It’s peculiar that A340 achieved succesful comercial living, with the same 4 engine wide body airframe configuration, due the Soviet Republic colapsing, otherwise, Something different would happened. The today’s focus To Russian Federation is the single isle médium range jet Airliner, such MC 21-300-310. So sad that high fuel burning of IL 86 and 96 variants is the main Issue against the own airplane.
Nothing to do with soviet collapsing, just their technology was an utter trash, couldn't develop a high bypass engine back then, and still can't, incapable of it, today, 50 years later, go figure. China is trying for the last 20 years, still not fully achieved it as serial delivery is poor and planes are more grounded than not, but they are at least trying.
Desist from comparing the Il-86 with the A340. Other than being four engined widebodies they have nothing else in common. It might be possible to treat the Il-96 with the A340-300 but really we should compare the Il-86 with the A300.
It left no legacy at all and , as you admitted, was inferior in every way. It didnt compete globally and it was neither iconic nor pushed any boundaries. Your upload was a perfect example of somebody saying a lot about very little many times over. Well done.
Several specs here are wrong. Speed wrong. Main cause of the IL-86 being passed over wrong. Weight limit of the 747 wrong. Calling the DC-10 the MD DC-10 wrong (DC means Douglas Commercial). IL-96s shown as IL-86s wrong. And most important of all... the timely role of the IL-86. It is a transitional step. Next came the IL-96 which was an improvement on the '86 leading to their current position of building 737-similar aircraft. Now, it is true that their limited capitalism keeps them always behind. That is actually the problem here.
Who writes this garbage?? This video states that the 747 “tops out” at over 900 tons…….. WTF?? Try less than 450. The first 747 had a MTOW of around 368.
He has the IL-86 speed wrong too. The '86 is pretty quick. But it takes a long field to take off. And.... why show IL-96s when speaking of IL-86s? And DC-10s were never called MD DC-10s. The follow-on advancement came in the package of the MD-11.
@ you are correct in all. I suspect this is just another of those quickie “let’s do a RUclips channel and try and monetise it” that just throws any inaccurate crap together to cynically make money. A decent channel re Russian/Soviet aircraft is “Skyships Engineering”. The guy calls himself ‘Sky’ and does all his own scripts and narration without using text to talk and it’s very knowledgeable and interesting to hear background on Russian aviation from a Russian perspective.
Good specs. However, they are not all accurate. There really never was a MD DC-10, as stated here. DC stood for Douglas Commercial. McDonnell owned Douglas Aircraft at the time DC-10s were built. But they didn't manage that firm yet. They built the wings. Convair built the fuselage. Douglas did the rest. Also, this video speaks about the IL-86 while showing as many IL-96s as IL-86s. To look at them they were nearly identical except for the engines. And that should have been part of the discussion here. The low-bypass engines gave less thrust than that of the IL-96 engines. But the '86 gave much faster exhaust speeds, thereby actually enabling the IL-86 to fly faster than the '96. But the IL-86 took much longer fields for takes offs than the IL-96. And the '96 could fly farther through more efficient engines. But since this account might be a singular-aircraft video, and the IL-96 featured in another one, the differences in aircraft structural materials, and other differences, certainly can be part of the next documentary.
No, wdym, did you not hear that an american designer helped develop it, a 340 and 380 have completely different lines, a 340 except the 4 engine has the a 300 basic philosophy, a 300 is designed before this crap. And to reference on your and other comments, no it's not comparable with a 340, bypass ratio for engines and their efficiency are not at all comparable.
When the Soviet Premier visited the USA in 1959, he wanted to see several things including Disneyland and a Convair 880, which wasn't in service yet. Look at the IL-86 and see the Convair influence. Bigger and slower, it has similar lines- and smokes less.
True for yesteryear. But they are serving up Western-compliant birds now for sale in the West. But they'll have to underbid Embraer and Airbus as Boeing re-invents itself.
you say its like Boieng's is godsend plane for humanity.meanwhile Russia and China already built their rocket can go outer space,yet you undermining their capability in aerospace technology
The Il-86 failed for 3 reasons: 1) It's low bypass ratio engines were inefficient. This was a legacy of Soviet central planning. Their civilian engines were sourced from military powerplants. 2) The controls were in Russian!! 🤔 Who wants to learn a new lingo just to fly a communist contraption?! 3) Supply of spare parts was always going to be problematic but the Il-86s in Cuban service operated without hindrance. Ilyushin Ilyushin it transports the Putin..
excuse me, there were sanctions from US and EU. so, Russia created their only jet engine instead to import from US GE, or prat-Witney and Roll-Roice from EU. please tell the true for once
Its not about the actually aircraft & how good it is - its the politics that goes with it. Outside the US, major national airlines are either Govt owned or major shareholders. The closed door politics " commercial & military packages, discounts" "buy from us and we opens the doors....if you don't well we can't guarantee ....." "be a shame if Congress was to reduce the import quotas of your..."
If it was that easy or simple then the world would still have a BRITISH, FRENCH, DUTCH, GERMAN industries independently making aircraft. The money and technology isn’t always available. No matter the size of a home grown industry. Cooperation is almost always needed. Especially these days. The USSR made all its own aircraft only because it incorporated many many countries, Russia alone has never managed to achieve building a world class passenger plane on its own. Take this aircraft here, it flys of course but its spec is nowhere near good enough to sell internationally or to even make it attractive to Russian companies even!
Today the Russian airlines have Putin to thank for their limited choices.
It’s peculiar that A340 achieved succesful comercial living, with the same 4 engine wide body airframe configuration, due the Soviet Republic colapsing, otherwise, Something different would happened. The today’s focus To Russian Federation is the single isle médium range jet Airliner, such MC 21-300-310. So sad that high fuel burning of IL 86 and 96 variants is the main Issue against the own airplane.
Nothing to do with soviet collapsing, just their technology was an utter trash, couldn't develop a high bypass engine back then, and still can't, incapable of it, today, 50 years later, go figure.
China is trying for the last 20 years, still not fully achieved it as serial delivery is poor and planes are more grounded than not, but they are at least trying.
@ absolutely, that’s what I said. No money, no investments, or a Good R&D staff because lack of money, and let’s forget about it my friend.
Desist from comparing the Il-86 with the A340. Other than being four engined widebodies they have nothing else in common. It might be possible to treat the Il-96 with the A340-300 but really we should compare the Il-86 with the A300.
Excelente original la información
Quite a few in accuracy's in this video! One thing the IL-86 had going for it is that it was a well built aircraft with an excellent safety record.
Thank you!
And it isn't a slow aircraft all out. But the IL-96s were often shown here as '86s. Oops.
It left no legacy at all and , as you admitted, was inferior in every way.
It didnt compete globally and it was neither iconic nor pushed any boundaries.
Your upload was a perfect example of somebody saying a lot about very little many times over.
Well done.
Several specs here are wrong. Speed wrong. Main cause of the IL-86 being passed over wrong. Weight limit of the 747 wrong. Calling the DC-10 the MD DC-10 wrong (DC means Douglas Commercial). IL-96s shown as IL-86s wrong. And most important of all... the timely role of the IL-86. It is a transitional step. Next came the IL-96 which was an improvement on the '86 leading to their current position of building 737-similar aircraft.
Now, it is true that their limited capitalism keeps them always behind. That is actually the problem here.
There is no 747 in the world that weighs 987 tons. Even if you were to fill it capacity and add another 747 on top.
Several errors here.
Who writes this garbage??
This video states that the 747 “tops out” at over 900 tons…….. WTF?? Try less than 450. The first 747 had a MTOW of around 368.
He has the IL-86 speed wrong too. The '86 is pretty quick. But it takes a long field to take off. And.... why show IL-96s when speaking of IL-86s? And DC-10s were never called MD DC-10s. The follow-on advancement came in the package of the MD-11.
@ you are correct in all. I suspect this is just another of those quickie “let’s do a RUclips channel and try and monetise it” that just throws any inaccurate crap together to cynically make money.
A decent channel re Russian/Soviet aircraft is “Skyships Engineering”. The guy calls himself ‘Sky’ and does all his own scripts and narration without using text to talk and it’s very knowledgeable and interesting to hear background on Russian aviation from a Russian perspective.
The author of this video knows nothing about commercial aircraft. He constantly mixes up Il-86 with Il-96 and vv ....!
Good specs. However, they are not all accurate.
There really never was a MD DC-10, as stated here. DC stood for Douglas Commercial. McDonnell owned Douglas Aircraft at the time DC-10s were built. But they didn't manage that firm yet. They built the wings. Convair built the fuselage. Douglas did the rest.
Also, this video speaks about the IL-86 while showing as many IL-96s as IL-86s. To look at them they were nearly identical except for the engines. And that should have been part of the discussion here. The low-bypass engines gave less thrust than that of the IL-96 engines. But the '86 gave much faster exhaust speeds, thereby actually enabling the IL-86 to fly faster than the '96.
But the IL-86 took much longer fields for takes offs than the IL-96. And the '96 could fly farther through more efficient engines. But since this account might be a singular-aircraft video, and the IL-96 featured in another one, the differences in aircraft structural materials, and other differences, certainly can be part of the next documentary.
And what about the Il-96? And what about the proposal to modify the Il-96 from a quadjet to a twinjet?
YOUR COMMENTS IS WITH QUITE A LOT "BS'
It was a lovely design though, did Airbus take her lines for the 340 & 380 ?!
No, wdym, did you not hear that an american designer helped develop it, a 340 and 380 have completely different lines, a 340 except the 4 engine has the a 300 basic philosophy, a 300 is designed before this crap.
And to reference on your and other comments, no it's not comparable with a 340, bypass ratio for engines and their efficiency are not at all comparable.
@@dannyboy-vtc5741 sausage ???
@@carlneath6391 blood sausages perhaps.
When the Soviet Premier visited the USA in 1959, he wanted to see several things including Disneyland and a Convair 880, which wasn't in service yet. Look at the IL-86 and see the Convair influence. Bigger and slower, it has similar lines- and smokes less.
Russia primarily build aircraft for them for themselves - not for export. Whether anyone else wants them is largely irrelevant.
True for yesteryear. But they are serving up Western-compliant birds now for sale in the West. But they'll have to underbid Embraer and Airbus as Boeing re-invents itself.
you say its like Boieng's is godsend plane for humanity.meanwhile Russia and China already built their rocket can go outer space,yet you undermining their capability in aerospace technology
You think?
The Il-86 failed for 3 reasons:
1) It's low bypass ratio engines were inefficient. This was a legacy of Soviet central planning. Their civilian engines were sourced from military powerplants.
2) The controls were in Russian!! 🤔
Who wants to learn a new lingo just to fly a communist contraption?!
3) Supply of spare parts was always going to be problematic but the Il-86s in Cuban service operated without hindrance.
Ilyushin Ilyushin it transports the Putin..
excuse me, there were sanctions from US and EU. so, Russia created their only jet engine instead to import from US GE, or prat-Witney and Roll-Roice from EU. please tell the true for once
"Ilyushin Ilyushin it transports the Putin.." doesn't rhyme.
Its not about the actually aircraft & how good it is - its the politics that goes with it. Outside the US, major national airlines are either Govt owned or major shareholders. The closed door politics " commercial & military packages, discounts" "buy from us and we opens the doors....if you don't well we can't guarantee ....." "be a shame if Congress was to reduce the import quotas of your..."
Thanks for your feedback!
This Russia's Soviet II-86 airliner very failure because, no one bought it for adding more plane in the future.
gorram piece of gossa
Russia must continue developing new aircraft to be independent in the future
If it was that easy or simple then the world would still have a BRITISH, FRENCH, DUTCH, GERMAN industries independently making aircraft. The money and technology isn’t always available. No matter the size of a home grown industry. Cooperation is almost always needed. Especially these days. The USSR made all its own aircraft only because it incorporated many many countries, Russia alone has never managed to achieve building a world class passenger plane on its own. Take this aircraft here, it flys of course but its spec is nowhere near good enough to sell internationally or to even make it attractive to Russian companies even!
They run out of money. War is expensive.