Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Yes, a win win for everyone (except that american company, but apparently for them this was a minor business)
+48
Scorpius
Arrow
limb
Maximmmm
owais.usmani
Firebird
william.boutros
PapaDragon
TheArmenian
DerWolf
Austin
flamming_python
PhSt
Cyberspec
Tsavo Lion
miketheterrible
Karl Haushofer
medo
jhelb
RusAviaGuy
Admin
MiamiMachineShop
ExBeobachter1987
Aristide
calripson
Regular
Rodion_Romanovic
kvs
GarryB
LMFS
triphosgene
bolshevik345
GunshipDemocracy
JohninMK
Walther von Oldenburg
higurashihougi
Big_Gazza
Tingsay
Kimppis
franco
mutantsushi
Isos
magnumcromagnon
Nibiru
marat
par far
George1
dino00
52 posters
Russian Civil Aviation: News #3
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 2655
Points : 2824
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
william.boutros- Posts : 178
Points : 180
Join date : 2015-08-13
PhSt wrote:
Safran Urges Russia to Make Substitutes for U.S. Engine Parts
Safran is urging Moscow to create substitutes for U.S. vendor items in the PowerJet SaM146 and launch them into mass production in a hope to put an end to the monopoly of certain makers in the global market for complex parts in commercial turbojet engines. If the Russians commit, Safran promises to place big orders for similar parts in other engines so as to reduce their unit costs and increase production rates, according to top-ranking managers in the Russian aerospace industry who asked for anonymity.
Safran, for its part, confirmed it has drawn a "joint roadmap" with Rostec that lists priority parts and specifies certification requirements for new partners in Russia. "We are continuing to look at the possibility of further integrating Russian industry into our supply chain, not just in relation to the production of parts for the SaM146, but also for other programs such as the Leap and the CFM56," Safran wrote in response to emailed questions from AIN on the plans. "We hold Russian industry and its capabilities in very high regard, and we have no doubt that they are fully committed to meeting all of the necessary performance and certification criteria."
According to the Russian executives, talks on the matter began shortly after U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to scrap the nuclear deal with Iran and exercise stricter control over high-tech exports to that country. Moscow and its key European partners on the Sukhoi Superjet 100 (SSJ100) entered consultations on how to remove the type from the scope of Washington’s trade restrictions in hopes of selling equipment to Iranian airlines.
The issue of parts for the SaM146 turned worse after in-service engines began developing more failures, the problem traced to lower-than-expected service life for certain elements in the hot section. PowerJet advised operators to send their engines to the manufacturer for inspection and repairs, but soon thereafter it appeared that the industry couldn’t do the work on short notice due to insufficient capacity of maintenance centers and a shortage of spares. Sukhoi Civil Aircraft (SCAC) and United Engine Corporation (Russian acronym ODK) formed a pool of replacement engines to keep SSJ100s flying, at the cost of slowing output of new airframes. The deficit of engines meant that up to 20 otherwise completed airframes remain grounded at the manufacturing plant in Komsomolsk-upon-Amur and SCAC's main base at the Ramenskoye Aerodrome.
Despite persistent efforts, PowerJet has so far failed to raise SaM146 production rates above 60 annually, chiefly because of a shortage of certain parts supplied by U.S. vendors. The list of those suppliers includes PCC Structurals, TECT, Chromalloy, Carpenter, Cannon Muskegon, and Hayes International.
Headquartered in Portland, Oregon, PCC Structurals specializes in superalloy, aluminum, and titanium investment casting. Its position in the global market strengthened following Warren Buffett’s purchase of Precision Castparts in 2015. According to industry insiders, PCC Structurals enjoys a monopoly in the market for complex parts made of titanium, as only it has mastered the needed advanced casting technologies. For years, the company has served as the sole supplier of the so-called intermediate bearing for the SaM146.
Although the Trump administration and U.S. Congress imposed numerous punitive measures on the Russian aerospace and defense industries, they do not cover the supply of U.S. parts for the SaM146, meaning the short supply issue stems from purely commercial considerations Citing high expenses needed to boost production, the manufacturer has agreed to do so only in the event of a large order with prepayment. The current production rate of the SaM146 remains relatively small, however, as does the production increase under consideration by PowerJet and SCAC. "There is currently supply chain stress for forging and casting parts' production, which impacts all the stakeholders in the aerospace industry given the complexity of the parts to be manufactured," confirmed Safran, who acknowledged that it holds regular discussions with SCAC and the Russian Ministry of Trade and Finance to assess their needs.
PowerJet and its patron Safran have asked Moscow to find a solution. Thanks to the huge expertise Russia has amassed in the manufacture of complex titanium products, certain enterprises within its military-industrial complex appear capable of handling such an assignment. But most of them remain busy with a state order for military equipment and will not make an effort on the SaM146 unless given the assignment by the Kremlin.
French negotiators have repeatedly asked their top-ranking Russian counterparts to issue the assignment and allocate the necessary funding to cover nonrecurring costs associated with technology and production preparation, according to the aerospace executives. If the Russian industry masters production of complex titanium parts for the SaM146 and demonstrates high quality, Safran promises to place large orders for similarly configured parts for those engines as well as CFM International models.
For its part, ODK has already tasked its member UMPO (Ufa Machinery-building Production Association) to produce substitutes for the SaM146 parts PowerJet now purchases from the U.S. But the executives who spoke with AIN doubt that UMPO possesses enough resources to handle the job.
Russia maintains a full-fledged scientific research establishment specializing in engine technologies in the form of CIAM, the Central Institute of Aviation Motors. Because of the complexity of the issue, finding a solution might require the involvement of certain other scientific establishments that historically specialize in naval equipment. They would need a clear directive from the Kremlin to get involved and share technologies they have created under classified military projects.
Starting in 1970, with the induction of the K-222 submarine of Project 661, nicknamed the Golden Fish for its huge development and manufacturing costs, the Russian navy has operated a number of submarines with hulls made of titanium, including a few highly secret vessels for deepwater operations whose development and manufacturing the defense ministry financed. For the respective technologies to become available to civilian programs, such as that of the SSJ100 and SaM146, their proprietors and developers need the Kremlin’s permission.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2019-07-22/safran-urges-russia-make-substitutes-us-engine-parts
Sounds fishy. I would not involve the same scientists working on secret and advanced projects and put them in contact with Europeans.
I would make a separate scientific team in a separate location and have them collaborate on specified parts. Another option is the pay the nonrecurring costs for the American supplier or work on joint venture with in Russia.
GarryB- Posts : 40556
Points : 41058
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The Russians already have expertise in dealing with titanium parts... and it would make sense for them to also be making those parts for their own new range of engines.... ie the PD range that is quite broad from large to small...
Setting up a Russian company to make said parts... especially with the promise to also make parts for French civilian engines would be a rather good idea for Russia.
Clearly the French are sick of bullshit from this American company and want a more reliable supplier, and Russia can not only make a bit of money from selling titanium parts instead of raw titanium to the Americans and have them make money on the finished product sales.
Such a venture would also be useful for making parts for Russian engines and make them sanction proof at the same time.
When they talk about American parts for Russian engines like the PS-90A et al, this is probably what they are talking about... why not make them in Russia... Russia will benefit and will benefit again with sales to France for their engines bypassing the US company who currently makes the product.
The French don't need to be any part of this new Russian organisation, so no need for giving up any secrets.
Setting up a Russian company to make said parts... especially with the promise to also make parts for French civilian engines would be a rather good idea for Russia.
Clearly the French are sick of bullshit from this American company and want a more reliable supplier, and Russia can not only make a bit of money from selling titanium parts instead of raw titanium to the Americans and have them make money on the finished product sales.
Such a venture would also be useful for making parts for Russian engines and make them sanction proof at the same time.
When they talk about American parts for Russian engines like the PS-90A et al, this is probably what they are talking about... why not make them in Russia... Russia will benefit and will benefit again with sales to France for their engines bypassing the US company who currently makes the product.
The French don't need to be any part of this new Russian organisation, so no need for giving up any secrets.
PapaDragon- Posts : 13474
Points : 13514
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
Why should Russia bother solving Safran's problems with competition when they are currently working on becoming competition for both Safran and American vendors?
GarryB- Posts : 40556
Points : 41058
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
But that is the point, the expensive complicated titanium parts this American company makes it makes because the French can't make them... otherwise they would make the whole engine themselves and cut the Americans out of the deals.
What they are saying is that while they can't manage the technology, that the Russians can and do, so if Russia wants to invest time and money and effort into making these parts they would rather not only use them for the engines used on Russian planes but on all French engines.
More importantly these high precision parts are the bits that Russia often gets the US to make for them... as in the PS-90A parts the Americans made that have since been replaced in later models by Russian parts so they might already be making similar bits anyway.
And that is also what I am trying to say, these parts are needed on modern competitive jet engines so not just this french engine for the MS-21 jet, but for their entire new range of engines they are developing and bringing out over the next decade... from new engines for the Mi-26 and An-124 and also the Il-476 and Il-276 etc etc could all benefit from Russian made precision titanium parts... they are light and hard wearing...
This is not just a good thing for Russia because they will end up making more parts in aircraft engines they actually use from France but they will also be making engines for other countries that use these and other French engines.
And if you dislike America it also means they are cutting them out of the French engine market too.
Even if it only makes their own engines better it will be worth it and could easily lead to work with French engine makers and possibly other engines including marine engines perhaps.
The point is that instead of exporting titanium to the US and having them work it into high tech parts and then selling them to France to put into their engines to then sell to Russia and to other countries that use engines, it could be that a Russian company takes Russian Titanium and makes those high tech parts and sells them to France for rather more than the price Titanium sells for per kg, but also can be used in Russian engines to improve their performance as well.
It solves Frances problems, but it also helps Russia in the short term and in the longer term when the French engines they use are replaced by the domestic range of new engines they are making... ie PD something, like PD-14, PD-35, etc etc then they can use the same Russian titanium part in their own engines... and it sticks it to a US company owned by a very rich man who is likely part of the establishment who are russophobic anyway... of course the American company will survive because there are plenty of American engines and aircraft that need titanium parts too..., but they will simultaneously cut them out of the French engine market but also more importantly the Russian military and civilian engine market...
What they are saying is that while they can't manage the technology, that the Russians can and do, so if Russia wants to invest time and money and effort into making these parts they would rather not only use them for the engines used on Russian planes but on all French engines.
More importantly these high precision parts are the bits that Russia often gets the US to make for them... as in the PS-90A parts the Americans made that have since been replaced in later models by Russian parts so they might already be making similar bits anyway.
And that is also what I am trying to say, these parts are needed on modern competitive jet engines so not just this french engine for the MS-21 jet, but for their entire new range of engines they are developing and bringing out over the next decade... from new engines for the Mi-26 and An-124 and also the Il-476 and Il-276 etc etc could all benefit from Russian made precision titanium parts... they are light and hard wearing...
This is not just a good thing for Russia because they will end up making more parts in aircraft engines they actually use from France but they will also be making engines for other countries that use these and other French engines.
And if you dislike America it also means they are cutting them out of the French engine market too.
Even if it only makes their own engines better it will be worth it and could easily lead to work with French engine makers and possibly other engines including marine engines perhaps.
The point is that instead of exporting titanium to the US and having them work it into high tech parts and then selling them to France to put into their engines to then sell to Russia and to other countries that use engines, it could be that a Russian company takes Russian Titanium and makes those high tech parts and sells them to France for rather more than the price Titanium sells for per kg, but also can be used in Russian engines to improve their performance as well.
It solves Frances problems, but it also helps Russia in the short term and in the longer term when the French engines they use are replaced by the domestic range of new engines they are making... ie PD something, like PD-14, PD-35, etc etc then they can use the same Russian titanium part in their own engines... and it sticks it to a US company owned by a very rich man who is likely part of the establishment who are russophobic anyway... of course the American company will survive because there are plenty of American engines and aircraft that need titanium parts too..., but they will simultaneously cut them out of the French engine market but also more importantly the Russian military and civilian engine market...
Last edited by GarryB on Fri Aug 02, 2019 3:42 am; edited 1 time in total
Cyberspec- Posts : 2904
Points : 3057
Join date : 2011-08-08
Location : Terra Australis
PapaDragon wrote:
Why should Russia bother solving Safran's problems with competition when they are currently working on becoming competition for both Safran and American vendors?
Yes this is a tricky one.
I suppose it could be useful for Russia in the short term to make money. Also it would be politically useful as one of the main reasons for US sanctions is to cut as much as possible any economic ties between the EU and Russia
PhSt- Posts : 1494
Points : 1500
Join date : 2019-04-02
Location : Canada
NATO is working hard to collapse Russia’s aviation industry
Dramatic reductions in orders for Russia’s regional Sukhoi Superjet 100 (SSJ100) aircraft has brought about a serious deterioration in the financial situation of its manufacturer Sukhoi Civil Aircraft Company (SCAC).
According to the Russian planemaker’s July 22 financial report, aircraft sales revenue decreased sevenfold in the first half of this year, to 2.05 billion roubles (US$32.05 million) against last year’s 14.7 billion (US$232.7 million). Total revenue dropped almost fourfold to 4.2 billion roubles (US$66.5 million). This meant the aircraft manufacturer’s net loss increased by 32.7 per cent during the period and now amounts to 1.07 billion roubles (US$17 million).
SCAC told Russian Aviation Insider that the company is expecting to increase revenue during the second half of 2019, since most of this year’s SSJ100 deliveries are scheduled for this period.
Since the beginning of this year, the company has delivered only three aircraft, compared to eight Superjet 100s in the first six months of 2018.
Two of these SSJ100s were received by Severstal Airlines which had signed a lease contract for four aircraft of this type from State Transport Leasing Company (known by the acronym GTLK) last September. One aircraft was delivered to Azimuth Airlines, with another SSJ100 planned for delivery later this year.
SCAC currently has only a few options to deliver its aircraft at the moment. Mexico’s Interjet, its largest international customer, froze further deliveries of the SSJ100s after accepting an initial 22 of 30 aircraft on order. Another foreign customer – Ireland’s CityJet – also suspended deliveries after its client Belgium’s Brussels Airlines revoked its wet-lease plans for the Russian-made aircraft. CityJet had ordered a total of 15 SSJ100s, with an option on 16 more, but only seven have actually been delivered.
Furthermore, in April, Slovenia’s Adria Airways withdrew from a potential deal for 15 Superjet 100s, but it is to be hoped that Thailand’s Kom Airlines will proceed with the delivery of the first of six SSJ100s this autumn. Meanwhile, Russia’s Alrosa Airlines had intended to replace its vintage Tupolev Tu-134 and Tu-154 aircraft with two leased SSJ100s in 2019, acknowledging its intention in November last year. These deliveries were scheduled for the first half of the year, but a firm deal has not been sealed.
Then, this May, Yamal Airlines cancelled its options for 10 Superjet 100s, citing their high operating and maintenance costs.
SCAC’s main hope for increased sales figures in the second half of this year relates directly to the order for 100 of the type from Aeroflot, a preliminary agreement for which was signed in September 2018. Previously, it was planned that the airline would receive these aircraft between 2019 and 2026. Currently, Aeroflot is the largest operator of Russian regional jets with 49 SSJ100s in its fleet.
In 2018, SCAC delivered a total of 26 SSJ100s against 30 in the year before. Alexander Rubtsov, the company’s former chief executive, who resigned in April, had explained that the reduction in supply was caused by PowerJet SaM-146 engine shortages, which arose because of a string of breakdowns of existing SSJ100s. Engines destined for newly manufactured aircraft were instead being used as substitute replacements for previously produced units.
Rubtsov also revealed that the aircraft manufacturer has to produce between 32 and 34 aircraft a year to make a profit.
After the loss of the SSJ100 aircraft in May 5 fatal accident, Russia’s Air Transport Operators Association, which speaks for the industry on behalf of its 20 airline members, raised serious question marks about the overall safety of the aircraft type.
According to the latest forecast from United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), the parent of SCAC, in the next 20 years the global demand for new aircraft with a capacity of between 60 and 120 seats (the category that the SSJ100 falls into) will be 4,610 units, of which 205 will be Russian, at an average delivery rate of 10 aircraft per year.
http://www.rusaviainsider.com/sevenfold-slump-sukhoi-civil-aircraft-sales/
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 2655
Points : 2824
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
https://m.vz.ru/news/2019/7/26/989611.html
Russia and Turkey discussed the joint production and supply of "Superjet" and MS-21
July 26, 2019 20:48
Russia and Turkey have discussed the delivery of Russian aircraft SSJ-100 and MS-21, said Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak.
At the meeting of the Russian-Turkish Intergovernmental Commission in Antalya, the parties discussed the joint assembly of helicopters, as well as the supply of Russian aircraft, reports TASS .
“In industry, we are talking about the supply of helicopters, the creation of a joint venture for the production of helicopters. In the future, this is a joint production and supply of SSJ-100, MS-21 aircraft, ”Novak said.
Earlier, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened the United States to abandon the purchase of American Boeing aircraft because of tensions with the Untied States
miketheterrible- Posts : 7383
Points : 7341
Join date : 2016-11-06
PhSt wrote:
NATO is working hard to collapse Russia’s aviation industry
Dramatic reductions in orders for Russia’s regional Sukhoi Superjet 100 (SSJ100) aircraft has brought about a serious deterioration in the financial situation of its manufacturer Sukhoi Civil Aircraft Company (SCAC).
According to the Russian planemaker’s July 22 financial report, aircraft sales revenue decreased sevenfold in the first half of this year, to 2.05 billion roubles (US$32.05 million) against last year’s 14.7 billion (US$232.7 million). Total revenue dropped almost fourfold to 4.2 billion roubles (US$66.5 million). This meant the aircraft manufacturer’s net loss increased by 32.7 per cent during the period and now amounts to 1.07 billion roubles (US$17 million).
SCAC told Russian Aviation Insider that the company is expecting to increase revenue during the second half of 2019, since most of this year’s SSJ100 deliveries are scheduled for this period.
Since the beginning of this year, the company has delivered only three aircraft, compared to eight Superjet 100s in the first six months of 2018.
Two of these SSJ100s were received by Severstal Airlines which had signed a lease contract for four aircraft of this type from State Transport Leasing Company (known by the acronym GTLK) last September. One aircraft was delivered to Azimuth Airlines, with another SSJ100 planned for delivery later this year.
SCAC currently has only a few options to deliver its aircraft at the moment. Mexico’s Interjet, its largest international customer, froze further deliveries of the SSJ100s after accepting an initial 22 of 30 aircraft on order. Another foreign customer – Ireland’s CityJet – also suspended deliveries after its client Belgium’s Brussels Airlines revoked its wet-lease plans for the Russian-made aircraft. CityJet had ordered a total of 15 SSJ100s, with an option on 16 more, but only seven have actually been delivered.
Furthermore, in April, Slovenia’s Adria Airways withdrew from a potential deal for 15 Superjet 100s, but it is to be hoped that Thailand’s Kom Airlines will proceed with the delivery of the first of six SSJ100s this autumn. Meanwhile, Russia’s Alrosa Airlines had intended to replace its vintage Tupolev Tu-134 and Tu-154 aircraft with two leased SSJ100s in 2019, acknowledging its intention in November last year. These deliveries were scheduled for the first half of the year, but a firm deal has not been sealed.
Then, this May, Yamal Airlines cancelled its options for 10 Superjet 100s, citing their high operating and maintenance costs.
SCAC’s main hope for increased sales figures in the second half of this year relates directly to the order for 100 of the type from Aeroflot, a preliminary agreement for which was signed in September 2018. Previously, it was planned that the airline would receive these aircraft between 2019 and 2026. Currently, Aeroflot is the largest operator of Russian regional jets with 49 SSJ100s in its fleet.
In 2018, SCAC delivered a total of 26 SSJ100s against 30 in the year before. Alexander Rubtsov, the company’s former chief executive, who resigned in April, had explained that the reduction in supply was caused by PowerJet SaM-146 engine shortages, which arose because of a string of breakdowns of existing SSJ100s. Engines destined for newly manufactured aircraft were instead being used as substitute replacements for previously produced units.
Rubtsov also revealed that the aircraft manufacturer has to produce between 32 and 34 aircraft a year to make a profit.
After the loss of the SSJ100 aircraft in May 5 fatal accident, Russia’s Air Transport Operators Association, which speaks for the industry on behalf of its 20 airline members, raised serious question marks about the overall safety of the aircraft type.
According to the latest forecast from United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), the parent of SCAC, in the next 20 years the global demand for new aircraft with a capacity of between 60 and 120 seats (the category that the SSJ100 falls into) will be 4,610 units, of which 205 will be Russian, at an average delivery rate of 10 aircraft per year.
http://www.rusaviainsider.com/sevenfold-slump-sukhoi-civil-aircraft-sales/
A lot of it is Russia's own fault.
They didn't demand their domestic industries to buy it. And they used foreign made parts. I always was against it and others said I was stupid or wrong. Now who looks stupid?
Oh well. They at least profited from it already. They just need to sell at least another hundred or two and they would just need to maintain.
kvs- Posts : 15861
Points : 15996
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
The Russia’s Air Transport Operators Association is acting like a NATO Trojan horse. They seriously consider this one incident to
be a fatal flaw in the SSJ? That is absurd. If there was a problem all of these jets would have it, like with the Boeing 737 Max.
Everything about Russia is always rabid hysteria. Since when have accidents been terminal for aircraft models? Every model
would be cancelled on this basis. There is no case against the SSJ at this time.
be a fatal flaw in the SSJ? That is absurd. If there was a problem all of these jets would have it, like with the Boeing 737 Max.
Everything about Russia is always rabid hysteria. Since when have accidents been terminal for aircraft models? Every model
would be cancelled on this basis. There is no case against the SSJ at this time.
flamming_python- Posts : 9552
Points : 9610
Join date : 2012-01-30
No the SSJ-100s problems are really its own fault. It's got nothing to do with NATO.
From crashing its PR team and a bunch of journalists into a mountain in Indonesia, to consistent problems with servicing and spare parts despite all appeals from CityJet and Interjet to help decrease maintance times.
I hope it's a lesson learned, and the MS-21 achieves more success. There were talks about creating an all-Russian version of the SSJ-100 for Iran. Where did all this go? I hope something can come out of the talks with Turkey.
From crashing its PR team and a bunch of journalists into a mountain in Indonesia, to consistent problems with servicing and spare parts despite all appeals from CityJet and Interjet to help decrease maintance times.
I hope it's a lesson learned, and the MS-21 achieves more success. There were talks about creating an all-Russian version of the SSJ-100 for Iran. Where did all this go? I hope something can come out of the talks with Turkey.
GarryB- Posts : 40556
Points : 41058
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The whole point of including foreign parts was to increase international sales, which is perfectly fine... many people like Apple computers or Windows computers and would rather continue to use them, but try a new source for the hardware.
Obviously when the suppliers of those parts get shitty or their governments do and start refusing to supply for certain customers then you need to realise that the goal of maximising the potential market is not going to work because the makers of those components wont allow it.
Make an all domestic parts model is OK for domestic use but it means you have to invest in world wide support and spares management structure for those local parts... and that is not easy or cheap or simple to do either.
Normally money talks, and you would think a company would rather make money than get on board with the current lynching, mob rally, but often the small amount of money they could make with a Russian aircraft doesn't make sense when it puts the core rest of their business at risk...
Time for plan B, which is going to be hard and slow and expensive but should develop OK with the right support... and mentality.
Ie the Russian government should impose serious penalties on domestic airlines that don't use these new aircraft, but then they should also put pressure on the makers of these aircraft to step up their game and meet the demands of the airlines in terms of maintenance and costs and other factors too.
Eventually they will be very good aircraft and other airlines not forced to take them will take an interest, but they need support structure expanded to help them operate where ever they operate too... which wont be easy or cheap.
Obviously when the suppliers of those parts get shitty or their governments do and start refusing to supply for certain customers then you need to realise that the goal of maximising the potential market is not going to work because the makers of those components wont allow it.
Make an all domestic parts model is OK for domestic use but it means you have to invest in world wide support and spares management structure for those local parts... and that is not easy or cheap or simple to do either.
Normally money talks, and you would think a company would rather make money than get on board with the current lynching, mob rally, but often the small amount of money they could make with a Russian aircraft doesn't make sense when it puts the core rest of their business at risk...
Time for plan B, which is going to be hard and slow and expensive but should develop OK with the right support... and mentality.
Ie the Russian government should impose serious penalties on domestic airlines that don't use these new aircraft, but then they should also put pressure on the makers of these aircraft to step up their game and meet the demands of the airlines in terms of maintenance and costs and other factors too.
Eventually they will be very good aircraft and other airlines not forced to take them will take an interest, but they need support structure expanded to help them operate where ever they operate too... which wont be easy or cheap.
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 2655
Points : 2824
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
There have been several missteps, but nothing is lost forever.
As we discussed many times, the problem with the superjet was the excessive presence of foreign parts and the lack of a serious investment on aftersale and maintenance infrastructure (and spare parts).
Commercial jets (and engines) are often sold with a loss in the west and the money is then made via the maintenance contracts, that allow also the airline to plan better their expenses and their fleet availability.
As an example, GE Aviation and RR offer several contract possibility to their customers, and often they do not have to pay for spare parts and shop visits (as long as the airline do not misuse aircrafts and engines) but pay a tantum for each flight hour (e.g. RR total care / power by the hour).
The main problem for the superjet there was the engine, developed and produced by the powerjet joint venture between snecma (safran group) and saturn, that had some reliability issue, and failed to produce engine and spare parts in time. This impacted also the delivery of new aircrafts, since engine and spare parts from new aircrafts had to be "cannibalized" to keep other aircraft flying.
The issue was aggravated because both sukhoi civil aircraft and powerjet failed to create a serious aftermarket support.
Bombardier spended quite a bit of money on the aftermarket infrastructure before the delivery of the first c series jet (now acquired by Airbus and renamed A-220). Furthermore the engine was not a small series production like the Sam 146, but it was one of the version of the PW1000, benefiting from the larger production and maintenance network.
The indigenous alternative to the Ssj-100 (the Tu-334) was less advanced technologically and had anyway foreign (ukrainian) engines.
Furthermore, I believe that its development was impacted not only by the superjet project, but also by the russian/ukrainian An-148/158.
Anyways the experience they got in assembling a modern aircraft with advanced component is not negative. Now they are developing russian alternatives for most of the imported parts, often by the same companies that also produce components for the military aircrafts.
Maybe if they stayed with the tu-334 they would have to settle for parts and components not at the same level as the western ones.
In addition several maintenance centers for foreign aircrafts and engines have been opened in Russia. Russia can learn by it and try to offer similar solutions.
Anyway, a big problem is also due to bad publicity and almost criminal behavior from local authorities, were they always presented western aircrafts as something that Russia could not do.
This damaged incredibly the chances of the Il-96 and Tu-204, otherwise very interesting and promising aircrafts when they were introduced. Especially for the latter, the only problem was a slightly less efficient engine compared with western alternatives, probably due to lack of investement in further improvements (also western engine often start with less than declared performances, recovering the full contract expectation only after expensive enhancements programmes).
Due to all of this, the public opinion in Russia is now also biased towards western aircrafts, and often do not even know about the accomplishments and the characteristics of the new Russian aircrafts projects...
Last year, while speaking with a friend of mine from Moscow, she said that she liked only Airbus and and that she did not thrust russian aircrafts, perceived often as old soviet stuff.
Most of the russian citizens are unaware of the full implication of the work done on the MC-21, as example, and do not understand that, maintenance issue apart, the ssj100 has nothing to envy to western counterparts.
I agree with the ideas of putting some incentives for buying indigenous aircrafts and import fees for foreign ones. The problem is that now there are not enough Russian alternatives to cover the whole range of needs (regional turboprops, regional jets, middle of the market and long range widebodies). Some of them will be ready only in a few years, so they have to accept to have more foreign aircrafts in the meanwhile (if you need a b737 or an a-320 you cannot fully substitute it with ssj100, and the mc-21 is not ready yet).
Ironically, this situation would have been simpler to solve in the early 2000s, because Tu-204 was in production and in service, and the new generation of upgraded Boeing and Airbus was not in production yet.
Soon there will be a Russian alternative for almost each civil aircraft segment (il-114-300, upgraded russianised ssj-75 and ssj-100 (maybe rembranded as yak jets), MC-21/Yak-242 family, Il-96-400M and later also the Russian chinese CR-929), and then they will be able to start with a new policy (and to sell to not western aligned nations).
The only aircraft that will not be on par with the western alternatives will be the Il-96-400M, at least until a twin version with the PD-35 engine will be realized. It's however extremely important to continue its production, to maintain compentences in widebody production and to invest on modern components for large aircrafts. Apparently there is also now the need of several aircrafts with around 400 passengers capacity.
As we discussed many times, the problem with the superjet was the excessive presence of foreign parts and the lack of a serious investment on aftersale and maintenance infrastructure (and spare parts).
Commercial jets (and engines) are often sold with a loss in the west and the money is then made via the maintenance contracts, that allow also the airline to plan better their expenses and their fleet availability.
As an example, GE Aviation and RR offer several contract possibility to their customers, and often they do not have to pay for spare parts and shop visits (as long as the airline do not misuse aircrafts and engines) but pay a tantum for each flight hour (e.g. RR total care / power by the hour).
The main problem for the superjet there was the engine, developed and produced by the powerjet joint venture between snecma (safran group) and saturn, that had some reliability issue, and failed to produce engine and spare parts in time. This impacted also the delivery of new aircrafts, since engine and spare parts from new aircrafts had to be "cannibalized" to keep other aircraft flying.
The issue was aggravated because both sukhoi civil aircraft and powerjet failed to create a serious aftermarket support.
Bombardier spended quite a bit of money on the aftermarket infrastructure before the delivery of the first c series jet (now acquired by Airbus and renamed A-220). Furthermore the engine was not a small series production like the Sam 146, but it was one of the version of the PW1000, benefiting from the larger production and maintenance network.
The indigenous alternative to the Ssj-100 (the Tu-334) was less advanced technologically and had anyway foreign (ukrainian) engines.
Furthermore, I believe that its development was impacted not only by the superjet project, but also by the russian/ukrainian An-148/158.
Anyways the experience they got in assembling a modern aircraft with advanced component is not negative. Now they are developing russian alternatives for most of the imported parts, often by the same companies that also produce components for the military aircrafts.
Maybe if they stayed with the tu-334 they would have to settle for parts and components not at the same level as the western ones.
In addition several maintenance centers for foreign aircrafts and engines have been opened in Russia. Russia can learn by it and try to offer similar solutions.
Anyway, a big problem is also due to bad publicity and almost criminal behavior from local authorities, were they always presented western aircrafts as something that Russia could not do.
This damaged incredibly the chances of the Il-96 and Tu-204, otherwise very interesting and promising aircrafts when they were introduced. Especially for the latter, the only problem was a slightly less efficient engine compared with western alternatives, probably due to lack of investement in further improvements (also western engine often start with less than declared performances, recovering the full contract expectation only after expensive enhancements programmes).
Due to all of this, the public opinion in Russia is now also biased towards western aircrafts, and often do not even know about the accomplishments and the characteristics of the new Russian aircrafts projects...
Last year, while speaking with a friend of mine from Moscow, she said that she liked only Airbus and and that she did not thrust russian aircrafts, perceived often as old soviet stuff.
Most of the russian citizens are unaware of the full implication of the work done on the MC-21, as example, and do not understand that, maintenance issue apart, the ssj100 has nothing to envy to western counterparts.
I agree with the ideas of putting some incentives for buying indigenous aircrafts and import fees for foreign ones. The problem is that now there are not enough Russian alternatives to cover the whole range of needs (regional turboprops, regional jets, middle of the market and long range widebodies). Some of them will be ready only in a few years, so they have to accept to have more foreign aircrafts in the meanwhile (if you need a b737 or an a-320 you cannot fully substitute it with ssj100, and the mc-21 is not ready yet).
Ironically, this situation would have been simpler to solve in the early 2000s, because Tu-204 was in production and in service, and the new generation of upgraded Boeing and Airbus was not in production yet.
Soon there will be a Russian alternative for almost each civil aircraft segment (il-114-300, upgraded russianised ssj-75 and ssj-100 (maybe rembranded as yak jets), MC-21/Yak-242 family, Il-96-400M and later also the Russian chinese CR-929), and then they will be able to start with a new policy (and to sell to not western aligned nations).
The only aircraft that will not be on par with the western alternatives will be the Il-96-400M, at least until a twin version with the PD-35 engine will be realized. It's however extremely important to continue its production, to maintain compentences in widebody production and to invest on modern components for large aircrafts. Apparently there is also now the need of several aircrafts with around 400 passengers capacity.
kvs- Posts : 15861
Points : 15996
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
Failure to "meet demands for service time reductions" by customers has to be proven and not asserted. I would like
to see a reference where the demands on Sukhoi are shown to be objective. Just because someone is bitching does not
mean they have realistic demands.
And NATO has everything to do with Sukhoi. The boss of NATO, the USA, is notorious for playing dirty to get business
advantage. These assorted demands and "claims of failure" by Sukhoi are nothing more than smear campaigns orchestrated
by NATO governments.
to see a reference where the demands on Sukhoi are shown to be objective. Just because someone is bitching does not
mean they have realistic demands.
And NATO has everything to do with Sukhoi. The boss of NATO, the USA, is notorious for playing dirty to get business
advantage. These assorted demands and "claims of failure" by Sukhoi are nothing more than smear campaigns orchestrated
by NATO governments.
kvs- Posts : 15861
Points : 15996
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
There is an information war against Sukhoi and the SSJ-100 which is part of the larger information war on
Russia. The video highlights organized information attacks.
But we do have serious issues. Aeroflot is coercing pilots to use automatic systems instead of developing critical
skills during landings. As it so happens the ground systems in Sheremetyevo failed on the day of the SSJ-100 crash.
That's what you get for removing multiple operation options and assuming only one is good enough. Sooner or
later there will be crashes due to weather which was not anticipated by the designers of the automation systems.
But weather conditions which skilled pilots could at least have a chance to handle.
Aeroflot is a clear NATO Trojan horse. It grounds SSJ-100 jets in cases where it allows Boeings and Airbuses to fly.
So Aeroflot is engaged in creating a false image of lack of reliability and "rawness" of the SSJ-100. Time to crack
the whip on these clowns. The management of Aeroflot needs to be fired and put under investigation for criminal
conspiracy.
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 2655
Points : 2824
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
kvs wrote:
There is an information war against Sukhoi and the SSJ-100 which is part of the larger information war on
Russia. The video highlights organized information attacks.
But we do have serious issues. Aeroflot is coercing pilots to use automatic systems instead of developing critical
skills during landings. As it so happens the ground systems in Sheremetyevo failed on the day of the SSJ-100 crash.
That's what you get for removing multiple operation options and assuming only one is good enough. Sooner or
later there will be crashes due to weather which was not anticipated by the designers of the automation systems.
But weather conditions which skilled pilots could at least have a chance to handle.
Aeroflot is a clear NATO Trojan horse. It grounds SSJ-100 jets in cases where it allows Boeings and Airbuses to fly.
So Aeroflot is engaged in creating a false image of lack of reliability and "rawness" of the SSJ-100. Time to crack
the whip on these clowns. The management of Aeroflot needs to be fired and put under investigation for criminal
conspiracy.
i tend to agree with you. In addition, in the aeronautical business, there is more profit made in producing and selling aircraft and maintenance services than in operating them. That means that, as an example, when a boeing 777 from Aeroflot is flying, boeing and ge aviation (engine maker) make more money from its operation than the operator (airline) itself.
So, since aeroflot is state owned, if they used only russian aircrafts when available for their segment (e.g il-96 instead of Airbus A330 and boeing 777, and Tu-204 instead of airbus a320 and boeing 737) Russia would at the end make more money even if aeroflot was at a moderate operational loss (due to alleged lower efficiency of russian aircrafts designed in the 80s).
In addition it would help increasing the number of jobs in Russia and the loading of the plants, helping them increase production efficiency.
kvs- Posts : 15861
Points : 15996
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
So all booking information and customer data pertaining to air flights inside Russia is stored on computer systems in the
USA and the EU. This is further evidence of the Trojan horse nature of Aeroflot. Since it is the dominant company it
set the trend in the market. So other Russian air companies are not really to blame for this.
PhSt- Posts : 1494
Points : 1500
Join date : 2019-04-02
Location : Canada
Why is this issue not getting the attention of the Russian government? Isn't the SVR, FSB and other intelligence agencies responsible for providing the government reports about these matters concerning national security? IMO aggressive and timely action is the only way Russia can offset costs of the economic war the west is waging against them.
kvs- Posts : 15861
Points : 15996
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
PhSt wrote:
Why is this issue not getting the attention of the Russian government? Isn't the SVR, FSB and other intelligence agencies responsible for providing the government reports about these matters concerning national security? IMO aggressive and timely action is the only way Russia can offset costs of the economic war the west is waging against them.
According to the above video, new laws are about to be passed to force all such data to be stored inside Russia, by Russian
resident companies. The new laws include dealing with the mess of the existing laws that pertains to ship building as well.
So there is some attention. But Aeroflot does need to be under investigation for criminal conspiracy. Russia needs RICO type
laws to handle all these NATO 5th columnists. If they don't like Russia so much, then they can bugger on off to NATO and drive
taxis or something...
GarryB- Posts : 40556
Points : 41058
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
A state owned company doesn't need to make a high profit... what it should be doing is providing a service to its people.
A state airline should fly to places that are not so profitable for the benefit of people living in those areas, and they should charge fares that cover costs and provide a moderate profit that is then invested back into the business to pay for maintenance and other costs...
In comparison a privately run company with no soul would charge the maximum amount they think they can get away with and close routes where they don't make a big profit on.
A state airline creates employment in outlying regions, provides reliable transport infrastructure, but does not lose a lot of money... it should also use domestic products and resources where possible... so Russian food, Russian fuel, Russian aircraft and engines, etc etc.
Looking at the above I would certainly be getting the FSB to do a full audit of the company and ask some hard questions about decisions made...
Regarding using domestic products... it does not matter if domestic costs a little more because it is money spend within the Russian economy which will help build up domestic support for aircraft, rather than supporting foreign companies.
Having said that didn't Boeing set up production and offices in Russia specifically to get Russian contracts, but to also produce parts on the cheap with cheap Russian skilled labour...
A state airline should fly to places that are not so profitable for the benefit of people living in those areas, and they should charge fares that cover costs and provide a moderate profit that is then invested back into the business to pay for maintenance and other costs...
In comparison a privately run company with no soul would charge the maximum amount they think they can get away with and close routes where they don't make a big profit on.
A state airline creates employment in outlying regions, provides reliable transport infrastructure, but does not lose a lot of money... it should also use domestic products and resources where possible... so Russian food, Russian fuel, Russian aircraft and engines, etc etc.
Looking at the above I would certainly be getting the FSB to do a full audit of the company and ask some hard questions about decisions made...
Regarding using domestic products... it does not matter if domestic costs a little more because it is money spend within the Russian economy which will help build up domestic support for aircraft, rather than supporting foreign companies.
Having said that didn't Boeing set up production and offices in Russia specifically to get Russian contracts, but to also produce parts on the cheap with cheap Russian skilled labour...
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 2655
Points : 2824
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
https://www.rbth.com/business/2017/08/24/how-boeing-and-airbus-use-russias-expertise-to-develop-their-airplanes_827604
Probably until mid 2010s there was at least the benefit in having kept occupied a generation of aerospace engineers, instead of wasting forever their competences and capabilities (like the italian nuclear engineers that graduated in the mid 1980s, after Italy decided to shut down completely its small but successful civilian nuclear program).
However their work and their capabilities are at the benefit of foreign companies, and currently detrimental to the russian national aeronautical industry.
Are those engineers paid much better than those employed by russian aeronautical companies?
Russia has currently a large amount of aeronautical projects that need capable and experienced engineers.
Would it be possible for Russia to "nationalise" these design centers, force-acquiring the companies and re-directing the work of these engineers towards the needs of yakovlev, ilyushin, tupolev and sukhoi?
Afterall, the American GE has acquired the company in Czech republic that designed and manufactured most of the small gas turbine engine used in the soviet union.
The work of those Russian engineers is to the benefit of foreign companies and all if the IP remain abroad.
Same thing for russian engineers working abroad for foreign companies. The main designer of the German diesel engine Red A03, mounted on the trainer yak-152, is the Russian engineer Vladimir Raikhlin. He graduated from Kazan university and later founded the RED aicraft (Raikhlin Aircraft Engine Development) in Adenau (western Germany). To the development cost of the engine participated also the Russian holding "Finam",
https://finam.info/blog/43298497287/Razrabotannyiy-pri-uchastii-%C2%ABFINAMa%C2%BB-aviatsionnyiy-dvigatel-RED-?nr=1
but it is considered a german engine. There were plans to move documentations and production in Russia, but those never materialised, and now Russia is trying to develop an alternative fully Russian engine for the yak-152
Among the 200 permanent employees working for ECAR a large part of them are graduates of the Moscow Aviation Institute (MAI), Bauman Moscow State Technical University, and Tsiolkovsky Russian State Technological University (MATI) (now part of MAI). The situation is similar in the Boeing Design Center located in Moscow. 250 permanent employees work there as well as 1,200 contract engineers from Russian and Ukrainian engineering bureaus (Ilyushin, Sukhoi, Khrunichev) and private companies (NIK, Progresstech). The majority of permanent staff working at Boeing and Airbus centers in Moscow, including general directors, are Russian citizens
Probably until mid 2010s there was at least the benefit in having kept occupied a generation of aerospace engineers, instead of wasting forever their competences and capabilities (like the italian nuclear engineers that graduated in the mid 1980s, after Italy decided to shut down completely its small but successful civilian nuclear program).
However their work and their capabilities are at the benefit of foreign companies, and currently detrimental to the russian national aeronautical industry.
Are those engineers paid much better than those employed by russian aeronautical companies?
Russia has currently a large amount of aeronautical projects that need capable and experienced engineers.
Would it be possible for Russia to "nationalise" these design centers, force-acquiring the companies and re-directing the work of these engineers towards the needs of yakovlev, ilyushin, tupolev and sukhoi?
Afterall, the American GE has acquired the company in Czech republic that designed and manufactured most of the small gas turbine engine used in the soviet union.
The work of those Russian engineers is to the benefit of foreign companies and all if the IP remain abroad.
Same thing for russian engineers working abroad for foreign companies. The main designer of the German diesel engine Red A03, mounted on the trainer yak-152, is the Russian engineer Vladimir Raikhlin. He graduated from Kazan university and later founded the RED aicraft (Raikhlin Aircraft Engine Development) in Adenau (western Germany). To the development cost of the engine participated also the Russian holding "Finam",
https://finam.info/blog/43298497287/Razrabotannyiy-pri-uchastii-%C2%ABFINAMa%C2%BB-aviatsionnyiy-dvigatel-RED-?nr=1
but it is considered a german engine. There were plans to move documentations and production in Russia, but those never materialised, and now Russia is trying to develop an alternative fully Russian engine for the yak-152
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 2655
Points : 2824
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
https://aviation21.ru/ms-21-importozameshhenie-ot-sistemy-upravleniya-dvigatelem-do-kolyos/
MS-21 - import substitution from the engine control system to the wheels
Posted by 08/08/2019 | @AviaRu | 65
The PD-14 engine for the MS-21 aircraft is equipped with the Russian electronic-hydromechanical automatic control system with full responsibility (FADEC), said Roman Usanin, first deputy managing director and chief engineer of Perm OEC-STAR JSC.
"Fuel automation was designed for the MS-21 from scratch, which corresponds to the world level," the chief engineer of the enterprise told reporters. He noted that such work was carried out in Russia for the first time in a long time.
Irkut Corporation Aviation Plant (IAZ) should increase the output of medium-range MC-21 aircraft to 70 units per year by 2025.
“There is a step-by-step program for increasing production capabilities and production of serial aircraft. By 2025, we must launch production of at least 70 aircraft per year,” Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov said in an interview.
Serial deliveries of the aircraft are scheduled for 2021. The postponement of the terms of serial deliveries from 2020 to a year later is associated with the need to switch over to testing and certification of domestic composite materials in the production of aircraft wings.
Perm JSC "ODK-STAR" is the only company in Russia that independently creates and supplies for operation integrated electronic-hydromechanical automatic control systems containing engine fuel pumps, digital electronic controllers with "full responsibility" (FADEC type) and a backup hydromechanical part.
In turn, the Kamensk-Uralsky Foundry of the Tekhnodinamika holding, thanks to the new CNC turning center, will be able to produce wheels for the MS-21 aircraft. The CNC turning center is designed for the manufacture of large aircraft wheels with a machining diameter of up to a meter.
The launch of the new metal-cutting equipment will allow the enterprise, within the framework of the import substitution program, to produce drums and wheel flanges for Russian passenger aircraft, including the medium-range MS-21.
The new turning center produces products with high precision parameters and surface quality. The design of the machining center allows you to maintain a smooth movement of the nodes, maximum traction gain and high accuracy under various cutting conditions. The dimensions of the turret for the tool allow for one installation to produce a deep inner bore, necessary for boring bearing seats, providing the highest requirements for design documentation for alignment.
“The participation of the Kamensk-Uralsky foundry in the production of MS-21 aircraft, in the supply of which many domestic airlines are interested, is obviously beneficial for everyone,” commented Igor Nasenkov, CEO of the Technodinamika holding. “Our enterprises are already developing take-off and landing gear components for the MS-21, as well as a number of key systems: a neutral gas system, an electricity supply system, an oxygen system, and a fire protection system. Now, thanks to the new equipment, we will be able to produce high quality wheels. ”
The mid-range narrow-body airliner MS-21-300 will be demonstrated for the first time to specialists and the general public during the MAKS-2019 air show. The aircraft with the passenger cabin will be put on a static exposition, and will also take part in demonstration flights.
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 2655
Points : 2824
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
https://aviation21.ru/il-96-s-dvumya-dvigatelyami-pd-35-mozhet-poyavitsya-v-2025-godu/
IL-96 with two engines PD-35 may appear in 2025
Posted by 08/09/2019 | @AviaRu | 39
The state will allocate $ 3 billion to create the PD-35 thrust aircraft engine of the designed Russian-Chinese SHFDMS CR929. This was announced by Managing Director, General Designer of UEC-Aviadvigatel JSC Alexander Inozemtsev.
He also said that the IL-96 with two PD-35 engines could appear in 2025, the customer is the Presidential Administration.
“As far as I know, there is already a specific task, this is 2025. The first anchor customer is the president’s affairs, twin-engine Il-96, by this time we are pulling the engine,” Inozemtsev told reporters on August 9.
In January 2018 at that time, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin announced that the promising heavy-duty PD-35 engine would become the main one for future Russian military transport aircraft and would allow switching to a twin-engine scheme on IL-96 aircraft.
“The PD-35 engine is needed not only for the Russian-Chinese wide-body passenger aircraft. It will allow you to get away from the four-engine scheme on the IL-476, IL-478, IL-96-400, and will also become the base engine for the promising aviation complex of military transport aviation "Rogozin tweeted.
According to him, the creation of an aircraft engine with a thrust of more than 30 tons is an extremely important task for the development of domestic aviation, which was not solved during the Soviet era. Now Russia has come to the solution of this problem, drawing on the experience of creating a basic generator for the PD-14 engine for the MS-21 airliner.
JohninMK- Posts : 15656
Points : 15797
Join date : 2015-06-16
Location : England
This threat must be one of the worst nightmares for the Western oligopoly of big engine suppliers and Boeing/Airbus. From the late 2020s onward the later will not have their duopoly.
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 2655
Points : 2824
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
2025 is probably too early to see a civilian il-96 with PD-35 engines, but maybe they want to test it on an airplane for a military customer after putting it on the il76 flying test bed.
Afterall the aircrafts not for civilian use have less stringent rules.
As an example the Tu-114 (a civilian long range passenger plane derived from the tu-95 bomber), carried Nikita Krushev in his first official trip to the United States in September 1959, when the airplane was still in testing phase. The Tu-114 entered normal passenger operation with Aeroflot only one and half year later, on 24 April 1961.
It is still possible that they will keep a four engine il-96 as presidential plane for foreign trips. After all the president of the united states sometimes flies on a modified Boeing 757 (C32, normally used by the vice president)( the Boeing 757 is similarn in size to the russian Tu-204 and longer than a boeing 737) on domestic trips instead of the larger VC-25 (modified Boeing 747), but uses exclusively the four engined VC-25 for foreign trips as air force one.
Now they have to replace the VC-25 fleet, and believe there were some call to use a large twin engine like the boeing 777, but they preferred to use a 4 engined boeing 747-800 as the basis for the VC-25B.
Afterall the aircrafts not for civilian use have less stringent rules.
As an example the Tu-114 (a civilian long range passenger plane derived from the tu-95 bomber), carried Nikita Krushev in his first official trip to the United States in September 1959, when the airplane was still in testing phase. The Tu-114 entered normal passenger operation with Aeroflot only one and half year later, on 24 April 1961.
It is still possible that they will keep a four engine il-96 as presidential plane for foreign trips. After all the president of the united states sometimes flies on a modified Boeing 757 (C32, normally used by the vice president)( the Boeing 757 is similarn in size to the russian Tu-204 and longer than a boeing 737) on domestic trips instead of the larger VC-25 (modified Boeing 747), but uses exclusively the four engined VC-25 for foreign trips as air force one.
Now they have to replace the VC-25 fleet, and believe there were some call to use a large twin engine like the boeing 777, but they preferred to use a 4 engined boeing 747-800 as the basis for the VC-25B.
Last edited by Rodion_Romanovic on Fri Aug 09, 2019 5:08 pm; edited 1 time in total