Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

The Technology & Economic Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to Technological and Economic developments in India. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby JayS » 17 Oct 2017 13:46

Zynda wrote:I think few years ago there was talk of Boeing-Bombardier JV where Boeing would do the promotion of C-Series as its seat class does not compete with 737 variants. Apparently, that deal if signed did not last long. So BA goes along with Airbus...interesting. Yes...Khan was instrumental in closure of Avro aircraft company. There is a dramatised documentary about the Arrow program. I think our babus along with various key armed forces personnel should be made to watch that documentary on regular basis.

Found it. Here it is (this was also posted on BRF a couple of years ago IIRC):


British TSR is another such story. We may not all the truth.

I just wish we don't have to make such stories in India.

Bob V
BRFite
Posts: 328
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 04:29
Location: Out at the sea
Contact:

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Bob V » 30 Oct 2017 18:44

Deans wrote: before we condemn our babus, I'm not sure if a technologically sound and safe aircraft can be built on someone's terrace. I doubt the journalist has the slightest idea what is takes to build an aircraft.


I'm surprised no one is discussing this, on the forum. How do you even manage to build a full size a/c on your terrace ? I mean how & where do you manufacture the parts, how do you maintain the quality standards, how do you test the parts for durability & loads ? There are websites like WagAero, selling custom built general aviation a/c parts for affordable prices. But then you are just assembling a kit. This whole brouhaha simply puzzles me. I still recall the pain I went through, trying to get the flight permit for my medium-sized UAV, during my college years.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1294
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Zynda » 30 Oct 2017 19:41

^^I am sure the press articles are exaggerated about building on a terrace. Perhaps he built his initial prototypes (not 19 seater or even probably 6-seater) but his initial plane models on his terrace or residential property. To be honest, while I am amazed and glad that somebody in India is taking initiative, I am also a little disappointed by the lack of information/transparency. Of course, let me make it clear here that Thrust group being a private entity does not have any obligation to be transparent to anyone expect for certifying agency i.e. DGCA. Still, I find it amazing that many in the desi aeronautical community are not even aware of their efforts. Such an endeavour should be generating buzz, at least, from a potential employment POV, but whenever I bring it up, people just don't know about them and are as surprised to hear about Thrust's efforts. I couldn't find any employee of the org on professional networking sites like LinkedIn. So don't know who are the experienced consultants/employees involved. Because I can tell you from personal experience, any such activity at least in Massa, many people would be aware and news would spread about (mainly from jobs POV)...

I have to say that being a prototype and having an experimental aircraft tag, none of the things you have mentioned are applicable. I guess the concern from DGCA POV should be, will the plane fall apart during take-off, approach & landing? The actual flying can be done on off-shore airspace. The usual practice would be do a bunch of static sub-assembly ground tests to validate the design against anticipated loads and also perform taxi tests before putting the thing up in the air. But they may not be required legally for an experimental aircraft. I will try to get more info on what is required (certification POV) before first flight...but whatever I've mentioned would need extensive test set-ups & equipments. So honestly I don't know how Thrust is managing it (both from a technical & financial POV).

I assume that most of the parts would be manufactured at various SMSEs in & around Mumbai (Pune being an auto hub should have decent SMSEs)...no need to adhere to any quality currently and no testing is required (that would be part of the certification campaign where the OEM has to prove the structure can withstand various loads during service (both one-time & repeated loads)). Probably Thrust is designing and assembling the aircraft and systems. But where ever they end up (the most recent press release talks about roadblocks from DGCA and hence their intention of approaching FAA for registration of the aircraft under their purview), they sure have a long, tough & expensive road ahead. Good luck to 'em!

Bob V
BRFite
Posts: 328
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 04:29
Location: Out at the sea
Contact:

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Bob V » 30 Oct 2017 19:47

Well, I can attest that adherence to quality & testing of components was mandatory, till a few years ago - experimental or not. The inspectors were hard-nosed ones & were stickler for the rules. You couldn't fool them by passing off auto parts for aviation purposes. A simple example - I tried using the turbocharger model, that comes with the Tata Sumo but was shooed off & was threatened with black-listing.
But as I said, all this happened years ago. Not aware if DGCA changed their rules post the year 2004.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1294
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Zynda » 31 Oct 2017 18:55

Bobv,
It seems that you are correct & so am I :)

I spoke with someone very knowledgeable in aircraft structures testing and that person has a lot of experience with testing & dealing with DGCA.

You are correct in sense that dealing with DGCA is extremely difficult and laborious process. Even before the first flight, the company must be recognized by DGCA as a "design organization" and bunch of static ground tests must be done with the presence of DGCA officials followed by taxi tests and onlee after approval, first flight can happen. I am correct in guessing the later part i.e. mandatory ground tests. I am onlee talking about aircraft structures...I am sure there are similar requirements for other systems like hydraulics, mech. systems, avionics etc.

After learning about the above, I am even more intrigued about the actual processes TAC took to request DGCA approval for first flight.

Just guessing here...apparently due to interest of MH CM and also with Civil Aviation Ministry, due to political cajoling, it is possible that DGCA were forced to go lax on the above. Or it is possible that TAC (Thrust Aviation Corp) actually have followed the required processes.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby JTull » 31 Oct 2017 19:20

Just wondering if the P&W A320neo engine problems due to India specific conditions could be an opportunity to invite global engine manufacturers to setup test facilities in the country. It will definitely help build local skills if nothing else.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby JayS » 31 Oct 2017 21:57

JTull wrote:Just wondering if the P&W A320neo engine problems due to India specific conditions could be an opportunity to invite global engine manufacturers to setup test facilities in the country. It will definitely help build local skills if nothing else.


Though Indian conditions are slightly unique (as many other countries have), I dont buy the bullshit peddled by PW. They are selling perhaps single largest fleet in any country, in India, of that particular engine. They should have known the Indian conditions and taken them into account. Its not like India is just discovered and no data is available on Indian Conditions. Its a failure of PW design. Blaming it on Indian condition is bullshit. PW cannot and should not try to divert blame. Its failure on their design team in considering proper operating conditions and verify their design for them. Jet Engines have Operating point table which contains every expected type of missions included in it and the OEM needs to ensure their deaign works satisfactorily under all the conditions. Or atleast any short comings are known/expected and suitable Service bulletines/Operating & Repair Manual corrections on restriction on operations are published.

Check out the news on BA C-Series fleet performance in swiss Air. That engine also is having issues with combustor liner. Of it was India specific issue how the same issue on sibling engine showed up in Europe...?

Though its OK to have such kind of failures on new family of Engines, and PW is well within the margins, they should at the same time accept reaponsibilities of failures on their part. As such Indian conditions are not so different that they will require specialized testing centers in India. All they need to do is get Indian Atmospheric data and consider correct mission profiles while design and verification. Afterall engine OEMs do consider conditions like those occur in Middle East or such specific conditions in their mission tables.

Deans
BRFite
Posts: 646
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Deans » 31 Oct 2017 22:24

JTull wrote:Just wondering if the P&W A320neo engine problems due to India specific conditions could be an opportunity to invite global engine manufacturers to setup test facilities in the country. It will definitely help build local skills if nothing else.


I agree with JayS's post. The engine problems have nothing to do with Indian conditions. I was part of the team in Go Air that signed the first contract for 72 A320 NEO's (I'm not a technical guy though). The aircraft deliveries were supposed to start in 2015. They were delayed - most likely due to P&W engine problems, even before anything flew in India. When performance parameters, like fuel consumption, are agreed by the airline, with the vendor, it is done on the basis of test flights in Europe (say Hamburg to Toulouse) and the resulting data is extrapolated to Indian conditions. (e.g. X litres of fuel consumed in an hour of flying in Europe, on the test flight, will equal Y litres when flying in India). There are 100+ parameters on which differences between India and Europe are considered - and agreed between both sides. That is the basis of the expected performance of the aircraft, which are quantified in an agreement.

Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11021
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Suraj » 31 Oct 2017 23:14

Deans, thanks for that in depth explanation. Do such agreements include penalties upon the aircraft manufacturer or engine maker for performance parameters not being met ? What kinds of recourse does a customer typically have ? Is it significantly dependent on how big a customer they are ?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby JayS » 01 Nov 2017 00:18

Suraj wrote:Deans, thanks for that in depth explanation. Do such agreements include penalties upon the aircraft manufacturer or engine maker for performance parameters not being met ? What kinds of recourse does a customer typically have ? Is it significantly dependent on how big a customer they are ?


Suraj, Short answer - Yes.

All key performance parameters, especially the ones which have direct impact on operating and maintainance costs such as fuel economy, payload, range, weight, component life numbers etc, are agreed upon between OEM and Airlines. Of coarse specifics and set of parameters may vary from deal to deal, as you can imagine easily. For short-fall in promised performnace attract direct penalties in some cases. In some other cases OEMs have to indirectly bear the cost by say supplying additional spares in case of PBL contracts. (I am not sure though if PBL is common in Civil domain. Deans saar can fill in more specific details on contract types.) There is something called as trade factors which are basically conversion factors for one performance parameter into another. For example every additional 1kg of weight of aircraft could translate to +0.01kg/kN.hr tsfc (ficticious number) or +$10000. These numbers are used for engineering work alot. I think they are also used to work out economic penulties for performance short falls, but I am not sure. Again, Deans sir can throw some more light. I also would be interested to know more on the penalties.

Factors like Size of order, giving order early in the development phase should be playing role in negotiations. Also airlines which are regular customers of OEMs for other midels also hold more leverage. A specific case related to these A320Neo with PW engines from Qatar Airline is interesting. Looking at the engine issues Qatar Airlines refused to accept deliveries and perhaps converted some of the jets to Leap Engines. A few other airlines switched engine options. IndiGo and GoAir are patiently waiting for all issues to be resolved. As PW is giving more spares than promised. Also the fuel economy is easily surpassing promised numbers. But if the problems persists we can expect Indian Airlines lose patience and demand some compensation or switch engines for remaining deliveries. Airbus has lost billions in penalties due to delays in A380. I think that program will never break even for them.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby JayS » 01 Nov 2017 00:22

Deans wrote:
JTull wrote:Just wondering if the P&W A320neo engine problems due to India specific conditions could be an opportunity to invite global engine manufacturers to setup test facilities in the country. It will definitely help build local skills if nothing else.


I agree with JayS's post. The engine problems have nothing to do with Indian conditions. I was part of the team in Go Air that signed the first contract for 72 A320 NEO's (I'm not a technical guy though). The aircraft deliveries were supposed to start in 2015. They were delayed - most likely due to P&W engine problems, even before anything flew in India. When performance parameters, like fuel consumption, are agreed by the airline, with the vendor, it is done on the basis of test flights in Europe (say Hamburg to Toulouse) and the resulting data is extrapolated to Indian conditions. (e.g. X litres of fuel consumed in an hour of flying in Europe, on the test flight, will equal Y litres when flying in India). There are 100+ parameters on which differences between India and Europe are considered - and agreed between both sides. That is the basis of the expected performance of the aircraft, which are quantified in an agreement.


Airbus was quite pissed with PW for delayed supplies. Airbus CEO called out PW in press conf saying due to PW they are basically producing unpowered Gliders. I think such reaction is unprecedented and shows amount of frustration Airbus had. Not that Airbus itself is any better in program management. At a point, July 2015 IIRC, some 35 A320s were parked in Airbus factory without engines on their wings.

In turn PW was pissed with their supplier who was not able to supply certain component, causing delays in engine sypply. Performance wise GTF is doing great. Its the reliability where its failing big time. Again nothing unusual for first engine from new architecture.

Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11021
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Suraj » 01 Nov 2017 05:43

Thanks, JayS!

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby JayS » 01 Nov 2017 13:22

As a side note on PW GTF engines, just came across this video which I had seen so.e time ago. Thought of posti g it here.

https://youtu.be/8aPIEsnKb6o

It shows the key engineer Michel MuCane who has constantly work for 30yrs in perfecting the Gearbox and other allied components necessary for its reliable functioning alone. Total $10B investment. Result of this persistence is that PW has a engine Family which offers significant fuel economy, reduction in environmental impact and noise footprint ( there is a sound clip perhaps on wiki showing test recording of GTF vs CF60 engine I think, huge improvement). This not only has bailed out PW in civil biz which was on the way out almost, but has ensured decades worth of future. This one guy himself has a number of key GTF patents. While RR and GE are working on their own GTF, a patent war is highly anticipated.

And the history doesnt stop at 30yrs. Both GE and PW considered GTF for an engine dev program funded by NASA called Energy Efficient Engine in 1970s. GE eventually won the competition and their prototype went on to make the base of cores for GE90 in 1990s then current GEnX, and now upcoming GE9x. But one can trace GTF even further back into 1960s in some research programs. I just want to underline how long, sustained, and ever consolidating efforts are needed in producing better and ever more reliable engines. We are nowhere in the scene. We expect our scientists to make Kaveri in paltry 2000Cr. And then curse them for failing. Or expect our Pvt industry to become experts within few years or even in couple of decades by just screwdrivergiri.

If someone is interested in knowing more on GTF architecture, do search for patents by Michel McCune. Note one key thing - it was always possible to make GTFs even in 70s or 80s. The key issue was life of gear box and thus reliability. This guy and his team solved this issue with an ingenious solution, a floating gear box mounted on flexible shaft on one side. This one thing ensures perfect alignment of gears always by absorbing any misalignment. This is the key to have long life and much less wear and tear on gear teeth while having almost 100% transmission efficiency. The gear design in so successful that a small gearbox like this transmits 30000hp power and is never needed to be replaced for the entire life of the engine. Doesnt even require any overhaul IIRC, or minimal maintainance at best. (Though currently some metal chips were detected on Indian Airline engines the issue will be solved eventually). It would be very interesting to see how RR and GE are solving this same issue of alignment, now that they have to bypass PW patents. RR has recently tested its Gearbox for whopping 70000hp power IIRC and is designed to take 100000hp. Its only a tiny, <1m dia thing transmitting such mind boggling amount of power. GE has kept its cards closed so far.

PS. Please pardon my spellings. Typing from phone.

Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11021
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Suraj » 01 Nov 2017 21:00

Great story! Reminds me of how RR almost went bankrupt developing the RB211 .

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2035
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby JTull » 01 Nov 2017 21:47

I was thinking of recent reports of P&W supplying Indigo with 20 replacement engines and other financial compensation, while suggesting that these guys should setup test facilities here. Perhaps GoI can induce with it in exchange for some tax benefits (much better than an iPhone assembly line in exchange for tax benefits). It will build local engineering skills rather than just screwdrivergiri.

Deans
BRFite
Posts: 646
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Deans » 02 Nov 2017 09:20

I can't add much more to what JayS has said. Launch customers of the NEO (Indigo and Go) would typically have slightly better terms including enhanced penalties, if the projected fuel savings were not met. Launch customers had a choice of either the CFM engine (Leap) or P&W. A factor which led to airlines choosing P&W was (ironically) earlier availability compared to the CFM engine. The leap engines also power the Boeing 737 Max, which is Boeing's fuel efficient competitor to the A320.

In the case of Go Air, I'm not sure what penalties there were for late delivery (I was not privy to that part of the deal), but my feeling is that Go was also not pushing for scheduled deliveries, as the airline had its own constraints like availability of pilots, slot availability in DEL & BOM etc and the cash flow to pay for the aircraft.

Another problem for airlines is that the original projections for fuel savings were based on fuel prices in 2010-11 and projections upto 2014. With the lower fuel prices prevailing today, the absolute savings is significantly lower than projected, while the aircraft cost is higher than the plain vanilla A320 with sharklets (the sharklets at the wingtip contribute to a approx. 2% fuel saving, while the engine contributes another 13%).
Last edited by Deans on 02 Nov 2017 14:52, edited 1 time in total.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby JayS » 02 Nov 2017 10:12

Deans wrote:
Another problem for airlines is that the original projections for fuel savings were based on fuel prices in 2010-11 and projections upto 2014. With the lower fuel prices prevailing today, the absolute savings is significantly lower than projected, while the aircraft cost is higher than the plain vanilla A320 with sharklets (the sharklets at the wingtip contribute to a approx. 2% fuel saving, while the engine contributes another 13%).


Good point on the fuel price drop.

Rumours are LEAP is way below its promised fuel economy. I read somewhere (take with pinch of salt, since not from official source. PS - just checked LEAP's performance shortfall is reported in its testing phase (http://www.postandcourier.com/business/ ... 90bbd.html). I think its yet to be resolved fully.) GE promised +2% better fuel economy over that of GTF to customers. The A version is actually at -2% that is -4% from promised. The version B is even worse. These numbers are such that GE perhaps will not be able to improve even with PIP. Deep redesign will be costly and too late. While GTF are giving better efficiency than promised easily. So GTF hold upper hand despite reliability issues.

I am very keen to see how things pan out on Engine front for Boeing MoM. The industry had a not so good year. But looks forward to upbeat 2018. MoM is only clean sheet aircraft project for a long time to come, from projections.

Bob V
BRFite
Posts: 328
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 04:29
Location: Out at the sea
Contact:

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Bob V » 02 Nov 2017 13:33


Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1294
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Zynda » 02 Nov 2017 21:51

If this is true, then truly a surprising move. Although the industry trends to point towards an increasingly difficult business model for Aircraft manufacturers. Also another win for China.

Bombardier Q400 Division Sold to China

Posting in full...

Following on my article titled "Bombardier Sold The Q400 Division" here's more related to this.
Updated 10:35 (15:35 UTC)

3:25 (7:25 UTC) - October 27, 2017 - Quebec, Canada
by Sylvain Faust

Following on my article of October 20, 2017 titled "Bombardier Sold The Q400 Division" here's more related to this. According to sources, Bombardier Inc. is in the process of totally exiting the Commercial Aircraft business, really?

As it was the case with the CSeries, the goal here is to relinquish the company majority ownership in its entire Commercial Aircraft programs but to remain in the business as a supplier to others instead.

Bombardier Commercial Aircraft

Following such a scenario, the goal would no longer be to hold any majority ownership, nor play a management role in any commercial aircraft program, as Bombardier would be satisfied to act as a mere supplier and/or consultant. Offering a pointed expertise and qualified engineering services would now be the degree of involvement Bombardier would be readily willing to accept as far the "Commercial Aircraft" business is concerned, as they've just accomplished with the CSeries.

CSeries

In the case of the CSeries, --after "the deal" with Airbus is signed--, Bombardier will become one of the most important suppliers to the CSeries Company supplying the aircraft cockpit (built by Bombardier in St-Laurent/Montreal Quebec), the aircraft wings (built by Bombardier in Belfast, UK), aircraft doors (Bombardier Mexico and another business running under a different name but now owned by Bombardier), a section of the fuselage (built by Bombardier China), engineering services for CSeries modifications, improvements, etc. (*CSeries Bombardier Ownership, read my note at the bottom of this article)

Q400

What I've been told is that Bombardier is selling the Q400 division in its totality to a buyer in China. After the Canadian Federal government asked Bombardier not to sell the CSeries to the Chinese who offered to purchase it --a program so heavily ladden with new technologies-- Ottawa let it be known it would be perfectly able to live with the transfer of the total ownership of the Q400 to China. With nearly all fuselage components already built in China it would now remain to be seen for how long Bombardier would continue supplying the aircraft's cockpit currently made in Downsview/Toronto, when would this be transfert to China with the rest of the fuselage construction . We should assume new assembly lines would be installed in China.

It is not clear yet if the new Q400 Chinese owner would keep any of the Q400 operations currently located in Dowsview near Toronto, Ontario. On the other hand, Pratt & Whitney Canada would still be supplying the PW150A powerplants..

What would Bombardier get? Basically, breathing space by bailing out from an aircraft program where the company has been losing money at each delivery. How would the deal be structured? Politically I would not be surprised that we're told that jobs in Downsview are preserved… but for how long? Maybe until the next Canadian Federal Elections? More on this soon!

CRJ

The CRJ aircraft would then be the only one left for Bombardier to jettison, de facto eliminating its Commercial Aircraft Division. To now focus on its highly profitable Business Aircraft division and its Transport Division (owned at 70% by Bombardier Inc, 30% by the Caisse de Dépôt et placements du Québec)

Bombardier Commercial Aircraft liquidation check list:
CSeries Check/Gone
Q400 Check/Gone
CRJ Check/?
So, from what I was able to find, Bombardier is trying to "let go" the CRJ program too.

Sources reporting that Bombardier salespeople are contacting CRJ clients waiting for their new aircraft deliveries trying to convert them into CSeries instead, could this be real? It would make sense if you're trying to let go the program. What would that tell you?

** A note regarding the CSeries ownership split between Bombardier Inc. and the Quebec Government. Quebec acquired 49.5% of the CSeries program from Bombardier in exchange of US $1 billion. All further expenses occurring in the CSeries holding company are paid from money transfers from Bombardier. As per the agreement Quebec is not to be paying its share of the expenses. When there is a profit you share it with all shareholders. In the case there is no such profit but a loss, it is usually shared as well. Instead of creating debt (loan from Bombardier Inc.) in the CSeries company, as per the agreement, new CSeries shares are issued to Bombardier Inc. in exchange for cash to cover for the ongoing lost. Slowly, but surely, the relative % of ownership Bombardier has in the CSeries company is growing (and still is!).

This is the reason the ownership Quebec has in the CSeries at the time "the deal" with Airbus was announced was down from 49.5% to about 39% and Bombardier Inc. up to roughly 61% as I reported here (http://www.fliegerfaust.com/bombardier- ... 93683.html).

Since "The Deal" is giving Airbus 50% (50.01%) of the CSeries company , both Quebec government and Bombardier Inc. CSeries ownership will be cut in half, i.e. by 50% resulting into having Quebec left with 19% (half of 38%) and Bombardier Inc. with 31% (half of 62%).

But Quebec will have less than 19% of the CSeries when the deal with Airbus is signed. Why? Because Bombardier Inc. is still the one paying for the on-going lost in the CSeries holding company, meaning more shares are issued to Bombardier. Quebec will end up with 50% of whatever their ownership is "at the time of the closing of the transaction with Airbus, in 6 to 12 months. Same for Bombardier Inc, it would end up above 31%... but much more, maybe an additional 2% or 3% added to the announced 31%. **

Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier along with domestic Chinese companies...they sure are on a roll. The way Aerospace industry is shaping up India (& West)...China will be a major player in the next decade with plenty of jobs. Might have to start learning Mandarin...

nandakumar
BRFite
Posts: 731
Joined: 10 May 2010 13:37

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby nandakumar » 03 Nov 2017 21:00

The story of a pilot's struggle to get his prototype six seater aircraft registrrdd with DGCA was reported here. Now comes the news that it has been cleared.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/in ... 483706.cms

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1294
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Zynda » 10 Nov 2017 19:23

Intrigue Of Shakespearean Proportions Unfolds In Airbus’ Top Echelon

Airbus is beset by corruption probes, internal turmoil and ongoing production issues.

Whether in Toulouse or Hamburg, signs are rife that things are not running smoothly at Airbus these days. Some 40 A320neos are parked at each of those Airbus facilities, all awaiting engines. The scene is reminiscent of photographs from 1969 of the apron at Boeing’s Everett, Washington, plant full of 747s coincidentally, like the Neos, also awaiting modified Pratt & Whitney engines. Delivery targets for 2017 are at risk, so there is work to do.

If Airbus executives are right, the situation is temporary and will be overcome fairly soon; at the latest, sometime next year. But there is a pervasive sense of things going wrong that transcends production woes. Power struggles that encompass egos and turf battles are making a surprise comeback.

Here is a quick recap of significant events this year that helped pave the way to the current climate. Former CEO of commercial aircraft, Fabrice Bregier, was stripped of that title; Group CEO Tom Enders claimed that role and its responsibilities for himself. The important sales division, headed by John Leahy, also reports to Enders as of earlier this year.

Over the past few weeks, other issues at Airbus began to surface. German magazine Der Spiegel published a series of articles about alleged systematic corruption and improper use of agents in past commercial aircraft sales campaigns. It asserted that Enders did not react quickly enough and questioned whether he can survive the scandal.

This was followed by a report in another publication, business daily Handelsblatt, that the French government is seeking to gain back control of Airbus, in part by appointing new board members and revamping the governance that was introduced in 2013. At that time, both Germany and France reduced their stakes in what was then EADS and essentially relinquished direct influence on running the company.

And finally, the latest reports contend that Bregier, in an effort to regain his CEO position, is behind a campaign to get Enders fired.

What is happening in Toulouse these days could be as compelling as a Shakespearean drama if it did not have serious ramifications. It underscores that vastly different camps still exist within Airbus and that those camps do not trust each other. Leaked “information” about alleged intrigues makes matters far worse.

Enders’ move to demote Bregier was probably a mistake because demoting the successful Airbus Commercial CEO created unnecessary disruption, although each man publicly defends the decision. Enders was already clearly the top man before the changes and had his own successes, mainly by transforming the corporate governance and reducing government influence, which is reflected in a much higher stock price. Bregier is not only a capable manager, he is also politically savvy, so it is hard to believe that he himself could be behind a campaign against his boss.

And as to the governance question: Even if the French government truly wanted to regain control of Airbus, it would be an extremely hard task. It would require a majority vote of the company’s mainly private shareholders—but why would they give up power? Alternatively, France could buy a majority stake in Airbus. This, too, is an unlikely scenario, not least because of the current market capitalization; such a step would be prohibitively expensive.

Nothing will happen in the short term while Germany is in search of a new coalition government, a process that could take many more weeks. Also, French President Emanuel Macron negotiated the Airbus governance changes on behalf of former President Francois Hollande—why would he want to revert to the old status now?

Whoever prevails at Airbus will not be determined by Enders or Bregier—or even by Macron. The company is subject to investigations into alleged corruption in the UK and France, and possibly Germany, and the U.S. will open its own proceedings in the near future. Whatever wrongdoings or lack of proper oversight emerges will determine whether Enders can stay on beyond his current term, which ends in 2019, and what the future holds for Bregier.

More important in the short run are those A320neos parked in Toulouse and Hamburg. Airbus needs to get them off its airfields before year-end to reach its target of delivering close to 200 Neos this year. All require management attention.


Some comments reactions:

No surprise here, it seems Airbus are helpless at being held to ransom by their suppliers, i.e. Zodiac and P&W. Why stay with either, dont their contracts mean anything? Anybody can promise the moon and it seems these two suppliers are past masters at this. Airbus should seek ways of changing their customers minds away from these suppliers and get back to making money by not having new aircraft sitting waiting for interiors or engines. Going by their management problems,it has not happened yet. Zodiac are at least one year behind on delivery and quality control-just ask Cathay Pacific and Qatar. The P&W fiasco is yet another at least a year behind with engines to be delivered and replacements in the field-didn't P&W TEST their engines? If they did,why were these problems not foreseen and corrected before making promises they could not keep but instead made deliveries with the knowledge that there were still faults?.Good luck to the Mitsubishi regional jet and the Bombadier C series!! Both under the cosh with this engine also!


The GTF woes are significant but are ultimately only some poor design choices in areas that should have been well known, not new technology as such and will likely be rectified relatively quickly(still talking about years rather than months, but should be on the right track with months). But keep your eyes open on the LEAP, not so long in service and with significant issues of its own, with engines already closer to their design limits, I suspect that these will be the longer term problems and less tractable solutions. So the white tails in France and Germany are due to both suppliers. Using Rolls as a manufacturer was never an option, had nothing competitive at the thrust (and sfc) necessary. None of these are down to poor contracts, but more to changing circumstances that are faster than the manufacturers ability to change manufacturing speeds for complex machines. Zodiac seems more an example of a takeover gone wrong and should be contractually punished, making a seat cannot be compared with making an engine, with all of the multiple subcontractors and high tech processes involved.

Airbus has always been a company with internal squabbles, not least because of the differing mentalities of the European partners behind it. Maybe it is a microcosm of the EU, too much power concentrated in too few arrogant hands. A great idea made smaller by the egos of a powerful few.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby JayS » 11 Nov 2017 10:47

Airbus has to take a lot of blame too. Airbus is not known to be best of the OEMs when it comes to program management and they have screwed up big time in other projects too. They should have also anticipated supply chain isshes. Ridiculous to blame only PW. Its a first of its architecture/Family of engines. Always gonna have had issues.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1294
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Zynda » 12 Nov 2017 20:37

shiv wrote:Things like size of market, very big in India too are not even considered.

Actually, all OEMs acknowledge the size of Indian market but unfortunately at this moment, it is more of a footnote. The size of our market is big enough to get noticed but not big enough to entice or force these OEMs to "give in" to our demands like the Chinese.

Do we have our own commercial aircraft program? Nope. Are we likely to initiate one in the next 10-15 years? Not likely. So we will have to buy planes from these OEMs anyways...hope is that we get some offsets/Manf. or Engineering ToT along the way.

As it was mentioned on this forum at various threadsr, Bombardier has handed off Q-400 division to China. Not to mention Airbus & Boeing has acknowledged that some ToT is acceptable compromise for gaining access to Chinese market.

For fighters it is slightly different hakeem saar. I think srai has already addressed that...

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19899
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Austin » 15 Nov 2017 23:01


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60464
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Singha » 17 Nov 2017 15:04

most of our LCC planes are leased not purchased outright.

I believe cheen airlines use govt funding to buy their inventory.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 949
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 20 Nov 2017 11:33

Zynda wrote:^^I am sure the press articles are exaggerated about building on a terrace. Perhaps he built his initial prototypes (not 19 seater or even probably 6-seater) but his initial plane models on his terrace or residential property.


You would be amazed. He did built the frame for his intial plane on his terrace. Got it down using a crane (which nearly broke down) in an all-night operation. The area was filled with crowds of onlookers. It is a lower to middle-class area (lot of block hutments and small 2-4 storey buildings) but is getting developed fast (I reside in a nearby area)

Anyway, here is the update

Amol Yadav's six seater ‘Home-made’ plane gets DGCA registration

An aircraft that was assembled on the terrace of a Charkop building may soon be zipping across the skies. Amol Yadav, a 41- year-old senior commander with Jet Airways, who spent six years building the six-seater aircraft, has finally got the certificate of registration from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). Further tests are scheduled over the next 10 days before he gets the permit to fly.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 949
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 20 Nov 2017 11:38

Here is one small image which should give an idea (i had other images as well... can't seem to locate them. Maybe they were from a local newspaper)

Image

Bob V
BRFite
Posts: 328
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 04:29
Location: Out at the sea
Contact:

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Bob V » 20 Nov 2017 16:30

Good effort. But did his team actually manufacture the parts or is their role limited to just assembling the a/c ? LG & props seem to be off-the-shelf. There's no mention anywhere, of the type of powerplant being used. The fuselage shape looks a bit odd, especially the mainplane roots. Overall, the design reminds me of Beech Bonanza, one of my earliest a/c. I'm curious about the positioning of the landing lights. Why would they keep it above the props ? Doesn't it obstruct the field of view ? One thing I like is the availability of individual doors for all the seats. Also, looking at their webpage, it seems that they have had external technical help, all along. So, this was not exactly an in-house design.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 949
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 20 Nov 2017 17:41

Yes. Mostly assembled. Don't have the absolute details, but lot of constituents sourced off-the-shelf, some from the US. Had seen his interview done by a local TV channel.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1294
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Zynda » 20 Nov 2017 18:41

^^Thanks for providing the details. Gotta admit his feat is amazing...refreshing. Dunno if its gonna see the light of the day but at least kudos to his efforts.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby JayS » 20 Nov 2017 19:11

Zynda wrote:^^Thanks for providing the details. Gotta admit his feat is amazing...refreshing. Dunno if its gonna see the light of the day but at least kudos to his efforts.

At the least this paves way for the next ones to get relatively easy way through the regulatory entangle. And this is worth hooraying for even just for that reason.


Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1781
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 21 Nov 2017 00:06

Has the aircraft flown yet? Quite an achievement.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6571
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Mort Walker » 21 Nov 2017 00:08

Vivek K wrote:Has the aircraft flown yet? Quite an achievement.


It is impressive, but can the Russians make it in any numbers to be financially viable?

Deans
BRFite
Posts: 646
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Deans » 21 Nov 2017 13:59



I evaluated this aircraft (commercial part) for Go Air, in 2011, when the airline was considering a 2nd (smaller) aircraft type, to compliment the A320. My team members were probably the first Indians to fly in the SSJ-100 at Aero India 2011.

The Russians at the time were not very hopeful of commercial orders and their only customer back in 2011 was Aeroflot. Increasing Aeroflot's order is a good example of how Putin kept the program alive and viable when orders were uncertain.
The aircraft was good but given the high import content the price was not very attractive. Also, the fuel consumption was higher than the Embraer 175 or 190 series (comparable jets). My recommendation was for the Embraer 190 series.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19899
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Austin » 21 Nov 2017 14:18

Superjet Order order books today stand at ~ 150 aircraft with western operators operating it too.

Listed are operator flying today and the numbers.

http://www.airfleets.net/listing/ssj-1.htm

And new version with extended seating and with winglets offering 3 % fuel improvements are under works ,the winglets can be fitted to existing types.

http://atwonline.com/manufacturers/sukh ... nt-1q-2018

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 239
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Vips » 21 Nov 2017 18:17

It will be interesting to see the response of Non-Soviet Bloc contries once this jet is powered by a Russian Engine.

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 239
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Vips » 22 Nov 2017 08:11

Mumbai Man Cleared To Fly Homemade Aircraft, Names It After PM Modi.

Amol Yadav may be just one man but he has managed to do what many of India's larger enterprises haven't been able to. The journey wasn't easy but at the end of a six-year endeavour that included selling his home and a daunting fight against red tape, Mr Yadav's dreams have taken wings - only the flight is left. The aircraft enthusiast has not only managed to build a working plane by himself, he has also managed to move the clunky bureaucracy into granting him a license to fly it.

"The DGCA (Directorate General of Civil Aviation) has provided a registration certificate to pilot Amol Yadav," a statement from Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis' office said on Monday. It was on the Chief Minister's request that PM Narendra Modi's himself intervened to ensure that Mr Yadav could finally stop going around in circles with the aviation regulator.

Grateful, he has dedicated his aircraft's registration to Mr Fadnavis and PM Modi. "The registered name of the aircraft is VT-NMD or Victor Tango Narendra Modi Devendra," Mr Yadav told NDTV.

A resident of Mumbai, Mr Yadav sold his house and spent Rs. 4 crore to build a six-seater airplane on a rooftop of a building in Kandivali. In 2016, it was put on display at an exhibition under the Make in India scheme. But the permission for a test flight eluded him.

Before PM Modi's intervention, Mr Yadav alleges, the DGCA not only sat on his application for years but also changed old rules that would have allowed him to fly the aircraft. But it was his incessant campaign that ultimately forced the rules to be changed.

"The rules will prevent huge losses to the Indian exchequer because people like me and more will be able to make planes. They will be able to get the planes registered and fly them too," he said.

But having done all of this, Mr Yadav is not kicking back, relaxing in the comfort of his success. He says he is already started the work on a 19-seater aircraft.

Bob V
BRFite
Posts: 328
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 04:29
Location: Out at the sea
Contact:

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Bob V » 22 Nov 2017 15:29

Although this is a great achievement for his team, but is this the very first time someone has built an experimental aircraft in India ? I know there are few amateur aircraft associations in India, like Intermeridian & they usually assemble 2 seaters from kits (4/6 cylinder, prop based ones). Perhaps this is the first time someone is building a multi-seater a/c or one intended for commercial use & hence all the hype ?

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 949
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 22 Nov 2017 21:19

Austin wrote:Superjet Order order books today stand at ~ 150 aircraft with western operators operating it too.
Listed are operator flying today and the numbers.
http://www.airfleets.net/listing/ssj-1.htm


Non-russian western operators seem to be only 3. Brussels Airlines of Belgium, CityJet of Ireland (mostly charter) and Interjet of Mexico


Return to “Technology & Economic Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests