telmat wrote:

scbriml wrote:

They talk a good talk, but when was the last time the Russian aviation sector met a target date?

Its war and the military also depends on a working civil aviation and other civil industries. Making predictions based on the performance of the pre-war industries isn't giving you the full picture. It is really all speculation.

telmat wrote:

They do not need to compete with anyone. They simply need something that can replace their western fleets. Fuel economy, latest avionics is of secondary concern to them.

scbriml wrote:

telmat wrote:

scbriml wrote:

They talk a good talk, but when was the last time the Russian aviation sector met a target date?

Its war and the military also depends on a working civil aviation and other civil industries. Making predictions based on the performance of the pre-war industries isn't giving you the full picture. It is really all speculation.

There's really not much speculation involved. The Russian civil aviation sector faces massive challenges. There's zero evidence currently that they're able to overcome those challenges in anything approaching a timely fashion. As for war, Russia is struggling to replace military equipment that it's burning through.

telmat wrote:

They do not need to compete with anyone. They simply need something that can replace their western fleets. Fuel economy, latest avionics is of secondary concern to them.

The huge question is, what are they going to replace their Airbuses and Boeings with? There's nothing available in anything like the numbers needed.

Phosphorus wrote:

scbriml wrote:

telmat wrote:

Its war and the military also depends on a working civil aviation and other civil industries. Making predictions based on the performance of the pre-war industries isn't giving you the full picture. It is really all speculation.

There's really not much speculation involved. The Russian civil aviation sector faces massive challenges. There's zero evidence currently that they're able to overcome those challenges in anything approaching a timely fashion. As for war, Russia is struggling to replace military equipment that it's burning through.

telmat wrote:

They do not need to compete with anyone. They simply need something that can replace their western fleets. Fuel economy, latest avionics is of secondary concern to them.

The huge question is, what are they going to replace their Airbuses and Boeings with? There's nothing available in anything like the numbers needed.

pro-russia crowd would say that that they will make their own, especially if the West stops meddling.
(of course, by "meddling" they mean allowing Ukraine to defend itself).

For example, if ruskies were allowed to capture Kyiv and Zaporizhia, they would have both Antonov and Motor-Sich under control. This would mean they could have a strong supply of D-436 family engines for small airplanes out there -- Tu-334 (yes, they are still trying to re-start that program, 34 years after official launch), Beriev amphibians, possibly to re-engine SSJ, and of course for An-148 series.
Possibly, they would restart An-148 series, in Kyiv, too.

Maybe those "twin Il-96 series" would be less of a pipedream -- they could build medium-haul mass carriers, just hanging D-18's under them.
So they could have a sensible cannibalization program for existing frames, to keep them running, while restarting russian production, supported with designs and supplies from occupied Ukraine.
Alas, Ukraine is shooting back, and these plans don't work.

And in russia, Rybinskie Motory and Permskie Motory apparently are much less competent in engine building, than russia likes to present...

Spacepope wrote:

Not sure increasing use on a limited and dwindling spares pool is the best course of action but here we are.

SR380 wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

scbriml wrote:

There's really not much speculation involved. The Russian civil aviation sector faces massive challenges. There's zero evidence currently that they're able to overcome those challenges in anything approaching a timely fashion. As for war, Russia is struggling to replace military equipment that it's burning through.



The huge question is, what are they going to replace their Airbuses and Boeings with? There's nothing available in anything like the numbers needed.

pro-russia crowd would say that that they will make their own, especially if the West stops meddling.
(of course, by "meddling" they mean allowing Ukraine to defend itself).

For example, if ruskies were allowed to capture Kyiv and Zaporizhia, they would have both Antonov and Motor-Sich under control. This would mean they could have a strong supply of D-436 family engines for small airplanes out there -- Tu-334 (yes, they are still trying to re-start that program, 34 years after official launch), Beriev amphibians, possibly to re-engine SSJ, and of course for An-148 series.
Possibly, they would restart An-148 series, in Kyiv, too.

Maybe those "twin Il-96 series" would be less of a pipedream -- they could build medium-haul mass carriers, just hanging D-18's under them.
So they could have a sensible cannibalization program for existing frames, to keep them running, while restarting russian production, supported with designs and supplies from occupied Ukraine.
Alas, Ukraine is shooting back, and these plans don't work.

And in russia, Rybinskie Motory and Permskie Motory apparently are much less competent in engine building, than russia likes to present...

Are they really looking to look to re-start the Tu-334 production (is there a link to support that)? Would it be easier to restart a 30+ years older design than to adapt the SSJ program? How are they going to power it? It use to be powered by Ukrainian engines.

As per the Il-96 it seems the convention to a twin is underway: https://www.airdatanews.com/russia-to-c ... ngine-jet/

Phosphorus wrote:

SR380 wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

pro-russia crowd would say that that they will make their own, especially if the West stops meddling.
(of course, by "meddling" they mean allowing Ukraine to defend itself).

For example, if ruskies were allowed to capture Kyiv and Zaporizhia, they would have both Antonov and Motor-Sich under control. This would mean they could have a strong supply of D-436 family engines for small airplanes out there -- Tu-334 (yes, they are still trying to re-start that program, 34 years after official launch), Beriev amphibians, possibly to re-engine SSJ, and of course for An-148 series.
Possibly, they would restart An-148 series, in Kyiv, too.

Maybe those "twin Il-96 series" would be less of a pipedream -- they could build medium-haul mass carriers, just hanging D-18's under them.
So they could have a sensible cannibalization program for existing frames, to keep them running, while restarting russian production, supported with designs and supplies from occupied Ukraine.
Alas, Ukraine is shooting back, and these plans don't work.

And in russia, Rybinskie Motory and Permskie Motory apparently are much less competent in engine building, than russia likes to present...

Are they really looking to look to re-start the Tu-334 production (is there a link to support that)? Would it be easier to restart a 30+ years older design than to adapt the SSJ program? How are they going to power it? It use to be powered by Ukrainian engines.

As per the Il-96 it seems the convention to a twin is underway: https://www.airdatanews.com/russia-to-c ... ngine-jet/

Tatarstan is busy peddling that for months, again. (They are always at it. Google Tu-334 in Cyrillic, click "News", and you'll inundated with news on Tu-334 program.)
Basically Manturov in Moscow, and some bloggers like Gusarov-- who conveniently owns his own blogging portal with a forum -- so has a captive audience -- always insist that this whole thing is dead
Tatars in Kazan are not so sure.
a few items of potential interest:
https://www.business-gazeta.ru/article/541867
Is what was peddled to the goverment of russia, before the "histerical"... sorry, "historical" decision to steal leased airplanes.

here are what Tatars offer:
https://www.tatar-inform.ru/news/aviaot ... tu-5878957

An opinion of a muscovite, who's not in the chain of command for civil aviation, but is in high enough places and wants his opinion heard:
https://ngs.ru/text/economics/2022/03/09/70494818/

marosbts wrote:

Anyone here has any idea about the whereabouts of the AN-70? Does not look like it was destroyed, at least have not seen any confirmation of it.

Phosphorus wrote:

marosbts wrote:

Anyone here has any idea about the whereabouts of the AN-70? Does not look like it was destroyed, at least have not seen any confirmation of it.

For anything flyable, without a government announcement and/or a set of photos in public domain confirming destruction (like An-225), I guess it's classified.
I mean, it could be being rebuilt into a home-made gun-ship, a-la Spectre, somewhere in a backyard, for all I know. Why would we warn the perfidious enemy of a new threat coming their way, until it hits them?

SR380 wrote:

What the reason of keeping both Rossiya and Aeroflot brand?

Both belong to the Aeroflot group and before the was it was decided that Rossiya will mostly fly domestic with localy built SSJ and MC-21 while Aeroflot will fly internationaly with Boeing and Airbus jet. Now that Aeroflot can not access A or B jet and will end up flying only russian build jet, what's the point?

Vicenza wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

marosbts wrote:

Anyone here has any idea about the whereabouts of the AN-70? Does not look like it was destroyed, at least have not seen any confirmation of it.

For anything flyable, without a government announcement and/or a set of photos in public domain confirming destruction (like An-225), I guess it's classified.
I mean, it could be being rebuilt into a home-made gun-ship, a-la Spectre, somewhere in a backyard, for all I know. Why would we warn the perfidious enemy of a new threat coming their way, until it hits them?

Quite a bit of guesswork, and fantasy, there if I may say so. ...

jmmadrid wrote:

Just read on the other russian aggression thread that Aeroflot will no longer offer inflight entertainment. Could someone please elaborate? Can´t they fill it with russian films and series? Or continue to offer the western films they were showing until a few days ago? Or do they self-erase themselves? Why were they able to offer this service until now? WHat has changed?

jmmadrid wrote:

Just read on the other russian aggression thread that Aeroflot will no longer offer inflight entertainment. Could someone please elaborate? Can´t they fill it with russian films and series? Or continue to offer the western films they were showing until a few days ago? Or do they self-erase themselves? Why were they able to offer this service until now? WHat has changed?

pommiecommie wrote:

I do wonder what the high-ups at Aeroflot really feel about their demotion as a carrier?

jmmadrid wrote:

Is there any news about more planes being parked? It's been 9 months since the crisis and most planes must have started to need maintenance by now.

pommiecommie wrote:

I do wonder what the high-ups at Aeroflot really feel about their demotion as a carrier?

jmmadrid wrote:

Is there any news about more planes being parked? It's been 9 months since the crisis and most planes must have started to need maintenance by now.

Spacepope wrote:

Lots of civilian airliners in holding patterns while waiting to land at St. Petersburg. Something happening there or just weather?

Jasmin81 wrote:

jmmadrid wrote:

Is there any news about more planes being parked? It's been 9 months since the crisis and most planes must have started to need maintenance by now.

I'm guessing that there will have some components stored within Russia that they've been able to use, and the major winding back of international operations means they've been able to cut back a lot on flying hours without having to cut too deeply into the domestic routes.

I suspect it'll take a while to bite and won't ever be effective in grounding the western built fleet entirely -

tapairbus370 wrote:

Does anyone knows how the Ukranian president flew to the USA? And from where?

artflyer wrote:

Was it confirmed that he was on that plane? Was there any footage of him leaving the plane?

RZE is the airport in Poland that is closest to Ukraine. It is around 1h drive (90 km) away from a Polish city of Przemysl, the last train station where trains from Ukraine arrive. All foreign visitors to Kyiv fly to RZE and then go with a motorcade to Przemysl and then onwards by train, which seems to be the safest way in Ukraine during war.

AngelsDecay wrote:

Tilghman Airport..???

Whats that? even google cant help too much...

Jasmin81 wrote:

jmmadrid wrote:

Is there any news about more planes being parked? It's been 9 months since the crisis and most planes must have started to need maintenance by now.

I'm guessing that there will have some components stored within Russia that they've been able to use, and the major winding back of international operations means they've been able to cut back a lot on flying hours without having to cut too deeply into the domestic routes.
.

incitatus wrote:

Jasmin81 wrote:

jmmadrid wrote:

Is there any news about more planes being parked? It's been 9 months since the crisis and most planes must have started to need maintenance by now.

I'm guessing that there will have some components stored within Russia that they've been able to use, and the major winding back of international operations means they've been able to cut back a lot on flying hours without having to cut too deeply into the domestic routes.
.

The total flying by Russian airlines is down about 15%. There is a little bit of flying abroad to Turkey, Thailand and India. There is more domestic flying than when the war started. I think Aeroflot stopped selling 11 months out and only puts 6 months for sale.

That is still a lot of flying that is wearing out parts of the Boeing and Airbus aircraft in Russia.

LJ wrote:

tapairbus370 wrote:

Does anyone knows how the Ukranian president flew to the USA? And from where?

He flew with callsign SAM910 on an USAF BBJ (don't know the correct name of the mititary variant). The flight was on Flightradar and other flighttrackers and originated in Rzeszów–Jasionka Airport in Poland and landed at Tilghman Airport.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SAM910

BTW shouldn't this type of flights be blocked from flighttrackers?

artflyer wrote:

Was it confirmed that he was on that plane? Was there any footage of him leaving the plane?

RZE is the airport in Poland that is closest to Ukraine. It is around 1h drive (90 km) away from a Polish city of Przemysl, the last train station where trains from Ukraine arrive (track gauge in Ukraine is different than in Poland and in most European countries). All foreign visitors to Kyiv fly to RZE and then go with a motorcade to Przemysl and then onwards by train, which seems to be the safest way in Ukraine during war.

BowlingShoeDC9 wrote:

LJ wrote:

tapairbus370 wrote:

Does anyone knows how the Ukranian president flew to the USA? And from where?

He flew with callsign SAM910 on an USAF BBJ (don't know the correct name of the mititary variant). The flight was on Flightradar and other flighttrackers and originated in Rzeszów–Jasionka Airport in Poland and landed at Tilghman Airport.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SAM910

BTW shouldn't this type of flights be blocked from flighttrackers?

I believe it was on his return trip. Granted I don’t know exactly when he left but I checked periodically last night and didn’t see any C-40’s in the air. I’m assuming the lack of any on ADSB exchange means it was blocked.

LJ wrote:

BowlingShoeDC9 wrote:

LJ wrote:

He flew with callsign SAM910 on an USAF BBJ (don't know the correct name of the mititary variant). The flight was on Flightradar and other flighttrackers and originated in Rzeszów–Jasionka Airport in Poland and landed at Tilghman Airport.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SAM910

BTW shouldn't this type of flights be blocked from flighttrackers?

I believe it was on his return trip. Granted I don’t know exactly when he left but I checked periodically last night and didn’t see any C-40’s in the air. I’m assuming the lack of any on ADSB exchange means it was blocked.

The return flight was also on Flightradar. It was Boeing C-40B 02-0042 which brought him home. Was the most tracked flight as well, thoough much less than his trip to the USA.

LJ wrote:

BowlingShoeDC9 wrote:

LJ wrote:

He flew with callsign SAM910 on an USAF BBJ (don't know the correct name of the mititary variant). The flight was on Flightradar and other flighttrackers and originated in Rzeszów–Jasionka Airport in Poland and landed at Tilghman Airport.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SAM910

BTW shouldn't this type of flights be blocked from flighttrackers?

I believe it was on his return trip. Granted I don’t know exactly when he left but I checked periodically last night and didn’t see any C-40’s in the air. I’m assuming the lack of any on ADSB exchange means it was blocked.

The return flight was also on Flightradar. It was Boeing C-40B 02-0042 which brought him home. Was the most tracked flight as well, thoough much less than his trip to the USA.

bchandl wrote:

LJ wrote:

BowlingShoeDC9 wrote:

I believe it was on his return trip. Granted I don’t know exactly when he left but I checked periodically last night and didn’t see any C-40’s in the air. I’m assuming the lack of any on ADSB exchange means it was blocked.

The return flight was also on Flightradar. It was Boeing C-40B 02-0042 which brought him home. Was the most tracked flight as well, thoough much less than his trip to the USA.

Do you have a callsign or a link? I cant find on FR24

Phosphorus wrote:

SR380 wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

pro-russia crowd would say that that they will make their own, especially if the West stops meddling.
(of course, by "meddling" they mean allowing Ukraine to defend itself).

For example, if ruskies were allowed to capture Kyiv and Zaporizhia, they would have both Antonov and Motor-Sich under control. This would mean they could have a strong supply of D-436 family engines for small airplanes out there -- Tu-334 (yes, they are still trying to re-start that program, 34 years after official launch), Beriev amphibians, possibly to re-engine SSJ, and of course for An-148 series.
Possibly, they would restart An-148 series, in Kyiv, too.

Maybe those "twin Il-96 series" would be less of a pipedream -- they could build medium-haul mass carriers, just hanging D-18's under them.
So they could have a sensible cannibalization program for existing frames, to keep them running, while restarting russian production, supported with designs and supplies from occupied Ukraine.
Alas, Ukraine is shooting back, and these plans don't work.

And in russia, Rybinskie Motory and Permskie Motory apparently are much less competent in engine building, than russia likes to present...

Are they really looking to look to re-start the Tu-334 production (is there a link to support that)? Would it be easier to restart a 30+ years older design than to adapt the SSJ program? How are they going to power it? It use to be powered by Ukrainian engines.

As per the Il-96 it seems the convention to a twin is underway: https://www.airdatanews.com/russia-to-c ... ngine-jet/

Tatarstan is busy peddling that for months, again. (They are always at it. Google Tu-334 in Cyrillic, click "News", and you'll inundated with news on Tu-334 program.)
Basically Manturov in Moscow, and some bloggers like Gusarov-- who conveniently owns his own blogging portal with a forum -- so has a captive audience -- always insist that this whole thing is dead
Tatars in Kazan are not so sure.
a few items of potential interest:
https://www.business-gazeta.ru/article/541867
Is what was peddled to the goverment of russia, before the "histerical"... sorry, "historical" decision to steal leased airplanes.

here are what Tatars offer:
https://www.tatar-inform.ru/news/aviaot ... tu-5878957

An opinion of a muscovite, who's not in the chain of command for civil aviation, but is in high enough places and wants his opinion heard:
https://ngs.ru/text/economics/2022/03/09/70494818/

BowlingShoeDC9 wrote:

bchandl wrote:

LJ wrote:

The return flight was also on Flightradar. It was Boeing C-40B 02-0042 which brought him home. Was the most tracked flight as well, thoough much less than his trip to the USA.

Do you have a callsign or a link? I cant find on FR24

Here is the track for the inbound. It wasn’t on ADSB exchange for the return trip. Unless it was a different aircraft.

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=ae ... 2022-12-21

SR380 wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

SR380 wrote:

Are they really looking to look to re-start the Tu-334 production (is there a link to support that)? Would it be easier to restart a 30+ years older design than to adapt the SSJ program? How are they going to power it? It use to be powered by Ukrainian engines.

As per the Il-96 it seems the convention to a twin is underway: https://www.airdatanews.com/russia-to-c ... ngine-jet/

Tatarstan is busy peddling that for months, again. (They are always at it. Google Tu-334 in Cyrillic, click "News", and you'll inundated with news on Tu-334 program.)
Basically Manturov in Moscow, and some bloggers like Gusarov-- who conveniently owns his own blogging portal with a forum -- so has a captive audience -- always insist that this whole thing is dead
Tatars in Kazan are not so sure.
a few items of potential interest:
https://www.business-gazeta.ru/article/541867
Is what was peddled to the goverment of russia, before the "histerical"... sorry, "historical" decision to steal leased airplanes.

here are what Tatars offer:
https://www.tatar-inform.ru/news/aviaot ... tu-5878957

An opinion of a muscovite, who's not in the chain of command for civil aviation, but is in high enough places and wants his opinion heard:
https://ngs.ru/text/economics/2022/03/09/70494818/

Once again thanks for the many links.
I am still wondering why United Aircraft Corporation decided to scrap the Tu-334 once it was finally ready, to invest into two sibling’s products: SSJ and An-148.
While I understand the 3-crew cockpit was a no go for many airlines, it seems the order book was quite full. Furthermore, the cockpit commonalities with the Tu-204/214 could have been a huge benefit for airlines (this is partially what gave Airbus its notoriety).
So why spending so much money (talking about government subventions) for an aircraft that was partially built with Europeans (not sanction proof), and another one built with the Ukrainian (although the engines on the Tu-334 were Ukrainian as well)?
UAC could have a line-up of aircraft sanction proof by now that could fit all Russian airline needs: Il-114, Tu-334, Tu-204/214 and Il-96. The 2 crews cockpit technologies develop on the Tu-204SM could have been easily adapt to the Tu-334 as well as fibreglass technologies or new PD (8, 14 or 35) engines.
There is still many things about their line up product that I don’t get…

Phosphorus wrote:

SR380 wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Tatarstan is busy peddling that for months, again. (They are always at it. Google Tu-334 in Cyrillic, click "News", and you'll inundated with news on Tu-334 program.)
Basically Manturov in Moscow, and some bloggers like Gusarov-- who conveniently owns his own blogging portal with a forum -- so has a captive audience -- always insist that this whole thing is dead
Tatars in Kazan are not so sure.
a few items of potential interest:
https://www.business-gazeta.ru/article/541867
Is what was peddled to the goverment of russia, before the "histerical"... sorry, "historical" decision to steal leased airplanes.

here are what Tatars offer:
https://www.tatar-inform.ru/news/aviaot ... tu-5878957

An opinion of a muscovite, who's not in the chain of command for civil aviation, but is in high enough places and wants his opinion heard:
https://ngs.ru/text/economics/2022/03/09/70494818/

Once again thanks for the many links.
I am still wondering why United Aircraft Corporation decided to scrap the Tu-334 once it was finally ready, to invest into two sibling’s products: SSJ and An-148.
While I understand the 3-crew cockpit was a no go for many airlines, it seems the order book was quite full. Furthermore, the cockpit commonalities with the Tu-204/214 could have been a huge benefit for airlines (this is partially what gave Airbus its notoriety).
So why spending so much money (talking about government subventions) for an aircraft that was partially built with Europeans (not sanction proof), and another one built with the Ukrainian (although the engines on the Tu-334 were Ukrainian as well)?
UAC could have a line-up of aircraft sanction proof by now that could fit all Russian airline needs: Il-114, Tu-334, Tu-204/214 and Il-96. The 2 crews cockpit technologies develop on the Tu-204SM could have been easily adapt to the Tu-334 as well as fibreglass technologies or new PD (8, 14 or 35) engines.
There is still many things about their line up product that I don’t get…

On what planet do you think UAC spent a dime to develop An-148?
Antonov paid for the whole thing. The only money UAC "spent" was to hire some bodies to put together some examples of "russian-produced" An-148 in Voronezh, under close supervision of Antonov. With more or less "feed the dogs, and don't touch the instruments" sort of regimen, if you know that old joke.
No, An-148 isn't "a UAC product" to any reasonable degree.

And no, UAC didn't want Tu-334, because Aviant (in Kyiv) wanted to build it, and Motor-Sich was ready to supply the engines. The drawings were done, subcontractors lined up, things were ready to roll. Obviously, it wasn't a very good plane, but that was a tertiary consideration.

Primary consideration to launch SSJ was simple -- it was a clean-sheet, with a lot of opportunities to embezzle, hide cash offshore and otherwise enrich all the "proper people" involved. Of course, it could also become a better plane technically, but that was a secondary consideration. Number one priority was a classical "Russian business". Lot of money in the pockets of "proper people", was the primary consideration, as always.

Spacepope wrote:

I'm watching this UT Air 738, scheduled from IST to Grozny. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UTA728

It entered a high altitude holding pattern just to the east of Sochi, and looks for all the world to be diverting all the way back to IST. Weather doesn't look bad on radar in Grozny or Sochi. What's happening?

dcajet wrote:

Sanctions are working: Rossiya is furloughing 1/3 of its Airbus fleet pilots.

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5720805

Phosphorus wrote:

There is still many things about their line up product that
Antonov paid for the whole thing. The only money UAC "spent" was to hire some bodies to put together some examples of "russian-produced" An-148 in Voronezh, under close supervision of Antonov. With more or less "feed the dogs, and don't touch the instruments" sort of regimen, if you know that old joke.