cityjet to order superjet

737max

according to a source on thepropertypin

rameire

15 ordered
source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Superjet_100

https://twitter.com/SJet_/statuses/641743929923211264

pepe the prawn

Nice looking aircraft, looks a bit like a mini a350, very airbussy style cockpit also

Pat Dunne

Nice mock-up illustration

This appears to confirm what was discussed earlier, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=97272796#post97272796

smurfjed

The report references Wiki.... That reference #95 leads to a Russia article which when translated by google says nothing about Cityjet, the article is also dated in August so it's surprising that nothing has leaked from. Dublin yet :)

Xpro

smurfjed wrote: »

The report references Wiki.... That reference #95 leads to a Russia article which when translated by google says nothing about Cityjet, the article is also dated in August so it's surprising that nothing has leaked from. Dublin yet :)

:)https://www.cityjet.com/news/cityjet-to-take-delivery-of-15-superjet-ssj100.shtml

Noxegon

I won't be sorry to see the back of the Avro RJs...

N64

Have these aircraft got certification to land at LCY yet? Cityjet want them to operate the routes out of there

man98

N64 wrote: »

Have these aircraft got certification to land at LCY yet? Cityjet want them to operate the routes out of there

It'll have certs before 2017 apparently.

Xpro

Check out below the spec and info in the pdf..

Sukhoi JET

martinsvi

cityjet are really making a gamble here, there was a blog by an Aeroflot flight attendant who was worried for his safety flying on the type and he took pictures of defects that they were flying with.. and there were lots of them. Obviously the blog was taken down and the flight attendant was fired I believe..

I just hope Sukhoi wont follow Tupolev route when they were keen in making and delivering T204 but not so keen in fixing issues or even providing maintenance which eventually caused Red Wings crash and loss of licence in 2013

pepe the prawn

Noxegon wrote: »

I won't be sorry to see the back of the Avro RJs...

why is that? apparently they are very thirsty on fuel anyway...

Xpro

martinsvi wrote: »

cityjet are really making a gamble here, there was a blog by an Aeroflot flight attendant who was worried for his safety flying on the type and he took pictures of defects that they were flying with.. and there were lots of them. Obviously the blog was taken down and the flight attendant was fired I believe..

I just hope Sukhoi wont follow Tupolev route when they were keen in making and delivering T204 but not so keen in fixing issues or even providing maintenance which eventually caused Red Wings crash and loss of licence in 2013

I wouldn't worry about that too much, different companies and beside Sukhoi are great at innovations and building aeroplanes.

Just look at their fighter jet fleet, :cool:

martinsvi

pepe the prawn wrote: »

why is that? apparently they are very thirsty on fuel anyway...

dunno about Noxegon's reasons but I found them VERY cramped, especially at the back..

martinsvi

Xpro wrote: »

I wouldn't worry about that too much, different companies and beside Sukhoi are great at innovations and building aeroplanes.

Just look at their fighter jet fleet, :cool:

meh... of course it's entirely subjective and I'm nowhere near an expert in fighter jets but as far as I can gather they are always some 10-20 years behind in innovation and their safety record doesn't impress me.. The only Sukhoi that I would trust my bottom with is Su-26/29/31 series, but then again, should something go wrong, they have aerodynamic properties of a brick! I challenge you to find gliding ratios of any of the Sukhoi aircraft, I couldn't, but I recall one talented Lithuanian pilot who got pulled out of sea quoting 4:1 for Su-26...

christy c

martinsvi wrote: »

meh... of course it's entirely subjective and I'm nowhere near an expert in fighter jets but as far as I can gather they are always some 10-20 years behind in innovation and their safety record doesn't impress me.. The only Sukhoi that I would trust my bottom with is Su-26/29/31 series, but then again, should something go wrong, they have aerodynamic properties of a brick! I challenge you to find gliding ratios of any of the Sukhoi aircraft, I couldn't, but I recall one talented Lithuanian pilot who got pulled out of sea quoting 4:1 for Su-26...

If there aerodynamics are that bad, surely the fuel consumption would be terrible?

martinsvi

christy c wrote: »

If there aerodynamics are that bad, surely the fuel consumption would be terrible?

not necessarily, it depends where the loss of lift is coming from - if it's from drag, like in the case of the big radial Su-26 engine, then yes, it would definitely be a gas guzzler, however, to reduce drag most jets have wings with small aspect ratio, that means to get the lift they have to move faster.. if the aspect ratio is too small, in the event of engine failure plane would quite literally have to point nose down and dive in order to have any chance to have enough speed for a decent flare when reaching ground

I haven't found the specs for Sukhoi aircraft so I wouldn't like to speculate about how they do things there, however western aircraft manufacturers have nothing to hide and everyone can confirm for themselves that what Boeing, Airbus and the likes are doing is trying to find a good balance between drag and lift making all of their aircraft pretty good gliders with reasonable drag..

L1011

martinsvi wrote: »

they are always some 10-20 years behind in innovation and their safety record doesn't impress me

10 years behind a 2000 development start is still 27 years later than when the HS146 project started :pac:

Xpro

martinsvi:

You are comparing aerobatic Sukhoi's with jets, makes no sense at all. All aerobatic planes have fully symetrical wings and their lift/glide ratio suck anyways.


Sukhoi SSJ100 was certified for its short field performance, hence Cityjet choosing it for that particular reason due to their operations.

Short field obviously means they wont drop like bricks at slower speeds.

Check the article below:

"Our jet has a very high wing aspect ratio – 9.9. Only Boeing 787 has higher wing aspect ratio. Such wing improves aerodynamics not only in cruise mode, but also during takeoff and landing, because the increase of wing aspect ratio improves lift-to-drag ratio and lift performance."

http://www.ruaviation.com/docs/2/2014/4/14/80/print/

martinsvi

Xpro wrote: »

martinsvi:

You are comparing aerobatic Sukhoi's with jets, makes no sense at all. All aerobatic planes have fully symetrical wings and their lift/glide ratio suck anyways.

I did no such thing! You're the one who brought up fighter jets thus discussion kind of continued about Sukhoi's aircraft in general! And having a bit of knowledge with aerobatic types Sukhoi's are not as good as their western competitors, but they are cheaper thus making them a favorable option for many

As I CLEARLY said, I have no information regarding SSJ 100 aspect or glide ratios to make any informed comments about it's aerodynamics..

as for the link - I calculated aspect ratio my self from the available data about wing span and area and I got 9.2? I would prefer that number coming from a specs sheet rather than some bloke in an interview trying to sell his aircraft

anyway getting back to the topic - I wish them well and all, I just thought that we - as in "the West" are kind of still pretty upset about Russians killing Ukrainians and invading their land, yet not a few months later from the last sanctions, here we are - buying their aircraft and bombing Syria together like best buddies..

eatmyshorts

martinsvi wrote: »

cityjet are really making a gamble here, there was a blog by an Aeroflot flight attendant who was worried for his safety flying on the type and he took pictures of defects that they were flying with.. and there were lots of them. Obviously the blog was taken down and the flight attendant was fired I believe..

I just hope Sukhoi wont follow Tupolev route when they were keen in making and delivering T204 but not so keen in fixing issues or even providing maintenance which eventually caused Red Wings crash and loss of licence in 2013

In the vast majority of crashes of Russian built aircraft, there was nothing wrong with the aircraft. Mostly just poor piloting.

martinsvi

eatmyshorts wrote: »

In the vast majority of crashes of Russian built aircraft, there was nothing wrong with the aircraft. Mostly just poor piloting.

True, some of the incidents with poor training and fake documents, including licences and type ratings have been shocking, but the aircraft are not without blame either - some turboprops had notorious feathering issues - engines (was it Kuznetsov powerplant?) didn't feather properly upon a failure causing aircraft to fall like a rock (good few an24s lost this way), gear and brake problems (Tupolevs) and I've even been on an IL76 that has a bent fuselage - there were few IL76s that came like that out of the factory in mid nineties - there was practically no quality control at certain point..

Of course Russia is a different place this day and age and I can certainly understand the expectation for SSj100 to be a different kind of aircraft and open a new page in Russia's aeronautical history, but old habits die hard and I don't think I'm alone who's having goose-bumps when thinking about their machinery

smurfjed

SSj100 to be a different kind of aircraft and open a new page in Russia's aeronautical history, but old habits die hard and I don't think I'm alone who's having goose-bumps when thinking about their machinery

I assume that if they are going to operate under an EASA registration then they will have to satisfy the same requirements as an aircraft build in Toulouse.

murphaph

Nice looking plane for sure. I can't imagine the build quality of a Sukhoi is going to be lower than an Brazilian built Embraer or Italian built ATR, and folks are perfectly happy flying in them. Any Russians I've ever worked with (albeit in software development) have always been very precise people.

martinsvi

smurfjed wrote: »

I assume that if they are going to operate under an EASA registration then they will have to satisfy the same requirements as an aircraft build in Toulouse.

that's correct, EASA type certificate was granted in 2012, but not without problems.. electronics and engines caused a bit of concern as I recall - engines were not delivering enough power among other issues? Wikipedia article is pretty vague on this issue, but as I recall it engines were not built according to specs, maybe someone can correct me.

Anyway, these issues happen with every new type I'm sure, but nevertheless EASA Type certification doesn't guarantee a safety culture in the organization.. We'll just have to wait and see

Xpro

martinsvi wrote: »

that's correct, EASA type certificate was granted in 2012, but not without problems.. electronics and engines caused a bit of concern as I recall - engines were not delivering enough power among other issues? Wikipedia article is pretty vague on this issue, but as I recall it engines were not built according to specs, maybe someone can correct me.

Anyway, these issues happen with every new type I'm sure, but nevertheless EASA Type certification doesn't guarantee a safety culture in the organization.. We'll just have to wait and see

Sure what doesn't have problems nowadays.
Just look at all the recall's on B787 battery problems, fire plagues and wing crack's on A380's that also resulted in fleet grounding.

These things can happen.

It's too early to speculate anyway's:rolleyes:

dogmatix

Noxegon wrote: »

I won't be sorry to see the back of the Avro RJs...

I disagree - I loved the RJ's / 146's. BA used them on their Dublin-Gatwick route in the late 90's. I much preferred them over the bland and boring 737's and Airbuses to Heathrow. The Sukhoi's should be interesting, it would be good if someone could add a little competition to the airbus/boeing offering.

Noxegon

pepe the prawn wrote: »

why is that? apparently they are very thirsty on fuel anyway...

I find them horribly cramped...

martinsvi

dogmatix wrote: »

I disagree - I loved the RJ's / 146's. BA used them on their Dublin-Gatwick route in the late 90's. I much preferred them over the bland and boring 737's and Airbuses to Heathrow. The Sukhoi's should be interesting, it would be good if someone could add a little competition to the airbus/boeing offering.

they were using 2-3 seating, weren't they? Cityjet uses 3-3 seating, that's what makes all the difference, that extra seat simply does not belong there and make it for a very unpleasant journey

roundymac

I once flew Cork-Gatwick on one of these, don't know which one to be honest. Very cramped, I had a window seat, my head was jammed up against the bulkhead. To make it worse we were held on the ground at Cork for over an hour due to fog at Gatwick. When I will use Cityjet I will make sure I get an aisle seat.

martinsvi

roundymac wrote: »

When I will use Cityjet I will make sure I get an aisle seat.

NOOOOOOOOOO! that aisle is so tiny, flight attendants are guaranteed to bump into your leg with their heavy carts, happened to me once on their flight, I thought I will vomit out of pain, right on the nerve just under the knee cap