Why is the Soviet Tu-204 better than the Russian liner MS-21


So, it's done. Foreign manufacturers officially refused to supply components necessary for the production of the MS-21 medium-haul airliner. The timing of the launch of our promising aircraft has again shifted to the right, until 2024, but, probably, in the future there will be another correction in the direction of their increase. Given the refusal of Boeing and Airbus corporations to service liners already delivered to Russia, all this means that there is no alternative to switching to passenger aircraft of Soviet designs, at least in the medium term.


Everything happened exactly the way we did. supposed. Having thought hard and having visited aircraft manufacturing enterprises in Kazan and Ulyanovsk, the relevant Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov announced the need to increase the production of medium-haul airliners to 10 pieces per year:

We raise the question of how to give it to us to transport citizens to our main companies - Aeroflot Red Wings and others.

Note that the Red Wings air carrier in 2018 was the last to abandon the operation of Tu-204/214 liners. And here again. This measure is presented as "forced and undesirable." Our "sofa experts" believe that soon the revived Soviet liners "will hang like a weight on the economy companies." But is it really so?

Let's make a reservation that we in no way intend to indiscriminately “blame” the MS-21. This is a good promising aircraft, but our systemic liberals in power themselves put a pig on this project, who decided to implement it in broad international cooperation. And now "dear Western partners" sent Russia to hell. Import substitution of components will take, rather, not 2, but all 5, or even more years. Plus, it will be necessary to enter the large-scale production of PD-14 power plants for liners, which is not as easy as we would like.

At the same time, we have long ago had our own medium-haul liner in Tu-204/214 modifications, which can be produced at two sites at once - in Kazan and Ulyanovsk. Unlike MS-21, these aircraft have all international certificates and can fly all over the world. Moreover, the colossal advantage of a Soviet-designed liner over a modern "designer" is that it was created entirely on a domestic component base. The question is, why did we rush into the MS-21 project at all, if we already have our own finished aircraft?

As a justification for such a controversial decision, usually indicate on the lower fuel efficiency of the PS-90A engines, which are installed on the Tu-204/214, Il-96 and Il-76. Say, they do not meet modern environmental standards for fuel consumption and noise. Moreover, Russia suddenly jumped into the WTO, and there these standards were even more tightened, which made Soviet aircraft uncompetitive compared to Boeing and Airbus products. Coincidence? We don't think.

But the devil is known to be in the details:

At first, the European and American skies are now officially closed for domestic air carriers, so you shouldn’t worry too much about environmental friendliness and noise. Our Tu-204/214 and Il-96 will fly over the vast Russian expanses.

Secondly, the use by airlines of the revived Tu-204/214 and Il-96 should be subsidized by the state, since transport connectivity is a matter of national security. This is the question of the "gear".

Thirdly, but are Soviet aircraft engines so voracious and noisy, as it is customary to portray it by lobbyists of Western competitors? Regarding the PS-90A, our famous aviation designer Genrikh Vasilyevich Novozhilov once stated the following:

The PS-90 engine was disgusting. But Perm engine builders finished it, and today it shows a flight time of more than twelve thousand hours without removal.

Indeed, the PS-90A family of engines has undergone a great evolution. The Aeroflot company expressed many complaints about the power plants of the first generations on the Il-96. Then the operators of the Tu-204/214 liners cursed. But all the comments were taken into account by the developers, and the shortcomings were eliminated. Now, aircraft with PS-90A engines are being flown by a Special Squadron and personally by President Putin and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu. This in itself speaks volumes about their quality.

Note that on the basis of the PS-90A in the 90s, the PS-90A2 version was developed, which received a certificate in 2010. Compared to its predecessor, the new engine has received significantly improved performance. So, for example, its thrust has increased from 16 kgf to 000 kgf, reliability has increased by 18-000 times, the cost of operation has decreased by 1,5%, the labor intensity of maintenance during operation has decreased by 2 times while maintaining weight and size characteristics, fire safety has increased . The power plant complies with 37 ICAO noise standards (Tu-2, Il-2006-204 aircraft) and 96 ICAO emission standards, as well as US FAR 300 airworthiness standards.

Why didn't this wonderful Russian engine go into production? During its development, the intellectual property of Pratt & Whitney was used, and the US State Department imposed a ban on the export of the Tu-204SM liner to Iran. A familiar story, isn't it? Similarly, due to US bans, we were unable to sell short-haul Superjets to Iran. Life does not teach our liberals anything. In 2014, the license to use the intellectual property of Pratt & Whitney was acquired, but the delivery of aircraft with PS-90A2 engines to the Islamic Republic did not take place. However, the matter did not end there. To replace the PS-90A2, the Permyaks “just in case” developed its fully imported modification PS-90A3, which received a certificate in 2011.

In other words, all this time Russia had a quite competitive medium-haul liner Tu-204/214 (as well as a long-haul wide-body IL-96) with a modernized modern engine, by the way, more powerful in terms of thrust than the PD-14, but budget money goes to "Designer" MS-21, with all due respect to him. So which way is actually the most correct - to “finish” the Tu-214 and its PS-90A3 to modern standards by installing modern avionics and other equipment, or continue to “sawing” the MS-21 project?

And we have not yet touched on the possibility of using the Tu-204/214 for dual purposes, which we will certainly talk about.
84 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Oleg_5 Offline Oleg_5
    Oleg_5 (Oleg) 23 March 2022 12: 16
    +2
    Everything is fine.
    Except quantity.
    1. nikolaj1703 Offline nikolaj1703
      nikolaj1703 (Nikolai) 23 March 2022 12: 35
      +3
      Putin and Shoigu do not fly on bad planes!
    2. Alexey Davydov Offline Alexey Davydov
      Alexey Davydov (Alexey) 23 March 2022 12: 47
      +3
      The article considers an alternative to the Tu-204/214 - MS-21, therefore - without exception.
      The choice of Tu-204/214 will allow us to start production faster and produce more aircraft than it will be with the MS-21, which, even after complete import substitution, will have to be treated for inevitable "childhood illnesses"
      1. Akuzenka Offline Akuzenka
        Akuzenka (Alexander) 25 March 2022 09: 59
        +1
        Certainly. The article clearly wrote that MS-21 was lobbied by liberals. Everyone knows that Putin is also a liberal, he said it himself. And in the article, an example of lobbying Tu-204 and Il-96. What is the difference in lobbying approach? No. Whoever is allowed to cut the allocated money will be strained. Always touched "it's better for the country." Yes, probably better. But "improvers" never forget about the primacy of stuffing their own pockets, often to the detriment of quality and country. This works for all "improvers". Capitalism is in the yard and money will still be cut hard. It doesn't matter which of the "improvers". And we must remember that the production capacity for the production of domestic aircraft is extremely limited, they were destroyed for a long time and systematically. And yet - there is no clear plan for the revival of this production. Unprofitable. And if it is unprofitable for capital, then this will not happen. All our ministers are capitalists.
  2. Dingo Offline Dingo
    Dingo (Victor) 23 March 2022 12: 41
    +5
    As long as the "liberal" does not answer with his ass for the decisions made, there will be nothing good in the country. It's in their blood. It is treated only with the corresponding art. UK.

    1. Hayer31 Offline Hayer31
      Hayer31 (Kashchei) 24 March 2022 20: 40
      -2
      In the photo, the main liberal is missing.
      This is V.V.P. people should be judged by their deeds.
  3. mark1 Offline mark1
    mark1 23 March 2022 12: 42
    +2
    All to saw and that and another, there is nothing to rush about.
    The "smartest" statesmen sit on their seats with us, it is possible and necessary to develop the Tu-204/14, Il-96 through state orders through the Ministry of Defense 10 years ago, but no "higher" economic interests and a firm belief in "bright" the future won and timid proposals were smartly fucked up. The smart look remained, but they began to give the opposite, not the least embarrassed. This is our dialectic.
    1. Akuzenka Offline Akuzenka
      Akuzenka (Alexander) 25 March 2022 10: 02
      0
      The smart look remained, but they began to give the opposite, not the least embarrassed. This is our dialectic.

      This is just the logic of the capitalist. Here they promise them a dough, they rush to master it with the same smart look and master it, five or six times, without a clear result. There are no personnel, neither engineers nor workers who can do it. No production - collapsed.
  4. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 23 March 2022 14: 14
    +3
    Sawed, sawed, and will be sawed.

    All those who promoted Boeings, Elbras, Superjets and MS 21, and filled up TU, IL and YAKs - led, lead, and will lead production, an obedient electorate and the media.

    You can dream as much as you like about your many wonderful aircraft, but the leaders are the same, and everyone understands the rules of the game,
  5. faiver Offline faiver
    faiver (Andrei) 23 March 2022 14: 20
    +1
    but this project was planted by our systemic liberals themselves in power

    - can I announce the entire list of these persons? Or are you shy?

    The question is, why did we rush into the MS-21 project at all, if we already have our own finished aircraft?

    Why ask such questions? The answer is obvious - the development of the budget bubble ...
    1. faiver Offline faiver
      faiver (Andrei) 23 March 2022 16: 00
      +1
      By the way, the redhead from the list dumped from Russia ...
    2. Hayer31 Offline Hayer31
      Hayer31 (Kashchei) 24 March 2022 20: 43
      +1
      Person number 1 is the liberal Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.
  6. 123 Offline 123
    123 (123) 23 March 2022 14: 30
    +2
    Plus, it will be necessary to enter the large-scale production of PD-14 power plants for liners, which is not as easy as we would like.

    Excuse my curiosity, but is it not required to enter the large-scale production of PS-90A power plants? Are they already there or is it easier than two fingers on the asphalt? sad
    Let me remind you that the contract for this year provides for the release of 30 units. Moreover, not all of them can be directed to new production, unless, of course, you plan to slow down or completely stop the production of the IL-96.
    I also wanted to remind you once again that both engines are produced at the same plant. This is done by the same people, in fact, increasing the production of one engine can only be at the expense of the production of another. Otherwise, it is necessary to modernize and expand production, to train personnel. It's money and what's important in this situation is time.
    https://www.aviaport.ru/news/2022/01/12/704975.html

    Moreover, the colossal advantage of a Soviet-designed liner over a modern "designer" is that it was created entirely on a domestic component base. The question is, why did we rush into the MS-21 project at all, if we already have our own finished aircraft?

    Probably because he's better. Didn't it cross your mind? As I understand it, you consider as a “designer” what is produced using imported components? And it seems that you consider universal evil? I would like to give a description of the engine from this article.

    Why didn't this wonderful Russian engine go into production? During its development, the intellectual property of Pratt & Whitney was used, and the US State Department imposed a ban on the export of the Tu-204SM liner to Iran. A familiar story, isn't it?

    THIS OTHER? Is an engine with imported components not a designer for you? In this place, do you prefer not to notice the "liberal pig"? Or was your account hacked here? smile

    As a justification for such a controversial decision, they usually point to the lower fuel efficiency of the PS-90A engines, which are installed on the Tu-204/214, Il-96 and Il-76. Say, they do not meet modern environmental standards for fuel consumption and noise. Moreover, Russia suddenly jumped into the WTO, and there these standards were even more tightened, which made Soviet aircraft uncompetitive compared to Boeing and Airbus products. Coincidence? We don't think.

    Here you are absolutely right. yes Really it's not a coincidence and really don't think so. The fact is that the WTO has absolutely nothing to do with it. In 2016, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) developed new environmental safety standards. Our wonderful planes got a real chance to become "travel restrictions".
    https://rg.ru/2016/02/09/v-ikao-vyrabotali-novye-ekologicheskie-standarty-dlia-samoletov.html

    Firstly, the European and American skies are now officially closed for domestic air carriers, so you shouldn’t worry too much about environmental friendliness and noise. Our Tu-204/214 and Il-96 will fly over the vast Russian expanses.

    In other words, do you propose to make aircraft for domestic use only? Will we go like this?
    Do you understand that they will not be competitive in the foreign market? Do you understand that you do not think one step ahead and give the foreign market to competitors in advance? Russia should think about the future, maybe it should and will make aircraft corresponding to the world level, and not to the standards of the last century.

    Secondly, the use of the revived Tu-204/214 and Il-96 by airlines should be subsidized by the state, since transport connectivity is a matter of national security. This is the question of the "gear".

    Well, of course laughing Hanging subsidies on the budget, shifting the weight on the shoulders of the taxpayer is a way out yes And there is no need to think, it is enough to declare everything as a matter of national security. It's easier than making a modern competitive aircraft.

    Thirdly, are Soviet aircraft engines so voracious and noisy, as it is customary to portray it by lobbyists of Western competitors? Regarding the PS-90A, our famous aviation designer Genrikh Vasilyevich Novozhilov once stated the following:

    Probably in this place there should have been comparative characteristics, don't you think? Just numbers, not ranting, it's much clearer.

    To replace the PS-90A2, the Permyaks “just in case” developed its fully imported modification PS-90A3, which received a certificate in 2011.

    It is curious that the Iranians developed a "just in case" version that has been certified
    https://avid.ru/avia/?id=5

    never offered, and later (2014) they bought the intellectual rights from the American.
    https://sasablog.ru/vozdushnyj-flot/ps-90-dvigatel.html

    There is no desire to think about coincidences?
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 23 March 2022 14: 58
      +3
      Demagogy. Jerking. Clownery. Everything as usual.
      1. 123 Offline 123
        123 (123) 23 March 2022 15: 39
        -4
        Demagogy. Jerking. Clownery. Everything as usual.

        A concise description of your creative legacy hi
        1. The comment was deleted.
    2. faiver Offline faiver
      faiver (Andrei) 23 March 2022 15: 12
      +3
      Do you understand that they will not be competitive in the foreign market? Do you understand that you do not think one step ahead and give the foreign market to competitors in advance? Russia should think about the future, maybe it should and will make aircraft corresponding to the world level, and not to the standards of the last century.

      - I don’t give a damn about the foreign market, in the foreseeable future Russian aircraft will not move Western manufacturers, and Russia is the largest state in the world and domestic air traffic is vital, unlike trips abroad ... hi
      1. 123 Offline 123
        123 (123) 23 March 2022 15: 57
        +1
        I don’t care deeply about the foreign market, in the foreseeable future Russian aircraft will not move Western manufacturers, and Russia is the largest state in the world and domestic air traffic is vital, unlike trips abroad ...

        Pretty normal position. yes If you as a person, then this is quite normal. Of course, this will not affect you in any way, as well as me. If we talk about the state and industrial potential, then everything looks a little different.
        As for the prospects in the foreign market, it depends on what is considered the foreseeable future. Naturally, the primary task is to provide for our own needs, but the fact is that despite the vast territory, the domestic transportation market is limited and we will soon run into it. Our population is not like in China or India. Therefore, we must think ahead. A little more than 3-5 years.
        Industrial production must develop, the larger the volume of output, the correspondingly more profit, which means that more can be invested in development. Otherwise, funds to maintain the scientific and technical potential of the industry will not be enough. Competitors will invest in development profits, and we will have to drag from the budget or we will hopelessly lag behind. Yes, and investments in development will not pay off.
        In addition, exporting high-tech products, which are aircraft, is much more preferable than trading in raw materials. These are jobs, salaries, taxes. All added value remains in the country. Isn't that what we're aiming for?
        In general, we need to offer products that correspond to the world level, capable of withstanding competition with Boeing and Airbus. Otherwise there is no chance. We will not even squeeze out the EAEU market.
        Something like this hi
        1. mark1 Offline mark1
          mark1 23 March 2022 21: 14
          +1
          Your arguments are on the verge of demagoguery, tk. they call, in fact, not to solve the problem, but to exacerbate it.
          1. 123 Offline 123
            123 (123) 23 March 2022 22: 54
            +1
            Your arguments are on the verge of demagoguery, tk. they call, in fact, not to solve the problem, but to exacerbate it.

            I would like to hear your reasoning. hi
            1. Victorio Offline Victorio
              Victorio (Victorio) 28 March 2022 14: 21
              0
              Quote: 123
              In addition, export high-tech products,

              is this your argument? to whom to export, for what shisha to create this high-tech, and even in the coming years? what is, and what you need to use, and then according to the situation.
              1. 123 Offline 123
                123 (123) 28 March 2022 15: 20
                0
                is this your argument? to whom to export, for what shisha to create this high-tech, and even in the coming years? what is, and what you need to use, and then according to the situation.

                I'll try point by point.
                1) What is wrong with this argument? Are you a supporter of a commodity economy?
                2) Export to EAC countries, Iran, Middle East, Latin and South America and beyond, India, China and beyond, further. Almost the entire planet, with the exception of the "group of unfriendly countries," and it is not known how life will go on, maybe there.
                3) The argument that we do not have "shisha" for the creation of high-tech products, to be honest, is discouraging. It's just interesting to see the rationale for this thesis. hi
                4) Do I urge not to use what we have? I'm just for not forgetting about the future.
                1. Victorio Offline Victorio
                  Victorio (Victorio) 29 March 2022 10: 09
                  0
                  Quote: 123
                  I'm just for not forgetting about the future.

                  the prospects for the near future are the victorious end of the special operation, assistance to the affected people, the restoration of cities and enterprises, economical and rational use of available material resources at all levels. this needs to be understood by everyone, including those who are concerned about long-term prospects
                  1. 123 Offline 123
                    123 (123) 29 March 2022 13: 31
                    0
                    the prospects for the near future are the victorious completion of the special operation, assistance to the affected people, the restoration of cities and enterprises, the economical and rational use of available material resources at all levels. this needs to be understood by everyone, including those who are concerned about long-term prospects

                    There is a short term, medium term and long term.
                    Should the solution of current problems and focus on the short term necessarily be at the expense of the long term?
                    Do you also want to stop work on MS-21? Do you think otherwise?

                    I have nothing against humanitarian aid, but about the restoration of cities and enterprises, the issue is controversial and premature. LDNR is practically the issue resolved, it is necessary to invest there. The rest of the territory is questionable. Do you propose to rebuild a neighboring country for budget money? Before determining the status of these territories, there is nothing to talk about at all.
                    1. Victorio Offline Victorio
                      Victorio (Victorio) 29 March 2022 15: 39
                      0
                      Quote: 123
                      There is a short term, medium term and long term.
                      Should the solution of current problems and focus on the short term necessarily be at the expense of the long term?
                      Do you also want to stop work on MS-21? Do you think otherwise?

                      I have nothing against humanitarian aid, but about the restoration of cities and enterprises, the issue is controversial and premature. LDNR is practically the issue resolved, it is necessary to invest there. The rest of the territory is questionable. Do you propose to rebuild a neighboring country for budget money? Before determining the status of these territories, there is nothing to talk about at all.

                      I'm not suggesting anything. I assume that the amount, volume of assistance, restoration work will be huge. Yes, in Russia itself there are no less problems with import substitution. This is what you need to be prepared for. As for Ukraine, who will restore it? leave again to return?! it is possible and so, as they say - for the third time, as in the first class.
                      1. 123 Offline 123
                        123 (123) 29 March 2022 16: 10
                        +1
                        I'm not suggesting anything. I assume that the amount, volume of assistance, restoration work will be huge. Yes, in Russia itself there are no less problems with import substitution. This is what you need to be prepared for. As for Ukraine, who will restore it? leave again to return?! it is possible and so, as they say - for the third time, as in the first class.

                        The restoration of the country is the business of its citizens.
                        I repeat, until the operation is completed and the status of the territories is determined, the question is premature. Further in fact. If another country, ruble loans, supplies of equipment, building materials, and so on. That's all.
                        If you decide to build a new country for them with Russian money, then in vain. Don't wait for gratitude. They will consider that you have destroyed and now have to live in the coffin. Build us a new life damned aHressors, and we will spit on you.
                      2. Victorio Offline Victorio
                        Victorio (Victorio) 29 March 2022 16: 36
                        0
                        Quote: 123
                        If you decide to build a new country for them with Russian money, then in vain.

                        ) we cannot decide this. That's why I wrote - I guess.
                      3. 123 Offline 123
                        123 (123) 29 March 2022 16: 41
                        +1
                        we cannot decide this. That's why I wrote - I guess.

                        Of course you're right yes Do we understand what you mean? Does it make sense in this case to fight for the accuracy of the terms? hi
      2. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
        Marzhecki (Sergei) 24 March 2022 06: 36
        -1
        123 is a professional demagogue
        1. 123 Offline 123
          123 (123) 24 March 2022 13: 49
          0
          123 is a professional demagogue

          I regard your words as an expression of unconscious dissatisfaction in the absence of argumentation.
    3. faiver Offline faiver
      faiver (Andrei) 24 March 2022 03: 50
      +1
      A little more than 3-5 years.

      - the foreseeable future is, in my understanding, a couple of decades hi
  7. Vladimir Orlov Offline Vladimir Orlov
    Vladimir Orlov (Vladimir) April 1 2022 01: 38
    0
    And if production is put on stream (not 10, but 100 pieces per year), then the price will decrease due to economies of scale. That's competitiveness.
    The Chinese are not shy about subsidizing virtually ALL of their exports (Trump tried to fight them over this), and the Indians still produce their hopeless Mahindra (since Mercedes is not working), but people get paid. Each product has its own market, and ours is not the smallest. (and if we suddenly start to breed like Indians, then even more)))
  • vyaandrey Offline vyaandrey
    vyaandrey (Andrey Vyazmenov) 23 March 2022 19: 39
    +2
    All over the world, subsidizing is a normal practice, it seems, except for Russia! When subsidizing our own production, the money remains in the country, in contrast to the money that goes to buy Boeings, Airbuses, and spare parts for them!

    The operation of an existing aircraft, even with engines that are imperfect from an environmental point of view, is logical, since it is easier to upgrade these aircraft in the future by installing new engines! And this way is more practical in terms of savings than developing something from scratch! Unless behind this is the desire for personal enrichment by lobbying the interests of foreign corporations!
    And the more carcasses and silts fly, the cheaper their operation will be, the cheaper the cost of each new domestic aircraft will be!
    By the way, the latter applies to any production!
    1. 123 Offline 123
      123 (123) 23 March 2022 20: 06
      +1
      All over the world, subsidizing is a normal practice, it seems, except for Russia! When subsidizing our own production, the money remains in the country, in contrast to the money that goes to buy Boeings, Airbuses, and spare parts for them!

      You are absolutely right, subsidizing is a fairly common practice all over the world, including in Russia. But is that an argument in this case? We have two aircraft, one of which is technically more advanced and more profitable economically. If we choose the old and abandon the new, simply subsidizing losses, then this is a dead end.
      First, subsidies should be used judiciously, to understand what benefits will come from it.
      In this case, it is extremely doubtful. In fact, we subsidize the use of less advanced equipment. Why do we need this? Do we really want to slow down the development of the aviation industry?
      I could understand if the creation of a new aircraft that has not yet reached production volumes sufficient for payback was received by the state. support.
      In this case, we are not talking about buying Boeings and Airbuses. Nobody is going to buy them.
      They will produce their aircraft in their own country, you just have to wait for it and help it get on the wing.
      Secondly, subsidies are budget money. It's not like it's made of rubber. It turns out that no one will receive this money. And you should not be equal to "the whole world" (I suspect that you primarily mean the US and the EU). They are clearly abusing this, which leads them to an economic dead end.

      The operation of an existing aircraft, even with engines that are imperfect from an environmental point of view, is logical, since it is easier to upgrade these aircraft in the future by installing new engines! And this way is more practical in terms of savings than developing something from scratch! Unless behind this is the desire for personal enrichment by lobbying the interests of foreign corporations!

      The point here is not only the environmental friendliness of the engine, and there is also a limit to modernization. We already have a new aircraft, it is already flying. To spit on him and go back 20-30 years ago is not the best solution. Thus, we spit on the work of thousands of people who created it and bury the money spent on its development.

      And the more carcasses and silts fly, the cheaper their operation will be, the cheaper the cost of each new domestic aircraft will be!
      By the way, the latter applies to any production!

      Quite right, that is why we need a foreign market to sell our products. With an old plane there is no chance to take it. hi
      1. Vladimir Orlov Offline Vladimir Orlov
        Vladimir Orlov (Vladimir) 26 March 2022 13: 45
        0
        Gliders and Tu 204/214 and Il 96 and MS 21 and SSJ 100 - all were blown in a pipe, all good thanks to the Soviet heritage.
        All models have a good reserve for modernization. Modernization is the engine and avionics.
        Scale effect will give a good price. There, life itself will arrange which is more successful for export.
        It is important to start releasing something that can fly today, and not once.
        1. 123 Offline 123
          123 (123) 26 March 2022 13: 56
          0
          Gliders and Tu 204/214 and Il 96 and MS 21 and SSJ 100 - all were blown in a pipe, all good thanks to the Soviet heritage.

          Quite right, but the wind tunnel is used not only in Russia. There is nothing unusual about this.

          All models have a good reserve for modernization. Modernization is the engine and avionics.

          Quite right, but the limit of modernization still exists. Sometimes you have to create something new.

          Scale effect will give a good price. There, life itself will arrange which is more successful for export.

          yes good

          It is important to start releasing something that can fly today, and not once.

          That's what they do. Both Tu-204/214 and MS-21 fly. It is important not to make a mistake in the development strategy, to understand what we will find ourselves in the future.
  • weddu Offline weddu
    weddu (Kolya) 23 March 2022 15: 14
    +2
    Yuri Borisov noted that it is possible to replace imported parts with domestic ones in the Tu-214 in one year and there is no particularly problematic dependence. According to him, this is quite a feasible task.
    The TU-214 also has imported components.
    1. weddu Offline weddu
      weddu (Kolya) 23 March 2022 15: 21
      +1
      Even at the time when the TU-334 project was closed, and therefore dozens of related supplier enterprises, many experts warned to please the Superjet that in the future the country could face the situation that has arisen now, everything was moving towards this.
      1. wolf46 Offline wolf46
        wolf46 23 March 2022 17: 06
        0
        Until I figured it out, I was also mistaken about the 334th project.
        Reasons for the closure of the Tu-334:
        1. Cooperation with Ukraine, which wanted to build its own competitor aircraft - An-148.
        2. After-sales service for aircraft Tu: 334th and 204th were unified.
        3. 3 crew members.
        1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
          Marzhecki (Sergei) 24 March 2022 06: 51
          0
          Time Tu-334 has already gone. But Tu-214 and Il-96 are entitled to a second chance.
          1. faiver Offline faiver
            faiver (Andrei) 24 March 2022 07: 05
            0
            if the SSZh project dies, then it is quite possible to revive
            1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
              Marzhecki (Sergei) 24 March 2022 07: 33
              0
              As far as I know, the Tu-334 has Ukrainian engines. If Zaporozhye were returned, then options would appear. But, I'm afraid, Motor Sich and Ivchenko-Progress are waiting for the fate of KhTZ and Azov-Steel.
              1. faiver Offline faiver
                faiver (Andrei) 24 March 2022 07: 34
                0
                And the promising PD-8?
                1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
                  Marzhecki (Sergei) 24 March 2022 07: 35
                  0
                  Looking forward to the future. smile I'm afraid the timeline will now continuously shift to the right...
                  1. faiver Offline faiver
                    faiver (Andrei) 24 March 2022 07: 38
                    0
                    I mean the remotorization of the Tu-334 on the PD-8
                    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
                      Marzhecki (Sergei) 24 March 2022 07: 39
                      0
                      I understood what you meant. We are waiting for the PD-8 to be certified and put into production. When will it be...
                      1. faiver Offline faiver
                        faiver (Andrei) 24 March 2022 07: 39
                        0
                        Well, let's see...
          2. wolf46 Offline wolf46
            wolf46 24 March 2022 08: 30
            0
            I agree: Tu-214 and Il-96 have no alternative in state structures, and these are already tens, hundreds of aircraft. When you read the headline "S7 will take several Il-96 and Il-86" (old and airworthy units), you hold back so as not to burst out laughing at the top of your voice.
        2. weddu Offline weddu
          weddu (Kolya) 24 March 2022 23: 48
          0
          Tu-334SM - 2 crew members, Tu-204SM - 2 crew members.
        3. Ibuprofen Offline Ibuprofen
          Ibuprofen (Novel) 27 March 2022 00: 47
          -1
          There are two reasons for the closure of the Tu-334 project - Embraer and CRJ.
          They showed how to make a regional plane correctly, and not such a miracle in feathers, as they did in Tupolev's company.
          Even the An-148 turned out better, although this awkward "donkey" is generally based on a cargo one.
  • Potapov Offline Potapov
    Potapov (Valery) 23 March 2022 15: 43
    0
    And everyone who taught us civilized life in the 90s is teaching us and the kids about life ... Or they steer lightly so that they do not take off inadvertently ... As long as there is no weeding, we will be glad that we are still alive ...
  • kolyusick Offline kolyusick
    kolyusick (Nikolai Laikin) 23 March 2022 17: 36
    +1
    Why is it impossible to launch aircraft with PS-90 engines, then gradually replace them with PD-14s?
    1. whitebeard Offline whitebeard
      whitebeard 23 March 2022 19: 20
      0
      Yes, it's definitely possible. It just didn't make economic sense before. And now, as Westerners pinch our air balloons, a lot of things will already make sense that are not tied to the West;)
    2. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 24 March 2022 07: 31
      0
      Possible and necessary.
  • whitebeard Offline whitebeard
    whitebeard 23 March 2022 19: 19
    -1
    Tu-214 and Il-96 are all good, but too few of them can be produced to seriously consider replacing Boeings and Airbuses with them. The issue of establishing maintenance, repair and supply of spare parts for Western aircraft will be much more urgent - we need to think and act strongly in this direction, because our flyers will not replace them purely in number, they will help at most instead of the arrested aircraft. And there, the import-substituted MS-21 will arrive in time. But this does not mean that there is no need to modernize Tu and Il, because no one knows how long the sanctions will last, so there is a big chance that the need for our aircraft will increase the further, and Irkut also has rather modest production capabilities (let and much more than Tu and Il)
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 24 March 2022 07: 31
      +2
      But this does not mean that there is no need to modernize Tu and Il, because no one knows how long the sanctions will last, so there is a big chance that the need for our aircraft will increase the further, and Irkut also has rather modest production capabilities (let and much more than Tu and Il)

      Have you not realized yet? Sanctions are forever. Further it will only get worse. We are now in the Cold War II stage and heading towards the second Cuban Missile Crisis.
      1. whitebeard Offline whitebeard
        whitebeard April 5 2022 22: 39
        0
        Nothing lasts forever ;) Moreover, the sanctions are mainly initiated by the United States, they are generally not beneficial for Europe, but in order to separate Europe from the United States, the latter (primarily their military component) must be squeezed out of Europe. Yes, and through China it will be possible to partially "import substitution". But in any case, at least the domestic flight market should be provided with domestic aircraft, it just cannot be done quickly or all the more at once, all sorts of crutches of "import substitution" will have to be applied anyway.
  • vyaandrey Offline vyaandrey
    vyaandrey (Andrey Vyazmenov) 23 March 2022 20: 10
    +2
    In general, we need to offer products that correspond to the world level, capable of withstanding competition with Boeing and Airbus. Otherwise there is no chance. We will not even squeeze out the EAEU market.
    Something like this hi

    The Soviet aviation school has always been strong! Maybe you are not aware, but domestic planets are much cooler than foreign counterparts! The only problem is outdated avionics, as a result of the imperfection of the domestic electronic element base, but this could be brought to the modern level in 30 years!
    By the way, unlike airbuses and Boeings, in Soviet aircraft there was always a duplication of electrical and mechanical control, which also increases the reliability of piloting, otherwise, God forbid, with a good lightning into the body, the control electronics will burn! Once again, airbuses and Boeings have only electric control!
    Thus, domestic aircraft are better than foreign counterparts, with the only drawback associated with imperfect on-board electronics!

    With each release of a new aircraft, its cost will decrease, which will positively affect its cost, the cost of spare parts, and hence the reduction in the cost of operation!
  • Spasatel Offline Spasatel
    Spasatel 23 March 2022 21: 50
    +2
    The author, sorry, but what do liberals have to do with it? The current minister Manturov sawed money in this field for twenty years, became the richest official in the government, drove the Russian aviation industry into a sewer, not to mention other thieves, such as Chemezov, Borisov, etc. You have to answer for what you have done...
    1. RFR Offline RFR
      RFR (RFR) 23 March 2022 22: 38
      +1
      And these types are liberals ... Because a liberal is, first of all, a traitor to the country ...
  • RFR Offline RFR
    RFR (RFR) 23 March 2022 22: 36
    +1
    Half of the government is liberal, and you want your planes...
  • Smirnov Sergey Offline Smirnov Sergey
    Smirnov Sergey (Smirnov Sergey) 23 March 2022 23: 57
    0
    It is possible to quickly start production of Tu-214 and IL-96 only in the form in which they are produced. That is, this is not the Tu-204cm and not the IL-96-400m, with a double cabin and ps90a3, because they are not certified in such variants. And with 3 crew members and ps90a1. At the same time, it is also necessary to train crews for them and increase the scale of assembly by 5..10 times. And then the first cars will appear no earlier than the end of the year in the number of 2..3 boards, and in 3 years there will be no more than 15..20 of them. Is it really such a shortage of aircraft that we need to invest in the Tu-214? And in general, is there a chance to find routes that can load the IL-96-400m?
    1. Alexey Davydov Offline Alexey Davydov
      Alexey Davydov (Alexey) 24 March 2022 00: 40
      +1
      It is impossible to establish the production of most spare parts for "foreigners" (and there are millions of them). there is no technical and technological documentation of the developer and manufacturer, which is a utopia to recreate without the participation of the developer, even for one spare part, only on the basis of its measurements and analysis.
      Establishing the production of the entire, or a significant part of the range of spare parts is comparable to the production of an entire aircraft, and this is the second utopia.
      Searching around the world for millions of different spare parts with the opposition of the manufacturer and organizing the uninterrupted operation of aircraft in this way is the third utopia.
      A spare part released "blindly" on the basis of an irresponsible interpretation of the results of measurements and analyzes of the material, not verified by calculations for force, temperature and vibration loads and deformations in the subsystem, which did not pass the cycle of bench tests in its composition, and many other "not", for which the developer of this aircraft is needed - not suitable for use on an aircraft, because has unknown reliability.
      On "cannibalization" the existing "foreigners" will not last long.
      Therefore, alas, you need to invest in organizing the production of your aircraft now, and there is no time to build up
      1. whitebeard Offline whitebeard
        whitebeard April 5 2022 22: 48
        +1
        At one time, the Tupolev team successfully communized the most modern B-29 at that time by reverse engineering;) And you say that making spare parts is a utopia)) Well, this is not a whole plane. Especially with our experience in the aircraft industry and the availability of modern 3D printing technologies and industrial lasers. Yes, and getting parts in Asia will be quite realistic, albeit longer and more expensive.
        But this does not mean that it is not necessary to urgently produce our own, because this is an additional help and greater reliability of our own air transportation. For reverse engineering also takes time, and more time will be spent searching for spare parts in Asia. So the approach should be comprehensive, in all directions, and therefore, it is also impossible to refuse to maintain the operation of import aircraft, especially since this will also be an additional load on all related aircraft. Take the same Avisma, which already produces a large range of spare parts for Westerners - on its basis, with the help of RosAtom with its 3D additive technologies, it would be possible to make a powerful production of the necessary spare parts for import.
        1. Alexey Davydov Offline Alexey Davydov
          Alexey Davydov (Alexey) April 5 2022 23: 52
          0
          At one time, by reverse engineering, the Tupolevs successfully communized the most modern B-29 at that time;) And you say that making spare parts is a utopia

          Tu-4 went through a full cycle of design, testing and mass production. Of course, as a result, "at the exit", its individual spare parts appeared. Hoping to get them "immediately", without all this - a utopia.
          You read my comment superficially. I am still an engineer for aviation instruments and automation, a specialist, and I know what I am writing about.
    2. faiver Offline faiver
      faiver (Andrei) 24 March 2022 04: 03
      +2
      Is it really such a shortage of aircraft that we need to invest in the Tu-214?

      - well, for a year or two we will fly on "leasing defectors", and then they will either start to fall or become in the sump. Over the course of a year or two, imported components for the MS-21 may or may not be replaced, and this is already an unjustified risk, then the testing of a new aircraft, then the establishment of mass production. What is the upshot? In the best case, MSs will go to airlines by the end of the 20s, and before that we will have a reduction in air traffic within the country, an increase in ticket prices, the European part of the country will switch to buses and trains in the lion's share, and those who are south of the Urals, the southerners, will also use steam locomotives, and northerners on deer (well, I'm exaggerating a little) ...
      1. Smirnov Sergey Offline Smirnov Sergey
        Smirnov Sergey (Smirnov Sergey) April 2 2022 23: 07
        0
        It is necessary to invest in aircraft, which can be built several dozen a year, in series of hundreds of pieces without design changes. This is primarily ssj100new. For others, the risks are much higher. 20 pieces in 3 years will not make the weather at all. After all, you are afraid that a fleet of almost 800 aircraft will be laid up. According to Tu204 and IL 96 - it makes sense to deal with them only if they restore airworthiness. Producing new ones is too slow
        1. faiver Offline faiver
          faiver (Andrei) April 3 2022 08: 23
          0
          in SZH, as in MS, there are imported components ...
        2. Alexey Davydov Offline Alexey Davydov
          Alexey Davydov (Alexey) April 7 2022 18: 50
          0
          It is necessary to invest in aircraft, which can be built several dozen a year, in series of hundreds of pieces without design changes. This is primarily ssj100new.

          According to Tu204 and IL 96 - it makes sense to deal with them only if they restore airworthiness. Producing new ones is too slow

          It is interesting. Explain to me, an engineer, what is the fundamental difference in the duration of the ssj100new production cycle, compared to Tu204/214 and IL 96
          1. Smirnov Sergey Offline Smirnov Sergey
            Smirnov Sergey (Smirnov Sergey) April 8 2022 23: 09
            0
            As an engineer I'm telling you - Tu214 is a plane with old engines and a team of 3 pilots. This is not the 2-pilot variant known as the tu204cm. Therefore, in order for the aircraft to be interesting not only as a temporary option, it urgently needs to be updated. Similarly with il96. The IL96-400m version has not been certified, and only an outdated version with a team of 3 people and old engines can be produced. And all these aircraft will be immediately written off as soon as the ms21 starts to be produced at the planned rate of 70 units per year. And it makes sense to invest in the development of what is already obsolete and will be thrown out as soon as a replacement appears.
            1. Alexey Davydov Offline Alexey Davydov
              Alexey Davydov (Alexey) April 9 2022 02: 38
              0
              You did not find a convincing answer to the question why:

              According to Tu204 and IL 96 - it makes sense to deal with them only if they restore airworthiness. Producing new ones is too slow

              ?

              And it makes sense to invest in the development of what is already outdated and will be thrown out as soon as a replacement appears.

              Nobody will throw anything away. Just a template approach to the operation of the aircraft will be replaced by a flexible one.
              No one will wait until it comes: "as soon as ms21 will start producing at the planned pace of 70pcs per year."
              Because the establishment of serial production of a new aircraft is an unknown road on which one can get stuck for months and years. Especially now. Any little thing, on a still "raw" plane, can grow into a problem. I think that with the full import substitution of the ssj-100 and MS-21, the main torment is still ahead
    3. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 24 March 2022 06: 53
      +3
      The Americans produce their equipment in blocks, in series. Start in the existing configuration, the second block is already more modernized, etc.
      1. Smirnov Sergey Offline Smirnov Sergey
        Smirnov Sergey (Smirnov Sergey) April 2 2022 23: 13
        -1
        Not so with airplanes. Every significant design change requires certification. The model is set for 10..15 years and practically does not change. And this is with the release of several hundred aircraft per year. Otherwise, it is impossible to organize service maintenance, it becomes difficult to train pilots and profitability drops significantly due to the constant certification of new components in the aircraft
    4. wolf46 Offline wolf46
      wolf46 24 March 2022 08: 53
      +1
      Tu-204cm made its first flight in 2010 and received the last certificate in 2013.

      Quote: Sergey Smirnov
      Is it really such a shortage of aircraft that we need to invest in the Tu-214? And in general, is there a chance to find routes that can load the IL-96-400m?

      According to Minister of Transport Savelyev, 78 foreign-made Russian planes have already been arrested abroad. Tu-204cm/214 and Il-96-300/400 will make it possible not to depend on foreign spare parts and fly abroad without fear of their confiscation.
      1. Smirnov Sergey Offline Smirnov Sergey
        Smirnov Sergey (Smirnov Sergey) April 2 2022 22: 09
        0
        "Fly without fear of confiscation" - these are fairy tales. The lessor through the court will be able to demand compensation for unreturned aircraft with any property of the airlines. By analogy with litigation with the shareholders of Yukos or Noga. Therefore, only those who own planes will be able to fly. At the same time, Russian-made aircraft are needed ONLY to address the risks of not being allowed to fly due to a repair and maintenance liner not certified by the manufacturer.
    5. whitebeard Offline whitebeard
      whitebeard April 5 2022 22: 42
      +1
      The problem is that the sanctions are for a long time, apparently. Therefore, both Tu and Ily, and then the MS-21s, will have to be produced one way or another. But this will not be enough, so you will have to learn how to service import-boards on your own, as well as how to get / make spare parts for them on your own. Those. import substitution will have to be comprehensive
  • Volga073 Offline Volga073
    Volga073 (MIKLE) 24 March 2022 05: 44
    0
    Home Rat escaped - Chubais.
    Now everything will go back to normal.
    1. Alexey Davydov Offline Alexey Davydov
      Alexey Davydov (Alexey) 24 March 2022 10: 12
      0
      Now it's back to normal
  • hlp5118 Offline hlp5118
    hlp5118 (hlp) 24 March 2022 05: 51
    0
    Our highly paid managers (one has already leaked to the West) can't do anything. We live on the developments of the 80s of the last century. And how they cursed and spat in this era. Mediocrity.
    1. faiver Offline faiver
      faiver (Andrei) 24 March 2022 07: 02
      0
      Our highly paid managers (one has already leaked to the West) can't do anything.

      - not sharpened for that ...
  • Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 24 March 2022 07: 29
    +1
    Quote: hlp5118
    And how they cursed and spat in this era. Mediocrity.

    Not this way. Talented pests and direct enemies.
    1. Alexey Davydov Offline Alexey Davydov
      Alexey Davydov (Alexey) 24 March 2022 12: 34
      0
      You are right, Sergey
      Here is proof of such talented work.
      This is the "new" dress uniform of the Russian Armed Forces:


      And this is the uniform of the Wehrmacht soldiers of Nazi Germany, well known to all of us:


      Pay attention to the buttonholes.
      This element always makes me wince during parades.
      But it was someone conceived, and then approved.
  • Pavel57 Offline Pavel57
    Pavel57 (Paul) 26 March 2022 10: 07
    +1
    Are there free capacities in Ulyanovsk, Kazan and Perm?
  • Winnie Offline Winnie
    Winnie (Winnie) 28 March 2022 07: 39
    0
    Yes, not a single global aircraft manufacturer wants to have competitors in the market.
  • Pavel57 Offline Pavel57
    Pavel57 (Paul) 28 March 2022 17: 50
    0
    Quote: weddu
    Even at the time when the TU-334 project was closed, and therefore dozens of related supplier enterprises, many experts warned to please the Superjet that in the future the country could face the situation that has arisen now, everything was moving towards this.

    The Tu-334 has one indispensable imported unit - the engine.