Hey guys,
In the current edition of Airliner World, there's an article on Ilyushin's wide bodied jets.
In the article, the author mentions that Lockheed sent a TriStar to Moscow in March 1974 to demonstrate it to the Soviets. According to the author, the Soviets were impressed and wanted to order 30 for Aeroflot and then licence-build an additional 100. The deal was not approved by President Jimmy Carter...
I hadn't heard of this before. Does anybody know any more details about this? I can imagine that some other Eastern Bloc airlines may have been interested in a few TriStars if Aeroflot had a fleet and the Soviets were building them, or would Lockheed have insisted on US-built planes for these airlines?
Cheers,
Bunumuring

Idk anything about the L1011, but the CEO of Piedmont was very interested in the Yak-40, so much so that he even asked the State Department for approval but got denied.

There's a fairly detailed post about this on another forum. Gonna be a pain in the ass to dig up but I'll see what I can do.

imagine if the soviets had had a chance to build heir own "Tri-Starskis" and they even wanted to pay for the licensing rights!.
but politics win again I guess. all the history that was never written because of politics alone.

Found it!

This is probably more information than you needed.

Wow! I can't believe I missed that story. Fascinating!

I've actually read in some old Air International magazines that I came across that the Soviets were interested in several western models. But the U.S boycotted these deals primarily out of concern that the engine technology could be used for military purposes. Hence, no sale.

One of my professors at a Aviation Management University in Germany told of a German airline that wanted to buy Yak-40's as they were indeed quite good aircraft and suited for rugged terrain, but they consumed too much fuel. The Soviet answer was simple. the aircraft is overpowered, shut off the engine in the tail inlet during flight. They wanted to do this, then the German authorities found out about it

In Joe Sutter's excellent book about the 747 he detailed how the Soviets, in the guise of "buying" 25 747s, came to him in order to buy the designs for the 747 so that they can build it for themselves.

Never knew they tried the same thing with Lockheed & MDC.

B764er wrote:

imagine if the soviets had had a chance to build heir own "Tri-Starskis" and they even wanted to pay for the licensing rights!.
but politics win again I guess. all the history that was never written because of politics alone.

And with good reason

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

In Joe Sutter's excellent book about the 747 he detailed how the Soviets, in the guise of "buying" 25 747s, came to him in order to buy the designs for the 747 so that they can build it for themselves.

Never knew they tried the same thing with Lockheed & MDC.

From what we know about the L-1011 purchase saga from USSR, the interest was legitimate.
MGA (Ministry of Civil Aviation of USSR, a.k.a. Aeroflot) was in desperate need of additional lift -- fares were kept artificially low, and lack of good ground transport infrastructure meant that for very many people, air transport was a preferred option.
Also, MGA was absolutely fed up with MAP (Ministry of Aircraft Industry) -- these were constrained in their industrial capacity, plus military orders took priority. But more generally, anyone who has ever been in a single supplier -- single customer scenario, knows that after some point, relations tend to become toxic, and MGA-MAP relations definitely did.

So not only MGA/Aeroflot would get additional lift fast, with L-1011; it would gain some advantage, in order to keep its supplier MAP honest.

It's not really much of a revelation since the story is right there in the middle of the Il-86 article on Wikipedia...

Anyway, from Flight at the time:

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFA ... 200416.PDF

One of the delegation onboard was UK Undersectretary for Trade & Industry Michael Heseltine, whom older British readers will remember for his interference in the domestic aviation industry through the 1980s.

Soviet delegation also visited the UK to discuss license production of the RB.211 which would also have been used on the dozen or so 747s that Aeroflot desired.

Newark727 wrote:

Found it!

This is probably more information than you needed.

Most interesting read I've had so far this year, thank you!

Newark727 wrote:

Found it!

This is probably more information than you needed.

Wow mate!

Thank you so much for is link! I thoroughly enjoyed the article and the information in it. I really enjoyed the photos and diagrams as well. Some parts of the article are echoed in the Airliner World article that I highlighted.
One difference between the two articles is licence-building of the TirStar. Airliner World said an extra 100 would be licence-built beyond the first thirty delivered from Lockheed, yet the second article claims that it was 100 per year to be licence-built. I wonder which was correct? I also wonder which 'bureau' would have built the TriStars?

Thanks again,
Bunumuring

ELBOB wrote:

It's not really much of a revelation since the story is right there in the middle of the Il-86 article on Wikipedia...

Anyway, from Flight at the time:

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFA ... 200416.PDF

One of the delegation onboard was UK Undersectretary for Trade & Industry Michael Heseltine, whom older British readers will remember for his interference in the domestic aviation industry through the 1980s.

Soviet delegation also visited the UK to discuss license production of the RB.211 which would also have been used on the dozen or so 747s that Aeroflot desired.

Hey ELBOB,
I guess if one knew it was there, it wouldn't be a revelation, lol.
Anyway, to the rest of us, it is interesting and a revelation!
Keep smiling!
Bunumuring

OSL777FLYER wrote:

I've actually read in some old Air International magazines that I came across that the Soviets were interested in several western models. But the U.S boycotted these deals primarily out of concern that the engine technology could be used for military purposes. Hence, no sale.

One of my professors at a Aviation Management University in Germany told of a German airline that wanted to buy Yak-40's as they were indeed quite good aircraft and suited for rugged terrain, but they consumed too much fuel. The Soviet answer was simple. the aircraft is overpowered, shut off the engine in the tail inlet during flight. They wanted to do this, then the German authorities found out about it

The deal did actually happen, General Air bought 5 Yak-40 and operated them on (West) German domestic routes between 1972 and 1976 (when the airline went out of business). However, it is said that they encountered many operational issues and were not very happy with the aircraft.

Yes, great article. A really good read! I did know that SU wanted the 1011, but I was not aware of the whole background story and the intention to build it in the Soviet Union. Sad that politics prevented this from happening. Looking back at things it's clear to see how many good things could have happened without external political interference. Just look at the story of British aviation and the detrimental effect that domestic politics had on the design (and subsequent production) of types such as the Trident and the VC10.
Going back to the original topic, it would have been great if the TriStar programme had also seen a second parallel life in the Soviet Union - I am also inclined to think that had politicians been bolder in their approach, industrial/technical exchanges could have been used to advance and foster positive, mutually beneficial friendly relationships between antagonizing political blocks.
As always blind politicians and their conservative politics are WAYYYY behind the actual needs of real people in the real world, and the capacity of technology and science.

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys,
In the current edition of Airliner World, there's an article on Ilyushin's wide bodied jets.
In the article, the author mentions that Lockheed sent a TriStar to Moscow in March 1974 to demonstrate it to the Soviets. According to the author, the Soviets were impressed and wanted to order 30 for Aeroflot and then licence-build an additional 100. The deal was not approved by President Jimmy Carter...
I hadn't heard of this before. Does anybody know any more details about this? I can imagine that some other Eastern Bloc airlines may have been interested in a few TriStars if Aeroflot had a fleet and the Soviets were building them, or would Lockheed have insisted on US-built planes for these airlines?
Cheers,
Bunumuring

Carter became president only in 1977, so does this mean the negotiations were already ongoing for 3 years when he stopped a prospective deal?

Fly-K wrote:

OSL777FLYER wrote:

I've actually read in some old Air International magazines that I came across that the Soviets were interested in several western models. But the U.S boycotted these deals primarily out of concern that the engine technology could be used for military purposes. Hence, no sale.

One of my professors at a Aviation Management University in Germany told of a German airline that wanted to buy Yak-40's as they were indeed quite good aircraft and suited for rugged terrain, but they consumed too much fuel. The Soviet answer was simple. the aircraft is overpowered, shut off the engine in the tail inlet during flight. They wanted to do this, then the German authorities found out about it

The deal did actually happen, General Air bought 5 Yak-40 and operated them on (West) German domestic routes between 1972 and 1976 (when the airline went out of business). However, it is said that they encountered many operational issues and were not very happy with the aircraft.

Indeed the yak-40 was also operated -and quite successfully too- in Italy by a variety of small operators for almost 30 years, with the last one finally leaving the I- register in the early 2000s...
I remember seeing the Avioligure and Aertirrena ones at Florence airport in the '70s. Lovely little jetliners!
Two of these were also briefly leased to Olympic. An interesting anecdote: one of the Italian Yaks was somehow apparently 'smuggled' (apparently in pieces, and subsequently reassembled in-situ!) to Angola, after a 'fake' emergency landing in an open field (something that the Yak could easily perform..) and after cashing in the insurance money for the fake damages...

Hey oldannyboy,
You mentioned the VC-10... Are you aware that the Chinese wanted a similar deal for VC-10s as the Soviets wanted for the TriStar? Apparently the Chinese wanted five VC-10s built in Britain and then licence-build an additional 30. Politics stopped that deal too, I believe.
Cheers,
Bunumuring

bunumuring wrote:

Hey oldannyboy,
You mentioned the VC-10... Are you aware that the Chinese wanted a similar deal for VC-10s as the Soviets wanted for the TriStar? Apparently the Chinese wanted five VC-10s built in Britain and then licence-build an additional 30. Politics stopped that deal too, I believe.
Cheers,
Bunumuring

So, in conclusion, is the RomBAC1-11 the only example of a jet airliner where licence-building actually happened? I don't mean a company having overseas plants, such as MDD and Airbus, but licence-built. (Leaning back in my armchair in anticipation of the inevitable ARJ21-MD80/90 jokes to come.)

MalevTU134 wrote:

bunumuring wrote:

Hey oldannyboy,
You mentioned the VC-10... Are you aware that the Chinese wanted a similar deal for VC-10s as the Soviets wanted for the TriStar? Apparently the Chinese wanted five VC-10s built in Britain and then licence-build an additional 30. Politics stopped that deal too, I believe.
Cheers,
Bunumuring

So, in conclusion, is the RomBAC1-11 the only example of a jet airliner where licence-building actually happened? I don't mean a company having overseas plants, such as MDD and Airbus, but licence-built. (Leaning back in my armchair in anticipation of the inevitable ARJ21-MD80/90 jokes to come.)

The 2 Chinese built MD-90s were license built by Shanghai Aircraft. They weren’t built by MDD in a MDD owned Chinese plant.

bunumuring wrote:

...
One difference between the two articles is licence-building of the TirStar. Airliner World said an extra 100 would be licence-built beyond the first thirty delivered from Lockheed, yet the second article claims that it was 100 per year to be licence-built. I wonder which was correct?
...

Look at it this way -- the fastest the whole Soviet aircraft industry could go, on widebody manufacturing, was approximately 10-12 hulls per year (Il-86). So buying 30 L-1011, one-shot, would equal to three years of domestic production, and give MGA/Aeroflot some breathing room, in terms of available passenger-seat-kilometers.

Domestically manufacturing 100 L-1011 a year would necessitate an immense industrial effort, and would be a revolution in aircraft manufacturing. In terms of component manufacturing, it's clear that USSR would have been unable to cope; question is rather -- would the worldwide industry be able to cope, at that time, with 100 additional widebodies built annually? Would Rolls-Royce be able to churn out 300+ additional RB.211 annually?
I guess not really.

Hi guys,
Yes, I believe that the RomBAC 1-11 and the MD 'Trunkliner' projects were the only two jetliner-types built under licence but there would be lots of turboprop and piston engines planes I'd imagine. The Hindustan Hawker Siddeley 748s and IrAN 140s would be a couple of examples from different eras.
Cheers, and thanks to all for contributing to is thread!
Bunumuring

bunumuring wrote:

Hey oldannyboy,
You mentioned the VC-10... Are you aware that the Chinese wanted a similar deal for VC-10s as the Soviets wanted for the TriStar? Apparently the Chinese wanted five VC-10s built in Britain and then licence-build an additional 30. Politics stopped that deal too, I believe.
Cheers,
Bunumuring

I do believe that at the time of the Trident sale to China, the Chinese were looking at buying the VC-10 as well but my understanding was that Vickers were unsupportive because the end of the programme had already been decided...

MalevTU134 wrote:

bunumuring wrote:

Hey oldannyboy,
You mentioned the VC-10... Are you aware that the Chinese wanted a similar deal for VC-10s as the Soviets wanted for the TriStar? Apparently the Chinese wanted five VC-10s built in Britain and then licence-build an additional 30. Politics stopped that deal too, I believe.
Cheers,
Bunumuring

So, in conclusion, is the RomBAC1-11 the only example of a jet airliner where licence-building actually happened? I don't mean a company having overseas plants, such as MDD and Airbus, but licence-built. (Leaning back in my armchair in anticipation of the inevitable ARJ21-MD80/90 jokes to come.)

Well, if you consider the Islander a quasi-airliner, that was also built under licence in Romania.

Oh, and the HS-748 by Hindustan in India.

oldannyboy wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

bunumuring wrote:

Hey oldannyboy,
You mentioned the VC-10... Are you aware that the Chinese wanted a similar deal for VC-10s as the Soviets wanted for the TriStar? Apparently the Chinese wanted five VC-10s built in Britain and then licence-build an additional 30. Politics stopped that deal too, I believe.
Cheers,
Bunumuring

So, in conclusion, is the RomBAC1-11 the only example of a jet airliner where licence-building actually happened? I don't mean a company having overseas plants, such as MDD and Airbus, but licence-built. (Leaning back in my armchair in anticipation of the inevitable ARJ21-MD80/90 jokes to come.)

Well, if you consider the Islander a quasi-airliner, that was also built under licence in Romania.

Oh, and the HS-748 by Hindustan in India.

Oh, sure, if we venture into props, there are many examples, even the DC3 was licenced to the Soviet Union. Hence my question about jet airliners.

MalevTU134 wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

So, in conclusion, is the RomBAC1-11 the only example of a jet airliner where licence-building actually happened? I don't mean a company having overseas plants, such as MDD and Airbus, but licence-built. (Leaning back in my armchair in anticipation of the inevitable ARJ21-MD80/90 jokes to come.)

Well, if you consider the Islander a quasi-airliner, that was also built under licence in Romania.

Oh, and the HS-748 by Hindustan in India.

Oh, sure, if we venture into props, there are many examples, even the DC3 was licenced to the Soviet Union. Hence my question about jet airliners.

you are absolutely right!

Newark727 wrote:

Found it!

This is probably more information than you needed.

Very fascinating Newark72. I can't believe I missed this either. The Russians even had an A380 type airplane in sight in the 80's? AN418? Wow. Too bad that Russian L1011 and Russian A380 never were built. That would have been nice. How come these stories aren't well known to the Western world?

A388

A388 wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Found it!

This is probably more information than you needed.

Very fascinating Newark72. I can't believe I missed this either. The Russians even had an A380 type airplane in sight in the 80's? AN418? Wow. Too bad that Russian L1011 and Russian A380 never were built. That would have been nice. How come these stories aren't well known to the Western world?

A388

Some of these stories were physically delivered to the Western world -- and still not noticed. Like post-Soviet Russian proposal of KR-860 (860 indicates intended passenger capacity), had a scale model shown around at Paris Air Show:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_KR-860

And if you do mention "Russian L1011 and Russian A380", don't forget that for example (despite possible protestations otherwise) there is a "European An-70" around.

Don't know if airfoils were strictly identical, but if you superpose the L1011 wing with the Il-86's, they perpectly match.

The Russian interest in the L1011 is an interesting page in their aviation history - I understand one of the key reasons they wanted to purchase the type was it's then advanced auto-land facilities, the development of which the USSR lagged behind in and which caused frequent disruption during winter. No doubt they were hoping to learn something here.

However I have my doubts as to how practical the L1011 would have been. Soviet runways and associated infrastructure was predominantly prefabricated, and renowned for being weak - this is why most Soviet jetliners (Tu-134, Tu-154, Il-86 etc...) feature multiple bogies. The Il-62 had a big impact, literally, with it's high wheel loading (not seen before or repeated with a Soviet aircraft) it was known for cracking slabs when fully fuelled and loaded. The L1011's wheel loading was higher still - although perhaps Lockheed could have introduced an additional MLG in the centre to counter this.

bunumuring wrote:

Hey oldannyboy,
You mentioned the VC-10... Are you aware that the Chinese wanted a similar deal for VC-10s as the Soviets wanted for the TriStar? Apparently the Chinese wanted five VC-10s built in Britain and then licence-build an additional 30. Politics stopped that deal too, I believe.
Cheers,
Bunumuring

I wonder why they continued with the Trident purchase and halted the VC-10 purchase. Could this be linked to the Y-10 project, which perhaps took over their aspirations to build a (then) medium/long haul quad-jet?

oldannyboy wrote:

Sad that politics prevented this from happening. Looking back at things it's clear to see how many good things could have happened without external political interference.

Sad? Growing up on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain I am glad that this did not materialize and embargo on hi-tech helped eventually to bring the Evil Empire and the cruel ideology down.

oldannyboy wrote:

I am also inclined to think that had politicians been bolder in their approach, industrial/technical exchanges could have been used to advance and foster positive, mutually beneficial friendly relationships between antagonizing political blocks.

Appeasment anyone? Who in their sane mind would advocate transfer of technology to the enemy?

I had seen the Wikipedia article about the Sukhoi KR-860, but today is the first time I have heard about the Antonov An-418. Here is a link to another website's writeup on it. The article appears to have been directly translated from Russian Cyrillic. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... an-418.htm

Polot wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

bunumuring wrote:

Hey oldannyboy,
You mentioned the VC-10... Are you aware that the Chinese wanted a similar deal for VC-10s as the Soviets wanted for the TriStar? Apparently the Chinese wanted five VC-10s built in Britain and then licence-build an additional 30. Politics stopped that deal too, I believe.
Cheers,
Bunumuring

So, in conclusion, is the RomBAC1-11 the only example of a jet airliner where licence-building actually happened? I don't mean a company having overseas plants, such as MDD and Airbus, but licence-built. (Leaning back in my armchair in anticipation of the inevitable ARJ21-MD80/90 jokes to come.)

The 2 Chinese built MD-90s were license built by Shanghai Aircraft. They wereln’t built by MDD in a MDD owned Chinese plant.

HESA built the An-140 under the name HESA IrAn-140 Faraz. I was lucky enaugh to fly on an actual Iranian built plane. Well, the assembled kits as far as i know. But for the fun of it it is quite an astonishing sidenote in aviation history.

Newark727 wrote:

Found it!

This is probably more information than you needed.

Am I missing something? I tried that link, and it takes me to a page saying I need to log in or register. They want $9.95 to register...

I did find other articles online with details of the proposed deal.

MalevTU134 wrote:

bunumuring wrote:

Hey oldannyboy,
You mentioned the VC-10... Are you aware that the Chinese wanted a similar deal for VC-10s as the Soviets wanted for the TriStar? Apparently the Chinese wanted five VC-10s built in Britain and then licence-build an additional 30. Politics stopped that deal too, I believe.
Cheers,
Bunumuring

So, in conclusion, is the RomBAC1-11 the only example of a jet airliner where licence-building actually happened? I don't mean a company having overseas plants, such as MDD and Airbus, but licence-built. (Leaning back in my armchair in anticipation of the inevitable ARJ21-MD80/90 jokes to come.)

The DC-3 was made in Russia. Believe it was called the Li-2

Moose135 wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Found it!

This is probably more information than you needed.

Am I missing something? I tried that link, and it takes me to a page saying I need to log in or register. They want $9.95 to register...

I did find other articles online with details of the proposed deal.

Site has a paywall, so not everything is always viewable to the public. Sorry about that.

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys,
In the current edition of Airliner World, there's an article on Ilyushin's wide bodied jets.
In the article, the author mentions that Lockheed sent a TriStar to Moscow in March 1974 to demonstrate it to the Soviets. According to the author, the Soviets were impressed and wanted to order 30 for Aeroflot and then licence-build an additional 100. The deal was not approved by President Jimmy Carter...
I hadn't heard of this before. Does anybody know any more details about this? I can imagine that some other Eastern Bloc airlines may have been interested in a few TriStars if Aeroflot had a fleet and the Soviets were building them, or would Lockheed have insisted on US-built planes for these airlines?
Cheers,
Bunumuring

Yes this did happen. Main reason would have been Lockheeds use of ovens to bond fuselage parts vs riveting. It was new tech that was used on their military work & the US government would never have approved it for a Russian assembly operation.

MalevTU134 wrote:

[
Oh, sure, if we venture into props, there are many examples, even the DC3 was licenced to the Soviet Union. Hence my question about jet airliners.

Whilst a number of people may remember the Lisunov Li-2, I've barely heard anyone refer to the Nakajima/Showa L2D series which was numerically the most important Japanese transport in World War II.
Here's one.


There is even three seconds of camera gun (?) film showing one in flames courtesy of the US Navy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J5sXPvkDF4

oldannyboy wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

So, in conclusion, is the RomBAC1-11 the only example of a jet airliner where licence-building actually happened? I don't mean a company having overseas plants, such as MDD and Airbus, but licence-built. (Leaning back in my armchair in anticipation of the inevitable ARJ21-MD80/90 jokes to come.)

Well, if you consider the Islander a quasi-airliner, that was also built under licence in Romania.

Oh, and the HS-748 by Hindustan in India.

{cough} Fairchild F-27 (yeah, yeah, I know it's not a jet ...)

Newark727 wrote:

Site has a paywall, so not everything is always viewable to the public. Sorry about that.

No problem, it looked like others were able to view it, so I was wondering if it was something I did.

And of course, y'all remember the story of the Soviet delegation that toured Roll-Royce after WWII. One of the problems of that era was developing exotic new alloys to cope with the high temperatures found in jet exhausts. When the Russians reached the workshops, two of them suddenly needed the toilets. Nobody noticed that when they came out from the toilets, they were wearing different shoes, with soles specifically designed to trap particles of metal shavings for later analysis back in mother Russia.

As it turns out, they need not have bothered.

The Soviet aviation minister Mikhail Khrunichev and aircraft designer A. S. Yakovlev suggested to Premier Joseph Stalin that the USSR buy fully developed Nene engines from Rolls-Royce for the purpose of copying them in a minimum of time. Stalin is said to have replied, "What fool will sell us his secrets?"

However, he gave his consent to the proposal and Mikoyan, engine designer Vladimir Klimov, and others travelled to the United Kingdom to request the engines. To Stalin's amazement, the British Labour government and its Minister of Trade, Sir Stafford Cripps, were perfectly willing to provide technical information and a license to manufacture the Rolls-Royce Nene. Sample engines were purchased and delivered with blueprints. Following evaluation and adaptation to Russian conditions, the windfall technology was tooled for mass-production as the Klimov RD-45 to be incorporated into the MiG-15.

Honestly, I'm not making this up.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

And of course, y'all remember the story of the Soviet delegation that toured Roll-Royce after WWII. One of the problems of that era was developing exotic new alloys to cope with the high temperatures found in jet exhausts. When the Russians reached the workshops, two of them suddenly needed the toilets. Nobody noticed that when they came out from the toilets, they were wearing different shoes, with soles specifically designed to trap particles of metal shavings for later analysis back in mother Russia.

As it turns out, they need not have bothered.

The Soviet aviation minister Mikhail Khrunichev and aircraft designer A. S. Yakovlev suggested to Premier Joseph Stalin that the USSR buy fully developed Nene engines from Rolls-Royce for the purpose of copying them in a minimum of time. Stalin is said to have replied, "What fool will sell us his secrets?"

However, he gave his consent to the proposal and Mikoyan, engine designer Vladimir Klimov, and others travelled to the United Kingdom to request the engines. To Stalin's amazement, the British Labour government and its Minister of Trade, Sir Stafford Cripps, were perfectly willing to provide technical information and a license to manufacture the Rolls-Royce Nene. Sample engines were purchased and delivered with blueprints. Following evaluation and adaptation to Russian conditions, the windfall technology was tooled for mass-production as the Klimov RD-45 to be incorporated into the MiG-15.

Honestly, I'm not making this up.

Indeed!
And as far as I understand, the whole premise of approval (in the UK) of the sale (and the accompanying export paperwork) revolved around the idea of USSR using these engines in civil air transport. First civilian jet aircraft, the Comet, was still years from flying...

N292UX wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

bunumuring wrote:

Hey oldannyboy,
You mentioned the VC-10... Are you aware that the Chinese wanted a similar deal for VC-10s as the Soviets wanted for the TriStar? Apparently the Chinese wanted five VC-10s built in Britain and then licence-build an additional 30. Politics stopped that deal too, I believe.
Cheers,
Bunumuring

So, in conclusion, is the RomBAC1-11 the only example of a jet airliner where licence-building actually happened? I don't mean a company having overseas plants, such as MDD and Airbus, but licence-built. (Leaning back in my armchair in anticipation of the inevitable ARJ21-MD80/90 jokes to come.)

The DC-3 was made in Russia. Believe it was called the Li-2

Last I checked, the DC-3 and Li-2 are not jet airliners...

Moose135 wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Site has a paywall, so not everything is always viewable to the public. Sorry about that.

No problem, it looked like others were able to view it, so I was wondering if it was something I did.

I was wondering the same. Incredibly obnoxious. A disclaimer would've been nice.