Background

It makes sense to polish and modernize an aircraft if you initially have a glider that is successful in terms of weight and aerodynamics, which is quite comparable to the level of similar modern aircraft. Then “the game is worth the candle” - by upgrading (or replacing) avionics and engines, the machine can remain competitive for a long time. For example, the B-737 and 747. To “bring to mind” the Tu-334, it is necessary not only to change the ideology of the systems, like the Tu-204SM, but to seriously bring to mind the airframe of the aircraft, i.e. practically “create from scratch” a new aircraft. It would have cost no less than SSJ and with an incomprehensible result in the end

How ready the plane really is can be found out by looking at the real performance characteristics of the Tu-334

Thus, under ISA conditions, with a full cabin, the 334 is capable of flying at flight levels not higher than 10100...10600 m, with M = 0.73...0.75, at a range of about 2 thousand km. The runway characteristics are also not very impressive: the required length of the runway is 1900...2100 m. When the temperature deviates from the ISA to plus, the characteristics naturally decrease even more...

If you look in Section 7 of the Flight Manual, at the nomograms of maximum ranges, you can trace a clear picture - the maximum of these curves, depending on the flight weight, varies from M = 0.7 to M = 0.75. At M > 0.75, the specific ranges rapidly “collapse” and this means only one thing - a wave crisis begins, a sharp increase in resistance, a decrease in road quality and, consequently, fuel consumption increases

Obsolete avionics:

V.A.K. wrote: I attended mock-up commissions for the Tu-334 back in 1992. (Twenty years ago!) Even then, obsolete avionics were included in the project. Because it was allowed to put on board ONLY ALREADY PRODUCED products. Where was the Superjet at that time?

Comparison of avionics capabilities:

Aircraft type	SSJ-100	Tu-334	ERJ-170	CRJ-900	A-380
Stall protection algorithm	There is	only by "alpha"	There is	No	There is
Excess protection algorithm V pr and numbers M	There is	There is	partially	No	There is
Roll angle limitation algorithm	There is	partially	No	No	There is
Pitch angle limitation algorithm	There is	partially	No	No	There is
Auto balancing across all channels	There is	There is	No	No	There is
Mechanization protection algorithm by speed	There is	only on takeoff	No	No	only in flight
Flight optimization characteristics by flight modes	There is	There is	No	No	There is

...The French and Italians considered the Tu-334 project with the idea of ​​taking it as the basis for a new project. They calculated the weight and sent their thoughts that the Tu-334 aircraft is 3-4 tons heavier than necessary, and if it is made, then the wing area while maintaining the weight must be increased from 83 to 100 sq.m. ... In the end, the French and Italians did not start making such an aircraft due to the introduction of the A320 aircraft. But we still have a wing of 83 sq.m., and the weight has increased by almost 2 tons...

Unfortunately, the new Tupolev aircraft did not have an after-sales support system. Operators expressed many complaints.

Another operator's view of the Tu-334

With the Tu-334, it would be necessary to remove the blocks from the aircraft once every 600 hours and transport them for inspection somewhere in Zhukovsky (tested from the experience of operating the Tu-204 in the Russian Federation). An excellent prospect for a regional company, for example from Siberia! Excellent adaptability to local operating conditions! And he’s not afraid of frost - what will happen to him half-disassembled! And I haven’t yet started telling all sorts of horror stories about mandatory modifications 5 times a year according to bulletins with a stop for 3-5 days and hemorrhoids with the replacement of units. An operator's view of the Tu-334

Another problem was in the production technology: the liner was designed for the already outdated plasma-template technology, which is 3 times more labor-intensive than modern plasma-free production and jig-less assembly:

... today they asked a question: Sukhoi is accused of not taking off on the Tu-334 program... But I cannot be responsible for the inability of Tupolev and KAPO to implement modern programs. The Tu-334 program died without being born. An airplane cannot be created for twenty years. On-board equipment and materials are progressing very dynamically, and we must develop the product in accordance with the times. And to promote a product that is not in demand by the market... Today, the cost of Tu-204 and Tu-214 aircraft is higher than the price at which they are sold. Enterprises in Ulyanovsk and Voronezh are deeply unprofitable and live only due to the injection of budget money."
To be profitable, it is necessary to switch to modern methods of organizing production - digital design, precise high-speed machining, and jigless assembly. “Designs that were good in the 80s are not competitive today. I think one of the problems of the Tu-334 and the Tupolev company in general is that in modern conditions it is impossible to successfully implement a program that is not made on the above principles. With the Tu-334 It is impossible to implement a jigless assembly, which means that the labor intensity of the process will be three times higher. You need to understand basic things and not deceive yourself, don’t say that Sukhoi closed the Tu-334 program. I didn’t close anything! It’s just that the Tu-334 is designed for any mass production.

"Antonovtsy" did everything in their power to prevent the Tu-334 series from taking place

Little cuckoo of the domestic aviation industry: An-148
One more point: its construction required expensive equipment, which remained in Kyiv. History of the issue: In 2007, an agreement in principle was reached on the sale of equipment; in 2008, negotiations are still underway. As a result, Dmytro Kiva "broke" such an exorbitant amount that the deal did not take place. It is obvious that the Antonovites did not want the appearance of a competitor to their An-148 and did everything in their power to prevent the Tu-334 series from taking place.

So, the Tu-334 not only had problems with weight, aerodynamics, production, software and avionics (including the anachronism of three crew members). There was no interest from airlines in the Tu-334: the aircraft did not receive a single firm commercial order.

And don’t forget about another competitor in the form of the An-148, which had a hand in ending the Tu-334 program.

About the situation at the Tupolev Design Bureau, the story of the sale of Moscow real estate for next to nothing and the appearance of the infamous “Tupolev Plaza”

The topic about the Tu-334 is quite extensive, from this page there should be links to the following topics (approximately):

Timeline of the Tu-334 project

• Tupolev's participation in the competition for a regional aircraft - another look from inside the Tupolev Design Bureau
• Engine layouts: in the tail or under the wing?
• Deployment of serial production (in 4 series, it seems)

more discussions:

• a small dispute about the Tu-334 on paralay and Discussion of the Tu-334 on the Paralay forum
• About the "open letter from aviators in defense of the Tu-334", test pilot

• Pavel Vlasov about the T-50, Superjet and Tu-334 - The fifth-generation fighter prototype, known as the T-50, is very confident in the air. This has been shown by tests ongoing at the Flight Research Institute. MM. Gromova. Absolutely all domestic aircraft, including combat ones...… (+22)

• Testing and certification of Tu-334 - But the Tu-334 has already been scrapped. From communication with colleagues from the Tupolev team, LII and the State Research Institute of Civil Aviation, I have the following picture of the Tu-334. During the testing process, two major tactical mistakes were made: First - In an effort to obtain a Certificate...… (+8)

• Overweight Tu-334 - Pages from the history of the creation of the Tu-334. G.A. Cheremukhin Continue. Higher. Faster The Tu-334 aircraft was considered as a replacement for the Tu-134 on regional routes, and to speed up its certification and preparation for production, it had to be as unified as possible...… (+6)

• Kiva broke so much money for the Tu-334 equipment that it remained on Avianta - CollapseExpand Contents Prehistory Brief History of the issue of equipment transfer An attempt to organize production in Lukhovitsy (2003-2004) An attempt to organize production in Kazan October 2007 February 2008 August 2008 April 2009...… (+5)

• An operator's view of the Tu-334 - A small dispute about the screwdriver assembly, Tu-334, production technologies, domestic components, etc. Mikhail_K: If we leave aside the efficiency of the Tu-334, then it was necessary to buy the necessary technological equipment (as for the SSJ-100). This...… (+5)

• Real performance characteristics of Tu-334 - Once again, the topic of 334 “innocently killed” as a result of a conspiracy by “liberal competitors” came up. Again, a complete liberalist lie! Which I never tire of exposing, just as you never tire of voicing it. A flying copy of the Tu-334 has repeatedly...… (+5)

• Tu vs An - Sometimes the question arises: why exactly did the appearance of the RRJ 75 / RRJ 95 family, according to critics, have such fatal consequences for the Tushka? Why is it that “universal evil” in the form of SSJ is to blame for this, and everyone else is “white and fluffy”? Personally, I have absolutely...… (+3)

• Requires special warming up in Yakutia | From the series "Another Sensation" - the radio operator writes: excellent dialogue for the picture. If you warmed up airplanes yourself, you would see the difference between heating an MP and heating from the APU. With a six-man aircraft technician. I wonder if they heat it with MP-shkoy? If so, then soon the whole cabin stinks of kerosene. What...… (+24)

• A story about how an “aviation expert” talked about the payback of a Superjet - Deguntsov Oleg writes: Greetings to all sane participants in the forum, which I have been reading for more than three years. It dawned on me that on the forum it is possible to ignore some particularly ardent pissers, so I had to register in order to...… (+23)

In order not to turn the barrel organ 100 times on the Tu-334 and SSJ-100, I am posting an article where the essence is laid out on the shelves. I warn you: multi-book, the text is harsh, but regarding the facts it is very accurate.

Tail Gunner 2009.04.25

You denigrate the Sukhoi Superjet! - they will tell us. – Yes, unlike the “Soviet” times, this machine was developed in record time according to all market rules, and it turned out - wow!

Yes, “wow” that’s what happened. Let's describe the history of this strange enterprise, which resulted in something very similar to Adam Kozlewicz's Wildebeest. He always hesitated about what to call his miracle of technology - either “Lauren Dietrich” or “Panhard-Levassor”. Because the machine was assembled from different parts.

The Sukhoi Superjet resembles Kozlevich’s car. This “first post-Soviet aircraft” did not become any breakthrough. There is every reason to believe that he will never get on the line. And the history of its hasty creation very clearly depicts the quality of public administration in the Russian Federation.

So, it all started with the fact that by 1999 the Russian Federation had a truly production-ready aircraft - the Tu-334. The class is similar to the so-called “Superjet”. And it was like this.

In 1999, Nikolai Nikitin became the new general director of the MiG company: a controversial but energetic man. He realized that the company would not survive on military orders alone - and decided to also produce a civilian aircraft. Yes, yes, the already developed Tu-334. The then First Deputy Prime Minister (the last head of the USSR State Planning Committee, Yuri Maslyukov) allocated funds for this, and Nikitin equipped production facilities in Lukhovitsy. A contract was even signed with Iran for $1.6 billion for the production of one hundred 334s. Iranians generally love Tupolev cars. Their Tu-154s are still flying. The thrust-to-weight ratio of such airliners is excellent. More Western, although the efficiency is worse. In the high mountainous and hot Iran, where the air is thin and “liquid” due to the high temperature and altitude, Western-made passenger cars fly mainly at night. And Tupolev aircraft in Iran can make flights during the day. I myself visited the Iranians and saw how much they love our Tu. The Iranians are eager to get the Tu-334. However, Nikitin made a mistake. He calculated the cost of one airliner at 12 million dollars - and prices in the Russian Federation went up sharply. It was necessary to reconsider the contract, but Tehran refused. If there was a normal state in the Russian Federation, it would help MiG and Tu and provide subsidies for the production of one hundred machines. Is it a joke - hundreds of new airliners, and with the prospect of gaining a foothold in the Iranian market? One hundred passenger airliners is ten times more than what was done in the Russian Federation in 2008. If the government had acted this way, today the Tu-334 would have been in production for five years already, as a serial production aircraft, flying both in the East and in the Russian Federation itself. But no - the government is ugly. The contract fell apart. Nikitin was removed. The new management of RSK MiG abandoned plans to produce the Tu-334.

And then the authorities started talking about the need to make the first post-Soviet passenger airliner. Putin's friend Sergei Ivanov talked about this. He was supported by the then head of the Ministry of Economy, the “great genius” G. Gref. Like, we need a competition.

What the hell is a competition when there was already a finished and certified aircraft? When was the only time left to build it?

Our macaque rulers are not interested in this. Another thing is interesting: to take and spend a lot of public money again, throwing away a ready-made project (this was the case in the case of replacing the “Bark” with the “Bulava”, as you remember). Why is this being done? You don't need to explain anymore. Why is the Tu-334 needed if it has been developed since 1992, and its entire creation required about 100 million dollars. They told us: “Soviet” design bureaus are good for nothing, they are expensive, inflexible - and other nonsense. In fact, 100 million dollars is very modest. The companies Embraer and Bombardier spent 600 million each on the development of similar machines.

The ruling monkeys in the Russian Federation, having rejected the Tu-334, decided to develop a new aircraft. The competition was won by the Sukhoi company, which promised to develop a super-duper breakthrough machine without attracting government funds. She was declared the winner. But then it turned out that the development would be funded by the state. According to some sources, they spent $1.2 billion on it, according to others (if we count all government guarantees for loans) – 2 billion.

2 billion and 100 million is a difference of twenty times. It turned out like the joke about the new Russians:

How much did you buy the tie?
- For a thousand bucks!
- Fool, they sell it around the corner for one and a half...

In general, the money was spent. The order for the production of a passenger airliner was given to a company that did not have the slightest experience in creating civilian aircraft. A company that had screamed before, but never developed a civilian S-80. It does not have its own production base for this. As a result, they spent seven long years and billions of dollars on who knows what, “cutting down” a real plane.

To create the Sukhoi Superjet, a special legal entity was created - GSS (Sukhoi Civil Aircraft). They rented an office for her in the McDonald's building, which is behind the Central Telegraph in Moscow. Design teams changed like gloves. And as a result, this... eroplane was born.

Everything here amazed and left me dumbfounded from the very beginning. For example, Boeing was hired as a project consultant. Who advised with all her might, without investing a single cent into the project. How shoud I understand this? In fact, Boeing is not at all interested in the rise of our aviation industry. We are his competitors. It’s as if Stalin, to create a new tank, would have invited Porsche from Hitler’s Germany as a consultant. Or Heinz Guderian. But, as you can see, in the Russian Federation this is also possible. "Boeing" and advised in full. In addition, the Italian company Alenia bought a quarter of the shares (blocking stake) in GSS.

As a result, an aircraft was born that cannot be called a breakthrough. It is 80% made from foreign-made finished parts. That is, it is already a car of yesterday. An interesting detail: the doors for the SSJ are supplied by Boeing. For 2 million dollars. And at Tupolev they make an entire airplane glider for 3 million. The body of the Sukhoi Superjet is made of metal. While Boeing, on its B-787 Dreamliner, makes an airframe from ultra-strong and ultra-light composites.

The engines under the wing of the notorious “superjet” are located only 42 centimeters from the ground (if you count from the lower edge of the air intakes). Engines are not installed so low on any aircraft in the world. That is, at regional airports of the Russian Federation it will absorb debris and debris from the runway surface: the condition of our local airports is not ideal. It was not ideal in the USSR either. But on the Tu-134 and Tu-154, the engines are not located under the wings, in the tail, high from the surface of the airfield. Although, sometimes, fragments of the coating were carried into them. SSJ will work like a vacuum cleaner. It’s not for nothing that during tests they carry him to the strip with a tractor, not allowing him to steer himself. To prevent anything from being sucked into the engines. So it turns out: for this aircraft, all regional airports of the Russian Federation will have to be remodeled, at a cost of countless billions of dollars. Is this possible? And will such a plane be able to fly in the Russian Federation - although so much money and time have already been spent on it?

Go ahead. In this case, the passenger plane was made by those who previously made fighter planes. But there are completely different design approaches here! The fighter (its airframe) is designed for a service life of 2 thousand flight hours, and the airliner - for 70 thousand hours. In general, a fighter is designed at risk, with the expectation of fine-tuning. In fact, military pilots fly it without passengers, and if something happens, they can eject. It is not for nothing that the first series delivered to the troops, as a rule, still suffers from “childhood diseases”. Accidents of new machines in military aviation are treated quite tolerantly: they say, what can you do - the costs of novelty. We'll work on the go. But a passenger car is completely different! Here, a couple of crashed planes mean hundreds of human lives. Therefore, in the USSR, passenger cars were “licked” to the limit.

And here they offer us a “raw” car.

The Sukhoi Superjet had problems with the skin and the hull in general. The fact is that the frames on Russian liners were bent from sheet metal. Although this is labor-intensive, it is reliable. Consultants from Boeing advised installing milled “ribs” on the SSJ. At the same time, the Yankees themselves do not do this. It seems that they decided to try this technology on those they don’t mind. And the skin on the superjet had to be made thicker, abandoning chemical milling. Despite the fact that the weight of the car does not seem to have changed.

SSJ was made from foreign-made finished parts. That is, the release of these super-duper jets will not contribute in any way to the rise of the domestic aviation industry. The engine (SaM-146) is French, converted and not certified. And on the Tu-334 we have our D-436DT1 engines, and they are certified. The auxiliary power unit (APU) on the Tupolev is ours, and on the SSJ it is imported from Honeywell. Tu-334 consists of only 5% imported parts and components. The fuel efficiency of our aircraft is 22.85 g/passenger-kilometer. The “superjet” has 24.3 (if you believe what is stated). The interior of our car is more comfortable (3.8 by 4.1 m versus 3.4 by 3.6 m in the SSJ). The Tu-334 is unified in serial production with the Tu-214, but the “superjet” is not. The technical staff of our airlines already have experience in servicing aircraft unified with the Tu-334 (Tu-204 and Tu-214), but the “dry airliner” cannot boast of this.

Another important point: by producing the Tu-334 in series at the Kazan KAPO named after Gorbunov, the country retains the ability to repair long-range missile carriers/bombers Tu-160 and Tu-22M3. Without the Tu-334, all this is lost.
The “liner of the future” should actually be serviced abroad: there are so many imports in it. The brakes are from Goodrich, the hydraulic system is from Parker. The electrical system is supplied by Artus, SAFT and Leach International. On-board electronics on the SSJ are from Thales. In fact, this is a “screwdriver assembly” machine, a national disgrace. Even the Ministry of Economic Development has now admitted this in the notorious 2020 strategy, shyly calling the “superjet” an “intermediate option.” This airplane is not a “breakthrough” at all. He is a frankly “student’s” car (dammit, ugly duckling). A sort of visible embodiment of the manic dream of the Russian “elite” about integration into the world economy at any cost. In this case, at the cost of losing its aviation industry. And all this is presented as “the success of the new Russia”! Even the United Aviation Corporation is increasingly calling the promising MS-21 the aircraft of the future, which must be worked on in collaboration with those parts of the USSR aviation industry that remained in Ukraine.

It is unlikely that it will be possible to supply SSJs abroad. The Chinese have their own 100-seat “regional”, the Japanese have theirs, Brazil and Canada make similar aircraft. And in general, it’s not clear: will this “miracle” fly on real flights, despite the heaps of money thrown at it?
In general, we decided to make a white-blue-red plane - and this is what came out of it. No intelligence, no imagination, no innovative breakthrough. And it turned out much worse in the “super-market version” than in Soviet design bureaus. The USSR was not afraid to make truly breakthrough machines that were ahead of the West. These were Tu-104, Antey and Ruslan. And here is something screwed together from the Western world of yesterday. And this is the hope of the Russian aviation industry? Yes, the ruling freaks are definitely ruining the aircraft industry.

The most interesting thing is that Putin, being first the President of the Russian Federation and then becoming the Prime Minister, twice ordered the start of mass production of the Tu-334 in Kazan. This was November 7, 2007 and September 9, 2008. The last time, Putin even asked why his orders were not carried out. True, he didn’t punish anyone. Like, do it. But no one even bothered to do it. Well, the United Aircraft Manufacturing State Corporation doesn’t want this plane – and that’s all. They generally want to transfer the Kazan Association named after Gorbunov to a clean renovation.

N-yes, it’s hard to imagine that someone would dare to ignore the orders of, say, Stalin like that. And in his case – an authoritarian vertical of power, and in the current one. But the efficiency of the two systems, to put it mildly, varies. It is no wonder that in the USSR we moved mountains in the shortest possible time and created advanced technology, but in the Russian Federation we have been marking time practically in one place for years, sometimes producing real “technical bastards.”

What do we have in the “bottom line”? The epic with the first “post-Soviet airliner” most clearly depicts what is happening in the agonizing and degrading Russian Federation. The desire of its “elite” to “fit into the global division of labor” at any cost (even at the cost of outright idiocy), destroying its own scientific and industrial base and leaving only “screwdriver production” in the Russian Federation. Compared to Soviet times, all this is a huge setback.

A “screwdriver plane” would be acceptable for a country that did not have its own aircraft industry. For some Malaysia. But for the Russians, with their almost century-long history of designing and building advanced airships, this is a national disgrace.

In this particular case, we are offered a “screwdriver plane” at the level of a MAI graduate’s graduation project. An airplane whose future as a production machine is a huge question mark. At the same time, three times more money was spent on the “sukhoi-superjet” epic than aircraft manufacturers spend abroad on the same enterprises. Six times more than the development of the regional Russian-Ukrainian An-148 (about 300 million dollars) and almost twenty times more than the Tu-334.

A characteristic feature of the “white-blue-red elite”: terrible incompetence and laziness, coupled with the desire to spend as much money as possible - in order to bite off more of it and saw off for themselves personally. This is what will bring the Russian Federation to complete collapse.
That's the whole story about the abilities of the current tricolor state in organizing the aircraft industry. That is, they simply kill him. And after the murder of the civilian aircraft industry, problems will inevitably begin in the military aircraft industry. These are communicating vessels.

For reference:

In 1992, the Russian aviation industry produced 77 mainline airliners. Twice less than in the USSR.
In 1993 – 68.
In 1994 – 27.
In 1995 – 19.
In 1996 (“Vote for Yeltsin or lose!”) – 4.
In 1997 – 5.
In 1998 – 9.
In 1999 (Putin’s arrival) – 7.
From 2002 to 2005, airlines purchased only 20 domestically produced aircraft. That is, their production in the Putin era amounted to 6-7 cars per year. At the level between 1997 and 1998.
The following quantities of civil aircraft and helicopters were produced in 2004:
12 aircraft (without light ones), including:
passenger mainline and regional – 7 aircraft: Il-96-300 – 3 (including cabin, Voronezh), Tu-214-1, Il-62M – 1 (Kazan), An-38 – 2 (Kazan), Novosibirsk);
cargo - 3 aircraft: An-124 "Ruslan" -2 (Ulyanovsk); An-74 – 1 (Omsk);
special - 2 aircraft: Be-200 - 2 (Irkutsk).

Try to find data on the production of airliners in subsequent years - you will get tired.

In 2008, after eight years of “rising from our knees” and the influx of trillions of “petrodollars”,... 8 airliners were built.

The Tu-334 is a short-haul Russian passenger aircraft developed in the 1990s to replace the retiring Tu-154B, Tu-134 and Yak-42. For some reasons, serial production of the aircraft was not organized.
The Tu-334 prototype made its first flight on February 8, 1999 and was subsequently shown at several aviation exhibitions. A total of two flight samples of the airliner were produced.

Design

The Tu-334 is a twin-engine turbojet low-wing aircraft with rear engines, swept wings and a T-shaped tail. Specially profiled surfaces are installed at the ends of the wing to reduce inductive drag. Modern composite materials and alloys are widely used in the aircraft design.
Development of the Tu-334 began in the late 1980s. The wing consists of supercritical profiles; specially profiled surfaces are mounted at the ends of the wing to reduce inductive drag. The aerodynamic indicator of the aircraft is 16.7.
In its basic modification, the Tu-334-100 is designed for operation on air routes up to 3,150 km long and to carry up to 102 passengers in a tourist version. The aircraft crew consists of: pilot-in-command, co-pilot, flight engineer, three flight attendants when operating on international routes and two people when operating on domestic routes. The assigned resource of the aircraft airframe is 60,000 flight hours, 60,000 flights (landings). The calendar service life of the aircraft is 25 years.
When designing the aircraft airframe, the requirements for maximum ease of maintenance were taken into account. The design allows access and inspection of all major structural elements during periodic internal inspections. It was possible to avoid nodes that were closed to access. The design provides for the possibility of using non-destructive testing methods for closed elements in those connections where visual inspection is not possible. Provides easy access for inspection, maintenance and replacement to all drives, motors, cables and control rods, as well as other mechanical parts. All bearings and rubbing surfaces (except for bearings with dry lubrication) are provided with lubricant filling points.
The aircraft is equipped with two double-circuit turbojet engines (turbojet engines) of the D-436T1 type. The engines are installed in the rear part of the fuselage in engine nacelles on horizontal pylons. Turbofan engines are supplied together with engine nacelles as a single unit. Engine mounting elements are the same for left and right engines. The engine is started from an air starter driven by compressed air from the APU or from a ground air launch unit, or from a second running engine. The engines are equipped with a lattice-type thrust reverser.

The standard layout of the passenger cabin of the Tu-334-100 aircraft has 102 tourist class passenger seats. The passenger compartment is separated from the front and rear lobbies by partitions with curtains. The side walls and the upper part of the fuselage in the cockpit are covered with decorative, easily removable panels. If necessary, the portholes are closed with rigid sliding curtains. The floor in the passenger compartment has carpeting, which is fixed at the level of the passenger seat rails using plastic profiles.
The cockpit of the Tu-334-100 aircraft is similar to the cockpits of the Tu-204/214 family of aircraft. Flight information and system performance information are displayed on multifunctional color displays. The use of digital fly-by-wire aircraft control systems, warning systems for aircraft reaching boundary flight conditions, and the “dark cockpit” principle reduce the physical and psychological stress on the aircraft crew and increase flight safety.

Specifications

Crew: 3
Passenger capacity: 102
Length: 31.26 m
Wingspan: 29.77 m
Height: 9.38 m
Wing area: 83 m2
Wing profile: supercritical
Curb weight: 28,900 kg
Maximum take-off weight: 47,900 kg
Fuel mass in internal tanks: 10,100 kg
Powerplant: 2 × D-436T1 turbofan engines
Thrust: 2 × 7500 kgf
Auxiliary power unit: 1 × TA-18-100

Flight characteristics

Cruising speed: 820 km/h
Practical range: 4100 km
Service ceiling: 11,100 m
Takeoff length: 1900 m
Run length: 1000 m

Source:

Now let's talk why not in the series

By the mid-2000s, the aircraft was already obsolete. It was a wonderful airliner, like all “carcasses,” but of the previous generation, and its competitor, the Sukhoi Superjet 100, created with the participation of Boeing and broad international cooperation, was promoted to the market by the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) and the general director of Sukhoi, and then and the head of the UAC, Mikhail Pogosyan. Did it make sense to continue to invest a lot of money in outdated equipment, while in the most competitive aviation market - short-haul aircraft - Embraer and Bombardier were releasing the latest models? The answer is obvious - no.
Meanwhile, in comparison with the SSJ-100, the Tu-334 has a number of advantages. Domestic equipment, a large fuselage diameter for its class, the ability to operate in real Russian conditions - the airliner is capable of landing even on the ground. Considering that the quality of the domestic airfield network is inferior to that of the airfield network of Western countries, the Tu-334 could be useful in domestic transportation, especially as an ambulance or other special aircraft.
But the obvious advantages are covered by equally obvious disadvantages - the aircraft was supposed to be equipped with D-436T1 engines developed by the Zaporozhye Engineering Design Bureau Progress named after Academician A. G. Ivchenko and produced by the Motor Sich plant. Comparable in terms of thrust is the SaM-146 engine for the Superjet, which theoretically can be considered for installation on the Tu-334, but this will require significant modifications to the design of the aircraft’s tail section and its control system, which seems impractical.
In addition, the “Engine in the tail” layout has a number of disadvantages
1. There is such a dirty trick on the engines' tail - the plane gets into a so-called protracted, “closed” stall when the plane reaches supercritical angles of attack of 25-30° and higher. The plane seemed to “lock itself” in this position with its nose up, lost speed, and fell into a tailspin. Reaching supercritical angles occurred when the plane hit a powerful updraft or gust of air. Such powerful gusts at high altitudes are very rare, but every aircraft, as a rule, gets caught in them. However, as it turned out, only aircraft with engines on the rear fuselage turned out to be unstable in this mode. At supercritical angles of attack, a wake of air breaks off the wing, which hits the air intake of the engines (which leads to surging) and the horizontal tail (elevators), making it ineffective.
2. In addition, the location of the engines in the tail takes away part of the cabin, thereby increasing the overall length of the fuselage. Compare the length of the 5-row SSJ (29.94 m, 98 passengers in 19.5 rows) and the 6-row Tu-334 (31.26 m, 102 passengers in 17 rows).
3. There is also a disadvantage associated with the proximity of the engines to each other (as well as the compactness of the fuel lines in the tail): in the event of a fire in one engine, the chances that the fire will affect the second (third) engine (or the fuel supply to them) are many higher than that of aircraft with widely spaced engines (under the wing).
4. If the engine is suspended under the wing, then its weight is partially balanced by the lifting force of the wing (in flight). And if it is in the tail, the weight is not balanced by anything, except for the structural strength of the fuselage and (the wings too). Or, to put it another way, the engines on the wings also unload the wing itself well - the lifting force tends to lift the wing up.
5. Engines “under the wing” are MUCH more convenient to maintain. I would like to emphasize that the low engine position is a huge advantage for maintenance. Thanks to this arrangement, we are able to replace any equipment within 20 minutes; replacing an engine will take less than two hours. And the cost of maintenance is one of the most important criteria for the customer airline.
6. Another drawback is associated with the large alignment difference of the aircraft. Rear-mounted engines cause the aircraft's center of gravity (CG) to shift rearward. The wing also moves back. As a result, the fuselage and passenger cabin are divided by the wing into unequal parts - a long nose and a short tail. In this case, the presence of a commercial load (passengers, luggage, cargo) moves the CG forward relative to the wing, and its absence (ferry option, incomplete load) leads to the movement of the aircraft CG backward.

It is necessary to clarify that the Tu-334 began to be created in the late 80s, in the united USSR, and its construction was also planned in the USSR. Ukrainian factories were an important part of the USSR aviation industry (especially Zaporozhye engines), and the construction of aircraft by Russia without Ukraine was very difficult.
After the collapse of the USSR, when Ukraine became a foreign country, on July 27, 1992, Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation N 516 “On the organization of serial production of Tu-334 aircraft at the Taganrog Aviation Production Enterprise” was adopted, and later, on September 8, 1993, Russia and Ukraine signed the “Agreement on cooperation in the field of creating a short-haul passenger aircraft TU-334 and engines for it, as well as their joint serial production." It was determined that Russia and Ukraine would make the aircraft jointly - Russia in Taganrog, and Ukraine in Kiev ("with an annual production of up to 30 - 35 aircraft at each plant"), the engines would be Zaporozhye (Motor Sich), and there would be a large cooperation between Russia and Ukraine.
Based on these years (1992 and 1993), one can guess what the result was (or rather, its absence).
By 1999, one prototype of the aircraft (number 001) was made by Tupolev. Instance 002 was made in Kyiv, at the Aviant plant. Instance 003 was in Taganrog in the form of a fuselage (and was not made)
In 1999, when a copy of the 001 aircraft flew, and the economies of Russia and Ukraine more or less strengthened, the parties returned to the project again.
Putin accepted the above resolution, Nikitin (MiG) was appointed responsible on the Russian side and the parties began to discuss how to implement the words “in cooperation with other enterprises of Russia and Ukraine” in the understanding that Russia and Ukraine are now independent states.
How and where to make an airplane?
The people of Kiev have made good progress, but if you give production to them, this will create Russia’s dependence on Ukraine.
Also, Ukraine has its own Antonov design bureau - and it is quite possible to assume that after some time the Ukrainians will produce ANA plants at this site, pushing Tu to the side (by the way, this is what happened in the end)
Why make someone else's plane if you can make your own?
Well, the Kyiv Aviant also had production documentation for the Tu-334.
The parties negotiated for a long time, and eventually agreed that the main production would be in Russia, and the wings and some other components would be made by Ukraine (Ukraine is also completing the construction of the 002 aircraft). A new workshop was built in Lukhovitsy for this project, the fuselage of aircraft 003 was transported there from Taganrog, the documentation was purchased from the people of Kiev, the Tu-334 was to be produced at the Kiev Aviant plant,” says Nikolai Nikitin. “By the time Russia and Ukraine agreed, that we would assemble this car, there was a threat of loss of Russian intellectual property on the Tu-334. Aviant developed production documentation for the airliner, and Tupolev, the aircraft developer, could not buy it due to lack of funds. I had to buy it back for $3.5 million.
But the deadlines specified by the Government (2001-2002) have already been violated.
Well, the construction of prototype 003 (the fuselage of which was transported from Taganrog to Lukhovitsy) was delayed and delayed...
According to the plan, the plane should have been built in July 2003, but in reality it was already autumn 2003, and this was not done...
Then Nikitin said about this: “As for the third Tu-334 aircraft, our Ukrainian colleagues delayed the delivery of the wing for it. Instead of January, it arrived only in October.”

Let's summarize:

1. The Tu-334 project was tied to cooperation with Ukraine. It was hard to do anything without them. And the failure in implementation, which became the reason for Nikitin’s resignation in 2003, was also connected to this (the delay in the delivery of the wing for the third Tu-334 aircraft for nine months). Therefore, it is impossible to say that “there is a ready-made aircraft, take it and produce it.” Produce if Ukraine supplies everything on time. And taking into account the fact that Ukraine wanted to build its own competing aircraft - the An-148 - everything became completely muted.
2. The aircraft turned out to be unprofitable in production, and they realized this only in 2003.
3. The aircraft certificate, for which government money was allocated and spent, turned out to be very curtailed (however, an expanding addition to the certificate was later received). Also, 3 crew members versus 2 for competitors is an anachronism and additional costs for airlines.
4. After-sales service and the quality of components for Tu aircraft is very low.
5. Well, in view of all this, the sad result: airlines don’t want to take the plane, there are no orders.

And the Yak-42, in terms of comfort and efficiency, it was better than its predecessors, but for a number of reasons it could not compete with the Superjet-100.

History of the creation of the Tu-334

Developments to create a new jet airliner for regional transportation at the Tupolev Design Bureau began in the late 80s, however, work was constantly frozen due to financial difficulties and the collapse of the USSR. The production of the aircraft was supposed to be established in Ukraine and Russia, but subsequently the decision was made to leave production at KAPO im. S.P. Gorbunova.

At the beginning of 1998, the construction of the prototype was completed and on February 8 of the same year the crew led by test pilot commander A.N. Soldatenkova took the car into the sky for the first time.

This car was demonstrated at several aviation shows; it did not make a splash, but left a good impression. The aviation enterprise built two more prototype aircraft for flight testing. In addition to them, three gliders were made, which were designed to test strength and static loads. In 2003, the design bureau developed a project for the next modification of the jet airliner - the model Tu-334–100, as a basic option for mass production.

On New Year's Eve 2004, the aircraft was given Type Certificate ST231-Tu-334–100, and in 2005, tests were carried out, as a result of which the passenger airliner Tu-334–100 could be operated and carry out air transportation in all regions of our planet without any restrictions. Despite the government decree on the start of production, this order was ignored, since officials from the federal target program, without any reason, considered the car a competitor Superjet 100.

Aircraft design

The aerodynamic design of the passenger airliner is a monoplane with a low wing, two engines on pylons at the rear of the fuselage and a T-shaped tail.

The aircraft wing is equipped with rich mechanization - these are retractable slats along the entire console, ailerons and single-slot flaps, above the outer sections of which spoilers are installed, and air brakes are located on the inner side. This wing mechanization gives a lift coefficient of 2.7 on takeoff and 3.1 on landing, which is a high achievement for this class of aircraft. To reduce inductive drag, winglets are installed at the ends of each wing console.

The airframe structure is made of modern alloys and composite materials. In the front part of the fuselage there is a crew cabin consisting of three people - two pilots and a flight engineer. The cabin is designed at a high ergonomic level according to the “dark cockpit” principle; electronic color displays are installed on the front panel, displaying information about the operation of the aircraft systems and the flight and navigation situation.

The airliner's power plant consists of two D-436T1 engines, which, according to the manufacturer, are highly efficient and comply with world noise standards. For autonomous launch, power supply and air conditioning during long-term stops, the aircraft is equipped with a TA-18–100 auxiliary power unit.

Salon Tu-334

The passenger cabin of the aircraft is divided into two classes with separate exits on the left side in the front and rear of the fuselage. The modern interior of the cabin is decorated with panels with a high level of noise absorption, a spacious and wide passage through the center of the cabin and comfortable seats with a large distance between steps make the passenger cabin of the airliner one of the most comfortable and ergonomic among aircraft of this class.

The cabin for tourist class passengers can comfortably accommodate 102 people with the smallest seat pitch of 810 mm. There are service compartments for serving passengers - these are kitchens, wardrobes and toilets. Carry-on luggage can be placed in the overhead luggage compartments of a fairly large volume; the luggage itself and other cargo are stored in the large front and somewhat smaller rear cargo compartments.

The aircraft's landing gear consists of three supports, the front strut is controllable, and the aircraft's braking system uses the function of high-speed maximum braking during an aborted takeoff.

Cockpit

Flight technical data

• Crew - 3 people
• Cruising speed - 820 km/h
• Range - 4100 km
• Service ceiling - 11,100 m
• Take-off distance - 1900 m
• Landing distance length - 1000 m
• Empty aircraft weight - 28900 kg
• Maximum take-off weight - 47.9 t
• Fuel capacity - 10100 kg
• Aircraft length - 31.26 m
• Aircraft height - 9.38 m
• Wingspan - 2977 m
• Engines - 2 x D-436T1
• Takeoff power - 2 x 7500 kgf
• Number of passengers - 102 people

I wonder how it differs from Soviet passenger airliners? Below are the following capabilities of this aircraft:

1. Possibility to change the layout of the passenger compartment.
2. Increased interior comfort.
3. Passengers hardly notice any engine noise.
4. Improved interior design and the ability to watch videos and listen to music.
5. Shelves for hand luggage with large volume.
6. equipped with modern water-vacuum toilets.
7. The time required to fully prepare an aircraft for a flight has been significantly reduced.
8. The passenger airliner is equipped with emergency warning systems.
9. The aircraft is guaranteed to comply with international ICAO standards.

Video: Tu-334 in the sky, takeoff, landing

The airliner was a competitor to the aircraft, so its mass production was not organized. The project was frozen, but not completely closed.