Russian Civil Aviation: News #3

Firebird wrote:
Only thing is, presidents refuse to fly in 2 engines.But everyone else doesn't have a choice.
I'd rather pay a little more and have 4 engines. Just as some people pay a little more and have a safer car/fly a safer airline.

well, perhaps you're right with the safety. Nevertheless all airlines switched to 2 engines - also for transatlantic (and pacific) flights. Including CR-929

Il-96 is a plan B and trying to keep some expertise within the industry.
The plane is not competitive with twin engine planes. The body and wings are previous generation.
They will improve avionics and use new Russian engines in the new design but not more.

william.boutros wrote:Il-96 is a plan B and trying to keep some expertise within the industry.
The plane is not competitive with twin engine planes. The body and wings are previous generation.
They will improve avionics and use new Russian engines in the new design but not more.

The body (fuselage) of the il96 is fine, and there is already a significant use of composites in it. A new wing can be paired to it when they do the twin version with PD35 engines.

The Airbus A330 has the same age, and they just presented a modernised version with new engines.

Is not just a plan B. Is a solution for the present, and fundamental for the aeronautical transport in Russia in case of further problems with European companies due to them being American puppets.

Without it they will lose the capability to independently build large civil airplanes, and to recover it is very costly and time consuming.

In addition it is fully Russian and will be assembled in Russia, while the CRAIG929  will be assembled in China.

Even the 2021 version with 4 PS-90A1 engines can have also some success abroad among countries that have problems with the US politics (Venezuela,  Iran, Iraq, Syria, maybe in the future even Lybia and Egypt)

So, while I do not believe it will be built in very large numbers, I believe it is a fundamental project.

william.boutros wrote:Il-96 is a plan B and trying to keep some expertise within the industry.
The plane is not competitive with twin engine planes. The body and wings are previous generation.
They will improve avionics and use new Russian engines in the new design but not more.

Not only expertize. It is plan B if CR-929 is delayed, it is fully Russian wide-body plane, proven frame.

As for obsolence. Same with A-330 neo is this also obsolete? A330 is same age as Il-96.
Can be upgraded with new materials/wings like A330 to A330Neo so unless A-330neo is obsolete then Il-96 is as well.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
Even the 2021 version with 4 PS-90A1 engines can have also some success abroad among countries that have problems with the US politics (Venezuela,  Iran, Iraq, Syria, maybe in the future even Lybia and Egypt)t.

with current US policy number of potential clients is going only to grow

Same as capability of such "clients" to actually pay will shrink.

marat wrote:Same as capability of such "clients" to actually pay will shrink.

they are all country with large oil or naturale gas reserves.
In addition there are many African countries with a lot of rare earths or minerals reserves.
Who said that they have to pay in US dollars?

marat wrote:Same as capability of such "clients" to actually pay will shrink.

Not neccessarily.

The countries that are diversifying their supply base are typically growing economies that are slowly moving away from the US, but still keep good relations with it.
Turkey, Egypt, Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Nigeria, Pakistan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, etc...

Then you have the traditional Russian-orientated countries that have good enough relations with the West to avoid sanctions too and secure growth. Kazakhstan, Vietnam, Algeria, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India and so on.
Neutral countries such as Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, most African states

But as for the Il-96 I think it would primarily be of interest to exactly those sanctioned countries with bad relations with the West that Russia is willing to operate a credit line for in exchange for natural resource rights.
So Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Belarus and so on.
Possibly some African states might be interested and Serbia too (if the Il-96 passenger version passes all certification in Europe).

flamming_python wrote:

marat wrote:Same as capability of such "clients" to actually pay will shrink.

Not neccessarily.

The countries that are diversifying their supply base are typically growing economies that are slowly moving away from the US, but still keep good relations with it.
Turkey, Egypt, Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Nigeria, Pakistan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, etc...

Then you have the traditional Russian-orientated countries that have good enough relations with the West to avoid sanctions too and secure growth. Kazakhstan, Vietnam, Algeria, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India and so on.
Neutral countries such as Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, most African states

But as for the Il-96 I think it would primarily be of interest to exactly those sanctioned countries with bad relations with the West that Russia is willing to operate a credit line for in exchange for natural resource rights.
So Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Belarus and so on.
Possibly some African states might be interested and Serbia too (if the Il-96 passenger version passes all certification in Europe).

The Il-96T (cargo version) received FAA type certificate in 1999. https://www.flightglobal.com/il-96-marks-a-first-with-us-certification/26963.article

I do not believe there should be issues for the Il-96-400M, since it is just a modernization of the il-96 that is flying since the 90s and has proven to be reliable and safe.

In case American or European authorities creates problems for certifying the plane (based on sanctions and politics instead of being based on real safety reasons), than Russia could ban all foreign planes to operate with Russian companies.

By the way, probably this article had already been posted here...

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2020-01-13/first-ilyushin-il-96-400m-takes-shape

Plans call for the Il-96’s twin-engine derivative to fly in 2025 and acquire certification two years later.

Looks like the Tu-204 production line will be running for quite some time

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2020-01-16/russia-considers-redundant-jetliners-anti-sub-role

Austin wrote:Looks like the Tu-204 production line will be running for quite some time

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2020-01-16/russia-considers-redundant-jetliners-anti-sub-role

I believe that tu204 and A40/Be42 could be complementary in their use as naval patrol and ASW.
Afterwards, they use three different platforms now (il38, be12 and Tu142). In addition, the tu204 and the A40 could share the same engines.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

Austin wrote:Looks like the Tu-204 production line will be running for quite some time

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2020-01-16/russia-considers-redundant-jetliners-anti-sub-role

I believe that tu204 and A40/Be42 could be complementary in their use as naval patrol and ASW.
Afterwards,  they use three different platforms now (il38, be12 and Tu142). In addition, the tu204 and the A40 could share the same engines.

A40/Be42 is not happening, project was stillborn

And having 3 different aircraft for same role is idiotic, they are finally doing the right thing with ASW Tu-204 so no need to waste time on other nonsense

Weren't they going to use the Be-200?

Miniaturizing ASW tech into an upsized drone would be more interesting. If they could do this, then they could run several drones
over target areas and get a more effective result.

william.boutros wrote:Weren't they going to use the Be-200?

It was one of proposals but it didn't go through

Tu-204 is best solution by far, proven aircraft with adequate size

kvs wrote:Miniaturizing ASW tech into an upsized drone would be more interesting.   If they could do this, then they could run several drones
over target areas and get a more effective result.    

Till hte time time Il-38/Tu-142 resource would be over. Safer approach is to use what you have as proven airframe and then to have time to develop right drone.

Don´t know if posted before.

The aviation industry - prospects and condition. Press Review

https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/129667/

DELVING INSIDE THE “A320SKI”, RUSSIA’S IRKUT MC-21

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/industry-news/delving-inside-a320ski-russias-irkut-mc-21/


Alexander Neradko spoke about the line of aircraft for regional transportation

https://aviation21.ru/aleksandr-neradko-rasskazal-o-linejke-samolyotov-dlya-regionalnyx-perevozok/

Austin wrote:DELVING INSIDE THE “A320SKI”, RUSSIA’S IRKUT MC-21

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/industry-news/delving-inside-a320ski-russias-irkut-mc-21/

Any article using insulting tags such as Concordski, A320ski, etc. are pure intellectually insulting drivel
and not worth the time of day. Once authors of such hack pieces start applying the same standard to
Boeing and Airbus, then maybe they will have some tokens for "impartiality".

BTW the Concorde was a reduced capability ripoff of Soviet designs. The west never built narrow
fuselage jets like the numerous examples from the USSR. The same can be said for the Valkyrie which
is a non sequitur to previous US military jets including the B-52. By contrast the USSR established
its own design trend with the Tu-95 (which western fake stream media claims is a ripoff of the
look-nothing-like-it B-29 showing us the gullibility of western media consumer sheep).

Browse the Tupolev designs during the 1950s and 1960s and you will see that the Tu-144 fits in
perfectly. But the Tu-144 and the "Concorde" and "Valkyrie" are discontinuities in the US/UK/France
designs.

A lot of stupid things in the article. The wings do not need wingtip devices because they are already designed from the start to have the required aerodynamics characteristics without them. A320, 737 etc no.
By the way, more width in the cabin also means a larger aisle, facilitating the move of people and allowing 2 people to go up or down the aisle at the same time.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:A lot of stupid things in the article. The wings do not need wingtip devices because they are already designed from the start to have the required aerodynamics characteristics  without them. A320,  737 etc no.
By the way, more width in the cabin also means a larger aisle, facilitating the move of people and allowing 2 people to go up or down the aisle at the same time.

The usual internet fanboi crap. I have been hearing about these precious winglets for years. As if they are such a freaking challenge for Russian
aircraft makers. Seriously. The morons who spout such "analysis" don't have even the basic education to understand airfoil design. When Russian
designers talk about thin wing designs they are not jerking off in public, they are talking about real innovations.

MS-21 has High Wing Aspect Ratio.

More from TsAGI http://tsagi.com/pressroom/news/3167/

Follow up to IL-96 design ?

http://tsagi.com/pressroom/news/4516/

TsAGI develops light multi-purpose aircraft for regional aviation

http://tsagi.com/pressroom/news/4514/

Austin wrote:Follow up to IL-96 design ?

http://tsagi.com/pressroom/news/4516/

No it is a much smaller airplane than the il 96.
It is a n airplane for about 200 passengers with 8000 km range, so about 2000 km more than the MC21.

It is a similar concept as the Airbus A321XLR, the extended range version of the A321.

Maybe these studies could be directly applied to the long range version of the MC-21-400.