Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
thaiaggie
Topic Author
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 1:56 am

IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:22 am

Just saw this picture and compare with the old ones. Do russian aircrafts require longer runway? They both were at HKT Thailand. Very scary.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui

Barrow, Alaska in Feb. It was Cold!
 
tribird1011
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:08 pm

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:03 am

and they say the A343 is underpowered  bitelip   bitelip 

That is one (well 2) scary take-off. Wonder what the calls are...

80 Kts... check..
end of runway ... Rotate
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 25246
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:16 am

Dont forget, overloading occurrences on Russian aircraft are not out of the ordinary.
I'd almost willing to bet the holiday makers on these flights had slightly more then what the standard bag weights!
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
HT
Posts: 5864
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 6:20 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:24 am

Quoting ThaiAggie (Thread starter):
Do russian aircrafts require longer runway?

In general: "NO", but one have to factor in:
- wind
- temperature (HKT would be classified as "hot")
- Altitude (nothing special in case of HKT)
- load (?!!)
- power setting of the engines
Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
 
Eldoylio
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 7:25 pm

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:26 am

To be honest why would a pilot continue and not abort the take-off? I cannot see how this would be planned.

And before I get flamed for making such a comment I just cannot see how this would be considered safe.
Q. How does an A340 gain altitude - A. With the curve of the Earth
 
Gr8Circle
Posts: 2639
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:44 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:02 am

Wow! They need to lower the height of the perimeter fence at HKT for those bird.... smile 
 
User avatar
centrair
Posts: 2900
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:44 pm

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:07 am

Was watching a video the other day on flightlevel of a IL96...it sure looked like it was not going to take off. I mean ridiculously long. It entered the runway and started to accelerate but took most of the runway.
My name is Centrair but HND is closer. Let's Japanese Aviation!
 
AlitaliaMD11
Posts: 3704
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 5:19 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:20 am

I have seen the IL-96 take off before at HAV and it's freaking insane! I doubt that any other aircraft needs that much length for take off except for maybe the A340-600 which takes up a lot of runway, well at least the runways at MAD since I have seen it taking off there and have flown on it out of MAD.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Javier Guerrero

No Vueling No Party
 
Gr8Circle
Posts: 2639
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:44 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:46 am

When I was small and living in BOM, I used to see Aeroflot Il-62's taking off...they used to take off pretty close to the end of the runway and would take a hell of a lot of time to gain altitude thereafter....seems to be a common thing for Russian pax planes....
 
sovietjet
Posts: 2687
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:32 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:31 am

The Il-86 is underpowered. Think of it having the Il-62 engines except upgraded a bit. The Il-62...NOT the Il-62M btw. Also Russian planes do get overloaded and pilots are used to not using 100% thrust to reduce wear and tear on engines.
 
User avatar
Aeroflot777
Posts: 3214
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 2:19 pm

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:35 am

Don't forget that the IL-89/96 are mostly used by Russian airlines on charter flights. Because of this, these planes are PACKED to their whits. Their is usually absolutely no room in there for just one more seat. Now imagine all those people in there, plus all the over-sized luggage coming to/from the vacation destination... No wonder they have to use the entire runway!!

Aeroflot777
 
redcordes
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:28 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:58 am

Wow! If they lost an engine about 1500 ft before the end of the runway, the holiday trip would have included a short, free cruise too. V1 must have been at about 80 kts. (the point at which the takeoff is continued even if an engine fails). Those Russian pilots must be ex-naval aviators.
"The only source of knowledge is experience." A. Einstein "Science w/o religion is lame. Religion w/o science is blind."
 
edelag
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 2:35 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:41 am

HKT has about 9,800 feet (2,990 meters) of a runway length. The IL 86 requires 8,530 feet (2,600 meters) for take off and to land it requires 6,500 feet (1,980 meters) of runway.

Now the IL 96 is a much bigger monster, it requires 11,000 feet (3,350 meters) of runway length. And to land it requires 7,385 feet (2,250 meters) of runway space.

So HKT only has 9,800 it should leave a good space after rotation for the IL 86, but in the photo it maybe was more heavy than the typical payload. As for the IL 96, it had to be less than the typical payload.

Hope this is the information you needed,
Eugenio De la Garza
It's not just the destination, it's the journey.
 
aircanl1011
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:38 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:11 pm

[quote=Redcordes,reply=11]Wow! If they lost an engine about 1500 ft before the end of the runway[/quote

What if they lost and engine shortly after takeoff, and I mean seconds, would they still have the power to continue to climb? It looks like all four engines are doing their best to get the aircraft in the air, could the other 3 compensate for the loss at that critical stage?
CYMRU AM BYTH / WALES FOREVER
 
thepilot730
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:36 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:19 pm

Now we know one reason why Russian planes aren't too popular in the West. Imagine seeing these birds doing this at JFK or MIA or ATL. I bet the airport manager would have a jugular!
 
Braniff1960
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 4:43 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:42 pm

I don't care how HEAVY they are. No aircraft should use up a runway like this (above)! This cannot be safe! Why would any passenger choose to fly aboard these aircraft is beyond me!

Unbelievable!
nothing like the smell of jet exhaust!
 
Devil505x
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 3:55 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:59 pm

Quoting Edelag (Reply 12):
The IL 86 requires 8,530 feet

Wow! Thats quite a bit isn't it?

Quoting Edelag (Reply 12):
Now the IL 96 is a much bigger monster, it requires 11,000 feet

Even bigger WOW! I guess this limits where/ what airports it can fly in and out of?

What amazes me is that I have seen loaded DC-10s, 747s, L-1011s take off of 7000 ft runways I even saw a loaded C-17 take off of a 4500ft runway and they seem to get off with room to spare. I find it strange that the Ruskies didn't create a more powerful engine considering the engines on a MIG-25 push that baby past Mach 2.5.
 
jetflyer
Posts: 603
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:38 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:05 pm

Those russian planes are awful. Here is a video showing the "great" climb performance of the Il-62.

http://www.flightlevel350.com/viewer.php?id=4757
 
LX23
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 5:54 pm

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:23 pm

Quoting Thepilot730 (Reply 14):
I bet the airport manager would have a jugular!

I might be wrong, but I think ALL airport managers (and human beings in general) have a jugular, as they are veins in the neck area that blood flows through.

I do agree that the Il-86 and 96 arent the best of climbers, and as Sovietjet says, seeing these babies at 100% thrust isn't common. Weird when you think that the TU154 is actually a bit overpowered.
 
su
Posts: 286
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 1:13 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:35 pm

Pilots of that plane should be banned from flying. That is so dangerous. I personally always avoid Russian charter flights,

Wonder how IL96 is performing during take off in LHR?
"Life is too short to take it serious..."
 
sovietjet
Posts: 2687
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:32 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:51 pm

I can't believe the ignorance of some people on this board. It's not the plane's fault it is overloaded, 100% thrust not used, hot temps, etc...How about you fill up a 747 past capacity, dont use 100% thrust and make it takeoff at hot temps on a runway whose length is close to the required for the type. You would see similar results. Also the Il-86 and Il-96 regularly takeoff during the summer charters to Varna, Bulgaria which has a 2500m runway and this just doesn't happen. One or two incidents where the plane uses a lot of runway doesnt mean it always happens. I dont remember specifics but I know for sure the Il-96 doesnt require 11000 feet.

Quoting Braniff1960 (Reply 15):
I don't care how HEAVY they are. No aircraft should use up a runway like this (above)! This cannot be safe! Why would any passenger choose to fly aboard these aircraft is beyond me!

Unbelievable!



Quoting Jetflyer (Reply 17):
Those russian planes are awful.

Comments like these are the general belief of the US public and this is the REAL reason why we dont see them at Western airports.

In fact at work yesterday I had a customer that said Russian planes are the most dangerous things in the world and fall out of the sky like bricks. I figured he was so thickheaded I didnt even bother arguing and wasting my time with him.
 
jmc757
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 3:36 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:54 pm

Quoting Aeroflot777 (Reply 10):
Don't forget that the IL-89/96 are mostly used by Russian airlines on charter flights. Because of this, these planes are PACKED to their whits. Their is usually absolutely no room in there for just one more seat. Now imagine all those people in there, plus all the over-sized luggage coming to/from the vacation destination... No wonder they have to use the entire runway!!

Aeroflot777

I understand your point there, but it doesn't justify this. Think of all the British charter carriers - we don't see Thomas Cook 757s or Monarch A321s fighting to get off the ground at Palma....

Take off weight limits are there for a reason - safety. A lot of people wonder why our charter airlines are so strict with their low luggage allowances. Seeing photos like this makes me glad they are!
 
redcordes
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:28 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:01 am

Sovietjet, why are the takeoff distances so long? There's no way they could operate in the majority of US airports safely--let alone be able to follow noise abatement procedures and requirements.
"The only source of knowledge is experience." A. Einstein "Science w/o religion is lame. Religion w/o science is blind."
 
JoKeR
Posts: 1851
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 12:34 pm

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:18 am

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 20):
In fact at work yesterday I had a customer that said Russian planes are the most dangerous things in the world and fall out of the sky like bricks. I figured he was so thickheaded I didnt even bother arguing and wasting my time with him.

Welcome to my Respected list! Thank you!
 
su
Posts: 286
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 1:13 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:22 am

Quoting Redcordes (Reply 22):
There's no way they could operate in the majority of US airports safely--let alone be able to follow noise abatement procedures and requirements.

IL 96 has been flying as an replaicment for A310, B777 and B767 and sometime even regular SU flights for several years now and still aloud to fly in and out of all major US airports.

[Edited 2006-01-30 16:49:03]
"Life is too short to take it serious..."
 
ImperialEagle
Posts: 2372
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:53 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:29 am

Over the years I have observed some pretty interesting takeoffs from ATL.

I can remember in the "heat of the summertime" watching 722's, D95's and L10's roll right down to the numbers on plenty of occasions.

Then there were BCals/Ba's DC-10-30's-----to the end every time-----must have had great loads on those things everyday of the year. Never saw anyone elses '10's do that here.

Then along came the A342's and '3's. WOW! Buzzing the tree-tops with alarming regularity since the day they started flying in here. SA's 346 has good reason to use the whole runway----but once airborne gains altitude pretty well.

Great entertainment when watching from the outside! I can remember a trip out of LGA on an L10 one hot August evening, not a vacant seat on the plane. We must have left "rooster tails" out over the water for a while! Whew!
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
 
redcordes
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:28 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:47 am

Quoting SU (Reply 24):

IL 96 has been frying as an replaicment for A310, B777 and B767 and sometime even regular SU flights for several years now and still aloud to fly in and out of all major US airports.

SU, I said the "majority" (most) of US airports. Not "major" (largest) airports. Of course they can fly to the big airports--they have very, very, very long runways. Which actually emphasizes my point: They can't operate at typical, US airports.
"The only source of knowledge is experience." A. Einstein "Science w/o religion is lame. Religion w/o science is blind."
 
RiddlePilot215
Posts: 280
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 2:19 pm

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:57 am

Mewonders if....Aeroflot tries this tightrope act flying here to the US or Canada....If so, I think the FAA or Canadian Gov't would like to have a chat with somebody in the Aeroflot flight department....UGH...

I mean I know as pilots we're trained to know the in's and out's of the aircraft we fly, and every possible limitation, but that's just...ridiculous to say that least.
God is good, all the time. All the time, God is good.
 
afay1
Posts: 1206
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 2:37 pm

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:02 am

They being what? What is typical? Is your neighbor's grass strip typical? Actually a TU-154 can successfully land on that. Does that make the landing and the runway typical? I agree that safety procedures are paramount, but don't make sweeping generalizations about an area you aren't all that versed in, it ruins the other valid points of your argument.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14182
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:11 am

So what about take off clearance requirements after an engine failure just after V1?

A more reputable airline / aircraft:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kelvin Poon

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
redcordes
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:28 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:18 am

I should have specified. These are they:

Quoting Edelag (Reply 12):
The IL 86 requires 8,530 feet (2,600 meters) for take off and to land it requires 6,500 feet (1,980 meters) of runway.

Now the IL 96 is a much bigger monster, it requires 11,000 feet (3,350 meters) of runway length. And to land it requires 7,385 feet (2,250 meters) of runway space.

Look at runway lengths of all US airports that turbojets serve with scheduled freight and passenger service. Then see what percentage could handle these aircraft. After that, check the noise-abatement procedures and requirements. Maybe then, you will understand my statement.
"The only source of knowledge is experience." A. Einstein "Science w/o religion is lame. Religion w/o science is blind."
 
User avatar
PositiveClimb
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:29 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:42 am

Let me join the fun:

Quoting Redcordes (Reply 22):
There's no way they could operate in the majority of US airports safely--let alone be able to follow noise abatement procedures and requirements.

And the point is? That's why they don't fly there. This is not relevant for the discussion about the safety of the aircraft.

Quoting Redcordes (Reply 30):
Look at runway lengths of all US airports that turbojets serve with scheduled freight and passenger service. Then see what percentage could handle these aircraft. After that, check the noise-abatement procedures and requirements. Maybe then, you will understand my statement.

Apart from the fact that I don't think there are many US airports that are regularly served by turbojets, I again fail to see the relevance for the topic.

The way I see it: It's impossible to judge the situation just by looking at the pictures. Was the plane overloaded? Was it very hot that day? Was it some kind of derated takeoff?

Agreed, this picture looks kind of worrying, but that doesn't mean the situation was dangerous. And even if it was, we don't know whose failure it was.

I fail to see how to blame the aircraft (or, even better blame ALL Russian/Soviet aircraft  Yeah sure ). The aircraft is constructed with a certain amount of thrust and a maximum t/o weight and therefore needs a certain amount of runway. If the aircraft is overloaded, the runway is too short or takeoff power isn't applied correctly it's not the fault of the aircraft, but someone goofed.

Just my two cents!

Best regards,
Fabian/PositiveClimb Big grin
A380 - love at first flight!
 
afay1
Posts: 1206
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 2:37 pm

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:00 am

Are either the IL-86 or IL-96 turbojets? I don't believe so. The -86 might be crude (having flown on it to Egypt without crashing), but it is not a 707/DC8 equivalent. It also has one of the safest records of any widebody commercial aircraft. Only the 777/A3x series has a better record. While no one disagrees that the pictures look disturbing, certainly there are hundreds more of western aircraft doing the same thing.
 
redcordes
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:28 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:10 am

Quoting PositiveClimb (Reply 31):

Apart from the fact that I don't think there are many US airports that are regularly served by turbojets, I again fail to see the relevance for the topic.

Obviously PositiveCimb, I meant turbofan. Yeah, probably only several hundred.

Quoting PositiveClimb (Reply 31):

And the point is? That's why they don't fly there. This is not relevant for the discussion about the safety of the aircraft.

PositiveClimb. Did you read the thread? See below:

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 20):
Quoting Jetflyer (Reply 17):
Those russian planes are awful.

Comments like these are the general belief of the US public and this is the REAL reason why we dont see them at Western airports.

No, the real reason is what my previous comment was addressing. It is relevant to parts of the thread. Threads meander. Also, the '86 and '96 are 25 and 20 year-old designs and there are probably well less than 100 in service worldwide anyway (check the AC Data here).
"The only source of knowledge is experience." A. Einstein "Science w/o religion is lame. Religion w/o science is blind."
 
User avatar
PositiveClimb
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:29 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:26 am

@Redcordes

Yes, I read the thread, thank you

Quoting Redcordes (Reply 33):
No, the real reason is what my previous comment was addressing. It is relevant to parts of the thread. Threads meander. Also, the '86 and '96 are 25 and 20 year-old designs and there are probably well less than 100 in service worldwide anyway (check the AC Data here).

I' m not quite sure what you want to say?
I don't see the relevance in either the remark you quoted or your remark. I don't see how it is important for the discussion of required runway lenghts or safety standards of an aircraft if it is capable/allowed to fly to US airports and/or why it doesn't. The aircraft doesn't fly in the US or in most parts of Europe because of various reasons: economical reasons, maintenance and spare part problems, emission/noise regulations, fuel consumption and a rather negative position towards Russian aircraft. These are problems for the airlines but aren't necessarily relevant for the safety of an aircraft type.

Anyways, maybe I just misunderstood what you wanted to say? No hard feelings, pal!

Best regards,
Fabian/PositiveClimb

[Edited 2006-01-30 18:27:58]
A380 - love at first flight!
 
Eldoylio
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 7:25 pm

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:54 am

Just out of curiosity would this late rotation at HKT have been reported by either the flight crew or the airport authority? Do they keep any record of these 'near incident' situations?
Q. How does an A340 gain altitude - A. With the curve of the Earth
 
HT
Posts: 5864
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 6:20 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:07 am

Quoting Jmc757 (Reply 21):
Think of all the British charter carriers - we don't see Thomas Cook 757s or Monarch A321s fighting to get off the ground at Palma....

I don´t see above examples as a good comparision to those flights out of HKT:
PMI-GLA (example only) : 1175 mi
HKT-DME: 4615 mi (plus factor in the usual headwinds)
That´s shorthaul vs. longhaul ...

Quoting Jmc757 (Reply 21):
A lot of people wonder why our charter airlines are so strict with their low luggage allowances.

Those german charter operators I have used are not picky when it comes to low luggage allowances, so "safety" can´t be the point (unless some airlines compute their T/O-weight in different ways than others do: different figures for estimated pax-weight, cargo weight, ...).
The only airlines I´ve encountered that actually were picky with "more than allowed" baggage didn´t refuse to transport the extra weight, but wanted to see some money for it ... Big grin

Quoting Edelag (Reply 12):
Now the IL 96 is a much bigger monster, it requires 11,000 feet (3,350 meters) of runway length. And to land it requires 7,385 feet (2,250 meters) of runway space.

Are these figures for maximum-T/O weight ? Meaning that performance of IL-96 for a run LHR-SVO or FRA-SVO should be significantly better due to the much lower fuel load ...
When I last saw a IL-96 departing FRA it made no bad show at all (but I couldn´t see inside = no idea on # of pax).
-HT
Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
 
irelayer
Posts: 1132
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:34 pm

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:17 am

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 20):
Comments like these are the general belief of the US public and this is the REAL reason why we dont see them at Western airports.

Actually the REAL reason why we don't see them at Western airports is that the current generation of Russian jetliners were still designed in the Soviet era and are a good generation or two behind current Western aircraft. I agree with your premise, Russian aircraft are certainly not "awful" and there is definately a bias with a lot of saftey concerns etc, but I think you need to look at the performance behind the most advanced Russian production aircraft, the IL-96 and the Tu-204 and tell me, even with Western engines and avionics, why they are not just as efficient, reliable, and popular as their Western counterparts.

-IR
 
danimarroquin
Posts: 256
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 4:06 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:18 am

I wonder why the IL- 96 cargo version was not a success ?
By the way where is that IL-96 ?
DM
 
egnr
Posts: 420
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 8:31 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:23 am

Ilyushin Finance corporation has this data for the IL-96-300:
Takeoff roll, 2700m (2700m = 8858ft)
Required takeoff distance, 3300m (3300m = 10827ft)
Landing distance, 1260m (1260m = 4134ft)
Required landing distance, 2100m (2100m = 6890ft)

No data for the IL-86 on their site though, but has info for the IL-96-300, IL-96-400, IL-96-400T, TU-204/214 and AN-148.
7late7, A3latey, Sukhoi Superlate... what's going on?
 
gritzngravee
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 11:47 pm

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:40 am

I don't know too much about Russian Aviation but I do know the Russian aerospace program lost 150 Astronauts on failed missions to or in outerspace. I'm sure the majority of Russian airline pilots recieve their trainning in the military and some go on to the space program. There does seem to be a trend of how should I say, lack of safety, when it comes to some countries aviation policies. I'm not labeling the Russians as careless but one has to wonder why all the big risks!!!!!
 
katekebo
Posts: 681
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 12:02 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:45 am

Gritzngravee,

What's your source for the statement quoted below?

"Russian aerospace program lost 150 Astronauts on failed missions to or in outerspace"

Do you have any proof to make such a statement or is it just your speculation?
 
boeingguy1
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 4:31 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:47 am

Quoting SU (Reply 24):
IL 96 has been flying as an replaicment for A310, B777 and B767 and sometime even regular SU flights for several years now and still aloud to fly in and out of all major US airports.

A replacement? Im sorry, is that supposed to be a joke? Because the IL-96 is. Maybe the IL and TU shouldnt contract with Engine companies that have products that ARENT 10 + years beyond their time.

[Edited 2006-01-30 19:50:38]
"...Gatwick South!? Id rather crash in Brighton!"
 
pilotaydin
Posts: 2100
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:30 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:49 am

what's the big deal? come to antalya in south turkey and ull see about 250 of these babies a day lol

hot, humid, and packed with tourists, they make it off the ground, yeah they dont clear the 35ft above rule too well  Smile but they're fun to watch

there's not much difference between the 86 and the A340 heading to JFK from IST on a hot summer day, the end of the runway gets a nice blowdry clean.....


an 86 once smashed the localizer in IST after takeoff, the main gears were damaged seriously, but the a/c continued to its destination  Smile
The only time there is too much fuel onboard, is when you're on fire!
 
baw716
Posts: 1463
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:02 pm

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:52 am

A couple of points:
These flights are overweight takeoffs.

Second, had the aircraft that had taken off over the water in the picture at the top had an engine out at rotation, what would have happened? There was no room for error in that takeoff and an engine out there very likely would have resulted in that aircraft going into the water.

Yes, the IL86/96 (especially the 96) are reasonably reliable airplanes. I am just concerned that, someday, someone is going to overload it just enough to drop one from the sky. That would be a tragedy and would set back Russian aviation a very long way.

baw716
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
 
rdwelch
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:52 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:58 am

Quoting Jetflyer (Reply 17):
Those russian planes are awful. Here is a video showing the "great" climb performance of the Il-62.

That was a good video. I don't necessarily agree that Russian aircraft are "awful", just built at a more robust level. The one issue I did have in the video, the perception I had with the close proximity of the seats row to row.
I'm too beefy to be jammed in that.  biggrin 
They say I have ADD, but they don't understand..Oh look! A chicken!
 
Maersk737
Posts: 660
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:37 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:05 am

Quoting Gritzngravee (Reply 40):
don't know too much about Russian Aviation but I do know the Russian aerospace program lost 150 Astronauts on failed missions to or in outerspace. I'm sure the majority of Russian airline pilots recieve their trainning in the military and some go on to the space program. There does seem to be a trend of how should I say, lack of safety, when it comes to some countries aviation policies. I'm not labeling the Russians as careless but one has to wonder why all the big risks!!!!!

What a happy day.... What do we bring up next? Problems in the Russian car industry? We can easily make a parallel to the awful Russian aviation industry
 Wink


Cheers

Peter
I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull
 
Maersk737
Posts: 660
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:37 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:12 am

Quoting Boeingguy1 (Reply 42):
A replacement? Im sorry, is that supposed to be a joke? Because the IL-96 is. Maybe the IL and TU shouldnt contract with Engine companies that have products that ARENT 10 + years beyond their time.


No Joke.... Aeroflot have all kinds of beautiful birds. They sometimes replace the 777 with IL 96.

Cheers

Peter
I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull
 
sovietjet
Posts: 2687
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:32 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:12 am

Russian planes such as the Il-96/Tu-204 are efficient. The reason they aren't popular is because of the stigma associated with them. Also there is problems with the spare parts from the various OKBs. Western companies don't want to buy them because they fear customers wont fly the airline then. More importantly, politics play an even bigger role.

A regular Il-86 takeoff takes no more than 2500m. The same goes for the Il-96. The -86 is outdated by now but still does what the airlines want it to do an that's the important part. One can say the same for the DC-9s and MD-80s flying around. The pictures above show the extremes(high/overloaded TOW, possibly derated t/o, long flight = full fuel load, hot weather, etc...)
 
boeingguy1
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 4:31 am

RE: IL 86/ 96 And Runway Length

Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:14 am

Quoting Maersk737 (Reply 47):
Aeroflot have all kinds of beautiful birds.

Beautiful, yes. Economical? No.
"...Gatwick South!? Id rather crash in Brighton!"

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos