Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
UA735WL
Topic Author
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:08 pm

Il-86 Performance

Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:13 am

Hi folks,

Does anyone have any insight into how well the Il-86 operated from a performance perspective? To my knowledge it is the *only* twin-aisle aircraft ever designed and built with low-bypass engines- I would gather it was a bit underpowered based on the subsequent development of the Il-96 with PS-90 engines. Did it have issues with engine-out performance, or was that a secondary consideration in the USSR? I read on here somewhere that performance charts were not generally consulted when dispatching Soviet types, unless the performance was likely to be *extremely* tight- not sure if that's true, but interesting nonetheless.


Also, does anyone know if the fuel capacity was changed with the Il-96? I know the -86 was generally regarded as having disappointing range, but I took that to be a function of the poor SFc of the NK-86 engines (according to wiki, the Il-86 burned roughly the same amount of fuel in cruise as a 747-200...but its engines produced a little more than half the thrust of those installed on the 747)

Anyone have anything to share about these interesting old types?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Il-86 Performance

Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:17 am

Can’t say which one I ride in ex-SVO to PKC, but the take-off was impressively long and the Earth repelled us at a slow rate. Each fix was announced to us passengers by knocking our heads around as the bank rapidly built, stopped, then just as rapidly returned to level.
 
r6russian
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:12 am

Re: Il-86 Performance

Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:33 am



judging by rotating off the piano keys, its performance would probably make an a343 look like a 757
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Il-86 Performance

Sat Nov 21, 2020 5:24 pm

r6russian wrote:


judging by rotating off the piano keys, its performance would probably make an a343 look like a 757


T/W is (slightly) better than the initial A340-300.
Design and Time wise ( look at the nonbulging wing root fairing ) it is much more a contemporary to the A300 than the A340.
 
bhill
Posts: 1890
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 8:28 am

Re: Il-86 Performance

Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:42 pm

I wonder if a conveyor belt.............................................................................
 
DTVG
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:06 pm

Re: Il-86 Performance

Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:05 pm

I have seen multiple videos/photos where Il-86 are barely able to takeoff the runway (as in post #3). I know the type doesn’t operate anymore (in civilian service), but is it even legal to push an aircraft like that? What about an engine failure? Won’t you have a really low V1 as the runway has been used up? Or are the planes in the pictures operated by some „tough“ guys who just don’t give a damn?
 
DH106
Posts: 662
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:32 pm

Re: Il-86 Performance

Wed Nov 25, 2020 10:05 am

DTVG wrote:
I have seen multiple videos/photos where Il-86 are barely able to takeoff the runway (as in post #3). I know the type doesn’t operate anymore (in civilian service), but is it even legal to push an aircraft like that? What about an engine failure? Won’t you have a really low V1 as the runway has been used up? Or are the planes in the pictures operated by some „tough“ guys who just don’t give a damn?


Perhaps they're doing reduced thrust take offs, as is quite common elsewhere in the industry.
Having said that, they seem to be cutting their margins right down to the limit!
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16318
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Il-86 Performance

Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:07 pm

WIederling wrote:
T/W is (slightly) better than the initial A340-300.
Design and Time wise ( look at the nonbulging wing root fairing ) it is much more a contemporary to the A300 than the A340.


I dont know about that, the A343 actually had pretty good field performance, it was better than say the contemporaries of a similar time like 767-400 or 747-400. You simply didnt need to use maximum thrust on every takeoff so we didnt.

DH106 wrote:
DTVG wrote:
Perhaps they're doing reduced thrust take offs, as is quite common elsewhere in the industry.
Having said that, they seem to be cutting their margins right down to the limit!


If you have ever been to Phuket where that photo is, that end of the runway is actually at the end of a nice 200' slope down to the water. I dont know the circumstances on the day, perhaps they chose to takeoff downhill overwater with a tailwind rather than uphill into wind towards terrain. That would actually result in more payload being uplifted.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Il-86 Performance

Wed Nov 25, 2020 4:07 pm

zeke wrote:
WIederling wrote:
T/W is (slightly) better than the initial A340-300.
Design and Time wise ( look at the nonbulging wing root fairing ) it is much more a contemporary to the A300 than the A340.


I dont know about that, the A343 actually had pretty good field performance, it was better than say the contemporaries of a similar time like 767-400 or 747-400. .


Its one of those alleged faults attached to "Not Invented Here" products.
Lots of energy goes into spinning those yarns and distributing them.
( or sabotaging those products to show that they are not up to snuff :-)
 
BREECH
Posts: 645
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Il-86 Performance

Mon Dec 07, 2020 1:04 pm

Not sure if it adds to the discussion but I'll add my USD0.02.

Il-86 suffered from an identity crisis. Initially it was envisaged as the Soviet A300 to deliver millions of tourists from Moscow airports to the Black Sea - a route with perpetual undercapacity. But then two things were realized. One, the engines were way underpowered. There is a long-standing joke among the Il-86 pilots (all three of them) that the airplane takes off due to the curvature of the Earth. And two, it's a beautiful plane that needs to be "shown to the world". Hence, the Il-96-300 - a stronger powered, longer-range airplane, which, her creators say, has almost nothing to do with the original design despite the identical looks.

I flew it from Moscow to Adler several times, and it's a great plane. For a kid in the 80's it was an awe. I remember as soon as the plane leveled off at the cruise level, the galleys exploded with passenger call dings - the flight attendant button was located on the left armrest while the recline button was on the right.

The Il-86/96 performance SUCKS. The flight DME/SVO-MLE flew non-stop to Male but had to land in Tirivanantapuram to refuel because it couldn't take off with full fuel load from Male airport. Same with Il-86 on Moscow-New York route - had to land in Shannon to refuel.

Hope it helps.
 
airman99o
Posts: 927
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 1999 4:15 am

Re: Il-86 Performance

Thu Dec 17, 2020 6:58 pm

Ah what a beast!!!
With a range of about 3200 kms. It used to refuel in SNN and YQX. For flights into HAV and JFK. I remember the odd time seeing or should I say hearing this roar over head in YQX on our way to the Lake cabin. What a sight to see it slowly gain altitude.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2499
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Il-86 Performance

Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:55 pm

The 96 had a completely new wing with higher span, lower sweep, and per Wikipedia, more fuel capacity as well.

As far as comparisons to the A340, the Il-86 may have had slightly better T/W, but the L/D on takeoff was a lot worse, which probably made the overall performance worse as well. The Il-96-300 is similar to the A342 in many respects (OEW, MTOW, fuel capacity), but has less brochure range. I wonder what factors contributed the most to the difference.
 
CRJockey
Posts: 354
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Il-86 Performance

Fri Dec 18, 2020 8:24 pm

LH707330 wrote:
The 96 had a completely new wing with higher span, lower sweep, and per Wikipedia, more fuel capacity as well.

As far as comparisons to the A340, the Il-86 may have had slightly better T/W, but the L/D on takeoff was a lot worse, which probably made the overall performance worse as well. The Il-96-300 is similar to the A342 in many respects (OEW, MTOW, fuel capacity), but has less brochure range. I wonder what factors contributed the most to the difference.


As Russian designs happen to be quite advanced in aerodynamics, my guess would be mostly from the engines, where Russian designs have lacked state of the art efficiency since basically jet engine inception.
 
744SPX
Posts: 532
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Il-86 Performance

Sat Dec 19, 2020 12:00 am

I think part of the problem was the wing loading was too high for the available engine thrust. It was certainly fast though, and set a number of speed records including carrying a 65 metric ton payload at .92 mach average on a 2000 km closed circuit.

According to Wiki the NK-86A version of the engine was improved somewhat with better fuel economy, TBO, and a little more thrust, but came rather late (1987) RB211-535's would have been perfect for this aircraft.

A cool and rather unique airplane for sure.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2499
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Il-86 Performance

Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:40 am

CRJockey wrote:
LH707330 wrote:
The 96 had a completely new wing with higher span, lower sweep, and per Wikipedia, more fuel capacity as well.

As far as comparisons to the A340, the Il-86 may have had slightly better T/W, but the L/D on takeoff was a lot worse, which probably made the overall performance worse as well. The Il-96-300 is similar to the A342 in many respects (OEW, MTOW, fuel capacity), but has less brochure range. I wonder what factors contributed the most to the difference.


As Russian designs happen to be quite advanced in aerodynamics, my guess would be mostly from the engines, where Russian designs have lacked state of the art efficiency since basically jet engine inception.

I'd be curious, do you have a reference to the L/D for the three types mentioned?

744SPX wrote:
I think part of the problem was the wing loading was too high for the available engine thrust. It was certainly fast though, and set a number of speed records including carrying a 65 metric ton payload at .92 mach average on a 2000 km closed circuit.

According to Wiki the NK-86A version of the engine was improved somewhat with better fuel economy, TBO, and a little more thrust, but came rather late (1987) RB211-535's would have been perfect for this aircraft.

A cool and rather unique airplane for sure.


Funny you mention that: the RB211-535's competitor, the PW2000, made it onto the later Il-96M. Minus the nose, it looked quite sharp IMHO.
 
CRJockey
Posts: 354
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Il-86 Performance

Sun Dec 20, 2020 9:14 am

LH707330 wrote:
l/d


Sorry, anecdotal evidence without any supporting link I find quickly.
A previous life I made an intensive study project regarding propulsion efficiency and use of alternate fuels, including soviet design engines. The take from that, quite obvious for a casual observer by the severe lack of range for soviet types, was the ludicrous TSFC of the NK86 hampering IL86 performance. And the continued lack of a state of the art powerplant all the way through the 2000s.

The wings and aerodynamics however were never the problem.

Ps: nice user name airline and type combo!
 
tu144d
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 11:39 pm

Re: Il-86 Performance

Sun Dec 20, 2020 7:23 pm

BREECH wrote:
Not sure if it adds to the discussion but I'll add my USD0.02.

Il-86 suffered from an identity crisis. Initially it was envisaged as the Soviet A300 to deliver millions of tourists from Moscow airports to the Black Sea - a route with perpetual undercapacity. But then two things were realized. One, the engines were way underpowered. There is a long-standing joke among the Il-86 pilots (all three of them) that the airplane takes off due to the curvature of the Earth. And two, it's a beautiful plane that needs to be "shown to the world". Hence, the Il-96-300 - a stronger powered, longer-range airplane, which, her creators say, has almost nothing to do with the original design despite the identical looks.

I flew it from Moscow to Adler several times, and it's a great plane. For a kid in the 80's it was an awe. I remember as soon as the plane leveled off at the cruise level, the galleys exploded with passenger call dings - the flight attendant button was located on the left armrest while the recline button was on the right.

The Il-86/96 performance SUCKS. The flight DME/SVO-MLE flew non-stop to Male but had to land in Tirivanantapuram to refuel because it couldn't take off with full fuel load from Male airport. Same with Il-86 on Moscow-New York route - had to land in Shannon to refuel.

Hope it helps.


I believe the 86 had to stop at both SNN and YQX to do JFK same as HAV. There was a wonderful thread a long while back about all the defections at Gander from SU passengers transiting through there including someone marrying a defector. She was told not go on an Il-62m because it could do SNN-HAV nonstop but the 86 had to stop at Gander. Still, It seemed like a tank with an enviable safety record and useful as a wide body on trunk routes. Wish I had had the privilege to ride on one.

PS. Way before I was born, as an aside, my dad was an Aerospace Enginner working for the Indian Space agency in Trivandrum. My mom tells me it was a nice place.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2499
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Il-86 Performance

Mon Dec 21, 2020 1:56 am

CRJockey wrote:
LH707330 wrote:
l/d


Sorry, anecdotal evidence without any supporting link I find quickly.
A previous life I made an intensive study project regarding propulsion efficiency and use of alternate fuels, including soviet design engines. The take from that, quite obvious for a casual observer by the severe lack of range for soviet types, was the ludicrous TSFC of the NK86 hampering IL86 performance. And the continued lack of a state of the art powerplant all the way through the 2000s.

The wings and aerodynamics however were never the problem.

Ps: nice user name airline and type combo!

Thanks! Indeed the SFC of the 86 was awful, but the wing sweep of 35 degrees likely hurt the L/D a bit. The 96 had a reduced sweep, very similar to the A340. Maybe the PS-90 has worse burn than the CFM56-5C, or the bus has other aerodynamic tricks that help it, like a thicker wing and deliberately low cruise speed.
 
User avatar
mach144
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2018 10:28 am

Re: Il-86 Performance

Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:31 pm

Joe Sutter, father of the B-747, has helped Ilyushin a little bit...

https://www.flightglobal.com/boeing-747 ... 85.article

"His preference for mounting engines underneath the wings would have a lasting impact on the industry beyond Boeing. Meeting Ilyushin designers at the 1971 Paris air show, Sutter was shown an early design of the Il-86, Russia’s answer to the 747-100. Surprisingly, it was to have aft-mounted engines. Sutter explained to the Ilyushin designers why he had selected wing-mounted engines for the 747, using a tablecloth to scribble drawings and equations. The Russians folded up the tablecloth and took it with them. Never again was the Il-86 seen with fuselage-mounted engines."
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Il-86 Performance

Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:54 pm

have you heard about IL-22 (first)?
Image
 
BREECH
Posts: 645
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Il-86 Performance

Tue Dec 22, 2020 9:16 pm

mach144 wrote:
Joe Sutter, father of the B-747, has helped Ilyushin a little bit...

https://www.flightglobal.com/boeing-747 ... 85.article

"His preference for mounting engines underneath the wings would have a lasting impact on the industry beyond Boeing. Meeting Ilyushin designers at the 1971 Paris air show, Sutter was shown an early design of the Il-86, Russia’s answer to the 747-100. Surprisingly, it was to have aft-mounted engines. Sutter explained to the Ilyushin designers why he had selected wing-mounted engines for the 747, using a tablecloth to scribble drawings and equations. The Russians folded up the tablecloth and took it with them. Never again was the Il-86 seen with fuselage-mounted engines."

This is as BS as BS goes.

"Russians" were allowed to talk to an American aircraft designer and show him their future designs? And visa versa!? The 20-year-old apprentice writer in FlightGlobal could actually believe that. But anyone who lived during the Cold War knows that would be impossible. CIA would be paranoid that "Russians" would kidnap Sutter, and KGB would be worried about "leaks" to the West. Come on.

Ilyushin didn't need Sutter's "drawings and equations" - Il-76, which flew in 1971, already had underwing engines.

Despite being a total lie, this story, however, has a very remote piece of truth in it. USSR needed a plane larger than Il-62. And the initial idea was to stretch it. So the very first sketches were of a longer Il-62 with, yes, engines in the back. The idea was quickly abandoned but was mentioned in numerous books and articles. FlightGlobal, being a reliable source it is, simply connected the two and created a fantasy hoping that no one would notice and some would even quote it. Shame.
 
schernov
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 8:41 pm

Re: Il-86 Performance

Wed Dec 23, 2020 3:41 am

There are couple articles referencing a few tales:
1) Originally USSR was going to purchase a bunch of TRistars. And license them for assembly. That agreement was locked by US.
2) when IL86 dev started there was no goo engine. They tried to buy a few RR engines. UK would not sell as they were afraid of designs being copied. They insisted on at least 100 units. So that failed.
3) underwing engine was a political issue. It was capitalistic design which was tough to swallow but finally approved
4) there is some truth to the informal meeting between IL and Boeing designer at Paris air show where certain design elements were traded. Both ways.
5) ultimately IL86 was suppose to have been flagship carrier for Moscow 80 Olympics. It was late.

The plane did well domestically on medium routes in dense 300-350 single class config. It did not require stairs for loading and had portion of bottom deck for extra hand ligguage. Same as Tristar.

I flew it couple times from VKO to SIP (UKFF) and it was excellent. SU used it on SVO- Tashkent - Delhi runs for a long time in 2 class configuration.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14638
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Il-86 Performance

Wed Dec 23, 2020 7:42 am

Armadillo1 wrote:
have you heard about IL-22 (first)?


i would guess the Ar 234 V6 was the first...

best regards
Thomas
 
User avatar
mach144
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2018 10:28 am

Re: Il-86 Performance

Wed Dec 23, 2020 4:44 pm

Source about Sutter's involvement in Il-86 design from the other side of the 'iron curtain':

https://mytashkent.uz/2020/09/05/dzho-satter/

Translated excerpt about Boeing - Ilyushin meetings at aerosalons in France and UK:

Genrikh Novozhilov (head of the Ilyushin Design Bureau) in his interviews for mass media many times emphasised his acquaintance with Joe Sutter, for one thing in his biography »About me and planes«
(russ.: «О себе и самолетах»), Moscow, 2011. Novozhilov writes: »In December, 2006 have passed 30 years since the first flight of an airliner Il-86 from Frunze Central Aerodrome in Moscow. In TV series ´Aviators´, dedicated to wide-body airliner on a russian NTV Channel , moderator asked my longtime friend Joe Sutter - with whom I built strong fellowship - about mounting engines on Il-86's wing .
Joe said: »I proposed Genrikh to hung engines on pylons and immediately received a big bottle of vodka«… Correctly, (says Novozhilov) at our meetings in Paris and London and during my visit in Boeing Company in 1972 at that time we were familiar enough that I put him many questions about pylons and about outer engine failure possibility. There really was a lot to learn from him, an outstanding american designer who created a B-747. I will be forever grateful to destiny for our longtime unobstructed friendship despite the 'iron curtain'.
 
BREECH
Posts: 645
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Il-86 Performance

Wed Dec 23, 2020 6:45 pm

mach144 wrote:
Source about Sutter's involvement in Il-86 design from the other side of the 'iron curtain':

That is a private blog. And this "source", too, completely ignores Il-76 with its underwing engines. But you are, by all means, free to believe whatever you want.
 
User avatar
mach144
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2018 10:28 am

Re: Il-86 Performance

Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:27 pm

Russian TV series ´Aviators´ from December, 2006, where Joe Sutter comments his involvement in Il-86 engine configuration (starts at 13:47):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYNY7Yk ... N&index=14
 
CRJockey
Posts: 354
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Il-86 Performance

Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:51 pm

mach144 wrote:
Russian TV series ´Aviators´ from December, 2006, where Joe Sutter comments his involvement in Il-86 engine configuration (starts at 13:47):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYNY7Yk ... N&index=14


I wonder, however, what possibly could have been on the napkin drawing. I mean, all the world could "see" the underslung configuration and I have no a doubt for a second, russian/soviet aviation scientists could work out the difference in load distribution that implies on frame & wing vs tail config.
 
Zeke2517
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:29 pm

Re: Il-86 Performance

Sun Dec 27, 2020 8:01 pm

CRJockey wrote:
mach144 wrote:
Russian TV series ´Aviators´ from December, 2006, where Joe Sutter comments his involvement in Il-86 engine configuration (starts at 13:47):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYNY7Yk ... N&index=14


I wonder, however, what possibly could have been on the napkin drawing. I mean, all the world could "see" the underslung configuration and I have no a doubt for a second, russian/soviet aviation scientists could work out the difference in load distribution that implies on frame & wing vs tail config.


People really like hearing about things written on napkins.
 
CRJockey
Posts: 354
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Il-86 Performance

Sun Dec 27, 2020 8:20 pm

Zeke2517 wrote:
CRJockey wrote:
mach144 wrote:
Russian TV series ´Aviators´ from December, 2006, where Joe Sutter comments his involvement in Il-86 engine configuration (starts at 13:47):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYNY7Yk ... N&index=14


I wonder, however, what possibly could have been on the napkin drawing. I mean, all the world could "see" the underslung configuration and I have no a doubt for a second, russian/soviet aviation scientists could work out the difference in load distribution that implies on frame & wing vs tail config.


People really like hearing about things written on napkins.


The napkin must not be taken literally. Even whatever napkin has been figuratively drawn on I still wonder what the special secret about underslung engines should have been the soviets wouldn’t be able to figure out themselves.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2499
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Il-86 Performance

Mon Dec 28, 2020 6:09 pm

CRJockey wrote:
Zeke2517 wrote:
CRJockey wrote:

I wonder, however, what possibly could have been on the napkin drawing. I mean, all the world could "see" the underslung configuration and I have no a doubt for a second, russian/soviet aviation scientists could work out the difference in load distribution that implies on frame & wing vs tail config.


People really like hearing about things written on napkins.


The napkin must not be taken literally. Even whatever napkin has been figuratively drawn on I still wonder what the special secret about underslung engines should have been the soviets wouldn’t be able to figure out themselves.

Probably how to optimize detailed design elements like positioning, outboard mounts to reduce flutter, etc. and some specifics. Boeing had early issues with the twist and counterweights on the 747, and Airbus later struggled on the 340 before adding the plastron. The Russians were probably aware of the B-47's layout a few decades earlier, so the basic idea was not new, the devil's always in the details. As Lightsaber would say, they needed to get from TRL6 to TRL9....
 
BREECH
Posts: 645
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Il-86 Performance

Wed Dec 30, 2020 7:15 pm

LH707330 wrote:
Probably how to optimize detailed design elements like positioning, outboard mounts to reduce flutter, etc. and some specifics. Boeing had early issues with the twist and counterweights on the 747, and Airbus later struggled on the 340 before adding the plastron. The Russians were probably aware of the B-47's layout a few decades earlier, so the basic idea was not new, the devil's always in the details. As Lightsaber would say, they needed to get from TRL6 to TRL9....

Considering the fact that Sutter had to use electronic "crutches" to counter flutter problems, was it really worth the cost of the napkin? 747 was far from an ideal or even simply a good airplane. It was rushed into production, rushed through testing, etc, etc, etc. Heck, they were afraid it wouldn't be able to fly to the Paris Airshow on its first outing. It's horribly overweight and overengineered. If you learn from someone, you should learn from the best.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 454
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Il-86 Performance

Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:51 am

BREECH wrote:
Considering the fact that Sutter had to use electronic "crutches" to counter flutter problems, was it really worth the cost of the napkin? 747 was far from an ideal or even simply a good airplane. It was rushed into production, rushed through testing, etc, etc, etc. Heck, they were afraid it wouldn't be able to fly to the Paris Airshow on its first outing. It's horribly overweight and overengineered. If you learn from someone, you should learn from the best.


Interesting viewpoints... I can't say I agree with a single one!
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20755
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Il-86 Performance

Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:12 am

BREECH wrote:
LH707330 wrote:
Probably how to optimize detailed design elements like positioning, outboard mounts to reduce flutter, etc. and some specifics. Boeing had early issues with the twist and counterweights on the 747, and Airbus later struggled on the 340 before adding the plastron. The Russians were probably aware of the B-47's layout a few decades earlier, so the basic idea was not new, the devil's always in the details. As Lightsaber would say, they needed to get from TRL6 to TRL9....

Considering the fact that Sutter had to use electronic "crutches" to counter flutter problems, was it really worth the cost of the napkin? 747 was far from an ideal or even simply a good airplane. It was rushed into production, rushed through testing, etc, etc, etc. Heck, they were afraid it wouldn't be able to fly to the Paris Airshow on its first outing. It's horribly overweight and overengineered. If you learn from someone, you should learn from the best.


I can't recall hearing of any flutter issues, or electronic fixes for them, on the original 747. Do you have a source?

The 747 may be a heavy aircraft by modern standards, but for the time it was very much cutting edge. One could argue it was overengineered, but that was on purpose. Nothing like it had never been built before.
 
BREECH
Posts: 645
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Il-86 Performance

Thu Dec 31, 2020 12:42 pm

Starlionblue wrote:
I can't recall hearing of any flutter issues, or electronic fixes for them, on the original 747. Do you have a source?

The 747 may be a heavy aircraft by modern standards, but for the time it was very much cutting edge. One could argue it was overengineered, but that was on purpose. Nothing like it had never been built before.

I don't have a reliable source on hand, but the infamous depleted uranium counterweights on Boeing 747 are pretty well-known.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Il-86 Performance

Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:47 pm

Lots of planes use DU as counterweights, not problem there.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 454
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Il-86 Performance

Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:05 pm

BREECH wrote:
I don't have a reliable source on hand, but the infamous depleted uranium counterweights on Boeing 747 are pretty well-known.


Ah yes, the "infamous" counterweights are surely damning of the 747's otherwise sterling career... Ignoring the fact that all other airliners use counterweights of some form or another (tungsten, for instance, although it's less dense and, hence, less efficient than DU), or that the uranium counterweights are only hazardous to your health if you handle them after they've been damaged in a crash AND THEN you don't wash your hands AND THEN you put your fingers in your mouth. Or if you sniff the damaged particles like a line of coke. Otherwise they're fine.

Rushed through production and testing? Are you talking about the DC-10? Overengineered? Are you speaking of the L1011?

The Paris concerns were engine related (thanks Pratt!), but otherwise your points are pretty overblown. You're gonna need to try harder or make specific arguments rather than looking at a 55 year old design with 2020 glasses and scoffing at how much better it could've been done today - with the knowledge gained by making the 747 in the first place. Knowledge the Russians simply didn't have, at least until their rendezvous in Paris and their purloining of that tablecloth.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Il-86 Performance

Thu Dec 31, 2020 10:04 pm

I’d add I have yet to fly a jet without some form of electronic “crutches”—stab augmentation, yaw damper, fly by wire, stick shakers and pushers. Overblown opinion is correct.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2499
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Il-86 Performance

Fri Jan 01, 2021 2:38 am

Starlionblue wrote:
BREECH wrote:
LH707330 wrote:
Probably how to optimize detailed design elements like positioning, outboard mounts to reduce flutter, etc. and some specifics. Boeing had early issues with the twist and counterweights on the 747, and Airbus later struggled on the 340 before adding the plastron. The Russians were probably aware of the B-47's layout a few decades earlier, so the basic idea was not new, the devil's always in the details. As Lightsaber would say, they needed to get from TRL6 to TRL9....

Considering the fact that Sutter had to use electronic "crutches" to counter flutter problems, was it really worth the cost of the napkin? 747 was far from an ideal or even simply a good airplane. It was rushed into production, rushed through testing, etc, etc, etc. Heck, they were afraid it wouldn't be able to fly to the Paris Airshow on its first outing. It's horribly overweight and overengineered. If you learn from someone, you should learn from the best.


I can't recall hearing of any flutter issues, or electronic fixes for them, on the original 747. Do you have a source?

The 747 may be a heavy aircraft by modern standards, but for the time it was very much cutting edge. One could argue it was overengineered, but that was on purpose. Nothing like it had never been built before.

Maybe confused with the OAMS on the 747-8? I'd like to see a reference for any electronic fixes in the 1970s before buying that line.

For its day, the 747 was among the best designs, not sure where this overweight and over-engineered idea is coming from.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Il-86 Performance

Fri Jan 01, 2021 11:40 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Armadillo1 wrote:
have you heard about IL-22 (first)?


i would guess the Ar 234 V6 was the first...

look at any of the German multi engine jet something projects in the final year of WWII
Ju 287, some others with morphing positions for the engine placement

..and ..
actually and apparently continuation of the HE 343 project.

What later was reinvented* by some crafty Brit in the US was long
known in German aerodynamic research ( and found at least projected application )

For the US and the Soviets the borrowing path is obvious.
( Guess where Boeing got its early post war jet bomber layouts from :-)

* using engines as shockbodies, area rule, super critical profiles.
 
M564038
Posts: 654
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:16 am

Re: Il-86 Performance

Fri Jan 01, 2021 3:12 pm

The Sutter/Boeing engineers trading «secrets» or rather exchanging ideas with similar and friendly collegaues from the east is quite widely covered in his biography. Which is a great read for numerous reasons.

These kind of exchanges weren’t as uncommon as many people think. It happened in a lot of businesses. Not really THAT different from meeting up with someone from a direct competitor working on a product competing with yours. And that happens all the time.
 
BREECH
Posts: 645
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Il-86 Performance

Fri Jan 01, 2021 5:59 pm

M564038 wrote:
The Sutter/Boeing engineers trading «secrets» or rather exchanging ideas with similar and friendly collegaues from the east is quite widely covered in his biography. Which is a great read for numerous reasons.

These kind of exchanges weren’t as uncommon as many people think. It happened in a lot of businesses. Not really THAT different from meeting up with someone from a direct competitor working on a product competing with yours. And that happens all the time.

I honestly don't know how common meetings of American and Soviet engineers were, but "meeting up with someone from a direct competitor working on a product competing with yours" is a direct violation of anti-trust laws, and as such I doubt it happens all that much.
 
M564038
Posts: 654
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:16 am

Re: Il-86 Performance

Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:16 pm

Oh, come on!
Trade shows! Dinners! Courses! Congresses! Alumni meet ups! Friends of friends! There are a gazillion ways you could meet and in all friendliness have 2 glasses of wine and be all nerdy.
You’ll know, more or less, where to stop of course, depending on your business.

BREECH wrote:
M564038 wrote:
The Sutter/Boeing engineers trading «secrets» or rather exchanging ideas with similar and friendly collegaues from the east is quite widely covered in his biography. Which is a great read for numerous reasons.

These kind of exchanges weren’t as uncommon as many people think. It happened in a lot of businesses. Not really THAT different from meeting up with someone from a direct competitor working on a product competing with yours. And that happens all the time.

I honestly don't know how common meetings of American and Soviet engineers were, but "meeting up with someone from a direct competitor working on a product competing with yours" is a direct violation of anti-trust laws, and as such I doubt it happens all that much.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 454
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Il-86 Performance

Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:39 pm

BREECH wrote:
I honestly don't know how common meetings of American and Soviet engineers were, but "meeting up with someone from a direct competitor working on a product competing with yours" is a direct violation of anti-trust laws, and as such I doubt it happens all that much.


Are you sure you don't know? A few posts up you seemed certain it was impossible as you waved the BS flag at the whole idea. Your source apparently being that you were alive during the Cold War and you've seen too many James Bond movies, then you mocked the well-known (in aviation news circles) 40-something year old article writer as a "20 year old apprentice".

They're more common than you think, and the concept is well founded in scientific circles, too: it's how problems are solved.
 
BREECH
Posts: 645
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Il-86 Performance

Fri Jan 01, 2021 9:35 pm

M564038 wrote:
Oh, come on!
Trade shows! Dinners! Courses! Congresses! Alumni meet ups! Friends of friends! There are a gazillion ways you could meet and in all friendliness have 2 glasses of wine and be all nerdy.
You’ll know, more or less, where to stop of course, depending on your business.

Have you ever read an "Ethics code" of any serious company? It clearly warns against sharing ideas with competitors. And it specifically mentions trade shows, dinners, courses and congresses.
 
BREECH
Posts: 645
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Il-86 Performance

Fri Jan 01, 2021 9:37 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
Are you sure you don't know? A few posts up you seemed certain it was impossible as you waved the BS flag at the whole idea. Your source apparently being that you were alive during the Cold War and you've seen too many James Bond movies, then you mocked the well-known (in aviation news circles) 40-something year old article writer as a "20 year old apprentice".

They're more common than you think, and the concept is well founded in scientific circles, too: it's how problems are solved.

Usually scientific problems are solved by debating the idea, not the opponent. You should try it.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 454
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Il-86 Performance

Fri Jan 01, 2021 9:54 pm

BREECH wrote:
LyleLanley wrote:
Are you sure you don't know? A few posts up you seemed certain it was impossible as you waved the BS flag at the whole idea. Your source apparently being that you were alive during the Cold War and you've seen too many James Bond movies, then you mocked the well-known (in aviation news circles) 40-something year old article writer as a "20 year old apprentice".

They're more common than you think, and the concept is well founded in scientific circles, too: it's how problems are solved.

Usually scientific problems are solved by debating the idea, not the opponent. You should try it.


Usually scientists try to be open-minded on topics they know nothing about. You should also try it.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20755
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Il-86 Performance

Sat Jan 02, 2021 1:04 am

BREECH wrote:
M564038 wrote:
Oh, come on!
Trade shows! Dinners! Courses! Congresses! Alumni meet ups! Friends of friends! There are a gazillion ways you could meet and in all friendliness have 2 glasses of wine and be all nerdy.
You’ll know, more or less, where to stop of course, depending on your business.

Have you ever read an "Ethics code" of any serious company? It clearly warns against sharing ideas with competitors. And it specifically mentions trade shows, dinners, courses and congresses.


There are ideas and there are ideas.

Engine placement is hardly a secret, and the fundamental physics principles would be easy to understand for an aircraft designer. Discussin the basics of engine placement is not the same as sharing proprietary data on flight control logic or the particularities of wing spar alloys.

Back when going to trade shows was a big part of my job, I'd absolutely go talk to the competition. Neither they nor I would reveal proprietary data, but we'd get to know each other's products, and talk pros and cons of ours versus theirs. This was information that we were sharing with potential customers all day long anyway.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1855
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Il-86 Performance

Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:24 pm

BREECH wrote:
LyleLanley wrote:
Are you sure you don't know? A few posts up you seemed certain it was impossible as you waved the BS flag at the whole idea. Your source apparently being that you were alive during the Cold War and you've seen too many James Bond movies, then you mocked the well-known (in aviation news circles) 40-something year old article writer as a "20 year old apprentice".

They're more common than you think, and the concept is well founded in scientific circles, too: it's how problems are solved.

Usually scientific problems are solved by debating the idea, not the opponent. You should try it.


Breech you've really made quite a name for yourself on a.net with these hot takes about what is/is not believable over the past month (here and military). Not sure why you are so convinced of your pre-conceptions/beliefs but we tend not to call people liars here just because we disagree on any given detail/story.

I'm pretty sure the Sutter story with respect to the IL-86 planform has been told/validated on both sides over the past 40 years repeatedly. Have a nice day.
 
BREECH
Posts: 645
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Il-86 Performance

Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:09 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Breech you've really made quite a name for yourself on a.net with these hot takes about what is/is not believable over the past month (here and military). Not sure why you are so convinced of your pre-conceptions/beliefs but we tend not to call people liars here just because we disagree on any given detail/story.

I'm pretty sure the Sutter story with respect to the IL-86 planform has been told/validated on both sides over the past 40 years repeatedly. Have a nice day.

If you believe something is true doesn't make it so. This story has never been validated by anyone. You, too, have a nice day.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 454
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Il-86 Performance

Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:22 pm

BREECH wrote:
If you believe something is true doesn't make it so. This story has never been validated by anyone. You, too, have a nice day.


Dude... If you'd take a moment to read or view literally any of the links posted above you would be better off...

The head of Ilyushin said it's true. The designer of the 747 said it's true. YOU are the only person here saying it's not true. Think about that.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: IgorD and 12 guests

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