IL-96-400M: the future flagship of Russian aviation

Three years before the collapse of the USSR, the last Soviet airliner soared into the sky. It was the newest long-range wide-body aircraft IL-96-300. It was equipped with the most up-to-date on-board equipment and engines. In terms of its characteristics, it surpassed all civil aircraft ever built by the Soviet aviation industry.

IL-96-300 could be a very successful project, but the collapse of the country and a sharp drop aviation industry almost put an end to it. The entrepreneurial spirit of the designers saved him: unlike the long-range IL-92 and IL-86, a huge modernization potential was laid in the new aircraft, thanks to which the IL-96 is still being manufactured.

Today in Russia there are plans to create the next wide-body aircraft based on the Il-96, however, the new airliner will most likely get a twin-engine layout.

Comments

[Vard]

Awesome plane ... I had a chance to fly ... You don’t feel take-off and landing ... There are no air holes ... From the word at all ... You just go between the seats ... But do not squeeze through ... In a word, a very cool airliner ...

[Mylenef]

That gets to our managers, cram seats in the minibus

[HEATHER]

Not so long ago, they wanted to make three 400M tankers not fully assembled. The dream died quietly on the sidelines. In fact, if the aircraft is modernized, it can be useful as a passenger on our lines. But for the world, it is doubtful. There are no engines with a capacity of 30 tons so far .Boeing and Watermelon are already moving to twin-engine cars. The 380th watermelon is not the topic. The machine is much larger and heavier. In this regard, we are 10 years behind at least. The PD-35 is planned for testing by the 25th year. During this time, who knows what can be. Maybe they will take place, or maybe they will quietly forget. There are reasons to doubt. They are also starting to swing at the PD-50! Without creating the 35th. Even the 14th did not pass the test completely. It’s better to advertise such ideas even after the first tests on the wing. And if so, if only apple trees would have bloomed on the moon. Unofficially, among PD hard workers -35 stands for -P. (Profanity) Engine in the 35th year.

[Town Hall]

Quote: VERESK

In fact, if the aircraft is modernized, then on our line it can come in handy as a passenger. But for the world, it is doubtful.

But what, in Russia, other economic laws that are different from the whole world, and an unprofitable airplane in the rest of the world in Russia will magically begin to generate income?

[NEXUS]

Quote: Town Hall

and the unprofitable in the rest of the world plane in Russia will magically begin to generate income?

With what fright is he unprofitable, dear? Or write if only something vile to write? They will deliver new avionics, new engines and there will be a wonderful airliner.
IL-96 and MS-21 of various modifications will supplant Boeings and Airbases at least from the domestic market, and if they have the right policies, they will be exported.

[Anyone]

I flew in Aeroflot from 1996 to 2011. Without a doubt, the specific fuel consumption of the IL-96-300 is higher than that of the Boeing 767. Which is understandable - two engines against four.
The IL-96 aircraft is excellent, of course, but it will not be unambiguously reanimated. For two reasons:
a) 4-engine scheme for aircraft with a capacity of up to 300 pax - an outdated scheme. For economic feasibility, at least 500 passengers with luggage load proportional to this number are needed. See all sorts of A380 and their ilk.
b) Small-scale production. Unit production put an end to the IL-96-300 (well, and the other side of the collusion between Putin and Chirac on Aeroflot's Airbus, gee). Outline the proposed geography of markets for the long-range IL-96? Their capacity? And how many aircraft do you need to sell per year to recoup production? And anyway, is there any opportunity today to sell so much?
Z.Y. A funny note:

differences from long-range IL-92 and IL-86 ...

What is the author talking about? )) And why, the IL-86 became his long-range))

[HEATHER]

On fishlessness and cancer, fish. We don’t have GVF. Ours. This is for the Town Hall.

[Town Hall]

Quote: VERESK

On fishlessness and cancer, fish. We don’t have GVF. Ours. This is for the Town Hall.

In this case, not even about fishlessness ... more likely about mice and a cactus.


It has been unprofitable for 30 years and will be even more unprofitable now.

Because over 30 years, competitors have gone even further in terms of improving fuel consumption, overhaul resources, etc., etc.



It's just a substitution of concepts. For the sake of rusty buckets with bolts, they are ready to ruin their own airlines. Which, unlike these stillborn Soviet-born brontosaurs, are economically healthy companies that work for an incomparably larger number of Russians than these half-dead aircraft plants that can do nothing worthwhile, paying heavy taxes to the budget and allowing passengers to travel at reasonable prices.


It's worth it?

[HEATHER]

Town Hall! I don’t have to explain this. I went through it at one time. The melancholy is green.

[nov_tech.vrn]

read everything that was written about these effective analyzers earlier, this is just another article on duty written in order not to be forgotten. in general, as you know, it does not sink, therefore, analyzes from Aeroflot, the airport and the structures accompanying them constantly pop up, and there is no analysis of these analyzes

[Anyone]

Do not la la only. Il-96-300 was not unprofitable. In any case, in Aeroflot. He prints the company steady profit always. Another issue is that the airline management considered this profit margin insufficient. But this is a completely different issue.

[Anyone]

Quote: Town Hall

It's just a substitution of concepts. For the sake of rusty buckets with bolts, they are ready to ruin their own airlines. Which, unlike these stillborn Soviet-born brontosaurs, are economically healthy companies that work for an incomparably larger number of Russians than these half-dead aircraft plants that can do nothing worthwhile, paying heavy taxes to the budget and allowing passengers to travel at reasonable prices?

That's it, that substitution of concepts. From your side. If Aeroflot didn’t take away 200 million euros per year of “flying money”, wouldn’t receive hundreds and hundreds of millions of euros of customs benefits from the government (actually having robbed the budget) for customs clearance of Airbus, you would still be a monster flew on a 30-year-old falling apart Boeing 767 from an Arizona dump. Therefore, the question is not which airplane is better, but what companies will go for profit and whom the Russian government is lobbying for.

[Irbenwolf]

For the sake of rusty buckets with bolts, they are ready to ruin their own airlines.

For the sake of preserving industry, employment, jobs, taxes, some kind of R&D potential, domestic cash flow, to ditch a couple of stillborn "transaers" ... let me think - no doubt !!!

Despite the fact that the lion's share of passenger traffic in Russia is railway.

[Nikolai Grek]

Quote: Town Hall

Quote: VERESK

In fact, if the aircraft is modernized, then on our line it can come in handy as a passenger. But for the world, it is doubtful.

But what, in Russia, other economic laws that are different from the whole world, and an unprofitable airplane in the rest of the world in Russia will magically begin to generate income?

and who told you that Euro-Americans live by market laws ??? their credo is threats, blackmail, bribery !!!

[passerby5]

the fact of the matter is that we have some kind of economic laws with an asterisk. here, once, one expressed extreme indignation and indignation ... he lives in Kaliningrad, and he would like to drive it to Sochi, well, or the Crimea. but!!! it’s cheaper there in London and back than in one direction in Sochi (well, of course, with a transfer to the MSC, in another way), now think what we have and what’s wrong. and somehow, on TV, they took the interior from the Sakhalin people (or Kamchadals) going by boat to China. like where are you going? in Moscow, they decided to take a ride ... ??? and then what to China? yes they say it cheaper. well, then there were then prices of flights .... wtttt

[maximon2005]

Down and Out trouble started. If we don’t start doing PD-35, we won’t do it, and dreaming from PD-50 is never harmful. For the Superjet, the engines are French, but they are made 50/50, half of the parts in France, half in Russia, the final assembly in Russia, under strict control from both sides. On account of the transition to 2 engine. airplanes .... We are on two, they are on four. We are on four, they are on two ... Of course there is a lag and IL-86 didn’t measure kerosene, but life puts everyone in their place. There is a political decision to fly their planes. The superjet, although not all from RUSSIA, was made in RUSSIA, on the approach of MS-21. IL 96-400 want, while they only want, but still want. The entire IL-76 was modernized, the same IL-114. And there they are already replacing the An-26 and then the An-12. Wait and see...

[1vlad19]

Quote: Vard

Don’t squeeze ... In a word, a very cool airliner

I flew on the “dry” baptized landing, and 96, easily sat in Khabarovsk, although the strip is not ice.

[SOF]

Quote: antivirus

WHEN China will export aviation - it will become the first first power

Seeing the "quality" of all Chinese super-tech products, watching the skating rinks fall off from celestial tanks, I understand that when (if) China becomes the greatest air power and "captures" this market, I will definitely transfer to a steam locomotive .....

[technical]

By the way, up to 91g, the main thrust on the Chinese railways was just a steam locomotive, now their trains run 1000km in 3 hours and carry goods along the Shanghai-Lisbon route. That's what the nationally stitched government and the Communist Party at the helm of the state mean ...

[Igor Kompaniets]

Clear.
Over the past 10 years, China has launched 100% of launched satellites into orbits. And we have 92% of successful spacecraft launches. So I would be careful to hayal east neighbor.

[passerby5]

ha, if only the steam locomotive’s bearings on the rollers weren’t Chinese ... or as of now, ours are assembled from Chinese components

[Ptah]

Quote: Vard

Awesome plane ... I had a chance to fly ... You don’t feel take-off and landing ... There are no air holes ... From the word at all ... You just go between the seats ... But do not squeeze through ... In a word, a very cool airliner ...

I completely agree. Only above the central seats there is no room for hand luggage.

[Anyone]

This is the legacy of the IL-86. Since at the eighty-sixth there were luggage racks for hand luggage and luggage (on the lower deck), the central shelf was rightly considered superfluous, which gave volume to the passenger cabin, which is not found on any plane. I remember if, by replacement, you arrive on the 86th somewhere where he didn’t fly, then the ground personnel must have run to take pictures in the cabin))

[Valery Saitov]

The main thing is to produce for your country, and not to dream of foreign deliveries. And then whatever they come up with, they try the next day to sell somewhere to Africa at least half the price.

[svp67]

Today in Russia there are plans to create the next wide-body aircraft based on the Il-96, however, the new airliner will most likely get a twin-engine layout.

Not likely, but only MOTOR, since only such an option has a future

[HEATHER]

but only MOTOR There are no engines yet. And creating 14 tons of thrust is a problem. Although all the forces have been devoted to bringing the engine to power. The 35th is still a project. When they implement it, it’s not clear. .By the way, at the 50th VNU with a diameter of 14 meters.

[Vladimir SHajkin]

Economic efficiency often contradicts security.

[Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)]

a significant part of the test flights of the same 777 were hours-long flights on one engine. Often they fight if they are not helped by a beech?

[genesis6]

Very nice plane. It looks more preferable even in comparison with Boeing and Airbus.

[HEATHER]

It looks more preferable even in comparison with Boeing and Airbus. He can compete with Watermelon and Airbus. But they cook 300 cars a year, each! And we, maybe by the 25th year we will go out to 70 cars. Only to MS. Boeing and Watermelon, alas! We won’t surpass them. If about MC, this is essentially a Boeing 737-100. We are generally zero in civil aviation.

[Nikolai Grek]

Quote: VERESK

It looks more preferable even in comparison with Boeing and Airbus. He can compete with Watermelon and Airbus. But they cook 300 cars a year, each! And we, maybe by the 25th year we will go out to 70 cars. Only to MS. Boeing and Watermelon, alas! We won’t surpass them. If about MC, this is essentially a Boeing 737-100. We are generally zero in civil aviation.

here it’s worth thinking about switching the service of our "titanium" plants from Euromerikos to us ... you look, ours will start to cook more, and they will be fewer !!

[Sivasa]

If our "titanium" plants cease to serve the Euromerikos, then kirdyk will come to them. In the sense of factories.

[Iskander. Richard]

And if you do not dream and really look at things? Base, resources, technology, electronics?

[Nikolai Grek]

Quote: Iskander. Richard

And if you do not dream and really look at things? Base, resources, technology, electronics?

there is one current problem ... with 4 engines go to 2 !!!

[Vladimir1155]

unprofitableness and long-term profitability is an area of ​​blatant lies and deceit, not the fact that it will cause losses, that it will not be able to compete with airbases and Boeing ... firstly, now there is already a difference in exchange rates, which makes the economy of domestic aircraft better, secondly, not the fact that upcoming political changes (the collapse of the United States and the resurgence of great Israel from sea to sea at the expense of the US and EU resources and its first place in the world) will not lead to the closure of the irrevocable and interest-free line of credit to Boeing and Aybas, and then they will simply be unprofitable and n They’ll completely lose production ... well, like a cherry on the cake, because all the blings have a secret external control system with an unconditional shutdown of internal piloting, and not only to prevent hijackings of the aircraft, but also for its deliberate accident, ... that’s why Putin only flies on domestic aircraft

[Labor]

Do watermelons also have?