Mikeymike From United States of America, joined May 2000, 406 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (12 years 9 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 958 times:
But they don't have FAA Type Certification...so, in theory they could buy them, they just couldn't fly revenue passengers on them. I believe there is only one russian airplane, a freighter, that has authority to fly in the states, but the model slips my mind..
Turbulence From Spain, joined Nov 1999, 963 posts, RR: 24 Reply 4, posted (12 years 9 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 954 times:
Don't Aeroflot and other Russian (and ex-sovietic) carriers fly 767s and 737s?
Isn't market free?
Or is U.S. market free ONLY inside U.S.?
After all, many U.S. companies are buying Airbus, the "enemy's" product. Why should they be limited from buying Ilyushin? Don't IL96s accomplish pollution and noise regulations?
Dexter From Austria, joined Jul 2000, 261 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (12 years 9 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 936 times:
It would be interesting to see a Russian plane in an American livery, but they're still not finished with the testing, due to lack of money. SU was supposed to take delivery of the first Il-96T (freighter version) in 1999. They still haven't. The first Il-96M was due next year, don't know if it'll be ready by that time. China Xinjiang ordered an Il-96 recently, but it was a -300, probably because Ilyushin cannot assure them that 96Ms will ever be delivered.
Woodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1011 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (12 years 9 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 901 times:
No US carrier would order an IL-96M, probably not because of the performance of the airplane (although I dont know how it stacks up to Airbus and Boeing products) but because of the lack of any maintenance program in this country to deal with Russian aircraft. Also, there is no guarantee that they will ever build very many of them or be able to fill even the few initial orders for the type.
Its sad that the Russian airplane design bureaus have fallen into this situation, they could have been competitive had they been able to market and sell their aircraft to Western customers for the last 50 years! They would undoubtedly be a bargain compared to the big ticket Boeing and Airbus lines!
Airborne From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 27 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (12 years 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 885 times:
Given Russian aviation's deplorable and inconsistent safety record and that if the aircraft manufactured there, no US airline would order the plane regardless
of where the avionics are made. It's junk aircraft and a major liability.
Airborne From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 27 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (12 years 9 months 2 days ago) and read 886 times:
The 777 is a well made machine. As are Airbus products. Would you trust equipment manufactured by a near bankrupt industrial complex from a
country that is too sloppy to salvage its own from a sunken sub?
I would NEVER fly a Russian built aircraft or Aeroflot. Even on a 777. No
Ilyushin96M From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, RR: 14 Reply 10, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 861 times:
I believe US carriers CAN purchase Russian aircraft, if they so choose. I think Aeroflot has to have FAA approval/certification to fly Russian planes to and from the US, so this would mean that certain types are already certified. There was even an IL86 used for charter flights on LAX-LAS last summer, from what I've heard. As well, I think the Ilyushin IL96M achieved FAA certification not long after it was certified in Russia, though I may be mistaken.
A few Western carriers have already purchased or are looking into purchasing Tupolev TU204 aircraft - even the version with Russian-made engines - so there is no reason why the same thing could not happen with the Ilyushin IL96M.
China's order of 6 Ilyushin IL96-300s was most certainly price-related, although the IL96-300 is a pretty decent aircraft. It meets all current Stage III restrictions and has good long-range capabilities, as well as being modern, efficient and comfortable.
As fas as I am aware, the IL96M is still bogged down in politics regarding its American-made engines and avionics. American pilots who flew the IL96M/T praised it highly, saying that it is an excellent aircraft in terms of power and manoevrability. Given the chance, the IL9M/T could well be marketable over here. Most likely, once a decent production capacity has been attained and orders are significant, European carriers will be the first outside of Russia to order the plane, most likely for cargo-carrying purposes.
Regarding Airborne's statements about new Russian aircraft being "junk" and "major liabilities" - I challenge you to come up with relevant facts supporting this, rather than spewing out uninformed crap. Based on your posts, I assert that you obviously have no experience of Aeroflot or Russian aircraft to back yourself up.
Brissie_lions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 823 times:
Your posts are ridiculous, especially your comment about the Russian sub.....absolutely pathetic.
As Ilyushin96M has already asked you to do, please back your statements up with details. Don't make a comment and then run away (this is really getting on my nerves on this forum as a whole).
Why wouldn't you fly a Russian aircraft or airline? Have you ever done so? Have you ever been outside the small world you live in?
If not, please keep your uninformed comments to yourself.
Also, there is a plan in place whereby all aircraft which are made in Russia and receive their Russian certification will *score points* towards the FAA certification. I will try to hunt down some info and post it here.
N-156F From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 817 times:
A U.S. carrier *could* order a Ruskie jet (and I'd certainly be in line for it!), however the great majority of American travelers are as/more narrow-minded and opinionated as Airborne, and regard anything that comes out of the former Soviet Union as a POS/death tube. I doubt if we'll ever see a Russian-built jetliner in an American scheme, at least not for years to come, when the current generation of "Commie-hatin' rednecks" dies off.
As previously stated, however, I'd jump on board a Russian airliner without even thinking about it...
Triple Seven From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 526 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 811 times:
Any airline in the world (US or not) can operate the IL-96M. Before one chooses to do so they must ask themselves this :
1) Can we maintain an aircraft of a totally different design philosophy ? (if the carrier has a traditional fleet of western aircrafts)
2) Would the manufacturer be reliable enough to support the customers demands and needs (short/long run)?
3) Would the aircraft turn a profit for the routes and services flown the carrier ?
4) Would the manufacturer be commited to the evolution of the basic design so that the IL-96 be flexible enough to cater for the carriers future needs (like a longer range version or a shorter ones) ?
5) Would technical support be adequate for the aircraft ? (eg. deploying the aircraft to a countrry that hardly or had
never supported an aircraft as rare as the IL-96M)
These and many more questions must be answered before a decision on buying an aircraft is made.
Republic From Canada, joined Dec 2012, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 808 times:
We live in a world where perception is reality. Let me use a hypothetical example here and you decide how it would play out. Let's say AA has purchased, say, 10 IL96Ms. And one crashes with all lives lost. How do you think this would be made out in the US media. You and I both know. Now passengers would start avoiding AA because of the allegedly unsafe aircraft. Go back to the example of the Lockeed L188 Electra. Three crashes within the first 15 months sealed the fate of this aircraft. Production ceased within 2 years of its initial launch. The IL96M could very well be a great aircraft. But at this stage in the game, not worth the risk for any major western airline, regardless of how much less they cost. If the Concorde could be grounded, what do you think about a Russian aircraft?
KALB From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 573 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 806 times:
I think the IL96M could make a go of it in the west, especially if American, European and Asia investors were willing to put capital into Ilyushin. By capitalizing the design bureau and making it a western style aircraft manufacturer, its production capability, quality, and product support could be greatly enhanced. I would love to see Boeing and Airbus have some competition for the big jet business.
Sv11 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 159 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 802 times:
Since the IL96T has got FAA approval, does that mean a US cargo carrier can order it? Is this plane competitive with say an MD-11 freighter. I think carriers won't order it because of the question of maintenance. Also how long has the IL-96 been in service? Isn't it a derivative of the IL-86?
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 18, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 800 times:
I would just like to point out to all those that declare anything Russian of poor quality that the Russians do quite a few things better than most. Vodka is one of course, titanium is another. Where do you think titanium used in 777s comes from? AH! Betcha didn't think about that!
(I can also tell you that the Russian students at my school were no slouches either.)
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7693 posts, RR: 5 Reply 19, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 793 times:
I think the issue in regards to the Il-96 is simple: getting spare parts!
Both Airbus and Boeing have spent massive sums of money helping set up a parts distribution system around the world to service their planes. The question is whether the Russian airframe manufacturers can do the same, especially for the Il-96M, which very few have been built.
There's only three widely-used Russian airplanes I know that can get spare parts fairly easily: the Il-62M, Il-76 and the Tu-154M. Because of the long production runs of these three planes, there are plentiful spare parts built and also enough planes around to cannibalize more additional spare parts. That's why these three planes are common sights in countries bordering the former Soviet Union, and at Sharjah in the UAE Il-76 freighters are very common sights.
Anyway, there's actually some interest to stepping up production of the An-124 jet freighter. Air Foyle--the largest operator of the An-124 in the world outside the former Soviet Union--has such a big demand for using this plane that they want the factory that built the An-124 to build more of them, but fit them with modern cockpit and (maybe) Rolls-Royce Trent 772 engines. The An-124 can load and unload cargo like the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, but has somewhat more cargo capacity. This has proved useful for carrying outsized cargo like oil drillling equipment, oversized construction equipment, and even railroad locomotives! I have to find out if it was an Air Foyle An-124 that carried the British rescue submarine NR5 to the scene of the Kursk sinking.
Ilyushin96M From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, RR: 14 Reply 20, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 765 times:
The Ilyushin IL96 series is outwardly similar to the Ilyushin IL86 as far as fuselage width, shape and the landing gear, but that's about it. Whereas the IL86 was DESIGNED to be broadly equivalent to the Boeing 747 and fell FAR short of expectations, the IL96-300 and IL96M/T more or less meet the requirements for which they were designed. The IL86 did not have high-bypass turbofans; the IL96-300 has them. The IL86 is a medium-range aircraft because of its heaviness and under-powered, thirsty engines; the IL96-300 is capable of long-range, non-stop flights due to increased fuel capacity, modern and efficient engines, and its all-new, super-critical wing, plus decreased weight due to the extensive use of composites in its construction.
The IL96-300 made its debut at the 1988 Paris airshow and entered service with Aeroflot in 1993. The IL96M/T series is a further improvement on the IL96-300 design in terms of powerplants, avionics, fuel capacity, passenger capacity, and range.
The issue of maintenance and spare parts could be a serious one. Being powered by PW engines and using Rockwell avionics allows the IL96M/T to "cross over" in terms of system compatibility with Western aircraft. However, its fbw control systems, hydraulics, landing gear, fuselage construction panels, etc. are all manufactured only in one place - the Voronezh plant Ilyushin. Of course, Airbus has an excellent infrastructure for distribution of parts, as does Boeing. It is not inconceivable that Ilyushin (and Tupolev as well) could develop such a system, should it become necessary. The question is, of course, one of funding, as well as the ability of Ilyushin to respond to urgent calls should, for example, an IL96M landing gear, stabiliser, or other major component be damaged while the aircraft was outside of Russia. In order to attract Western buyers, Ilyushin (and, again, Tupolev) would have to guarantee 100% support of their aircraft, no matter where in the world their customers might be. Could they do it? I don't doubt it, but all of this has yet to come into play as there are no really large orders for Ilyushin aircraft outside of Russia.
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8417 posts, RR: 13 Reply 21, posted (12 years 9 months 21 hours ago) and read 751 times:
Getting FAA certification is difficult! Real difficult! Most likely a lot of design changes would have to be made in order to receive certification. I have seen an An-124 delivering 777 engines to Boeing. Most Russian airliners that you see at airshows and such are registered in the Experimental and Exhibition Category or they might have waivers, I'm not sure.
Aeroflot does have a fairly decent safety record. I wouldn't hesitate to fly on them. Russians have always designed sturdy, probably overweight, airplanes and spacecraft. And lots of them. Russia's made far more rocket launches in the 90's than the U.S. has. Don't forget, Aeroflot once had 600 Tu-154's in its fleet (the three engined 727 lookalike). Over 10,000 An-2s have been built and operated in extreme conditions out of awful airfields hauling varied loads.
Woodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1011 posts, RR: 3 Reply 22, posted (12 years 9 months 20 hours ago) and read 748 times:
As much as I dont want to say it, I dont think we will ever see full scale production of Russian Airliners. Perhaps low level production will continue and of all the current a/c manufacturers Antonov will probably be the winner with their FLA program and the popularity of the AN-124.
I cant see Boeing or Airbus letting any Russian civilian airliner get a foothold in the market. They have the capability to price their product wherever they like in order to gain sales and customers, taking looses in order to push (for example) the IL96M out of the picture would not be unheard of. I dont doubt the safety or quality of the IL96M and I too would jump at the chance- ANY chance to ride an IL62, TU154 or any other Aeroflot/ Russian airliner. But I do think that the Russian design bureaus, save for Antonov, have pretty much fallen out of the running. The financing isnt there, the demand isnt there and the worldwide infrastructure isnt there.
Had the Russian aircraft industry not been allowed to flounder and almost go completely bust after the fall of the Soviet Union we could very well have seen Russian Airliners in greater numbers than we do today. But that was not the case and most airlines serving former Soviet Republics and even Aeroflot itself have turned to Boeing and Airbus products to replace ageing Russian aircraft for which reliable maintenance is not available.
If McDonnell Douglas can be absorbed and decimated by Boeing then so can any of the Russian manufacturers (by Boeing or Airbus). You know that Boeing didnt take over MD because they wanted their product line, they wanted to take over MD so that MD would not exist any longer, no more MD, no more domestic competition- how convenient.
Brissie_lions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (12 years 9 months 10 hours ago) and read 733 times:
You make a very valid argument in your posting, however, do you actually realise what the cost of an Ilyushin Il-96 is?
We are talking US$35-40 million here (I obtained this information from Concise Aerospace). There is no way possible that Airbus would offer their A-340s or Boeing with it's 777s for anything coming close to this amount.
The price tage of the Il-96 is what bamboozles me. The aircraft is cheap as, and over the service life of the aircraft, operating costs (although a little higher than its Boeing and Airbus counterparts), would still make it a very attractive purchase for any airline which is looking for high-capacity, long-range airliners.
Having said this, I doubt Russian aircraft will ever make sales in the US. The US government is the most paranoid in the world, and there are too many interest groups there, which would kill off any opportunity the Russians would have of operating in a free marketplace, even though US companies operate on an (almost) equal standing in Russia.
All we need is for people to lose the idiotic mindset that they hold on to regarding Russian manufactures. Just look at military fighters, the MiG-29s and Su-27s/37s piss over anything made in the West, and people know it. This is shown by the fact that Malaysia, a traditional western arms buyers, turned to Russia for its fighter replacement, and ordered MiG-29s.