Russian Civil Aviation: News #2

Nibiru wrote:

The problem is mostly the lack of those 'big engines' and associated gas turbine base in Russia.
The US and Britain are the sole, global powers in that market.

Russia shouldn't be having these problems if the Soviets didn't put their advanced aircraft design bureaus and manufacturing facilities in Ukrainian SSR..

True.



Interesting comparison, just to understand reality right now. GE90 is simply a beast.

KiloGolf wrote:

Isos wrote:A cargo plane is a big empty solid plane with big engines nothing more. They have all the companies for building that. What are their engineers doing at work ? Seriously ?

The problem is mostly the lack of those 'big engines' and associated gas turbine base in Russia. The US and Britain are the sole, global powers in that market. China is still struggling to make it. The USSR just about made it to the club, even leading for just a few years, before collapsing.

They have saturn, klimov, united engine corporation as companies that produce engines for planes and probably other I don't know. It should be easy for all those engineers to produced a decent engine. Like I said there is no need to have futuristic technology. Just something competitive with a good reliability.

Austin wrote:An agreement was signed for the supply of 10 SSJ-100 and 10 MS-21 in Peru

https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/109685/

Not "firm" agreement, just Letter of Intention, i hope "real" agreement will follow.

Not "firm" agreement, just Letter of Intention, i hope "real" agreement will follow.

I hope so too, but what if US threaten Sanctions just because its "Russian" product? We'll see how this deal goes

KiloGolf wrote:

Interesting comparison, just to understand reality right now. GE90 is simply a beast.

An engine with a diameter similar to the fuselage of a SSJ-100, that's some blade to have to make.

JohninMK wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Interesting comparison, just to understand reality right now. GE90 is simply a beast.

An engine with a diameter similar to the fuselage of a SSJ-100, that's some blade to have to make.

Try 737

Why don't they order Il-96-400T as a big cargo ? It carries 92T max which is not far from cargo 747 variant.

Isos wrote:Why don't they order Il-96-400T as a big cargo ? It carries 92T max which is not far from cargo 747 variant.

I was thinking the same , whats the point funding Boeing

Austin wrote:

Isos wrote:Why don't they order Il-96-400T as a big cargo ? It carries 92T max which is not far from cargo 747 variant.

I was thinking the same , whats the point funding Boeing

Boeing just makes better cargo planes. The Il-96 (whatever cargo version) has a horribly inefficient power-plant arrangement, narrow and rather small fuselage and severely outdated design of weak, RB211ish engines; straight from the late 80s.

Also this:



..is better than that:

Boeing just makes better cargo planes. The Il-96 (whatever cargo version) has a horribly inefficient power-plant arrangement, narrow and rather small fuselage and severely outdated design of weak, RB211ish engines; straight from the late 80s.

Who cares if it is a little bit better. Il-96 can do the work. They can also update the design since it was designed in the 90s. Not that much complicated and they already have russian engines for it.

Isos wrote:

Boeing just makes better cargo planes. The Il-96 (whatever cargo version) has a horribly inefficient power-plant arrangement, narrow and rather small fuselage and severely outdated design of weak, RB211ish engines; straight from the late 80s.

Who cares if it is a little bit better. Il-96 can do the work. They can also update the design since it was designed in the 90s. Not that much complicated and they already have russian engines for it.

Russia is a huge country. You need the best plane to fly cargo, efficiently and make money. Having investigated the blades on a PS90 I can say that it's a very dated blade design. Overall, it can't compete and when it comes to spares, I'm pretty sure those are not readily available worldwide.

IL-96-400 Transport version

http://www.ilyushin.org/en/aircrafts/transport/1189/

Russian Economy gains nothing importing boeing but gains every thing buying IL-96-400 , Buying Boeing is like subsidising your enemy

When the time comes they will even deny you spares for aircraft purchased

Inside Putin's private jet and how it compares to what Trump gets in Air Force One

Russia is a huge country. You need the best plane to fly cargo, efficiently and make money. Having investigated the blades on a PS90 I can say that it's a very dated blade design. Overall, it can't compete and when it comes to spares, I'm pretty sure those are not readily available worldwide.

Well, I just had a look and they are creating the PD-18R for IL-96-400T (177 kN).

They have to start with something. They are not building any new thing since soviet union. They started with small SSJ. Now they will go with bigger MS-21, then something bigger like Il-96 and finally even bigger pak-ta and an-124 replacement.

Austin wrote:Inside Putin's private jet and how it compares to what Trump gets in Air Force One

Western russophobe propaganda never takes a rest, never lose an opportunity to lie: Putin's "private jet". Like if Putin is a billionaire who can buy a four-engined widebody because, as we all know, he is corrupt and the richest man in Europe...
I don't know with which Il-96 of the presidential fleet he flew to Finland with, but if it is the first one it was built and used by Yeltsin.

Western BS claims he is the richest man in the solar system. Or even the milkyway.

It is a bit funny to read about the "superior" Boeing 777F and about the "outdated" Il-96. Time to look at some facts:

1. The "modern" Boeing 777 originates from the Boeing 767-X project of the 80s and after several redesigns and updates became an essentially new design launched in 1991, first flight in 1994.

The Il-96-300 were designed in the 80s and flew in 1988 for the first time. A six year difference here and it was state-of-the-art technology wise (same with the 777).

2. Boeing 777 have been available with "outdated" Rolls Royce RB.211 engines but in their bigger Trent 800 version. P&W has also been onboard with the PW408x series, which is derived from the PW4000 series. The PS-90A on the Il-96-300 were developed in the 80s and is comparable with the PW2000 and RB.211-535 series.

3. A deeply modernized Il-96 called the Il-496 is in development now and is expected to fly in 2019, using seriously updated PS-90A3m engines.

4. The fuselage diameter of the Il-96 is 6.08 meters and the B777 is 6.2 meters. Boeing did plan a 6.1 meter diameter originally but decided to widen a little bit.

If this is an argument, then Airbus would be dead in the water since their widebodies share a narrow 5.65 meters fuselage beside the A350XWB and A380.

B777 is an excellent aircraft in general but not the way NATO fans want it to be (i.e. superior compared to Russian designs). One thing is clear and it is that the Il-96 production is low and getting an Il-496T if launched would make more sense than the Il-96-400T (the -400 is about to be replaced by the 496).

If the PS-90A is "outdated", the same applies to Western engines of similar vintage then (i.e. CFM56, PW2000/4000, RB.211/Trent 700/800 et al). The "modern" engines now are the GEnx and GE9X, Trent XWB and 7000, PurePower PW1xxxG series, LEAP-1 and PD-14 (and the upcoming PD-35).

The only way of getting "modern" engines today is by ordering a B777-8/9 (GE9X) or an Airbus A350XWB or perhaps the A330neo when we are talking widebodies today. A B777F doesn't count because it has "outdated" engines....

It doesn't work with this double moral, i.e. "Western aircraft from the 80s is better than Russian aircraft from the 80s, the former is modern and the latter is outdated". Same nonsense as one journalist complaining about the "outdated CF34" on the ARJ21 without mentioning Embraer et al with... CF34. Everyone ordering E-Jet E1 series or flying them have "outdated engines"... Poor airlines.

Thank you. You saved me a lot of time.

One more: if a plane with four engines is outdated, this would also be true for all this B747 and A340 flying around.

RusAviaGuy wrote:If the PS-90A is "outdated", the same applies to Western engines of similar vintage then (i.e. CFM56, PW2000/4000, RB.211/Trent 700/800 et al).The "modern" engines now are the GEnx and GE9X, Trent XWB and 7000, PurePower PW1xxxG series, LEAP-1 and PD-14 (and the upcoming PD-35).

The only way of getting "modern" engines today is by ordering a B777-8/9 (GE9X) or an Airbus A350XWB or perhaps the A330neo when we are talking widebodies today. A B777F doesn't count because it has "outdated" engines....

You have no idea what you're talking about. 777F is based on 777-200LR not 777-200/200ER.

Engine-wise 777F is sporting GE90-110B1 with evolved architecture (re-staged) and higher thrust, compared to initial GE90s. This an engine that entered service in the mid 00s and clearly a modern engine for a freighter in 2018 (modern fan blade design, swept, composite and all that jazz). PS-90A is a late 80s, RB211 equivalent of sorts. Completely obsolete, nobody serious is operating this engine outside Russia.

Hole wrote:One more: if a plane with four engines is outdated, this would also be true for all this B747 and A340 flying around.

Well this proves how 4-engines are outdated.  
A340 stopped production 7 years ago. The 747 is almost exclusively a freighter (and a great one at that), very few are still flying as passenger jets, owing mostly to its cockpit/nose design.

The PS-90A is as outdated as other engines of similar vintage, i.e. CFM56, RB.211-524 and 535, PW2000/4000 et al.

The GE90 used in the B777 family is also "outdated" because General Electric did replace it with the GE9X. Same thing can be said about the CF6 family, where the GEnx is the successor.

There are two heavily modernized versions of the PS-90A available, namely the A2 and A3.

The problem here is one-sided complaints about this engine being "outdated" and therefore "worse" without mentioning that other engines of similar vintage is as "outdated".

Proper writing is: "The B777F is generally more efficient than four-engined aircraft types and offer excellent operating economics".

There is a reason why twins dominate nowadays. It is not "outdated engines" - it is the simple fact that two engines are more economical than four. An A340F would be in a similar position as the Il-96-400T in comparison with a B777F regardless of it being based on the -300 (CFM56) or -500 (Trent 500).

It is also necessary to point out that twin-engined versions of the Il-96 (Il-96MD and Il-98) has been in development but the "Yeltsin effect" killed them off. Ilyushin planned to phase out the four-engined version in favor of the twin at the time, had everything gone forward.

All four-engined aircraft has a disadvantage with higher fuel consumption and maintenance costs compared to twins and it is the reason why the latter is the preferred choice.

Arguing about "outdated" engines make no sense unless we apply the same basic rule to all of them (i.e. engines designed in the 80s/90s are outdated simply because the manufacturers are replacing them with newer, more efficient designs).

General Electric and Boeing would not replace the GE90 with the GE9X on the 777-8/9 if the former would be such a modern, contemporary engine.... GE launched it with the B777 in 1991 so we aren't exactly talking about "up-to-date" technology here strictly speaking - the engine is 27 years old now counted from official launch when Boeing introduced the B777.

It is a good engine but calling it "modern" and then bash an engine developed during the same era "outdated" when the "modern" one had its official launch in 1991 is clueless.

General Electric did update their engine, so did Perm with the PS-90A.

I am not saying the latter is "modern" either - what I am saying is that engines developed in the 80s/early 90s are "outdated" if we are to use that terminology and the best proof is the simple fact that they are replaced by newer designs and the manufacturers are developing new aircraft or re-engine projects/deep modernizations using them.

A PS-90A is "outdated" compared to a PD-14, a GE CF6 is "outdated" compared to a GEnx and a GE90 is "outdated" compared to a GE9X and a Trent 700 is "outdated" compared to a Trent 7000. Simple as that.

RusAviaGuy wrote:The GE90 used in the B777 family is also "outdated" because General Electric did replace it with the GE9X.

Nope they're just available -at different versions- for different applications. GE9X may be a more recent version for some aircraft, but all currently produced GE engines, of the GE90 and GE9X family are modern engines, and way ahead of the 80s game (e.g. likes of CF6, RB211 and PS-90A/A1). GE90-110B1/-113B/-115B are modern engines, sold globally compared to the outdated, obsolete PS-90A/A1 (and despite the fact that both were inducted/certified at roughly the same time period).

The former is modern, the latter is an old engine that the manufacturer offers for sale, due to lack of better technologies, orders and funding.