopter. One of the article's states that the TVS 2DTS will be even easier to fly than An-2. So by making something easier to fly gives less pilot error and the fact that in the event of engine problems Inc engine failure an An-2 can effectively slow down and land relatively safely were and helicopter well just hurls towards the earth againing speed and crashes with catastrophic consequences. I mentioned this before. I know which one I would rather be in lol.

The fact remains that Rostec along with various ministries and regional airlines have seen the need for such aircraft and Russian Helicopters holding company are building it. And orders and interest has given. Do I think it will see the same numbers as
An-2? no I don't but I do think it will exceed 50 (@eehnie). And time will tell. But my concerns on the engine and sanctions I hope that Rostec eventually fix this issue.

And also not everything is based on numbers when it comes to success. They only only need to build enough to satisfy their investment and profit on the business side of things and it's customers only need enough to fulfil their needs. If Rostec come out of this in the profit and their customers are happy with the product it's a win win situation for all. And it's also likely the customer will return in the future and maybe be interested in other products. The su-33 for example was never produced in large numbers but fulfilled a niche role that was needed. Ukraines an-225 mriya one being built fulfils a niche role and gets used quite a bit around the world. Helicopters won't dominate this market because it's serves different role helicopters will continue to get better but so will aircraft and both will still serve their roles well the only thing really these two aircrafts are facing is if they will be manned or not.

Pages after pages talking about nothing. I don't even know what you people are even arguing about anyway? Il-112? Plane isn't even flown yet. Il-114 is supposed to fly soon ish anyway. And there is no real detail other than "at least 100 of these cars are needed".

Am I correct or we talking of something else?

Isos wrote:

I think it's eehnie talking about An-2 being a shity plane so all russian plane are shit. And then someone made the mistake to answer him. So now he use red and blue colors to quote wiki pages and who knows what other fantastic (I mean literaly fantastic   ) sources and no one reads it but the orange notification appears on the main page so most people click on it just to remove the orange notification rather than read what he says.

You must admit his market analysis requires a PhD in bullshit to understand. The failure of Russian civil aviation products is a direct result of the collapse of the CCCP supply chain and the further weakening of it with the split with Ukraine. The lack of development of civil aviation engines and avionics placed our products at a severe disadvantage to their Western counterparts and when we did seek the same source we were slapped with sanctions. Over the last 10 years we have been rebuilding that supply chain and are ready for a breakout. The market for these products has been and will always be there.

Isos wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Pages after pages talking about nothing. I don't even know what you people are even arguing about anyway? Il-112? Plane isn't even flown yet. Il-114 is supposed to fly soon ish anyway. And there is no real detail other than "at least 100 of these cars are needed".

Am I correct or we talking of something else?

I think it's eehnie talking about An-2 being a shity plane so all russian plane are shit. And then someone made the mistake to answer him. So now he use red and blue colors to quote wiki pages and who knows what other fantastic (I mean literaly fantastic   ) sources and no one reads it but the orange notification appears on the main page so most people click on it just to remove the orange notification rather than read what he says.

Lies like these do not change the reality.

Russia many successful project if which I have been talking in many messages like this:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t4312p250-russian-transport-aircraft-fleet-vta#212784

eehnie wrote:Data by weight class, updated at the begin of 2018 from Russianplanes.net and other complementary sources:

1st Size Cathegory:

-

2nd Size Cathegory:

Active 011 Reserve 015 Production 1984-Today An-124

3rd Size Cathegory:

Active 003 Reserve 002 Production 1979-Today Il-86/80/96
Active 004 Reserve 005 Production 1966-1975 An-22

4th Size Cathegory:

Active 152 Reserve 065 Production 1973-Today Il-76/78/A-50
Active 006 Reserve 003 Production 1966-Today Il-62

5th Size Cathegory:

Active 006 Reserve 000 Production 1990-Today Tu-204/214
Active 018 Reserve 003 Production 1969-Today Tu-154

6th Size Cathegory:

Active 000 Reserve 000 Production 2010-Today Su-Superjet100
Active 035 Reserve 052 Production 1980-Today Mi-26/27
Active 000 Reserve 000 Production 1976-2003 Yak-42/142: http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Yakovlev/Yak-42
Active 065 Reserve 098 Production 1964-1989 Tu-134
Active 044 Reserve 009 Production 1959-1985 Il-18/20/22/24
Active 064 Reserve 048 Production 1957-1972 An-10/12

7th Size Cathegory:

Active 028 Reserve 019 Production 1985-Today An-72/71/74
Active 000 Reserve 010 Production 1960-1980 Mi-6/10/22

8th Size Cathegory:

Active 000 Reserve 000 Production 2018-Today Mi-38 (would need to reach around 16500 Kg of Maximum Take-Off Weight)
Active 161 Reserve 260 Production 1962-Today An-24/26/30/32

9th Size Cathegory:

Active 099 Reserve 000 Production 2009-Today Yak-130
Active 138 Reserve 068 Production 1979-Today Ka-27/28/29/31/32

10th Size Cathegory:

Active 000 Reserve 000 Production 1993-Today Che-22: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/sea/che22.html

11th Size Cathegory:

Active 036 Reserve 000 Production 2013-Today Mi-Ansat
Active 028 Reserve 029 Production 1966-1993 Mi-2
Active 036 Reserve 038 Production 1950-1991 An-2

12th Size Cathegory:

Active 041 Reserve 000 Production 2004-Today Ka-226

13th Size Cathegory:

Active 000 Reserve 000 Production 2018-Today Yak-152
Active 000 Reserve 000 Production 1996-2008 Il-103: https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Ilushin/Il-103
Active 000 Reserve 000 Production 1989-Today MAI-890: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/mai890.html
Active 000 Reserve 000 Production 1985-Today Yak-55/54/56: https://www.aviaport.ru/directory/aviation/jak54/
Active 000 Reserve 000 Production 1984-Today Su-26/29/31: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-29
Active 099 Reserve 240 Production 1977-1998 Yak-52

Including all the most modern Russian and Sovietic successful aircrafts and helicopters with production over 50 units, plus the Mi-38 and the Yak-152, which mass production begins now, are expected to be a success, and have been ordered by the Russian Armed Forces. Included not foreign aircrafts that are likely to disappear soon from the Russian Armed forces (by sale, transfer to other governmental ministries or other way):

Active 012 Reserve 000 Production 2009-Today An-148/158/178 in the weignt clas of the An-72/74
Active 009 Reserve 000 Production 1997-Today An-140 in the weight class of the An-24/26/30/32
Active 029 Reserve 070 Production 1970-2015 L-410 in the weight class of the Che-22
Active 200 Reserve 000 Production 1977-1998 L-39 in the weight class of the An-2

Green means production available for Russia. Blue means unlikely to reach the Russian Armed Forces. Purple is related with foreign and local aircrafts likely to disappear soon.

Between the 6 biggest cathegories aircrafts are dominant. Between the following 6 cathegories the helicopters would be dominant despite to be not present in all the cathegories, taking into account the success of the Mi-26/27 and the Mi-6/10 (bigger than the success of the An-72/71/74, with higher number of units produced). And in the smallest cathegory trainer aircrafts would be dominant. In the future I would expect:

- Transport aircrafts to be successful in the 2nd to 6th cathegories (since 20 tons payload).
- Airliner aircrafts to be successful in the 3rd to 6th cathegories (since 95-100 passengers + mid range >5000Km).
- Helicopters to be successful in the 6th to 12th cathegories (until 20 tons payload).
- Trainer aircrafts to be successful in the 9th and 13th cathegories.

The success is uncertain, even unlikely, for the rest of the options. As overall rule, I would avoid to invest on them.

More explanation about, in the following link:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t4312p75-russian-transport-aircraft-fleet-vta#189143

According to it, this would be the order of priority for auxiliary aircrafts and helicopters:

0.- Su-SJ100 (I expect some order from the Russian Armed Forces in the short term).

1.- Ka-60/62 (in the Che-22 10th size class with around 2.5 tons payload)
2.- Tu-330 (in the Tu-204/214 5th size class with around 40 tons payload).
3.- Mi-46/AHL (in the An-72/71/74 7th size class with around 15 tons payload).
4.- Il-106/PTS Ermak 80 (in the An-22 3rd size class with around 80 tons payload).
5.- Il-276 (in the An-10/12 6th size class with around 20 tons payload).
6.- PTS Ermak 160 (in the An-124 2nd size class with around 160 tons payload).
7.- Tu-304/Frigate Freejet (in the Il-62 4th size class for double configuration: 1 mid passenger capacity + long range, 2 high passenger capacity + mid range).
8.- New Aircraft (in the Il-76/78 Be-A50 4th size class with around 60 tons payload).
9.- CRAIC CR929 (in the Il-86/80/96 3rd size class for high passenger capacity + long range).
10.- Ka-40 Minoga (in the Ka/27/28/29/31/32/35 9th size class with around 5 tons payload).
11.- New Helicopter (in the Mi-26/27 6th size class with around 20 tons payload.
12.- MS-21/Yak-242 (in the Tu-204/214 5th size class for mid passenger capacity + mid range).

Note that the PTS Ermak 240 would come as consecuence of the three sizes philosophy of the PAK-VTA project, but would not be prioritary in my view. The Il-PAK-TA is not in the list because would be for air transport in contested areas.

The Mi-6/10/22 seems exhausted, pending total decommission.
I would expect the An-22 to be used until to be totally exhausted in the short-term.
The An-2 need also a plan for total exhaustion.

As you can see in the first list, with the boxes, a good number of Russian/Sovietic aricrafts fairly successful continue being used, and as you can see in the second list of 12+ projects, there is a good number of current Russian projects that can become successful, and deserve to continue/begin its development.

Vladimir79 wrote:

Isos wrote:

I think it's eehnie talking about An-2 being a shity plane so all russian plane are shit. And then someone made the mistake to answer him. So now he use red and blue colors to quote wiki pages and who knows what other fantastic (I mean literaly fantastic   ) sources and no one reads it but the orange notification appears on the main page so most people click on it just to remove the orange notification rather than read what he says.

You must admit his market analysis requires a PhD in bullshit to understand.  The failure of Russian civil aviation products is a direct result of the collapse of the CCCP supply chain and the further weakening of it with the split with Ukraine.  The lack of development of civil aviation engines and avionics placed our products at a severe disadvantage to their Western counterparts and when we did seek the same source we were slapped with sanctions.  Over the last 10 years we have been rebuilding that supply chain and are ready for a breakout.  The market for these products has been and will always be there.  

You can do better than this Vladimir79.

To see what Im saying you only need to analize the range of products of Airbus. A modern and recent aircraft constructor, which range of products is free of the old successful trends from a period in which the company was not active, and shows isolated which are the modern successful trends on auxiliary/civil aircrafts construction.

Airbus is a direct and advanced competitor of the Russian Aircraft Corporation.

The entire range of products of Airbus is and has been adapted to the size cathegories that allow a profit for the customer airlines, avoiding the size acthegories that allow not it. Just in line with what I commented.

eehnie wrote:

You can do better than this Vladimir79.

Really? You are the one using wiki which has long been banned on this forum as a worthless source. The worst part is you use it to highlight products that have nothing to do with the markets of An-2 which are sky diving, crop dusting and bush planes.

To see what Im saying you only need to analize the range of products of Airbus. A modern and recent aircraft constructor, which range of products is free of the old successful trends from a period in which the company was not active, and shows isolated which are the modern successful trends on auxiliary/civil aircrafts construction.

You have certainly analized something but you haven't analysed any products outside of Russia. Why don't you list the foreign products that actually compete with the markets of the An-2 that are sky diving, crop dusting and bush planes.

Airbus is a direct and advanced competitor of the Russian Aircraft Corporation.

The entire range of products of Airbus is and has been adapted to the size cathegories that allow a profit for the customer airlines, avoiding the size acthegories that allow not it. Just in line with what I commented.

It isn't a direct competitor of the An-2. They don't make any planes for that purpose.

Vladimir79 wrote:

eehnie wrote:

You can do better than this Vladimir79.

Really?  You are the one using wiki which has long been banned on this forum as a worthless source.  The worst part is you use it to highlight products that have nothing to do with the markets of An-2 which are sky diving, crop dusting and bush planes.

You maybe confused with the comment of GarryB. The quotes of Wikipedia were of him.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t4312p325-russian-transport-aircraft-fleet-vta#234168  

Vladimir79 wrote:

eehnie wrote:To see what Im saying you only need to analize the range of products of Airbus. A modern and recent aircraft constructor, which range of products is free of the old successful trends from a period in which the company was not active, and shows isolated which are the modern successful trends on auxiliary/civil aircrafts construction.

You have certainly analized something but you haven't analysed any products outside of Russia.  Why don't you list the foreign products that actually compete with the markets of the An-2 that are sky diving, crop dusting and bush planes.

Airbus is European. To know about the range of Airbus, I obviously analyzed als9 products of outside of Russia.   

Vladimir79 wrote:

eehnie wrote:Airbus is a direct and advanced competitor of the Russian Aircraft Corporation.

The entire range of products of Airbus is and has been adapted to the size cathegories that allow a profit for the customer airlines, avoiding the size acthegories that allow not it. Just in line with what I commented.

It isn't a direct competitor of the An-2.  They don't make any planes for that purpose.

The key of all this is why they entered not in this segment.

eehnie wrote:

You maybe confused with the comment of GarryB. The quotes of Wikipedia were of him.

I see you listing aircraft with links to wiki, it has nothing to do with Garry.  

Airbus is European. To know about the range of Airbus, I obviously analyzed als9 products of outside of Russia. 
 
The entire range of products of Airbus is and has been adapted to the size cathegories that allow a profit for the customer airlines, avoiding the size acthegories that allow not it. Just in line with what I commented.

The key of all this is why they entered not in this segment.

According to your logic Cessna, Piper and Beechcraft have no market, yet they dominate the markets the An-2 would be competing against.  

The fact that you mention Airbus as a competitor and none of the actual competitors only shows your ignorance of the industry.

Vladimir79 wrote:

eehnie wrote:

You maybe confused with the comment of GarryB. The quotes of Wikipedia were of him.

I see you listing aircraft with links to wiki, it has nothing to do with Garry.  

Airbus is European. To know about the range of Airbus, I obviously analyzed als9 products of outside of Russia. 
 
The entire range of products of Airbus is and has been adapted to the size cathegories that allow a profit for the customer airlines, avoiding the size acthegories that allow not it. Just in line with what I commented.

The key of all this is why they entered not in this segment.

According to your logic Cessna, Piper and Beechcraft have no market, yet they dominate the markets the An-2 would be competing against.  

The fact that you mention Airbus as a competitor and none of the actual competitors only shows your ignorance of the industry.

It would be possible to say just the opposite.

Taking inot account the overall market Aeroflot is still today the main Russian civil customer for the aircraft producing companies.

The current fleet of Aeroflot includes Airbus (as its main supplier) but includes not Cessna, Piper and Beechcraft.

http://web.archive.org/web/20180830140019/https://www.aeroflot.ru/ru-en/flight/plane_park

And how to avoid the analysis of the range of products branded as Airbus when the company is the second aircraft manufacturer worldwide by revenue.

I really think that for United Aircraft Corporation and the entire Russian aircraft manufacturer machine, to take example of what Airbus does is more important than to look at what Cessna, Piper or Beechcraft do.

You can think about why the main civil Russian customer has only aircrafts over roughly 45.5 tons of Maximum Take-Off Weight. If you think about it, you will realize where the airlines find profit. We see how Aeroflot in adition to the continued purchasing of Su-SuperJet100 still demands new aircrafts of bigger size. My list of 12 priorities from a military point answers in part to this type of demand valid also for the Russian Armed Forces (in the refered to the costs), and followed also by other Russian and foreign airlines.

At same time you can think about why the second aircraft manufacturer worldwide by revenue, a fairly young company that allows to see clearly in its Airbus range of products the most important recent trends of the aircraft manufacturing industry, and where aircraft manufacturers find really revenue and profit in the last decades..

They are fairly solid points that are easy and comfortable to defend for me.

If I explained not the situation in the Russian market of new (not used) aircrafts of Cessna, Piper and Beechcraft, is also in your hand to do it. In the size cathegory of the An-2 and in other cathegories around.

PS: I have not problem replacing links (very few) to english wikipedia. It was some case where it was not easy to find alternative, but not problem.

i cant believe there is so much conflict in this topic for a tiny airplane like An-2 and its replacement..

Isos wrote:Just some years to wait and you will have russian made engines for planes and ships.

The current range of Russian aircraft engines is fairly good and complete.    

The replacement is fairly comfortable in this case.

I think An-2 is supposed to get an all composite variant being made in Russia as is. This will be good!

And Yak-40 as well!

But I think some of these projects will be put on hold till they come up with alternative engines to use cause many of them want to use western engines (For what ever god forsaken reason other than corruption) and now they wont be able to obtain them.

George1 wrote:i cant believe there is so much conflict in this topic for a tiny airplane like An-2 and its replacement..

Airplane isn't the cause of conflict, it's individual

PapaDragon wrote:

George1 wrote:i cant believe there is so much conflict in this topic for a tiny airplane like An-2 and its replacement..

Airplane isn't the cause of conflict, it's individual

True that

There are some that would argue that black is white, there are those who will argue the different shades of purple and even some that will debate shades of black