Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 124

Thread: Aeroflot Superjet 100 fire and evacuation at UUEE

  1. #41
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TeeVee View Post
    it was a light dig at evan for playing it up in the ethiopian thread.
    I pointed out in the Ethiopian 302 thread that it is a 21st-century airframe. The planned 130-seat version will be able to safely mount the game-changing PW1000G without needing any spooky artificial stability software.

  2. #42
    Senior Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I pointed out in the Ethiopian 302 thread that it is a 21st-century airframe. The planned 130-seat version will be able to safely mount the game-changing PW1000G without needing any spooky artificial stability software.
    Have you ever been up close to a Russian aircraft? I have to many, as long as the crew promised not to start it I was happy to take a look. The AN-124 and the IL-176 look like they have instruments from a WWII submarine in them. The smell is usually the same as the porta-pottys at the fairgrounds. Our company was not allowed to have crew travel on any Russian aircraft or airline.

  3. #43
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    Have you ever been up close to a Russian aircraft? I have to many, as long as the crew promised not to start it I was happy to take a look. The AN-124 and the IL-176 look like they have instruments from a WWII submarine in them. The smell is usually the same as the porta-pottys at the fairgrounds. Our company was not allowed to have crew travel on any Russian aircraft or airline.
    No doubt, a lot of Russian aircraft look (and perhaps smell) much better on the outside. But the SJ-100 was a revolution in that respect. It was developed with guidance from western companies, including Boeing. It was intended to compete in western markets. There is no submarine wiring involved. The cockpit is a very modern affair. Some of the aerodynamic technology involved is downright impressive.

    Again, I'm not calling it ultra-modern, but to call it sub-par is a disservice to the people who designed it and all the hard work that went into it. It is more modern than Boeing's single-aisle offering. It is a 21st-century airframe. We want the Russians to modernize. We need to encourage the efforts they are making.

    Yes, it suffers from supply-chain problems, but that doesn't mean it's a sub-par aircraft. If the proposed NG variants come together with the PW1000G and they get the parts thing sorted out, they could be serious competitors.

    In other words, Boeing needs to brush off the arrogance, get its head out of its ass and come up with a 21st-century design of their own. Before the Russian's invade.

  4. #44
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    In other words, Boeing needs to brush off the arrogance, get its head out of its ass and come up with a 21st-century design of their own. Before the Russian's invade.
    I wouldn't worry about that too terribly much, Evan. They're not even building enough for their own market, and there are reasons for that, some good, some not so good.

  5. #45
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ATLcrew View Post
    I wouldn't worry about that too terribly much, Evan. They're not even building enough for their own market, and there are reasons for that, some good, some not so good.
    Ok, yes, it's a clean-sheet, entry level effort, it's buggy af and the Russians are sort of new to customer service, but they have state funding, they could still pull it together and get an NG together by the early 2020's, with the same PW1000G engine that is powering the A320NEO but at a fifth of the cost. That could make a serious dent in the Asian and South American markets, the ones that Boeing covets with their fly-by-piano-wire 737-Max. You could laugh at that suggestion, but some might call that arrogance...

  6. #46
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Ok, yes, it's a clean-sheet, entry level effort, it's buggy af and the Russians are sort of new to customer service, but they have state funding, they could still pull it together and get an NG together by the early 2020's, with the same PW1000G engine that is powering the A320NEO but at a fifth of the cost. That could make a serious dent in the Asian and South American markets, the ones that Boeing covets with their fly-by-piano-wire 737-Max. You could laugh at that suggestion, but some might call that arrogance...
    I'm afraid you missed my point, it's not that they CAN'T make a dent out there, it's that they have other priorities, rightly or wrongly.

  7. #47
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    Have you ever been up close to a Russian aircraft? I have to many, as long as the crew promised not to start it I was happy to take a look. The AN-124 and the IL-176 look like they have instruments from a WWII submarine in them. The smell is usually the same as the porta-pottys at the fairgrounds. Our company was not allowed to have crew travel on any Russian aircraft or airline.
    Cockpit

    https://www.airliners.net/photo/Sukh...RJ-95B/1796481

  8. #48
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ATLcrew View Post
    I'm afraid you missed my point, it's not that they CAN'T make a dent out there, it's that they have other priorities, rightly or wrongly.
    ...aaaaaaaaaand what might those be?

  9. #49
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xspeedy View Post
    Wiring

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ssj-wiring.jpg 
Views:	51 
Size:	182.1 KB 
ID:	24286

    Not ultra-modern but not Russian submarine either.

  10. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Do a bit of research. There's a lot of high-tech development that went into the SSJ, particularly the 9.9 aspect ratio wings. The FBW is state-of-the-art and very robust, (using LLI (Liebherr Lindenberg) FCC's and Thales avionics, some purpose built from scratch). It is certified as a Protected Aircraft. It is also modern is its reduced complexity.

    "Ultra-modern", maybe not, but definitely a modern, 21st century aircraft. Much more modern than the 737-Max. There may be some serious design issues that come to light as a result of the investigation, but otherwise, it's a pretty impressive aircraft for a first-time effort.

    OK, the aspect ratio of the wing. Russians are actually pretty good at aero research. But a modern airplane is not just the wing design.

    This is an airplane that entered service in 2011. Where are the cheap composites? No wingtip devices or raked wing - only in 2017 they came up with the saberlet concept.
    Also, from wikipedia - special mods and control law settings had to be adopted for the steep London City Airport approach. And in 2018, that super efficient wing was looked into again and they found they can improve it by 10%.

    The engines are really outdated. I haven't heard of a new PW1000G version being planned. That would be a big surprise to me. Even the MC-21 might have some trouble getting the PW1000G for political reasons.

    Sure, the SSJ has FBW. But even the TU-204 had that.

    From what I've read in articles and on forums, the planes are spending more time on the ground than flying and everyone is looking for a way out - except for Peruvian, which is showing interest in acquiring them.

  11. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    Have you ever been up close to a Russian aircraft? I have to many, as long as the crew promised not to start it I was happy to take a look. The AN-124 and the IL-176 look like they have instruments from a WWII submarine in them. The smell is usually the same as the porta-pottys at the fairgrounds. Our company was not allowed to have crew travel on any Russian aircraft or airline.
    Well that's not a very fair comparison. Sure, even the most modern Soviet airliners before the Cold War ended - the TU-154M and the IL-86 - had your favorite steam gauge cockpits and required at least 3 pilots, which made them look obsolete compared to the latest western planes in service - 757, 767, A300, etc. But if you look at later Russian planes, like the TU-204 and the IL-96, they have modern cockpits and FBW. And still they are behind, but that's besides the point.

  12. #52
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    but to call it sub-par is a disservice to the people who designed it and all the hard work that went into it.
    Since I used that phrase - I was talking about the dispatch reliability and the time the planes spend flying and not stuck on the ground, which are dismal.


    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    In other words, Boeing needs to brush off the arrogance, get its head out of its ass and come up with a 21st-century design of their own. Before the Russian's invade.
    I agree on Boeing, but the Russians won't invade for quite some time. They don't really have the technology. They need western components, and it doesn't seem like they can make CFRP components without foreign help. All that costs money, and might be subject to sanctions. I don't think they can build a plane as efficient and capable as the 737 MAX at the fraction of the price. Unless they sold the plane at a huge financial loss, hoping to get orders and ramp up production quickly.

  13. #53
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Ram View Post
    OK, the aspect ratio of the wing. Russians are actually pretty good at aero research. But a modern airplane is not just the wing design.

    This is an airplane that entered service in 2011. Where are the cheap composites? No wingtip devices or raked wing - only in 2017 they came up with the saberlet concept.
    Also, from wikipedia - special mods and control law settings had to be adopted for the steep London City Airport approach. And in 2018, that super efficient wing was looked into again and they found they can improve it by 10%.

    The engines are really outdated. I haven't heard of a new PW1000G version being planned. That would be a big surprise to me. Even the MS-21 might have some trouble getting the PW1000G for political reasons.
    They need western components, and it doesn't seem like they can make CFRP components without foreign help. All that costs money, and might be subject to sanctions. I don't think they can build a plane as efficient and capable as the 737 MAX at the fraction of the price.
    The NG of the SSJ is planned (really no idea what the status of the SSJ-130 is at this point) to use all-new wings derived from the MS-21 development and the PW1000G. If it comes together, it should be a serious contender. It is possible because the SSJ is a relatively modern airframe with which to build on. Unlike the 737.

    The MS-21 features CFRP wings and is powered by the PW1400G. It's already flying. Surprise! The Russians have been busy. Boeing has been napping and has fallen well-behind. Real tortoise and hare stuff.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	MS-21_cockpit.jpg 
Views:	24 
Size:	617.6 KB 
ID:	24287

    Not your papochka's Tupolev...

  14. #54
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,996

    Default

    Ok...Boeing is ancient, napping and sucks.

    The Russians are large, and in-charge and modern.

    But is there some possibility we are discussing a design flaw?

    Sure, the SuperJet doesn't have DCAS.

    BUT

    Do Boeings go into alternate law and bounce down runways when struck by lightning?

    I'm sure that engineering teams at both places tried really hard.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  15. #55
    Senior Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Ram View Post
    Well that's not a very fair comparison. Sure, even the most modern Soviet airliners before the Cold War ended - the TU-154M and the IL-86 - had your favorite steam gauge cockpits and required at least 3 pilots, which made them look obsolete compared to the latest western planes in service - 757, 767, A300, etc. But if you look at later Russian planes, like the TU-204 and the IL-96, they have modern cockpits and FBW. And still they are behind, but that's besides the point.
    Crew of 3! The AN-124 has a crew of 11!

  16. #56
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Ok...Boeing is ancient, napping and sucks.

    The Russians are large, and in-charge and modern.

    But is there some possibility we are discussing a design flaw?
    Yes! (I would almost say 'obviously')

    Do Boeings go into alternate law and bounce down runways when struck by lightning?
    The irony. First, there were the legions of posts demanding a 'give me the plane' switch (i.e. direct law). Now there is 'how can we expect to fly this thing in direct law?'.

    Direct law: stick commands are directly proportionate to control surface movements.

    As I said above, SSJ pilots have reported that the handling is very benign (even improved) in the SSJ version of direct law. So, assuming no other malfunctions, that alone should not inhibit control.

    I've also heard it said that if you are stable down to the flare, you aren't going to get bouncy and if you are unstable before the flare, you go around and do it again.

    So I think—no disrespect to your avgeek discussion on PIO vs porpoising technique—the best way to avoid getting bouncy is to keep it stabilized or go around.

    However, many questions remain unanswered on this one, including what exactly failed and what didn't, so who knows what the pilots were up against and if it was even possible to control a stable approach.

  17. #57
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    ***no disrespect to your avgeek discussion on PIO vs porpoising technique—the best way to avoid getting bouncy is to keep it stabilized or go around.***
    Indeed.

    BUT...

    Maybe the normal airplane isn't bouncy, but you fry HAL and it becomes nasty...

    ...and then you have a fried airplane that for some reason you can't slow down, and rules that it's generally a little bit bad to go around AFTER touchdown...

    ...and a fried airplane that you really WANT to get on the ground...

    It's a sad combination- and if you want to write procedures for it, fine...but I'm also thinking this is another crew where HAL abandons them AND throws them who knows how many red blinking and beeping lights.

    No disrespect intended in the youtube- the humor below is based on some truth of blinking-light-overload.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1WemnsB98o
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  18. #58
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    but you fry HAL and it becomes nasty...

    ...and then you have a fried airplane that for some reason you can't slow down...
    Listen to yourself.

    You fry HAL, you get FBW without HAL. You fry the FBW, then you don't bounce on the runway, you go straight into a potato field. Obviously, the FBW was still working (although maybe off the RAT or the batteries).
    I've heard it said that if you have basic pitch control and thrust control, you can slow down. Or you can go around.

  19. #59
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Listen to yourself.

    I've heard it said that if you have basic pitch control and thrust control you can slow down...
    Nice try. Thanks for playing...

    #1. The guys are said to have landed fast. I don't know why, but maybe there's these electrically controlled flap thingies that are essential for slowing down enough to land nicely- but maybe the flap control system got fried by the lightning bolt?

    #2. Using genius fundamental airmanship to not stall the shit out of an alternate-law, largely-healthy airliner at 36,000 feet versus managing a crippled airliner 3 feet off the ground when alternate law is possibly porpoiseeee...not really apples to apples.

    I am glad to know you would not porpoise the 100 Superjet- but I ask if you actually have enough hours- including flying it after a lightning strike- to make that claim.

    However, in my experience, I've had some lateral PIO's on my bicycle and Toyota Corolla and some pitch PIPorpoiseOs on my instructor's 172...

    ...those three things give me a little sympathy for the MD-11 guys and maybe these guys.

    In the meantime, I await the final report where flap operation, spoiler operation, and pitch stability while in a lightning-affected state will hopefully be detailed.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  20. #60
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    In the meantime, I await the final report where flap operation, spoiler operation, and pitch stability while in a lightning-affected state will hopefully be detailed.
    Flaps are deployed in the post-accident photos.

    Instead of parroting the apocryphal HAL myths of the interwebs, I would focus on how and why a common lightning strike penetrated and damaged the electrical system and avionics (perhaps it was uncommon lightning).
    Taking the FCC's out of the loop shouldn't result in an uncontrollable aircraft. Unless you don't know how to fly it that way...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •