Russian Civil Aviation: News #3

When my dad was a kid the words made in japan meant cheap crap.

When I was a kid it meant quality and made in Malaysia or Bangledesh meant it was cheap crap... China was commie and the west wasn't using it as a cheap labour force like they did later on.

The fact that things are not cheap to operate or maintain is simply evidence that their customers have not demanded that in the past... now they will and they will have to work on reliability and maintainability. Making an efficient engine is by far the hardest part of making aircraft... even an old aircraft design can be made competitive with good engines. Once they have the good engines in production it then becomes a focus to make them reliable and efficient and cheap to service.

When you make Tiger tanks to last 100 years you get defeated by T-34s designed to last 20 years because they are simpler and cheaper and yet with overhauls can be kept operational rather more than 20 years... the problem for commercial needs is that the Tiger will be cheaper to keep operational than the T-34 if the period is longer than 20 years.

Ironically in some areas western products are not designed to last forever otherwise people will only buy one. Most Cell phone designs will last 3-5 years but many people will replace them every 2-3 years anyway because they want the features of the newer models or as a status symbol.

The interesting part here is, how wrong some see France and that some really understand France.

1. France is one of the leading aviation nations on the globe. Airbus is run by France in a complete sense.

2. France never was and never will be part of US umbrella. France has an independend policy , which always centers around french interests. We cooperate with usa where its useful and cooperate with russia as well.

3. French are masculine. Some here mistake elegance with feminine. A weak bitch like Merkel would never be elected here. Men and women have very clear way of their roles. French women want a man who cares and protects her. And we french men want a good looking intelligent women, that can cook and care for the house.

There are much less women in leading positions in France than in Germany, UK or USA. A women boss would be hard for me to accept.

I think im a good example for a french man. Its very important for me to look good, that doesnt mean im soft in any way. I have zero problems with violence to protect our interest and see it as legitimate tool.

Vladimir79 wrote: 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.

Yes, that's correct - what you said about Russian women. But the same can be said about women in UK, US as well, isn't it ?

And yet the women from these countries use feminism to get unfair advantage over men.

Aristide wrote:A weak bitch like Merkel would never be elected here.

Agree. You elected even weaker bitch like Makron...

medo wrote:

Aristide wrote:A weak bitch like Merkel would never be elected here.

Agree. You elected even weaker bitch like Makron...

Macaroon is a sock puppet.

medo wrote:

Aristide wrote:A weak bitch like Merkel would never be elected here.

Agree. You elected even weaker bitch like Makron...

Macron likes to kill. He has an attraction to this.

Since Macron is president, we see a massive rise in special commando operations in Mali but also Syria and Libya, where target persons are taken out.

Its the only positive thing i see in his presidency.

We kill them without trial.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/france-hunting-isis-fighters-citizens-without-trial-iraq-special-forces-sas-syria-terrorists-a7763111.html

So far France is the only western country that does this. Even USA doesnt do it in public like this.

Its even more funny, ad amusing when their families have to watch.

Thats the only positive thing i see in Macron actually, since i dislike his bowing infrot the plebs.

Poor people exist to serve. By making concessions, you make them more confident.

When a dog barks at you, you must kick its ass. Once you step back, it learns it can frighten you.

By makiing concessions, Macron lost credibility.

You know what?

There is no other country in the world that squeezes its former colonies out like France. Madagascar is the poorest nation in the world...yet pays us still each year 165 million €. Mali and Niger give us all rescources almost for free.

We have extremly low energy cost, because we get the best Uranium for nothing.

we rule our former colonies like a Mafia system, based on threats and violence.

They all know what we did to Khadafi.

France is one of the richest countries in the world. It is estimated, that almost 40% of our economy power is taken from our former colonies. Italian inetrior minister Salvini said this open in anger. That if our colonial system would crash and they would free themself from our grip, French living standards would fall enormous.

To run France as a president, you need the balls to stand such stuff. Merkel could not.

Vladimir79 wrote:

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.  

Boeing name in the mud? lol Okay, despite leading Airbus by 20 billion dollars in revenue annually since... well they're behind Boeing since forever. UAC name in mud? Because of one crash? This is alarmist sensationalism not based on any reality. I have to laugh even further to remind you that CFM Leap is 50% American. France cannot even build this class of engines by itself. Lol airbus last one standing, thats rich dude.


Boeing revenue 2018: 101 billion $$$
Airbus revenue 2018: 60 billion Euro

737 MAX will be rebranded like SSJ 100 and will sell fine when everyone in the world forgets about it and they make a nice commercial with flashing lights and cool music. The next time scarebus has a crash will be a good time to put those commercials on every youtube video for Southwest airlines, American, and so on. If UAC is smart they will do the same and work with airlines for rebrand, which they honestly will need less than Boeing will.

Scarebus would not even be a company without GE, they are dependent on Pratt&Whitney and CFM is 50% American, without GE, Frenchies do not fly, sail, or basically do anything in commercial aviation or marine.

Safran is a midget compared to Boeing/GE, lets remain objective here, many here let fantasy go straight to the head[/quote]

MiamiMachineShop wrote:

Vladimir79 wrote:

RusAviaGuy wrote:

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.  

Boeing name in the mud? lol Okay, despite leading Airbus by 20 billion dollars in revenue annually since... well they're behind Boeing since forever. UAC name in mud? Because of one crash? This is alarmist sensationalism not based on any reality. I have to laugh even further to remind you that CFM Leap is 50% American. France cannot even build this class of engines by itself. Lol airbus last one standing, thats rich dude.


Boeing revenue 2018: 101 billion $$$
Airbus revenue 2018: 60 billion Euro

737 MAX will be rebranded like SSJ 100 and will sell fine when everyone in the world forgets about it and they make a nice commercial with flashing lights and cool music. The next time scarebus has a crash will be a good time to put those commercials on every youtube video for Southwest airlines, American, and so on. If UAC is smart they will do the same and work with airlines for rebrand, which they honestly will need less than Boeing will.

Scarebus would not even be a company without GE, they are dependent on Pratt&Whitney and CFM is 50% American, without GE, Frenchies do not fly, sail, or basically do anything in commercial aviation or marine.

Safran is a midget compared to Boeing/GE, lets remain objective here, many here let fantasy go straight to the head

Lol what bullshit.

The whole 737max exists in its degenerated form, because Boeing panicked so much about Airbus, that they constructed this trash.

The rest is not worth to comment. Best comedy.

MiamiMachineShop wrote:
Boeing name in the mud? lol Okay, despite leading Airbus by 20 billion dollars in revenue annually since... well they're behind Boeing since forever. UAC name in mud? Because of one crash? This is alarmist sensationalism not based on any reality. I have to laugh even further to remind you that CFM Leap is 50% American. France cannot even build this class of engines by itself. Lol airbus last one standing, thats rich dude.

737 MAX will be rebranded like SSJ 100 and will sell fine when everyone in the world forgets about it and they make a nice commercial with flashing lights and cool music. The next time scarebus has a crash will be a good time to put those commercials on every youtube video for Southwest airlines, American, and so on. If UAC is smart they will do the same and work with airlines for rebrand, which they honestly will need less than Boeing will.

Scarebus would not even be a company without GE, they are dependent on Pratt&Whitney and CFM is 50% American, without GE, Frenchies do not fly, sail, or basically do anything in commercial aviation or marine.

Safran is a midget compared to Boeing/GE, lets remain objective here, many here let fantasy go straight to the head

If you subtract the defence unit of Boeing and compare its commercial side to the commercial side of Airbus you will find Airbus is ahead.  Boeing is only dong well because of defence orders while its commercial side is suffering.  

Russian aerospace sales are down 43%.  They were already low to begin with and never compared with France.  Military sales are nothing compared to the commercial market unless you are supplying the US military which is how Boeing survives downturns off of state defence orders.  They have a president who is under investigation for being Mr. Boeing and hurting the interests of other producers like Lockheed such as having an acting DefMin that openly calls Lockheed products fucked up and total shit compared to Boeing.  

Airbus uses both LEAP and P&W engines as options.  Safran makes LEAP engines, if they wanted to make their own engine they could but they would be restricted from Boeing aircraft which is almost half the market  The supply chain of Western aircraft makers is very much interconnected.  The US has merged P&W and Rockwell Collins while France has merged Safran and Zodiac to compete for the top spot.

737 MAX has not scored any new sales since the first fatal crash while Airbus is racking up new orders.  The Dreamliner is being refused delivery from several customers for shoddy workmanship.  Boeing might have enough defence orders to see it through but its commercial side is in a crisis right now.  The biggest problem for Airbus is getting P&W to fix their  shitty engines which is coming out of Pratt's own pockets.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

Vladimir79 wrote:

If you subtract the defence unit of Boeing and compare its commercial side to the commercial side of Airbus you will find Airbus is ahead.  Boeing is only dong well because of defence orders while its commercial side is suffering.  

Russian aerospace sales are down 43%.  They were already low to begin with and never compared with France.  Military sales are nothing compared to the commercial market unless you are supplying the US military which is how Boeing survives downturns off of state defence orders.  They have a president who is under investigation for being Mr. Boeing and hurting the interests of other producers like Lockheed such as having an acting DefMin that openly calls Lockheed products fucked up and total shit compared to Boeing.  

Airbus uses both LEAP and P&W engines as options.  Safran makes LEAP engines, if they wanted to make their own engine they could but they would be restricted from Boeing aircraft which is almost half the market  The supply chain of Western aircraft makers is very much interconnected.  The US has merged P&W and Rockwell Collins while France has merged Safran and Zodiac to compete for the top spot.

737 MAX has not scored any new sales since the first fatal crash while Airbus is racking up new orders.  The Dreamliner is being refused delivery from several customers for shoddy workmanship.  Boeing might have enough defence orders to see it through but its commercial side is in a crisis right now.  The biggest problem for Airbus is getting P&W to fix their  shitty engines which is coming out of Pratt's own pockets.

Safran and GE make LEAP engines. As Saturn cannot do the Sam 146 without Safran, in the same way Safran cannot do CFM LEAP without GE.

In addition, I am not even sure that France posessses a modern altitude test facility for its own engines (except for the smaller ones). Without american components and test facilities, many Safran (and RR) engines would not be able to be produced or certified.

Of course we have. Its near Paris.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

Safran and GE make LEAP engines. As Saturn cannot do the Sam 146 without Safran, in the same way Safran cannot do CFM LEAP without GE.

In addition, I am not even sure that France posessses a modern altitude test facility for its own engines (except for the smaller ones). Without american components and test facilities, many Safran (and RR) engines would not be able to be produced or certified.

It is not the same relationship at all.  The Sam146 is a French licensed production of their CFM.  The GE/Safran tie up was created to allow American engine makers into Europe and French engine makers in America.

France has the best testing facilities in Europe, they don't rely on American infrastructure for development.  They have their own.  It is Safran that is developing the hot section of the SCAF, not America.

I will remind everyone to clean up their quotes, I am getting tired of doing it for you.

The Silvercrest had a one year delay which did not meet Dassault's timeline for the Falcon launch.  It has been fixed and going into the Cessna Citation.  Trying to pry away marketshare from P&W in that weight class will be difficult but a venture they wish to take to compete in business jet engines.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:The ATF in Paris cannot be user for large civil engines (like those on the widebodies A330, A350, boeing 787, etc.
Probably it is ok for engines up to 30k lbs of thrust (about 14 tons, the thrust of a A320 engine), but i know that they cannot test there the large RR engines.

Moscow has a modern large ATF. Unfortunately it is not used by western companies because of export controls.and duty problems, otherwise in many cases it would be more convenient than the american one.

We live in a globalized world. If you believe France would not be able to build one, then i feel sorry for you.

And with all due respect, i would not want to see french engines tested in moscow. Nothing against Russia but for the very same reasons russia would not test their engines in France as well.

Experts explained why it is necessary to stop the flights of "Superjet" after the disaster at Sheremetyevo
“There is a serious doubt that this aircraft at this point complies with airworthiness standards”

I also heard that today's pilots r not skilled in manually operating a plane & rely on computers.
Too bad they abandoned the Tu-334!

How big of a setback is this for Russia's civil aviation?

Tsavo Lion wrote:Experts explained why it is necessary to stop the flights of "Superjet" after the disaster at Sheremetyevo
“There is a serious doubt that this aircraft at this point complies with airworthiness standards”

I also heard that today's pilots r not skilled in manually operating a plane & rely on computers.
Too bad they abandoned the Tu-334!

An example of MSM clickbait BS. As I am reading this POS article, it starts off with some pathetic legal technicality before it even
gets to the issue of the air worthiness of the SSJ. It uses this to bootstrap a spiel about "certification mistakes" without actually
defining any design defects. Lots of text with zero content so far... Now their "expert" starts to go on about technical failure
without making a distinction between out of norm usage (abuse) and design failure. This utterly discredits this clown. The landing
gear of all modern aircraft are not designed to operate under arbitrary loads. The pilots exceeded the load by slamming the SSJ
too hard into the ground. No amount of certification will prevent such scenarios.

This article is the typical NATO sycophant, tin foil hat propaganda against Russia. Some expert who was not part of the crash
investigation is waving his whorish hands around basically asserting that there was a coverup. And for all you true believers, where
are all the reports from the over 250 flying SSJs about how hard they are too handle and showing any indication of landing gear failure?
That this clown uses computer assisted flying as some sort of evidence for bad design further discredits him. Let him bitch at the
B-2 then for being a fail for this reason. According to this NATO whore, computer assisted flying led to the overload of the landing
gear due to a hard landing at 280 km an hour, well beyond 240 km maximum allowed (and assuming no slamming). This is transparent
nonsense. What a retarded joke this article is.

It's funny cause today there was a failure of a Boeing 737 in Russia landing gear.

After two crashes that killed way more, you would think they would make 737 unfit to fly?

And of course it's stupid. Anyone who believes it (Tsavo) has to be borderline down syndrome.

According to him, pilots are untrained and can't fly. Yet Aeroflot gets best ratings worldwide for quality of everything. Pilot training is rather consistent with even use of simulators.

SSJ also got praised for being a wonderful aircraft. It faced two crashes with this one included and the very first one being obviously a stupid mistake during a test run. Outside of that it's been consistent in Working well.

If an airline getting the best ratings in the world has untrained pilots and poor equipment, then I hate to see what those other companies further down the quality rankings have for pilots. Chimpanzees?

How big of a setback is this for Russia's civil aviation?

Probably not much.

There is always going to be as much hostility in the west to Russian aircraft, and it probably does not matter whether every single aircraft crashed within a month of use or they use some for 50 years without a single loss. Any crash will be used as evidence that they don't know how to make aircraft, but can we keep using your rockets to get to the ISIS for a few more years.

Any evidence of western aircraft crashing is ignored totally, like 777s disappearing despite claiming they are tracked live in real time 24/7 with technology, or the more recent crashes involving Boeings...

https://rusvesna.su/news/1557902957

The SSJ "accident" was gross pilot error. For some bizarre reason they accelerated the jet and also put it into a dive. It is
a fluke that there was any sort of "landing" other than nose into the ground. Sources close to the investigation have something
useful to say. Sources hand waving about things they have no clue about contribute nothing of value.

According to him, pilots are untrained and can't fly.

No, it's according to a veteran Russian pilot stating that. They can fly on automatics/computers well but when something goes wrong it gets out of control. Can't find a link.
https://newizv.ru/news/incident/06-05-2019/mnenie-eksperta-piloty-ssj-100-poymali-progressiruyuschego-kozla
https://regnum.ru/news/2623782.html

That's just nonsense. Pilot errors always exist but to say they are untrained is ridiculous.

They r not well trained/informed, otherwise there wouldn't be all those B-737Max & SSJ-100 crashes.