Russian Civil Aviation: News #3

The Baikal airplane to replace the An-2 will be a smaller monoplane (instead of a biplane) powered by the 800 horsepower Russian Vk-800s (instead of the american TPE331 with 1100 hp) and will be produced at Ulan-Ude. Also the propeller and the avionics/navigation system will be Russian.
.
The same engine will be also mounted on the twin Let L-410.


https://aviation21.ru/zavershena-razrabotka-obshhego-vida-i-eskizno-texnicheskoj-dokumentacii-samolyota-bajkal/

The light multi-functional Baikal aircraft will replace the An-2. Its prototype is a one-piece development of SibNIA them. Chaplygina TVS-2DTS. According to information from open sources, the Baikal aircraft will be smaller in size, its internal volume will be 10.35 cubic meters. m. against 16.67 cubic meters. m. at TVS-2DTS. It is planned to use a VK-800S engine (TVS-2DTS - Honeywell TPE-331) with a six-bladed screw AB-410 as a power plant. The commercial load of the new aircraft will be 1250 kg (3000 kg.), The maximum take-off weight is 5000 kg (7400 kg.), The flight range is 1500 km (1450 km). Unlike TVS-2DTS, the aircraft is developed according to the scheme of a strut monoplane with an upper wing.

I guess with newer design the Baikal will be aerodynamically more efficient and they opted for all Russian engine and avionics which makes sense.

more details on VK-800S engine

http://www.uwca.ru/en/news/2018/uzga-predstavil-novyy-dvigatel-dlya-regionalnoy-aviatsii-na-vystavke-mfd-2018/

http://www.rusaviainsider.com/l-410-turboprops-get-russian-engine/

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:The Baikal airplane to replace the An-2 will be a smaller monoplane (instead of a biplane) powered by the 800 horsepower Russian Vk-800s (instead of the american TPE331 with 1100 hp) and will be produced at Ulan-Ude. Also the propeller and the avionics/navigation system will be Russian.
.
The same engine will be also mounted on the twin Let L-410.

https://aviation21.ru/zavershena-razrabotka-obshhego-vida-i-eskizno-texnicheskoj-dokumentacii-samolyota-bajkal/

You forgot the best part, image:

TRIPREPORT | Cubana (ECONOMY) | Ilyushin IL-96-300 | Madrid - Havana

You forgot the best part, image:

I wish it luck... there have been quite a few aircraft that were supposed to replace it over the years including high wing monoplanes including single and twin engine models... none of them matched the An-2s performance at low speeds in bad weather and were cheap and simple to operate and maintain and fix in the middle of nowhere... they are very big boots to fill..

It may have an improved follow-on variant later that will closely match or even surpass the An-2's performance. Nothing is forever!

Tsavo Lion wrote:It may have an improved follow-on variant later that will closely match or even surpass the An-2's performance. Nothing is forever!

It's not clear if there will be the need. A bigger airplane will be of a similar payload and size to the Let L-410.
Furthermore to have more than 9 passengers for commercial operations you now need (at least) 2 engines.

There are some limitations nowadays on the use of single engine planes for passenger operations, so it is even possible that a bigger aircraft in this class would not be efficient. I remember having read that some small airlines would have wanted more than 9 passengers, but that is not allowed on single engine planes.

A bigger engine can be used for having a higher cruise speed, though, like the example of the new Cessna Denali, that is powered by a single General Electric Catalyst turboprop with 1,240 hp (920 kW) and whose cruise speed is 528 km/h (285 kn).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_Denali

As of 2015, there were thousands of An-2s remaining in operation around the world, including over 1,500 in Russia, 294 in Kazakhstan and 54 in Ukraine. ..Capacity: 12 passengers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-2#Civil_aviation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-2#Specifications_(An-2)

So, they r now forbidden to carry more than 9 passengers?

Tsavo Lion wrote:As of 2015, there were thousands of An-2s remaining in operation around the world, including over 1,500 in Russia, 294 in Kazakhstan and 54 in Ukraine. ..Capacity: 12 passengers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-2#Civil_aviation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-2#Specifications_(An-2)

So, they r now forbidden to carry more than 9 passengers?

newly certified planes for sure. I do not know if the rules are retroactive and can be applied to airplanes certified in the past. Maybe not, but in case of a big enough change in the aircraft they will have to update the certification and in that case probably the new rules will apply. Anyway since the An-2 was a antonov airplane, Russia must start from scratches anyway.

Being a biplane there is lots of lift but that also means drag so a more powerful engine is needed to get it to go faster...

More powerful engines would not make it go very fast a mono plane with naturally lower drag will always go faster than a biplane with slightly more engine power.

The point however is that the extra wing area means lower landing and take off speeds for operations in shorter rougher airstrips and also the extra engine power would be better for steeper climbs out of more difficult conditions.

Of course faster speeds and higher payloads mean nothing if you can't land and take off from where you want to go... you need a rugged design with excess lift and engine power... the An-2 entered service in the late 1940s and has been doing an excellent job since then... for many operators if they could buy a brand new An-2 right now they would because it has been doing a unique job no other aircraft... western or eastern, has been able to do.

As far as I know the An-2s operating in the US are not allowed to carry passengers commercially... but they still use them because their features are unique... their low speed performance is excellent... for a novice pilot they are effectively stall proof... if the engine fails pull back hard on the stick and as the speed drops the aircraft will steadily descend till touchdown... to quote from Wiki:

The An-2 has no stall speed, a fact which is quoted in the operating handbook. A note from the pilot's handbook reads: "If the engine quits in instrument conditions or at night, the pilot should pull the control column full aft and keep the wings level. The leading-edge slats will snap out at about 64 km/h (40 mph) and when the airplane slows to a forward speed of about 40 km/h (25 mph), the airplane will sink at about a parachute descent rate until the aircraft hits the ground."[4] As such, pilots of the An-2 have stated that they are capable of flying the aircraft in full control at 48 km/h (30 mph) (as a contrast, a modern Cessna four-seater light aircraft has a stall speed of around 80 km/h (50 mph)). This slow stall speed makes it possible for the aircraft to fly backwards relative to the ground (if the aircraft is pointed into a headwind of roughly 56 km/h (35 mph), it will travel backwards at 8.0 km/h (5 mph) whilst under full control).[4]

The An-14, An-28, and An-38 were all twin engined light replacements for the An-2, and also of course the turboprop powered An-3, which have all failed to replace the original aircraft... most of which were actually built in Poland.

I wish this new aircraft luck... it would not be impossible to replace as long as the designers kept focus... little things like keeping things simple and practical... like air compressor assisted brakes like those used on trucks to allow shorter operating strips... with an onboard compressor linked to the engine... onboard batteries so they don't require external power to operate but can be removed if needed... simple rugged design easy to operate and fix in the field etc etc...

Of course faster speeds and higher payloads mean nothing if you can't land and take off from where you want to go... you need a rugged design with excess lift and engine power...

There r now more better airfields & their # will increase; current/future heavy/high speed helos can/will be able to land & takeoff anywhere else, so the An-2 isn't as indispensable as it was before.

Ansat Aurus - the flying limousine

Bad link!
Outdated “record holder” again lit up in the accident report

Kremlin Considers Launching Start-up Airlines To Fly Superjets

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2020-02-21/kremlin-considers-launching-start-airlines-fly-superjets


Russian Ansat Gets VIP Interior, China Approval

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/general-aviation/2020-02-21/russian-ansat-gets-vip-interior-china-approval

There r now more better airfields & their # will increase; current/future heavy/high speed helos can/will be able to land & takeoff anywhere else, so the An-2 isn't as indispensable as it was before.

Even with lots of new helicopters a fixed wing aircraft is a fraction of the cost of a helicopter for any job... helicopters do have their uses, but cheap light planes also have immense value too with smaller settlements with smaller airlines.

GarryB wrote:

There r now more better airfields & their # will increase; current/future heavy/high speed helos can/will be able to land & takeoff anywhere else, so the An-2 isn't as indispensable as it was before.

Even with lots of new helicopters a fixed wing aircraft is a fraction of the cost of a helicopter for any job... helicopters do have their uses, but cheap light planes also have immense value too with smaller settlements with smaller airlines.

exactly, an helicopter has its own advantages, of course, but it is inherently more expensive to operate and much less safe than an aircraft.

In addition, in an emergency a small plane can anyway land (and later takeoff without damage) practically everywhere where there are roads or even flat fields. So unless you are talking about landing somewhere in the mountains, at the top of a skyscraper or in a oil platform an helicopter is not necessary and instead just reduces safety and increases costs

Austin wrote:Kremlin Considers Launching Start-up Airlines To Fly Superjets

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2020-02-21/kremlin-considers-launching-start-airlines-fly-superjets ...

How about they properly localize SSJ and sort out maintenance chain first and send them back on the market instead of wasting time and money on start-up bullshittery that never gets​ anywhere anyway?

PapaDragon wrote:

Austin wrote:Kremlin Considers Launching Start-up Airlines To Fly Superjets

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2020-02-21/kremlin-considers-launching-start-airlines-fly-superjets ...

How about they properly localize SSJ and sort out maintenance chain first and send them back on the market instead of wasting time and money on start-up bullshittery that never gets​ anywhere anyway?

It is not start up bullshittery...
The company Azimuth (founded in 2017) that operates in the south of Russia with a fleet of only SSJ100 (they have 11 of them) is working quite well. They just plan to repeat that experience in the far east.

Maybe basing it on the company Aurora (that aeroflot controls at 50%) or maybe creating a new one from scratch in Khabarovsk

And they need to keep production at the Konsomolks-on Amur plant (where all of the SSJ100 are assembled) while they fix all the issues.

By the way, Khabarovsk is only 400 km from Konsomolk on Amur, it is possible that that would simplify the logistic for maintenance as well.

Of course they are working on improving the logistic and substitute all the foreign components... this is being done, but it takes time.

The prototype of the new engine should be ready by 2023, and certified by 2024. That means that before 2025 is highly unlikely that the SSJ100 will receive a supplment type certificate with the new engine and all new russian components.

Do you believe they should stop completely production, close the plant, lay off the workers and wait 4 or 5 years before producing new ones?

It make sense probably to temporarily decrease the rate of production of new aircrafts for the moment, and maybe start producing in russia replacement parts for the french part of the existing engines, possibly in agreement with Safran. Even if the engine (the SaM146) is not the best available on the market it is the one existing now, and it will remain in service with a few hundreds aircrafts for the next 20 years. New aircrafts starting from 2025 will have the new engines, but the existing ones will need to be supported anyway.

In the meanwhile it is realistic to expect that at least some of the American components will be replaced, to bring their quota to less than 10% (i read somewhere that 10% is the threshold where the american government must approve each foreign sale, but I am not sure about it). This would allow to sell the current version of SSJ100, but with an higher share of russian components (currently around 50%, at the start of the program they were even less and around 40%) to Iran, without needing any permissions from the americans, possibly already by 2022.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Austin wrote:Kremlin Considers Launching Start-up Airlines To Fly Superjets

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2020-02-21/kremlin-considers-launching-start-airlines-fly-superjets ...

How about they properly localize SSJ and sort out maintenance chain first and send them back on the market instead of wasting time and money on start-up bullshittery that never gets​ anywhere anyway?

It is not start up bullshittery...
The company Azimuth (founded in 2017) that operates in the south of Russia with a fleet of only SSJ100 (they have 11 of them) is working quite well. They just plan to repeat that experience in the far east.

Maybe basing it on the company Aurora (that aeroflot controls at 50%) or maybe creating a new one from scratch in Khabarovsk

And they need to keep production at the Konsomolks-on Amur plant (where all of the SSJ100 are assembled) while they fix all the issues.

By the way, Khabarovsk is only 400 km from Konsomolk on Amur, it is possible that that would simplify the logistic for maintenance as well.

Of course they are working on improving the logistic and substitute all the foreign components...  this is being done,  but it takes time.

The prototype of the new engine should be ready by 2023, and certified by 2024. That means that before 2025 is highly unlikely that the SSJ100 will receive a supplment type certificate with the new engine and all new russian components.

Do you believe they should stop completely production,  close the plant, lay off the workers and wait 4 or 5 years before producing new ones?

It make sense probably to temporarily decrease the rate of production  of new aircrafts for the moment, and maybe start producing in russia replacement parts for the french part of the existing engines, possibly in agreement with Safran. Even if the engine (the SaM146) is not the best available on the market it is the one existing now, and it will remain in service with a few hundreds aircrafts for the next 20 years. New aircrafts starting from 2025 will have the new engines, but the existing ones will need to be supported anyway.

In the meanwhile it is realistic to expect that at least some of the American components will be replaced, to bring their quota to less than 10% (i read somewhere that 10% is the threshold where the american government must approve each foreign sale, but I am not sure about it). This would allow to sell the current version of SSJ100, but with an higher share of russian components (currently around 50%, at the start of the program they were  even less and  around 40%) to Iran, without needing any permissions from the americans, possibly already by 2022.

They already said their intent is to improve the logistics and maintenance of the planes. Things arent binary as some members think it is. They are also looking at increasing the numbers purchased, as you said, by new airlines being created for specific needs. Nothing wrong in that.

Russia To Produce 200 Airliners Annually

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2020-01-10/russia-produce-200-airliners-annually

In addition, in an emergency a small plane can anyway land (and later takeoff without damage) practically everywhere where there are roads or even flat fields. So unless you are talking about landing somewhere in the mountains, at the top of a skyscraper or in a oil platform an helicopter is not necessary and instead just reduces safety and increases costs

The An-2 is essentially a bush plane so you can fly it out to the middle of nowhere and land on fairly rough airstrips that might not be much more than a straight section of gravel road or stretch of snow. If you are flying from a real airfield to a real airfield their are smaller lighter cheaper planes that would be faster and more efficient, though the An-2 would still not be a bad choice either way.

The replacement needs rough field operations capacity and it also needs to be simple.

A Look At Russia’s New Turboprop: The Il-114-300

https://simpleflying.com/il-114-300-new-turboprop/

Nice, the sooner they start making those the sooner they can get rid of their Antonov twin light transports too... An-24, An-26, and An-32...