Bharat Rakshak

Deans wrote:Runway length in most airports is too short to accommodate a Boeing 737 or a A320. Patna and Leh operate these aircraft, but sometimes
with a payload penalty due to shorter runways.

arshyam wrote:

Deans wrote:Runway length in most airports is too short to accommodate a Boeing 737 or a A320. Patna and Leh operate these aircraft, but sometimes
with a payload penalty due to shorter runways.

This probably explains the high fares to Leh, combined with the requirement of flying in the morning only.

nachiket wrote:The lack of runways in our airports is truly astonishing. I doubt any airport besides Delhi has parallel runways which can be used simultaneously. BLR has only 1. Super busy Mumbai has two cross runways only one of which is active at a time.

Singha wrote:it is better mysore airport be developed as its the entry gate for a lot of tourism in all directions. if it can manage 737 size, it will find traffic from all sides for domestic tourism.

Austin wrote:HAL has to study the civilian market first and put up some numbers on who would be their prospective serious buyers no matter what type of aircraft we built be it 18 seater or 50/100 seater.

A serious study of market is needed and also HAL/NAL and other org ability to develop such aircraft what they can do what they cant what needs to be imported , who are the tier 1 , 2 3 suppliers in India and abroad that can supply components to HAL , If any consultancy is needed for the program.

Once they do such studies they need to put this up and do some brain storming if they should and can proceed ahead with the program.

Civilian Aircraft makers in the game have these kind of study rigorously done and presented in Civil Aviation Conference and at various air shows Civilian Aircraft markets are very highly competitive and time sensitive loose a one year or two and you can have a project that does not even get a break even or can just make marginal profit.

All I have seen since 1998 Air Show are PPT that shows we need a 50 and 100 seater and every airshow it progress with some little more information and then it goes off the air only arrive at next aero india.

Nothing serious has been done that would give confidence about the project other then chal lets make a 50 and 100 seater we would need xyz number by 2030 in Indian civil market.

I am afraid with such casual approach this will either end up as Saras demonstrator project or IAF will have to bite the bullet and buy it.

Sachin wrote:

Singha wrote:it is better mysore airport be developed as its the entry gate for a lot of tourism in all directions. if it can manage 737 size, it will find traffic from all sides for domestic tourism.

Mysore airport has a big draw back. Its run way cannot be extended in an easy way. The run way ends right next to the Mysore-Nanjangud road, and extending the run away means the road has to be re-worked. And this road is quickly becoming a four lane highway.

Dileep wrote:Go for the Kerala model!! We have one international airport every 200km. DEL should have four airports at four sides already. BLR should have one to the south at least (or develop Hosur). BOM should have three more. Take example of frugal buildup of Cochin. They recently built a non gold plated new terminal with no UDF.

Singha wrote:

Dileep wrote:Go for the Kerala model!! We have one international airport every 200km. DEL should have four airports at four sides already. BLR should have one to the south at least (or develop Hosur). BOM should have three more. Take example of frugal buildup of Cochin. They recently built a non gold plated new terminal with no UDF.

kerala has more air travellers per capita than most due to gulfies
kerala has high and uniformish pop density
kerala has airlines interested in this ready market
kerala has a long frontage but a shallow depth
kerala rail connections to rest of country is poor
kerala gets lots of tourists from all over

these are advantages which say vast tracks of north and central india do not have. UP has hardly any civil airports - kanpur does not have a domestic airport!! only lucknow and benaras do i think...for a "country" of 200 mil!! bihar has a grand total of 1 airport in patna? another "80 million country". byt they have dense rail networks.

Deans wrote:There can be good domestic demand for a 70-120 seater for the Indian domestic market. In 2011, I was the `Industry representative' on a ministry team to evaluate this. As Austin suggests in his previous post, the Govt's approach was very casual.
What we need is a medium range jet (like the Embaraer or Su-100 of Russia) rather than a prop like the Bombardier Q400 or the ATR.

I believe our best bet would be to get Embraer (or Sukhoi) to set up an assembly line here, with an Indian partner. Both companies need the business.
For Embraer, this could well provide offsets for its sale of EW aircraft to the IAF.

Atmavik wrote: Deans Ji,

whats wrong with the Bombardier Q400? i flew this on HYD- Tirupathi trip and was quite comfortable. I thought a turboprop would do well for such trips where distance is around 500 Miles.

Deans wrote:
Props like the Q400 and the ATR are the best option upto 400 Miles. Beyond that Jets, are more viable both in terms of speed and cost per seat km basis. If we consider routes where there is a demand for 50-120 pax per day (not viable for the A320 or B-737) and/or short runways that cannot accommodate larger aircraft, the number of routes which are longer than 400 miles, are more than those <400 miles.

More significantly, the improvement in our roads and increase in rail speeds is reducing demand for short haul, high density sectors.
So, the demand for long haul sectors will only increase relative to short haul ones.
If we consider B'lore (BLR) as an example, the demand for BLR-MAA flights has dropped, as road speeds have improved and trains have become
more punctual. On the other hand, several long distance routes (e.g. BLR-SXR ) can only be served by a jet.

Deans wrote:
Props like the Q400 and the ATR are the best option upto 400 Miles. Beyond that Jets, are more viable both in terms of speed and cost per seat km basis. If we consider routes where there is a demand for 50-120 pax per day (not viable for the A320 or B-737) and/or short runways that cannot accommodate larger aircraft, the number of routes which are longer than 400 miles, are more than those <400 miles.

More significantly, the improvement in our roads and increase in rail speeds is reducing demand for short haul, high density sectors.
So, the demand for long haul sectors will only increase relative to short haul ones.
If we consider B'lore (BLR) as an example, the demand for BLR-MAA flights has dropped, as road speeds have improved and trains have become
more punctual. On the other hand, several long distance routes (e.g. BLR-SXR ) can only be served by a jet.

JayS wrote:
Interesting points.

Deans Saar, what is your take on utility of 70-90 seater Regional Jet that NAL's NCAD was suppose to have started making some time ago (but the project went nowhere) for Indian market...?? We have MRJ and Embraer in this segment in international market, with new jets coming up by 2020 for Entry Into Service.

Deans wrote:

JayS wrote:
Interesting points.

Deans Saar, what is your take on utility of 70-90 seater Regional Jet that NAL's NCAD was suppose to have started making some time ago (but the project went nowhere) for Indian market...?? We have MRJ and Embraer in this segment in international market, with new jets coming up by 2020 for Entry Into Service.

It takes decades to develop the capability to design and produce a passenger aircraft. That's why there are so few manufacturers. Even when the aircraft is produced, it has to be at an economical cost - which is difficult, when competition has depreciated facilities producing a higher volume of
aircraft. If that is managed, you still have to have assured availability of spares, type rated pilots, engineering support etc.
In my view the way forward should be local assembly of a proven design with steadily increasing local content. I don't see why Embraer or Sukhoi (for say the Superjet-100) would not want to partner with us to set up an assembly line for a small passenger jet.

Three aircraft were built by the Shanghai Aircraft Factory, (now known as Shanghai Aviation Industrial Company, or SAIC), the first prototype (01) was used for static testing, the second prototype (02) was used for flight testing and the third (03) for fatigue testing. The plane first flew on September 26, 1980, making 130 flights with 170 hours of flying time, visiting Beijing, Harbin, Urumqi, Zhengzhou, Hefei, Guangzhou, Kunming, Lhasa and Chengdu before its retirement in 1984.[1]

The Y-10 is an indigenous Chinese design.[2] While rumors stated that the planes were reverse-engineered copies of the Boeing 707—one report claimed that after Chinese engineers disassembled a 707 to study it, neither the reassembled original nor the copy would fly[3]—both the Y-10's designers and Boeing denied this. While the Y-10 resembles the 707, its dimensions are closer to the Boeing 720 than the 707, and the internal design is very different.[2]

By the time the prototype was first flown, debate about its viability surfaced, based on a design that was already 30 years old, CAAC, which already owned a modest Western fleet, would not purchase the plane. China was beginning to embrace trade with the West, and some saw the isolationist design as an inefficient throwback to Maoism. China in the early reform era was ruled by rehabilitated cadres previously persecuted in the Cultural Revolution by Wang Hongwen, the project initiator, resulting in the cancellation of the project in 1983, officially due to cost and market concerns. During its maiden flights, no governmental officials attended the ceremonies for fear of the connection to Wang Hongwen and the Gang of Four. By 1985, SAMF had been granted production licensing for the McDonnell Douglas MD-80 and shifted all efforts towards that program.

chola wrote:You know, we CAN make a large aircraft if there were any direction from GOI or even from private enterprise.

Indian low-cost carrier (LCC) IndiGo has signed a letter of intent for up to 50 ATR 72-600 regional turboprops.

The deal is valued at more than $1.3 billion at list prices and the initial aircraft are anticipated to start operations by the end of 2017.

India’s rapidly expanding domestic market represented close to 100 million passengers in 2016 and has been steadily growing by more than 20% annually. At that rate, it is expected to become the world’s third largest market by 2020. Under the RCS, 100 new airports will be created within the next two to three years and airlines will receive financial support and other incentives to make air travel affordable.

“We are embarking on a journey to build a nationwide regional network and connect cities that have not benefitted from the growth in Indian aviation,” IndiGo president Aditya Ghosh said, adding, TThe ATRs’ low operating costs will help us build a large regional air travel network with reasonable fares.”

JayS wrote:

chola wrote:You know, we CAN make a large aircraft if there were any direction from GOI or even from private enterprise.

Which we do not have. Both GoI and Pvt Industry are equally clueless and worse - ignorant about this.

chola wrote:

JayS wrote:
Which we do not have. Both GoI and Pvt Industry are equally clueless and worse - ignorant about this.

That is only a state of mind. It can be and must be changed.

The infrastructure and building blocks are already there in our economy.

We have everything we need. It is just the will. There is no way you can tell me that we today do not have the capacity to do this.

What we need is direction and support. Support from Air India at the very least and some from the privates for national devlopment.

And no screwdrivergiri project to throw wrench into this endeavor.

Even chinis fell to screwdrivergiri during its honeymoon with Unkil. And it took them 40 years to get back to that state. lol

It can be done. Once we build a large aircraft of our own, then we can have an AWACS, tanker, strategic bomber, etc. It all starts here.

We need to make something like this a national project. A "Make in India" crown jewel.

JayS wrote:

chola wrote:

That is only a state of mind. It can be and must be changed.

The infrastructure and building blocks are already there in our economy.

We have everything we need. It is just the will. There is no way you can tell me that we today do not have the capacity to do this.

What we need is direction and support. Support from Air India at the very least and some from the privates for national devlopment.

And no screwdrivergiri project to throw wrench into this endeavor.

Even chinis fell to screwdrivergiri during its honeymoon with Unkil. And it took them 40 years to get back to that state. lol

It can be done. Once we build a large aircraft of our own, then we can have an AWACS, tanker, strategic bomber, etc. It all starts here.

We need to make something like this a national project. A "Make in India" crown jewel.

We are slaves of our state of mind, sadly.

I want to rant a lot about this, but well, all of it is already said here many times. Unless Modi says we want to make our own jet liner, nothing is gonna happen. And he is busy right now bringing up the bottomline. Sadly he doesn't have time to look at the topline, neither has he picked some guy to look at this, which is rather disappointing.

Singha wrote:perhaps we will need to wait another 10 years for the above domestic aerospace major to emerge...by assembling the 1-engine fighter jet whatever it is ..... HAL simply has no DNA or interest in RTA it seems though it has all the manpower and production capability!!

JayS wrote:Unless Modi says we want to make our own jet liner, nothing is gonna happen. And he is busy right now bringing up the bottomline. Sadly he doesn't have time to look at the topline, neither has he picked some guy to look at this, which is rather disappointing.