Problems still remain unresolved(1,156 words)

Published: 6/22/2001

Speaking at the Paris Air Show, Mikhail Simonov, General Designer of Sukhoi, said that the company intends to rebuild production of what is considered to be one of, if not the, best aerobatic aircraft in the world. His comments reflect the fall in production of its Su-29/31 series of aerobatic aircraft to a low of two units in 2000, compared with 21 aircraft a year in the early 1990s. It is, however, unclear exactly where production will eventually be housed. According to Simonov, the company is keen to concentrate production at a single facility dedicated to its aircraft. Sukhoi is reported to be involved a number of discussions with producers in this respect. These include state-owned OKB Sokol in Kazan, a producer of RPVs, in which Sukhoi, according to the State Property Fund, is investing 10m rubles. Earlier reports referred to similar discussions at Hrazdananmash in Armenia, which is also believed to be the production line for the S-38L. According to sources, the company is currently producing two aircraft, an Su-29 and an Su-31 at Moscow's Lukovitsky Machine Building Plant, alongside a number of Russian light aircraft, including the Il-103. Simonov believes that the changes in the design to the Su-31, coupled with changing the production location, will allow associated private company, Sukhoi Advanced Technologies, to restart production. This reflects the fact that almost half of the world's piston aerobatics aircraft, numbering more than 160 aircraft, were produced by Sukhoi. Simonov concedes that the Su-31's retail price of $234,000 has been an obstacle to sales, given the availability of aircraft of comparable, although not equal, performance, such as the 50kg heavier Technoavia SP-55M. By comparison, the SP-55M, designed by Vyacheslav Kondratiev, the designer of the original Sukhoi aerobatic series and produced by the Arseniev facility, sells for a reported $110,000. According to sources, the Su-31 has also had stiff competition from CAP Aviation's CAP 232, the world champion aircraft in 2000, developed from the CAP 231, which has a high performance carbon fibre wing. Although more expensive than the Su-31 in US dollars at $250,000, the aircraft has proved competitive when priced in Euros for European customers. Sukhoi, according to Simonov, is making efforts to reduce the aircraft's cost, with a target ex-factory price of $140,000, but attributes the expense to the heavy share of composites in the aircraft's construction, constituting 70% of the airframe, in contrast to the SP-55M's metal skin with composite control surfaces. Simonov also commented on the historical problems experienced by Sukhoi over the curing of the aircraft's carbon fibre that led to the loss of a Su-31 in the USA due to the failure of a wing spar. The company subsequently introduced equipment which established problems in a number of wings related to the restart of the aircraft's production in 1999-2000. This has subsequently been resolved through rigorous testing. Simonov stated that a recent detailed inspection of the third of the first 25 batch of Su-31s built up to 1998, with over 700 hours of flying time (500 hours high intensity display flying) over the last seven years, showed no signs of structural fatigue. In terms of ongoing projects, Simonov says that Sukhoi has developed what he describes as “a secret weapon”, in the form of a lightweight aircraft for international aerobatics competitions, called the “Super”. This is reported to be a substantially lighter aircraft, with 50kg of weight savings. The new aircraft, according to Simonov, will soon participate in competition with the Russian national aerobatics team. The company is continuing its ongoing development of the Su-49 twin seat single-piston trainer for the both military and civil markets, although Simonov provided little information on the progress of the programme derived from the Su-26/29, that has been underway since 1992. He also confirmed that the Sukhoi is developing an affordable (simplified) twin seater for aeroclubs. Despite Simonov's bullish enthusiasm and the fact that his optimism is mirrored by the aircraft's European agent, Richard Goode Aerobatics, there are reports from a number of sources that the relations between Sukhoi and its European and US agents are less than satisfactory. Complaints have been cited over the failure of the company to deliver aircraft and spare parts within commercially acceptable timescales. Delays have been attributed to unspecified problems with the production of the aircraft and to the supply of components. Sukhoi insists that these problems will be resolved by the move of production, although no change of venue appears imminent. The company's finances also remain an important issue, as does the deterioration of the component supply chain. Additionally, there is the issue of the exact nature of the current relationship of the private company, Sukhoi Advanced Technologies (SAT), which is reportedly controlled by Simonov, within the new Sukhoi holding company. Sukhoi is reported recently to have refused SAT the right to use the Sukhoi name on its products and, in response, the company has been has been renamed Advanced Aircraft Construction Technologies (AACT). The disagreement is believed to be the result of the long-standing and well-known enmity between Simonov and Pogosyan over control of the aerobatic aircraft business. Some reports have also suggested that efforts have been made to sell the business and inconclusive discussions took place with helicopter operator, Avia Baltika. In August 2000, there were rumours that the company would be combined with OKB Sokol, the new entity being vested with the Sukhoi light aircraft rights by Sukhoi, which would retain 70% alongside a blocking minority, held by the state. Whether any tangible progress has been made in terms of these various plans is far from clear. Boris Rakitin is reported to remain General Director of Sukhoi Advanced Technologies or AACT and, only in March 2001, Mikhail Pogosyan, General Director of AVPK Sukhoi, publicly commented in detail on the future of the company's civil aircraft activities. In contradiction to reports of severing relations with AACT, Pogosyan said that the company was continuing the development of the S-38L agricultural aircraft, which had been suspended due to lack of funding in June 2000, despite reports that had suggested that two aircraft were under assembly at Sukhoi in late 2000. Pogosyan also said that the company was continuing to work on the Su-29 and Su-31, with upgrades proposed. On this basis, interpreting what the future might hold for Sukhoi light civil aircraft business is anyone's guess. For the meantime, at least, it seems clear that the Simonov controlled vehicle has fallen out with Sukhoi and is currently endeavouring to establish an independent path. Initial reports, however, indicate little improvement in the company's situation and, if anything, point to a continued deterioration. Added to this is the confusion over whether the designs are owned by Sukhoi or AACT. The fact that Sukhoi is refusing to have its name used on aircraft produced by AACT may, suggest, however, that AACT has some level of call.

Article ID: 2601