Military Review

The difficult fate of the IL-96-400: the plane remains on the ground

44
Problems with IL-96 began at the design stage. For the new liner a completely new engine was planned. The design bureau of Heinrich Novozhilov, which was engaged in the design of the IL-96, ordered the power plant to an experienced design bureau of Nikolai Kuznetsov. According to the plans, the engine should have a take-off 18 tonnes and work on it started in 1979 year.


The new engine was developed on the basis of the gas generator from NK-25 (turbojet engine mounted on the Tu-22М3). By the middle of the 80-s, the experienced NK-56 engines had already been in operation for more than three thousand hours and confirmed the expected performance. But, as they say, it began ...

Minister aviation USSR industry suddenly demanded to underestimate the requirements for engine take-off thrust to 16 tons. Thus, in total, the aircraft lost 8 tons of thrust, which could not but affect the characteristics of the created liner.

44 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vard
    Vard 3 March 2018 09: 20
    +6
    I kind of flew on this ... just a huge plane ... took off and didn’t notice ... the same air holes ... It’s a pity that he has problems ... from the point of view of the passenger, all these Boeings and airbuses are not suitable ...
    1. Anyone
      Anyone 3 March 2018 10: 19
      +8
      The IL-96 has no problems - the aircraft has been successfully operated in Aeroflot since almost 1993. And only in 2011, the IL-96 began to withdraw from planning on regular routes. He began to fly as once, at the end of operation, flew IL-86 - mainly by charters and / or tourist destinations: Antalya, Salzburg (in winter), Male, Colobmo, Bangkok (for replacement and additionally in high season) and so on ... The plane is excellent in every sense. But Aeroflot did not like him - he was a sort of stepdaughter under Okulov and pr Saveliev. If only Shaposhnikov had a calm attitude towards him, he flew to him in LA, Seattle, San Francisco, Havana, Sao Paulo, Delhi, Dhaka, etc. SEA. But already at the time of the Levitin-Okulov bunch, the bet at the highest level (read Putin) was made on Airbus. He and Chirac agreed on Airbus, Aeroflot's entry into Skyteam. After that, Aeroflot managers began to push ninety-six. In fairness, I must say that the specific fuel consumption is higher than that of a similar twin-engine Boeing-767 or Airbus A330. But on the other hand, Aeroflot airplanes were owned, not leased, that is, the company paid nothing for them - they did not work only for profit. But for each new Boeing / Airbus acquired in Aeroflot, certain business characters received their rightful 18%. And given that Aeroflot bought them about 200 boards, the amount of transaction fees there was space. At the same time, Aeroflot was partially exempted from customs duties. In return for these benefits, he promised to buy IL-96 from Ilyushin Finance. But to prevent this from happening (if they would have forced it!), Aeroflot was engaged by dragging Khristenko, who, on behalf of and on behalf of the Russian government, came to VASO and said "guys, your airplane is unpromising - disassemble the slipway"). But the rest is convulsions of a dead plane. IL-96, IMHO, will no longer fly in commercial aviation. Alas.
      1. shuravi
        shuravi 3 March 2018 11: 16
        +6
        Quote: Anyone
        In fairness, I must say that the specific fuel consumption is higher than that of a similar twin-engine Boeing-767 or Airbus A330. But on the other hand, Aeroflot airplanes were owned, not leased, that is, the company paid nothing for them - they did not work only for profit. But for each new Boeing / Airbus acquired in Aeroflot, certain business characters received their legitimate 18%.


        Exactly. Payback is not one fuel. There are a lot of factors and, in fact, fuel efficiency is always within the limits of common sense and not be elevated to absolute.
        But it is often used as a speckled card in order to attract your personal business interest.
        1. Anyone
          Anyone 3 March 2018 12: 18
          +7
          IL-96, in addition to lobbyists Airbus and Boeing, ruined the following:
          a) US withdrawal from the joint project (Il-96MO) of Boeing and P&W. Boeing then openly admitted that the withdrawal from the project was connected with the desire to stake out its share of the commercial aircraft market in the ex-USSR. They don't need a local competitor. Accordingly, they also lobbied the refusal of the project in an American loan under the guarantees of the Russian government;
          b) As a consequence of the first paragraph, appeared IL-96-300. The decision is palliative, due to the traction PS-90. And this decision undoubtedly led to an increase in the cost of transportation on the IL-96. The plane was actually castrated, which led to the line-up (in Aeroflot), if my memory serves me right, in 236 seats. Later, in 2009, the passenger cabin was “compacted”, reducing the step of the seats in the Y-cabin, and reducing and re-arranging the B-class, removing the crew lounge chairs. About 30 more seats were added.
          c) And finally, small-scale production. A small-scale aircraft will always be economically less attractive than a large-scale aircraft. The manufacturer has completely different costs for the production of series and individual sides. That’s why, today we don’t step on this long-distance main rake for the second time. It is very difficult to sell a domestic long-range aircraft for export - the competition in this segment is high. The domestic market for long-haul GA has a small capacity. And accordingly, it will not allow the manufacturer (and the trailer - the air carriers) to reach acceptable figures of profitability and profit.
          d) Well, continuing to try to reanimate the IL-96 today does not make sense. If only as a palliative. Nevertheless, technologically, this is an airplane of the 80s of the last century. Today, the use of composites has become the norm in the civilian aircraft industry. But to make a new one, using the IL-96 as the basis, is quite possible. But this is more a question of economists.
      2. Ivan Tucha
        Ivan Tucha 5 March 2018 20: 00
        +2
        That's right, some commercial amenities from the contracts for the Boeing-767 or Airbus A330, which, of course, was not from the purchase with our aircraft .. It's simple, nothing needs to be invented. Business and nothing personal.
  2. shuravi
    shuravi 3 March 2018 10: 09
    +1
    Or maybe boyish fantasies give off as expert opinion?
    Oh yes, I forgot. Here the main thing is to observe punctuation, and do not care about the content. laughing
  3. Beltasir matyagu
    Beltasir matyagu 3 March 2018 11: 33
    +5
    The new minister was clearly from the Gorbachev cohort. The same bastard sold for a puddle
  4. Beltasir matyagu
    Beltasir matyagu 3 March 2018 12: 48
    +7
    I understand that the plane has one problem - someone's monetary interest. Fill two birds with one stone and lick the owner behind a puddle by inserting sticks into the wheels of the domestic industry.
    1. urman
      urman 3 March 2018 15: 22
      +4
      Quote: Beltasir Matyagu
      I understand that the plane has one problem - someone's monetary interest.

      Hey, yes, our country is nunchy in such a state, bureaucrats have lost fear and conscience, because they do not see the future of their descendants in Russia, so they can’t get drunk.
      This is how Stalin can’t be remembered here.
    2. Town Hall
      Town Hall 3 March 2018 15: 22
      0
      Quote: Beltasir Matyagu
      I understand that the plane has one problem




      You got it right. This plane is deeply unprofitable in all respects. Not just fuel. Its operation is ruin for airlines and passengers. Another bucket with nuts of the Soviet era.
      1. urman
        urman 3 March 2018 18: 09
        +6
        Quote: Town Hall
        .new bucket with nuts of the Soviet era

        Yes, but I read about a completely different opinion, there isn’t such a critical difference.
        By the way, a classmate in U Teira, works as a techie and airbuses with Boeing, does not praise the service, uncomfortable. For crews, yes, for techies a headache.
        1. Town Hall
          Town Hall 3 March 2018 18: 59
          +1
          And why do you need opinions? .. there is a completely official comparative analysis of the operation of IL-96 and Boeing-767 by Airflot. There are no opinions and figures show how deeply unprofitable this device was
          1. Flyer_64
            Flyer_64 3 March 2018 20: 17
            +7
            Comparative analysis ))). You know the analysis in the hands of the people who represent it can be in any favor. I know how to manipulate the numbers from weapons, they removed the Mi-14 helicopter in all its modifications at the Navy MA in favor of the Ka-27. And in recent times, only on the pages of VO have several times raised the question of returning to this helicopter. The whole question is biased. I express the opinion of the plum of civil aviation industry began with Comrade Poghosyan.
          2. urman
            urman 3 March 2018 20: 44
            +7
            On the Internet, the data of specialists, in numbers.
            From them it followed that in some way 96 even won the Boeing.
            Despite the development of a new engine for him.
            But our snickering bureaucrats drowned him, at that time the family (son-in-law) ebn steered in the azroflot, the land was sulfuric acid.
            By the way, in those days, the leading designer of Perm engines was brought to suicide, like we don’t need domestic engines.
            Although it was already being developed then, the engines that are now trying to finish, the 90s will come back to us for decades.
          3. Anyone
            Anyone 3 March 2018 23: 00
            +13
            You are lying. Moreover, shamelessly and brazenly. Thank God, I flew off in the AFL from 1996 to 2011. What did Aeroflot have after the RAL daughter was covered? 2 second-hand B767s flying to the States only, a few again second-hand A310s from RAL and 6 Il-96-300. And it was IL-96 that closed all the holes in the company's long-distance route network in the mid-90s. And IL-62 was put on flights around Russia and all sorts of Dakkara, Barbados or Mauritius. And IL-96 allowed Aeroflot to reopen flights to the Russian Far East. Il-96 flew to New York, Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Delhi, Dhaka, Bangkok, Singapore, Seoul, Havana, São Paulo, Lima, Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, Petropavlovsk, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Shanghai, Hanoi , occasionally in Sydney, Male, Colombo ... Probably forgot something)) Only a fool can call this plane unprofitable.
            1. Town Hall
              Town Hall 3 March 2018 23: 34
              0
              Quote: Anyone
              You are lying. Moreover, shamelessly and brazenly.



              I hope you have at least some numbers confirming such an accusation. Otherwise, you are just an ill-educated balabol
              1. Anyone
                Anyone 4 March 2018 00: 31
                +8
                What a charm ... Calling a liar a liar is, in your opinion, bad manners?
                What figures are we talking about? It’s you, kindly, give at least some noteworthy figures that demonstrate the losses that Aeroflot allegedly incurred from the 20-year operation of the IL-96. This is your thesis was that the IL-96 "deeply unprofitable bucket with nuts." You prove it. And then they took the habit of carrying nonsense, and when you are caught on this, you begin to demand to throw beads: "and you, prove, prove that this is nonsense, and even with proofs and numbers."
                1. Town Hall
                  Town Hall 4 March 2018 00: 51
                  0
                  And I, naive, thought with the figures of IL-96 yield fail. But it’s like, Mikhalych)


                  A deeply unprofitable bucket with nuts is not my thesis. And all Russian airlines that run like hell at the sight of this masterpiece of the Soviet / Russian aircraft industry. I tend to trust their calculations confirmed by numbers. And not your boorish muttering
              2. shuravi
                shuravi 4 March 2018 10: 39
                +6
                Quote: Town Hall
                Quote: Anyone
                You are lying. Moreover, shamelessly and brazenly.



                I hope you have at least some numbers confirming such an accusation. Otherwise, you are just an ill-educated balabol



                And you? For judging by the speeches, you are not only an ill-educated balabol, but also an ignoramus. In a word, the troll is ordinary.
            2. MrK
              MrK 4 March 2018 12: 19
              +8
              Quote: Anyone
              Only a fool can call this plane unprofitable.

              I agree. There is one more point and may be the main one. Our factories could not give such kickbacks that our officials gave Boeing and Airbus.
          4. nov_tech.vrn
            nov_tech.vrn 3 March 2018 23: 46
            +4
            Every year, the Town Hall pops up a newly-minted guru who familiarized himself with the work of aeroflot efficient managers at a rollback, and begins to tell us tales, if you decide to write, first read the reviews of all experts, otherwise it just turns out copywriting. Aeroflot’s management’s creativity has been repeatedly analyzed in VO and AN-148 and IL-96 and it is shown how flawed these conclusions are, the key word here is greed and illegibility in the means, by analogy, now anonymous, as well as other couch experts are fighting against MIR cards - the price is over 2 billion dollars a year and the cost of maintenance is constantly growing
            1. Town Hall
              Town Hall 4 March 2018 00: 23
              0
              I hope you provide a plate with the figures for the cost of operating the IL-96. Or suggest you take your word for it?. I am pleased to read your true numbers to prove the opposite. And not a bunch of words without any evidence of actual
      2. Anyone
        Anyone 3 March 2018 20: 10
        +11
        Stupidity wrote. IL-96 has never been unprofitable in Aeroflot. And the airline earned a lot of money on it over the 20 years of its operation. Passengers liked the plane. In addition, the equipment of the passenger cabin, the type of seats, the presence / absence of "cocoons" in the business class, etc. - this is just the choice of a complete set by the customer. For example, the salons of the Il-96-300 a / c Cubana were better than ours - these were the Cubans wished. I am not saying that the IL-96 has an outstanding glider. Therefore, Boeing in the 90s tried to drown a competitor.
        1. Town Hall
          Town Hall 3 March 2018 23: 13
          0
          http://www.ato.ru/content/sravnenie-ekspluatacion
          noy-ekonomiki-il-96-300-i-boeing-767-300-na-opyte
          -aeroflota

          From Tab. No. 5 we learn that the total cost of flight hours of IL-96 and Boeing 767, expressed in US dollars, according to Aeroflot is $ 8306,2 (IL-96-300) and $ 7047,0 (Boeing 767). We consider the difference. 8306,2-7047 = $ 1259,2.


          The difference of almost 30% between the maximum take-off weight of IL-96 and Boeing767 (namely, airport and air navigation charges are calculated on the basis of this indicator) is far from in favor of the domestic aircraft. For the same payload.



          Another weak point of the IL-96 is the hourly consumption of aviation fuels and lubricants. According to Aeroflot, the fuel consumption of a Boeing767 is 38% less than that of an IL-96. At the same time, the attack on a scheduled aircraft by Boeing767 is 69% higher than that of a Russian aircraft.



          The American car has a 27% higher serviceability indicator (based on the experience of Aeroflot) and at the same time, the flight crew is 30% smaller.
          These indicators affect the structure of the cost of flight hours, which does not become smaller over time due to rising prices for jet fuel. According to Aeroflot estimates, the fuel efficiency of the Boeing 767 is 38% higher than the IL-96.
          1. Anyone
            Anyone 4 March 2018 01: 07
            +13
            I could write a lot on this "report", but the following would be enough:
            This report indicates that, over a ten-year period, the IL-96-300 payload averages 57%. Meanwhile, the Boein 767 already has 95%. That is, IL-96 was planned for flights with loading 38 lower than that of Boeing, and its operation was only 20% more expensive. But vice versa: plan IL-96 for flights with 95% load, and Boeing 767 for flights with 67%? Already completely different figures will turn out, where the operation of Boeing will be more expensive than ILs. And now I remind you that the IL-96-300 is three times cheaper than the B767. And this difference will be "eaten up" for a long time (calculate on the basis of the difference in the cost of operation, which is indicated in dollars above). But it’s already been calculated without you for a long time - only after 6 years of operation, the flight hour of the IL-96 will cost, all other things being equal, more than that of a Boeing. I'm not saying that it is ridiculous to compare the operating costs of the IL-96-300, released in 1992, with the just dropped off the Boeing-767.
            I don’t even want to continue further. For that only for billions of dollars in commission our officials and businessmen do not sell. IL-96, aircraft industry, homeland ...
            1. Town Hall
              Town Hall 4 March 2018 01: 24
              0
              This is the problem for you and for people like you. You are talking about economics, you are about patriotism.


              Russian airlines are employing orders of magnitude more Russian citizens who receive their salaries and pay taxes. For some reason, you want to ruin them and are ready to blame them for corruption and incompetence for the sake of a pair of stunted aircraft factories remaining in the Stone Age aircraft manufacturing and able to issue piecewise dinosaurs in half technologies of the 60-70s. Every year, multibillion-dollar subsidies dragging from the budget, because they never knew how to work without losses and subsidies.
          2. nov_tech.vrn
            nov_tech.vrn 4 March 2018 04: 47
            +6
            Town Hall, you apparently intend to ignore the proposals of other participants, take and look at other calculations, except for the management of Aeroflot or simply incapable? At VO, the numerals that you quote, as well as others that you ignore, have repeatedly shone. Do you have clip thinking, are you at odds with the Russian language, or just think the rest are fools?
            1. Town Hall
              Town Hall 4 March 2018 10: 15
              0
              All I look forward to looking at these calculations. In response, some good wishes). Probably not with the calculations ...
              1. shuravi
                shuravi 4 March 2018 10: 55
                +6
                Quote: Town Hall
                All I look forward to looking at these calculations. In response, some good wishes). Probably not with the calculations ...


                That's right, with the calculations you have not a lot, only fraud.
                For example, you completely forgot to mention such a factor, how many human lives took Boeing 767 and how many IL-96.
                Really, I personally will pay the same 15% of the price for a ticket, than to fly with the prospect of crashing from the echelon due to the fact that with such cool Western technology one engine in flight would like to switch to reverse.
                1. Town Hall
                  Town Hall 4 March 2018 11: 28
                  0
                  Baby talk.
                  1. shuravi
                    shuravi 4 March 2018 12: 03
                    +7
                    Quote: Town Hall
                    Baby talk.


                    That is, essentially you have nothing to answer? Well it happens, it’s quite predictable for a troll like you. hi
                    1. Town Hall
                      Town Hall 4 March 2018 12: 40
                      +1
                      But what is essentially the answer to such stupidity? .. a flightless aircraft in the amount of 6 pieces will not fall. But it can catch fire in the parking lot, which happened ..


                      The non-shooting king-gun will also never break.
                      1. shuravi
                        shuravi 5 March 2018 09: 15
                        +1
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        But what is essentially the answer to such stupidity? .. a flightless aircraft in the amount of 6 pieces will not fall. But it can catch fire in the parking lot, which happened ..


                        The non-shooting king-gun will also never break.


                        Well it is necessary, as you are predicted. One would like to ask, - ̶К̶о̶р̶н̶е̶т̶ Town Hall, are you a woman?
                        Your logic is typically kitchen-master.
                        After all, the fact that the aircraft in only six copies did not stop you from evaluating its economic efficiency.
                        Such is your selectivity.
                        Meanwhile, this indicator also depends on the intensity of operation. You have already been pointed out to this, but you simply "did not notice."
                        By the way, the predecessor of IL-96, IL-86 also did not kill a single passenger.
                      2. voffchik7691
                        voffchik7691 12 March 2018 10: 11
                        0
                        Cartouche, Did the 787 broiler not light up in the parking lot ?! For how long did his flights stop due to battery problems ?! And most importantly, neither IL-86 nor IL-96 claimed a single life of passengers! It is better to pay 15% and have a guarantee that you will fly alive, than if you save them, you will plunge into the ground!
            2. Pingo
              Pingo 4 March 2018 16: 45
              +3
              From his arguments, only "the non-firing Tsarpushka of the Soviet era is a bucket of nuts." And the left one has already been sorted out by a lie here by others the report of Aeroflot. Russian campaigns take for lease rollback foreign air junk that goes to Russia after Uganda. For leasing to Russian aircraft manufacturers, banks do not give money. Because they "do not want", the very banks that "helped" from the treasury (ie, at the expense of ordinary citizens). The B-767 is generally a different class aircraft, and it is worse even when new.
  5. urman
    urman 3 March 2018 15: 16
    +7
    I didn’t fly on this one. Well, when I arrived again, then Sverdlovsk, I saw them for the first time.
    Carcasses next to him as An 2 next to carcasses. By size.
    And they stood next to the arrival hall, so I almost missed my luggage, everyone stood admiring.
    What can I say there and ILs, for my taste the most beautiful aircraft in our country, and probably in the world.
  6. HEATHER
    HEATHER 4 March 2018 14: 20
    0
    The MS-21 theme is touched. While the machine does not exist. What can I say? If only, yes, if only. When they start riveting pieces, at least 30 a year, then we’ll develop a theme. And for now, flight tests of a single copy. God forbid, we’ll see a couple of flying.
  7. bobnew2017
    bobnew2017 4 March 2018 15: 57
    +6
    I flew this in Moscow-NY. Compared to Boeing and Airbus, it’s just a great airplane. I bow my hat to the Soviet school of aircraft engineering! If it were not for the betrayal of the Gorbachev pack, then the domestic aircraft industry could have received a huge impetus in its development when building new models based on the IL-96.
    1. nov_tech.vrn
      nov_tech.vrn 4 March 2018 17: 59
      +3
      Everything is simple, it’s proved that the car is competitive at high load, in Soviet times a half-empty plane couldn’t dream only in a dream, and fuel efficiency is only part of the economic feasibility of operation, there is still depreciation and, as a rule, leasing payments, and here we recall the old a joke about a traffic cop, if you don’t pay, so I’ll put him under a brick in a dead end.
      If I’m not mistaken, in '14, Pobeda did not fly to Crimea, because its Boeings were under leasing, and they were forbidden to drive there, but IL-96, they were at the Aeroflot joke, although the planes in Crimea were crowded, and tickets were expensive.
      Those who wish can delve into the VO archive, which is just not there, but not those who wish ... they don’t serve the deaf for the second time.
      1. Town Hall
        Town Hall 5 March 2018 13: 53
        0
        Quote: nov_tech.vrn
        Everything is simple, proven, machine, at high load competitive




        By whom is it proven? ... The airlines that operated them claim back. With numbers ...
  8. nov_tech.vrn
    nov_tech.vrn 5 March 2018 13: 27
    +2
    shuravi, in all, 3 produced a dozen IL-96 of them in the passenger version of 6 in the aeroflot, 3 in Cuba, no one complained about cargo silts, I am generally silent about special boards.
    1. shuravi
      shuravi 5 March 2018 20: 09
      +3
      Quote: nov_tech.vrn
      shuravi, in all, 3 produced a dozen IL-96 of them in the passenger version of 6 in the aeroflot, 3 in Cuba, no one complained about cargo silts, I am generally silent about special boards.


      Yes it is known. By the way, such a fact. When the IL-86 was decommissioned, they were hastily cut. Moreover, many cars even have a resource.
  9. Town Hall
    Town Hall 5 March 2018 13: 39
    0
    "... As an example, the calculations of the airline" Aeroflot ".

    This carrier operates both Russian long-range IL-96-300 aircraft, and American Boeing 767s, similar in terms of flight performance and the number of passenger seats.


    According to Aeroflot’s estimates, to operate the Moscow-Seoul route with an annual passenger flow of 100 people, the airline needs either two IL-96 or one Boeing 767. In addition, 96 flight specialists (with taking into account shift crews), and on a western plane - only 44.


    The domestic aircraft will eat 16 tons more fuel, which means additional costs of more than $ 10 million for the carrier (if you use the March price for kerosene at $ 592 per ton, you would have to pay $ 96 million more for fuel for IL-9,5 )


    The difference in flight support costs (air navigation, airport taxes, crew remuneration) will be $ 1,87 million, again, not in favor of the IL-96.



    In turn, under the article "Maintaining the aircraft in good condition, leasing payments and maintaining flight technical personnel", a western aircraft will be more expensive than the IL-96 by $ 4,9 million per year. Here, however, it should be clarified that this difference in favor of the IL-96 arose because of its "old age" - the fact is that the term for the depreciation deductions of Aeroflot on the IL-96 has almost expired.

    As a result, if we add up all the expense items, it turns out that on the Moscow-Seoul route the transportation of 100 thousand passengers on the IL-96, which is actually free for Aeroflot, will cost the airline $ 6,5 million more annually than on the Boeing 767, for which the company must pay monthly hundreds of thousands of dollars of lease payments.


    If we compare for the new IL-96 and Boeing 767, then this difference will only increase. Note that we are comparing with the western analogue of IL-96, which representatives of the aviation industry are still calling a promising Russian aircraft.
    1. myobius59
      myobius59 5 March 2018 14: 32
      +4
      Where did you come from, such a sick one, and why such a bad smoke. If your stomach hurts, then drink something laxative, pickled cucumbers with milk can, they say from indigestion also helps.
      And the fact that your head is not all right, so it will pass. You won’t smoke this rubbish anymore, and it’s easier. In a week.
      And before you don’t write anything else, otherwise you’re considered to be a fool here, so abstain, be patient. It’s easier, and again you can knock on the keys. It’s more accurate, don’t confuse the numbers with letters, and don’t believe any "research". According to the results of “research and surveys,” GDP also has a rating of more than 80%. But I personally do not have more than one friend who would confirm this. Well no, understand?
      So you put your digits there, where you yourself know, probably, and better listen to those people who operated these devices.
      But you do not care about their opinion, right? You are one of those who heard the ringing - but does not know where he is.
      Do not smoke this stuff anymore .. wink wink wink