Russian Civil Aviation: News #4

^ Thanks for clearing that up. So there's no magic with the Pratt & Whitney engine that makes it better than the PD14 just because the diameter is bigger. Seems like an overly simple whinge to claim otherwise.

LMFS wrote:
Try running a commercial engine at 3600F...

3150F with 20,000 cycles on wing is just as extreme, maybe more IMHO.

Who says PD-14 is worse in that regard?

They don't talk much about it or key engine specs.

From what we know the MC-21 is world class product, an airliner is a more complex thing than the bypass ratio of the engines. Technically the plane is in conditions to compete, but we know there are many more factors that play a more important role. The duopoly is not going to be broken in a few years.

Most gains in aviation are driven by engine tech. Look at how close the A330 NEO gets to the 787 with advanced engines.

That was the best the Russian industry could do back then, now things have improved.

I hope so

Do you have a source for that figure? In any case, the initial deployment will be done in a controlled way in Russia, while the service structure is grown and optimized. It has been said many times already that they will not repeat the failures of the Superjet program of going abroad before having all factors under control at home.

I hope so again, that is in the wiki I think. Even 99% is considered sub par today.

I hope so again, that is in the wiki I think. Even 99% is considered sub par today.

These new high efficiency engines - pretty much all brands- have been finicky to say the very least. So we'll see how Russia's does.

Troublesome advanced engines for Boeing, Airbus jets have disrupted airlines and shaken travelers
Originally published June 15, 2018

A slew of technical problems with the three latest-technology jet engines is widely disrupting operations at airlines, bleeding cash from the engine makers and grounding significant numbers of Airbus and Boeing jets.

Full article - https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/troublesome-advanced-engines-for-boeing-and-airbus-jets-disrupt-airlines-and-production-lines/

For sure they have had some teething problems. The RR engines on the 787 have been the worst. I think the P&W GTF issues are largely dealt with, as the engine is really not that highly stressed due to the concept. The GE LEAP has some issues with the CMC coatings for ultra high combustion temps and reduced cooling airflow. RR engines were some odd blade oxidation issue. The P&W also had some wierd engine blade harmonics that were fixed with software. All engines are pretty bleeding edge and you are unlikely to catch everything in testing.

mnztr wrote:3150F with 20,000 cycles on wing is just as extreme, maybe more IMHO.

Which brings us back to my original statement, that reliability and not performance is the key requirement for commercial aviation. So an engine that uses a tiny bit more fuel (difference in BPR does not even remotely translate directly into SFC) but with an airframe that is more efficient like the MC-21 and with smaller procurement costs can be 100% competitive.

LMFS wrote:

mnztr wrote:3150F with 20,000 cycles on wing is just as extreme, maybe more IMHO.

Which brings us back to my original statement, that reliability and not performance is the key requirement for commercial aviation. So an engine that uses a tiny bit more fuel (difference in BPR does not even remotely translate directly into SFC) but with an airframe that is more efficient like the MC-21 and with smaller procurement costs can be 100% competitive.

It really depends on the efficiency margin, I doubt any airline would take the risk for a small savings. In some cases like the A330 they may buy it as it is cheaper and if they are an airbus airline they save training $$ but the margins are thin and any misstep results in huge losses. If Russia were to sell MC-21 to Arab airlines in return for a manufacturing hub, with the ME3 being so well located and oil prices so cheap, they may be able to make it happen.

PhSt wrote:

Its a pretty plane, I will say that Russian wing technology is probably the best in the world.

GarryB wrote:The Russians could develop an engine that sucks in raw sewerage and blows unicorns out the back and many western airlines wouldn't touch it.

Countries that do buy Russian military jets don't buy Russian airliners but what size planes do they need... Russia really does not cover the market at the moment in terms of brand new designs in different size weight and range classes.

The Superjet was a very useful size, the MC21 even more so. I think if they turn the CR929 into an ME3 specialist machine for Emirates, Qatar and Etihad it could pay dividends. Unfortunately the CEO of Emirates is British

Another option is to turn Sochi into an aviation hub and replicate what the ME3 are doing with a fully optimized CR929 and undercut everyone with subsidized planes and fuel.

Looking back at the Airbus story, it was a shaky quasi government conglomeration at the start. They started off with the A300.

It would be better if Russia tried something like the Frigate Ecojet then the CR929 which is a me too 787/A330

mnztr wrote:It would be better if Russia tried something like the Frigate Ecojet then the CR929 which is a me too 787/A330

Isn't the Frigate Ecojet a "me too" of the Aurora D8 ? It says on the Wiki page that the program is being incorporated outside of Russia as well. TBH Im not a fan of these new slow fat airliner concepts coming out. Anything that is a reduction in speed, is moving backwards. Time is money. Efficiency that requires you to go slower doesn't count.

The MC-21 is designed to be fastest in its class.

Russia should have had a supersonic business/airliner program 15 years ago. It would have been a good niche for Russia.

I don't believe its slower then other airliners. But the real truth is that most commercial operators actually fly the planes slower to save fuel and to allow them some buffer in the schedule.

mnztr wrote:I don't believe its slower then other airliners. But the real truth is that most commercial operators actually fly the planes slower to save fuel and to allow them some buffer in the schedule.

All of these extra wide prototypes are slower than the average speed today.

The real truth also is that people pay extra to get there faster. Which is why ppl pay for direct flights. It's not as simple as going slow to save fuel. If you go too slow , you sell less tickets.

Backman wrote:

mnztr wrote:I don't believe its slower then other airliners. But the real truth is that most commercial operators actually fly the planes slower to save fuel and to allow them some buffer in the schedule.

All of these extra wide prototypes are slower than the average speed today.

The real truth also is that people pay extra to get there faster. Which is why ppl pay for direct flights. It's not as simple as going slow to save fuel. If you go too slow , you sell less tickets.

I think that you would find that for most no business passengers ticket price is top. The actual time in flight is only an element of the journey, reducing at that.

JohninMK wrote:

Backman wrote:

mnztr wrote:I don't believe its slower then other airliners. But the real truth is that most commercial operators actually fly the planes slower to save fuel and to allow them some buffer in the schedule.

All of these extra wide prototypes are slower than the average speed today.

The real truth also is that people pay extra to get there faster. Which is why ppl pay for direct flights. It's not as simple as going slow to save fuel. If you go too slow , you sell less tickets.

I think that you would find that for most no business passengers ticket price is top. The actual time in flight is only an element of the journey, reducing at that.

It really depends on how long we are talking about. I pay for fewer connections and shorter layovers, but I am not gonna care if one flight is 20 min longer and its $100 less.

Backman wrote:

All of these extra wide prototypes are slower than the average speed today.

The real truth also is that people pay extra to get there faster. Which is why ppl pay for direct flights. It's not as simple as going slow to save fuel. If you go too slow , you sell less tickets.

other jet liners 0.8-0.83 M
Its wider but less tall, all that matters is total cross section. It cruises the same speed as

Agreement on the production of Il-103 aircraft in Hungary

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4276071.html

Nice, clever. Now the US can try and sanction an EU member and NATO ally lol.

George1 wrote:Agreement on the production of Il-103 aircraft in Hungary

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4276071.html

Not quite what one might expect from the mighty Ilyushin

Bet it won't be allowed under the new structure, not a core product. Is that why its now in Hungary?

^What do you mean, not allowed ?

Operational history of IL-103

Reviewers Dave Unwin and Marino Boric described the design in a 2015 review as "very robust, safe and comfortable. It was designed for everyday operation on poor runways and with the ability to cope with every variation of the harsh Russian climate."

South Korea has 23 in service.

Laos has 21 on order.

The il-103 is a nice small aircraft and can be used as a trainer instead of foreign alternatives like Cessna 172, piper or diamond da40.

The only question is if it will be still powered by a foreign (American) powerplant.

The ones flying now have a continental engine (the same as in the Cessna 172 and in the Piper Pa34 and a hartzell propeller.

Powerplant: 1 × Teledyne Continental IO-360-ES2B 6-cyl. air-cooled horizontally-opposed piston engine, 157 kW (211 hp)
Propellers: 2-bladed Hartzell BHC-C2YF-1BF/F8459A-8R

Backman wrote:^What do you mean, not allowed ?

It might have some sales success but it in no way forms part of the strategic plans for Ilyushin.

Either Ilyushin had excess staff in R&D, testing, manufacturing, marketing etc that this project created work for or it took staff and resources away from those areas that could have been better used on its mainstream products.

If Russia wants to be seen as a real competitor to Airbus or Boeing, its competing companies need to look like them. That the Il-103 has been relocated is perhaps a recognition of that.