"Ilyushin Finance Co." handed over to the FSB an Il-96-400VPU aircraft

I don’t argue a good one, but the infa will be released again ... It would be nice!

It was decided to resume the release of the upgraded version of IL-96

Handsome!

God grant that they revived IL - 96 !!!

The plane is good, but somehow I do not believe in these ".... Finance Co.".

fuel eats say a lot compared to foreign

Thanks to Pagasyan, Manturov and others, our civil aviation industry has been ditched. Highly qualified specialists dispersed, illiterate in management
the so-called top managers who successfully take budget money.
And after the appointment of Serdyukov, you can forget about the development of civil aircraft construction, this is equivalent to letting the wolf run into a sheep herd.
The development of the domestic aviation industry is thousands of jobs and tax revenues to the treasury. Medvedev’s government is the fifth column mired in corruption and nepotism.

This type of Aeroflot Boeing gets more kickbacks when buying them

Government agencies need reliability and that the plane was domestic, that’s what they are buying. Commercial carriers need to eat little and transport more people, but there are problems with this. Comrades gave a comparison of the gluttony of IL96, Boeing and watermelon. Those are cheaper, which means if our companies switch to il96, then ticket prices will have to be raised - so they will fly less. However, now there is a lot of talk about deep modernization of the il96 to make it more economical, about new engines. By the way, I wanted to ask Ss about the possibility of installing new PD14s that they are now experiencing. If the plane becomes more economical, it is quite possible that the airlines will force it to buy. There Aeroflot has already ordered 50 superjets (21 of them are already flying) and 50 ms21, which are still missing. I think that it is not of my own free will. If IL96 becomes comparable in costs to Boeing and watermelons, then most likely Aeroflot will be obliged to take it. Moreover, the transaero, which did not favor domestic aircraft, was buried and Aeroflot will most likely take its market share.

I flew the same in 92, Moscow-Sakhalin, through the Arctic Circle, with landing I don’t remember Norilsk or Vorkuta? Impression, from Moscow in early May landed on an almost polar night with snowdrifts and then home to Sakhalin with the trees just starting to bloom! And as the 86th went along the route, the song! Neither pits nor pitching. Oh, DMB-92!

maybe prejudices, but only the Russian Federation exploited IL, but sometimes Boeing gets through 10 countries to us.

Ilyushin Moshn i Vataga! Well, that sounds!

There was still not enough AKM to call "Kalashnikoff Corp. limited automatic rifle company."

At least by reliability, I'm certainly not an expert in aviation, but usually our technical regulations have always been tougher than western ones. No wonder now the GOST abbreviation is with me and I hope many of my peers and the older generation have always been a symbol of QUALITY!

Can. With IL-96, for the entire time of operation, not a single flight accident.

Sorry stupid question, on your part. Of course for 86, 96 its dimensions play! I hope you will not deny that a feather is easier to blow away than a brick? And in the rest, do you want to breed with ... what? So I'm not going to

That is what he wants to say, and will be absolutely right. Shakes, does not shake ... This is called flight performance, which in turn consists of the aerodynamics of a particular machine. Ilya fly very well, they are very reliable. And starting with IL-76, all Ilyushin’s cars are masterpieces, each of its kind. And passenger cars were leaked, 86, 96, for one simple reason, freed up markets for Western friends, well, then we were very friends with them.

I seriously believe shakes or does not shake depends on the stiffness of the wing of one or another manufacturer.

You are mistaken, the safety factor adopted back in the USSR is 2,4, i.e. almost two and a half times the strength of the product should exceed the strength of the components, this is expressed in an increase in the cross-sections of the component parts (I painted this as a former teacher of sopromat, I taught at MADI).

I completely agree with you! But what’s the catch I don’t understand ?!

Not left.

Not left.

I flew to Ty 747 ... it seems normal, but two extreme times on watermelons is just awful, my wife does not want to fly anymore ...

Lazha.
The IL-96 engines PS-90A, meet all the requirements of ICAO, questionable fuel efficiency.
Due to the noise, they covered IL-86.

It was the 86th that was banned, it just took off because of weak engines, and the 96th were already installed by Perm engines, good and foreign, and the company that made them was bought and bankrupt in due time. If there are Permyaks on the site, comment on how things are now .....

Greetings fellow countryman!
It is said very correctly.

You do not know - do not talk rubbish!
At VASO - 9500 people, approximately, work. Do you think they are all fools? There are training programs, money has been allocated for workers and students of VSTU. There is ALREADY an order for 16 cars. Production has long been debugged.

Two already Kuban de Aviation took away, the third is going to pick up ... They burned one in the AFL, only 2 stand at the fence, but the question is correct ...

Are you a designer? IL-86 and IL-96 were designed, even according to Soviet standards of strength, and Soviet standards are tougher than American ones.

Of course I will answer you. Firstly, I am the same patriot of my Country as the majority of visitors to this site, and I love and am proud of domestic aviation no less than yours. But, unlike most of the interlocutors, I work for a commercial airline and I had the opportunity to operate both domestic and foreign aviation equipment, so to speak, I had the opportunity to compare. You can argue, of course, to infinity, but please be patient and calmly sort my arguments. Let's start with the engines. I must say, unfortunately, but in terms of fuel efficiency, our planes and engines are inferior, not catastrophically of course, but inferior to the western ones. Here, the reputable SSI provided data on engine thrust, it can be seen that for IL and Airbus the total engine thrust is 64 tons and 68 tons, respectively, if roughly necessary for safe takeoff, the thrust will be 15% of take-off weight, respectively 37,5 tons for IL and 36,3 tons for the Airbus. Accordingly, the underutilized thrust reserve per engine will be 6.5 tons for Il and almost 32 tons for Airbus. I know from my own experience that the declared thrust on our engines is provided at an ambient temperature of + 20 ° C and below. If higher, then the cut begins and traction sags. Therefore, our aircraft usually take off at full thrust. The adversary, with such a crazy reserve of traction, uses Derate, that is, takes off at a reduced mode, and quite significantly saves resource, fuel and everything else. Yes, and Western engines retain the declared thrust up to + 34'C. Such an almost twofold reserve of thrust is needed to ensure safe take-off continuation in the event of a single engine failure. Naturally, before takeoff, calculations are carried out to determine the required thrust, and in case of engine failure, the working one is displayed at full thrust. Now compare the performance characteristics of these aircraft, and think about which airplane the carrier would prefer, even if all else being equal, the first has four engines, and not two, while more loaded, with less resource, with less time between failures. With the need to more often undergo maintenance, with a chronic lack of spare parts and the inability to rent a replacement engine, in case of failure or damage. As a carrier, with such unpredictability, make a schedule and maintain it? Moreover, without raising the price of tickets, because there is real competition in this market. Understand, finally, that the carrier chooses an airplane suitable for his business model, not for its beauty or for the delightful sound from running engines, but for the combination of qualities that allow for a normal transportation economy and flight safety. Air transportation is accompanied by very high overhead costs, you decide for yourself to complete the flight, you have to pay: for kerosene, ground handling of aircraft, maintenance of aircraft, maintenance and inspection of passengers, for take-off and landing, for air navigation services, for catering, salary for the crew. At the same time, costs must be included in the cost of the flight hour: for sewing crew uniforms, leasing payments, possible risks of damage or downtime, expenses for labor-intensive maintenance, staff training, flight safety, and much more for that. Significant working capital is needed, and any even small cost reduction is of great importance. The airplane itself cannot be considered a successful commercial project until a system has been built for its profitable and safe operation. And here we, sadly, are still great behind the west. There are quite a few reasons for this, but more about that later, if it is interesting.

It feels like you've never been to VASO.
Grind rubbish. If there is no way to visit it, go to the VASO website, look at least photos, and read the news. Otherwise, the impression is that you write with a drunk.

Sick people do not have that kind of money to launch production, set up airplanes and then pay extra to passengers so that they fly on them. This was only during the USSR.

“I'm in love with this plane, even though Boeing has been flying all my life.” As a manager, I have a drive, since before me no one could operate these aircraft cost-effectively, but we can. Tu-204 can be operated efficiently, some of them fly 370 hours a month. It is only necessary to change documents. Western design bureaus receive money from flying planes, ours - including from idle ones. It is beneficial to them that the planes are idle. But once patience will burst, and we will abandon such aircraft. Here is another example. We ordered new Tu-204-100B aircraft with an increased take-off weight of up to 105 tons to obtain certain advantages in loading. What do you think? They were made to us, but the mass of an empty aircraft was increased by 2 tons. To our question “why?” There is only one answer - "experimented." We got a plane 2 tons heavier that carries the same amount of cargo and passengers. Unfortunately, they put heavier seats on it, and we did not get any savings in terms of load. In the cockpit that we made on the Tu-204-100B, there is an amazing navigation system that allows you to automatically enter through inaccurate systems. But this system is not certified, because the KB does not want to do this.

And you know that the most unpleasant thing is that in our aviation authorities, there are also very few people actually engaged in the operation of aircraft in airlines, and who know the problems of carriers when working in modern conditions. There are many experienced people, but they either came from the same aviation industry or their experience is related to the operation of aircraft during the USSR.