GREATANSETT From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 509 posts, RR: 3 Posted (12 years 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4287 times:
Will Russian Aircraft ever be as successful as Airbus or Boeing in terms of competitiveness through products ie A320 vs B737 vs ? and do you think that if they do build a great aircraft better then what Boeing and Airbus has on offer airlines will buy the product.
DeskPilot From Australia, joined Apr 2004, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (12 years 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4182 times:
The ruskies produce some wide-body (Ilyushin Il-96) and smaller two and three holers (Tupolev Tu-334, Yak-142) aircraft.
The IL-96 has a glass cockpit, four engines, winglets - all the mod cons .
Not sure how these aircraft are on engine efficiency. I'm sure the Europeans could help them out with engine technology if needed, but let's not forget the Soviets produced some fine aircraft over the years.
And as for good looking aircraft, the Tu-154 gets my vote - love that T tail.
However, the best or comparable product doesn't always equate to a sales success. Examples; VC-10, L1011, DC-10, etc.
By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?
OV735 From Estonia, joined Jan 2004, 939 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (12 years 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4155 times:
The world's most produced (civil) aircraft I believe is Soviet.
However, in today's terms, I really doubt that Russian/Ukrainian aircraft manufacturers could have a chance to actually compete with A or B or any other Western manufacturer.
The reputation of Russian products is not very great (might be for a reason), and even if their planes are cheaper, more reliable and cheaper to operate, the opinions won't change in a year or two. It would take a lot more time, I think.
Backfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 years 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3986 times:
Russia is in a better position to compete on military designs because the military doesn't worry about things like fuel economy and comfort in the same way as the civil aviation sector. Engine economics and powerplant technology for airliners lagged behind the West in the Soviet days and I don't think an awful lot has changed.
BMAbound From Sweden, joined Nov 2003, 660 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (12 years 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3863 times:
Russian engineers are among the best in the world. What they lack is being able to adapt to international standards - they've always done it their way. Nothing wrong with that. Having created one of the most capable fighters in the world, the Fulcrum, shows that Russians earn their reputation as experts in "doing more with less". A simple reason why their aircraft are not "respected" in the same way as Airbus's and Boeing's is that they can't afford licensing them in other countries. Also, there are always the environmental reasons, but stuff like noisy and polluting engines is a minor detail when looking at the big picture.
However, my little guess is that they're becoming more and more "internationalized". Take the Tu-204 for example. Great aircraft, can almost be mistaken for an Airbus.
LVZXV From Gabon, joined Mar 2004, 2041 posts, RR: 31
Reply 11, posted (12 years 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3822 times:
I've read reports that when the Australian and Malaysian Air Forces practice mock air combat, the Aussies (in F/A-18s) sh*t themselves when up against the Malays (in MiG-29s). The MiG is more manoeuvrable, and faster. The Malaysians operate the F/A-18 too. At the end of the day, Russian fighters can bet let down by inferior missiles (not in technology, in reliability), since on paper the R-77 Adder is unbeatable but it is prone to misfire. Western fighters like the F-16 are very dependent on their computers. The F-16 is so unstable that the onboard computers have to make 50 tiny control adjustments per second to keep it level. That said, its APG-68 radar and AIM-120 AMRAAMs combine to make a formidable weapons system, and the aircraft's instability increases its agility. With one engine though, it can take less battle damage than the MiG-29 or Su-27/30/35. Granted, the MiG performed badly in the Gulf and in Kosovo, but that was due to a combination of factors that had little to do with the aircraft themselves.
What Russian aircraft, civil and military are, is RUGGED TO THE BONE!!! No Airbus could withstand the abuse you average Siberian Tupolev, Kazakh Ilyushin or Russian Antonov has to endure on a daily basis!
RIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1895 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (12 years 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3777 times:
"MIG 29 is way better then the F-15 " - these two are in different categories! That is the level of "expertise"... "Russian military aircraft are way better" is same silly stereotype as "Russians can't build civil aircraft". Come on, where and how both these statements were proved? As for "faster", "more manoeuvrable" - it is only a part of the whole picture. Speed is not that important since its further increase doesn't give any advantages. MiG29 will win a race against F16 but, with all its [possible] "purely aerodynamic superiority" it has yet to win any real fight. If F16 is that bad, why nobody bothers to replace it? Correct, it is a "combination of factors", but that's what the real world (and the real war) is, and all these record-breaking tricks together with mock combats mean nothing. After MiG21 proved to be better than F4 (actually, not just the aircraft but all together - tactics first of all) no MiG or Su was a winner against F14/15/16/18. Opposite examples are well known...
Warren747sp From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1210 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (12 years 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3620 times:
When is the last time any Russian military aircraft have success against the Western Jets?
Israel have demonstrated time after time that they are just not on the same level in real combat situations. They maybe great for speed or close in maneuvers but their electronics and reliability of engines are real let down.
Malaysia pilots in Mig 29 blowing away Aussie F-18. Sounds like a lot of hog wash from maybe a little country who likes to brag.
LVZXV From Gabon, joined Mar 2004, 2041 posts, RR: 31
Reply 16, posted (12 years 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3590 times:
Unfortunately, Russian MiGs tend to end up in the wrong hands, in much the same way as their civilian counterparts did throughout the Cold War. Yes, at the end of the day, the "MiG massacre" of the Serbian Air Force in 1999 is what would really happen (the Serbs lost 11 of their 16 MiG-29s). But that's why, my anecdote on the joint Australian-Malaysian exercises is relevant, because it shows what the MiG can do when flown by professionals. Furthermore, the Luftwaffe's have put up similar perfomances over Nevada and Arizona in the US when on exercises with US F-15s and F-16s. Believe me, there are reasons why the 21 MiG-29s the US sneakily obtained from Moldova in 1997 have not been put into service; they are too goddam valuable. As for the Sukhois, the fewer that fly for "rogue state" air forces, the better. They even hammered the MiG-29 in the Ethiopian-Eritrean War of 2001 with a 2:1 kill-ratio. The "Flanker" is, above all else, a 30-ton tank. But of course, how many A-A missiles have F-16s fired in the 21st century? If the enemy is Al-Qaida, Air Combat ain't so important. In fact, the only A-A kill the US have achieved since 2000 was during that incident over Hainan, China, in April 2001, when a P-3 Aries II "downed" a Chinese J-8. So now we know what aircraft Top Gun should switch to!
L.1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2215 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (12 years 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3464 times:
Russian aircraft are kind of stuck in a viscious cycle. Western airlines don't buy them because of remaining "lousy commie" perceptions, that the aircraft are allegedly unsafe and/or "bad". But then, the aircraft manufacturers don't have the money to build a next generation plane to try again, and their product becomes outdated. Now what the western airline said the first time is true. Russia gets kinda screwed huh? Hopefully the RRJ will work and that big springy name next to it will help give Russian aircraft, which are different from ours, but excellent at what they're designed for, a better reputation. How cool would it be to see an IL-96 with the red, white, and blue of American and a 747 with AEROFLOT RUSSIAN AIRLINES plastered across the side. But if you don't want to wait, how about this..
ReLAXitsTom From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 16 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (12 years 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3398 times:
Why not for the third world markets? Russia has produced many fantastic engineers and aircraft over the years. The commercial-worthy aircraft have been limited by the Soviet mantra of commercial-to-military conversion, but that kind of thinking is now 15 years in the past. Much lower manufacturing cost basis, savings passed on to the buyer. Though Westerners may turn their nose up, many operators in Africa, Asia, and South America can get a deal on a great piece of engineering.
LVZXV From Gabon, joined Mar 2004, 2041 posts, RR: 31
Reply 22, posted (12 years 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3349 times:
One of the major cons about operating Russian aircraft is spares. In South America, Peru, Nicaragua and Cuba all operated Russian aircraft (Cuba still does), but after the break-up of the USSR acquiring spares became a nightmare and in most cases aircraft had to be cannibalised locally to keep others flying:
Peru experienced major headaches when it bought 19 MiG-29s and 18 Su-25s from Belarus in the mid-90s. MAPO MiG refused to sell the Peruvian Air Force spares as the aircraft were not bought direct from Russia. In the end, Peru had to buy a couple of each from the manufacturer and then, low and behold, the spares started flowing into Peru. In just a few years however, Peru discovered that their MiGs and Sukhois were actually in a very poor state, and several have crashed. And now Brazil wants to buy Flankers...
Unless an airline is bankrupt, is delayed on lease payments, or happens to be called "Iran Air" or "Libyan Arab Airlines", there are generally few if any problems experienced when trying to acquire spares from Boeing, and with France's political flexibility, there are virtually NO problems in securing spares from Airbus!
Seriously, it's a matter of convenience. Russian aircraft have become pretty reliable, but are too damn slow off the line. And these days, with the snail pace of airliner production in Russia, it is no surprise Ilyushin and Tupolev are doing so badly vis-a-vis the Il-96 and Tu-204/214. Airlines hate waiting!
OD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1928 posts, RR: 29
Reply 23, posted (12 years 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3315 times:
We don't hear airlines operating Russian airliners complain about flying those planes but they all have one major problem: support.
Tupolev and Ilyushin are not being able to provide their customers with the necessary support and spares. This situation has improved recently but still seems to be far from what Airbus and Boeing are offering.
Problems like these don't help the Russian aircraft industry and this is one of the reasons why we don't see airlines ordering them.
Another problem seems to be finances. Tupolev has quite an impressive orderbook for the Tu-204 but they are not being to fullfill them because they don't have the necessary finaces to start large scale production of the plane.
There are at least 60 orders for the type form Iranian, Chinese and Russian customers.
Levg79 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1011 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (12 years 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3166 times:
Russian airplanes would have to finally support the 2-person cockpit crew if they wanted to sell their aircraft to the west. All post-Soviet carriers even convert planes such as B767 to have a F/E position. Besides that, foreign airlines that have bought Soviet made planes in the past, such as Cubana and China airlines, had to send their pilots into the Soviet Union to undergo training. And most western nations, such as the US would have to go through a huge barrier to buy their planes from those "reds". Imagine what would an average passenger on a UA or NW flight would say when he sees a Tupolev aircraft at a gate, in a place such as BOS. How many of you actually think that there would be a positive outcome?
As for where the used planes go in the former Soviet Union, well, I'd have to say they're just left at the airport where they flew in on their last journey...