On this video they're not specifying with which engine are they doing the comparisons of the MC-21 with the Boeing 737 MAX. Since the MC-21 can be had by the costumer with the Pratt & Whitney (US) engines, or the new Aviadvigatel PD-14 Russian engines. The engines can make a big difference in distance and fuel efficiency, since not all engines have the same efficacy.
@@michaeldunham3385 Yes, but the MC-21 aircraft has already flown with it, they're waiting for their certification. The MC-21 aircrafts at the MAKS-2021 in Moscow recently, flew with the new Russian engines.
The russian has a wider fuselage and fits less passengers for an equivalent length. This should translate to more space per passenger. So based on this alone, I'd much rather fly on the russian aircraft. However, this doesn't factor in: cabin pressure, sound insulation, climate control, lighting etc. These things can only be evaluated after entry into service.
4000 back log ? + Theirv will about 700 more orders coming back to them now that the max is back on track and covid comes to pass. But the war my place a effect on that but that will happen with airbus to if does. 4000 left to build if nobody ever buys another one
@@andrewlarson7895 Yeah, they're buying it like hot cake! 😅😂 That's why people for the first time in history started checking the aircraft type they are flying with, and many airlines are forced not to disclose the aircraft type. I check every single time what the aircraft is and I can check the tail number to be sure what type aircraft I'm flying with. I'd rather fly with ancient WW1 aircrafts than flawed amerikan junk.
What is the price of the 21? How long would you have to operate the aircraft before the difference in price exceeded the difference in load or operating efficiency?
You have to take into account that boeing has ground equipment which is very expensive they have that all over the world plus they have employees every country in the world to work on your airplane and if an airplane is on the ground you want Boeing's because you know you're going to get your part on time not having to wait like a month or something Boeing has been around longer. So it's not always just about price it comes down to keeping your airplane in the sky so you can make money
@@f-86zoomer37 Yeah a couple of serious crashed caused by poor design in an otherwise brilliant history of safety vs the complete abortion that is Russian aircraft.
The MC-21 is a completely new generation of aircraft in terms of design, reliability, and comfort compared to the Max version, which is a continuation of the 20th century's models.
Well, the composite design is pretty cool. But what else makes this plane so revolutionary? It's using the same engines as the A220 and E-Jets which have been around for a while.
@@VisibilityFoggy It should be noted that my own perspective on this project, so far, is from research regarding this one aspect of the industry, and I am not employed by the Irkut Corporation. PD-14 is the first step in developing a family of turbofan engines that are expected in 2025, according to rumors. MC-21 aircraft use novel aerodynamic techniques that are regularly upgraded as a solid foundation for future models and assumed to be state-of-the-art. As the MC-21 aircraft continues to be developed with (the assumed state-of-the-art technologies), new revolutionary models may be developed along with it.
The Russian plane is likely to be much cheaper than the Boeing 737 Max. That means many countries in Asia, Africa and South America are likely to prefer the Russian plane.
It’s been found that winglets for short haul flights actually decrease fuel efficiency due to the extra weight they add offsetting the fuel gains. Not sure if this is related in any way.
@@iamjames8200 actually the wings which are made out of composites have high aspect ratio, and as explained by the designers, the same reason the 787 doesn't have winglets only the MC-21 have composite wings in this market segment by far.
Short haul aircraft, duration of cruise is not long enough to bring sufficient fuel savings to warrant the extra weight of winglets. Plus, the MC-21 May have fuel savings come about from other areas, costs may also be a factor.
I would advise you take into account the list price, maintenance cost (especially the C check with boeing vs irkut - as I have a strange feeling it might be cheaper even here). So.. which one is more viable from a cost perspective?
Don't like the look of the MC-21, the 737 is still the best looking narrow body aircraft followed by the Airbus 220, but competition is always a good thing
Soviet/Russian types have traditionally suffered from abysmal after sales support by their manufacturers. The SSJ-100 program had high hopes, but I haven't gotten a good read on how after sales support has been. I wonder if the Mexican low cost carrier that picked them up is still able to keep them in the air with a good dispatch rate...Boeing had partnered with Sukhoi for a while, but ended up withdrawing from the project after Vladimir Putin did his thing...
Said airline (Interjet) isn't flying anymore due to a workers' strike. It's been more than a year, I think. At least 10 of those Superjets are parked with no maintenance whatsoever in the airport I'm working at. It's a sad sight.
If you compare the 737max flying time over the 2 past years, it was about 25% in the air (not grounded). The MC-21 will probably have a reliabily around 85% (based on rumors about the Mexican SSJs). Based on only that, the MC-21 will compare better than the max. Of course, ... the A320neo has a 99.91% reliability and the max is mostly de-grounded.....
@@Luke_Go Maybe, but looking forward the Max series has worked through their issues. Looking ahead they are a fair candidate to exceed both the Russians and Airbus.
One of the best cold war descriptions of Russia goes something like this: Karl Marx imagined England when the wrote _The Communist Manifesto._ If he'd known Russia was going to be the country where the revolution took place he would have burned the manuscript.
@@superjet1007 Well, marketing and management practices can always be spruced up. What can't? Well, for starters... the fact that your business exists within a kleptocracy that operates for the benefit of a single man whose whims and dreams drive policy no matter the consequences.
Seeing Russia and China enter the aerospace market with competitive aircraft might actually push Boeing and Airbus to stop recycling old designs and actually innovate for the first time in decades... thus I'm welcoming these new aircraft.
I want to take a flight on the MC-21! When I was first in Russia I did ride on a Tupelov domestically, although I can’t remember which one which really irritates me. I hadn’t yet become obsessed with with planes so I stupidly didn’t take notice. What’s that expression? Youth is wasted on the young?
I as a flyer will prefer to have a bigger cabin for comfort and less claustrophobic experience. I am not to squeeze myself in a aluminium can of the 737 max for the sake of saving money for the airline. Therefore I prefer the MC21!. Irkut should lengthen the fuselage to rival A321XLR. With a bigger cabin, long journey is bearable.
I know narrow-body aircraft are typically connected to short and medium haul flights, but I would really love a 2-2-2 configuration for the MC-21 like the 7J7 concept, just widen the cockpit a few inches more and we'll gonna have the smallest widebody in the market with little to no competition. Low-cost carriers would flock to this aircraft as an A320CEO and 737NG replacement. With Russia's proven airframe reliability, comparably cheaper market price than any other narrow-body competitors, I'm curious on why short-haul carriers would still opt for the 737MAX.
You're curious why short haul carriers opt for 737MAX? Umm, support, spare parts, servicing, reliability etc etc. All things the Russians don't have going for them.
Chalk and cheese, a 1960s airframe that competes by taking advantage of grandfathering rules to avoid required levels of safety against a state of the art FBW CF aircraft.
I woud rather fly the MC 21 than the Max ,It is a clean modern design vs a 60s oldtimer with modern makeup . I am sure the russians have learned from the SS 100 failure , Not every country has the capability to develop an aircraft from scratch.
Then again... maybe it will. If you hate Boeing, buy Airbus or one of the larger E2-Jets. Will Irkut/Yak even be around in a few years? How will geopolitics affect the availability of parts and support? What happens if Russia's economy does not improve? What happens if there's a war with China? For the vast majority of commercial airlines on the planet, Airbus and Boeing are safe bets. Messing with Russian manufacturers has gotten a lot of people burnt over the years.
I'm very looking forward to see both MC21 and C919 fly, atleast their native country's dependency to other manufacturer are lower, and more competition is desparately needed by the industry rn.
It used to be a simple decision. A Boeing product was built to be strong, reliable, and safe. Those days are gone. At best I would consider it a toss up. Boeing is run by cost cutting MBA's that no longer put product integrity first. I am willing to bet the the Russian team knows it has to be better than the best and has a chance of being a pretty solid product.
well, even if that were true, they can make just 2 a month. There are 4000 outstanding orders just for the MAX, a similar amount for the A320....how many airlines are willing to wait 2000 months for their new plane...??
Price is not that important if the purchaser's aircraft is grounded for parts or Customer Support. An airline cannot afford to have even a day of unexpected downtime. So far Russian Aircraft have had a dismal track record on that account and that would be the Deal Breaker until they can demonstrate after sale service. This is a start for the Russian and Chinese new aircraft and they may be able to put that together as time goes by and be competitive to Boeing and Airbus but I seriously doubt that the majority of U.S. Airline Passengers will accept anything but Boeing and Airbus for the immediate future.
I agree with you. it was a bad idea to enter other markets with an airplane that has "childhood diseases" and only one model. All this has already been decided in Russia, the SSJ flies for 8-9 hours a day, which is not very bad for this aircraft. It is easier to enter foreign markets with a line of different aircraft, then it is easier to provide different support. After 5 years, it can be the next line of SSJ 100, SSJ 130, MC 21-300, MC 21-400 and IL 114 turboprop.
Russian narrowbody? No. 737 MAX? Not yet, not for a very long time. Give me an A320/321. Bigger cabin space and larger bins than a MAX. It's 7 inches wider inside, with seats in 3-3 each an inch wider across.
The lack of wingtip devices on the Russian design is unconscionable. Not sure whether this would account for all of the range differences, especially if the MC is using the same power plants, but I bet it's much of the difference. What a colossal design error.
That's hardly true, the MC-21 wing has a much higher aspect ratio than the 737 MAX, 11.5 vs around 9.5, therefore the cost of adding wingtip devices outweighs the benefit (similar to how the 777 doesn't have any). Most likely the difference in range is due to the larger fuselage (8% wider), and fewer optimisations due to it being new. A more suitable comparison would be against the A320neo, of which the MC-21-300 can carry more passengers and cargo, has a 13% higher max payload capacity, and fly almost the same range (7% less), despite carrying 15% less fuel
It would be good to have the passenger perspective rather than just the operator. Seat width, pitch, cabin pressure and humidity. Aside from safety and arriving alive at your destination the customer seeks comfort. The new tech of the 787 and 777x point the way to what should be expected. Airbus with a newer a320neo is closer to the comfort of the MC21 and better than the 737. The A220 is as good if not better than the MC21 from a passenger perspective and with a stretched A220-500 this product would be a better offering against the MC21, 737 Max 7&8 and the A320. Even for a short hop having a seat with 18 plus inch width is a big comfort difference to a passenger even the E190s are better out of London city to Scotland than the other aircraft types so I choose city on BA for my London trips.
Николай Зинин I think the A220-500 will be offered before the end of 2023 for orders and delivery by 2026. Yes the A318 was withdrawn as it was not effective as a double shrink. The A319 is not a big earner and the A220 has largely put it out the market other than savings on airlines that need a few smaller units to avoid pilot training and spares/maintenance. Airbus have to develop an A320 replacement which I think will be for 2030 when a new engine is available and economic composite wing production is possible AND single pilot systems accepted. They will shift the size to the A321 equivalent (210 to 220 seats) as a base size with a stretch up filling the 757 size and a stretch down to the A220-500 or 700 size for operators not requiring regional fleet sizing. Airbus will reposition its fleet offerings with 3 aircraft types the A220, the follow on all new A321 replacement and an A350 neo all offered between 2026 and 2033. Back to the drawing board for the MC21, the C919 and the CR929 which will be old and without sufficient support to penetrate the international market. Boeing is caught out with 4 aircraft to cover the market which will be inefficient in manufacturing and support. I have done a few scenario planning exercises with my strategy group and that's what we would do if Airbus. It clobbers all the competition. Of course the A380 Nero may be seen again IF high density hub to hub for congestion is needed from 2035 with a nice new engine on the wing.
@@davidramsay6142 Dear David, you can think and believe as you want, but there is an objective reality of blowing in an air tube. Aircraft from 50 to 100 seats in the 2+2 configuration is the best option, 100-150 seats 2+3 is optimal for narrow-body aircraft 3+3 150-250 seats, the rest is wide-body aircraft.
Николай Зинин I do not dispute the generalisation of seating arrangement you suggest however this is a rather dated perspective. Boeing refuted the hub model and justification for the A380 while promoting the point to point model. Clearly the demise of the quad jets ratified this view and it would seem the sluggish sales of the 777x points to them not taking their own advice. What is establishing in the market and made more the case with covid19 is for smaller aircraft capable of point to point distance. This is clearly verified with the A321xlr sales success. For long distance point to point passengers will demand comfort so the A220 and less so the A321lr and xlr will deliver while the 737max10 will not - the seat is too narrow. The MC21 will have comfort (width of seat, cabin pressure and humidity) but it will pull up short on range. I applaud the boldness in pursuing the MC21 but I feel it is in a tight corner and success a slim chance due to the capacity of the design, the risk in the new technology for a Russian manufacturer and the risk in the aircraft having an aftermarket support as has been the super jets big issue. It's a tough game and requires capable management, design, money and engineering coupled with the industrial resource and capacity to deliver through the cycle. Airbus is well positioned, Boeing is screwed, the eastern entrance is ill timed on the technology cycle and I suspect it will be too tough a mountain to climb for the next 20 years. The current aircraft (MC21, c919,cr929) have more chance of flopping than succeeding dependent upon the Boeing bounce back which if strong will be at the expense of the new entrants, Boeing has to fail for the new players to materially get in on the game with new products that will be old in 10 years time......
which plane puts the highest pressure on a runway? hint it is NOT a 747 or 380 with there multiple big tyres. naval skyhawk tends to leave two furrows down the runway.
The MC21 will pretty much only be bought by Russian airlines, and maybe Cubana. Another potential client used to be China, but the Chinese have the home-built COMAC C919 now, so that will severely limit orders there, if any get ordered at all. Chinese airlines have lots of 737s and A320s to retire before the C919 even will get a foothold in the home market. India would be another maybe. Depending on price,they might go for the C919. And after 20 years, Air Koryo might pick a few up.
Due to transparency demands placed upon members of the New York Stock Exchange I'm willing to trust any financial figure posted by Boeing before anything from Russia, period.
Anyone who prefers to fly the Maxes which are death traps as far as i am concerned inspite of the huge dollar investment does not love himself or their family.
Well, There's multiple walls that MC-21 has to cross in order to surpass 737 Max. 1- MC-21 has shorter range with 2700nm compared to 737Max8 with 3550nm. 2- 737Max has better MTOW at maximum "89,765 kg" compared to MC-21 with "79,250 kg". 3- wider plane means more drag and less performance despite the design. 4- it's been 5 years since MC-21 made its first flight with ZERO orders from the western airlines, neither the middle eastern ones. In conclusion, MC-21 isn't competitive to both A320neo and 737Max in terms of range and performance. Add to that the Russian-Ukrainian invasion and economic sanctions that determined the future of this russian plane to the farthest extent, and likely will never find its place in the market.
An important comparison would be their likely costs to small airlines. Presumably the Russians will be offering very attractive terms. Also there will be political considerations where countries might prefer to avoid dealing with the US and favour a Russian option.
The majority of MAXs is ungrounded again and the MC-21 is set to be delivered for the first time this or next year. Also comparing the A220 to the SSJ is somehow like comparing an A320neo to a 737NG
The perfect logic of comparison is to stuff as many passengers as possible into a smaller space and take them a little further. And no one thought about the passengers. By the same length, the MС 21 has a much wider fuselage, which means more comfort for passengers.
The thing that stands out to me, is that compared to the decades old design of Boeing and Airbus the MC-21 is a much newer design that has been developed with newer technology in mind.
All depends on overall costs, not only for the aircraft but it’s operating expenses. The other thing going against the MC-21 is that Boeing and it’s 737 is a proven product. Even with the MAX difficulties, it’s in service and starting to prove itself a good workhorse. I can only see the MC-21 selling in Russia or smaller start up airlines which might get a better deal over price than say Boeing or Airbus.
Well sukhoi is a nice plane,but its not proven that it is safe,though it hasnt been in service yet,so we cannot give any coments yet..the max family is sucesfull and proven safe,exept the max 8 that had few problems about the m.cas,otherwise id rather choose to fly the max,cause its not only safe,its a nice and good airplane,which my favourite narrow body jet is the max9,which its comfortable,faster,and the best that boeing ever built,and waiting the release of the max10 who will be out soon,looking forward to fly the max10
Hello, were those МС-21 ranges with the PD-14 engines or the PW1000G ? And does the optional 4 wheel bogey main gear of the МС-21 hurt it's range or just it's load capacity? I've been looking forward to seeing the МС-21 become a reality for years. I wouldn't mind seeing a brief over view of their hydraulic systems, flight controls, and breaking systems from a maintenance point of view.
most of new aircarft stiull on original design the capacity and the range in still in save zone and they still use it for ceterfication proses, just like the early model of boeing 777 the range and capacity stiil half of boeing 777 latter model or modification
Where is the cost comparison mate. If any country's authorities approves MC-21 then it will be as good as Max. In such countries cost will definitely be a matter of deciding factor and MC-21 may have an edge?
Price is irrelevant. Aside from Aeroflot and a few others, no one is going to buy this because Russian aircraft have such a poor history of parts availability, dispatch reliability etc etc.
MC21 has not the slightest hope to find even a small niche on international markets, not because it is a bad plane, but because of international politics. 1) USA will sanction to death any airline daring to buy MC21 2) FAA and EASA will take forever to authorize MC21 in their airspace (just to have an idea, look at NS2 and Sputnik V). Not even Aeroflot will be able to use it on Euro routes. Moreover, no market outside EU and USA because of 1) So I see MC21 flying just on Russian internal routes with stints in Belarus and China. Sorry to write that, but reality is an harsh mistress.
Il potere è nella verità! I russi sono molto più onesti e decenti degli anglosassoni! Russia, un giorno è sicuro di diventare di nuovo un grande paese come L'URSS, in Sha Allah! In primo luogo, questo aereo sarà richiesto nel mercato russo, spero che in 8-10 anni sarà sicuramente entrare nel mercato internazionale! L'UE e gli Stati Uniti non sono il mondo intero, e nemmeno la metà del mondo! Ciao Italia Dall'Uzbekistan!
@@nickolliver3021 - nick I'm not so sure, we are served by Ryanair who flies the MAX, and WIZZAIR who flies AIRBUS, since Ryanair took delivery of the MAX I only use WIZZAIR.
@@davidcrook1235 if i was saying its safe to you when it's not then why would I say that. It's perfectly safe otherwise airlines wouldn't be flying it.
China has become such a large and self-sufficient market that the United States and the whole of Europe can no longer exist without it. He has mastered various technologies and continues to do so. The only one where it is still very weak is the engines. In Russia, this competence was restored after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but the market is not as big as the Chinese one, so they are making a wide-body CR929 aircraft together, where the engines, wings and some other systems will be Russian.
It will be a good day when Russian aviation comes back. The Sukhoi Superjet 100 was the start but the MC-21 will further help revitalize an ailing industry.
"when Russian aviation comes back" They have never been there to start with, Superjet is a flop, but name me one design that has ever competed with the west and came out on top. It never happened in the past and it wont happen in the future, why ? Because the government is the people in charge. Now in the US Lockheed Martin has about 95% of its sales to the US but its an open bidding contract, not the Russian way of "you will build this " no imagination just copy from this western builder and that western builder.
@@budm2849 "They were never there to start with" Didn't know the literal thousands of Russian passenger planes built that went to airlines around the world, not just Aeroflot, don't count. The Tu-154 alone sold over 1000 models. Maybe in your small mind they don't. Protip: I recommend you don't comment on Russian aviation since you aren't that knowledgeable.
@@declannewton2556 No, there are thousands of USSR/Russian airplanes that went to Soviet aligned countries who either couldn't afford Western aircraft, or weren't able to buy them due to being part of the USSR. Almost every single Russian aircraft is a commercial failure, and pointing out the rare successes doesn't change that.
@@budm2849 Soviet designs from the 50s and 60s were generally on par with Western equivalents, but once the CCCP fell behind on engine development so too did the performance of their aircraft. Aside from performance (and noise) however there were many versatile and reliable designs like the TU-154 produced in great numbers, and quite a number lasted in service up until a few years ago.
Choosing to fly either one is very tough question. I’m scared of 737 max, I might play with my heart in my hand just because I don’t know if I wanna fly a Russian but they do have very good technology I must admit, Although allegedly stolen technologies over the years.
Honestly, they're both going to be fine. The MC-21 will find few buyers outside of Russia and some friendly allies, but that has to do with supply chains, support agreements, and all kinds of other stuff that has nothing to do with the aircraft itself. The MAX will always have a bad reputation because of the accidents, but the reality is that the issues with MCAS implementation are over and it will go back to being a boring 737 variant. I'd fly on either one of these, any day of the week, and not worry in the least.
Even if the B737 Max is now back into service, I would rather like not to fly on an aircraft that has had 2 accidents in the space of few months between them.
After listening to this the max beats the Russian aircraft hands down ! When you fly a a/c the extra seats and the option for more miles the boing wins. Hands down !! A company will choose the max any day over the RUSSIAN A/C !!
The only problem is.... they are cheating! They pretend not to notice that greater range is achieved with extra fuel tank am extra fuel. Much extra fuel! While higher capacity in seats is a result of sacrificing toilets. You think it's a fair comparison?
Doubt to see the Russian plane in the international market much. Just look what happened to the Sukhoi Superjet. On the other hand the subsidized Russian airlines could provide domestic market for the plane, just like in China
SSJ was the first experience since the Soviet Union. all the problems that faced were visible in Russia in a much more unsightly form. Now they are all solved, the plane flies for 8-9 hours a day, in 2023 there will be a new version. So MS 21 will not repeat the SSJ experience.
I, personally, wouldn't get on any russian bucket of bolts. Their aviation industry is a disaster and will not get any better with sanctions that are now imposed.
The Russian example is less efficient, has less range, and the Russians have never provided great maintenance support for their planes. They also have serious financial problems constantly and are slow in getting planes built and delivered. It will end up like every other Russian jetliner and be flown only by Russian airlines. Why would this one be any different?
This is not a purely business project issue. There are too many sanctions for Russia, aviation is a matter of national security. The Americans imposed sanctions on the supply of carbon materials for the aircraft wing. I had to make my own materials,which delayed the project. If this is so, then Boeing recognizes the competition for the MС 21. Russia is a very large country in terms of territory, it will be a big mistake to remain without aviation at one moment.
Boeing and Airbus are airframe builders, everything (engines, avionics, landing gears, tires, seats, rivets, etc.) else is sourced out from other subcontractors located in the US, UK, EU, Japan, Korea, etc.) You cannot have an aviation industry with sanctions...because you cannot build everything you need in an airliner.
On this video they're not specifying with which engine are they doing the comparisons of the MC-21 with the Boeing 737 MAX. Since the MC-21 can be had by the costumer with the Pratt & Whitney (US) engines, or the new Aviadvigatel PD-14 Russian engines. The engines can make a big difference in distance and fuel efficiency, since not all engines have the same efficacy.
What PW engines does the MC-21 use?
@@SomeoneTookAK PW 1000G Turbofan engine, the same engines as the one on the Airbus A220
@@loumcast aight, thanks m8
The PD-14 engines are still in the testing phase
@@michaeldunham3385 Yes, but the MC-21 aircraft has already flown with it, they're waiting for their certification. The MC-21 aircrafts at the MAKS-2021 in Moscow recently, flew with the new Russian engines.
The russian has a wider fuselage and fits less passengers for an equivalent length. This should translate to more space per passenger. So based on this alone, I'd much rather fly on the russian aircraft. However, this doesn't factor in: cabin pressure, sound insulation, climate control, lighting etc. These things can only be evaluated after entry into service.
Till boeing and airbus leap frog it down the road in the not to distant future.
@@andrewlarson7895 Except not many people would buy their overpriced junk like 737Max that is flawed by design.
@@ardmrad9278 their buying them like pancakes hot off the grill. If you can type you can read.i think your looking in the wrong spot, bro ..
4000 back log ? + Theirv will about 700 more orders coming back to them now that the max is back on track and covid comes to pass. But the war my place a effect on that but that will happen with airbus to if does. 4000 left to build if nobody ever buys another one
@@andrewlarson7895 Yeah, they're buying it like hot cake! 😅😂 That's why people for the first time in history started checking the aircraft type they are flying with, and many airlines are forced not to disclose the aircraft type. I check every single time what the aircraft is and I can check the tail number to be sure what type aircraft I'm flying with.
I'd rather fly with ancient WW1 aircrafts than flawed amerikan junk.
The windshield of the MC-21 looks nice. So there’s that.
What is the price of the 21? How long would you have to operate the aircraft before the difference in price exceeded the difference in load or operating efficiency?
You have to take into account that boeing has ground equipment which is very expensive they have that all over the world plus they have employees every country in the world to work on your airplane and if an airplane is on the ground you want Boeing's because you know you're going to get your part on time not having to wait like a month or something Boeing has been around longer. So it's not always just about price it comes down to keeping your airplane in the sky so you can make money
Pricing is irrelevant because almost every commercial aircraft to come out of Russia is a commercial failure.
@@jonathanw11 Sounds like the 737MAX, that killed somewhere over 400 people because of poorly made software.
@@f-86zoomer37 Those crashes were caused by incomplete pilots and corrupt airlines. Look into the facts not the propaganda.
@@f-86zoomer37 Yeah a couple of serious crashed caused by poor design in an otherwise brilliant history of safety vs the complete abortion that is Russian aircraft.
The MC-21 is a completely new generation of aircraft in terms of design, reliability, and comfort compared to the Max version, which is a continuation of the 20th century's models.
Well, the composite design is pretty cool. But what else makes this plane so revolutionary? It's using the same engines as the A220 and E-Jets which have been around for a while.
@@VisibilityFoggy It should be noted that my own perspective on this project, so far, is from research regarding this one aspect of the industry, and I am not employed by the Irkut Corporation. PD-14 is the first step in developing a family of turbofan engines that are expected in 2025, according to rumors. MC-21 aircraft use novel aerodynamic techniques that are regularly upgraded as a solid foundation for future models and assumed to be state-of-the-art. As the MC-21 aircraft continues to be developed with (the assumed state-of-the-art technologies), new revolutionary models may be developed along with it.
Actually there is even a third version of the MC-21, the -400.
It is supposed to be the largest version of the Russian jet
Indeed, it will have 250-260 seats if it gets the go-ahead.
The Russian plane is likely to be much cheaper than the Boeing 737 Max. That means many countries in Asia, Africa and South America are likely to prefer the Russian plane.
Cabin width; 3.8m vs 3.5m
.....simply unparalleled 🛫🤓
Which 1 is bigger tho?
@@thematrix5904 MC-21 is wider
And that partially explains the efficiency issue as well, wider fuselage will have higher drag
I wonder why the MC-21 designers/engineers decided to opt out of winglets for this type?
It’s been found that winglets for short haul flights actually decrease fuel efficiency due to the extra weight they add offsetting the fuel gains. Not sure if this is related in any way.
@@iamjames8200 actually the wings which are made out of composites have high aspect ratio, and as explained by the designers, the same reason the 787 doesn't have winglets only the MC-21 have composite wings in this market segment by far.
Thanks James…that’s indeed fascinating since the 737 variants have incredibly profuse ones and most of those flights are less than 4 hours.
Short haul aircraft, duration of cruise is not long enough to bring sufficient fuel savings to warrant the extra weight of winglets. Plus, the MC-21 May have fuel savings come about from other areas, costs may also be a factor.
If that is true what then is the purpose of the Max jets having winglets is it to decieve buyers or what
As long as one aircraft is efficient in all aspects such as fuel capacity, comfort and safety.
And range also
Engineering support and parts supply are important but not mentioned.
I would advise you take into account the list price, maintenance cost (especially the C check with boeing vs irkut - as I have a strange feeling it might be cheaper even here). So.. which one is more viable from a cost perspective?
What do you think of the MC-21? Let us know in the comments!
Too early to say, but competition is always good👍
Don't like the look of the MC-21, the 737 is still the best looking narrow body aircraft followed by the Airbus 220, but competition is always a good thing
It's a good looking aircraft.
Uwu
Why are the videos so late, lately
I would like to try them both. However, fuel efficiency is an important factor.
And Range.
MC-21 has roughly 2700nm of range compared to 737Max8 with 3550nm.
Soviet/Russian types have traditionally suffered from abysmal after sales support by their manufacturers. The SSJ-100 program had high hopes, but I haven't gotten a good read on how after sales support has been. I wonder if the Mexican low cost carrier that picked them up is still able to keep them in the air with a good dispatch rate...Boeing had partnered with Sukhoi for a while, but ended up withdrawing from the project after Vladimir Putin did his thing...
This is the reason …. Excellent comment
mexico has returned the Sukhoi
Said airline (Interjet) isn't flying anymore due to a workers' strike. It's been more than a year, I think.
At least 10 of those Superjets are parked with no maintenance whatsoever in the airport I'm working at. It's a sad sight.
If you compare the 737max flying time over the 2 past years, it was about 25% in the air (not grounded). The MC-21 will probably have a reliabily around 85% (based on rumors about the Mexican SSJs). Based on only that, the MC-21 will compare better than the max.
Of course, ... the A320neo has a 99.91% reliability and the max is mostly de-grounded.....
@@Luke_Go Maybe, but looking forward the Max series has worked through their issues. Looking ahead they are a fair candidate to exceed both the Russians and Airbus.
Should be deatail the fuel capacity of Mc-21.PW1400 BR is 12:1 better than any Leap version.
Nice ! I LOVE this channel
wondering if one of the issues is how well they will be able to maintain them (parts/supplies) with the Russian economy ??
One of the best cold war descriptions of Russia goes something like this: Karl Marx imagined England when the wrote _The Communist Manifesto._ If he'd known Russia was going to be the country where the revolution took place he would have burned the manuscript.
there is no problem with Russian economy, there is problem with managment and marketing
@@superjet1007 Well, marketing and management practices can always be spruced up. What can't? Well, for starters... the fact that your business exists within a kleptocracy that operates for the benefit of a single man whose whims and dreams drive policy no matter the consequences.
I think there are more important parameters than range and capacity.
Definitely on the Russian for safety. No short cuts as 737
Great video. Can you do a video with the 7 3 7 and a 3 2 0 families please?
Seeing Russia and China enter the aerospace market with competitive aircraft might actually push Boeing and Airbus to stop recycling old designs and actually innovate for the first time in decades... thus I'm welcoming these new aircraft.
The 787 and A350 are examples of beautiful new planes by Boeing and Airbus. Hopefully we do see more - especially a 757 replacement.
I want to take a flight on the MC-21! When I was first in Russia I did ride on a Tupelov domestically, although I can’t remember which one which really irritates me. I hadn’t yet become obsessed with with planes so I stupidly didn’t take notice. What’s that expression? Youth is wasted on the young?
I am certain that the North Koreans will love this model.
А как насчёт удобства пассажиров? В МС-21 широкий проход и сиденья расположены менее плотно.
Make a separate video on the Russian engines used in comparison with CFM ones as their service life & dependability is not up to western engines.
I’d rather fly the A320.
I as a flyer will prefer to have a bigger cabin for comfort and less claustrophobic experience. I am not to squeeze myself in a aluminium can of the 737 max for the sake of saving money for the airline. Therefore I prefer the MC21!. Irkut should lengthen the fuselage to rival A321XLR. With a bigger cabin, long journey is bearable.
Cost of this russian plane vs 737 max vs A320 neo can anyone tell?
You compared everything but the most important thing, namely the price 😳
The price is irrelevant though. It's not going to sway many airlines to purchase simply because the history of Russian planes is so bad.
I think it's a nice looking aircraft, I hope the Comac C919 and Irkut Mc-21 fly the skies along with Airbus and Boeing's jets :)
I know narrow-body aircraft are typically connected to short and medium haul flights, but I would really love a 2-2-2 configuration for the MC-21 like the 7J7 concept, just widen the cockpit a few inches more and we'll gonna have the smallest widebody in the market with little to no competition. Low-cost carriers would flock to this aircraft as an A320CEO and 737NG replacement.
With Russia's proven airframe reliability, comparably cheaper market price than any other narrow-body competitors, I'm curious on why short-haul carriers would still opt for the 737MAX.
No one would flock to buy it though regardless of the internal layout.
You're curious why short haul carriers opt for 737MAX? Umm, support, spare parts, servicing, reliability etc etc. All things the Russians don't have going for them.
seems more similar to the a321 as seen from the door config
Door configurations are a security problem, you can leave the plane much faster, although there will be a loss of passenger seats.
@@НиколайЗинин-п1х true
I'd like to see a comparison between the BBJ 737 MAX and if there is a business variant of the MC-12.
MC 21
Chalk and cheese, a 1960s airframe that competes by taking advantage of grandfathering rules to avoid required levels of safety against a state of the art FBW CF aircraft.
I woud rather fly the MC 21 than the Max ,It is a clean modern design vs a 60s oldtimer with modern makeup . I am sure the russians have learned from the SS 100 failure , Not every country has the capability to develop an aircraft from scratch.
I will like to see how the MC21 compare with the Airbus A319 and A321
How do they compare? Well, one will be a commercial success, the other won't be. I'm sure you know which way that'll go
The mc-21 probably won't fall out of the sky resulting in a firey explosion.
Then again... maybe it will. If you hate Boeing, buy Airbus or one of the larger E2-Jets. Will Irkut/Yak even be around in a few years? How will geopolitics affect the availability of parts and support? What happens if Russia's economy does not improve? What happens if there's a war with China? For the vast majority of commercial airlines on the planet, Airbus and Boeing are safe bets. Messing with Russian manufacturers has gotten a lot of people burnt over the years.
I think something that is big is that the MC doesn't crash into the ground so that is a big plus
And neither does the Max.
Please do one on the C919 next.
I'm very looking forward to see both MC21 and C919 fly, atleast their native country's dependency to other manufacturer are lower, and more competition is desparately needed by the industry rn.
what about price?
What about it?
It used to be a simple decision. A Boeing product was built to be strong, reliable, and safe. Those days are gone. At best I would consider it a toss up. Boeing is run by cost cutting MBA's that no longer put product integrity first. I am willing to bet the the Russian team knows it has to be better than the best and has a chance of being a pretty solid product.
well, even if that were true, they can make just 2 a month. There are 4000 outstanding orders just for the MAX, a similar amount for the A320....how many airlines are willing to wait 2000 months for their new plane...??
The narrator from the get go is negative of the Mc-21-300 , I'd want the more leg room , American planes to crowded , very uncomfortable
Price is not that important if the purchaser's aircraft is grounded for parts or Customer Support. An airline cannot afford to have even a day of unexpected downtime. So far Russian Aircraft have had a dismal track record on that account and that would be the Deal Breaker until they can demonstrate after sale service. This is a start for the Russian and Chinese new aircraft and they may be able to put that together as time goes by and be competitive to Boeing and Airbus but I seriously doubt that the majority of U.S. Airline Passengers will accept anything but Boeing and Airbus for the immediate future.
I agree with you. it was a bad idea to enter other markets with an airplane that has "childhood diseases" and only one model. All this has already been decided in Russia, the SSJ flies for 8-9 hours a day, which is not very bad for this aircraft. It is easier to enter foreign markets with a line of different aircraft, then it is easier to provide different support. After 5 years, it can be the next line of SSJ 100, SSJ 130, MC 21-300, MC 21-400 and IL 114 turboprop.
Russian narrowbody? No.
737 MAX? Not yet, not for a very long time.
Give me an A320/321. Bigger cabin space and larger bins than a MAX. It's 7 inches wider inside, with seats in 3-3 each an inch wider across.
The lack of wingtip devices on the Russian design is unconscionable. Not sure whether this would account for all of the range differences, especially if the MC is using the same power plants, but I bet it's much of the difference. What a colossal design error.
That's hardly true, the MC-21 wing has a much higher aspect ratio than the 737 MAX, 11.5 vs around 9.5, therefore the cost of adding wingtip devices outweighs the benefit (similar to how the 777 doesn't have any). Most likely the difference in range is due to the larger fuselage (8% wider), and fewer optimisations due to it being new. A more suitable comparison would be against the A320neo, of which the MC-21-300 can carry more passengers and cargo, has a 13% higher max payload capacity, and fly almost the same range (7% less), despite carrying 15% less fuel
The allowed wingspan for this type of aircraft is 36 meters. At MС 21, it is 35.9 m there is not lenght for winglets.
It would be good to have the passenger perspective rather than just the operator.
Seat width, pitch, cabin pressure and humidity. Aside from safety and arriving alive at your destination the customer seeks comfort. The new tech of the 787 and 777x point the way to what should be expected. Airbus with a newer a320neo is closer to the comfort of the MC21 and better than the 737. The A220 is as good if not better than the MC21 from a passenger perspective and with a stretched A220-500 this product would be a better offering against the MC21, 737 Max 7&8 and the A320. Even for a short hop having a seat with 18 plus inch width is a big comfort difference to a passenger even the E190s are better out of London city to Scotland than the other aircraft types so I choose city on BA for my London trips.
And 220-500 will not be produced. Airbus with the model A 220-300 almost killed his A 319. Airbus will not let them kill their bestseller A 320.
Николай Зинин I think the A220-500 will be offered before the end of 2023 for orders and delivery by 2026. Yes the A318 was withdrawn as it was not effective as a double shrink. The A319 is not a big earner and the A220 has largely put it out the market other than savings on airlines that need a few smaller units to avoid pilot training and spares/maintenance. Airbus have to develop an A320 replacement which I think will be for 2030 when a new engine is available and economic composite wing production is possible AND single pilot systems accepted. They will shift the size to the A321 equivalent (210 to 220 seats) as a base size with a stretch up filling the 757 size and a stretch down to the A220-500 or 700 size for operators not requiring regional fleet sizing. Airbus will reposition its fleet offerings with 3 aircraft types the A220, the follow on all new A321 replacement and an A350 neo all offered between 2026 and 2033. Back to the drawing board for the MC21, the C919 and the CR929 which will be old and without sufficient support to penetrate the international market. Boeing is caught out with 4 aircraft to cover the market which will be inefficient in manufacturing and support.
I have done a few scenario planning exercises with my strategy group and that's what we would do if Airbus. It clobbers all the competition. Of course the A380 Nero may be seen again IF high density hub to hub for congestion is needed from 2035 with a nice new engine on the wing.
@@davidramsay6142 Dear David, you can think and believe as you want, but there is an objective reality of blowing in an air tube. Aircraft from 50 to 100 seats in the 2+2 configuration is the best option, 100-150 seats 2+3 is optimal for narrow-body aircraft 3+3 150-250 seats, the rest is wide-body aircraft.
Николай Зинин I do not dispute the generalisation of seating arrangement you suggest however this is a rather dated perspective. Boeing refuted the hub model and justification for the A380 while promoting the point to point model. Clearly the demise of the quad jets ratified this view and it would seem the sluggish sales of the 777x points to them not taking their own advice.
What is establishing in the market and made more the case with covid19 is for smaller aircraft capable of point to point distance. This is clearly verified with the A321xlr sales success. For long distance point to point passengers will demand comfort so the A220 and less so the A321lr and xlr will deliver while the 737max10 will not - the seat is too narrow. The MC21 will have comfort (width of seat, cabin pressure and humidity) but it will pull up short on range. I applaud the boldness in pursuing the MC21 but I feel it is in a tight corner and success a slim chance due to the capacity of the design, the risk in the new technology for a Russian manufacturer and the risk in the aircraft having an aftermarket support as has been the super jets big issue. It's a tough game and requires capable management, design, money and engineering coupled with the industrial resource and capacity to deliver through the cycle. Airbus is well positioned, Boeing is screwed, the eastern entrance is ill timed on the technology cycle and I suspect it will be too tough a mountain to climb for the next 20 years. The current aircraft (MC21, c919,cr929) have more chance of flopping than succeeding dependent upon the Boeing bounce back which if strong will be at the expense of the new entrants, Boeing has to fail for the new players to materially get in on the game with new products that will be old in 10 years time......
I would like to see more and more companies succeed and break the monopoly.
Yes would like to fly on MC-21.
which plane puts the highest pressure on a runway? hint it is NOT a 747 or 380 with there multiple big tyres.
naval skyhawk tends to leave two furrows down the runway.
Ha. The exhaust from an F-35B will just melt it.
The MC21 will pretty much only be bought by Russian airlines, and maybe Cubana. Another potential client used to be China, but the Chinese have the home-built COMAC C919 now, so that will severely limit orders there, if any get ordered at all. Chinese airlines have lots of 737s and A320s to retire before the C919 even will get a foothold in the home market. India would be another maybe. Depending on price,they might go for the C919. And after 20 years, Air Koryo might pick a few up.
MC-21 cost $3.5 billion to develop ... Max crisis cost Boeing $19 billion.
Due to transparency demands placed upon members of the New York Stock Exchange I'm willing to trust any financial figure posted by Boeing before anything from Russia, period.
Yes, because there are more 737s
Anyone who prefers to fly the Maxes which are death traps as far as i am concerned inspite of the huge dollar investment does not love himself or their family.
@@4evertrue830 Well I can't fly on an MC-21, can I?
@@4evertrue830 actually because of past problems with the Max it's probably one of the safest aircrafts out there.
It'll be interesting to see if the Russian offering will be able to take any of the Max's orders if it performs well.
Well, There's multiple walls that MC-21 has to cross in order to surpass 737 Max.
1- MC-21 has shorter range with 2700nm compared to 737Max8 with 3550nm.
2- 737Max has better MTOW at maximum "89,765 kg" compared to MC-21 with "79,250 kg".
3- wider plane means more drag and less performance despite the design.
4- it's been 5 years since MC-21 made its first flight with ZERO orders from the western airlines, neither the middle eastern ones.
In conclusion, MC-21 isn't competitive to both A320neo and 737Max in terms of range and performance. Add to that the Russian-Ukrainian invasion and economic sanctions that determined the future of this russian plane to the farthest extent, and likely will never find its place in the market.
I would never step foot in Boeing 737 Max. I always check the airplane type and when it's 737max, I change flight.
An important comparison would be their likely costs to small airlines. Presumably the Russians will be offering very attractive terms. Also there will be political considerations where countries might prefer to avoid dealing with the US and favour a Russian option.
Such as? It's not going to sell in Europe or even China
As long as the 737max is grounded and has issues, the MC-21 can compete.
It's like the Sukhoi Superjet against the A220.....
The majority of MAXs is ungrounded again and the MC-21 is set to be delivered for the first time this or next year. Also comparing the A220 to the SSJ is somehow like comparing an A320neo to a 737NG
@@spongebubatz Yes and yes. I know - and I stand by what I wrote.
Any A319 or 737NG from 1995 will be better than both MC-21 and SSJ. Want to bet?
What is the software used for maps in 3:00 ?
Competition is good we need more to make the big 2 scared
Didn't talk of the width.
The perfect logic of comparison is to stuff as many passengers as possible into a smaller space and take them a little further. And no one thought about the passengers. By the same length, the MС 21 has a much wider fuselage, which means more comfort for passengers.
The thing that stands out to me, is that compared to the decades old design of Boeing and Airbus the MC-21 is a much newer design that has been developed with newer technology in mind.
All depends on overall costs, not only for the aircraft but it’s operating expenses. The other thing going against the MC-21 is that Boeing and it’s 737 is a proven product. Even with the MAX difficulties, it’s in service and starting to prove itself a good workhorse. I can only see the MC-21 selling in Russia or smaller start up airlines which might get a better deal over price than say Boeing or Airbus.
I'd rather fly on the A320 family , thank you !
me too!!
Airbus aircraft just feel cheap.
@@fiftystate1388 that's, like, your opinion man
Me 2
@@fiftystate1388 lol i find it opposite
There's one tiny little thing you forgot: PRICE COMPARISON $$$
MC-21!
I’d prefer flying on Boeing aircraft or even Airbus aircraft than any Russian aircraft
Well sukhoi is a nice plane,but its not proven that it is safe,though it hasnt been in service yet,so we cannot give any coments yet..the max family is sucesfull and proven safe,exept the max 8 that had few problems about the m.cas,otherwise id rather choose to fly the max,cause its not only safe,its a nice and good airplane,which my favourite narrow body jet is the max9,which its comfortable,faster,and the best that boeing ever built,and waiting the release of the max10 who will be out soon,looking forward to fly the max10
Hello, were those МС-21 ranges with the PD-14 engines or the PW1000G ?
And does the optional 4 wheel bogey main gear of the МС-21 hurt it's range or just it's load capacity?
I've been looking forward to seeing the МС-21 become a reality for years. I wouldn't mind seeing a brief over view of their hydraulic systems, flight controls, and breaking systems from a maintenance point of view.
Very good questions for Simple flying to do another video on.
I’d rather fly in an American or European airplane. However, I’d fly in a Russian airplane way before I would fly in a Chinese airplane.
I'm a Boeing fan for life.
Rather foolish imo.
So what about the Comac Chinese-Russian plane?
If it's not Boeing, I'm not going
With notable exceptions
To me, American and European aircraft (Boeing and Airbus) will always be better than Russian and Chinese ones. But that’s my opinion.
The Chinese and Russians do need a chance to show their engineering prowess. They are also experienced aircraft builders.
@@abdulwasey3506 valid point
most of new aircarft stiull on original design the capacity and the range in still in save zone and they still use it for ceterfication proses, just like the early model of boeing 777 the range and capacity stiil half of boeing 777 latter model or modification
When it comes to passengers comfort - MC 21 series are spacious than A320N and 737M series.
❤️ Russia’s MC-21 ❤️
Where is the cost comparison mate. If any country's authorities approves MC-21 then it will be as good as Max. In such countries cost will definitely be a matter of deciding factor and MC-21 may have an edge?
Price is irrelevant. Aside from Aeroflot and a few others, no one is going to buy this because Russian aircraft have such a poor history of parts availability, dispatch reliability etc etc.
MC21 has not the slightest hope to find even a small niche on international markets, not because it is a bad plane, but because of international politics.
1) USA will sanction to death any airline daring to buy MC21
2) FAA and EASA will take forever to authorize MC21 in their airspace (just to have an idea, look at NS2 and Sputnik V).
Not even Aeroflot will be able to use it on Euro routes.
Moreover, no market outside EU and USA because of 1)
So I see MC21 flying just on Russian internal routes with stints in Belarus and China.
Sorry to write that, but reality is an harsh mistress.
Il potere è nella verità! I russi sono molto più onesti e decenti degli anglosassoni! Russia, un giorno è sicuro di diventare di nuovo un grande paese come L'URSS, in Sha Allah! In primo luogo, questo aereo sarà richiesto nel mercato russo, spero che in 8-10 anni sarà sicuramente entrare nel mercato internazionale! L'UE e gli Stati Uniti non sono il mondo intero, e nemmeno la metà del mondo!
Ciao Italia Dall'Uzbekistan!
the MC21 hasn't killed any passengers yet whilst the MAX has killed a lot!
but won't kill more. the max is now safe
@@nickolliver3021 - nick I'm not so sure, we are served by Ryanair who flies the MAX, and WIZZAIR who flies AIRBUS, since Ryanair took delivery of the MAX I only use WIZZAIR.
@@davidcrook1235 if i was saying its safe to you when it's not then why would I say that. It's perfectly safe otherwise airlines wouldn't be flying it.
I will never set foot on any 737 Max aircraft
If you must pick one for your airline, would you rather buy a Russian commercial aircraft or a Chinese commercial aircraft? Comment below.
Russian.
China has become such a large and self-sufficient market that the United States and the whole of Europe can no longer exist without it. He has mastered various technologies and continues to do so. The only one where it is still very weak is the engines. In Russia, this competence was restored after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but the market is not as big as the Chinese one, so they are making a wide-body CR929 aircraft together, where the engines, wings and some other systems will be Russian.
It will be a good day when Russian aviation comes back.
The Sukhoi Superjet 100 was the start but the MC-21 will further help revitalize an ailing industry.
"when Russian aviation comes back" They have never been there to start with, Superjet is a flop, but name me one design that has ever competed with the west and came out on top. It never happened in the past and it wont happen in the future, why ? Because the government is the people in charge. Now in the US Lockheed Martin has about 95% of its sales to the US but its an open bidding contract, not the Russian way of "you will build this " no imagination just copy from this western builder and that western builder.
@@budm2849
"They were never there to start with"
Didn't know the literal thousands of Russian passenger planes built that went to airlines around the world, not just Aeroflot, don't count. The Tu-154 alone sold over 1000 models.
Maybe in your small mind they don't. Protip: I recommend you don't comment on Russian aviation since you aren't that knowledgeable.
@@declannewton2556 No, there are thousands of USSR/Russian airplanes that went to Soviet aligned countries who either couldn't afford Western aircraft, or weren't able to buy them due to being part of the USSR. Almost every single Russian aircraft is a commercial failure, and pointing out the rare successes doesn't change that.
@@budm2849
Soviet designs from the 50s and 60s were generally on par with Western equivalents, but once the CCCP fell behind on engine development so too did the performance of their aircraft. Aside from performance (and noise) however there were many versatile and reliable designs like the TU-154 produced in great numbers, and quite a number lasted in service up until a few years ago.
@@declannewton2556 you've left out the fact that the SSJ-100 uses mainly western systems and was jointly designed by Boeing
Why are you guys posting so late now a days u posted this at exactly 7pm where I live yet most times your vids are posted at 10-11am for me.
Have any/ how many B 737:s sold to Russian airlines?
Choosing to fly either one is very tough question. I’m scared of 737 max, I might play with my heart in my hand just because I don’t know if I wanna fly a Russian but they do have very good technology I must admit, Although allegedly stolen technologies over the years.
Honestly, they're both going to be fine. The MC-21 will find few buyers outside of Russia and some friendly allies, but that has to do with supply chains, support agreements, and all kinds of other stuff that has nothing to do with the aircraft itself. The MAX will always have a bad reputation because of the accidents, but the reality is that the issues with MCAS implementation are over and it will go back to being a boring 737 variant. I'd fly on either one of these, any day of the week, and not worry in the least.
Despite using a composite wing i guess the MC21 will need winglets to improve performance
its not possible.
well, if the RU aircraft is not approved by FAA and EASA, then there won't be any competition anyway...lol...
Great message. "turn off the gas" in Europe :)
I'd fly on the MC-21, not the max
Why
why not the max
@@nickolliver3021 you know what happened
@@wadehiggins8107 it's now safe wade!
Sukhoi look forward to Brazil ✈️✈️✈️
I prefer an aircraft that does not fall...
well one does not fall
knowing the SSJ 100 and how well and nice it its, one may just wonder of all the technology that is inside the MC21 but after saying that A320 always!
If the A220 was 737 sized
Even if the B737 Max is now back into service, I would rather like not to fly on an aircraft that has had 2 accidents in the space of few months between them.
I would fly on one just for the sake of variety
After listening to this the max beats the Russian aircraft hands down ! When you fly a a/c the extra seats and the option for more miles the boing wins. Hands down !! A company will choose the max any day over the RUSSIAN A/C !!
The only problem is.... they are cheating! They pretend not to notice that greater range is achieved with extra fuel tank am extra fuel. Much extra fuel!
While higher capacity in seats is a result of sacrificing toilets.
You think it's a fair comparison?
Doubt to see the Russian plane in the international market much. Just look what happened to the Sukhoi Superjet. On the other hand the subsidized Russian airlines could provide domestic market for the plane, just like in China
The Superjet was just the start of getting the industry back.
The MC-21 wil take Russian aviation to the next level.
SSJ was the first experience since the Soviet Union. all the problems that faced were visible in Russia in a much more unsightly form. Now they are all solved, the plane flies for 8-9 hours a day, in 2023 there will be a new version. So MS 21 will not repeat the SSJ experience.
More competition inside Russia. Let the Run start....
I, personally, wouldn't get on any russian bucket of bolts. Their aviation industry is a disaster and will not get any better with sanctions that are now imposed.
The Russian example is less efficient, has less range, and the Russians have never provided great maintenance support for their planes. They also have serious financial problems constantly and are slow in getting planes built and delivered. It will end up like every other Russian jetliner and be flown only by Russian airlines. Why would this one be any different?
This is not a purely business project issue. There are too many sanctions for Russia, aviation is a matter of national security. The Americans imposed sanctions on the supply of carbon materials for the aircraft wing. I had to make my own materials,which delayed the project. If this is so, then Boeing recognizes the competition for the MС 21. Russia is a very large country in terms of territory, it will be a big mistake to remain without aviation at one moment.
Tell United States to remove sanctions then)
Boeing and Airbus are airframe builders, everything (engines, avionics, landing gears, tires, seats, rivets, etc.) else is sourced out from other subcontractors located in the US, UK, EU, Japan, Korea, etc.)
You cannot have an aviation industry with sanctions...because you cannot build everything you need in an airliner.
For me, the comparison stops already at missing sharklets/winglets 😂😂
This may be my bias speaking but the Russian plane is better in one area. It's #21 designation. Anything that uses 21 is ok in my book
Very limited and sometimes inaccurate information
But MC-21 can do the COBRA ✌️💪👍🥇