Russian Civil Aviation: News #4

wilhelm wrote:

Backman wrote:


With the kinds of sanctions coming down , Motor Sich will come very handy. I'd imagine the TU 214 had Motor Sich engines

The Tu-214 uses the PS-90 engine made by Aviadvigatel.
It's never used, nor been mooted to use, an engine from Motor Sich.
Motor Sich doesn't have an engine in the thrust bracket for the Tu-214.

If Zaporozhye will be included in a friendly novorossia or directly in Russia, the motor sich factory could be included in the United engine corporation of Russia and they could eventually organize there a new production site for russian engines (on top of using their resources and supply chain for producing engine components).

Furthemore, if not they have not already destroyed everything, they could continue production of existing equipment for a while.

By the way there is a already a turbine blade factory in the Lugansk region belonging to motor sich that is since 2014 controlled by the rebels.

Meanwhile Ivchenko Progress engine design firm could become a subsidiary of the Perm based aviadgavitel or of Saturn (based in Rybinsk).

Backman wrote:It would sure be nice to know what the plan is for Motor Sich. They should prioritize taking it. They need those engines. They don't need them , but they are there. And Motor Sich was paid for by Russia.

With the kinds of sanctions coming down , Motor Sich will come very handy. I'd imagine the TU 214 had Motor Sich engines

The Chinese would have something to say in that regards, but in the short term it could help with some unfinished import substitution issues (together with Ivchenko) like for instance the D-18 for the Ruslans. Zorya may be useful in the short term too.
In the long run, they should integrate in the production capacities of UEC, there will be a lot to do and thousands of engines to produce to substitute the Western fleet of civilian aviation, it will demand to grow capacities by a big factor

GarryB wrote:

Most planes have been waiting on new engines and new engines in even an old airframe can be competitive.

The problem is now solved and western brands are no longer options which is good for Russian companies... Yakovlev would be wasting their time on VSTOL fighters in my personal opinion but creating new civilian aircraft would be useful...

The MC-21 is a Yakovlev aircraft designed by Yak engineers. A few years ago it was also proposed to use the Yak-242 naming for it after the start of operations. I think that the MC-21 is just a development name as it was as an example the T50 Pak-Fa that later became Su-57

GarryB wrote:Motor Sich will be gone, just forget about it.



..

But it's right there. Just take what's left of it. John Bolton and the Chinese were fighting over it. It must be worth taking for free now.

It is some intellectual property left over from the USSR. It has some symbolic value too

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

GarryB wrote:

civilian aircraft would be useful...

The MC-21 is a Yakovlev aircraft designed by Yak engineers. A few years ago it was also proposed to use the Yak-242 naming for it after the start of operations. I think that the MC-21 is just a development name as it was as an example the T50 Pak-Fa that later became Su-57

Speaking of which , isn't it about time that they gave it the real name. I think they should call it a Yak. The Yak had some successful civilian aircraft. Like the Yak 40.

The Ukrainian government made a statement where they said the Motor Sich staff had been evacuated to Lviv after the factory was hit with cruise missiles.
Now, like most things they say, it is probably bullshit, but.

lancelot wrote:The Ukrainian government made a statement where they said the Motor Sich staff had been evacuated to Lviv after the factory was hit with cruise missiles.
Now, like most things they say, it is probably bullshit, but.

They were probably evacuated to the Lviv Mig 29 depot.. Which was bombed by Russia too.

Some considerations on the Tu214 and on its engines.

The Tu-214 (and also the Tu-204sm) has a length of 46.14 metres and a maximum  single class seating of 210 (215 for the 204aSM
With a minimum (for the economy class) seat pitch of 32 inches (81.28 cm) (38 inches (96.52cm) in business class for the 2 classes set up)

Seat Pitch is the distance from any point on one seat to the exact same point on the seat in front or behind it. While it is not the exact equivalent of "legroom", it does give a very good approximation of how much seat room you should expect.

To give a comparison, in the Boeing 737 Max the seat pitches are

28–29 in (71–74 cm) in high density, 29–30 in (74–76 cm) in economy, 36 in (91 cm) in business

For this reason the 737 of economy airlines like Ryanair or the airbus A320 of Easyjet offers almost the same number of passengers as a Tu-204, while being considerably shorter

E.g the Boeing 737max 200 of Ryanair has a max seating of 197 passengers while being almost 7 metres shorter than the tu214 (39.47 m vs 46.14)

So the Tu-214 offer a much higher comfort in econonomy class than the Boeing 737.

Of course, if needed a high density configuration (with reduced seat pitch) for the tu-214 could be easily organized, bringing the seat capacity to more than 230, but possibly the Russians are more interested in flight comfort than the western passengers.






Furthermore, concerning the weight: it is true that the tu214 is considerably heavier than the Boeing 737 (taking in example the Boeing 737 max200 used by Ryanair (110 tons vs 82, but it is also much shorter)
If we had to extrapolate the Boeing 737 weight to an equivalent lenght to the tu214 its Maximum take off weight would raise to 97 tons. It is still less than the tu214 but the Tupulev has probably still a lot of improvement margin (even if it is probably not worth to invest too much in costly redesigns and weight loss excercises, since there is already a replacement almost ready (the MC21-400).
I imagine anyway that the new engines and modern russian avionics and internal systems, landing gears, etc developed for the MC21 could be adapted if needed to the Tu214 and bring it to new life (possibly as a rugged and sturdier alternative to the MC21 for some remote countries)

P.S. the 737 classic (first modernisation of the original 737 that started operation in 1968) entered in service in 1984 with CFM56 engines.

In 1997 instead entered in service the third generation of Boeing 737, the 737NG with improved CFM56-7 series engines, a glass cockpit, and upgraded and redesigned interior configuration.

As said before, the PS90 is not a bad engine, but the version in service received no improvement during its life and it is comparable to the 1984 version of the CFM56. The advanced derivative from 2009  PS-90A2 offered substantial improvements, but it was developed together with Pratt and Whitney and contained several American components. Also its derivative PS-90A3 still maintained American components, otherwise it would have been possible to use it for sales to Iran or Venezuela.
A fully Russian PS-90A3M version was more recently proposed but probably its development never really started because it would have meant moving important engineering resources away from the PD-14 development.

The Tu-214 is the equivalent of the Boeing 757. Not the 737.
It is a larger aircraft made for longer distance flights.

You cannot compare seat pitch and things like that with the 737. The 737 and A320 are typically used in short distance flights which take like 2-3 hours. Only very recently could those aircraft even make transatlantic flights of 5 hours thanks to more modern high efficiency engines. Something like the A321LR or A321XLR will be in competition with the Tu-214 and the 737MAX 10 stretch will touch same market but with less comfort.

The seat distance must be larger for longer flights. If you are flying Moscow to Vladivostok, you won't be using short pitch seats. That market will be for people flying to Sochi or Crimea basically. That is the closest equivalent to the European or US internal market flights on A320 and 737. For people flying beyond the Urals into like Krasnoyarsk you are basically flying the equivalent of a transatlantic or if it is to the Far East to Vladivostok a flight from Europe to the US West Coast.

The 757 was designed for transatlantic flights. The Tu-214 is roughly equivalent. So you would be using it for flights from Moscow to Europe, Turkey, or the Urals.

There was a modernized version of the Tu-204 designed with modern electronics. The Tu-204SM. But it never sold in any numbers. They basically built the prototype and that was it. So while it exists, it isn't in production, and starting this production, might take same time as MC-21. The main advantage of the Tu-204SM is that it is certified, I think, so there's that.

I would not spend more time improving the PS-90 engine. I would just develop that PD-14M engine which has similar thrust. And move products from PS-90 series to PD-14M series as quick as possible. However because of the dire situation with airplane parts, I can see a situation where PS-90 engine upgrades continue and product is extended for at two decades.

If it was me I would fund the construction of some Tu-214 aircraft and speed up production of the MC-21-300 and the PD-14 as quickly as possible. I would also fund development of MC-21-400, and PD-14M, immediately. In addition I would fund the development besides the Superjet NEW of some of its other versions. Like the stretch and shrunk versions of it.

The MC-21 completely with Russian components will certainly take much longer (2028) to pack and certify the TU-214 than a PD-14M (2025). In order to switch and expand series production to PD-14 faster in Perm Perm, the PD-14M on the TU-214 is required. And if we are already there, right to the IL-76. Gazprom will certainly have nothing to do with his 150 engines annually to PD-14 derivative.

It also has a nice side effect. The TU-214 with PD-14M could certainly compete with an A321XLR. Not in consumption (+ ~ 8%) but within reach and number of passengers.

Reduce improvement here and there with weight and Russia would have a TU-224 which would be almost equivalent with the world market leader and its best aircraft. Not in consumption but in the rest.

lancelot wrote:The Tu-214 is the equivalent of the Boeing 757. Not the 737.
It is a larger aircraft made for longer distance flights.

You cannot compare seat pitch and things like that with the 737. The 737 and A320 are typically used in short distance flights which take like 2-3 hours. Only very recently could those aircraft even make transatlantic flights of 5 hours thanks to more modern high efficiency engines. Something like the A321LR or A321XLR will be in competition with the Tu-214 and the 737MAX 10 stretch will touch same market but with less comfort.

The seat distance must be larger for longer flights. If you are flying Moscow to Vladivostok, you won't be using short pitch seats. That market will be for people flying to Sochi or Crimea basically. That is the closest equivalent to the European or US internal market flights on A320 and 737. For people flying beyond the Urals into like Krasnoyarsk you are basically flying the equivalent of a transatlantic or if it is to the Far East to Vladivostok a flight from Europe to the US West Coast.

The 757 was designed for transatlantic flights. The Tu-214 is roughly equivalent. So you would be using it for flights from Moscow to Europe, Turkey, or the Urals.

There was a modernized version of the Tu-204 designed with modern electronics. The Tu-204SM. But it never sold in any numbers. They basically built the prototype and that was it. So while it exists, it isn't in production, and starting this production, might take same time as MC-21. The main advantage of the Tu-204SM is that it is certified, I think, so there's that.

I would not spend more time improving the PS-90 engine. I would just develop that PD-14M engine which has similar thrust. And move products from PS-90 series to PD-14M series as quick as possible. However because of the dire situation with airplane parts, I can see a situation where PS-90 engine upgrades continue and product is extended for at two decades.

If it was me I would fund the construction of some Tu-214 aircraft and speed up production of the MC-21-300 and the PD-14 as quickly as possible. I would also fund development of MC-21-400, and PD-14M, immediately. In addition I would fund the development besides the Superjet NEW of some of its other versions. Like the stretch and shrunk versions of it.

I know that the Tu-204 is the equivalent of the 757 (and its weight is similar) but I wrote my post since I read often comparisons with 737 and a320, just to show that the aircraft is excessively overweight.

Sometimes these aircrafts are actually used for relatively longer flights (because of the lack of alternatives I boarded a very uncomfortable Wizzair flight on a A320 that was tightly packed and lssted 4 hours (without reclinable seats)).

Furthermore if the route is highly requested also a relatively bigger aircraft as the tu204 (or also the A321) can be used for routes between 2 and 4 hours without operating losses.

In Japan they sometimes also used a widebody like the 787 for internal routes.

I agree on the lack of necessity for the PS-90A3M now, if it came in 2014 it would have been useful, now it is too late and its niche must be taken by the PD-14M and by the PD-16.

Eventually if necessary they could do a modernised Tu-214M with the new series PD engines and new equipment
derived from that is being  developed for the MC21.

As far as the SSJ-new, i hope this gets a renaming as well.

For the shortened, 75 passengers version, I agree that it is worth.  As far as the stretched version, maybe. It depends on the business case between a stretched SSJ100 versus a MC-21 -200.  Probably there is a niche for both, considering that the  (120-150 passengers (depending on the configuration)) airbus A220 (formerly bombardier Cserie), received in Russia many orders from airlines like S7 and even Azimuth.

GarryB wrote:Feel free to correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that the Tu-204 and the Tu-214 are both in low level production and taht the Tu-204 was the original design, while the Tu-214 was an upgrade for use by the Russian military in an expanding number of roles and that the Tu-204SM was an application of the Tu-214 upgrades to the older Tu-204 to make it more competitive.

If that is the case I would hope they switch to Tu-204SM aircraft at the Tu-204 factory.

If both factories are going to make aircraft then it would make sense to me that the Military kick up their procurement of military versions and perhaps fund the Tu-330 version that was sabotaged by Ukrainian and foreign interests... a threat to the An-70 as well as internationally a threat to the A-400M... though in a lighter payload class.

From what I read the only difference between the tu 204 and the tu214 is the presence of a third main door in the middle of the fuselage (while the tu-204 has there only an emergency door). And of course they are manufactured by different plants (tu 204 was assembled by Aviastar in Ulyanovsk, while the Tu-214 in Kazan).

I believe there are some special versions of the Tu-214 for the russian military with additional tanks and longer range.

The tu204SM had some improvements in engines, avionics and other internal systems, but most of the improvement were due to imported western components.

In the past it was proposed a similar upgrade for the Kazan version as well (tu214), but now it does not make sense.

The best for the moment is to produce the existing version to cover the basic needs (even if a bit outdated) and in the meanwhile plan an upgrade as soon as new derivative internal systems and engines developed for the MC-21 will be ready.

I do not know if Aviastar has the capacity to produce also Tu-204 or if it is already too busy with the Il-76 production and with the An-124 overhaul and modernisation...

Maybe it could be possible to move the Tu-204 production line to another less utilized plant like Aviakor in Samara???

The government has approved a comprehensive program for the development of the air transport industry until 2030, Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin said. It is planned to allocate more than 770 billion rubles to create an effective infrastructure in the aviation industry, more than 150 billion will enter the industry this year.

The program assumes that by 2030 the fleet of Russian airlines should be replenished with more than one thousand domestic aircraft, more than 760 helicopters, about five thousand engines for airplanes and helicopters.
https://rg.ru/2022/06/27/mishustin-do-2030-goda-v-aviaotrasl-vlozhat-bolee-770-mlrd-rublej.html

Full text of program:
http://static.government.ru/media/files/PqzpRfozEf6AY4iMiUGkmcWIraxAMbdl.pdf

Scorpius wrote:The government has approved a comprehensive program for the development of the air transport industry until 2030, Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin said. It is planned to allocate more than 770 billion rubles to create an effective infrastructure in the aviation industry, more than 150 billion will enter the industry this year.

The program assumes that by 2030 the fleet of Russian airlines should be replenished with more than one thousand domestic aircraft, more than 760 helicopters, about five thousand engines for airplanes and helicopters.
https://rg.ru/2022/06/27/mishustin-do-2030-goda-v-aviaotrasl-vlozhat-bolee-770-mlrd-rublej.html

Full text of program:
http://static.government.ru/media/files/PqzpRfozEf6AY4iMiUGkmcWIraxAMbdl.pdf

They are talking about exclusively civilian production here?

caveat emptor wrote:
They are talking about exclusively civilian production here?

Yes. And no.
Also, a bit of context:

Despite the difficulties, by the end of 2021, the aviation industry enterprises delivered 83 aircraft to the foreign and domestic markets, including 32 aircraft and 51 helicopters, 851 aircraft engines for civil and military purposes.
...

Taking into account the successful implementation of import substitution programs in 2022-2030, it is planned to supply 1,036 aircraft for the needs of civil aviation, including 142 SSJ—NEW units, 270 MS–21–310 units, 70 Il–114–300 units, 70 Tu–214 units, 12 Il–96–300 units, 140 units TVRS–44 Ladoga, 178 units of L–410 and 154 units of Baikal (LMS–901).
Under the conditions of sanctions restrictions, survey data from aviation companies confirm that these volumes of equipment will be fully in demand by domestic operators.
At the same time, from 2024 it is planned to supply 20 units per year of SSJ–NEW aircraft, and the MS–21 aircraft creation program provides for the supply of 72 units per year from 2029 with the start of deliveries of the first 6 machines in 2024. In addition, a large volume of deliveries of small–sized aircraft (TVRS–44 Ladoga, L–410, Baikal (LMS—901) — 20-25 aircraft annually, starting from 2026.
Helicopter deliveries in 2022-2030 will amount to 764 units, while the main focus is planned to be on Ansat helicopters (201 units) and Mi–8 in modifications Mi–8MTV–1 and Mi8AMT (276 units) as for the most popular ones.
For the successful implementation of the supply program and ensuring uniform loading of aviation industry enterprises, a program of consolidated civil order of aviation equipment is being formed.
When implementing the supply program, it is projected to increase the output of civilian products in 2030 in relation to 2021 by 3.4 times

The situation with engines is a major issue. Now that imports are impossible I think the projects need to be sped up.
Presently there are clearly too little resources being thrown at the problem. More development teams need to be started.

For example the main research priorities seem to be PD-8 and PD-35, as they should, but there has been only minute progress on PD-12V. The PD-14M and PD-14A for the MC-21 extension and shrink or PD-18R for extra range also seem to not be funded. There should be two extra full teams each working on PD-12V and PD-14M. While there should be initial components work being done on the PD-18R at least at similar level to the one currently done on PD-12V.

Work on funding the development of the MC-21-400 needs to start immediately.

Factories for the PD-14/PD-14M and PD-8 engines need to be built and taking into consideration the required new adjusted production rate. Changing older PS-90 facilities to PD-14 further is impossible given outstanding contracts and PS-90 is still necessary to fullfill several contracts. Older and newer contracts. The state needs to take into consideration with regards to PD-8 engine production not just new builds but re-engines of older Superjets from Sam146, dependent on hot core from French SAFRAN, to PD-8. A program to re-engine older Superjets should be funded and studied.

The helicopter engines are seriously, seriously delayed. VK-800, VK-1600. The turboprop engines are also seriously delayed. The issues with Klimov TV7-117V have messed up the schedule of both the Mil Mi-38 helicopter, the Il-112 military transport, and the Il-114-300 regional aircraft. So those also need to be fixed. This engine impacts so many projects special attention needs to be taken with it.

There also needs to be work done on a small jet transport aircraft similar to a business jet. Perhaps with twin engines derived from Al-222. This will be necessary for inspection of remote fields on small airstrips, send technical teams, or transport small amounts of people to or from remote settlements at decent speed. Without having to use slower less reliable helicopters or much larger Superjets.

Scorpius wrote:The government has approved a comprehensive program for the development of the air transport industry until 2030, Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin said. It is planned to allocate more than 770 billion rubles to create an effective infrastructure in the aviation industry, more than 150 billion will enter the industry this year.
...
Full text of program:
http://static.government.ru/media/files/PqzpRfozEf6AY4iMiUGkmcWIraxAMbdl.pdf

This document has lots of interesting statistics.

The average age of passenger aircraft of aviation companies engaged in commercial air transportation
is 14.6 years, of which mainline passenger aircraft - about 11 years, regional passenger aircraft -31 years, including
the most popular types of aircraft A321neo, A320neo - 2 years, 6 A321, A320 -11 years, A319 -17 years, A330 -12 years, B737-800, B737-900 -10 years, B737-700, B737-500, B737-400, B737-300 -22 years, B777-300 -12 years, Sukhoi Superjet 100 -4.3 years, Yak-42 -28 years, AN-24, AN-26 -48 years.

This makes it kind of evident that the older aircraft are the An-24, An-26, Yak-42, and B737 with A319.
I think this makes it evident there needs to be funding for either a Superjet NEW stretch or a MC-21-200 aircraft. In fact once production of the MC-21-300 and Superjet NEW is under way at a steady clip it seems to be a major priority. There is a lack of an aircraft which can fulfill this end of the segment.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:



(possibly as a rugged and sturdier alternative to the MC21 for some remote countries)

Exactly. Nothing about the airframe looks dated. And it is beautiful.

The electronics in Tu-214 are outdated. It has high maintenance needs and little in the way of self-diagnostics to speed maintenance which is why Aeroflot took them out of service. And you can't say it is just Aeroflot since the other civilian operators did the same.

The Tu-204SM was supposed to solve that but they only built a single prototype and at least the engines had lots of US content in them. Probably part of the reason why it never entered service. Since most likely client would have been Cuba. Something good came out of it though since the Aerosila APU of the MC-21 seems to be based on the one in the Tu-204SM. I think the electronics in the Tu-204SM cockpit were Russian however but who knows. I would not be surprised if the ones being made for the MC-21 by KRET aren't based on at least some of it since KRET also made the same systems for Tu-204SM. The problem with things like this which had prototypes but never entered production is the supply chain and serial production does not exist. At that point you would be better off continuing to work on getting the MC-21 to production. At least it has working proven engines and even better than the ones in Tu-204SM.

In contrast the Tu-214 is in production for government uses with a couple units made for several government purposes. It has supplies and serial production of components. Even if maintenance is a bitch, and cockpit automation is suboptimal, it is there.