Wikiposts
Search
Spectators Balcony (Spotters Corner) If you're not a professional pilot but want to discuss issues about the job, this is the best place to loiter. You won't be moved on by 'security' and there'll be plenty of experts to answer any questions.

Il-96-300

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 3rd Apr 2009, 14:49
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Manchester
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Il-96-300

I suppse this a bit of double-question thread, but has anyone either piloted or been a passenger on the Il-96-300? What are your thoughts on it?

Also, how come it is so unpopular among western carriers - reliability? Availability of parts?

Soz if a stupid question!

Rgds.
TeddyRuxpin is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2009, 14:56
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: 28°12′N 177°21′W
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It looks to much like an A340. And no one likes the French.
BSmuppet is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2009, 18:29
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ignore the muppet - rumour has it he's the personification of a certain virus that was due to be released on April 1 and has afflicted Pprune.

The IL-96 has never attained sales success for a number reasons. Ilyushin, like other Soviet era design bureaus, had a great deal of financial and production problems to overcome after the end of the Soviet Union.

Then the break up of Aeroflot left a massive surplus of passenger aircraft available to the raft of airlines that were spawned - many rather tatty but cheap.

Aeroflot, in its much reduced form, went for 767s and 777s and the other major players really wanted western equipment.

That killed the home market. The old Warsaw Pact airlines all went to Airbus and Boeing and, even if Ilyushin had had the money to build in reasonable quantities, the lack of experience of Russian types in many markets was against them and, in the markets that may have been interested - Iran, parts of Africa, Cuba and S America, the reliability of previously operated Russian transports had not been exactly high so there has been only a tiny number taken up.

As it stands, it seems the aircraft itself performs rather well.
philbky is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2009, 11:48
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NE Surrey, UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Slight thread drift I'm afraid but I did have the chance once to crawl over an early Aeroflot IL86 at LHR back in the late '80s. Two things struck me about it at the time:
  1. one entered it via a door at baggage hold level (a la VC25A) and could load one's own bags there before going up a staircase to the main deck. I can't help thinking that MO'L would approve of this feature!
  2. the interior was decorated with a huge amount of wooden trim - stair handrails, overhead locker and partition edgings and so on - that must have added significant weight but certainly differentiated it from its plastic western counterparts.
Seloco is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2009, 12:31
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,677
Likes: 0
Received 43 Likes on 23 Posts
Same as for other ex-Soviet types, they are just too non-standard, notwithstanding that they may actually be good, well designed aircraft. This means there are no parts holdings round the world, no sims anywhere for the crews to use outside the one in Moscow, etc. There's even a lack of documentation and manuals in languages other than Russian, which few overseas engineers speak. It becomes just too difficult to run a non-standard type. Even Aeroflot let go for nternational operations once they were able to get access to Boeing and Airbus.

In the old Soviet days, the fleet was flown overseas with a substantial set of spares in the hold and a flight engineer (sometimes two) who could do the stuff with them. Nowadays that is all seen as unnecessary cost.

Aeroflot and others can continue to operate them within Russia for the opposite reasons, that as the types are still common there they can get spares, appropriately licenced engineers, etc, at their various points.

It's something that Airbus realised when they started out in the 1970s, that support round the place was key to getting acceptance, and it is a huge long-term punt. It's notable that the early Airbus sales that got them going were in places which already had contacts with Toulouse, and support arrangements in place for the old Aerospatiale Caravelle, and those could be carried forward, plus they used a lot of standard western products on the aircraft anyway, and engines from mainstream western rather than unknown Soviet manufacturers. It would be a lot harder nowadays. Bombardier's RJ did it on the back of their existing arrangements for business jets, and Embraer's equivalent from their various prop types which had sold well.
WHBM is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.