mirosas wrote:

LCKip wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Do you know why this a/c is painted as MC-21 and all info on the internet the same but all photos here mention MS-21. I'm curious.

It was named МС-21 (in Russian language, without official translation). In Russian language "С" sounds like "S" in English. So.. unofficial translations was MS-21. But now it also has official latin name MC-21. It's why you can find both names.

Thanks for the quick reply, it's clear now.

mirosas wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I do wonder how efficient the PD-14 will be and if it is going to stack up against the PW1400G-JM.

I guess it has 13% less fuel consumption than CFM56, but 3% more than PW1400G or LEAP-X. PD-14 does not use gearbox like PW1000g, and it does not use extremely high temperatures like LEAP-X - the rusult is that it's 3% more fuel burn, but easier to produce and easier to maintance. With oil prices less than $100 per barrel it seems to be very competitive.

Excellent explanations. On MS/MC.

At today's oil prices, if the PD-14 matches maintenance, it will sell.

Lightsaber

Great news. I am very happy.
As to PD-14, it has just finished Phase II tests. Phase III will include domestic certification.
All serial MC-21 starting from the #4 will be equipped with PD-14, the Perm-based engine manufacturer stated.

mirosas wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I do wonder how efficient the PD-14 will be and if it is going to stack up against the PW1400G-JM.

I guess it has 13% less fuel consumption than CFM56, but 3% more than PW1400G or LEAP-X. PD-14 does not use gearbox like PW1000g, and it does not use extremely high temperatures like LEAP-X - the rusult is that it's 3% more fuel burn, but easier to produce and easier to maintance. With oil prices less than $100 per barrel it seems to be very competitive.

mirosas,

You forgot to mention that PD-14 has less diameter size 1.9 comparing to 2.1 of PW1400G, so it has less weight and less drag.

One new video - aerial footage. This is official from Irkut Youtube Channel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUMjwU26uTM

Bravo on first flight and that amazing looking wing.
I'm not a big fan of the nose, it looks like the BAC 1-11.

The biggest challenges for the MC-21 are not the aircraft's efficiency, the Russian engine or booking enough orders. They can get plenty of orders right and left if the price and delivery time is right.

It's producing enough to be a viable program and having good support for a large operational fleet.
The SSJ100 program while technologically not a bad aircraft, has produced only 100 units over 10 years.

pylon101 wrote:

Great news. I am very happy.
As to PD-14, it has just finished Phase II tests. Phase III will include domestic certification.
All serial MC-21 starting from the #4 will be equipped with PD-14, the Perm-based engine manufacturer stated.

The engine choice of pw or pd is up to the customer?

ap305 wrote:

The engine choice of pw or pd is up to the customer?

For customers outside Russian or US influence - Yes, sure. For others - I think yes too, but people in Russia would prefer to fly on airlines with PD engines, and leasing companies depends on US, I think, will prefer PW.

Btw, to be competitive with PD-14, Pratt&Wittney made 50% discount for PW1400G - just slightly less than 6 millions per engine (the similar engine for A320 cost 12 millions).

Solidus wrote:

You forgot to mention that PD-14 has less diameter size 1.9 comparing to 2.1 of PW1400G, so it has less weight and less drag.

PD-14 weight: 3780kg
PW1400G weight: 3800kg
not much difference. Why? becouse 2 things:
1. First of all PW use gearbox, and it's fan rotates slowly, therefore blades are turned at another angle. With this angle blades not required to be so strong, so.. they weights less. Gearbox weights too, but with gearbox it's ok with only 3 stages of LPT, instead of 6 stages LPT without, and shaft rotates faster in gearbox engine, than it required less strength - so.. shaft and LPT in geared engine weight sugnificantly less.
2. Second in PD-14 hollow fan blades made from titanium, but on PW1400g from composites.
The result in weight: PD-14 with 190cm fan weights only 0,52% less than PG1400g with 210cv fan, that makes airplane with PD-14 0,06% lighter. Yes, technically PD-14 engine weights less. but for simplification it's better to think that this 2 engines weights absolutely the same, than to calculate 20kg per engine difference.

Does not have drug measures, but try to have a look throw PD-14 fan. Can you see anything behind the fan? And try the same with PW1400g or PW1100g engine. it effects on drug too. I think either they have the same drug, even PW1400g bigger.

PW1400g also provide more maneuverability on high speeds and attitudes ( 6% more thrust on H=11km, speed=0.8M), on the other side МС-21 composite wing does not require so high thrust on high attitudes and speeds and more powerfull engine will loose some efficiency when work in not optimal conditions. Both PW1400g and PD-14 engines have the same static thrust at sea level, it's quite high, couse MC-21 have ICAO type C composite wing with high aspect ratio (the result it's area not too big).

sovietjet wrote:

New aircraft type designed to compete with the 737/A320 rolls out, and not much interest on a.net . An airline announces a new route, or picks up a few more gates - threads blows up. Logic not found  

When and IF the Airplane gets certified by the FAA and EASA? Then there will be MUCH to talk about ! Until then? Not so much..













1
ri9ght

mirosas wrote:

Solidus wrote:

You forgot to mention that PD-14 has less diameter size 1.9 comparing to 2.1 of PW1400G, so it has less weight and less drag.

PD-14 weight: 3780kg
PW1400G weight: 3800kg
not much difference. Why? becouse 2 things:
1. First of all PW use gearbox, and it's fan rotates slowly, therefore blades are turned at another angle. With this angle blades not required to be so strong, so.. they weights less. Gearbox weights too, but with gearbox it's ok with only 3 stages of LPT, instead of 6 stages LPT without, and shaft rotates faster in gearbox engine, than it required less strength - so.. shaft and LPT in geared engine weight sugnificantly less.
2. Second in PD-14 hollow fan blades made from titanium, but on PW1400g from composites.
The result in weight: PD-14 0,52% less weight, that makes airplane 0,06% lighter.

Does not have drug measures, but try to have a look throw PD-14 fan. Can you see anything behind the fan? And try the same with PW1400g or PW1100g engine. it effects on drug too. I think either they have the same drug, even PW1400g bigger.

All of the engine comparisons are ok but of little importance. There are few Russian Engines in Western service to compare the strength and reliability to GE, Rolls, and Pratt. And?? That's what REALLY Counts. Is there a solid reliability program? Is there Solid Engineering in the field to support the engine?? Is there a solid parts supply? Nobody is going to want to fly any engine back to Russia to solve any problems, So?? The field engineering has to be "on point" and "on Time".
That's what needs to be seen is fielding this airplane. The Big Airlines are going to want to know this and more when they have a look at this airplane. I wish them well..

strfyr51 wrote:

All of the engine comparisons are ok but of little importance. There are few Russian Engines in Western service to compare the strength and reliability to GE, Rolls, and Pratt. And?? That's what REALLY Counts. Is there a solid reliability program? Is there Solid Engineering in the field to support the engine?? Is there a solid parts supply? Nobody is going to want to fly any engine back to Russia to solve any problems, So?? The field engineering has to be "on point" and "on Time".
That's what needs to be seen is fielding this airplane. The Big Airlines are going to want to know this and more when they have a look at this airplane. I wish them well..

PD-14 looks like planned to be reliable and well serviced. And.. I think it's quite good engine in all aspects, otherwise Pratt would not offer PW1400G engines at less than 6 millions per engine (50% less than regular price for PW1100G). I think airlines in Russia will buy PD-14, airlines outside Russia will buy PW1400G. After some time of usage PD-14 in Aeroflot, it will be clear with reliability and support of PD-14 engines. But anyway it's not a problem for airplane, couse it can be equipped with Pratt. engines.

Btw, not sure, but looks like for SSJ there are 2 support programs - general support and extended support. Interjet bought extended support and looks like quite happy with it.

Dutchy wrote:

Good to see it in the air, seems a rather short flight and not going very high.

First flights always are. And slow too. Usually fly with the gear down.

Watching the landing, maybe just the angle of video but does it look to have a bit of a tailstrike potential?

mirosas wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

All of the engine comparisons are ok but of little importance. There are few Russian Engines in Western service to compare the strength and reliability to GE, Rolls, and Pratt. And?? That's what REALLY Counts. Is there a solid reliability program? Is there Solid Engineering in the field to support the engine?? Is there a solid parts supply? Nobody is going to want to fly any engine back to Russia to solve any problems, So?? The field engineering has to be "on point" and "on Time".
That's what needs to be seen is fielding this airplane. The Big Airlines are going to want to know this and more when they have a look at this airplane. I wish them well..

PD-14 looks like planned to be reliable and well serviced. I think airlines in Russia will buy PD-14, airlines outside Russia will buy PW1400g. After some time of usage PD-14 in Aeroflot, it will be clear with reliability and support of PD-14 engines. But anyway it's not a problem for airplane, couse it can be equipped with Pratt. engines.

Btw, not sure, but looks like for SSJ there are 2 support programs - general support and extended support. Interjet bought extended support and looks like quite happy with it.

Don't get ahead of yourself on the PD-14, things were looking good for the PW GTF then EIS hit and here come all the problems.

mirosas wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Btw, not sure, but looks like for SSJ there are 2 support programs - general support and extended support. Interjet bought extended support and looks like quite happy with it.

Can't shed any light onto Interjet, but I have insider info on Red Wings and how the SSJ performed there. Let's keep in mind that they got some of the first ones off the production line after Aeroflot returned their first 10 aircraft in exchange for later production models according to their contract with Sukhoi cause those were overweight and to meet range performance they had some items (extra toilet, overhead climate control, ect.) not installed.

Anyhow, their on-time performance and tech issues were abysmal.

However I also have some insider info on the first batch of A388 that Singapore got and lets say that their hands were pretty full with those birds as well. So lesson here is don't buy the first production models of a completely new airplane type if you care about your on-time performance at all and be carefull when these birds are listed "cheap" on the secondary market

Is there any sign of the PD-14M geared enging coming down the trail yet? The Russian engine makers have been pretty good with gearboxes in the past thanks to their high power turboprops.

mirosas wrote:

Solidus wrote:

You forgot to mention that PD-14 has less diameter size 1.9 comparing to 2.1 of PW1400G, so it has less weight and less drag.

PD-14 weight: 3780kg
P

Dear mirosas, according UEC website basic PD-14 has dry engine weight 2870 kg. Please find below reference

http://www.avid.ru/en/pd14/

From which sources did you get 3780kg, or it is not "dry"?

mirosas wrote:

ap305 wrote:

The engine choice of pw or pd is up to the customer?

For customers outside Russian or US influence - Yes, sure. For others - I think yes too, but people in Russia would prefer to fly on airlines with PD engines, and leasing companies depends on US, I think, will prefer PW.

Btw, to be competitive with PD-14, Pratt&Wittney made 50% discount for PW1400G - just slightly less than 6 millions per engine (the similar engine for A320 cost 12 millions).

Latest numbers I saw in public sources was that from 175 firm orders, 35 orders are PD-14 and 140 with PW1400G. These 35 engines are ordered by 2 national airlines definitely, because there is no currently any international customers confirmed. I think small amount of engines explained by low initial production ration, which will be increased in future.

P.S On 25-th of May number of firm orders was reported as 185, but there is no breakdown by engine types for these 10 additional aircraft.

strfyr51 wrote:

sovietjet wrote:

New aircraft type designed to compete with the 737/A320 rolls out, and not much interest on a.net . An airline announces a new route, or picks up a few more gates - threads blows up. Logic not found  

When and IF the Airplane gets certified by the FAA and EASA? Then there will be MUCH to talk about ! Until then? Not so much..













1
ri9ght

There was kickoff meeting with EASA on 18-21 of April. Expert group from EASA will evaluate aircraft construction on next meeting in June, then probably it will be known exact time-frame for aircraft. For engine it is scheduled for 2019.

Channex757 wrote:

Is there any sign of the PD-14M geared enging coming down the trail yet? The Russian engine makers have been pretty good with gearboxes in the past thanks to their high power turboprops.

Unfortunately, no. There is no sign of PD-14M. There was no occurrence in any public available sources about testing of this engine. Seems to be it is still on paper, rather than in material. I think the reason that MC-21-400, where this engine is planned to be installed is undergoing some sort of discussion of modifying specs MC-21-400 to match/be close to MoM segment, but it is only rumors.

I believe we should wait when PD-14 is certified and appears on the wings.
Then UEC-Perm will deal with derated PD-10 and PD-14M and possibly PD-18R.
What really matters: will our industry be able to develop a reliable and perspective engine? Hopefully it will.

I went actually here to note that I didn't expect to see this retractable tail bumper.

pylon101 wrote:

I went actually here to note that I didn't expect to see this retractable tail bumper.

Makes sense to me. The aircraft is likely to be working in regions where the weather isn't exactly forgiving, and tailstrikes can happen when gusts hit. Soviet aircraft building always went on the conservative side for reliability and a tailskid is just part of that philosophy.

Software might work on a 773ER to prevent overrotation but what about a sudden and savage gust on a Siberian runway?

This engine is a fascinating system. I hope Boeing makes note of it in considering 797 options vs sole sourcing to ge. The wing appears to be a thing of engineering beauty as well.

Oh...The wings look so thin and fragile. I think I will wait for a year until I fly on the 21st.

strfyr51 wrote:

sovietjet wrote:

New aircraft type designed to compete with the 737/A320 rolls out, and not much interest on a.net . An airline announces a new route, or picks up a few more gates - threads blows up. Logic not found  

When and IF the Airplane gets certified by the FAA and EASA? Then there will be MUCH to talk about ! Until then? Not so much..

US and EU certification for this aircraft gets quickly into politics. With a closed, and secretive government, run by the likes of Mr. Putin and commercial enterprise a group of friends and oligarchs, it could be difficult to maintain a top down safety structure that fosters truth over hierarchy and ascertain whether that is ongoing once established. I am surprised Pratt was able to obtain export licenses for their engines, from the technical, proprietary, and security standpoint, but I do recall they have been romancing the Russian aircraft sector for nearly two decades now. Perhaps the Canada unit is the conduit here, although I thought they only dealt in smaller turbine power.

I do agree, as Mr. Canuck observed earlier, the Russians are certainly a few marches ahead of China in aerospace, if not electronics technology. The West's former Cold War enemy, when not trying to steal or overreach (Concordski, etc) certainly produced some great aircraft, including highly respected fighters and the pilots to go with them.

Speaking of which, did I spy a side stick? It will be interesting to see the Russian take on that technology.

Solidus wrote:

mirosas wrote:

Solidus wrote:

Dear mirosas, according UEC website basic PD-14 has dry engine weight 2870 kg. Please find below reference
http://www.avid.ru/en/pd14/
From which sources did you get 3780kg, or it is not "dry"?

PD-14 Dry: 2870kg
PW1400G Dry: 2850kg

PD-14 full: 3780kg
PW1400G full: 3800kg

They weight absolutely the same.

Waterbomber wrote:

It's producing enough to be a viable program and having good support for a large operational fleet.
The SSJ100 program while technologically not a bad aircraft, has produced only 100 units over 10 years.

It's more like 130 units in 6 years.

The link below contains a lot of high-res photos of the first MC-21, including several nice close-up shots:

http://fotografersha.livejournal.com/900141.html

It looks like a plane like the others,but the nose/windows is..... not god looking.

It was named МС-21 (in Russian language, without official translation). In Russian language "С" sounds like "S" in English. So.. unofficial translations was MS-21. But now it also has official latin name MC-21. It's why you can find both names.

I'm surprised they stayed with the MC-21 name, which I always considered provisional, rather than giving it a "proper" designation. While the project name Yak-242 is probably not appropriate for marketing purposes, something a bit more original than MC-21 would've been nice.

In any case it is an excellent design, and at least on paper superior to NEO & MAX. But just ask BBD how easy it is to break into a duopoly...

The dash 300 (200+ pax one class) looks to be bang on the sweet spot and should do well.The 150 pax (one class) market seems to be collapsing and they only have one order.Will it get built?If a -400 was possible then that's they way they should go in a few years time IMHO.
But yes should be a fine a/c overall.

The dash 300 (200+ pax one class) looks to be bang on the sweet spot and should do well.The 150 pax (one class) market seems to be collapsing and they only have one order.Will it get built?If a -400 was possible then that's they way they should go in a few years time IMHO.

Agree. One should not be fooled by the generous 2-class seating configs showed by Irkut, but look at aircraft / cabin dimensions. In your average Western airline (30" Y pitch, single class or fake EU "business" class, etc), the aircraft would seat more than the marketing numbers.

The -300 is more or less like an A320.5 or a 738. The -200 is like an A319.9. This also implies that the -400 should be an easy stretch into or even above A321NEO capacity (but not range).

The MC-21 seems to have a full-size door aft of the wing instead of overwing exits. There is further densification capability if OAK were to offer an overwing exit option like Airbus will on the A321NEO.

Turning around a 240-seat A321NEO through a single fwd door will be.... fun. Here, the MC-21s wider aisle looks like a smart move, as aircraft cabins become ever denser.

AirInsight plotted a nice summary of the MC-21 order book.

The shrink is clearly less favored.


https://airinsight.com/2017/05/29/mc-21-prospects/

If you remove non-airline government agencies Rostec and Ilyushin Finance, this order book looks rather sad.
I think that it's a shame that they didn't consolidate this program under the Sukhoi umbrella, it could have opened more sales channels.

Waterbomber wrote:

If you remove non-airline government agencies Rostec and Ilyushin Finance, this order book looks rather sad.
I think that it's a shame that they didn't consolidate this program under the Sukhoi umbrella, it could have opened more sales channels.

Yes and no, it would also have been a big risk if the SSJ100 ran into any major troubles, which fortunately it hasn't so far. As long as they manage to keep their current SSJ customers happy I dont' see a reason for Interjet or Cityjet for example not looking into the MC-21 for an all Russian fleet in the future. I expect Iran for example to become a major customer for both types, but time will tell.

I am still awaiting the official empty weight numbers from this bird, as I recall it was being touted to be 10 to 15% less than the A320 which is significant. I also expect the -400 variant to be a real game changer, as someone else commented the official seat layouts from UAC regarding the seat pitch are maybe too conservative regarding today's reality and a 30" seat pitch in a -400 stretch would be entering MoM territory.

This HD video appears to be the best available.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRYsCCmHs8s

pylon101 wrote:

I went actually here to note that I didn't expect to see this retractable tail bumper.

I believe this particular bit is for flight testing purposes only. Back in the early days of Boeing, a plank of spruce served a similar function.

Thank you KarelXWB for the photos link.

Russia expect to sell over 1,000 MC-21 aircraft over a period of 20 years:

Russia's government is estimating demand Irkut MC-21s over the next 20 years will reach four figures, following the maiden flight of the type.

Trade and industry minister Denis Manturov says that, given the twinjet's economic performance, favourable financing, and the development of effective aftersales support and logistics, the airframer could supply over 1,000 MC-21s to 2037.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 21-437693/

And certification is expected in 2019:

Russian Minister of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov said Monday he expects the ministry to receive the certificate of airworthiness for the MC-21 passenger planes in 2019.

"We expect that in 2019 we will complete all tests, obtain a certificate of airworthiness and start the first commercial deliveries," Manturov told the Rossiya 24 broadcaster in an interview.

https://www.ruaviation.com/news/2017/5/29/8828/

http://fotografersha.livejournal.com/900141.html

Lots and lots of good pics here

Very nice cockpit!

KarelXWB wrote:

And certification is expected in 2019:

https://www.ruaviation.com/news/2017/5/29/8828/

While Boeing and Airbus and the other commercial aircraft manufacturers typically certify aircraft in a manner that employs concurrent FAA and EASA approval, and while there are agreements between the EASA and the FAA and the Russian government, I am unaware of any pending certifications within the FAA for the airframe, although the agency has certified the Pratt engines for the MC-21.

HighBypass wrote:

..the agency has certified the Pratt engines for the MC-21.

I guess it's because the PW1400G is a renamed PW1100G-JM.

Take a look at the cargo door. Is this smaller door supposed to be the escape hatch in case the crew have to abandon the aircraft ?

https://www.aex.ru/news/2015/12/16/147095/
Seems like if engines are available they could also be making MC21-600 and -700, and then there are also MC-21X that could have the range go up to about 9,000-10,000km (about 5000nm)...?

c933103 wrote:

https://www.aex.ru/news/2015/12/16/147095/
Seems like if engines are available they could also be making MC21-600 and -700, and then there are also MC-21X that could have the range go up to about 9,000-10,000km (about 5000nm)...?

Apart from that, the -400 seems to get a serious upgrade. The "old" 400 design, which interestingly enough disappeared from the wikipedia page, at 46.7m length had 87t MTOW and the PD-14M engines at 15.6t (34000lbf) thrust. Your linked article talks about 105t MOTW and 18t (39800lbf) thrust. That is exactly the spec of the GTF version PD-18R stated again on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviadvigatel_PD-14

Sorry for referencing wikipedia a lot. I don't have other sources or am able to read Russian.

I always thought that they should stretch the -400 more than 4m. This gets them into A321LR or even A322 territory.

One other thing: I found a probable Aeroflot MC-21 300 configuration of 16F 159Y = 175 or just 8Y shy of their A321 configuration. It is a big bird.

Why is it still brandling as MC-21 vs Yakovlev 242?

SR380 wrote:

Why is it still brandling as MC-21 vs Yakovlev 242?

I found an article from Flight Globel dated 26-10-2013. Some Russian authority said that the Irkut MC-21 will be ranamed Yakovlev Yak-242 once in production. I don't know how to get a link in a post here. I googled for Yakovlev 242 resulting in showing the article.

SR380 wrote:

Why is it still brandling as MC-21 vs Yakovlev 242?

Well, the earlier news was that it could be named back to Yak 242 when it enter serial production phase, but the aircraft haven't enter serial production phase yet. Also, it is just a could, a possibility.

While Boeing and Airbus and the other commercial aircraft manufacturers typically certify aircraft in a manner that employs concurrent FAA and EASA approval, and while there are agreements between the EASA and the FAA and the Russian government, I am unaware of any pending certifications within the FAA for the airframe, although the agency has certified the Pratt engines for the MC-21.

I expect a similar approach as for the SSJ. That is, achieve Russian IAC AR certification first in 2019, then EASA certification maybe a year later or so (no hurry as no international customers yet). No application for FAA certification, although that can always be done later on should a US airline miraculously want to order the MC-21.