IslandHopperCO From Micronesia, joined Dec 2003, 225 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 years 11 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6746 times:
Both jets were designed in the early 60s, and were built to a similar design. Let's assume for the moment that both jets were developed independently of each other...no espianage conspiracy theories!
The Il-62 is considered one of the former Soviet Unions most successful jets, with over 250 built, while the VC10 was the least produced large jet ever with only 54 built. The SU/former SU was still building the Il-62 well into the 1990s!
Looking at the specs, was the Il-62's performance close to that of the VC-10? Was it a competitive product with western jets at the time of introduction or technologically obsolete from the start? More recent examples like the Il-86/96 were obsolete by western standards upon introduction.
Just interested in the state of Soviet aviation in the 60s, when they were supposedly neck and neck with the west.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39442 posts, RR: 76 Reply 6, posted (9 years 11 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6364 times:
Regardless of how the Soviet Union funded teh IL-62, if it was a bad desgn, they would have scrapped it and went back to the drawing board to design something better.
Obviously the IL-62 was an outstanding aircraft and suited there needs. The IL-62 also flew to the west and they weren't crashing all over Canada, Western Europe, South America, Asia and Africa. Contrare to all the myths, Soviet jets are just as good if not better as western aircraft.
I've flown on Cubana's IL-62 and I was very impressed with the performance. I liked it better than any Airbus I've flown and certainly better than the newer Boeings I've flown (777, 767, 757 and 737-600+)
I wish I could have flown a VC-10 to give a fair comparison.
You might have a hard time getting an honest review about these two great aircraft. There are many here that still think the Cold War hasn't ended and will dis-credit Soviet/Russian contribution to aviation.
Vafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 18 Reply 8, posted (9 years 11 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6309 times:
Delta-flyer - You're comparing a dick to a finger my friend. Boeings and airbusses are like little hondas and or "luxury outdoor" SUVs. Russian aircraft are like the Old mustangs and tanks. Built tough (not ford) Russian Aircraft.
I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
Iflyatldl From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1936 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (9 years 11 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6272 times:
Wasn't the VC-10 designed for the African (British Colonies) routes that were "Hot and High" and the IL-62 was their (Soviet/Russian) answer to the 707? They are very similar looking indeed, but the performance between the two (as I understand it and could be wrong) was like comparing apples and oranges. I always liked the VC-10, but sadly never got to fly on one I couldn't even guess what their respective ranges were. But the IL-62 is still in service, so who knows? Both the British and Russians had some great areo-engineers!
Ah, Summer, Fenway Park, Boston Red Sox and Beer.....
Delta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 7 Reply 11, posted (9 years 11 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6227 times:
I thought you may be interested in seeing what the industry was saying about these aircraft when they were first being built. The links below are from a book I own by William Green: The Observer's Book of Aircraft, 1966 edition.
Sovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2430 posts, RR: 15 Reply 12, posted (9 years 11 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6191 times:
The Il-62 was developed to replace the Tu-114. When Ilyushin sat down to build it they got a direct order/wish from ruler of USSR Krushchev for the plane to be a T-tail because he had really loved his recent experience in a Caravelle. Also, pylons for engine mounts weren't developed at all except on an Il-22 prototype that was abandoned. The basic Il-62 could be said that it wasn't technologically new at all. It doesn't have hydraulic boosters. It sometimes had to rely on a 3500 water weight in the front of the plane so that it's center of gravity is acceptable. The main gear was purposely put in front of the center of gravity to make the tail a smaller size which then required the famous "fourth gear". The basic Il-62 also had no slats and one-slotted flaps(for lack of a better term). Anyway the only thing that the Il-62 did have at the time that was probably better than the VC-10 was the wing(not wing mechanization). The leading edge had a unique "break" which helped increase elevator efficiency, served partly as slots, and made it almost impossible for the plane to go into the dangerous T-tail condition known as deep stall. Basic Il-62 had 4 NK-8 engines and a range of 7000km. NK-8s have a bypass ratio of 1.24 and 103kN of thrust each and fuel flow of about 0.78lb/lb-h at cruise power. It was two-shaft turbofan, with a two-stage fan with an attached two-stage LP booster a six-stage HP compressor an annular combustion chamber with 139 burners a single-stage HP turbine and a two-stage LP turbine. The VC-10 meanwhile was more technologically advanced than the Il-62. It had hydraulic boosters, no 4th gear, double-slotted flaps, and autopilot. The Conways weren't a little better in fuel economy than the NK-8s. Conways have a bypass ratio of 0.3 and 74.5 kN of thrust 0.735 lb/lb-h fuel flow with a seven-stage LP compressor (the final RCo.43 variant had eight stages) with fixed inlet guide vanes a nine-stage HP compressor a cannular combustion chamber with ten flame tubes a single-stage HP turbine and a two-stage LP turbine. But the VC-10 flew 8100km, about 1000 more than the Il-62. They both had thrust reversers. The Il-62 was built more like a tank to suit the underdeveloped Soviet airfields and the VC-10 was made so it can serve "hot and high" destinations although the Il-62 could do that too. The VC-10 also had a faster cruising speed. The IL-62M was then developed to improve Il-62 performance. D-30KUs were installed which were far better than Conways. They have a bypass ratio of 2.42 and make 108kN of thrust. Fuel flow is 0.70 lb/lb-h. D-30KU was a two-spool engine, featuring a three-stage fan, with fixed inlet guide vanes connected to a central bullet an eleven-stage HP compressor a cannular combustion chamber with twelve flame tubes a two-stage HP turbine and a four-stage LP turbine. Also their reversers could now be deployed in flight. New navigation equipment was fitted, autopilot, and double-slotted flaps. No hydraulic boosters. To this day every Il-62 flying is flown manually without hydraulic boost. The Il-62M had a bigger range now extended to 8800km. The Il-62M is equal if not better than the VC-10 but the basic Il-62 wasn't that great and 2 of the basic ones are still flying today. The Super VC-10 was just a stretch and range actually dropped to 7600km on the Super 10. Both planes seated the same number of passengers. Anyway in short the basic Il-62 was inferior to the VC-10 but the Il-62M went slightly ahead of it and currently still makes a profit so it isn't too bad at all. I think they are about 1/3 or 1/4 more expensive than operating a B757.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39442 posts, RR: 76 Reply 14, posted (9 years 11 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6136 times:
Thanks for the detailed info. I do have a question for you.
You stated; " The VC-10 meanwhile was more technologically advanced than the Il-62. It had hydraulic boosters, no 4th gear, double-slotted flaps, and autopilot.
About the 'no 4th gear'.
Could that be because of the angle the wings are designed?
The IL-62's wings spans downward while on the ground and the VC-10 arcs upward. So with the wings arcing upward and allow more of the planes weight to rest on the main landing gear as opposed to tipping back if it didn't have the 4th landing gear?
Duke From Canada, joined Sep 1999, 1151 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (9 years 11 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6008 times:
That was some analysis there Sovietjet. I've seen lots of IL-62s (my first one may have been of LOT around 1989-1993, followed by many Cubana and a number of Air Ukraine - nice livery - maybe a few at some foreign airports, too, but I don't remember). Only saw 2/3 VC-10s and must say, they're more elegant.
Sovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2430 posts, RR: 15 Reply 17, posted (9 years 11 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5851 times:
IslandHopper - I hope I answered your questions and the rest of everyone on here. By the way the Il-86/96 were and aren't obsolete at all. Il-86 is a little underpowered and yes the navigation and electronics aren't up to date but it can hardly be called obsolete. And the Il-96....I'm not going to go into why it's not obsolete.
Superfly - The VC-10s wing is farther back than the Il-62. If you take two side pics of a VC-10 and an Il-62 you can see the position of the wing compared to the total length of the plane. You see how the VC-10 has less airframe left after the wing while the Il-62 still has about 1/3 if not more. Vickers moved the wing back on purpose to avoid "tailstrikes" but that led to the tail being heavier and taller while Ilyushin took an opposite approach first to make the tail shorter because it wouldn't be effective and second to relieve the pilot of flying a 4 engined T-tail without hydraulic boosters.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39442 posts, RR: 76 Reply 19, posted (9 years 11 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5765 times:
This site needs more users like you.
I have great close up shots of those notches in the wings from a window seat on a flight I took on a Cubana IL-62.
I am not sure if they are up to A.net standards in terms of picture quality.
I'll pass it on to some one to scan in and maybe they can doctor it up a bit.
VC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3691 posts, RR: 35 Reply 20, posted (9 years 11 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5699 times:
The IL-62 was built more like a tank
You don't know the VC10 then - like all Vickers a/c the VC10 was built like a tank. It didn't get the name "The Iron Duck" for nothing! BUA VC10 G-ASIX was involved in a clear air turbulance incident over the Andes once that experts say would have broken up a 707 but all that broke on 'IX was a tailplane fitting.
Vickers moved the wing back on purpose to avoid "tailstrikes"
I really don't think the deciding issue on wing position would be tailstrike probability. The C of G & C of L relationship is a more important factor over the life of an a/c
Sovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2430 posts, RR: 15 Reply 23, posted (9 years 11 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5461 times:
VC-10: I never said the VC-10 wasn't tough but put one in the middle of Siberia and we'll see who does better the Il-62 or the VC-10. With technology in the 1960s and 1970s both planes were built "heavy metal".
VC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3691 posts, RR: 35 Reply 24, posted (9 years 11 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5392 times:
With technology in the 1960s and 1970s both planes were built "heavy metal
I can't agree with that, the 707 wasn't built as toughly. I think both a/c would equally as as well any where in the world. A jet engine is a jet engine, and batteries have to be insulated against the cold on any a/c.
25 OV735: Thinking about the incident with British Caledonian VC-10 in LGW in 1972 when the aircraft broke up after a hard landing. Would an Il-62 break up just
26 FoxHunter: I flew as a SVC10 F/O in the early 70s for EAA. Probably the most advanced aircraft of it's time. Could fly NBO-LHR nonstop, something the 707 and DC8
27 Sovietjet: Sure Fox yea that's what Ilyushin, Tupolev and Antonov do, they just copy Western aircraft. Some people on here are so ignorant and unknowing it frigh
28 Nwacrew: OV735 wrote: "Thinking about the incident with British Caledonian VC10 in LGW in 1972 when the aircraft broke up after a hard landing. Would an IL-62
29 Superfly: Sovietjet: Some people think the Cold War is still going and still will refuse to acknowlege some of the contibution the Soviets made to aviation and
30 DC3CV3407AC727: always wanted to see a TU-114, the sound of those props must be awesome, its a shame Aeroflot didn't use them on their US services.
31 Sovietjet: In the 1960s, before the Il-62...the Tu-114 was used to the US. If you want to hear a Tu-114 you could technically hear it if you hear an An-22 or a T
32 DC3CV3407AC727: An AN22 would be an awesome sight, do any make it across the pond?
33 Sovietjet: No, I don't think they fly to the US. Actually, only one is flying as a civilian aircraft sort of like its big brother the An-225. And the Russian air
34 Delta-flyer: Sure Fox yea that's what Ilyushin, Tupolev and Antonov do, they just copy Western aircraft. Some people on here are so ignorant and unknowing it frigh
35 Sovietjet: Delta - I know soviet engineers copied stuff from western designs and I don't deny that. But copying a horizontal stab trim actuator is one thing whil
36 Delta-flyer: Soviet... I'm sure the Soviets copied much more than a horizontal stab .... and you've gotto admit, their aircraft bear an uncanny resemblance to west
37 RIX: "their [Soviet] aircraft bear an uncanny resemblance to western aircraft -Tu-154/B727/Trident, Tu-134/BAC111/DC-9, Il-62/VC-10, etc." - then, followin
38 Sovietjet: RIX - Thanks finally someone that knows what I'm trying to say here. For example, Tu-154 is different in a lot of ways other than outside appearance t
39 Shankly: Whilst I don't doubt the impact of espoinage in the 50's, 60's and 70's, to give our Russian cousins some credit, engine configuration is as much rela
40 Delta-flyer: ..... don't think Airbus and Boeing share technology like Delta says .... OK - let's play 20 questions -- where do Airbus and Boeing get their engines
41 Milesrich: I have read the above posts with interest. I am no Sovietphile, but I think it's unfair to say that the Soviets copied the VC10, or DC-9, or 727, anym