Filename:pt_ilyushin_il-62m_v1_tarom_classic_by_serg09.zipLicense:FreewareAdded:6th November 2021, 16:28:25Downloads:79Author:Sergey Gleba PaintSimSize:64524kb
Filename:pt_ilyushin_il-62m_v1_aeroflot_2020_by_serg09.zipLicense:FreewareAdded:10th April 2021, 23:45:20Downloads:163Author:Sergey Gleba PaintSimSize:67775kb
Project Tupolev Il-62
Filename:pt_ilyushin_il-62m_v1_aeroflot_russian_airlines_by_serg09.zipLicense:FreewareAdded:3rd March 2021, 23:29:01Downloads:126Author:Sergey Gleba PaintSimSize:65394kb
In 1974, when the IL-86 widebody project was becamlmed, the Soviet Union decided to buy 30 L1011s from Lockheed, and wanted to build up to 100 per year. The deal was vetoed by various parts of the US government for various reasons. The Soviets were by this time already in possession of actual Lockheed L1011 documentation, and decided to go ahead with their own version of the plane. Tupolev, Antonov, Yakovlev, TANKT Beriev, and even Myashishchev were invited to prepare proposals for the project.
TU-204 is a basic version with 210 tourist-class seat layout. The aircraft is powered by PS-90A engines. It was certified in 1994.TU-204C is a certified TU-204 cargo version with a big cargo ramp and 27t cargo capacity.TU-204P is a military ASW version. In 1995 the Defense Ministry made a decision about freezing the scientific research and experimental design work on the Beriev A-40 Albatros and beginning the development of new antisubmarine aircraft on the base of the already transmitted into the series production passenger Tu-204. It was assumed that Tu-204P it will be maximally standardized with the base all-passenger layout (which it was planned to let out by a large series), which will substantially lower operating costs. It seemed that the history A-40 on this ended. In subsequent five years only a few Tu-204 were produced, and the Tu-204P project was frozen. In 2005 funding was discontinued for programs to create machines Tu-204P and A-40 "Albatros" (the latter in the development of Taganrog Aviation Scientific-Technical Complex Berieva, started back in 1983). TU-204-100 is a TU-204 aircraft version with a flight range extended up to 7000km. It is certified against Russian Airworthiness Standards. TU-204-100 aircraft was certified to Russian standards NLGS-3 and completely meets ICAO noise and emission requirements.TU-204-120 is a TU-204 aircraft version powered by RB211-535 Rolls-Royce engines. The aircraft was certified in 1997.TU-204-120C is a TU-204-120 cargo version certified in 1998.TU-204-120CE is a TU-204-120 cargo version. In 2004 it was certified against AP-25 Russian Airworthiness Rules. It is scheduled to deliver five TU-204-120CE aircraft to China operators and to certify them to JAR-25 in 2005-2006.TU-204-300 is a TU-204-100 aircraft version designated to carry 162 passengers in tourist class over 9000km range. TU-204-300 aircraft is characterised by high fuel efficiency, range and profitability. It was scheduled to complete the aircraft certification against AP-25 Russian Airworthiness Rules in 2004. Within the certification test program, in October 2004 TU-204-300 aircraft performed non-stop flight on route Moscow-Vladivostok-Moscow and showed compliance with all declared specifications. TU-204-300 with PS-90A engines is a mid-range passenger aircraft is intended to carry passengers, luggage and cargo on domestic and international trunk routes of 500 to 8500 km long. The airliner was built on the basis of TU-204-100 aircraft and represents the continuation of TU-204/214 aircraft family. TU-204-300 aircraft performed its maiden flight 18 August, 2003. The aircraft is produced in series at ":Aviastar-SP" Closed Stock Company in Ulianovsk. Opposite to TU-204-100 the TU-204-300 aircraft has a shortened fuselage (by 6 m) and increased fuel reserve. Set of equipment was updated. Improved comfort level of the cabin helps the passengers to withstand long flights. Maximal payload is cut down to 18000 kg at increased flight range. Baseline layout of passenger cabin - three-cabin configuration is offered in three versions: 157 passenger economy class seats version; 155 passenger economy class seats version; two-class version for 142 passenger seats. Mixed version of 142 passenger seats cabin provides 8 business-class sets (seat pitch is 1050 mm) and 134 passenger seats in economy class (seat pitch is 810 mm).
So, the Soviets had short-haul jet travel down to an art, but anything longer range was still the realm of the Il-18, the An-10, and the aging Tu-104. Not the image you want the sole airline of your republic to project when the goal was to show an external image of modernity.
To contribute to the global effort to reduce greenhouse gases, the aviation industry has to meet increasingly strict externally and internally imposed decarbonization goals. While, in 2009, a commitment from the International Air Transport Association called for a 50% reduction in emissions by 2050 and carbon-neutral growth from 2020 onward [1], the goal now is to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 [2]. The former is also the official position of the International Civil Aviation Organization [3]. The European Union is calling for a 90% emissions reduction by 2050 in the whole transportation sector, including aviation, as part of the New Green Deal [4], and refocusing the goal to reduce carbon dioxide CO2 emissions by 75% by 2050 set in 2011 [5]. Even though these targets have different timelines and exact values, it is clear that the aviation sector faces a challenging decarbonization process. To manage this process successfully, a wide range of technologies must be further developed and implemented. One of the most promising technologies is the use of liquid hydrogen (LH2) as an energy source inside the aircraft [6]. This has also been recognized by the aviation industry, such as the major aircraft manufacturer Airbus, with its ambitious goal to develop a short-to-medium range hydrogen-powered aircraft by 2035, called ZEROe [7]. An overview of past and ongoing projects relating to hydrogen-powered aircraft is given in Table 1.
Secondly, hydrogen can be used in conjunction with oxygen in fuel cells to generate electricity for propulsion or on-board power supply. When compared to gas turbines, the fuel cell is more efficient and less sensitive to descaling efforts [23,24], and its climate impact is substantially lower [22]. However, there is little to no experience of using fuel cells at the multiple megawatt scale; for example, an Airbus A320 needs approximately 40 MW for takeoff [25], which is needed for medium- to long-range aircraft propulsion [21]. However, for smaller aircraft with a shorter range, fuel cells could be used as the main energy source. This is shown, for example, in Table 1, which describes projects using smaller Dornier aircraft with fuel cells as their main energy source.
In the automotive industry, PEMFCs are the standard for hydrogen-powered cars and buses and, even though the market share of fuel-cell-powered vehicles is still small [40,42], this has enabled experience to be acquired in the operation and MRO of PEMFCs, some of which is transferable to the aviation sector. Moreover, in the automotive sector, a similar concept to airworthiness exists, called road-worthiness. Although this is not as strict and internationalized in terms of regulation, it has resulted in similar certification and regulation measures. In particular, hydrogen-powered bus projects financed by the public sector provide a basis on which to build.
Changes to cost structure and revenue streams are difficult to predict. This is primarily due to a complete absence of data on MRO of PEMFCs [40]. An approximate calculation is provided in Wehrspohn et al. [31], where the total MRO cost of an aircraft is calculated. A PEMFC is used as an APU with a higher energy share than modern APUs; a likely scenario already introduced in Section 1, is used as a basis. Depending on the scenarios, which are mostly determined by the LH2-tank, an increase in the MRO cost from 5 to 37% is calculated. While the higher estimates are primarily attributable to the required exchange of the entire fuel tank during the lifecycle of the aircraft, it is nevertheless demonstrated that, under the assumed boundary conditions, no MRO cost reduction should be expected as a result of implementing fuel cells [31]. This is supported by the fact that automotive fuel cell vehicles are more expensive to maintain than conventional cars [61]. For MRO providers, this would result in a continuous revenue stream. The authors of Wang et al. [40] emphasize the potential increase in MRO cost following the implementation of fuel cells. The substantial costs associated with disassembling the stack for repair are particularly highlighted. These are projected to be up to 22% of the whole stack cost and will occur every time the stack has to be disassembled [40]. This is especially relevant for the exchange of individual fuel cells to increase stack performance, as described in Section 3.2.
d0d94e66b7