65-70mioUSD - nearmat.sunt curios care este pretul de catalog
in ceea ce priveste aeronautica, industria lor este excelenta ... din pacate pentru noi, care-avem in coasta...Cam asta e industria ruseasca.
Fiabilitatea conteaza pe timp de pace cind echipamentul e conservat sau folosit cite un pic pe durata a zeci de ani.Avioanele militare nu se judeca dupa aspect. Sunt cu totul alte criterii. Intr-adevar capabilitatile rusoaicelor nu sunt chiar de ignorat insa mai sunt si alte criterii precum capacitati de productie, reliability, etc.
Degeaba a mers portavionul rusesc pana pe langa Siria daca pe parcurs s-a stricat de 2 ori, a scos fum cat rablele din Romania intr-un an, plus a pierdut vreo 2-3 avioane in mare ...
Cam asta e industria ruseasca. Vorbim de productie si operare. La proiectare o fi buni, dar asta nu e totul.
Mai degraba, piata tintita pare a fi alta.The President of Sukhoi Civil AirCraft (SCAC), Alexander Rubtsov (who is also the Sales and Marketing Manager of the civil aircraft division of Russia’s United Aircraft, UAC), told Flight Global at the Singapore Air Show there has been a decision to develop a 75-seat version of Sukhoi SuperJet (SSJ).
In the original Superjet plans, three versions of the aircraft were planned: 65-, 75- and 95-seat versions. Finally, the 95-seat version was realized as SSJ100/95.
Sukhoi and UAC have explored larger versions of the SSJ100/95 for some time. Up to 120-seat versions have been considered. But the competition in the 100+ seat segment has become harder... So, a shortened version of the SSJ would have an easier market than a stretched version.
According to Rubtsov, SCAC is studying whether to build a new smaller wing or to apply the engines from the MRJ or E-175E2, the Pratt & Whitney GTF in its 56-inch fan version.
While this will give weight savings and lower engine fuel consumption, it will delay the versions entry into service. The present wing only has 10% lower wingloading than the E175 and the same wingloading as the MRJ70. So a new wing is questionable. New engines would give about a 10% fuel consumption saving, but the question is what their weight would mean for the present US Scope clause limit of 86,000lbm Max Take-Off Weight. Would an aircraft with upgraded engines have weight margin left for adequate range?
The real challenge for the SSJ100/75 is not the cabin, wing or engines, however. Nor is it the fuel consumption or operating costs in general. ... It will require the experience of a number of Western SSJ operators over several years to tell whether SCAC can deliver, service and support a regional jet to the level where it can compete in the US market.