Posted on 11/02/2005 5:12:28 PM PST by MarshallDillon
(Russia's)Economic Development and Trade Minister German Gref on Wednesday threw his weight behind the Russian Regional Jet, promising government support for the landmark project, which is expected to put Russia back on the map of global aviation.
"We have full confidence that this jet will be made," Gref told reporters after the project's presentation at the Moscow design bureau of fighter jet manufacturer Sukhoi, the leader of the project.
Gref, who in the past has criticized the Russian aviation industry, during the presentation repeatedly needled Sukhoi executives on whether their jet was in the same class as those made by Brazil's Embraer.
"I have sat in the Embraer cockpit, I suggest you do too," Gref told Sukhoi CEO Mikhail Pogosyan. Embraer, along with Canada's Bombardier, is a global leader in regional aircraft production.
Gref, however, said that his visit to Sukhoi boosted his confidence in the RRJ, and he confirmed that in the next three years the government would allocate 8.6 billion rubles ($300 million) for the project.
The funding, which is expected to cover more than one-third of the project's development, has already been included in the government's draft budget for 2006.
RRJ, a family of jets seating between 65 and 95 passengers, will be test flown in the first half of 2007 and will enter mass production in January 2008, with 60 jets to be made that year. Sukhoi plans to sell up to 750 such jets internationally by 2024, including 300 in Russia and the CIS.
The age of the 50 seat RJ (and soon the 70 seat RJ) has passed. These jets are inefficient with the hifgher cost of fuel and the airlines in the US are moving away from them. They may have some utility in Russia but they could obtain any number of quality RJ's on the used market in the US and not have to expend capital on an idea that is past it's prime
I just took Embraer factory training on the EMB-170. Chataqua and JetBlue have recently bought the 70 seat versions.
The RRJ while perhaps a fine plane-to-be, can't be operated by U.S. carriers anyway. The "bilateral agreement" -as it is called, AC21-23A, allows for Russian heavy cargo aircraft only, and only if the engines and avionics are FAA certified. The IL-96T was the only such example, and it was not suited to the market due to high fuel consumption with its four PW2047 engines - and no post delivery factory support.
Russia's woes are more to do with lack of will on part of their diplomatic corps and federal authorities to prove up their certification system. I have told them, "Do as Embraer and EADS do, and you will succeed".
The Tu-204 with RB-211 engines can’t be imported to the USA due to the language of FAA Advisory Circular AC-21-23A. It has little to do with the aircraft design or safety. I have the credentials, and have actually inspected many Russian aircraft looking at details like wire bundle spacing, rivets, finish details to numerous to list here.
Tupolev and the Russian government have simply not done the detailed work to complete certification in the USA. They lack only the drive, investment, patience, and organization required for success. This is why they fail.
That Russian aircraft aren’t as reliable as their western counterparts is a myth. I can qualify this, only by stating I have worked in the industry for over 27 years, and happen to have some business with CIS aircraft manufacturers. The prime difference in (perceived) quality is the management of the operator and where a maintenance manager goes for spare parts when he needs them. It can take 30 – 90 days (usually the latter) to import spare parts for Mi-17 helicopters due to Russian export protocols and other factors. Nobody stocks enough of them in the USA to keep a fleet flying. Even the Army uses spare parts from questionable sources to keep its Mi-17 and Mi-24D flying due to diplomatic issues.
Volga Dnepr , Antonov Airlines & Polyot usually have a flyaway kit on board including spare tires and critical avionics spares. If their Antonov AN-124 breaks in Dallas, the plane sits awaiting shipment of a part unless a spare is carried on board. If a 777 breaks in Dallas, either the airline stocks the part, or borrows it from another airline, - or they pay Boeing to air-taxi thepart from Wichita / Seattle or some warehouse so the plane can go to say, Narita on its 13:00 departure.
I saw a niche, wrote a business plan to fix the problem, and have been to Russia 10 times in as many years working on developments.
http://www.randallstephens.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.