LHMark
Topic Author
Posts: 7048
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 2:18 am

YAK-42. RJ Alternative?

Sat Oct 21, 2000 3:05 am

120 pax (appx), good short-field performance, ventral airstairs... is anybody looking at these? I wonder if they could be re-engined, a'la IL-96M.
"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
 
sushka
Posts: 4657
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 1999 12:33 am

RE: YAK-42. RJ Alternative?

Sat Oct 21, 2000 3:12 am

They are good workhorses and they were made to replace the TU 154 and TU 134. I like how you can climb up the butt in them.
Pershoyu Spravoyu Litaki!
 
Aer Lingus
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sun May 14, 2000 4:06 am

RE: YAK-42. RJ Alternative?

Sat Oct 21, 2000 3:14 am

I love Russian airliners.  
Apparently these aircraft are offered with western avionics like the Il-96 and TU-204 but its capacity is too much like the 737. Confidence in Russian airliners is still at an all-time low despite them being excellent aircraft at low low airframe prices  

Martin
 
Ilyushin96M
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 1999 3:15 am

RE: YAK-42. RJ Alternative?

Sat Oct 21, 2000 3:34 am

YAK42 wasn't made to replace TU154 or TU134, actually. The aircraft is more or less in a class by itself, operating from the more primitive airfields in Russia and with a passenger capacity and range that best suits it to short-range flights. I think it is the closest design to today's regional jets, but came long before their time.

The YAK42 was the second Soviet type to be withdrawn from service due to unexplained crashes. Not long after its introduction into service in the mid '70s, there were several crashes which later were determined to be the result of design flaws in the aircraft's flap system. The design was modified and re-introduced as the YAK42M.

The current models suffer from the maladies of all Soviet-era jetliners - overly thirsty engines and primitive passenger accommodations. I've heard there is a newer version, YAK242, under development which has twin engines and EFIS cockpit, but this may have been abandoned. There hasn't been anything new from Yakovlev for quite awhile.

A re-engineing program was studied for both the YAK40 and YAK42 which would have involved rebuilding the tailfin and tailcone, thus eliminating the centre engine, and equipping YAK40s with Lycoming turbofans, and YAK42s with CFM engines. Due to prohibitive cost, much like the CFM re-engine program for IL86, this program was dropped.
 
Aer Lingus
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sun May 14, 2000 4:06 am

Ilyushin96M

Sat Oct 21, 2000 3:39 am

The YAK-42 was meant to be a replacement for the TU-134. I read it in a magazine article about the history of the aircraft

Martin
 
Ilyushin96M
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 1999 3:15 am

TU134 Vs. YAK42

Sat Oct 21, 2000 3:53 am

That makes sense, it was MEANT to replace TU134s, but never really did. That was the case with several Soviet types - for example, the Ilyushin IL86 was meant to be broadly equivalent to the Boeing 747, and meant to replace the IL62 on Aeroflot's long-range intercontinental routes. However, it did not meet its projected range and was relegated to medium-range routes.

I think the YAK42's early design flaws prevented it from being completely successful, as the TU134 soldiered on, and YAK42s are not altogether common throughout Russia.
 
Aer Lingus
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sun May 14, 2000 4:06 am

Ilyushin96M

Sat Oct 21, 2000 4:03 am

With regard to the Il86.
I read a history recently on that aircraft also. Prior to that I did know it had bad range but not as appalling as the 1800 miles according to the former East German ailrine Interflug. Apparently the aircaft was required to stop twice: once here in Ireland (Shannon) and once in Gander in Newfoundland. On some occasions with strong headwinds, a third stop was required in Luxembourg. What kind of performance is that !

Martin
 
LHMark
Topic Author
Posts: 7048
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 2:18 am

RE: YAK-42. RJ Alternative?

Sat Oct 21, 2000 4:26 am

The bureaus comprising the Soviet aerospace industry, while truly excellent at airframe design, and extremely creative at problem-solving, never developed good high-bypass turbofans. The IL-86 and '62s were tremendously thirsty compared to western counterparts.

Isn't the Yak-42 still in production?
"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
 
Ilyushin96M
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 1999 3:15 am

IL86 Range

Sat Oct 21, 2000 4:37 am

Martin, the IL86 is seriously deficient in range to the point where it can fly only on routes under 5 hours non-stop. I posted a trip report about a flight I took with Aeroflot aboard an IL86 in 1992 (very detailed and contains some info on the IL86's range deficiencies). We made the stop in Gander after only about three hours' time, then the flight across the Atlantic, then we stopped at Shannon. From there, we continued on to St. Petersburg.

The reason for the IL86's poor range is that the engines powering it were not designed specifically for the aircraft. They are 26,600 lb thrust Kuznetsov NK86 turbofans, basically a revamped version of the NK8 turbofan powering the TU154A and B-2. Fuel consumption is excessive because these four low-powered, inefficient engines have to work very hard to move the huge IL86. Imagine, 106,400 lbs of thrust pushing an airliner roughly the size of a DC-10, which has 150,000 lbs of thrust (or so) pushing it.
 
slawko
Posts: 3742
Joined: Tue May 25, 1999 7:40 am

RE: IL86 Range

Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:55 am

The ones in production now are the Yak142 and Yak242 both are the smae size as teh Yak42 but the 142 comes with a new modern cockpit and the Yak242 comes with a modern cockpit and only TWO PS-90A Turbofans
"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada

Who is online