The press service of "Ilyushin" called the timing of the second test flight of IL-112В

It became known about the next planned flight of a prototype IL-112V transport aircraft. Recall that a few days ago, “VO” in one of the news materials reported about the changes made to the design of this aircraft. As a result of the changes, the Il-112B became lighter by about a ton. Reducing the mass of the aircraft was one of the main requirements of the Russian Ministry of Defense, which initially noted that the new transport vehicle does not meet the stated requirements and needs a number of improvements.

The TASS news agency, citing the press service of the Ilyushin group of companies, reports that for the second time the IL-112B will fly in the air in 2020. And until the end of this year, the transporter will continue to undergo tests at the airport. In particular, it is stated that he will continue to practice such actions as “taxiing and jogging”.

The machine made its first flight (as early as in the previous version) in March of this year - in Voronezh. This is the first transport aircraft that is being developed in the Russian Federation (in the post-Soviet era) virtually from scratch. The Ministry of Defense is going to use IL-112V with the goal of transporting personnel and cargo. The terms of reference, voiced by the main defense department of the country, state that the Il-112В should carry up to 5 tons of cargo.

Recall how the first test flight of the Il-112B took place:

Comments

[svp67]

The IL-112 is of course the "first swallow", a purely Russian-developed transport aircraft that should arrive in our airborne forces very soon and would like it to have a long and happy fate.

[jonht]

Yes, this workhorse has long been needed to replace the old An. So I think everything will be fixed and finalized.

[mikle1999]

Or fix it or throw it in the trash. On what outcome would you put your personal bottle of skate, with all the love for domestic aviation?

[Greg Miller]

IL-112 is not a swallow, it is a poorly flying parrot. Craft Rogozin Jr., aimed exclusively at cutting budget funds in Russia. This aircraft is a hybrid of the Soviet An-74 and Ukrainian An-140 and An-148 and inferior in its characteristics to the veteran An-26. Russian Defense Ministry is extremely dissatisfied with this machine and most likely will not accept it.

[Sky strike fighter]

Quote: Greg Miller

IL-112 is not a swallow, it is a poorly flying parrot. Craft Rogozin Jr., aimed exclusively at cutting budget funds in Russia. This aircraft is a hybrid of the Soviet An-74 and Ukrainian An-140 and An-148 and inferior in its characteristics to the veteran An-26. Russian Defense Ministry is extremely dissatisfied with this machine and most likely will not accept it.

Let's get by on this site without cheap kindergarten-level propaganda with a mouth painted on a video of an airplane. You're not a clown in the end. So don't go down to the clown level then. It’s not serious to carry such a childish balcony.
On 3 and 4 Il-112V machines that are currently under construction, all performance characteristics of the Russian Ministry of Defense will be sustained. The Il-112V mass is reduced by 2,5 tons and there are no An aircraft at all.

[Vlad.by]

He is not a clown. He is exactly the same parrot, repeating, perhaps for money, the ridiculous mantra about the inability of our manufacturers to make a normal plane.
The plane is already flying and will fly even better.
And the clown-parrot will remain so in its wretched vocabulary.

[okko077]

Maxim, you have to be a complete idiot or Rogozin Jr. to make such a plane. Look at this under plane carefully and evaluate visually ratio of wing area to fuselage.
What IT will carry 5 tons to a distance of 6000 km. The fact that the designers did this one thing, but what "genius" built this squalor and snapped at the first opportunity?
THIS will not fly. It is necessary to construct a new aircraft, and sell four unsuccessful mock-ups to Rogozin, by installments ....

[John22]

I completely agree. The width of the wing is surprising at first sight. There used to be a rule of areas - wings and fuselage sections. But in this instance, the opposite is true. Constructors (unknowns) must have certain experience and consideration. It was at one time that Burt Rutan made revolutionary designs - they flew and surprised. And in this case, doubts arise in the common sense of designers. Thank God soared and landed!

[Sky strike fighter]

Look at this under-plane carefully and visually evaluate the ratio of the wing area to the fuselage.

Look at Spartan. Flies. There is about the same ratio.

THIS will not fly.

IL-112V has already successfully completed the first test flight.

We need to build a new plane,

The 3 and 4 copies of the Il-112V will be essentially new aircraft with a mass of 2,5 tons reduced each compared to the first Il-112V, which made the first test flight. And the 3 and 4 copies will correspond to the TTZ from the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. So the new plane no need to construct.

[mikle1999]

You already decide, either the 3rd and 4th instance will be completely new aircraft, or a new aircraft does not need to be developed. Or are you talking about the fact that the new name will not be used?

[Vlad.by]

Spartan has a wing area of ​​5 m less.
And, well, it flies in full growth ...
And ours, then the wing of the wrong system
Connoisseurs ...

[KTA]

The area rule is for near critical numbers M.

[Piramidon]

Quote: Sky Strike fighter

Crafts Rogozinyounger

What kind of aircraft is this?

[carstorm 11]

exactly. taking into account the fact that Rogozin was a crisis manager from 17 to 19 and is related to the development of this aircraft the same as I do to the development of Mars.

[Looking for]

to reduce the mass by 2.5 tons, he needs to trim the wings.

[Vika cnek]

Come on in more detail about the 3rd and 4th machines being built. Who and where are they building? I go twice a day, five times a week, past the slipways for IL -112, located in one of the VASO workshops. There is not a single panel, not a single node in them! Ever since the first two cars were rolled out of these stockpiles, they were moved to a heap in the corner of the workshop. They stand and collect dust. Where did you get this information from the TV?

[Servisinzhener]

One should be a little critical of such videos. And at the time when Rogozin Jr. took office, the assembly of the first flight instance was already underway. So it’s not correct to name the plane “Rogozin Jr. Craft”.

[okko077]

And what kind of ears did someone drag him to the post? Does he have an aviation education? Dad put in committees and he suddenly became an aviation specialist? He will answer in full ...

[Servisinzhener]

He will answer, but not for designing a heavy aircraft, as it was before him.

[okko077]

He will be responsible for building useless trash ...

[carstorm 11]

he is a crisis manager! Well, learn at least what this means !. its tasks have little in common with airplanes. it is a piece goods of the highest qualification. Its task is to conduct a business analysis and make the company overcome the crisis with minimal losses. there a bunch of not the most popular measures to be taken and a bunch of work. and he will never be left without her. getting such an education is a very expensive pleasure, but there will always be a lot of work.

[okko077]

Yeah, we studied for a long time: the movement is everything, the goal is nothing ... Buy a cock, ... in short ...

[AU Ivanov.]

Oh, another cut expert has been spotted. With fundamental knowledge in the field of aircraft construction.

[mikle1999]

Do I need to be a great specialist to predict that the IL-112 will not be released in a series of more than 50, but most likely 20 vehicles.
An-24/26 was released 2800.

[loki565]

Remind me when the Il112 project started and when Rogozin Jr. took office ??? banal comment banal bot)))

[okko077]

Who painted is responsible for the damaged paper and pencils, and who built for the money spent and the cost of the work .. Quite different costs ... By your logic, are the Wright brothers to blame? I wonder who blew this shit and evaluated for stability and alignment? Very interesting ! Something is wrong here. It doesn’t happen!

[svp67]

Quote: Greg Miller

This aircraft is a hybrid of the Soviet An-74 and Ukrainian An-140 and An-148

In what places is this "hybrid" then?
This is An-74

This is An-140

An-148

And with nothing Belarusian they were not "crossed"?
Maybe you should compare at least the diameter of the fuselage and the dimensions of the cargo compartments of these aircraft with the Il-112?

Quote: Greg Miller

Craft Rogozin Jr.

This "effective manager" went to school when IL-112 began to be designed.

[okko077]

And who did it? While the plane on paper is not scary ... But when, it is not clear whose work, embodied in "metal" is a completely different matter ... That answers
who did is his responsibility and decision ... But the fact that someone does not have the brains and determination to stop the production of a useless aircraft does not absolve him of responsibility! What would he do at another time? No need to go anywhere! Used a springboard, climbed higher already ..

[svp67]

Quote: okko077

And who did it?

Here the situation is akin to this ...

Quote: okko077

But when, it’s not clear whose work they embodied in “metal”, this is a completely different matter ...

Well, what do you want to lose entire departments from the best specialists, who went to Sukhoi due to lack of money, and then they recruited students ... then what else to wait. Moreover, the level of education has fallen sharply.

Quote: okko077

And the fact that someone lacks the brains and determination to stop the production of a useless aircraft,

Stop. What kind of production are you talking about, is it already in the series? How many have already been released? And why is this plane useless?

[okko077]

It is useless because it will not be accepted, it will never correspond to the technical requirements ... And they planned to make 4 boards for testing and they are all under construction, and one even took off, but it is not clear why ... Everyone who came across this board live in shock ... Maybe this "genius" was framed, so why was this scarecrow flaunted in victorious reports?
And the departments were dispersed and lured by pseudo-reformers when superjet shit was sucked in instead of the TU-334, also from the geyropey details ...

[svp67]

Quote: okko077

It is useless because it will not be accepted, it will never correspond to the terms of reference ...

In modification “B” it may not, but I’m sure that new modifications and years will appear soon, in two or three he will go into service, even if it will already be IL-112Я

Quote: okko077

.Maybe this "genius" was framed, so why was this scarecrow adorned in victorious reports?

Studied with dad, he only thanks to such "reports" and got out ...

Quote: okko077

Everyone who came across this board live in shock ...

But is there also the fault of the “Klimovites”, with their very “raw” engine?

[Dikson]

It turns out a little strange, don’t you? There is no serial machine yet, but modifications are already there ... are implied .. and not even one .. according to your words .. Shouldn't the machine first get on the stream, be approved, and get equipment options already in the process of mass production? And then right away, like in a Lada - “why would a simple Soviet man have a automatic gearbox, air conditioning and window lifters in a car ?!” he will be so happy by buying a VAZ! Why should the navigator get the instruments? Give him a protractor and a map .. If the engines don’t pull - make the car easier ..

[svp67]

Quote: Dikson

Shouldn't the machine first get on the flow, be approved, and in the process of mass production get equipment options?

Sorry, I brought this to a word, apparently not a very good example. One thing I’ll say is that in the history of aviation, there probably wasn’t any chance that the first prototype aircraft would go into production without any changes afterwards. They all went a long way alterations and fine-tuning and somehow went into series.

[Andrey VOV]

And I reported to you about this Shoigu personally, we will not accept ...)) well ..

[rMN]

It seems to me alone that the wings somehow look ugly?

[askort154]

Rmn ....It seems to me alone that the wings somehow look ugly?

Not "ugly", but completely direct. It also puzzled me. Such
the “flat” wing was on the An-8. At the beginning of operation, two accidents occurred during the failure of one engine on take-off. In both cases, the plane immediately turned over to the "shoulder blades". As a result of long investigations, it was established that the reason was in the wing profile. It was completely "direct." And at the time of failure of one engine,
a turning moment occurs due to the difference in traction. On the half-wing of a failed engine, the lifting force drops sharply, dropping stealthily,
reduces the angle of attack of the incoming flow, thereby further reducing the lift A on the half-wing with the engine running, the opposite is true - the lift increases, which creates a turning moment and the aircraft flips to the "back".
Why didn’t this happen on the An-24 and An-12? There, the wingtip has a "down" refraction (negative "V" - figurativeness) from the common surface of the wing. This reduces the points described above. The steering wheel was "grabbed" to hold the aircraft from a coup at the time of engine failure. An-8 production was discontinued, and the previously released small batch was not operated for a long time, and then it was allowed to fly with great restrictions and was used only in the MAP.
That’s what surprises me, the identity of the An-8 Wing and the Il-112. Maybe on
IL-112, increased ailerons to provide lateral controllability in a similar situation? (minus did not set).

[Avis-bis]

Quote: askort154

two catastrophes in case of failure of one engine on take-off. In both cases, the plane immediately turned over to the "shoulder blades". As a result of long investigations, it was determined that the reason

... lack of auto-feathering.

wing profile

A “wing profile” is a cross-sectional shape of a wing, not a plan.

wingtip has a "down" refraction (negative "V" - figurativeness) from the common surface of the wing. This reduces the points described above.

This reduces excess lateral stability and increases directional stability, rather than what you mentioned.
A lot of non-broken wings fly safely around the world. The same C-130.

[askort154]

Avis-bis ....This reduces excessive lateral stability and increases directional stability, rather than what you mentioned.

Bravo! Noticeable knowledge in aerodynamics.
I answered “in a nutshell" to a person, in the most accessible language (everyday), without going into the true theory of aerodynamics. And you flashed your knowledge! Let's then move on to graphs and formulas in aerodynamics. Let us prove to each other why the plane is iron and flies? But this is not an air forum. Not everyone will understand us.
And “why the plane flies,” I found out back in 1963. And where you were at that time, I can only guess.

[Avis-bis]

Quote: askort154

And you flashed your knowledge! Let's then move on to graphs and formulas in aerodynamics. Let us prove to each other why the plane is iron and flies? But this is not an air forum. Not everyone will understand us.
And “why the plane flies,” I found out back in 1963. And where you were at that time, I can only guess.

"What was it?..".

[Sergey Valov]

Almost everything is wrong, starting with terminology. The wing profile is not the angle relative to the fuselage, but the geometry in the cross section of the wing. Second, when one engine fails, a longitudinal turn occurs, that is, roughly speaking, the plane begins to try to fly in a circle in a plane, "pancake", and this is very dangerous. This effect is eliminated by the rudder, ailerons. The lifting force cannot fall by definition, because the speed of the whole plane is the same as that of the left plane, which for the right one and does not depend on the position of the plane relative to the horizon. As for the crash with engine failure on takeoff, then I'm sorry, here almost any plane will crash.

[Avis-bis]

Quote: Sergey Valov

The lifting force cannot fall by definition, because the speed of the whole plane is the same as that of the left plane, which for the right one and does not depend on the position of the plane relative to the horizon.

It depends on blowing a screw. On OKA planes, airflow added on take-off> 10% of the lift.

As for the crash with engine failure on takeoff, then I'm sorry, here almost any plane will crash.

A critical engine failure on take-off is a calculated case. Not a single aircraft is certified if it cannot take off if one engine fails.

[Sergey Valov]

“The failure of a critical engine on takeoff is a calculated case. Not a single aircraft is certified if it cannot take off if one engine fails ”
1. When was the An-10 created? What were the requirements then?
2. Even if you are right, how long will the take-off run increase if the engine fails? What will be the failure in height at take-off in case of engine failure? Will a regular crew manage to react to a miserable altitude to failure?
3. The recent somersault near Zhukovsky is not an example for you?
4. You have common words. Failure to start the take-off, at the time of separation, at a height of 20 meters, at a height of 100 meters - these are all completely different situations, and it is impossible to make them all safe by definition.
You are right about blowing the screw, but firstly, the stop of the screw does not come instantly, and there is a reaction time, and secondly, for each machine the indicators are different (you have given the maximum).

[Avis-bis]

Quote: Sergey Valov

When was the An-10 created?

What's the difference?

What were the requirements then?

The same. Since the 1930s.

Even if you are right

What does even mean?

how long will the take-off run increase if the engine fails?

It does not matter. Before the speed of decision-making in the event of engine failure, the run-up stops. After - continues. These are the conditions of certification. The term "runway required" is not entered from scratch.

What will be the failure in height at take-off in case of engine failure?

Did you understand that you got it?

Will a regular crew manage to react to a miserable altitude to failure?

They are taught this.

The recent somersault near Zhukovsky is not an example for you?

The same question - "Do you understand that? ..".

You have common words.

You don’t have them at all.

Failure to start the take-off, at the time of separation, at an altitude of 20 meters, at an altitude of 100 meters - these are all completely different situations, and it is impossible to make them all safe by definition.

... and this set of words is proof of that. Learn the materiel. If there is anything.

[Sergey Valov]

"It does not matter. Before the speed of decision-making in the event of engine failure, the run-up stops. After - continues. These are the conditions of certification. The term “runway required” was not introduced from scratch. ” - in case of engine failure during take-off, the aircraft can easily fly over the runway with unpredictable consequences.
"Did you understand that you got it?" - a drop in 50% of thrust immediately after separation will definitely lead to an aircraft subsidence (Look at take-off with a catapult from aircraft carriers).
"They are taught this" - it would be nice, but can they? Who believed? The introduction of autopilots led to a sharp drop in the skills of pilots. And do not say that the flight is carried out manually, I myself know.
The same question - "Do you understand that? ..". - You forgot how the take-off ended when a bird hit the engine on take-off?
“Learn the materiel” - late, already retired, although at one time MATI graduated and by profession he plowed his whole life.
“If there is anything” - but you don’t have to be rude, it does you honor.

[Avis-bis]

Quote: Sergey Valov

"It does not matter. Before the speed of decision-making in the event of engine failure, the run-up stops. After - continues. These are the conditions of certification. The term “runway required” was not introduced from scratch. ” - in case of engine failure during take-off, the aircraft can easily fly over the runway with unpredictable consequences.
"Did you understand that you got it?" - a drop in 50% of thrust immediately after separation will definitely lead to an aircraft subsidence (Look at take-off with a catapult from aircraft carriers).
"They are taught this" - it would be nice, but can they? Who believed? The introduction of autopilots led to a sharp drop in the skills of pilots. And do not say that the flight is carried out manually, I myself know.
The same question - "Do you understand that? ..". - You forgot how the take-off ended when a bird hit the engine on take-off?
“Learn the materiel” - late, already retired, although at one time MATI graduated and by profession he plowed his whole life.
“If there is anything” - but you don’t have to be rude, it does you honor.

Malcheg ... You do not distinguish an airplane from a girl, so it’s not for you to pick something here.

[Sergey Valov]

Q.E.D! In the absence of arguments, rudeness comes into play. Don’t bother with the answer.

[Avis-bis]

Quote: Sergey Valov

Q.E.D! In the absence of arguments, rudeness comes into play. Don’t bother with the answer.

Malcheg ... You do not see the difference between an airplane and a scooter.

[Town Hall]

Quote: Sergey Valov

a crash with engine failure on takeoff, then I'm sorry, here almost any plane will crash.

One of the requirements for certification of the aircraft does not include take-off with engine failure?

[AlexTss]

The lifting force cannot fall by definition, because the speed of the whole plane is the same as that of the left plane, which for the right one and does not depend on the position of the plane relative to the horizon.

Not quite right.
The lifting force depends not only on the speed of the aircraft and the propeller blowing of the planes, as noted above, but also on the sweep of the wing.
If the engine fails, a yaw moment occurs on one half-wing, leading to a change in the sweep angle of the wings relative to the incoming flow. On the "lagging" half wing, the lift is reduced. That, coupled with the cessation of propeller blowing, leads to a significant drop in lift on this wing.

[Dikson]

.. Lift depends not only on the speed of the aircraft and the propeller blowing the planes, as noted above, but also on the sweep of the wing .. "It depends on the speed of the air flow enveloping the wing .. and on the wing profile .. And there are screws on the machine or not - this is already an addition of characteristics .. Gliders have no engines at all - but they fly after all .. Even the headwind or tailwind affects the lifting force ..

[AU Ivanov.]

Why would he crash - this is a standard situation and it is practiced on simulators. Twice during his flying career he continued to take off on one engine and, as you see, alive.

[KTA]

A mixture of near-aviation terms with the addition of pseudo-aerodynamics.

[Dikson]

Oh yes .. About the "speed of the plane" is good here .. I once saw in the Arctic how a plane parked (speed, respectively, 0 km / h) - for some reason it took off with idle engines and without any "blowing screws" ..))) - the wind was 35 meters per second right in his forehead ..)) here's all the lifting force ..))

[mmaxx]

In fact, negative V is done on high planes just for instability. Otherwise, with a positive V or a direct wing, the aircraft becomes very stable. It is difficult to heel with ailerons. That is, he turns badly. Just at negative V, the lifting force drops sharply on the lowered wing. And the plane goes even easier to roll.
On a cow like IL-76, the consoles are generally very lowered. Draw a diagram on the front and use the arrows to draw lift.

[mmaxx]

So, there’s still an addition to my answer. I walked myself an hour ago. And then the An-12 enters the landing. And clearly on me, respectively, then it goes further from me. From me to the beginning of the strip of 500 meters. In flight, the transverse V wing of the An-12 is positive, that is, the wings are up. And the end third of the console is bent down. The plot is just with ailerons. That is, negative V. So, taking into account the above story, most likely the wings during the alteration bent exactly up, leaving the negative V at the ends. Again. On the high-wing CMs below the wing, they are very reluctant to heel. Own weight does not. Therefore, the wing consoles are given a downward inclination in the transverse projection - negative V. Due to this, the lifting force of the console, which goes down, drops sharply, on the opposite side it rises - the plane heels more easily.

[okko077]

No buddy! Not for you alone! It is very narrow ... and of great elongation ...

[Vlad.by]

the wing area of ​​Il112 is almost 5 m2 more than that of the same S-295.
Yes, he carries less cargo and there are no windows in it.
This may indicate that:
and. the purpose of the machines is a dirt roadman carrying equipment
b. military truck with built-in protection systems that will not be talked about out loud.
Yes, most likely the fuselage is heavy. Till. Exactly 2 tons compared to the same S-295.
But the tasks of the car are different. And overweight will lose weight ...
https://www.shortoftheweek.com/2011/07/29/ormie/

[rocket757]

There is a manufacturer, there is a customer ..... this is not a competition, this is a common, necessary business should be.

[aszzz888]

I hope on 112 a little shake TTX

Flight performance of the Il-112 aircraft:

Aircraft Projections:
profile - screw monoplane with upright straight wing
crew - 2 pilot
passenger capacity - 44 (cargo-passenger version)
load capacity - 6 t (maximum load)
length - 23,5 m
wing span - 25,7 m
height - 8,9 m
curb weight - 15 t
normal take-off weight - 20,4 t
Max. take-off weight - 21 t
fuel tank capacity - 7900 l
The main characteristics of the power plant:
number of engines - 2
engine type - turboprop
engine - TV7-117ST
power - 2 × 2800 hp
propeller - single row six-blade AB-112
screw diameter - 3,9 m
thrust - 3 645 kgf
afterburner - 4 145 kgf
Fuel consumption - 500 l / h
maximum speed - 550 km / h
cruising speed - 480 km / h
practical range - 1 000 km at maximum load, 3 400 km - 3,5 t
ferry range - 5 200 km
practical ceiling - 7 600 m
take-off run - 870 m
path length - 600 m

[Avis-bis]

Quote: aszzz888

curb weight - 15 t
normal take-off weight - 20,4 t
Max. take-off weight - 21 t

If this is true, then this is tryndets ...

[Jurkovs]

What gives weight loss per ton?
Range-???
Payload _ ???

[Avis-bis]

Quote: Jurkovs

What gives weight loss per ton?
Range-???
Payload _ ???

Both.

[Dikson]

It gives bonuses to the developers .. and an attempt to "shove" what happened into the initially declared performance characteristics and requirements of the RF Ministry of Defense ..

[Dikson]

What did I write wrong this time? Isn't that about the second day of the article here? And .. I understand .. here you only need to praise ... Well, so the bonuses - is that good?

[donavi49]

Nothing new. Rather - an attempt to save the plane and design bureau. Talikov (general designer IL-112B) has already been kicked out.
"Yes, we weighed the plane. There are objective reasons - in the aviation industry, a generational change of designers has taken place. Replenishment was weak, technical universities have lost popularity. And a young specialist came to us, looked around, learned a bit and went to the place where they pay more, ”the chief designer said.

According to Talikov, the developers "in many ways have missed the weight problem." “This issue was considered with military, and at the level of profile vice-premier of the Russian government. Approved a comprehensive plan to reduce aircraft weight", Said the specialist.

Briefly - now the actual carrying capacity is about 3t.
The key requirement of the Ministry of Defense is to maintain the range for partial load (in 3t) = 3400km. Really a bit more 1000km now. For it is actually its full loading in this configuration.

[Tcheluskin]

I wonder how you can “overweight” the car at half the load capacity. She would have been a little more mistaken, and she would have been unable to take off altogether.

Does the Ministry of Defense plan for the Tiger to transport the plane? At least in some version of "ё" 20XX year?

[Brturin]

Quote: svp67

IL-112 is of course the "first swallow", a transport aircraft of purely Russian development

let's hope that the errors of the “first” will be taken into account and the following models will avoid them. And so, here it’s not only a glider, here they work out the engines, and the engine is the next step of IL 114-300.

[Genry]

It is strange that no one said that the first IL-112 is not flying now, just because after the first flight the runway for reconstruction for a year was closed. Therefore, only ground tests are possible.

[Town Hall]

Quote: Genry

It is strange that no one said that the first IL-112 is not flying now, just because after the first flight the runway for reconstruction for a year was closed. Therefore, only ground tests are possible.

What a coincidence and timely coincidence.

[Genry]

Quote: Town Hall

What a coincidence and timely coincidence.

Coincidence of what?

[KTA]

Waited for this comment.
So it is, the addition to the reconstruction. There is a feeling that they were waiting for the first flight to begin the reconstruction.
By the way, they are leading it very vigorously and visually, the case is moving towards an end.

[Waskasan]

Quote: Avis-bis

Quote: Sergey Valov

The lifting force cannot fall by definition, because the speed of the whole plane is the same as that of the left plane, which for the right one and does not depend on the position of the plane relative to the horizon.

It depends on blowing a screw. On OKA planes, airflow added on take-off> 10% of the lift.

As for the crash with engine failure on takeoff, then I'm sorry, here almost any plane will crash.

A critical engine failure on take-off is a calculated case. Not a single aircraft is certified if it cannot take off if one engine fails.

Pancake! And why the hell did they come up with helicopters. Make more screw, increase power and the plane takes off vertically, because the lifting force will increase by a factor! WHAT TO SAY. Movies and toys make experts in any field of knowledge!

[Avis-bis]

Quote: Waskasan

Quote: Avis-bis

Quote: Sergey Valov

The lifting force cannot fall by definition, because the speed of the whole plane is the same as that of the left plane, which for the right one and does not depend on the position of the plane relative to the horizon.

It depends on blowing a screw. On OKA planes, airflow added on take-off> 10% of the lift.

As for the crash with engine failure on takeoff, then I'm sorry, here almost any plane will crash.

A critical engine failure on take-off is a calculated case. Not a single aircraft is certified if it cannot take off if one engine fails.

Pancake! And why the hell did they come up with helicopters. Make more screw, increase power and the plane takes off vertically, because the lifting force will increase by a factor! WHAT TO SAY. Movies and toys make experts in any field of knowledge!

Did she understand what got it?

[Waskasan]

Quote: Dikson

It gives bonuses to the developers .. and an attempt to "shove" what happened into the initially declared performance characteristics and requirements of the RF Ministry of Defense ..

So go, learn, at least become just a constructor and there will be prizes for you, maybe someday they will give a state prize! They won’t give it here! Do not worry!

[Dikson]

Thank you, I’m more on other things ... Although it’s never too late to learn ..)))

[Kaw]

Interesting. An-72 planned to replace the An-24/26. Why was its production discontinued?

[Looking for]

and the AN-72 was handsome. He is doing this inadequate IL "at a time"

[Looking for]

this plane was 30 years late.

[Looking for]

Quote: Sergey Valov

Not a single aircraft is certified if it cannot take off if one engine fails ”

not a single twin-engine aircraft will take off on one engine !!!!

[Town Hall]

Quote: Seeker

Quote: Sergey Valov

Not a single aircraft is certified if it cannot take off if one engine fails ”

not a single twin-engine aircraft will take off on one engine !!!!

You cheated. Will take off
https://youtu.be/aZ5W-eBY8uI

[Gorbunov Artem]

I'm certainly not an expert. But five tons per 6 thousand kilometers. This is for local deliveries. And it seems to me that five tons aren’t enough to feed the army. And about what flies, does not fly. The engine is more powerful stuck and they say, "what a handsome man."

[Rzzz]

Engine power is not a question. But kerosene on board is not infinite. More powerful motor - faster kerosene flies into the exhaust pipe.

All kinds of deliveries are needed too. For example, bring a new engine for the Su-27 from Rybinsk. One and a half tons + packaging. To carry IL-76? Get up a little expensive!

[YakimovSS]

Quote: John22

The width of the wing is surprising at first sight.

Do you know the term “elongation” and its effect on aerodynamic quality?
So to listen to you, “Beluga” and should not come off the runway.

Forum for children on another site.