Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Thanks for that info, FT. It also carries about 10 less passengers. As said, it's roughly the same class, or more precisely, designed to perform roughly the same role. Fairly old design now, though.

 

Cheers, Willie.

 

 

Posted

well IIRC it is designed for rough surface takeoff and landing on poor quality siberian and second rate rural city airports. Often just frozen gravel.

 

Which explains the extra weight... a beefier structure.

 

 

Posted

They're cheaper to purchase in the first place which might offset the running costs.

 

I wonder if they'd modernise the design with newer lightweight materials and construction methods?

 

 

Posted

The news item mentions modernizing the engines, but no mention of any other modifications. They quote a fair bit less fuel burn than the competitors, so maybe it will be economical. Seems to be part of the push to go back to more local industry. I think the sanctions made them realise how dependant on exports they were.

 

Whether or not they're hoping for an export future for the aircraft is another matter.

 

 

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
its 2000Kgs heavier and 500kms less range

Just add a made in USA sticker, triple the price and the RAAF will buy a hundred. That is if Qantas doesn't order the lot.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...