Soviet invaders

[Seb]

Hello hope it's the right place to ask,
I don't know if anyone finds it strange why ex-Soviet aircraft are
rarely exported to the West, even though they are known for being cheap
and easy to operate. I assume there's a good reason I just don't know
it! I used to assume it was partly due to protectionism/other political
factors--possible 'vicitms' for this are

-An-2: cheap and rugged, but not allowed in the US to land at a
different airport it leaves from, or drop parachuters. Officially
because it's not completely certified, but looks a bit like an attempt
to stop people from using it commercially (and so protect the domestic
aviation industry which hasn't anything comparable to the An-2). On the
other hand it could just be because the An-2 is dangerous and unreliable.

-Il-76: in a well-publicized incident in the US, it was theorized that
if the Il-76 were available to the forestry service, very useful as a
firebomber, it would have done much to contain a serious forest fire.
The forestry service seems to drag its feet about the subject (again
just another case of governments reluctant to buy foreign kit), but then
again bureaucracies drag their feet all the time, especially when
questioned about their failures.

On the other hand the few Western countries (eg. Finland) who have
experience with Soviet kit, when given a chance, chose Western equipment
for their latest procurement. And I do also get the impression that
Russian aircraft score badly in things like noise and pollution emission
and fuel economy--although the Westernized types with Western engines
aren't doing so well neither. Any comments?

Seb

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 12:48:50 +0200, Seb > wrote:

>Hello hope it's the right place to ask,
>I don't know if anyone finds it strange why ex-Soviet aircraft are
>rarely exported to the West, even though they are known for being cheap
>and easy to operate. I assume there's a good reason I just don't know
>it!

Can't speak to "the West" in general, but I can probably give you some
answers regarding the United Statues. One big reason is that many of these
aircraft are not type-certificated in the US, and they were built at a time
when reciprocity agreements did not exist. Without type certificates,
these aircraft cannot be flown on any sort of commercial service.

For instance, there are six AN-2s parked at my home airfield (just outside
Seattle). The owner imported them about ten years ago, and had been unable
to sell a single one. They can only be certified in the Experimental
Exhibition category, which means that they cannot operate for hire, nor can
they carry skydivers or tow gliders even if owned by a private individual.
There *are* privately-owned AN-2s operating in the US, but about the only
thing you are allowed to do with them is fly them to airshows.

Why doesn't someone get a type certificate for these airplanes so they
*can* operate commercially? It's not a simple process...there a lot of
tests that the airplanes undergo, and a lot of analysis that must be
documented. Even if the analysis and testing equivalent to FAR-23 was
performed and the documentation found, it must be translated into English
for submittal to our FAA.

This would be an expensive and drawn-out process. And if Antonov *does* go
through it, they won't do it on an existing aircraft like the AN-2. If
they did, Antonov would't make a dime... after all, who would pay the
manufacturer $1,00,000 for a brand-new AN-2 when they could buy a used one
in Poland for a tenth of that amount?

The other factor that limit the inroads of these aircraft in the US is the
problem of parts and spares. Conversion of the electronics and engines to
US standards is only the beginning. Think of things as simple as bolts...
US-certified aircraft use bolts that are approved under the old Army-Navy
(AN) or National Aerospace Standard (NAS). If I need a bolt for a Cessna,
I can drive ten miles down the road and buy standard bolts that are
approved to the same requirements.

If I need a bolt for an AN-2, what do I do? If the plane has a standard
type certificate, I *cannot* replace a bolt with an AN or NAS unit...it
must be replaced with a bolt that meets the standards that Antonov imposed
at the time the aircraft was built. I doubt they used US standards. If
the aircraft is being operated on an Experimental certificate, the owner is
allowed to replace the hardware with US-equivalents, but that won't work if
one wants to operate ex-Soviet aircraft commercially.

I took a quick look through the US aircraft registration database, and
found about 360 Antonov and Yakovlev aircraft, plus almost 200
Nanchang-built Yaks. No Illyushins.

Ron Wanttaja

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Seb > wrote:

> Hello hope it's the right place to ask,
> I don't know if anyone finds it strange why ex-Soviet aircraft are
> rarely exported to the West, even though they are known for being cheap
> and easy to operate. I assume there's a good reason I just don't know
> it! I used to assume it was partly due to protectionism/other political
> factors--possible 'vicitms' for this are
>
> -An-2: cheap and rugged, but not allowed in the US to land at a
> different airport it leaves from, or drop parachuters. Officially
> because it's not completely certified, but looks a bit like an attempt
> to stop people from using it commercially (and so protect the domestic
> aviation industry which hasn't anything comparable to the An-2). On the
> other hand it could just be because the An-2 is dangerous and unreliable.
>
> -Il-76: in a well-publicized incident in the US, it was theorized that
> if the Il-76 were available to the forestry service, very useful as a
> firebomber, it would have done much to contain a serious forest fire.
> The forestry service seems to drag its feet about the subject (again
> just another case of governments reluctant to buy foreign kit), but then
> again bureaucracies drag their feet all the time, especially when
> questioned about their failures.
>
> On the other hand the few Western countries (eg. Finland) who have
> experience with Soviet kit, when given a chance, chose Western equipment
> for their latest procurement. And I do also get the impression that
> Russian aircraft score badly in things like noise and pollution emission
> and fuel economy--although the Westernized types with Western engines
> aren't doing so well neither. Any comments?
>
> Seb

Actually, the Yak-52 series, the Su-28, the Aerovochodny L-39 and a few
others ARE popular in the US. The big problem is that they are
certificated "Experimental-Exhibition" and have a number of operating
restrictions, including distance from home base. Granted, some of those
restrictions are surmountable, simply by faxing FAA that, for instance,
you are going to take your L-39 on a 600 mile cross-country to an
airshow, but the whole proces is a royal pain.

[Chris]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Seb > wrote:
>
>> Hello hope it's the right place to ask,
>> I don't know if anyone finds it strange why ex-Soviet aircraft are
>> rarely exported to the West, even though they are known for being cheap
>> and easy to operate. I assume there's a good reason I just don't know


By West you mean the US. My airfield in England has its fair share of ex
soviet aircraft including an AN2.

Many of them operate on the register the country they came from, in the case
of the An2 its on the Hungarian register and therefore falls into the ICAO
rights and privileges.

In the same way the are many US registered aircraft in the UK too popular
because the airworthiness regime is less arduous.

[Seb]

[snip]
> If I need a bolt for an AN-2, what do I do? If the plane has a standard
> type certificate, I *cannot* replace a bolt with an AN or NAS unit...it
> must be replaced with a bolt that meets the standards that Antonov imposed
> at the time the aircraft was built. I doubt they used US standards. If
> the aircraft is being operated on an Experimental certificate, the owner is
> allowed to replace the hardware with US-equivalents, but that won't work if
> one wants to operate ex-Soviet aircraft commercially.
>
> I took a quick look through the US aircraft registration database, and
> found about 360 Antonov and Yakovlev aircraft, plus almost 200
> Nanchang-built Yaks. No Illyushins.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

I can see why under those circumstances you'd have plenty of the
Nanchang Yaks, since being pleasure flyers you won't be affected by the
Experimental restrictions. Now it remains to be seen how successful the
new Eastern-bloc types (designed from ground-up for Western
certification) will be.
The article on the Il-76 and the forestry service can be found via a
link from the Il-76 entry in wikipedia.com, if anyone's interested.

Seb

[Fritz]

Seb > wrote:

> Any comments?

Here we-re just introducing some PZL helicopter. "Some" is a big word,
let's say one. Off course, a machine need to satisfy european
certification rules to be used for any purpose.

--
Fritz