Russian Civil Aviation: News #3

So far SSJ has been more successful than Russia's previous regional airliner Tu-204 which I would have liked to see get more love but oh well

kvs wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:So far SSJ has been more successful than Russia's previous regional airliner Tu-204 which I would have liked to see get more love but oh well

There is no evidence of any failure with the SSJ.   The people buying aircraft are not the retards you find in social media baying at Russia.   The
recent accident is going to have precisely zero impact since it is clear that there is no design or manufacturing defect involved.

BTW, the video above notes how this current spasm of "Russia is doomed" hysteria is triggered via social media propaganda.   The NATO based
fake stream media and its fellow travellers in Russia use this social media BS to bootstrap an "issue" about production of aircraft.    Naturally,
no context is given and the 14% drop in production is made to appear like a 99% drop in production.    This video exposes these clowns
completely by showing the annual growth for the three previous years.   According the fake stream media and its sycophants, Russia was
collapsing since 2014.   So how is it possible for there to have been over 10% annual growth before 2018?  

Because foreign Russians love Navalny and his stupid nonsense spread of fake news.  Real economic data says otherwise and puts to shame these people but they still feel that they are correct regardless how wrong they are and proven so.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I think I know what Vlad is feeling.  He is feeling shame that his former nation over 30 years ago was producing hundreds of this or that and what not.  It sucks that after losing half the population (USSR vs Russia itself) and the fact that production went to shit in the 90's that the army and airforce are a shadow of its former self - I too would love to see Russia produce at least 600 Su-35's and 300 Su-30SM's along with 200 Su-57's and so on.  But those days are over for now.  I don't think Russia will be doing just that.  They will end up producing a modest sum of having about 1000 jets of various kinds (bombers, CAS and Fighters) along with its AD systems to protect its country.  Mainstay of its forces will continue to be the rocket forces which include the strategic rocket forces - ICBM's and SLBM's.  US wont have an advantage over that, ever.  Neither will China and neither will Russia.  Russian government knows this.  They know that the US is bluffing hard because the US government knows Russia can vanquish majority of its population and vice versa.  So they will continue to do modest growth in its conventional forces to concentrate on border protection and for skirmishes from afar but limited.

As for civil production of jets, well unless Russia pulls a US, South Korea and Japan forcing domestic companies to buy only their own (which the other countries have done for decades in civil fields) then Russia will have to keep facing harsh competition. I think Sukhoi and such should be working in tandem with both India and China in producing regional jets so that it at least guarantees orders of decent numbers.

miketheterrible wrote:

It clearly says in the article.

The evidence is right there in your face.  Just like you think rockets means missiles when it means space launchers just as you think deliveries means firm orders.  I don't know where you learned Russian but you need to go back to class.

The facts are, 101 firm orders, 100 belonging to Aeroflot who just got clearance to buy 100 Airbus.  If you still think SSJ has any future after that is your own delusion.

Conjecture means to make a conclusion without having all the facts and details which this article does.  Yes, they are allowed their opinion but as a member here who monitors aircraft procurement plus demands, he will have better idea than you or I.  Russian MoD clearly said they need 700 fighters for their air Force by 2027. That includes the MiG-31's and existing Su-27's.  They may need Su-57 but they won't rush it especially since paralay said it won't be ready till 2022.  Buying en mass now is stupid.  Su-30SM is going through modernization and possibly bringing it to complete part compliance with Su-35 so they won't order more till that is ready so only jet left that is ready for more procurement is Su-35.

The article says the Aerospace industry is down 43%... that is a fact.  It also doesn't mean munitions as you mistakenly translated it to mean.  Subsequently, anyone that says we don't need Su-57 is an idiot.    

I trust Borisov and others much more than I do by some guy living in France or someone who writes for a paper or myself in this matter

You trust a guy who says we don't need Su-57... Seriously?

I never said where I was living so it is best for you not to make assumptions. If you call me anything to the effect of "Former Russian" again it will be the last comment you make.  

So I also presume that Boeing 737 Max is done because of the crashes and many many more dead?

It is certainly dead for the next year, it hasn't recorded any new sales since the first MAX crash.  If they can convince airlines that it is finally safe they might get back on track.  They certainly have more resources to do that than we do.

Just rebrand it. SSJ-100 should become something like Sukhoi Soyuz 100. Or something, re-brand, emphasize successful aspects of the aircraft, throw them a bone, I would not say SSJ-100 is done. 737 supermax is not done either. These things happen, AR-15 kills many students across america, it still sells top #1

So sales are down for the year, these contracts aren't for pencils or sharpeners. They are civil aircraft. New contract can be signed at end of year, or next year. Government can subsidize airlines and lower flight costs. Many things can be done to alter fundamentals of market and make contract seem lucrative. Contract for these are in the handful, just because they are on hold does not mean a thing.

Something like giant kamaz firetrucks with water bombs can be included with aircraft, with safety lessons. These things just require you to hold the hands of the purchasers and make people feel safe again. Cars killed many, people were scared. Then seatbelts were installed and it was okay. Millions still die from car accidents.

Life happens, doesn't mean you shouldnt fly or drive. It is what it is

MiamiMachineShop wrote:Just rebrand it. SSJ-100 should become something like Sukhoi Soyuz 100. Or something, re-brand, emphasize successful aspects of the aircraft, throw them a bone, I would not say SSJ-100 is done. 737 supermax is not done either. These things happen, AR-15 kills many students across america, it still sells top #1

So sales are down for the year, these contracts aren't for pencils or sharpeners. They are civil aircraft. New contract can be signed at end of year, or next year. Government can subsidize airlines and lower flight costs. Many things can be done to alter fundamentals of market and make contract seem lucrative. Contract for these are in the handful, just because they are on hold does not mean a thing.

Something like giant kamaz firetrucks with water bombs can be included with aircraft, with safety lessons. These things just require you to hold the hands of the purchasers and make people feel safe again. Cars killed many, people were scared. Then seatbelts were installed and it was okay. Millions still die from car accidents.

Life happens, doesn't mean you shouldnt fly or drive. It is what it is

There's nothing wrong with the "SuperJet 100" name but with the MC-21 being the main star - the "MC-21-75" and "MC-21-95" proposed rebrands are the right thing to do with the new models since the idea is to "align" them more closely with the bigger sibling (PD-8 and PD-10, KRET avionics etc).

The biggest problem with the SSJ100 are the Western components, which are an increasing burden due to the sanctions (hence the SSJ100R). It made perfect sense to develop a "Western" aircraft back in 2001-2003 when the RRJ project went online but doing import substitution is the most important thing now but also to get it "into the MC-21 family".

Bashing the aircraft based on the Moscow accident is idiotic - we can immediately bash the Boeing 737 Max to be "dangerous" and "a failure" then not to mention the Airbus hysteria back when the A320 came and all was doom and gloom after Habsheim and also the Indian Airlines "open descent into the golf course" accident and Air Inter "wrong A/P mode" ditto. We have the 737 PCU accidents too... So if the SSJ100 is a "bad" aircraft - then the 737 is worse... Perhaps better to not enter that sandbox.

I rather fly the SSJ100 than the Embraer E-Jets. I prefer 2+3 cabins and the SSJ100 is a "spiritual" successor to the Fairchild-Dornier Do728 Jet/928 Jet. It's also interesting that Douglas did the right thing too with the DC-9 (brilliant aircraft). Nothing wrong with Embraer per se - it is the propaganda I have something against (same thing with the argument that the ARJ21 have "outdated engines" while those writers don't mention a single word about the simple fact that the E-Jets use the same type - GE34). GE34 was available when both COMAC and Embraer initated their projects so... just don't complain about the engine choice.

Edit: Regarding "aircraft hysteria" - the Airbus A320 is an interesting case since there were a lot of controversies and attempts to push different conspiracy theories (one of them is that the flight recorders from the Habsheim aircraft were tampered with in order to change the timing of TOGA application and engine spool up) paired with a lot of anti-FBW propaganda in Western press.

A closer analysis demonstrated that those accidents would have been worse without FBW and the protections available.

Anti-aircraft propaganda and all those attempts to argue against Russian products are pretty much pathetic. Arguing against the MC-21 is even more pathetic - it's an excellent aircraft. The only thing they should do is to make the -400 with 250 seats to supplant the -300.

I agree, SSJ-100 can be made with Russian everything. Shit happens, its funny one crash and " its the end of ssj-100"

I start to chuckle a bit when I see it. Throw Thales out, Honeywell, Pratt Whitney, Safran throw them all out. Kret, PD-10, can replace. Sell to Peru, Mexico, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, just sell it and make a video where SSJ-100 does a pugachev cobra or something (kidding) rebrand and resell.

MiamiMachineShop wrote:I agree, SSJ-100 can be made with Russian everything. Shit happens, its funny one crash and " its the end of ssj-100"

I start to chuckle a bit when I see it. Throw Thales out, Honeywell, Pratt Whitney, Safran throw them all out. Kret, PD-10, can replace. Sell to Peru, Mexico, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, just sell it and make a video where SSJ-100 does a pugachev cobra or something (kidding) rebrand and resell.

If the Moscow accident is the "end of the SSJ100" - the Boeing 737 Max is dead now. Two accidents, worldwide grounding.... Useless... Dangerous... If it's a Boeing, I'm not going...

The "MC-21-75" and "MC-21-95" will have Russian interiors (I would assume Kvand or something) beside KRET avionics based on the MC-21 suite and everything. I wouldn't be surprised if Iran change the order from the SSJ100R to the "MC-21-95".

"A crash is the end of everything" - they said that about the A320 and the Habsheim accident too. The A320 is... alive and well.

Rebranding is the way to go - not because of anything wrong with the SuperJet 100 but because they are "aligning" it with the MC-21, thus making it more sensible to sell it as an "MC family" jet. "Meet the MC family - 75-250 seats - full flexibility"

SuperJet 100 would have been a good name tomorrow if the MC-21 had been the "SuperJet 200". Better to align them (like Airbus with A2xx/3xx-series and Boeing with their 700 series).

Isos wrote:

MiamiMachineShop wrote:I agree, SSJ-100 can be made with Russian everything. Shit happens, its funny one crash and " its the end of ssj-100"

I start to chuckle a bit when I see it. Throw Thales out, Honeywell, Pratt Whitney, Safran throw them all out. Kret, PD-10, can replace. Sell to Peru, Mexico, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, just sell it and make a video where SSJ-100 does a pugachev cobra or something (kidding) rebrand and resell.

The thing is russian engine are even less reliable as they don't equip any airliner in the world, at least the modern jets since the 80s.

Peru, Mexico, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan all could have bought it since years, but didn't. Why would they buy it now ? Even without taking into account the crash, they never opperated it.

Interjet already wants to sell its ssj-100 because of reliability issues.

You answered yourself, where is PD-10? Where is Kret replacement of avionics? Safran is not reliable, neither are scarebuses.

Refuse Toulouse


Besides France is not renowned for turbines. Fremm rides on them LM-2500's. When you make a Marine Gas Turbine come talk to me, until then you sail on general electric

Isos wrote:

MiamiMachineShop wrote:I agree, SSJ-100 can be made with Russian everything. Shit happens, its funny one crash and " its the end of ssj-100"

I start to chuckle a bit when I see it. Throw Thales out, Honeywell, Pratt Whitney, Safran throw them all out. Kret, PD-10, can replace. Sell to Peru, Mexico, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, just sell it and make a video where SSJ-100 does a pugachev cobra or something (kidding) rebrand and resell.

The thing is russian engine are even less reliable as they don't equip any airliner in the world, at least the modern jets since the 80s.

Peru, Mexico, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan all could have bought it since years, but didn't. Why would they buy it now ? Even without taking into account the crash, they never opperated it.

Interjet already wants to sell its ssj-100 because of reliability issues.

Typical Western propaganda again and again.

The latest Russian engine is the PD-14 and yes, it is as good as a comparable "Western" engine (go and check AVHerald for PW1100G-JM issues... and read the excellent Flight International article about the A320neo and what the airlines say - kindly note that I am not bashing the engine per se, just point out that "Western" doesn't mean "perfect"). The PS-90A didn't reach Western markets - not because it's a bad engine (it isn't) but because of the situation of Russia during the Yeltsin era. It was a perfectly good design for its time.

The latest PS-90A reached higher reliability numbers than originally specified (the engine was designed for 7500 hours on wing originally and reached 10 000 hours on wing, yes, not as high as the CFM56 but still acceptable). The PS-90A2 and the latest PS-90A3 are serious improvements over those numbers (heavy upgrades of the engine).

It is interesting to see all this Western propaganda - it seems like a Western aircraft is a perfect, faultless machine that never suffer from any issues... Only Russian aircraft types are "unreliable". I think the A320neo engine issues are telling a different story... Not to mention the Boeing 787 issues and the latest reports about quality problems in Charleston.

I must admit that I sometimes develop a grudge against "Western" manufacturers due to all this propaganda against Chinese and Russian aircraft. It is like Apple users trying to argue against every other brand.

It is time to stop this anti-Chinese/anti-Russian propaganda and simply realize their ability to make good aviation products. The situation of the 90s is just not a valid argument (i.e. the Tu-204 is no good because of lack of sales bla bla bla and the PS-90A is no good because Aeroflot had to make 32 engine removals in 1992-1993 when the Il-96-300 were introduced bla bla bla etc). Those issues are because of the flawed conditions of the 90s, not the products itself.

Vladimir79 wrote:Facts are facts, the aerospace industry declined by 43%, failure in the commercial space played its part.  

Dumping Roskosmos fiasco on civilian airliner industry does not really compute.

That space launch market segment that Russia supposedly had was never theirs to begin with. It was pittance thrown to Russia to make them feel good about themselves back when commercial space launches were completely irrelevant.

The moment there was some money to be made there USA ditched Russians as anyone with half a brain would, you don't give away free money to countries you plan on taking out.




As for SSJ-100, nobody here is more critical of design and production f**kups in Russian industry than me (just ask GarryB and kvs) but this is not one of them.

-Airplane was hit by lightning and had it's electronics fried.

-Pilots couldn't dump fuel because they were over populated area

-They landed fried plane as best they could but is caught fire due to rough landing

-Rear door was jammed and some passengers were being idiots

None of these thing is due to design or manufacturing problems. Only thing you can blame is slow response time from ground crews who should have mobilized the moment aircraft circled back instead of waiting until fire started.

Unless aviation authorities can make lightning less electric or fuel less flammable there is nothing anyone can do about it.



SSJ stays in production, plain and simple. It ends once MS-21-light hits the market.

People keep forgetting that SSJ, Tu-214 and MS-21 are reasons why Russia didn't already get slapped with Iran-style sanctions on civilian aircraft. If they tried they would have just forced them to go local.  



As for maintenance costs, this is what happens when someone bases their entire aircraft design on components imported from countries that have been actively trying to exterminate them for over a century. All things considered maintenance costs are least of the issues. Epic stupidity is bigger problem here.

The french are just haters. They feel inferior to USA, so they feel a need to bash Russia. Two words for them: General Electric

But I should not lump in all euros, Germans do not talk smack. They have reason to, but they don't. I respect Mercedes, MTU, but they do not have MGT.

Scarebus and Safran piggy back off General Electric/Pratt&Whitney for all their stuff, CFM turbines, their MGT, basically everything, at least UK has Rolls Royce, and the Russians are getting their shit together with PD-14 and M90FRU.

If anything SNECMA is unreliable. How come they have not made a bigger engine for airliners? Theyre "unreliable" , A380 rides on Rolls, A320 is a crappier Boeing, they got FBW right after killing many and now they think they are aviation pioneers. Catch up with Russia they are already ahead of you.

Where is your large engine? I said your country uses general electric, France. A380 uses Rolls Royce, Safran does not make a large engine except the collaboration with GE for A320. Until you are even in the same league you should not insult or hate on things that are Russian because of jealousy.

Safran makes small turbines, with SNECMA (for military)

I did not say they would buy GE, why would they need it? They develop their own engines. Its France who depends on GE not Russia.

You are not part of empire but France hides behind US, like a punk. Whenever we go out, you come out of hiding. Then you launch 8 missiles and claim the mightiness of the french flotilla

MiamiMachineShop wrote:The french are just haters. They feel inferior to USA, so they feel a need to bash Russia. Two words for them: General Electric

But I should not lump in all euros, Germans do not talk smack. They have reason to, but they don't. I respect Mercedes, MTU, but they do not have MGT.

Scarebus and Safran piggy back off General Electric/Pratt&Whitney for all their stuff, CFM turbines, their MGT, basically everything, at least UK has Rolls Royce, and the Russians are getting their shit together with PD-14 and M90FRU.

If anything SNECMA is unreliable. How come they have not made a bigger engine for airliners? Theyre "unreliable" , A380 rides on Rolls, A320 is a crappier Boeing, they got FBW right after killing many and now they think they are aviation pioneers. Catch up with Russia they are already ahead of you.

The Germans have been neutered by three generations of occupation.  They are still occupied to this day.  They aren't allowed to say what they want under threat of criminal charges.  If you ever date German girls you will find they are the ones that initiate mating, the men are too afraid.  That is how they end up with weak leaders like Merkel.  The French, like Russians are still a very masculine driven society and have not succumbed to feminism like the Germans who have a useless military and no international clout to speak of.  

Industrially speaking, the Germans are the backbone of European industry but it is the French that lead it.  It was always the UK fighting for that top spot but they voted themselves out which leaves only the French to lead.  Even now the British are in a tailspin as the weak leadership of Teresa May is practically gutting British Aerospace.

Rolls Royce has cut thousands of jobs, Bombardier is leaving and Airbus has threatened to follow.   Getting cut out of Galileo has gutted their satellite production.  

Snecma no longer exists, it is called Safran which is the second largest aerospace supplier in the world. The French are the only ones aiming for the top spot because they are the only ones that could possibly do it.

Vladimir79 wrote:...The French, like Russians are still a very masculine driven society

You are not serious, are you?

Vladimir79 wrote:...and have not succumbed to feminism

You can't be serious!?

French are ones who invented this thing!

PapaDragon wrote:

You can't be serious!?

French are ones who invented this thing!

Don't confuse flamboyance with feminism. French men know their roles as provider and pursuers, women are the prize. It is the opposite in Germany who elects weak females to office. The French have never elected a woman and never will.

Vladimir79 wrote: They aren't allowed to say what they want under threat of criminal charges.  

This is more of a problem in UK than in Germany. There are several Fascist, Neo Nazi groups across Germany. Not everyone toes the official line.

Then there is the Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) party that is becoming more & more popular with each passing day.

IIRC, Merkel is a Polish Jew.

Vladimir79 wrote:The French, like Russians are still a very masculine driven society and have not succumbed to feminism like the Germans who have a useless military and no international clout to speak of.  

No, French are certainly not as masculine as Russians. Granted they are occupying some African shitholes through brute force, but that is primarily because these countries have no military strength of their own.


Depends how you define feminism. There are far more women who are an active part of the workforce in Russia compared to France.

All those typical "Western propaganda" arguments about "prefer buying Western" etc. are highly amusing but also traditional.

The main reason for "Western preferences" in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union is a combination of "forbidden fruit taste better" (i.e. Western products were off limits during the Soviet times - thus making them glorified) and a lack of investments, thus causing serious delays (the Tu-204 suffered a lot from this). "Who cares?" is a typical ignorant argument.

The Western ignorance about Russian products and the constant glorification of everything "Western" as being "wonderful" is very annoying to put it mildly, especially all this nonsense where the lack of investment during the 90s is used as a "proof" of the "superiority" of everything Airbus/Boeing.

It is true that the Russian industry suffered a lot during the Yeltsin era before proper investments resumed but that was then, now is now. The MC-21 is a perfect example and the same applies to the SuperJet 100. It is also pretty evident from the PW1100G-JM situation that "Western" research and "spending" doesn't translate into flawless products, despite the propaganda. There are way too many unscheduled landings and engine removals of this very much Western product to warrant such conclusions (i.e. the conclusion that Western is better because of [insert whatever argument]).

I think Pratt & Whitney made the right decision to develop the GTF and the engines are excellent - problems tend to arise when it's new technology but the anti-Russian propaganda pull the discussion down to a low level and the issues must be pointed out. Namely that IF "Western technology" is so "superior" and everyone "prefers" it because of this alleged "superiority" - how can there be so much issues? A Western engine with issues?? A flawless, perfect Western engine causing unscheduled landings and removals??? I consider it highly problematic for the "Western superiority" thesis when those products suffer from technical problems.

It is also necessary to defend Airbus a bit here. No, FBW didn't "kill people" since those accidents during the early A320 times were caused by inappropriate planning (Habsheim - that accident wouldn't happen if the pilots knew what they were facing rather than improvising the display, seeing the trees too late) and piloting errors (Indian Airlines open idle descent into the golf course). On the contrary: FBW has delivered on the safety promise by a wide margin and so far not a single aircraft have been lost due to a failure of this very system (i.e. loss of control due to complete failure of the FCS). The 737 PCU and MCAS issues are a completely different league (none of the FBW airliners have ever suffered from something even remotely similar).

It is also telling that sidesticks are the standard of the day (OK, Boeing resist them but did explore them for their 7J7 project) since all research into that input method have shown that they are optimum for the FBW airliner. There are a lot of interesting articles into the early testing of them, which showed that Airbus were right and that the whole "sidestick-FBW" combination is the optimum control method for an airliner of today.

One last comment before I sign off this post: If Western products are "superior" because those Westerners "spend more on research" (whatever) I have just one comment: It's unfortunate that the PW1100G-JM doesn't run as a Swiss clock, then and that CFM International has been having such delivery problems with the LEAP-1 series that Boeing has been forced to rotate a pair of engines between 737 Maxes just in order to fly them out of Renton. "Superior" Western products shouldn't suffer from issues, they are supposed to be "perfect".

[quote="Vladimir79"]

MiamiMachineShop wrote:The french are just haters. They feel inferior to USA, so they feel a need to bash Russia. Two words for them: General Electric


The Germans have been neutered by three generations of occupation.  They are still occupied to this day.  They aren't allowed to say what they want under threat of criminal charges.  If you ever date German girls you will find they are the ones that initiate mating, the men are too afraid.  That is how they end up with weak leaders like Merkel.  The French, like Russians are still a very masculine driven society and have not succumbed to feminism like the Germans who have a useless military and no international clout to speak of.  

Industrially speaking, the Germans are the backbone of European industry but it is the French that lead it.  It was always the UK fighting for that top spot but they voted themselves out which leaves only the French to lead.  Even now the British are in a tailspin as the weak leadership of Teresa May is practically gutting British Aerospace.

Rolls Royce has cut thousands of jobs, Bombardier is leaving and Airbus has threatened to follow.   Getting cut out of Galileo has gutted their satellite production.  

Snecma no longer exists, it is called Safran which is the second largest aerospace supplier in the world. The French are the only ones aiming for the top spot because they are the only ones that could possibly do it.

I only speak of results, I don't care about who's more masculine or other irrelevant lectures. Their product line is tiny, they do not make anything like PW1000G, Trent 900, GP7000, PS90A, PD-14. Not only this, but if we move to any other domain like MGT or diesel, France is not even present.

How can they dominate aerospace with that tiny market share? When Russia moves in with their new products, guess what? France will be displaced, because they do not even have products to fill for MGT, Large aviation turbines, diesels, they make their military engines and thats it. Concorde ... lets face it , Rolls Royce did the heavy lifting for powerplant.

Without General Electric, their navy becomes a sailing team. Without General Electric there is no Airbus. Let us focus on reality, please, fanboism leads only to degeneration of conversation.

We speak of viability of Russian aviation, and to me it looks great.


French Commercial engines:
*Notice maximum 50% contribution, but I thought they were aiming for the top

CFM International CFM56 (50%)
CFM International LEAP (50%)
PowerJet SaM146 (50%)
General Electric GE90 (23.5%)
General Electric CF6 (10–20% share of production, depending on engine model)
Engine Alliance GP7000 (10%)
Safran Silvercrest (under development)
5,000 shp turboprop (under study) for 70–90 seater regional airliners

kvs wrote:https://rusvesna.su/news/1557476262

Social media nutjob tries to impersonate authorities and get his hands on the ATC recordings with the pilot of the crashed SSJ.

This is yet more evidence of social media generated hysteria.   Social media is at the center of the PC rot in the west and is
clearly being used as a tool of subversion in Russia.   Time to regulate these clowns and hard.

They are. Hence why the Blog law stating you need to give your first name and last name in all your blogs if you got x amount of people views per day. And penalties for fake news.

jhelb wrote:

Depends how you define feminism. There are far more women who are an active part of the workforce in Russia compared to France.

Russian women very much want to be taken care of just as most French women. They still value traditional roles of men being the providers and women being homemakers.

RusAviaGuy wrote:All those typical "Western propaganda" arguments about "prefer buying Western" etc. are highly amusing but also traditional.

The main reason for "Western preferences" in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union is a combination of "forbidden fruit taste better" (i.e. Western products were off limits during the Soviet times - thus making them glorified) and a lack of investments, thus causing serious delays (the Tu-204 suffered a lot from this). "Who cares?" is a typical ignorant argument.

The Western ignorance about Russian products and the constant glorification of everything "Western" as being "wonderful" is very annoying to put it mildly, especially all this nonsense where the lack of investment during the 90s is used as a "proof" of the "superiority" of everything Airbus/Boeing.

It is true that the Russian industry suffered a lot during the Yeltsin era before proper investments resumed but that was then, now is now. The MC-21 is a perfect example and the same applies to the SuperJet 100. It is also pretty evident from the PW1100G-JM situation that "Western" research and "spending" doesn't translate into flawless products, despite the propaganda. There are way too many unscheduled landings and engine removals of this very much Western product to warrant such conclusions (i.e. the conclusion that Western is better because of [insert whatever argument]).

I think Pratt & Whitney made the right decision to develop the GTF and the engines are excellent - problems tend to arise when it's new technology but the anti-Russian propaganda pull the discussion down to a low level and the issues must be pointed out. Namely that IF "Western technology" is so "superior" and everyone "prefers" it because of this alleged "superiority" - how can there be so much issues? A Western engine with issues?? A flawless, perfect Western engine causing unscheduled landings and removals??? I consider it highly problematic for the "Western superiority" thesis when those products suffer from technical problems.

It is also necessary to defend Airbus a bit here. No, FBW didn't "kill people" since those accidents during the early A320 times were caused by inappropriate planning (Habsheim - that accident wouldn't happen if the pilots knew what they were facing rather than improvising the display, seeing the trees too late) and piloting errors (Indian Airlines open idle descent into the golf course). On the contrary: FBW has delivered on the safety promise by a wide margin and so far not a single aircraft have been lost due to a failure of this very system (i.e. loss of control due to complete failure of the FCS). The 737 PCU and MCAS issues are a completely different league (none of the FBW airliners have ever suffered from something even remotely similar).

It is also telling that sidesticks are the standard of the day (OK, Boeing resist them but did explore them for their 7J7 project) since all research into that input method have shown that they are optimum for the FBW airliner. There are a lot of interesting articles into the early testing of them, which showed that Airbus were right and that the whole "sidestick-FBW" combination is the optimum control method for an airliner of today.

One last comment before I sign off this post: If Western products are "superior" because those Westerners "spend more on research" (whatever) I have just one comment: It's unfortunate that the PW1100G-JM doesn't run as a Swiss clock, then and that CFM International has been having such delivery problems with the LEAP-1 series that Boeing has been forced to rotate a pair of engines between 737 Maxes just in order to fly them out of Renton. "Superior" Western products shouldn't suffer from issues, they are supposed to be "perfect".

When given a choice to buy French Airbus I don't see how you can expect our airlines to not buy them. Our aircraft might be cheaper in acquisition but they are far more expensive to operate and maintain. The only way for an airline to stay out of the red is to make a profit, Airbus are profitable and our aircraft are not. Soviet aircraft were never profitable, the airlines were subsidised by the state just as all things were under communism. We offer subsidies buying an SSJ but we do not pay them to operate it.

Pratt engines have not been put on any SSJs yet, it is proposed for SSJ NG which is yet to fly. PW1100G-JM is a garbage engine as Airbus is finding out. Any fuel savings they might have made are already lost thanks to the widespread groundings putting the entire engine series at a net loss next to the far more reliable LEAP 1A. That engine would never have gone on the current SSJ as the thrust is a higher weight class. Safran only gave us license manufacture of an old CFM engine for SaM146 which already puts it at an operational lost to its dated technology.

Airbus doesn't need any defending. UAC name is mud, Boeing name is mud... the only one left standing is Airbus.