Aeroflot - Rejig
 

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/3...-made-aircraft

...hmmm wonder why?? :E

Then they need to get the PD-14 engine in volume production. Wonder if those will be certified in Europe or US. All those efforts mostly for local flights is a lot of burden for an economy.

The chances of getting the MC-21 or its powerplant certificated in the West are pretty well non-existent for the foreseeable future.

After a near death experience on a TU 134 over Croatia in the early '70s, I don't have much faith in Russian built aeroplanes.

There was nothing wrong with Soviet era aircraft from a safety point of view, most of the accidents involving the types were due to how they were operated, not how they were built (see numerous accidents in Russia after conversion to western types). In fact structurally they were much stronger and could take far more punishing than comparable western planes. This was mainly due to one thing: the lack of faith in the metallurgic industry to deliver to specifications. All Soviet designs called for every single part to fail at no less than 200% of the maximum design load. Western certification standards are 150%. This resulted in a much stronger (and much heavier) airframe, with all the consequential economic penalties. For the same fundamental reasons Soviet engine technology was also far lagging the west.

Ironically the SSJ was the first Russian civilian aircraft built to western certification standards. However it is still much heavier than comparable western aircraft, and in the process has lost some of the advantages of a stronger structure. The Moscow accident would have been survivable, had the wing structure been able to contain the fuel after the hard landing (there were several similar incidents before the Moscow accident, in those cases the fuel did not catch fire).

For about 150 million Russians with the GDP of Spain it will be a burden to maintain their own airplane and engine development and manufacturing with not much access to sell to outside markets.
That experiment ended in a bankrupt society last century after 60 years of hard trying. I think it was Einstein who said something about trying the same thing twice and expecting different results...

It’s not just the engines. The APU is a Honeywell, who is also supplying avionics. The FBW and active side-sticks is a French subsidiary of Collins. Thales are also involved on the avionics side, and I’ll bet it’s also western components running the flight control, pneumatic and hydraulic systems.

Yes the message out of Russia seems to be “We’ll just slap on a pair of vastly inferior dunks and, woop-de-doo, look at us go!"

And they’ve added a financial war with all of Europe to their military war in Ukraine, which was the major source of the Spain sized and almost completely energy based GDP.

A small p*rck, megalomaniac tendencies, a fascist streak and imperial ambitions never a healthy mixture was.

How many airplanes do they need to support just a bare bones internal network. My guess is maybe 100. If that is the case I could see them keeping the Airbus and Boeings going for another 10 years by cannibalism and an acceptance of a greatly reduced airworthiness standard ( i.e. If the engines start and some radios and instruments work they are good to go)

There will be lots of crashes but I think Russians are OK with that.

The case of Iran and Russia are not directly comparable, they are apples & oranges. In 1981 Iran was left with a fleet of 1960s-70s designs, which were all essentially mechanical designs, with no electronics controlling primary systems. Modern A & B are essentially flying computers with some attached aerodynamic and propulsion devices. The black boxes are only repairable by the manufacturers (as opposed to simple copying and manufacture of a worn or broken mechanical part), and with the failure rate of electronics, the available stocks will be depleted far quicker than 10 years. Without EEC the engines will not start...

They have no high rate domestic airliner assembly lines, and they lack the domestic supplier base and capacity for the number of airliners needed. And they don't have pure Russian airliners ready for high rate production. The MS-21 needs engines and many parts from not western sources before this can happen. A certain commercial production boost might be possible by redirecting military staff, research and production capacity if they can spare anything at all. Even just rebuilding old soviet designs does not work, as the infrastructure and supplier base was lost.
It will be train rides for most.

indeed and ironically a large part was in Ukraine prior 1990.
For Iran , they got plenty of substitute aircraft from friendly Muslim countries ,some in South east Asia. , Cheap, until they broke down , then to the next ones, most paid in oil. Google earth Tehran Mehrabad airport north side to see where some of them are resting .
Russia could do the same .When there is money there is always a way.

True, but most of the electronics in modern commercial aircraft are far from state of the art - it's simply costs way too much to recertify with newer electronics so long as the old stuff is still available. It's relatively easy to come buy 15-20 year old electronics on the second hand market (or the black market) and most of the internals are no different than what's in your laptop. Further, while the regulations may say a box can only be serviced by the manufacturer, the skills necessary are not particularly rare so as long as you're not worried about a western air-worthiness certificate, the capabilities to repair most of the black boxes is available.

It is not so much the skill set, but the data needed for the test bench setup that is lacking. These are all proprietary to manufacturers, and certainly not public. I'm sure the Russians have been actively trying to acquire some of these data, but I doubt they managed to get all. Of course reverse engineering is possible, but replication would require building up an entire industry food chain, not something that can be done overnight.

Well at least for the Boeing 737 it is directly comparable as the 737 is a 1960’s design with the bare minimum of IT lip stick to keep it presentable enough to be seen outside. I agree the Airbus types. would be considerably more challenging as they have a lot more integrated automation.

However if the aim is to keep the minimum necessary airline service for Russian internal routes then I do think they could keep things going for quite a long time. The West had a total ban on Iran but there was still enough crooked suppliers who made big money sanctions busting to keep some Iranian airliners flying long past their best before date. Lots of crashes for sure, but that never seemed to be a problem in Iran or Russia.

Agree to some extent, but if my memory is correct even the NGs had no mechanical backup to the FADEC, in the fleet I'm familiar with that was one of the commonest causes for AOG.

I have no understanding of the technical, regulatory, or legal issues involved; but it strikes me that Russia will do what Russia (Putin) wants to do eg Ukraine. Very difficult to see how the West can hold them to decent standards & practices.

They will be corralled in Russia anyway so any issues of safety standards and very likely accidents, will only occur in Russia or its sycophantic neighbour's territory.

An American Collins facility was supplying the generators and electric systems, both for the P&W engine and the Russian one.

On top of all of the above, now this...https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/09/2...ion-subpoenas/

Well from Putin’s POV this will mean fewer flights available for Russians trying to leave the country to escape the draft. More pilot cannon fodder to soak up Ukrainian Anti Air missiles and more meat for the infantry. It’s a win win :rolleyes: