Russian Civil Aviation: News #3

A quite negative article about the work on CR929.

https://asiatimes.com/2020/09/china-russia-big-jet-project-faces-turbulence/

Allegedly the Chineses are trying to obtain Russian technologies without opening their markets. Apparently some chinese employees accused Russia to only use them as assembly plant (I do not understand why they want Russia to give them their proprietary technology for free)... furthermore they said Russia is pushing them to use the fuselage design based on the Il-86...
Here I do not understand why it should be the il 86 fuselage a starting point and not the il96...

Anyways, if the Chineses want to cooperate, good, if not it is important that Russia proceeds with their alternative plan (the two engine version of the il96, that will be only possible if they maintain competency and production capabilities wit the 4 engine il96-400M in the meanwhile)...

If the partnership should fail the work they are performing on the CR929 wings can be also redirected to a new wing for the two engined il96...

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:A quite negative article about the work on CR929.

https://asiatimes.com/2020/09/china-russia-big-jet-project-faces-turbulence/

Allegedly the Chineses are trying to obtain Russian technologies without opening their markets. Apparently some chinese employees accused Russia to only use them as assembly plant (I do not understand why they want Russia to give them their proprietary technology for free)... furthermore they said Russia is pushing them to use the fuselage design based on the Il-86...
Here I do not understand why it should be the il 86 fuselage a starting point and not the il96...

Anyways,  if the Chineses want to cooperate, good, if not it is important that Russia proceeds with their alternative plan (the two engine version of the il96, that will be only possible if they maintain competency and production capabilities wit the 4 engine il96-400M in the meanwhile)...

If the partnership should fail the work they are performing on the CR929 wings can be also redirected to a new wing for the two engined il96...

Sounds like deliberate bitching to extort Russia for tech. Russia should give these clowns the middle finger. It can actually upgrade the IL-96 with
PD-35 engines in a few years and get a very good product. These days it is the engines and the avionics that are the key. Composites are important
too and Russia has that tech as well. So it can make more parts of the IL-96 out of composites.

kvs wrote:

Sounds like deliberate bitching to extort Russia for tech.   Russia should give these clowns the middle finger.   It can actually upgrade the IL-96 with
PD-35 engines in a few years and get a very good product.   These days it is the engines and the avionics that are the key.   Composites are important
too and Russia has that tech as well.   So it can make more parts of the IL-96 out of composites.

The engines are really key if the US/China trade spat continues for years and embargoes US tech engines.

The Chinese have been bitten by the B-737Max shambles as well as they were just starting up a final fitout plant when shipments stopped.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:A quite negative article about the work on CR929.

https://asiatimes.com/2020/09/china-russia-big-jet-project-faces-turbulence/

Allegedly the Chineses are trying to obtain Russian technologies without opening their markets.

Tough titty, it ain't happening without China doing their part

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Apparently some chinese employees accused Russia to only use them as assembly plant

Which is what the contract stipulated

And since when do employees get to complain about anything?

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:...furthermore they said Russia is pushing them to use the fuselage design based on the Il-86...

A bullshit statement because CR929 is clean sheet design and makes Il-86 look like Cesna

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Here I do not understand why it should be the il 86 fuselage a starting point and not the il96...

You don't understand it because it's bullshit article from Asian version of Forbes

That is the website Tsavo quotes a lot... I would not expect anything they post to be Russia or China friendly to be honest...

Divide and conquer...

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:A quite negative article about the work on CR929.

https://asiatimes.com/2020/09/china-russia-big-jet-project-faces-turbulence/

Allegedly the Chineses are trying to obtain Russian technologies without opening their markets. Apparently some chinese employees accused Russia to only use them as assembly plant (I do not understand why they want Russia to give them their proprietary technology for free)... furthermore they said Russia is pushing them to use the fuselage design based on the Il-86...
Here I do not understand why it should be the il 86 fuselage a starting point and not the il96...

Anyways,  if the Chineses want to cooperate, good, if not it is important that Russia proceeds with their alternative plan (the two engine version of the il96, that will be only possible if they maintain competency and production capabilities wit the 4 engine il96-400M in the meanwhile)...

If the partnership should fail the work they are performing on the CR929 wings can be also redirected to a new wing for the two engined il96...

The Chinese are a hard bargain and quite selfish. Russia does not need this plane in numbers and if there is no money for Russia in it then they should not engage in cooperation.
Best to carry on with PD35 development for transports and upgrade Il-96 with whatever technologies are available. Any additional losses in performance compared to competitors can be subsidized.
Stretched and extended range variants as MS21-400 and 500 with uprated PD-18 engines can fill significant gaps. This will also offer an optimized product line-up. Let us face it, sales of planes are subject to geopolitics and Russia's allies may not have a need for such large planes in numbers.

kvs wrote:

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:A quite negative article about the work on CR929.

https://asiatimes.com/2020/09/china-russia-big-jet-project-faces-turbulence/

Allegedly the Chineses are trying to obtain Russian technologies without opening their markets. Apparently some chinese employees accused Russia to only use them as assembly plant (I do not understand why they want Russia to give them their proprietary technology for free)... furthermore they said Russia is pushing them to use the fuselage design based on the Il-86...
Here I do not understand why it should be the il 86 fuselage a starting point and not the il96...

Anyways,  if the Chineses want to cooperate, good, if not it is important that Russia proceeds with their alternative plan (the two engine version of the il96, that will be only possible if they maintain competency and production capabilities wit the 4 engine il96-400M in the meanwhile)...

If the partnership should fail the work they are performing on the CR929 wings can be also redirected to a new wing for the two engined il96...

Sounds like deliberate bitching to extort Russia for tech.   Russia should give these clowns the middle finger.   It can actually upgrade the IL-96 with
PD-35 engines in a few years and get a very good product.   These days it is the engines and the avionics that are the key.   Composites are important
too and Russia has that tech as well.   So it can make more parts of the IL-96 out of composites.

I agree that we should give them the middle finger, but any ideas about a two-engined 96 are insane. The fuselage is a compromise born in the dying years of the USSR, it wasn't even optimal for a 4-engine setup because they didn't get the engines they wanted but had to stick with lower-power engines because of inter-design bureau competition shenanigans.
The need for a new wide-body airliner is questionable in any case, considering we need to finish our work on the smaller aircraft first.
We need to make sure we get the MS-21 out and rolling on time, especially considering how important the PD engine family is to the next 20-30 years of our aviation industry. That's also the main appeal of the cooperation with the Chinese, because it would finance the development of the larger PD variant.
We should also focus on refreshing the SSJ and getting it set up with the PD-7/8.
I never trusted the chinese to properly cooperate with us on this project, they're always trying to screw us out of every deal for maximum profit (just as they do with everybody else).

Re CR929, I don't think Russia had ever agreed to tech transfer.
Collaboration is a type of sharing. But proprietary tech was always going to remain that way as I understand.
Russia would provide some parts, China others. And China would assemble.
As for where Russia sells, well China would distribute in China. And it was more complex for intl customers.

Personally I think the MS21 and subsequent wide body will be pivotal for Russia. The CR929, will maybe it will be a bonus, whatever incarnation it will eventually be.

With a brand new wing (and of course the new PD35 engines) i do not see why the modernised il96 should be inferior to the A330 Neo, as am example. If I am not mistaken also the Airbus A330 (two engines) and the A340 (4 engines) share the same fuselage.

Il 96 was also already built with use of composite materials, anyway. And I do not understand the issues some users are attributing to that aircraft. It is true that at the beginning engines with the desired thrust output were not available, and for that reason a shortened version of the il96 came out at the start of the program.

Well, actually with new wings, new engines, and the new all russian avionics and internal systems being developed for also other programs (some of which will be anyway already introduced on the il96-400M) it will be practically a new aircraft.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:With a brand new wing (and of course the new PD35 engines) i do not see why the modernised il96 should be inferior to the A330 Neo, as am example. If I am not mistaken also the Airbus A330 (two engines) and the A340 (4 engines) share the same fuselage.

Il 96 was also already built with use of composite materials, anyway. And I do not understand the issues some users are attributing to that aircraft.  It is true that at the beginning engines with the desired thrust output were not available,  and for that reason a shortened  version of the il96 came out at the start of the program.

Well, actually with new wings, new engines, and the new all Russian avionics and internal systems being developed for also other programs (some of which will be anyway already introduced on the il96-400M) it will be practically a new aircraft.  

Yes, the airbuses do share the same fuselage but making a new wing is a big issue and frankly unjustified for the Russian market.
They could install new generation derivatives of PD-14 and adopt fly by wire principles, glass cockpit, weight reduction practices etc. It will be more costly to operate but how many do they need 50? they can be subsidized.

I still think extended range stretched versions of the MS-21s will fill many of the gaps and create a complete product line up. trusting ease of movement will not be the same in the future given geopolitical concerns.

PD-35 must be developed for military use, technology and as a backup. China might come under sanctions, Russia might compete on the international market and money might show up for a twin aisle plane.

william.boutros wrote:

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:With a brand new wing (and of course the new PD35 engines) i do not see why the modernised il96 should be inferior to the A330 Neo, as am example. If I am not mistaken also the Airbus A330 (two engines) and the A340 (4 engines) share the same fuselage.

Il 96 was also already built with use of composite materials, anyway. And I do not understand the issues some users are attributing to that aircraft.  It is true that at the beginning engines with the desired thrust output were not available,  and for that reason a shortened  version of the il96 came out at the start of the program.

Well, actually with new wings, new engines, and the new all Russian avionics and internal systems being developed for also other programs (some of which will be anyway already introduced on the il96-400M) it will be practically a new aircraft.  

Yes, the airbuses do share the same fuselage but making a new wing is a big issue and frankly unjustified for the Russian market.
They could install new generation derivatives of PD-14 and adopt fly by wire principles, glass cockpit, weight reduction practices etc. It will be more costly to operate but how many do they need 50? they can be subsidized.

I still think extended range stretched versions of the MS-21s will fill many of the gaps and create a complete product line up. trusting ease of movement will not be the same in the future given geopolitical concerns.

PD-35 must be developed for military use, technology and as a backup. China might come under sanctions, Russia might compete on the international market and money might show up for a twin aisle plane.

They need a new wing if they want to do a twin engine aircraft.

And such aircraft can also be interesting in a tanker version, and it could be sold to many nations that need air refueling but are not best buddies with US.

As for as the larger MC21 derivatives... they will still be narrowbodies (single aisle aircraft).
They can cover some of the market share (and boeing was trying to pursue that niche with the NMA before they had the 737 chaos), but they cannot fully replace a A330 or a Boeing 777 (while a modernised il96 powered by two PD35 could).

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:With a brand new wing (and of course the new PD35 engines) i do not see why the modernised il96 should be inferior to the A330 Neo, as am example. If I am not mistaken also the Airbus A330 (two engines) and the A340 (4 engines) share the same fuselage.

Il 96 was also already built with use of composite materials, anyway. And I do not understand the issues some users are attributing to that aircraft.  It is true that at the beginning engines with the desired thrust output were not available,  and for that reason a shortened  version of the il96 came out at the start of the program.

Well, actually with new wings, new engines, and the new all russian avionics and internal systems being developed for also other programs (some of which will be anyway already introduced on the il96-400M) it will be practically a new aircraft.  

Basically that's the point. You need to develop an entirely new plane.
The il-96 was already stillborn because they had to change their original plans due to the lack of engines with the power they expected.
If you go twin-engine you also fuck with the balance point.
So you need, new engines, new wing, new fly-by-wire system, new avionics, new fuselage and at that point it's a new aircraft and there's nothing of the IL-96 left.
Imho what needs to happen is that we get the MS-21 into serial production, set up a robust joint MS-21/SSJ service system around the world (which was one of the reasons for the SSJ's failure), get the SSJ on the PD-7/8 to minimize costs and unify whatever we can with the MS-21 and then see how we can develop a wide-body airliner. No need to rush, the PD-35 will be developed as it is the lynchpin of our next gen transport aircraft anyway. The PD-14 is relatively close to done. Sadly the PD-7/8 work is barely starting, but downsizing the 14 should be easier than developing the 35.
Airbus and Boeing have shown that the 21st century belongs to aircraft families that unify whatever they can between them. We need to get this set up with the airliners we have and then see what makes sense to scale up.
We thought about doing the same back in the dying days of the USSR, I believe TU-204 was going to be part of a large family, but then what happened happened.
The IL-96 is useful for what it is, it's a plane for the president, for the nuclear forces and for other boutique uses. Keeping production going makes sure our aircraft industry stays alive and that's good. If we're gonna invest billions in a new large wide-body, we need to be smart and meticulous about it.

Quick edit:
Found an article from this year on the PD-8: https://aviation21.ru/dvigatel-pd-8-poluchit-sertifikat-tipa-v-2023-godu/
Looks like they're planning to certify it in 2023. Adjust for our realities and it's probably 2025. But that's pretty good! If the SSJ modernization project comes out of the freezer as expected in some form or another soon, it'll be ready to accept the new engines around the same time as well.

As for discussions about unification, what is important for us is not even necessarily that all the parts overlap, but that the same manufacturers are involved in every process. If we raise the domestic %tage of the SSJ via involving the producers of parts for the MS-21, we will essentially achieve unification. That will also make a global service system easier to organize. It also creates more business and larger margins for the companies involved.

Second edit:
Meanwhile the progress for the PD-35 is also ongoing: https://aviation21.ru/tag/pd-35/
So far they've been testing new composite blades using the PD-14 as titanium ones would be far too heavy.
The real breakthrough is this project as engines of this power level haven't been created since the USSR days and we've lost the Ukrainian groups we had back then. Once operational it's going to be on our wide-bodies, our next gen transport aircraft and who knows what else.

Maximmmm wrote:

kvs wrote:

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:A quite negative article about the work on CR929.

https://asiatimes.com/2020/09/china-russia-big-jet-project-faces-turbulence/

Sounds like deliberate bitching to extort Russia for tech.   Russia should give these clowns the middle finger.   It can actually upgrade the IL-96 with
PD-35 engines in a few years and get a very good product.   These days it is the engines and the avionics that are the key.   Composites are important
too and Russia has that tech as well.   So it can make more parts of the IL-96 out of composites.

I agree that we should give them the middle finger, but any ideas about a two-engined 96 are insane. The fuselage is a compromise born in the dying years of the USSR, it wasn't even optimal for a 4-engine setup because they didn't get the engines they wanted but had to stick with lower-power engines because of inter-design bureau competition shenanigans.
The need for a new wide-body airliner is questionable in any case, considering we need to finish our work on the smaller aircraft first.
We need to make sure we get the MS-21 out and rolling on time, especially considering how important the PD engine family is to the next 20-30 years of our aviation industry. That's also the main appeal of the cooperation with the Chinese, because it would finance the development of the larger PD variant.
We should also focus on refreshing the SSJ and getting it set up with the PD-7/8.
I never trusted the chinese to properly cooperate with us on this project, they're always trying to screw us out of every deal for maximum profit (just as they do with everybody else).

From what I can tell the only new thing that the IL-96 derivative with two PD-35 engines would need are new wings. And these should be made out of composites.
So I am not quite seeing where the insanity is. If the discussion is about more passenger room, then that is another issue. The IL-96 is big enough already.

kvs wrote:

From what I can tell the only new thing that the IL-96 derivative with two PD-35 engines would need are new wings.   And these should be made out of composites.
So I am not quite seeing where the insanity is.   If the discussion is about more passenger room, then that is another issue.   The IL-96 is big enough already.

Here's a good summary of the IL-96 story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6TyNfLgDIU (this one is more in-depth about the problems during development and modernization)
The video addresses your concerns at the end. The point is you can't modernize an airframe as old and compromised as that and you can't re-engineer a 4 engine plane to two engines without making essentially a new plane. And that would require everything including re-certification.
You simply cannot achieve the sort of fuel efficiency per passenger as new Boeing and Airbus planes by simply bolting on new wings.
For internal purposes the IL-96 is fine, but for the future something that takes a bit longer but is actually competitive is much better.

Edit: Plus by the time the engine is done the joint chinese plane should be in the air already.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

william.boutros wrote:

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:With a brand new wing (and of course the new PD35 engines) i do not see why the modernised il96 should be inferior to the A330 Neo, as am example. If I am not mistaken also the Airbus A330 (two engines) and the A340 (4 engines) share the same fuselage.

Il 96 was also already built with use of composite materials, anyway. And I do not understand the issues some users are attributing to that aircraft.  It is true that at the beginning engines with the desired thrust output were not available,  and for that reason a shortened  version of the il96 came out at the start of the program.

Well, actually with new wings, new engines, and the new all Russian avionics and internal systems being developed for also other programs (some of which will be anyway already introduced on the il96-400M) it will be practically a new aircraft.  

Yes, the airbuses do share the same fuselage but making a new wing is a big issue and frankly unjustified for the Russian market.
They could install new generation derivatives of PD-14 and adopt fly by wire principles, glass cockpit, weight reduction practices etc. It will be more costly to operate but how many do they need 50? they can be subsidized.

I still think extended range stretched versions of the MS-21s will fill many of the gaps and create a complete product line up. trusting ease of movement will not be the same in the future given geopolitical concerns.

PD-35 must be developed for military use, technology and as a backup. China might come under sanctions, Russia might compete on the international market and money might show up for a twin aisle plane.

They need a new wing if they want to do a twin engine aircraft.

And such aircraft can also be interesting in a tanker version, and it could be sold to many nations that need air refueling but are not best buddies with US.

As for as the larger MC21 derivatives... they will still be narrowbodies (single aisle aircraft).
They can cover some of the market share (and boeing was trying to pursue that niche with the NMA before they had the 737 chaos), but they cannot fully replace a A330 or a Boeing 777 (while a modernised il96 powered by two PD35 could).

Hate to repeat my point.
1- Making a new wing and changing an aircraft from 4 to 2 engines is essentially a new aircraft.
2- Russia's market for a twin aisle aircraft is really small. The same applies for Russia's potential customers.
3- Stretched and Extended range MS-21 could fill a certain gap and the further development of the plane will mature a lot of technologies and offer a wholesome competitive product line up instead of spending a lot of money on different aircraft without the optimization of any (winglets, extended range, improvements, weight reduction plans etc)
4- 1,2 and 3 being said the remaining required twine aisle aircrafts could be covered by an upgraded Il96 with 4 new PD14 engine derivatives and all other instruments, glass cockpit, fly by wire etc. The losses for civil airlines in operation expenses can be covered by government subsidies and they will be little given the small number of planes in question.

william.boutros wrote:

Hate to repeat my point.
1- Making a new wing and changing an aircraft from 4 to 2 engines is essentially a new aircraft.

That is neither here, nor there.   If the body can be retained without being replaced then that is a big plus.

2- Russia's market for a twin aisle aircraft is really small. The same applies for Russia's potential customers.

Sounds like BS to me.  The only country on the planet spanning 11 times zones does not need large capacity passenger aircraft?
Really?  The market would be there based on fuel economics alone.   A large aircraft can deliver more people farther than
small and medium aircraft.   That is why the big aircraft are used for trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific flights.   It's not like
smaller aircraft can't do these hauls.   Air Canada runs medium sized aircraft to Europe.  

3- Stretched and Extended range MS-21 could fill a certain gap and the further development of the plane will mature a lot of technologies and offer a wholesome competitive product line up instead of spending a lot of money on different aircraft without the optimization of any (winglets, extended range, improvements, weight reduction plans etc)
4- 1,2 and 3 being said the remaining required twine aisle aircrafts could be covered by an upgraded Il96 with 4 new PD14 engine derivatives and all other instruments, glass cockpit, fly by wire etc. The losses for civil airlines in operation expenses can be covered by government subsidies and they will be little given the small number of planes in question.

Russia does not need compromises such as these.   So government is supposed to subsidize under-sized passenger air transport instead of
having the country build its own long haul aircraft?   All of the sudden the market does not matter?

Hasn't Boeing used basically the same fuselage in all their single isle aircraft since the 707? Which led to the 737Max situation when they took it too far. So there is a precedent.

Because pratt and whitney produced composite blades 15 years ago, does it mean western high bypass engines will always have a 15-20 year lead?

Are you seriously still arguing over this?

That article was standard BS about competitor product sponsored by Boeing (or Airbus) in a verifiably pro-western media outlet

Just let it go

And China needs CR929 way more than Russia does, that thing is getting built per contract come hell or high water

For Russia it has only be half a decade where it was responsible for airliner engines.... before then that was the role of Motor Sich in the Ukraine, so more accurately it was the Ukraine that was behind the western produced engines, which is not really a surprise.

Now that Russia can't really consider using western engines and ukraine will no longer cooperate then it is down to Russian companies to fill the gap, but their plans to produce a scalable engine family from very small up to very large engine ratings using the best and latest technology they can manage suggests any gaps might be about to be closed... there is no equivalent western engine family designed with the latest technology to provide engines in all weight classes on land or at sea or in aircraft.... This is new.

Something I can't follow is why Russia hasn't broken up the Airbus-Boeing duopoly by targetting places outside of China and the Western bloc. This is over 3.5 billion people.
Maybe with the MS-21 a pattern might emerge. I think there is an MS-21 - 800 or so which could potentially be pretty big. Altho u would thinking Ilyushin is the wide bodied preferred partner.

The Chinese are shady characters. I'd tell them to get lost on tech transfer.

Firebird wrote:Something I can't follow is why Russia hasn't broken up the Airbus-Boeing duopoly by targetting places outside of China and the Western bloc. This is over 3.5 billion people.
Maybe with the MS-21 a pattern might emerge. I think there is an MS-21 - 800 or so which could potentially be pretty big. Altho u would thinking Ilyushin is the wide bodied preferred partner.

The Chinese are shady characters. I'd tell them to get lost on tech transfer.

We did try exactly that, the problem is the SSJ (our first real attempt that could compete with offerings by Airbus and Boeing) was plagued by problems with the French engine (ironically, because people were so proud of the collaboration at the start of the project) and a poor availability of service centers.
Also, you have to consider that airlines are very careful about buying into new and unproven aircraft, their margins are razor-thin and any extra time spent on the tarmac is immediately noticeable on the bottom line.
But it seems like we've started to figure it out, there's been a lot of discussion about solving those problems when deliveries of the MS-21 begin.

Regarding discussions about a wide-body aircraft in Russia. Yes we span 11 timezones but with the amount of smaller cities that we have a narrow-body long-range airliner would be able to fulfill the roles in every domestic airline we have. Planes that are able to fill more roles and be redirected between different cities are always more advantageous to have. It is simply a much bigger market. That cash can then be poured into development of the larger cousins.
Look at the aeroflot fleet:

B777 19 planes

B737 47 planes

A350 1 plane

A330 17 planes

A321 33 planes

A320 74 planes

SSJ-100 54 planes

That's 37 long-haul wide-bodies out of a total fleet of 245 total (about 15%)
The market that could be potentially replaced by variants of the MS-21 is 154 planes.
And that's for our leading international airline, for regional airlines the swing is even more away from wide-body giants.
Yes the big fancy 787-like plane is a great halo-product that shows off industrial prowess, but the real cash is in the 737, 320 and 220 for a reason. Making and focusing on the MS-21 was definitely the correct step.
You also have to consider that breaking the duopoly will require a massive initial order, which only our own airlines can be pressured into making. If we get 200-300 MS-21's flying in the air, suddenly interest from other airlines will pick up.
It's the story of the A220, boeing almost killed it because bombardier simply could not get the order books filled, letting Airbus swoop in, buy the whole thing and now it's selling better than feuerzangenbowle at the christmas market.

PapaDragon wrote:
Are you seriously still arguing over this?

That article was standard BS about competitor product sponsored by Boeing (or Airbus) in a verifiably pro-western media outlet

Just let it go

And China needs CR929 way more than Russia does, that thing is getting built per contract come hell or high water

Come on, you know we love a good argument