Military Review

Tu-334. Unrealized alternative to Superjet

155
It is difficult to call the Sukhoi Superjet 100 a breakthrough in the domestic civil aircraft industry; the aircraft has not gained popularity in the international market either. Today when the negative newsconcerning the Superjet, appear in the press almost every day, it is worth recalling another domestic short-haul passenger aircraft - Tu-334. The liner model, developed back in the 1990-ies, was supposed to replace the numerous passenger aircraft - Yak-42, Tu-134 and Tu-154B, but for some reasons it was not put into mass production.


Tu-334 at the MAKS-2007 air show


Tu-334 first flew 20 years ago, it happened February 8 1999 years. However, fate was not favorable to this aircraft; only two flight specimens were made and several more gliders for conducting static and life tests. Although from time to time various news surfacing in the media regarding the reanimation of the Tu-334 project, there are no real programs that would allow the development, serial production and purchase of aircraft. And the more time passes, the less likely that such programs will still appear.

Superjet rival


The design of the Tu-334 began at the end of the 1980's, but for obvious reasons it was seriously delayed. Initially, the aircraft was developed as a replacement for the Tu-134. The active phase of work fell on the 1990 years, when the economic situation in the country left much to be desired. On the other hand, over the years, the potential market for the model, which was supposed to replace the vast fleet of Yak-42D, Tu-134 and Tu-154B aircraft, which were widely used for passenger transportation inside Russia, also increased. Attempts were also made to cooperate with European aircraft manufacturers, but they ended in nothing. As a result, the new passenger liner made its first flight only in the 1999 year.

In 2003, a model of a serial passenger aircraft was presented, which received the designation Tu-334-100, at the end of the same year the aircraft was certified. Tests conducted in 2005 confirmed that the new Russian short-haul airliner can be used practically all over the world without any restrictions. On April 15, 2005, a decree of the Government of the Russian Federation was signed, which concerned the start of mass production of the Tu-334 passenger aircraft in Kazan on the basis of the Gorbunov Kazan Aviation Plant, but this decree was never implemented. The new passenger plane did not go into mass production. As later noted in the report of the Accounts Chamber, the developers of the Federal Target Program “Development of Civil aviation Russian technicians for 2002-2010 ”recognized the Tupolev aircraft as competitive with another domestic project, the Sukhoi Superjet 100, which was ultimately given the green light.



Today, because of this decision, spears are still being broken, especially with reliance on afterglow. It is all the more surprising that even at the beginning of the 1990's, domestic aircraft designers came to what they seriously thought about and are struggling with today. Tu-334 was almost completely Russian development with minimal involvement of foreign components, with the exception of Ukrainian engines. The aircraft could be produced in Russia and from Russian components and assemblies. It is this circumstance that makes it possible today to fuel the hope of those who believe that the aircraft can still be claimed by the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Emergencies, or government agencies.

An important feature of the Tu-334 and one of its chips aimed at reducing the cost of the entire program for the development and production of mass-produced machines was the high level of unification of the aircraft with the serial mid-range narrow-body airliner Tu-204. According to various estimates, the level of unification of the two aircraft reached 60 percent, while the Tu-204 and its modernization Tu-214, although literally by the piece, are still being assembled in Kazan for various customers, while the Tu-334 is not.

Externally, the new machine was a low wing with an arrow-shaped wing and a T-tail. It was planned to install a pair of D-436Т1 turbojet dual-circuit engines specially designed for this aircraft in the Zaporizhzhya engineering design bureau Progress. The engines were located in the rear of the aircraft. The Tu-334 fuselage retained the same cross-section as the mid-range Tu-204, but was distinguished by a reduced length.

Cockpit on the Tu-334


The Tu-2005-334 aircraft certified in 100 was supposed to provide transportation of 102 passengers over a distance of 3150 km. In the layout of the cabin with the business class, the passenger capacity of the liner was reduced to 92 people. Since the aircraft actually received the fuselage from the Tu-204, the layout of the seats was saved, three seats in a row from each side (3-3). Cruising flight speed was 820 km / h. Moreover, the widespread use of Tu-204 units and assemblies had their drawbacks, the aircraft was heavily weighted by 4 tons, and later European companies indicated that they planned to establish cooperation with the Tu-3 project in terms of overweight in 4-334 tons. Perhaps the elimination of these problems, as well as the chronic lack of funding, affected the delay in the work on the aircraft in the 1990 years.

Why the Tu-334 has practically no chance


Despite the fact that the Tu-334 is a much more domestic aircraft than the Sukhoi Superjet 100, the share of foreign components in which reaches up to 80 percent, it has almost no chance of a successful career. Unfortunately, a plane, not bad for its time, has become outdated. This is indicated by pilots and leaders of the domestic aviation industry. Back in 2013, in an interview with Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Honored Test Pilot, Hero of Russia, and at that time General Director of the M. Gromov Flight Research Institute Pavel Vlasov said that the time of the Tu-334 had passed. According to the honored pilot, the Tu-334 airliner was tested at the LII at one time, showing itself to the best. At the same time, the specified short-range aircraft objectively belongs to the bygone Soviet era in the aircraft industry. If it could be put into mass production in the 1990-ies, the plane might have managed to occupy its niche in the fleet of Russian airlines, but today its time has passed.

Next, Pavel Nikolayevich listed the main problem points of the Tu-334. For example, all modern civilian passenger planes have a crew of two, while there are three on the Tu-334: two pilots and a flight engineer (the Tu-334СМ aircraft project involved upgrading avionics, reducing the crew to two people and using new engines, but on which the project was unknown at the stage). In addition, Pavel Vlasov noted that in the modern world the design and manufacture of airliners is based on digital technology, while the documentation for the Tu-334 was performed on the drawings. “Most likely, it was possible to translate all the drawings into a“ number ”, install more advanced avionics on the plane, re-equip production, find new engines and even exclude the flight engineer from the crew, but all this would require financial costs that would be comparable to the development of a new aircraft ", - said Pavel Vlasov.

Sukhoi Superjet 100


Another big problem, which became a problem only in the 2014 year, is that the Tu-334 was developed for the D-436Т1 engines developed by the Progress ZMKB named after Ivchenko (Zaporozhye). It was planned to produce at the Ukrainian enterprise Motor Sich, specially designed for installation on a Tu-334 short-range aircraft, turbofan engines. In modern realities, it has become impossible to use these engines. Theoretically, the Tu-334 could have installed engines with comparable thrust from the Superjet - the French SaM-146. But, firstly, for this it would be necessary to significantly modify the entire tail of the liner, as well as the control system, which seems costly and inappropriate. Secondly, the SaM-146 engine is not only not a domestic development, but also not the most successful. There are a lot of problems with the engines on the Sukhoi Superjet 100, in particular, airlines talk about a very low raid before overhauling.

Asked by RIA Novosti journalists about the fate of the Tu-334, the head of the Russian Ministry of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov noted that the Tu-334 did not have a ticket to life. According to the Minister of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation, the specified passenger aircraft project was deadlocked in comparison with the Superjet program. “To put it as briefly as possible, we would not have gained any competencies and international cooperation, which today limits us in certain issues, but for other factors and reasons,” the senior official emphasized. Denis Manturov noted that in today's realities we are not able to deliver the Sukhoi Superjet 100 passenger plane to those countries where it would have been possible to send the Tu-334 without problems, but at the same time we would not have received the developments that we have today there is.

According to Manturov, the main value of the Superjet is the accumulated human potential, as well as the formed capital of technological and design solutions that allow us to confidently move to the next step today - the medium-range narrow-body aircraft MS-21 and the joint wide-body aircraft project with China.
Author:
155 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. MY THOUGHT
    MY THOUGHT 23 August 2019 18: 10
    -14
    Thank God that even though there is ssj, it flies, and the rest with money can be solved, another thing is that there is not enough money for everything.
    1. machinistvl
      machinistvl 23 August 2019 19: 15
      +5
      The Americans on our engines fly into space, can't we really make a normal engine for civil aviation? We buy from France, or use the old Ukrainian.
      1. Krasnoyarsk
        Krasnoyarsk 23 August 2019 20: 37
        +24
        Quote: machinistvl
        The Americans on our engines fly into space, can't we really make a normal engine for civil aviation?

        Why we cannot, we can, but the Manturovs from the Medvedevs do not allow it. They need cooperation with foreign countries.
        Manturov, swearing at the 334th, is not childish - = According to the Minister of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation, the specified passenger plane project was deadlocked in comparison with the Superjet program. =
        Of course, I am not an expert in aircraft construction and that is why I would be interested to know what is the dead end of the 334th? No one ever answered this question, and Manturov all the more.
        = “To put it as briefly as possible, we would not have received any competencies and international cooperation, which today limits us in certain issues, but for other factors and reasons,” =
        Yes, they didn’t build, they didn’t build airplanes, (they didn’t have the competence) but now, thanks to the Superjet, they learned to build. And what is good about this "Superjet" that no one wants to buy? By the fact that his name is not Russian?
        And you, state. Manturov, did not know that "foreign cooperators" can "throw" and very easy?
        Most likely, the corruption component played in favor of Superjet and ruined the 334th.
        1. Out
          Out 23 August 2019 21: 07
          -11
          The dead end of the Tu 334 in unification with the larger Tu 204 in terms of fuselage diameter is too wide and short for such an aircraft
          1. Krasnoyarsk
            Krasnoyarsk 23 August 2019 21: 38
            +6
            Quote: Out
            The dead end of the Tu 334 in unification with the larger Tu 204 in terms of fuselage diameter is too wide and short for such an aircraft

            Do you think you answered the question?
            1. Out
              Out 23 August 2019 22: 51
              +1
              Is not it so? The unification of the fuselage dimensions for aircraft of various classes (it seems that bourgeois firms have tried to do this) is of little use at high costs during operation. In addition, engines are manufactured on the territory of a neighboring not too friendly state.
          2. white
            white 24 August 2019 01: 43
            +2
            [quote = Out] The dead end of the 334 in unification with the larger Tu 204 in fuselage diameter is too wide and short for such an aircraft
            look at the profile content, there was an even smaller dimension, it seems that 414, two seats in a row in the economy, did you get a good line, 204 - 214, 334, 414? , in the presence of demand, a crew of 2 people was supposed, by world standards, initially in those tasks there were 3.
            1. Out
              Out 24 August 2019 18: 54
              +2
              Tu 414 will rather compete with ATR, Bombardier, Il 114 in terms of passenger capacity, and also with railway and road transport (in terms of price). Tu 334 - with A220 and Embraer E-Jet E2. And the question arises, do you need this garden? In addition, the Tu 204 (basic model) was born too late, unfortunately. The main problem of the superjet, apparently, in the engines and service "in Russian"
        2. IL-18
          IL-18 23 August 2019 21: 53
          +2
          Quote: Krasnoyarsk
          "foreign cooperators" can "throw" and very much

          Ukrainian cooperators, is it foreign? or what? And which modern airplane in the world is a fully national product?
          1. Krasnoyarsk
            Krasnoyarsk 24 August 2019 12: 17
            +4
            Quote: IL-18
            Quote: Krasnoyarsk
            "foreign cooperators" can "throw" and very much

            Ukrainian cooperators, is it foreign? or what? And which modern airplane in the world is a fully national product?

            But did the situation with the MS-21 wing teach you nothing?
            1. IL-18
              IL-18 28 August 2019 20: 41
              0
              Quote: Krasnoyarsk
              the situation with the wing of the MC-21 did not teach anything?

              No, I'm a doctor, not an aircraft manufacturer wassat I meant a little different. Tu-334 was created with an eye to cooperation with Ukraine. But the appetites of the alleged allies killed production before the germination of crops.
              1. Krasnoyarsk
                Krasnoyarsk 28 August 2019 20: 56
                +1
                Quote: IL-18
                But the appetites of the alleged allies killed production before the germination of crops.

                And do you know this for sure?
                The failure of the MS-21 allies for some reason did not stop the project.
                And 334 was already certified and this did not stop him from being buried.
                1. IL-18
                  IL-18 28 August 2019 22: 03
                  0
                  Cases of bygone days. I'm not sure, but Yandex, most likely, can provide links on the relationship between the Tupolev Design Bureau and the Kharkov Aircraft Plant, the governments of the Russian Federation and Ukraine on issues related to the Tk-334. Although, due to the circumstances after the collapse of the USSR, a large series still would not have happened, and after 2014 it would have been like with the An-148.
                  1. IL-18
                    IL-18 28 August 2019 22: 06
                    0
                    By the way, there is a GSS website. Perhaps the topic 334 is widely disclosed there. Well, at least they have an unequivocal interest in this. hi
                2. IL-18
                  IL-18 28 August 2019 22: 08
                  0
                  Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                  Failure of allies

                  Here, on the contrary, interest. Only an agreement did not grow together.
        3. senima56
          senima56 23 August 2019 22: 03
          +17
          These "modern managers" decided that to create a completely new aircraft at a company that has never (!!!!) made civil aircraft easier and cheaper than to bring to mind an already flying model ?! fool fool fool Or everything is simple: you can earn "kickback" with the SSJ!
          1. Town Hall
            Town Hall 24 August 2019 00: 33
            -2
            Quote: senima56
            Or everything is simple: you can earn "kickback" with the SSJ!

            But you can’t do it with TU? ... Are there holy sons without work?
            1. Minato2020
              Minato2020 24 August 2019 02: 20
              +6
              Quote: Town Hall
              Quote: senima56
              Or everything is simple: you can earn "kickback" with the SSJ!

              But you can’t do it with TU? ... Are there holy sons without work?


              Tu 334 has long been a ready-made project, and many billions are not needed to launch it into a series, which dissolve without a trace in a vacuum for "design", "testing", "approval", "assessment", "certification" and so on when launched in a series of aircraft from scratch.
              Moreover, despite all the enormous costs, "Superjet" for some reason still turned out to be a designer from imported components. What is more interesting for aviation officials - to handle large flows of budget money or small ones? A rhetorical question...
              1. Town Hall
                Town Hall 24 August 2019 08: 14
                -5
                Quote: Minato2020
                Tu 334 is a long-completed project, and many billions are not needed to launch it in a series

                Have you read the article?
                1. Minato2020
                  Minato2020 24 August 2019 18: 30
                  -1
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  Quote: Minato2020
                  Tu 334 is a long-completed project, and many billions are not needed to launch it in a series

                  Have you read the article?


                  Tu-334 - drawings are still preserved, can be upgraded to modern requirements. It would be a desire. In the meantime, there is the SSJ-100 project, which was originally conceived as an analogue of the Bombardier CRJ-900NG and Embraer-190 short-haul vessels that already existed at that time and did not contain any significant innovations.
                  This is in its pure form "screwdriver assembly", which is in no way connected with the development of scientific and technical potential in the Russian Federation - French engine (SaM-146), American power plant (Honeywell), Goodrich brake system, Parker hydraulic system, electrical system from Arthus, SAFT and Leach International, Thales onboard electronics.
                  The project of regional airliners TU-334 was rejected, the launch of which would have required less cost. Unlike the SSJ-100, the aircraft was TU-334 at that time was ready to go into productiondespite the fact that the share of imported components did not exceed 5%
                  1. Town Hall
                    Town Hall 24 August 2019 21: 55
                    +3
                    Quote: Minato2020
                    The project of regional airliners TU-334 was rejected, the launch of which would have required less cost

                    Do you have any documents, estimates, calculations, etc.?
                    Quote: Minato2020
                    TU-334 at that time was ready to start production, despite the fact that the share of imported components did not exceed 5%

                    You understand that you are talking about deeply unprofitable
                    a stillborn project of 30/40 years ago that was hopelessly outdated even when it was painted on whatman paper?
                    1. Minato2020
                      Minato2020 25 August 2019 00: 43
                      +3
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      Do you have any documents, estimates, calculations, etc.? ..


                      Documents with estimates are not available.

                      Quote: Minato2020
                      TU-334 at that time was ready to start production, despite the fact that the share of imported components did not exceed 5%

                      You understand that you are talking about a deeply unprofitable stillborn project 30/40 years ago that was hopelessly outdated even when it was painted on whatman paper


                      With the same success, it can be argued that the SOYUZ spacecraft is a deeply unprofitable project 50-60 years ago, which is hopelessly outdated smile

                      At one time, Red Wings wanted to buy 44 Tu-204SM aircraft. If Tu production had expanded due to this contract, they would have reached the serial production of Tu-334.

                      If Tu could compete on equal terms with Boeings, then many airlines in the world would buy it, because business, as they say, is nothing personal.
                      But the conditions are unequal - the Boeing is supported by the State Department, Tu - is not lobbied by anyone.
                      And Boeing is making every effort to lobby its interests.
                      Business is business - the sneakiest survives. There is such a thing, lobbying. All the Western leadership is engaged in this, but in the Russian Federation this is not. When problems arise in the western aviation industry, states there are directly involved in these problems. The aviation industry is a component of state security.

                      Unlike automobiles, airplanes in the USSR corresponded fully to the international level. This is evidenced by hundreds of established records. Why there were few of them in capitalist countries is a question that has an obvious answer.
                      Because, as well as because our nuclear reactors, superior to the US in terms of efficiency and safety, do not stand in Japan, France or Germany.
                      Yes, our aircraft always lost in fuel efficiency, but won in safety. Even when designing, they scored a huge margin of safety.
                      In a market economy, this is not essential, since insurance companies are responsible for everything. In the USSR, effectiveness was never measured in money, the criteria were only one - social significance and social utility. And therefore, Soviet aircraft is a balance of security and economic efficiency, with a bias on the first element. What is more important for a passenger - to fly whole or cheap?
                      1. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 25 August 2019 00: 56
                        -8
                        Quote: Minato2020
                        No documents with estimates

                        So solely your theories and not facts?
                        Quote: Minato2020
                        With the same success, it can be argued that the SOYUZ spacecraft is a deeply unprofitable project 50-60 years ago, which is hopelessly outdated

                        Do you have any data on the financial profitability of the Unions? Or, again, only your Theories? Am I mistaken or is the Russian Space Agency deeply unprofitable and survives only through state subsidies?
                        Quote: Minato2020
                        Unlike automobiles, airplanes in the USSR were in full compliance with international standards

                        Theories Again
                        Quote: Minato2020
                        Yes, our planes always lost in fuel efficiency

                        So deeply unprofitable and could hold out only on the neck of the state
                        Quote: Minato2020
                        but won in safety

                        The accident rate in Soviet aviation has always been prohibitive, at the African level. Do not give your personal theories to facts
                        Quote: Minato2020
                        In the USSR, efficiency was never measured in money, the criteria were only one - social significance and social utility

                        In youth slang, these statements are nothing more than intellectual masturbation when a promoted theory hangs on meaningless multi-letters instead of facts
                        Quote: Minato2020
                        . And therefore, Soviet aircraft

                        Hopeless trash disappeared as soon as they ran into market competition
                      2. Minato2020
                        Minato2020 25 August 2019 01: 12
                        +2
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Quote: Minato2020
                        No documents with estimates

                        So solely your theories and not facts?

                        Not theories, but logical conclusions from objective reality.


                        Quote: Minato2020
                        With the same success, it can be argued that the SOYUZ spacecraft is a deeply unprofitable project 50-60 years ago, which is hopelessly outdated

                        Do you have any data on the financial viability of the Unions? Or again only your theories? Am I mistaken or is Roskosmos deeply unprofitable and survives only at the expense of state subsidies?

                        That is, Tu planes are unprofitable, because they were drawn on whatman paper 40 years ago, and SOYUZ spacecraft are profitable, because they were drawn on drawing boards 60 years ago?


                        Quote: Minato2020
                        Unlike automobiles, airplanes in the USSR were in full compliance with international standards

                        Theories Again

                        GA planes in the USSR met international requirements.


                        Quote: Minato2020
                        Yes, our planes always lost in fuel efficiency

                        So deeply unprofitable and could hold out only on the neck of the state

                        SOYUZ spacecraft have always lost out in fuel efficiency. So they are holding only at the expense of the Russian Federation.

                        Quote: Minato2020
                        but won in safety

                        The accident rate in Soviet aviation has always been prohibitive, at the African level. Do not give your personal theories to facts

                        These are not theories, but a plane crash channel:
                        https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLPA0Dhi1VXQDGbkXwjDUzQ


                        Quote: Minato2020
                        In the USSR, efficiency was never measured in money, the criteria were only one - social significance and social utility

                        In youth slang, these statements are nothing more than intellectual masturbation when a promoted theory hangs on meaningless multi-letters instead of facts

                        These criteria of social significance and social utility were prescribed in party decisions at congresses of the CPSU.


                        Quote: Minato2020
                        . And therefore, Soviet aircraft

                        Hopeless trash disappeared as soon as they ran into market competition.

                        Space ships "SOYUZ" are also hopeless trash?
                      3. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 25 August 2019 01: 19
                        -2
                        Quote: Minato2020
                        Quote: Minato2020
                        but won in safety

                        The accident rate in Soviet aviation has always been prohibitive, at the African level. Do not give your personal theories to facts

                        These are not theories, but a plane crash channel:
                        https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLPA0Dhi1VXQDGbkXwjDUzQ

                        Read better serious sources rather than promote pop youtuber.

                        . As an example of how to carry passengers, GA veterans cite the Soviet Aeroflot, where there seemed to be a rigid selection and training system, the fleet was replenished annually with new airplanes and no one could even think of such modern metamorphoses as counterfeit aircraft parts and corruption in regulatory authorities. It would seem that, against such a positive background, the statistics of air crashes should have looked even if not zero, but at least stably low. However, this is not at all true.

                        According to statistics from the Aviation Safety Network (ASN) website, the security situation in Soviet aviation was far from ideal. The most catastrophic years were the years 1969, 1973, 1981, and 1990 - more than 10 air crashes per year. The hardest was 1973. On January 22, the An-24 (44 dead) crashed in the Perm Region, in February at the Sheremetyevo-Il-18 airport (25 dead), on May 18, the Tu-104 (82 dead) crashed in the Chita Region, and the An-18 dies near Baku on August 24 (56 victims), on September 30, due to equipment failure at the Sverdlovsk airport, Koltsovo crashed Tu-104 (108 dead), on October 2, An-12 (10 dead) crashed near Magadan, and on October 13, Tu-104 crashed at Domodedovo Airport (119 dead), on December 7, another Tu-104 (16 dead) crashed in the same Domodedovo, on December 16, An-124 (51 dead) crashed in the suburbs of Moscow, on December 23, near the city of Lviv, Tu-124 (17 dead) crashed. And these are the biggest disasters.
                        In total, taking into account less serious incidents on civilian aircraft, more than 1973 people died in 500 (excluding incidents with helicopters).

                        As for the volume of passenger traffic, compared with the 70s today they are slightly inferior to the Soviet. In 1973, Aeroflot carried about 80 million passengers, in 2010 this figure for Russian airlines amounted to 58 million
                        .
                      4. Minato2020
                        Minato2020 25 August 2019 01: 27
                        -1
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Read better serious sources, rather than promote pop youtuber.


                        Taken from here?
                        https://versia.ru/kolichestvo-aviakatastrof-v-rossii-i-sssr-nikogda-ne-zaviselo-ot-sostoyaniya-otrasli
                        "The number of air crashes in Russia and the USSR has never depended on the state of the industry"


                        or
                        Taken from here?
                        https://iproga.ru/crustaceans/letnye-proisshestviya-sssr-tragediya-v-svetlogorske-aviakatastrofy.html
                        "Flight accidents in the USSR. Tragedy in Svetlogorsk"


                        Which article to read?
                      5. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 25 August 2019 01: 31
                        -6
                        What difference does it make to read. The main facts and figures are in them. Which, despite the decisions of the CPSU congresses, undoubtedly prove that the accident rate in the USSR GA was at the level of the 3rd world countries.
                      6. Minato2020
                        Minato2020 25 August 2019 01: 39
                        -1
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        What difference does it make to read. The main thing is the facts and figures in them. Which, in spite of the decisions of the congresses of the CPSU, undoubtedly prove that the accident rate in the GA of the USSR was at the level of the 3rd world countries.


                        "In the sky over Dneprodzerzhinsk (Ukrainian SSR), two Tu-134 aircraft of the Aeroflot airline (flights Chelyabinsk - Chisinau and Tashkent - Minsk) collided, as a result of which all 178 people on board were killed. Among the dead were 17 players of the Uzbek football club" Pakhtakor. ”On that day, in the Kharkov control center, in violation of instructions, an inexperienced dispatcher was in the most tense sector. The situation was further complicated by the fact that one of the three air corridors was“ booked ”for the top party nomenclaturer Chernenko who was supposed to to Brezhnev, who was resting in the Crimea. "


                        The numbers will not show anything. For example, in this disaster.
                        Who is to blame - Tu aircraft obsolete at the stage of creating drawings on drawing paper?
                        The numbers are just statistics, and no more.

                        PS As for the Central Committee of the CPSU, the members of the Politburo were sold to the State Department back in the 70s.
                      7. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 25 August 2019 01: 42
                        -2
                        Quote: Minato2020
                        As for the Central Committee of the CPSU, the members of the Politburo were sold to the State Department back in the 70s

                        Brezhnev jackal at the embassy?
                      8. Minato2020
                        Minato2020 25 August 2019 01: 47
                        -1
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Quote: Minato2020
                        As for the Central Committee of the CPSU, the members of the Politburo were sold to the State Department back in the 70s

                        Brezhnev jackal at the embassy?


                        Really interested? I can give a link.

                        PS "In general, according to ASN statistics, Russiaas the successor of the USSR, takes second place in the world in the number of air crashes and passengers killed in them... The United States holds the sad primacy. So, since 1945, with civil aircraft, excluding terrorist attacks, 655 accidents have occurred in America, the victims of which were 9983 passengers and crew members. Another 121 people died on the ground. In Russia and the USSR during the same period, there were 265 disasters, in which 6473 people died (19 died on the ground). "


                        That is, there is no definition of a place by the number of air crashes only in the USSR.
                        The article is one-sided and not about the USSR, but about the Russian Federation.
                      9. Ehanatone
                        Ehanatone 25 August 2019 02: 57
                        +2
                        "Hopeless trash disappeared as soon as they ran into the market economy"
                        Pretty rotten, unproven bazaar, all of the above fits in 2 words - mine seems so ...
              2. Cook
                Cook 24 August 2019 09: 09
                +4
                What department officials can you tell? The superjet was planned in such a way, with the aim of gaining experience and faster certification. Was there at that time in the country a full range of necessary radio-electronic equipment, certified and ready for full-scale production? For some reason, everything is strong in hindsight, but don’t remember what relations were with Western countries in the late 90s and early 20s? Before the famous Munich speech, we had a working relationship, and Sukhoi was given quite serious help. You may not be aware that airplanes are not bought by airlines, but are leased and their production is ordered and paid for by leasing companies? Who was able at that time to order and pay for the production of large batches of Tu-334? Arrange for normal after-sales service? Were there really experts in Russia at that time in Russia? There are not so many at the present time. This is, not only to rivet the plane, but also to organize everything in such a way that it can be profitably exploited. You know, the market rules here, and voluntaristic decisions immediately result in an increase in the cost of transportation, forced dumping in ticket prices, and the subsequent bankruptcy of airlines. Few of them have fallen apart lately? Look by the way, which of the airlines, I mean the serious carriers remaining on the market, operate only Russian equipment? Where is Vladavia, Dalavia, Muscovy now, what park is Red Wings now? One forceful pressure on the airlines, you can’t fix the matter, and you can’t force a leased airplane to not be leased.
                1. Minato2020
                  Minato2020 24 August 2019 18: 16
                  -1
                  Quote: Cook


                  What department officials can you tell? The superjet was planned in such a way, with the aim of gaining experience and faster certification.

                  And so - now there is experience and certification?
                  Certification is expensive, while international certification is even more expensive. At the same time, you need to know that foreign developers and manufacturers of aircraft are strong, and can go to the aviation authorities with a legislative initiative in order to crush competitors.
                  There is an article by the designer of the Be-200ES amphibious aircraft, Alexander Yavkin: "The weapon of the struggle for the market - certification."
                  "It is a pity, of course, for all the achieved and accumulated experience. I would like the Russian aviation industry to not be limited in the field of civil aviation only to the manufacture of fuselages for foreign engines, systems and equipment."
                  https://www.aviaport.ru/news/2008/11/28/162115.html

                  Was there at that time in the country a full range of necessary radio-electronic equipment, certified and ready for full-scale production?
                  For some reason, everything is strong in hindsight, but don’t remember what were the relations with Western countries in the late 90s and early 20s?

                  And what was the war with the countries of the West? Where did the achievements of the USSR go?

                  Before the famous Munich speech, we had a working relationship, and Sukhoi was given quite serious help.

                  This is the same Russian plane as the Ford car assembled on the territory of the Russian Federation. Sukhoi's consultants on the creation of the SSJ-100 were Boeing specialists.
                  Quote from a wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Superjet_100
                  In 2002, Boeing was selected to advise Sukhoi and its partners on program management, engineering, marketing, product development, certification, supplier management, and customer support. [11]
                  Transfer
                  In 2002, Boeing was selected to advise Sukhoi and its partners in the management of engineering, marketing, product development, certification, supplier management and customer support programs. [11]
                  Boeing belongs to the US military-industrial complex - by the way.
                  Thus, the Russian government sponsors the Boeing and the USA with the SSJ-100 project! And this is at a time when the United States imposed sanctions on the supply to Russia of any American equipment that may be related to military technology!

                  You may not be aware that airplanes are not bought by airlines, but are leased and their production is ordered and paid for by leasing companies?

                  Airlines only lease, and do not pay for the production of the aircraft industry. Airlines almost always try to lease (I omit the financial component - everything is very clear and simple), namely, the technical one - when leasing, all COSTS for maintaining aircraft in flight condition, i.e. Forms of periodic maintenance and repairs are on the LESSOR!
                  Unless you "pinch" the airline on the fact that it exceeds the contractual rates of flight and landing when paying, but all the same - then this is litigation, and this is downtime and then in general for the lessor is a big problem.
                  Therefore, it is much easier for airlines - they have a net profit, with the exception of airport "taxes" and payments to "RosNavigatsia", and of the costs of preliminary and pre-flight preparation.
                  Typically, airline users have no idea how or where the SSJ-100 is served. In particular, the "Russian" Superjet "amazes with its statistics. According to the Ministry of Transport, most of the time these aircraft are spent in repair shops. For example, at the end of 2018, of all SSJs, only 54% of the aircraft did not break down. That is, half of new aircraft are permanently repair!
                  http://argumenti.ru/society/2019/05/611945?utm_source=pulse_mail_ru&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fpulse.mail.ru
                  Here is another article on the Superjet: "Superjet passengers have become hostages of the aircraft design: an expert opinion"
                  https://www.mk.ru/incident/2019/05/06/passazhiry-superdzheta-stali-zalozhnikami-konstrukcii-samoleta-mnenie-eksperta.html

                  Who was able at that time to order and pay for the production of large batches of Tu-334? Arrange for normal after-sales service? Were there really experts in Russia at that time in Russia? There are not so many at the present time. This is, not only to rivet the plane, but also to organize everything in such a way that it can be profitably exploited.

                  Where did the Soviet specialists go? Gone in the 90s?

                  You know, the market rules here, and voluntaristic decisions immediately result in an increase in the cost of transportation, forced dumping in ticket prices, and the subsequent bankruptcy of airlines. Few of them have fallen apart lately?

                  It is not the market that drives, but fierce competition and lobbying.
                  The West will not allow long-range and medium-range Russian aircraft to enter western airfields under any guise, as they have never allowed before after 1991!
                  And the SSJ-100 is a tiny airplane for local airlines. The aim of this project was to replace the Yak-42, Tu-134, Tu-154 aircraft on short- and medium-haul routes of Russian air carriers. That is, the internal niche was not given to the aviation industry of the Russian Federation, but to Boeing. They gave and also paid tens of billions of dollars.
                  Well, that is, for the development of an allegedly "new" aircraft, the Russian government paid Boeing only for "development" - $ 1.5 billion! That is, this money did NOT go to the Tu-334, which Russia already had.
                  There was a TU-334, but the Russian government chose to invest the currency in a Boeing.
                  Throw out the TU-334 and start buying a Boeing!
                  And of course, that the Boeing did not suffer with the creation of a new aircraft, but repeated its old Boeing 737! Which is the same, and is made from American parts, but only slightly smaller than the Boeing 737. This is not counting the cost of American components, which make up most of the cost of the aircraft.

                  And what market - Boeing gobbled up the Brazilian independent aviation company EMBRAER.
                  https://tass.ru/ekonomika/5922817
                  Gobbled up very simply, they say, made a joint venture! Only in this joint venture Boeing owns 80%! And the Brazilians would not agree - the United States would make them "Venezuela"! This is the fate of all self-sufficiency in South America! Don't you watch airplane crashes? - There are a lot of detailed computer reproductions of American Boeings falling! Here is a very good plane crash channel:
                  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLPA0Dhi1VXQDGbkXwjDUzQ

                  That is, it is not the market that drives it, but lobbying for US national interests in the form of a Boeing corporation.
                  In 2009, Hilary Clinton traveled to the Kremlin to secure a contract from the new Russian airline Rosavia ROSAVIA for the purchase of BOING in the amount of $ 3,7 billion.
                  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2615877/Boeing-slammed-shareholder-meeting-using-Clinton-Foundation-donation-buy-Hillarys-commercial-advocacy-Russia.html
                  According to the Boeing company's forecast, in the next 20 years 1170 new aircraft will be delivered to airlines in Russia and the CIS totaling 140 billions of dollars. At such a rate of saturation of the fleet of carriers with foreign-made aircraft, there is simply no room left for the products of domestic aircraft factories.

                  Look by the way, which of the airlines, I mean the serious carriers remaining on the market, operate only Russian equipment? Where is Vladavia, Dalavia, Muscovy now, what park is Red Wings now? One forceful pressure on the airlines, you can’t fix the matter, and you can’t force a leased airplane to not be leased.


                  You can force it. Now in the Aeroflot fleet, 50 of the 186 SSJ-2019 aircraft released as of April 100. For this, the company received a discount of almost 50% of the catalog price of the aircraft (a discount to a large customer happens at all manufacturers, but rarely exceeds 25%). MES will also buy the SSJ-100.
                  As for which fleet Red Wings has now, this is a separate story with a sad end.

                  All this frenzy in supporting the SSJ-100 project cannot be explained in any way by the desire to raise the aviation industry. And why should he even rise? What all the money from the sales of the SSJ-100 will be directed to the reindustrialization of the industry? So it’s not enough even for ice-cream to the children of officials. How will the aviation industry rise? Our Russian aviation equipment will simply not put anything on it if there are only SSJ-100 or aircraft like them around.
            2. senima56
              senima56 24 August 2019 21: 27
              -2
              And with TU- it is impossible! tongue Because "kickback" means getting% for the purchase of this or that foreign equipment, which is 80% in SSZ. And the technical specifications (except for the engine) are 100% domestic! Mnm?
          2. mmaxx
            mmaxx 24 August 2019 11: 35
            +3
            Let me forgive you, but the Kazan factory is something with something ... It was easier to create an SSJ and set up production in Komsomolsk than to do the 334th in Kazan.
        4. Alexey Sommer
          Alexey Sommer 24 August 2019 10: 53
          +1
          Quote: Krasnoyarsk
          Of course, I am not an expert in aircraft construction and that is why I would be interested to know what is the dead end of the 334th? No one ever answered this question, and Manturov all the more.

          The whole article is about it. Reread it again carefully.
      2. Local from the Volga
        Local from the Volga 23 August 2019 20: 40
        -5
        What are you talking about? What are the French now? Or which Ukrainians? Perm, Samara, and so on
      3. IL-18
        IL-18 23 August 2019 21: 03
        +3
        Quote: machinistvl
        we can not

        Let airplanes not be automobiles in numbers, but also engines for them are products from the highest technological league. You can design, even release a couple of three. But the series, it is a matter of providing personnel, equipment, materials, and much more in sufficient quantities.
        But let's not despair, let's hope for the PD lineup, including the possibility of remotorizing existing and future SSJs and new projects for them, the lineup of truly new TVDs, and with them new descendants of the IL-18, An-12, An-24 (26), An-2, that is, those machines that will really help not only get off your knees, but (it’s time) to straighten your shoulders.
        And what? Suddenly it will work out.
        1. Krasnoyarsk
          Krasnoyarsk 23 August 2019 21: 36
          +9
          Quote: IL-18
          the possibility of remotorization of existing and future SSJs and new projects for them, so that a line of truly new TVDs appears, and with them new descendants of the Il-18, An-12, An-24 (26), An-2, i.e. those machines that will really help not only get up off your knees, but (it’s time) to straighten your shoulders.
          And what? Suddenly it will work out.

          About AN-2, in the new reincarnation, they have already, if I'm not mistaken, about 3 years old. So what? Woz and now there.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 26 August 2019 11: 37
            +2
            Quote: Krasnoyarsk
            About AN-2, in the new reincarnation, they have already, if I remember correctly, about 3 years.

            About a new aircraft to replace the An-2 Taldychat for forty years. Since the beginning of the 3s, poor An-80 has been tested, put into production, discontinued, etc. smile
      4. 3danimal
        3danimal 25 August 2019 13: 22
        -3
        Just an engine - we can. Competitive - economical, reliable, low noise, with good specific traction - no.
        They use RD-180 only in the first stage of Boeing / Lockheed in Atlas missiles. Space X fly entirely on their own.
  2. Nick
    Nick 23 August 2019 18: 19
    +2
    Yes. From all that has been read, it can be concluded that the testicle is good for Christ's Day.
    1. PilotS37
      PilotS37 23 August 2019 19: 00
      -1
      Quote: Nick
      Yes. From all that has been read, it can be concluded that the testicle is good for Christ's Day.

      ... and you can also remember the "Fatal eggs" - they are more appropriate here! :-)))
      1. Nick
        Nick 23 August 2019 19: 12
        +1
        Quote: PilotS37
        ... and you can also remember the "Fatal eggs" - they are more appropriate here! :-)))

        Wow, some Bulgakov’s work is known. Only they, the fatal eggs, are out of place here.
        1. PilotS37
          PilotS37 23 August 2019 19: 17
          -9
          Quote: Nick
          Wow, some Bulgakov’s work is known. Only they are out of place.

          To place - to place ...
          Now, if this "testicle" had been irradiated with some kind of "peach rays" in the 1990s, and it would have been born in a series. Then it would be no laughing matter: instead of SSJ, our aircraft industry would rivet blatant old stuff and create something modern without any prospects ...
          And SSJ is a good experiment, school!
          1. Nick
            Nick 23 August 2019 19: 25
            -4
            Quote: PilotS37
            Now, if this "testicle" was irradiated with some kind of "peach rays" in the 1990s, and it would be born in a series

            So I say - good testicle ... well, then you know.
          2. AAK
            AAK 23 August 2019 23: 55
            -2
            Tell about this "good experiment" to the families of the victims, as well as to the nightmarishly stressed pilots and controllers who started the aircraft to land in pre-emergency or emergency condition, as well as to the passengers of these flights
            1. Cook
              Cook 24 August 2019 01: 30
              +6
              And what do we have only superjets doing emergency landings? Or disasters only happened to him? About nightmare stress, too, should not be bent. If you are so emotional about this, then why go to work in aviation? I look here a large number of commentators, neither about modern airplanes, nor about what the airlines live in, and they don’t know what they really need. But it’s boldly advised to quickly change the electronic stuffing, put in new engines and voila, an airplane flew in, the design of which ended in the late 80s, ensuring regularity, safety and economy. Allowing airlines to earn money for their own maintenance, for the development of the fleet, for new buns for passengers, and for maintaining an acceptable price for tickets. Alas, the guys are not so simple. The airline fleet should be preferably young (to reduce the cost of maintaining airworthiness), technologically advanced (to ensure the required turnover, that is, regularity), there should also be after-sales support by the manufacturer, and have a huge reserve for further modernization (well, for example, modern digital systems with multiplex communication channels). Understand, leasing even a new aircraft from the factory, after a fairly short time, the replacement and modernization of its equipment begins under the various new requirements for flight operations. Only in the last 15 - 20 years, to continue normal operation, it was necessary to establish: an aircraft collision warning system, an aircraft collision warning system with the earth's surface, a wind shear warning system, ATC transponders with dependent surveillance, new flight control computers , satellite navigation systems, satellite communications systems, then improved versions of these systems. I still don’t take into account emergency equipment and various passenger entertainment systems. This process is endless. And in order to provide it, the aircraft technologically must have quite a large potential for modernization. Everything changes very quickly, and a modern multi-core processor, for example, you cannot plug into a mother with a socket for 4 stumps, alas, the architecture is already completely different.
              1. Minato2020
                Minato2020 24 August 2019 02: 31
                -1
                Quote: Cook

                And what do we have only superjets doing emergency landings? Or disasters only happened to him? ...


                Can you name the accidents with our civil aircraft caused by their design flaws? All of them, as a rule, are associated with the so-called "human factor". Now the quality of training of flight personnel has drastically decreased, for the training of which the "effective owners", who often have nothing to do with aviation, simply do not want to spend money. Remember the disaster with the Tu-154 near Donetsk. The plane could not change the route and get around the thunderstorm due to refueling "under the edge" with fuel, since the owners categorically forbade refueling with a large amount of kerosene in order to save money.

                As for the modernization of old aircraft, TopVar had an article about the modernization of Tu - "Tu-22M3 - it's too early to retire."
                https://topwar.ru/93701-tu-22m3-na-pensiyu-esche-rano.html
                The truth is that the "stupid" Chinese still use the more reliable and cheaper in operation H-6 (Tu-16).
                1. Cook
                  Cook 24 August 2019 09: 57
                  +4
                  Simple: the same case with the Pulkovo Tu-154 that you cited as an example. A plane that has flown for several decades in our civil aviation simply does not get out of a plane corkscrew. And it has limitations on the angle of attack, not because stall will occur, but because just the extreme engines get up, obscured by the wing. By the way, do not confuse the payment of fuel saving bonuses to crews, with direct prohibitions on refueling. The catastrophe in Domodedovo, Makhachkala carcass - due to a stupid fuel tank, and the system for pumping fuel into it. The same emergency landing in Tansy due to a failure that has long been known to everyone, but nevertheless the crews are constantly caught on it. The Tu-204 crash in Vnukovo, one of the reasons for which was the blocking of the release of interceptors and the inclusion of reverse, with one uncompressed amortization rack. You can recall injured on take-off passengers, on the same Tu 204, in case of failure of two of the three sensors of angle of attack. Of course, the reasons for these disasters were not only constructive and production shortcomings, but we can not deny the fact that they greatly contributed to the occurrence of crew errors.
                  Are you somehow connected with the training of crews, so that you could talk about it so clearly? Read FAP 246, for example, on the necessary qualifications of airline executives, and what responsibility they bear for violations in drug preparation. Save on simulators, it can turn out much more expensive.
                  It seems to me that it is not necessary to set the example of the Chinese operating an airplane from the 50s, on which the engine from the 60s is installed, especially the airplane and the engine are hopelessly outdated.
                  1. Minato2020
                    Minato2020 24 August 2019 18: 44
                    -3
                    Quote: Cook
                    Simple: the same case with the Pulkovo Tu-154 that you cited as an example. A plane that has flown for several decades in our civil aviation simply does not get out of a plane corkscrew. And it has limitations on the angle of attack, not because stall will occur, but because just the extreme engines get up, obscured by the wing.
                    ... You can recall injured on take-off passengers, on the same Tu 204, in case of failure of two of the three sensors of the angle of attack. Of course, the causes of these disasters were not only constructive and production shortcomings, but we can not deny that they contributed to a large extent to the occurrence of crew errors ...


                    Each incident should be analyzed to understand if the pilot made a mistake or the accident occurred due to a technical reason.
                    If this is a structural feature and is confirmed statistically, then it is necessary to make changes in the design documentation and in production to eliminate structural deficiencies.
                    Is it really necessary for civil aviation aircraft to get out of a flat corkscrew and not have a limit on the angle of attack / roll / pitch?
                    Or is it about the air force planes?
              2. mmaxx
                mmaxx 24 August 2019 11: 38
                0
                Here is the answer to obsolescence. People do not even understand what it is to stick in new electronics. About the engine in general there is no question.
            2. PilotS37
              PilotS37 24 August 2019 10: 16
              0
              But what, on the Tu-104, Yak-42, Boeing 737, Komet 4 and others. The people did not fight?
            3. nov_tech.vrn
              nov_tech.vrn 25 August 2019 10: 08
              -1
              Today, in both major accidents with superjets, the crew’s fault has been proved, the question is for the airline owners, or rather their greed and controlling the process of preparing and operating officials, but not only does the superjet get off the list.
  3. PilotS37
    PilotS37 23 August 2019 18: 20
    +3
    It is all the more surprising that even in the early 1990s, domestic aircraft designers came to what they seriously thought about and are struggling with today. Tu-334 was almost completely Russian development with minimal involvement of foreign components, with the exception of Ukrainian engines.

    And what, one wonders, could there still be an airplane, the development of which began as early as the USSR?
    1. IL-18
      IL-18 23 August 2019 21: 14
      -3
      Quote: PilotS37
      And what, one wonders, could there still be an airplane, the development of which began as early as the USSR?

      Look at the B-727 with the early -737 and the latest B-737. As for the Tu-334, its launch in the series was buried by Ukraine, like the An-70, by the way. Moreover, to (!) Any Maidan and other Bandera kooky, pure greed.
      1. mmaxx
        mmaxx 24 August 2019 11: 41
        0
        Anu-70 is located in the same place as Tu-334. Political machine. She died, so she died. Another would be to roll up asphalt from above. Otherwise, God forbid, the "friends of Russia" will come to power and remember him
    2. Minato2020
      Minato2020 24 August 2019 02: 47
      +1
      Quote: PilotS37
      It is all the more surprising that even in the early 1990s, domestic aircraft designers came to what they seriously thought about and are struggling with today. Tu-334 was almost completely Russian development with minimal involvement of foreign components, with the exception of Ukrainian engines.

      And what, one wonders, could there still be an airplane, the development of which began as early as the USSR?


      It probably makes sense to remember what we lost by acquiring SSJ.
      The Tu-334 airliner, created to replace the Tu-134 and Yak-42, passed flight tests and certification in 2003. He is 98% of domestic configuration. Moreover, the 334th was developed as an element of a unified line - together with the Tu-334-100, Tu-204-300, Tu-204, Tu-204SM and Tu-214, which could provide transportation of 70-210 passengers at a distance of three thousand to nine thousand kilometers. Accordingly, it would be much cheaper. Tupolev claimed that the cost of developing the Tu-334 amounted to $ 100 million, while the SSJ at this stage already gobbled up $ 3,5 billion from the budget.

      Tu-334SM - it was a deep modernization of the Tu-334. Updated avionics, which allowed to reduce the crew to two people (without flight engineer). New engines. As of August 2011, at the project stage. If all the resources had not been thrown to SSJ, then this modification with two pilots would have been put into production a long time ago.
      Tu-334 is 60% unified with Tu-204 (which has already been modified to Tu-204SM with two pilots). If the state created incentives for domestic airlines to buy new aircraft, rather than foreign equipment, then these two aircraft would already be produced in dozens per year. Then it would be possible to think about export. Everything rests in the absence of political will.
      The main problem is that SSJ is selected as a battering ram for other projects. From how the vacuum cleaner sucked off all possible investments in other projects. This means the final death of civil aviation design bureaus, the death of an entire school.
      https://topwar.ru/155641-podrezannye-krylja-sukhoi-superjet-100.html
      1. PilotS37
        PilotS37 24 August 2019 10: 25
        -1
        Quote: Minato2020
        This means the final death of civil aviation design bureaus, the death of an entire school.

        The "school" died long before the SSJ (of course, they still tell everyone how great they are, but in fact there is nothing left of the Tupolev Design Bureau for a long time). And SSJ has nothing to do with it.
        Domestic civil aircraft industry developed in rather specific conditions. They can be called "hothouse", as there was no competition with Western firms in principle. But they can also be called "musty", since the "citizen" in the Union has always been financed on a leftover basis. In modern conditions, this entire "school" is not viable in principle.
        And SSJ is an attempt to jump into an outgoing train ...
        1. Minato2020
          Minato2020 24 August 2019 19: 06
          -1
          Quote: PilotS37

          The "school" died long before the SSJ (of course, they still tell everyone how great they are, but in fact nothing remained of the Tupolev Design Bureau for a long time). And SSJ has nothing to do with it ...

          And who has anything to do - maybe a Boeing?

          Domestic civil aircraft industry developed in rather specific conditions. They can be called "hothouse", as there was no competition with Western firms in principle. But they can also be called "musty", since the "citizen" in the Union has always been financed on a leftover basis. In modern conditions, this entire "school" is not viable in principle.


          No one will argue that in the USSR everything was cloudless with aviation.
          But once upon a time under the USSR in Iran Tupolev ensured the regularity of flights twice as high as Boeings. It was not easy to get tickets for Aeroflot flights, because as soon as "Shuravi" was guaranteed to get to the destination airport exactly on schedule. At airports with difficult terrain and approach patterns, Soviet civil aviation planes furnished any Western rattlesnake. Fuel in Iran is cheap, and therefore no one considered consumption there as an important indicator. Regularity and serviceability were much more important. Being separated from the service base and having only two technicians, the high serviceability of the materiel of the Soviet aviation was ensured. No Boeing could provide this. Therefore, their logistics is much more perfect, in view of the fact that planes often break down in difficult climates.

          And SSJ is an attempt to jump into an outgoing train ...

          It probably makes sense to remember that the Tu-334, created to replace the Tu-134 and Yak-42, passed flight tests and certification in 2003. It was 98 percent of domestic equipment, meeting international standards. Moreover, the 334th was developed as an element of a unified line - together with the Tu-334-100, Tu-204-300, Tu-204, Tu-204SM and Tu-214, which could provide transportation of 70-210 passengers at a distance of three thousand to nine thousand kilometers. In 2007, Russian airlines received applications for 114 Tu-334 airliners. A year later, Tupolev OJSC signed protocols of intent with 33 Russian and foreign airlines on the purchase of more than 300 such aircraft.
          https://newsland.com/community/4765/content/tragediia-rossiiskoi-aviatsii-kotoruiu-zhdali/6744588
  4. afrikanez
    afrikanez 23 August 2019 18: 20
    +5
    It can be seen to whom it was very beneficial that no matter what when 334 was not "born" and this "someone" is in the highest echelons of power. The SSJ saw so much "dough" drank.
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 23 August 2019 18: 31
      +5
      Quote: afrikanez
      It can be seen to whom it was very beneficial that no matter what when 334 was not "born" and this "someone" is in the highest echelons of power. The SSJ saw so much "dough" drank.

      Most likely, "someone" has imposed a taboo. And the product was almost all domestic assembly. It's a pity, but it worked out as always.
      1. helmi8
        helmi8 23 August 2019 19: 21
        +3
        Quote: tihonmarine
        Most likely, "someone" has imposed a taboo.

        Just type in the search engine "How the Russian aviation was killed.", A lot of interesting and informative things. And with names and positions ...
        1. Minato2020
          Minato2020 24 August 2019 02: 53
          -3
          Quote: helmi8
          Quote: tihonmarine
          Most likely, "someone" has imposed a taboo.

          Just type in the search engine "How the Russian aviation was killed.", A lot of interesting and informative things. And with names and positions ...


          Articles on TopVar
          https://topwar.ru/31640-pochemu-hvost-pogosyana-vertit-ostalnoy-sobakoy.html#comment-id-1404478
          https://topwar.ru/43097-specaviaciya-pogosyana.html#comment-id-2204740
          Or else http://malchish.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=414&Itemid=35
  5. evgen1221
    evgen1221 23 August 2019 18: 23
    +5
    Hmm, they want the aviation industry to raise their own power, so do your favorite trick: to ban and not let go. On domestic airlines, only new and or less than 5 years old domestic planes, and for departure abroad, please, you can import if domestic ones are not allowed. Which is easier then.
    1. Minato2020
      Minato2020 24 August 2019 02: 56
      -2
      Quote: evgen1221
      Hmm, they want the aviation industry to raise their own power - so do your favorite trick - to ban and not let go. On domestic airlines, only new and or not older than 5 years old domestic planes, and for departure abroad - please, you can take a second-hand imported one if domestic ones are not allowed. What is easier then.


      This will be called "lobbying in favor of the domestic aircraft industry"
      In the meantime, domestic aircraft industry even imports nuts...
      https://topwar.ru/73621-vse-nizhe-i-nizhe.html#comment-id-4417834
  6. lucul
    lucul 23 August 2019 18: 24
    +8
    Spit outdated or not outdated - bring to mind and run in a series, in parallel to develop a new one.
    Not today, tomorrow, our "partners" will block our access to the components.
    And we will generally be left without civilian aircraft.
    What are graters about? Only the blind will not see these evidence.
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 23 August 2019 22: 26
      +1
      Quote: lucul
      Not today - tomorrow, our "partners" will block our access to the components

      In less than half a year, when they block it, everything goes to this.
      1. Minato2020
        Minato2020 24 August 2019 03: 04
        -1
        Quote: tihonmarine
        Quote: lucul
        Not today - tomorrow, our "partners" will block our access to the components

        In less than half a year, when they block it, everything goes to this.


        There is not a single indicator that would indicate that the aircraft from Boeing or Airbus are significantly better than ours. In aerodynamic characteristics, they also do not have superiority, and even on the contrary, they are worse in piloting. The costs of their maintenance will be higher than for Russian products.
        So what is the commercial point? They are twice as expensive to buy, their service is more expensive, so why do they have priority? Is it really not obvious that the problem is not in the best flight characteristics of western aircraft? The problem is ideology, the structure of the global market, where there is no place for our products, even if it is three times better. To make airplanes that are in no way inferior to Boeings in such conditions without the political will of the Russian aviation industry will fail.
        PS "
        US blocks shipments of Sukhoi Superjet 100 to Iran
        "
        https://news.mail.ru/economics/35906453/?frommail=1
        1. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 24 August 2019 09: 53
          0
          Quote: Minato2020
          There is not a single indicator that would indicate that the aircraft from Boeing or Airbus are significantly better than ours.

          We learned how to build airplanes back in the 30 years, and before the collapse we built no worse than Boeings and Douglas, but it happened better, especially military ones. And after the collapse, many component manufacturers were lost. No engines are coming from Ukraine because it has become an ally of NATO; aircraft plants in Ukraine and Tashkent have left. The same Boiggs and Douglas collect components all over the world, but they are a brand, their market, and they will not let us break through, because under the USSR we also had our own market, socialist countries and developing ones. Politics has nothing to do with it, it is only a tool for business, and with its help they move the business.
    2. Fike_oz
      Fike_oz 24 August 2019 00: 09
      +3
      Seriously? Launch a series of a 30-year-old airplane that won't pay for itself? With Ukrainian engines, 3 crew members, overweighted by 4 (!!!!!!!!!) tons. OK. I run to the factory to make him plasticine frames
      1. Minato2020
        Minato2020 24 August 2019 03: 06
        -2
        Long-haul Tu-204-300 showed better results than A-320. Providing direct flights from Vladivostok to Moscow and St. Petersburg. So what? Plants are forbidden to accept orders for it, to produce spare parts. There is only one reason - they do not allow work. Therefore, the Tupolev dvigatelists went to work in Irkut with the whole team. Tupolev specialists in chassis and aerodynamics were also there on the topic of MC-21.
        1. Cook
          Cook 24 August 2019 10: 28
          +2
          Who, what plants interferes with accepting orders, in market relations, when everyone is fighting for them? What a fierce nonsense. Who are the Tupolev dvigatelisty? Engines are made in Perm, where did they run? Specialists in chassis and aerodynamics, went where they see prospects in their work, and it is well paid. Do we have serfdom?
          1. Minato2020
            Minato2020 24 August 2019 19: 12
            -2
            Quote: Cook
            Who, what plants interferes with taking orders, in market relations, when everyone is fighting for them? What a fierce nonsense.


            Competitors interfere. For example - Boeing.

            Specialists in chassis and aerodynamics, went where they see prospects in their work, and it is well paid. Do we have serfdom?


            That is, if specialists, for example, in programming, go away to where they see prospects in their work, and earn good money. That is the current capitalist reality, not serfdom.
  7. Strashila
    Strashila 23 August 2019 18: 27
    +9
    "Despite the fact that the Tu-334 is a much more domestic aircraft," that's why it didn't go. If he went into the series, then there would already be a second, or even a third generation. Many in the government wanted to get world integration ... got a face on the table.
  8. PilotS37
    PilotS37 23 August 2019 18: 28
    +9
    An important feature of the Tu-334 and one of its chips aimed at reducing the cost of the entire program for the development and production of mass-produced machines was the high level of unification of the aircraft with a serial mid-range narrow-body airliner Tu-204. According to various estimates, the level of unification of the two aircraft reached 60 percent
    <...>
    The Tu-334 fuselage retained the same cross section as the medium-range Tu-204, but was distinguished by a reduced length.

    The author either does not understand what he is talking about, or is disingenuous, or does not know how to clearly state his thoughts!
    "Keeping the same section" does not mean to have the same design!
    The Tu-204 engines are on the wing. In flight, they remove part of the aerodynamic loads, so the power set of the fuselage can be made relatively easy.
    The Tu-334 is different: the engines on the tail of the fuselage, they do not unload the wing, and they load the power set of the fuselage with bending loads. That is, the Tu-334 glider about heavier than the Tu-204. And their fuselages are completely different in design!
    The fuselages are different, the wings are different, the engines are different. Plumage is also different!
    And where is the 60% unification? !!
    1. lucul
      lucul 23 August 2019 18: 39
      -1
      The Tu-204 engines are on the wing. In flight, they remove part of the aerodynamic loads, so the power set of the fuselage can be made relatively easy.

      Rear engines - it seems so safer, and it’s more difficult for birds to get there with this layout .....
      1. PilotS37
        PilotS37 23 August 2019 19: 08
        +5
        Quote: lucul
        Rear engines - it seems so safer, and it’s more difficult for birds to get there with this layout .....

        Nevertheless, today the layout of DNA is dominant, and DnX is the destiny of very light machines. This is the first.
        Second: you can add that the DX provides greater acoustic comfort in the cabin.
        But I said something else: (1) the author is trying to convince us that the T-334 is very unified with the Tu-204, and this is a dumb lie (the author himself most likely does not understand this: he wrote off from someone - and okay ...).
        (2) the plane turned out to be heavier than it could have been if it had been made according to the Tu-204 scheme.
        In principle, it was possible to rely on safety and comfort in the cabin, but then why lie about unification (the design bureaus knew perfectly well that the Tu-204 and Tu-334 had nothing in common except for the part of the BPEO).
        1. lucul
          lucul 23 August 2019 19: 17
          0
          the plane turned out to be heavier than it could have been if it had been made according to the Tu-204 scheme.

          Yes, everything rested on engines, ours thought that they would put foreign engines and that’s all - and they demanded to buy almost the entire plane. (SuperJet)
          Therefore, to create their own civil aviation no matter what. The main emphasis is on engine building and materials science.
          And you simply can’t create them without a developed machine tool industry, and whatever you like, you always rest on the foundation of the industry.)))
          1. PilotS37
            PilotS37 23 August 2019 22: 50
            +4
            Quote: lucul
            Yes, everything rested on engines, ours thought that they would put foreign engines and that’s all - and they demanded to buy almost the entire plane. (SuperJet)
            Therefore, to create their own civil aviation no matter what. The main emphasis is on engine building and materials science.
            And you simply can’t create them without a developed machine tool industry, and whatever you like, you always rest on the foundation of the industry.)))

            Vitaly, we are talking about different things!
            For some reason, the Tupolevites did not make an optimal glider. I admit that the Tu-204 fuselage more or less reliably "held" the Tu-334 loads and the guys decided to save money on serial equipment.
            But ... The fuselage turned out to be heavier than they could get with DNK (why did they need this DNX, I don’t understand !!!). A heavy fuselage is more expensive - that is, it would not work to get full-fledged economies of scale. But a heavy fuselage means more fuel consumption ... That is, they knowingly squandered the operational characteristics of the machine. They are! KB them. A.N. Tupolev. They themselves him ...
          2. Minato2020
            Minato2020 24 August 2019 03: 24
            0
            Quote: lucul
            Yes, everything rested on the engines, ours thought that they would put foreign engines and that’s all - and they demanded to buy almost the entire plane. (SuperJet)
            Therefore, to create their own civil aviation no matter what. The main emphasis is on engine building and materials science.
            And you simply can’t create them without a developed machine tool industry, and whatever you like, you always rest on the foundation of the industry.)))


            In the USSR there was cheap fuel, since its price was regulated by the state and the planes were built more likely with a view to greater security rather than marketability. Moreover, fuel prices were regulated, not subsidized. Under these conditions, aircraft perfectly served the needs of the USSR (by the way, they would have served further if the USSR didn’t fall apart, that is, if the task of reducing specific fuel consumption was not worth it).
            But then what happened happened. Now, with such miserable seriality, the completely lost Soviet system of managing the economy, and broken cooperative ties, can a profitable aircraft be born in principle in the Russian Federation?
            In order to build the aircraft industry, the USSR had to organize almost from scratch entire industries, such as mass engine manufacturing, the production of aluminum alloys and other special materials, aircraft construction itself, all this should be coordinated. Then, to build entire scientific schools that are already in their infancy in RI, engine theory (ICE and TR), gas dynamics, aerodynamics, there are subsections, for example, the basics of chassis design, hydraulics and, in general, a huge complex of related sciences. What is even a simple jet airplane in general, how all its systems work, basic and emergency, and how all this is coordinated, and this must not only be connected, it must first be done at enterprises that for the most part today are in private hands.

            how to make planes cheaper both in production and in operation and safer than in the West?
            To do this, you need not at least 700 aircraft per year, as Boeing produces, but at least 1000 to produce, since with an increase in the series the cost decreases. But that's not all. We must first develop our more economical engines. Anyone who represents a modern dual-circuit turbojet engine without going into specifics has already presented everything. Do we have specialists who will be able to solve a complex of these tasks (conduct theoretical calculations and R&D) and launch these engines in large-scale production? After all, they need to be released not at 1000, but at least 4000 a year. It is obvious that all this will have to be built from scratch and in a short time. This is all in the conditions of an OPEN MARKET, where without bothering and without spending hellish efforts all this can simply be bought, at least used. Or buy a ready-made screwdriver project, at least from a Boeing.

            Conclusion: in the next decades, there are no options to release your competitive aircraft in the Russian Federation.
            1. Alexander Ra
              Alexander Ra 24 August 2019 07: 03
              -1
              No, no, it's impossible, Reason said.
              Do not come true this way!
              Your useless misery and dreams
              Pride cut off, wheezing ...
              Throw it, - recklessly -
              Noticed her Experience
              ... Try ... - whispered the Dream ...
      2. Town Hall
        Town Hall 24 August 2019 00: 36
        -1
        Quote: lucul
        Rear engines - so much safer

        Who told you this absurdity?
        1. KERMET
          KERMET 24 August 2019 09: 16
          +2
          Engines on the rear of the fuselage - less noise in the passenger compartment and less destabilizing moment when the engine fails, landing is also safer with unreleased chassis. Less demand for quality and condition of the runway. Plus fewer problems when installing engines with a large diameter (for example, turbofan)
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Cook
        Cook 24 August 2019 01: 43
        +3
        Engines installed in the rear of the fuselage noticeably shift the alignment of the aircraft backward, are subject to shadowing from the wing at high angles of attack, can suck snow and ice from the upper surface of the wing, are more dangerous from the point of view of destruction and fire, have a longer fuel supply system to them.
        1. Town Hall
          Town Hall 24 August 2019 08: 47
          +1
          Quote: Cook
          Engines installed in the rear of the fuselage noticeably shift the alignment of the aircraft backward, are subject to shadowing from the wing at high angles of attack, can suck snow and ice from the upper surface of the wing, are more dangerous from the point of view of destruction and fire, have a longer fuel supply system to them.

          And the tendency to "flat corkscrew". Plus, they suck in everything that flies out from under the wheels on the runway
          1. KERMET
            KERMET 24 August 2019 09: 21
            0
            If suction occurs at such a height, what about engines under the wing?
            1. Town Hall
              Town Hall 24 August 2019 09: 31
              -1
              Escaping "dirt" from under the chassis is directed backwards and not to the sides
    2. KERMET
      KERMET 24 August 2019 08: 39
      0
      Maybe design and unification are not the same thing?
  9. PilotS37
    PilotS37 23 August 2019 18: 37
    +3
    Since the aircraft actually received the fuselage from the Tu-204, the layout of the seats was saved, three seats in a row from each side (3-3).

    Yes, he did not receive the fuselage, but only him diameter!
    1. KERMET
      KERMET 24 August 2019 09: 24
      0
      Well, the same diameter from 204 allowed to save the layout of the cabin. So will you be happy?
      1. PilotS37
        PilotS37 24 August 2019 10: 32
        0
        Quote: KERMET
        Well, the same diameter from 204 allowed to save the layout of the cabin. So will you be happy?

        But this is not "60% unification".
        And what is so valuable in this layout? - The wing is different (it is necessary to design it, then - to paint the assembly technology, to make slipways for it ...). The engines are different, the fuselage (as a design) is different ... The plumage is different.
        But the layout of the cabin was saved! Great value ...
        1. KERMET
          KERMET 24 August 2019 11: 30
          +2
          well, the author didn’t come up with 60% of unification, this figure walks on an Internet from article to article, I won’t say about the entire fuselage structure, somewhere that the unification with the 204th in the middle of the fuselage has at least the same diameter - the same stocks at the factory under it, the same solutions in the layout and equipment of the cabin, plus there seems to be an identical cockpit planned. the value as a whole may not be great, but with a large series it's all a plus
          1. mmaxx
            mmaxx 24 August 2019 12: 16
            0
            Maybe some fuselage compartments and their subassemblies could be assembled in a Tu-204 rig? Maybe because there was a bunch of parts interchangeable with him? But still, this is equal to weight gain. If the wing is different, then the plane is different. What is the fact that an aircraft is cheaper to produce if it is obviously expensive to operate? Some questions.
            True, the Superjet also missed a lot with mass.
            Not a supporter of the Superjet, but its main drawback is the inability to establish a service. Given the death of aircraft repair plants at airports - this is all bad. God forbid from such an MS-21 !!
          2. PilotS37
            PilotS37 24 August 2019 12: 17
            +2
            Quote: KERMET
            Well, 60% of unification was not invented by the author, this figure walks on an Internet

            On I-no, a lot of things walk! Do you need to repeat everything?
            If the author was a specialist, he would immediately understand that in this case, unification is minimal.
            Even if we assume that the fuselage was taken one-on-one with the Tu-204 (like, it is so strong that it can calmly transfer the engines to the tail on a smaller plane).
            But if this is so, then the Tu-334 fuselage is overtightened and therefore!
            So there is such a flight of design thought that the main thing is not to gape (or you can even roll your neck).
  10. svp67
    svp67 23 August 2019 18: 37
    +3
    The aircraft could be produced in Russia and from Russian components and assemblies. It is this circumstance that makes it possible today to fuel the hope of those who believe that the aircraft can still be claimed by the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Emergencies, or government agencies.
    Only the absence of engines completely bury this quite sensible idea. How we didn’t fight for "international cooperation", but for our power structures we must be able to produce an aircraft with minimal participation. And so, it is quite normal that the same aircraft could be produced in versions, with and without "cooperation".
  11. PilotS37
    PilotS37 23 August 2019 18: 45
    +4
    Moreover, the widespread use of components and assemblies of the Tu-204 had their drawbacks, the aircraft was overtaxed by 4 tons

    Well, dear author, told you this?
    General Designer of Design Bureau named after Tupolev?
    Overloading arose (see above) due to the fact that it was chosen - it is not clear for what reasons - the layout with engines on the tail, ineffective in terms of weight return.
    For me, it’s a complete mystery why, declaring unification with the Tu-204, the aircraft was de facto designed completely different ?! But the result is as follows: the wing became heavier, because - I repeat - the engines did not unload it in flight. The fuselage also became heavier: both because of the need to take large aerodynamic loads from the wing, and because of the appearance of large bending loads from the engines in the tail. And due to the complexity of the fuel supply system (it is one thing when the engines (on the wing, like on the Tu-204) are next to the tanks, and quite another when the fuel lines have to be pulled from the wing through the half-fuselage into its tail).
    1. KERMET
      KERMET 24 August 2019 09: 29
      +1
      Quote: PilotS37

      For me, it’s a complete mystery why, declaring unification with the Tu-204, the aircraft was de facto designed completely different ?!

      Maybe they just applied proven practices from 134 and 154?
      1. PilotS37
        PilotS37 24 August 2019 10: 38
        +1
        Quote: KERMET
        Maybe they just applied proven practices from 134 and 154?

        And I do not exclude this! - This is all of the Tupolev Design Bureau: it is easier for them to copy the old (and someone else's) than to do something new. It has always been like this - since the first "corrugations" ...
        But then it turns out that the Tupolevites decided to go into the XXI century with the XX design. - So why then be surprised that the plane "didn't go" ?!
        1. KERMET
          KERMET 24 August 2019 11: 22
          +1
          Quote: PilotS37
          This is what Tupolev Design Bureau is all about: it's easier for them to copy the old (and someone else's) than to do something new. It has always been this way - since the first "corrugations"

          This is used in almost any design bureau - this is a normal phenomenon (and not only in aircraft construction), it is stupid to create a new plane every time from scratch, throwing previous achievements into the trash. Using already proven solutions, as a developer, you first reduce the cost of the development itself, and secondly, reduce the risk of using new solutions that have not been tested by the operation
          1. mmaxx
            mmaxx 24 August 2019 12: 20
            +1
            So this savings then goes into operation sideways. Tupolev wanted to jump into the outgoing passage. But did not have time. Airlines consider every penny and if there is a free purchase of foreign aircraft, they will not take expensive to operate.
  12. JD1979
    JD1979 23 August 2019 18: 52
    +4
    “To put it as briefly as possible, we would not have received any competencies and international cooperation, which today limits us in certain issues, but for other factors and reasons,” the senior official emphasized.

    And what competencies and cooperation does Russia have today in the production of passenger liners, this balabol did not say? 80% of imported spare parts are a powerful breakthrough in the domestic aircraft industry. An even more powerful breakthrough is the refusal of the last foreign operator from the Superpuk. Well, they "don't want" to fly superbugs without timely delivery of the spare parts. And with the logistics of providing spare parts and service from Sukhoi (who is a manufacturer of excellent military equipment, but has absolutely no experience in civil aviation, unlike the Tupolev, Antonov, Ilyushin Design Bureau), he is a complete and absolute incompetent and a fiasco. For it is almost impossible to link this combined hodgepodge of spare parts manufacturers, the vast majority of which are outside the jurisdiction of Russia, and by and large put on this aircraft, into a working system. For example: the dump of only one engine manufacturer - Motor Sich from the system is still not fully compensated after 5 years. Having spent a lot of money on their "super-modern superpuperjet", Poghosyan and Company created an analogue plane which was launched by "Armelon" years ... 20-25 years ago ... This is a breakthrough. Bravo. As I understand it, the experience of creating another flying product, which pushed through another design bureau, which also did nothing of the kind (although there was and is a manufacturer who "ate a dog" on a similar one), but whose leader had a space emergency, did not teach anything, in the end it turned out. .. well, it still flew. When it comes to the fact that the proctologist cannot treat teeth, well, in principle, it is possible, but do you need it?
    1. Cook
      Cook 24 August 2019 11: 33
      +8
      Incidentally, Sukhoi was chosen as the designer of the new civilian aircraft, including because he did not have Soviet experience in creating aircraft in the absence of healthy competition. I would like to remind you that not only the price of kerosene was regulated in the Union, as one comrade writes here, but also the price of airline tickets, which was simply a subsidized industry. Relatively breakthrough - continuous: Embraers and Bombardier peak of excellence? People develop competencies in the creation of modern aircraft manufacturing using the same components as in SSJ. We also need to develop them, not hesitating to use international experience. Otherwise, we would never have known that in the world there is a single numbering system for ATA 100 (2000) aircraft systems, that instead of one RLE there are AFM, FCOM, QRH, FCTM, FPPM, FAM, MMEL, CDL. That when operating an airplane according to the manufacturer’s documents, you don’t need to invent anything, or read in the instructions between the lines. That the calculations of flight characteristics given in the manuals are true, and not tense as a result of various tricks. That it makes no sense to yank fuel and oil filters every 100 hours of flight. That the first visit to the form in the hangar may not be every 300 hours, but after 1000. And that visits to maintenance can be out of phase. That the engine can have a resource of several tens of thousands of hours of operation, and that it retains the required traction not up to + 18 g. C, a to + 34. That the manufacturer provides technical support 24/365, and not just push the plane out of the factory gate. And much more, about which a person who does not directly work in the airline, has no idea.
      1. PilotS37
        PilotS37 24 August 2019 12: 21
        +3
        Quote: Cook
        ... Otherwise, we would never have known that in the world there is a single numbering system for ATA 100 (2000) aircraft systems, that instead of one RLE there are AFM, FCOM, QRH, FCTM, FPPM, FAM, MMEL, CDL ....

        Finally, I hear the voice of a specialist!
      2. JD1979
        JD1979 24 August 2019 13: 22
        0
        Quote: Cook
        Incidentally, Sukhoi was chosen as the designer of the new civilian aircraft, including because he did not have Soviet experience in creating aircraft in the absence of healthy competition.

        Umm ... sht ??? Those. Antonov, Tupolev, Ilyushin and Yakovlev weren't competitors at all? Oh well. And how has the lack of experience constructed a lot? as much as 80% of imported components! And how many non-competitors were there?
        People develop competencies in the creation of modern aircraft manufacturing using the same components as in SSJ. We also need to develop them, not hesitating to use international experience.

        And what to do with people who already have many years of experience and competence? What to do with the enterprises that produced the planes (An, Tu, Il, Yak)? To the landfill? Once again I will ask WHERE are your AIRPLANES from international experience?
        That the calculations of flight characteristics given in the manuals are true, and not tense as a result of various tricks.

        And how did it fly in the USSR with strained characteristics ?! And set records? And most importantly, answer how did they manage to fall much less? No need for fantasies about tricks. In the USSR, there was one of the most stringent control systems. You better ask the Boeing how his 737 manual is a super-duper, and all that, but in reality all the cars are funny and it’s not known whether they will fly into the sky.
        That it makes no sense to yank fuel and oil filters every 100 hours of flight. That the first visit to the form in the hangar may not be every 300 hours, but after 1000.

        And what was the resource for kilo-hours immediately in Europe-America? Or was everything comparable too?
        That the manufacturer provides technical support 24/365, and not just push the plane out of the factory gate. And much more, about which a person who does not directly work in the airline, has no idea.

        In-in Super stuffed out the gate, and then the market is something big to find))) That WHERE parts then ?! Where 24/365))) Why are Tu-Il-Yak-An flying, and is Super-80% of imports worth? and in general no one needs? Maybe after all, many years of experience in the design of passenger airliners and their accompaniment plays a role? Do cavalry attack and PR somehow merge?
      3. Chilean Abalon
        Chilean Abalon 24 August 2019 18: 22
        0
        I would have the opportunity to put you two pluses, I definitely put it. Very rarely, unfortunately, on this site you can read the comment of a specialist.
      4. Minato2020
        Minato2020 24 August 2019 19: 20
        -3
        Quote: Cook
        We also need to develop them, not hesitating to use international experience. Otherwise, we would never have known that in the world there is a single numbering system for ATA 100 (2000) aircraft systems, that instead of one RLE there are AFM, FCOM, QRH, FCTM, FPPM, FAM, MMEL, CDL ...


        And what is the result of what they learned about international experience, and the experience of the USSR has been thrown away.
        Who certifies, he establishes his own rules.
        There is an article by the designer of the Be-200ES amphibious aircraft, Alexander Yavkin: "The weapon of the struggle for the market - certification."
        "It is a pity, of course, for all the achieved and accumulated experience. I would like the Russian aviation industry to not be limited in the field of civil aviation to the manufacture of fuselages for foreign engines, systems and equipment."
        https://www.aviaport.ru/news/2008/11/28/162115.html
  13. PilotS37
    PilotS37 23 August 2019 18: 56
    0
    ... Tu-334 <...> was a dead end in comparison with the program for creating the "Superjet"

    And without any "comparisons": dead end! With old songs in a new time ...
    And it is not known how he would have shown himself in the series ...
  14. Oleg133
    Oleg133 23 August 2019 18: 57
    +1
    Quote: afrikanez
    It can be seen to whom it was very beneficial that no matter what when 334 was not "born" and this "someone" is in the highest echelons of power. The SSJ saw so much "dough" drank.

    Kudrin Medvedev
    1. Minato2020
      Minato2020 24 August 2019 03: 44
      -1
      Quote: Oleg133
      Quote: afrikanez
      It can be seen to whom it was very beneficial that no matter what when 334 was not "born" and this "someone" is in the highest echelons of power. The SSJ saw so much "dough" drank.

      Kudrin, Medvedev


      Here is what The New York Times wrote in early 1992:
      "... The policy of the US administration is aimed at bringing the Russian aerospace and military industry to such a low level, at which it could never pose a threat to the United States in the future"

      "Unfortunately, recently there has been an extremely dangerous tendency of thoughtless lobbying of the interests of the domestic aircraft building complex on the part of government agencies. We ask you to support the issue of the inadmissibility of the serial launch of the TU-204 aircraft on Russian air routes and the continuation of the leasing of advanced models of Western aircraft."
      Letter from the Assistant to the President of the Russian Federation for Economics A. Livshits to the Government of the Russian Federation NA-1-1268L dated April 3, 1995.
      On August 11, 2009, the head of the Ministry of Industry and Trade, Viktor Khristenko, decided to remove the IL-96-300 from production "as unpromising."

      https://topwar.ru/103664-il-96-istoriya-gosudarstvennoy-izmeny-prodolzhenie.html
  15. Red_Baron
    Red_Baron 23 August 2019 20: 06
    +4
    Today, when negative news regarding the Superjet appears in the press almost every day

    Which of course is not unfair competition. Even at the construction stage, articles already appeared that everything was wrong and nothing would fly.
    1. Minato2020
      Minato2020 24 August 2019 03: 54
      -1
      Quote: Red_Baron
      Today, when negative news regarding the Superjet appears in the press almost every day

      Which of course is not unfair competition. Even at the construction stage, articles already appeared that everything was wrong and nothing would fly.


      A website was created to counter critical articles addressed to the SSJ-100.
      http://superjet.wikidot.com/start
      This site is designed to collect and store information on the Sukhoi Superjet-100 project, including to counter critical articles.
      True, every year the number of supporters of the SSJ-100 project becomes smaller.
      1. Cook
        Cook 24 August 2019 11: 37
        +5
        And where to look at the growing number of Tu334 supporters? I remember they even wanted to organize a fundraising for a national project, though it didn’t grow together.
        1. Red_Baron
          Red_Baron 24 August 2019 12: 48
          +1
          And how can there be a growing number of supporters of something? There are a fairly small number of professionals who understand the design features of aircraft. There is an even smaller amount, which is somehow involved in the side and at least the edge of the ear in the topic of drinking. And those and those are a maximum of hundreds of people. Anyone else come from? What is the level of their qualification, on the basis of what do they form their opinion? They just read some articles and accepted the arguments, but in another article there may be an opposite opinion with other arguments, and this and that can be completely true. So in any industry, even any good model has controversial things, situational ones, and alternative ones. And depending on the point of view, they can be interpreted as plus or minus. And the choice for production and procurement can be made in general for other reasons.
          It seems to me here, too, do not go too far.
          1. Cat man null
            Cat man null 24 August 2019 12: 53
            +1
            Quote: Red_Baron
            ... involved and at least edge an ear in topic drinking...

            Ahem ... no, I understood the thought ... but still funny laughing
      2. Red_Baron
        Red_Baron 24 August 2019 13: 17
        +1
        Thank you.
        This topic is dirty. Especially zealous are not very healthy individuals who are argued by the main concept - everything that we would not do - everything is bad and there is nothing to climb with your snout where they do not follow.
        1. Orkraider
          Orkraider 25 August 2019 22: 22
          +2
          Quote: Red_Baron
          Thank you.
          This topic is dirty. Especially zealous are not very healthy individuals who are argued by the main concept - everything that we would not do - everything is bad and there is nothing to climb with your snout where they do not follow.

          Well said. I agree with you! A couple of pilots with whom I spoke flying on a Superjet spoke very well about him and do not want relearn on the other side.
  16. Megamarcel
    Megamarcel 23 August 2019 20: 40
    +4
    Main question. If the Tu 334 is bad, why isn’t the Tu 214 produced, but instead they decided to rivet the MC21? They decided to fix the plane on the black wing, which for Western cars is only in the top versions flying at maximum distances, because only in this case it leads to savings, etc. Directly deja vu some. SSJ 100 killed Tupolev Design Bureau, MS 21 apparently did the rest. By the way. The first flight of the Boeing 737 made in 1966. The upgraded model is still flying. Why it is impossible to upgrade the Tu 334/214 to two crew members, etc. Unclear. Glider, engines, etc. resolved issue if they were engaged in it, and not kickbacks shoved into pockets. Destruction of the Tu 334/214 program is a real wrecking with a pocket in the currency of Manturov and his accomplices. And the main nano Chubais is still in charge of this direction. Who honestly said that the destruction of Soviet factories is a nail in the lid of the tomb of communism. However, here he lied. They need to destroy Russia, not mythical communism.
    1. Minato2020
      Minato2020 24 August 2019 04: 02
      0
      Quote: MegaMarcel
      Main question. If the Tu 334 is bad, why isn’t the Tu 214 produced, but instead they decided to rivet the MC21? ...


      Boeing does not need a new competitor. RF only allowed screwdriver assembly, as in the automotive industry.
      In addition, if the aviation industry dies, this means that all high-tech industries, fundamental and applied science, higher and secondary specialized education, the training of skilled workers, technicians, engineers, designers and pilots are doomed. Everything turns out to be unnecessary.
      The threat of destruction is also approaching the military aircraft industry. But the Air Force, relying on its own production complex, is the guarantor of the security of a sovereign state. Abroad, you can buy a civilian aircraft, but to acquire a strategic bomber will not succeed.
      https://topwar.ru/25996-otechestvennomu-aviapromu-prihodit-konec.html
    2. Cook
      Cook 24 August 2019 12: 13
      +7
      Boeing 737 created in 66, differs from the present, like heaven and earth. This is a completely different generation, already the fourth. Let me remind you: original, classic, new generation and max. All this is essentially different aircraft, especially in terms of equipment, although they seem to be the same in appearance.
      I happened to fly on a 747 as a flight engineer, I am currently working with Boeing aircraft in the field of engineering support for the airworthiness process. Everything that I know about the aircraft of this company inspires me respect. But despite this, I would prefer to work with Airbus, they are more detailed in relation to customers, and their documents and procedures are much simpler and more understandable. If we talk about my attitude to the jambs 787 and 737MAX, then all this of course, does not go into any gates. With the loss of competition in his own country, with Boeing, what JV Stalin called “dizziness from success” happened. A certain proportion of continuity in the design was sacrificed to newfangled features. I don’t even know how much they need to make efforts to achieve a return to their previous trust, given that instead of recognizing the obvious facts, they tried to mislead not only the operators of their equipment, but also their own aviation authorities.
      1. PilotS37
        PilotS37 24 August 2019 22: 19
        0
        Quote: Cook
        I happened to fly on a 747 as a flight engineer, I am currently working with Boeing aircraft in the field of engineering support for the airworthiness process.

        Another specialist!
        Thank you!
    3. mmaxx
      mmaxx 24 August 2019 12: 24
      0
      There is no point in releasing a plane without a coal wing now. This is a pebble in the garden of the Superjet. With a metal wing, all the seats in the theater are occupied.
      Although the Tu-214 is rumored to be a good airplane.
  17. boris
    boris 23 August 2019 20: 42
    +7
    Some of the statements in the article are simply stupid stereotypes. Firstly.
    "A crew of 3 is bad." It depends on which side you look at. If
    first place airline profit, then yes. Seen from
    in terms of crew working conditions, and as a result, general safety
    flights, then 3 people are better than 2. In addition, your plane from your
    components for any will come out much cheaper than a designer for
    the name "Superjet" and there will be no urgent need to save on
    flight engineer salary. On the engines. In the early 2000s, relations with
    Ukraine were quite tolerable and it was possible to purchase enough
    gatelov. By the way, today Ukraine supplies engines for civil
    technology. Another passage. "No digital blueprints were made for this plane."
    So what? In times not so distant, all aircraft did
    paper drawings. Moreover, in much larger quantities. From here
    a simple question arises: what is really necessary - these same
    digital drawings or real products (in this case airplanes)?
    If so necessary, it was possible to convert paper to digital
    during the production itself.
    1. Cook
      Cook 24 August 2019 01: 53
      +7
      Flight engineers were removed from the cockpit, primarily because of the automation of aircraft systems control processes, and secondly, because, according to the scientific approach to the influence of the human factor on the activities of civil aviation, more people in the pilot’s cockpit can more errors. Salary is the tenth thing, all the same, three pilots fly to a dalnyak.
    2. Minato2020
      Minato2020 24 August 2019 04: 16
      -1
      Quote: borys
      ... From this a simple question arises: what is really necessary - these same
      digital drawings or real products (in this case airplanes)?
      If this is so necessary, it was possible to convert paper to digital during the production itself.


      It is unlikely that the aviation industry in the Russian Federation will develop something more promising than the MS-21. The leadership’s orientation toward the return of the status of a world aviation power to the Russian Federation is not visible, at least in terms of civilian vehicles
      http://topwar.ru/74949-futuristicheskie-koncepty-samoletov-buduschego.html
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 23 August 2019 21: 24
    0
    Its direct competitor is An148 .... the same turbojet engines, the same interior, almost the same avionics. And where is he?
    SSJ is a new aircraft for modern requirements.
  20. iouris
    iouris 23 August 2019 22: 46
    +2
    Calm down already. A country with such a size and standard of living of the population cannot produce passenger airplanes at break even. There are no people willing to subsidize domestic transportation, and no one will let us into the "world" market. The USSR market share was donated. The niche was occupied by Airbus. In addition, other players, in particular China, should be taken into account in the future.
    1. PilotS37
      PilotS37 24 August 2019 12: 34
      +1
      Quote: iouris
      The market share of the USSR was donated.

      The market share of the USSR is the "Soviet camp", as soon as the camp ran away - the market was gone.
      In civil aviation, quality is extremely important: design, production, service ... In Soviet design bureaus and factories in due volume this was not, especially the latter.
      That is why we have lost this market. And now - yes! It is very difficult to return to it (and one more question - is it necessary to do this now: there is almost no real competition here, companies go bankrupt one after the other and go "under the wing" of one of the two monsters: Bombardier recently ...).
      1. iouris
        iouris 25 August 2019 13: 52
        0
        The "camp" did not "run away", but was disbanded by Moscow for those "cookies" that, in the end, were not issued. Moscow itself betrayed ALL of its allies, trampled on its state interests, industry and embarked on the path of degradation and self-destruction. It just turned out at a certain stage that control over Gazprom could not be retained without an army, nuclear weapons and other attributes of sovereignty. Passenger planes are a settled issue for our elite: they do not want to fly to "Europe" in "domestic" aircraft. It's the same story with road transport.
    2. Megamarcel
      Megamarcel 24 August 2019 14: 16
      0
      Well, if you talk like that, then we don't need an army either, because in the Kremlin, henchmen of Western capital, and according to Bzezhinsky, "Russia can have as many nuclear suitcases as you want, but since $ 500 billion of the Russian elite is in our banks, you figure it out: is it your elite or already ours? " Aircraft are needed as air and not only for us. The countries of the former USSR, I think, would also buy, but for this it is necessary to work, and not cut budgets.
      1. PilotS37
        PilotS37 24 August 2019 22: 23
        0
        Quote: MegaMarcel
        Well, if you talk like that, then we don’t need an army, because in the Kremlin, the proteges of Western capital

        That's all you have "Western capital" to blame!
        To win, you must be strong! And all this squeal that we were deceived and robbed ...
        Does Sukhoi Design Bureau often complain about "unfair competition"?
        1. iouris
          iouris 25 August 2019 13: 59
          0
          Products are of high quality only if they are sold and manufactured MASSOVO. If mass production is established, then the issue of marketing is resolved, i.e. The manufacturer is competitive. If only single copies are produced, then there is no point in assessing its quality. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation have only what can be produced in the Russian Federation, and how much it costs and the problems of competition is the second question.
  21. E.S.
    E.S. 23 August 2019 23: 02
    -1
    After reading the article, it creates a false feeling that the carcass would not be watered and would not spread rot, just like Surzhik
  22. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 24 August 2019 07: 55
    0
    In order for regional transportation to be profitable as a business, there must be a certain standard of living for people in the regions ... In the meantime, this is not. Flights Moscow-Capital of the region are profitable, but A-320-321 and B-737 fly there and they are more capacious and more economical than SSZh. On the other hand, we can now have the entire line of aircraft. SSZh-75/100/120 and MS21 150/200/220 seats. And this covers the entire line of competitors.
    1. Cook
      Cook 24 August 2019 12: 27
      +1
      Absolutely correctly suppose. And here more than ever, the right actions from the authorities of the Russian Federation are necessary, which would make the choice of this line of aircraft by airlines more attractive than the choice of Western-made aircraft. Moreover, this should be done with reasonable measures, not completely killing the competition with all sorts of prohibitions, but by exemption from taxes during the development period, lowering credit rates, improving legislation, preferences for leasing companies, and real help in organizing technical maintenance and training centers.
    2. Megamarcel
      Megamarcel 24 August 2019 14: 09
      0
      Why isn't it? Probably because money is pumped out from the regions to Moscow? And because the factories that could produce components for TU334 / TU214 do not produce them, which means that people from the regions again bring them to Moscow. I remember the line "The people are tired of suffering. And before you take something, you must first give something."
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 24 August 2019 14: 22
        0
        Then you need to date flights between regions from Moscow
      2. Cat man null
        Cat man null 24 August 2019 14: 23
        0
        Quote: MegaMarcel
        And because the factories that could produce components for ТУ334 / ТУ214 do not produce them

        And you, I’m looking, it’s just a multi-station ... you’re not lucky with tanks today, so you switched to planes.

        And how not afraid of you? Here and aviation experts are present wink
  23. armata_armata
    armata_armata 24 August 2019 11: 10
    0
    The choice was essentially to make your own, or to assemble an imported designer, they chose the designer, then they got an airplane without spare parts that can only be sold in permitted countries
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 24 August 2019 14: 23
      0
      The next version will get rid of imports.
  24. KERMET
    KERMET 24 August 2019 11: 33
    +1
    Quote: PilotS37
    In modern conditions, this entire "school" is not viable in principle.

    Of course, when everything is headed not by safety, but by economic benefits, then the Soviet school of aircraft engineering is useless
  25. Klingon
    Klingon 24 August 2019 19: 28
    0
    that's why we live like that, was ready to launch in a series - about .... and !!! and for some reason they blinded a super-duper jet from Sukhoi, which did not produce passenger cars and vergret components, but the image did its job + pouring tugriks on the cut and it turned out that you don’t understand something, it flies as if somehow, but nobody need .. for there are better options
  26. Kaw
    Kaw 24 August 2019 19: 32
    +1
    After all, we had one more short-range aircraft, and much more successful than the Superjet and with fewer Western komplektuhih - An-148. It so happened that now we immediately lost both of them.
    IMHO It was not necessary to stop in Donetsk and Lugansk it was necessary to move on. Oh, how many problems this would solve at once. It would not have been necessary to build a bridge, the production of Ruslanov, An-140, An-148, space technology, and sanctions would not have stopped, and the sanctions would remain the same, and possibly even less, as they respect the strong.
  27. Begun725974
    Begun725974 24 August 2019 22: 12
    0
    Oh yes, Monsieur Manturov. We somehow began to forget our talented businessman and part-time minister. Successfully lobbying for the interests of representatives of various parties of entrepreneurs, that is, crime from aircraft to aircraft and apparently further. The communication schedule somehow manages to get into communication with the press, and this is almost a complete loss of voice. We won’t specify where he could have lost it. The rich Russian land with talents — only a plane like a superjet doesn’t want to fly .. damn .. and the imported parts .. damn ... Well, why get upset Russian land is rich not only in talents but also in money ... lucky comrade Manturov and not only him. It is interesting how he has with other projects ...
  28. trahterist
    trahterist 24 August 2019 22: 39
    0
    Quote: Out
    The dead end of the Tu 334 in unification with the larger Tu 204 in terms of fuselage diameter is too wide and short for such an aircraft

    Those. Boeing donut 737 Doesn’t it bother you?
    He also looks ugly thick looking, but hey, he flies.
  29. dmmyak40
    dmmyak40 24 August 2019 22: 56
    +3
    Quote: Minato2020
    In aerodynamic characteristics, they also do not have superiority, and even on the contrary, they are worse in piloting.

    Could you explain what was meant? Just a professional interest.
    1. Minato2020
      Minato2020 16 September 2019 14: 21
      0
      Quote: dmmyak40
      Quote: Minato2020
      ... There is not a single indicator that would indicate that the aircraft from Boeing or Airbus are significantly better than ours. In aerodynamic characteristics, they also do not have superiority, but even on the contrary, in piloting they are worse ...

      Could you explain what was meant? Just a professional interest.


      Perhaps in some ways the Boeing aircraft exceeded the planes of the USSR GA, but this is mainly the comfort and efficiency of the engines.
      Airplanes in the USSR GA were created taking into account possible use during military operations. Numerous tests were conducted at TsAGI in order to identify and determine additional piloting capabilities that were not used in peacetime.
      However, ultimately everything is decided by the experience and skill of the pilots.
      So the South Korean Boeing for some time successfully avoided interacting with air defense aircraft.
      According to one version, the Tu-104 plane crash in Pushkin that occurred on February 7, 1981, occurred due to crew inconsistency during separation from the ground.
      1. dmmyak40
        dmmyak40 17 September 2019 00: 54
        0
        Perhaps in some ways Boeing planes .... mostly comfort ...
        [i] [/ i] Again highly likely? Facts in the studio ...
        What superiority in American comfort are you talking about? The IL-62 was, as it were, not the best comfort cabin among classmates. On the IL-86, 9 seats in one row had 2 passes, and they were wider than on the L-1011 or DC-10.
        Numerous tests were conducted at TsAGI in order to identify and determine additional piloting capabilities that were not used in peacetime. Interesting, interesting, in more detail, please, about the pilot capabilities ...
        What was Il-86 supposed to do during the war? Or my Yak-40? Landing drop or wounded evacuate? There was such an option. What else? Turn or twist loops? Some barrels have done in due time ...
        According to one version, the Tu-104 plane crash in Pushkin that occurred on February 7, 1981, occurred due to crew inconsistency during separation from the ground.

        Do you want me to tell you how many AP cases happened because of crew members inconsistencies? And because of the inconsistency of the crew and the dispatcher? Or tell me how, near Makhachkala, the approach dispatcher brought the crew from the link outside the corridor behind the restrictive bearings and below a safe height to the mountains?
        The reason for most plane crashes is banal carelessness and slackness
        1. Minato2020
          Minato2020 17 September 2019 01: 35
          0
          Quote: dmmyak40
          Again highly likely? Facts in the studio ...
          What superiority in American comfort are you talking about?


          Mainly on passenger service by U.S. Airlines crew members
        2. Minato2020
          Minato2020 17 September 2019 01: 42
          0
          Quote: dmmyak40
          The IL-62 was, as it were, not the best comfort cabin among classmates. On the IL-86, 9 seats in one row had 2 passes, and they were wider than on the L-1011 or DC-10 ...

          For me personally, comfort is not significant - the main thing is to fly
          PS The interior of the IL-86 is wonderful. But it is even more astounding as it comes off the ground.

          Quote: dmmyak40
          Interesting, interesting, in more detail, please, about the pilot capabilities ...
          What was Il-86 supposed to do during the war? Or my Yak-40? Landing drop or wounded evacuate? There was such an option. What else? Turn or twist loops? Some barrels have done in due time ..


          Must do what is written in flight instructions for this case
          Landing drop, take the goods, the wounded and evacuate documents
          If it is written in turns to evade enemy aircraft, then act
          PS For example, the Yu-52 was created taking into account the possible use during combat operations and twisted the loop, and maybe Immelman made a coup))
          https://topwar.ru/162460-boevye-samolety-tetushka-ju-strannyj-no-poleznejshij.html

          Quote: dmmyak40
          Do you want me to tell you how many AP cases happened because of crew members inconsistencies? And because of the inconsistency of the crew and the dispatcher? Or tell me how, near Makhachkala, the approach dispatcher brought the crew from the link outside the corridor behind the restrictive bearings and below a safe height to the mountains?
          The reason for most plane crashes is banal carelessness and slackness.


          No need to tell - because of the slackness from AP to AK one step.
          PS And what happened to the aforementioned dispatcher in the future? A reprimand with an entry?
          1. dmmyak40
            dmmyak40 17 September 2019 09: 54
            0
            But it is even more astounding as it comes off the ground. As we said, "due to the curvature of the globe"? wassat It was such a thing ...
            Must do what is written in flight instructions for this case
            And in the Airplane Flight Manual all operational restrictions are clearly described: roll, pitch, speed. Only some people thought that it was not about them, and then after the downward roll they had "wing - to the right, wing - to the left".
            PS And what happened to the aforementioned dispatcher in the future? A reprimand with an entry? Almost the entire shift received the deadline: landing and lap, except for the DPP (in the previous post I made a mistake). And our board crashed in the mountains: Kanaburu or Kurtbashi, I don’t remember.
  30. Captain Nemo
    Captain Nemo 29 August 2019 00: 24
    0
    As for the Soviet school of aircraft engineering. Boeing in the 90s with pleasure massively hired specialists from the Soviet aviation design bureaus to work in its Moscow branch. I myself received an invitation from Boeing - I worked then in the Samara branch of Tupolev Design Bureau. In many new Boeings, particles of labor are specialists from the Soviet school. Tupolev Design Bureau then deliberately collapsed, destroyed by all available means as a dangerous competitor. And the authorities were on the side of strangers. Tupolevites, unlike Pogosyan, tried to fight honestly ... ssj - a feeding trough for strangers, grief for Russia.
    1. DAOs
      DAOs 30 August 2019 13: 55
      +2
      I understand your patriotic feelings. But in reality, things are a little different. Yes, Boeing has opened a design center in Russia. But she cannot directly invite specialists to her place. The teams for a specific project are recruited by Boeing's Russian partners and "leased" for the duration of the work. Prior to joining Boeing, candidates are trained at partner training centers. It is quite natural that it is much more profitable for Russian partners to take a specialist from the provinces, prepare him to the required level and give him to Boeing for a while. Under this scheme, the most demanded candidates are graduates of regional universities. They are able to learn quickly, their material needs are not yet so great, and the prospect of growth is a good motivator.
      By "purposefully destroyed." Yes, unfortunately it is not only Tupolev. But there are many reasons for what happened and blaming the "strangers" is probably not right. What I had to face personally - the level of competence at all levels has fallen dramatically, even the most simple questions get bogged down like in a bot. Or they just decide "for show". But at the same time, you can still find there a large number of "sick (in a good way) aviation people", sincerely sorry to return to its former greatness. But ... it turns out like in a fable about a swan, cancer and a pike. Of course, it's a shame to see this.
      According to "SSJ - a feeding trough for foreigners, grief for Russia". I didn't want to get involved in this useless polemic. :) But in the current situation (see paragraph above), the SSJ project was the only solution (with its pluses / minuses) capable of somehow pulling the domestic aviation industry out of the quagmire.
  31. Pavel57
    Pavel57 2 September 2019 10: 21
    +1
    Yes, there were many interesting projects. And the modernization of the Tu-134 for new engines, and the IL-96 with PW engines (that’s for sure Boeing cut it off through its lobby, and PW wrote off hundreds of millions of dollars).
    You can recall Aeroflot’s desire to buy a Tu-204 with RR. Now this is a story of unrealized opportunities.
    Based on the current moment, the Superjet and MC-21 are the best development path in this aviation segment for the Russian Federation. And the return to the Tu-334, given its Ukrainian heart, is inappropriate.
  32. karabas86
    karabas86 9 September 2019 23: 39
    +1
    The main value of the super duper jet in the cut dough. laughing