IL-62 question
 

Could anyone explain the 'slope' on the tail??

A certain Mr. Clarkson got into a lot of trouble for using that word.

'Angle' might be a better word.

Sorry, there should be a photo there!

Am puzzled how to make it appear!

http://vliegtuighomepage.nl/il62su.jpg

That shows it clearly.

That's great! Many thanks.

Yourself or anyone explain the 'angle' ??

It's an all-flying tailplane. It isn't always in that position:-

Photos: Ilyushin Il-62M Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

I notice it only seems to be at that position whilst taxying?

There are very many reasons why a pilot might choose to pull the controls back when on the ground.

Like the VC 10, it's a beautiful machine. I assume that if you are designing airliners with 4 rear-mounted engines and a T Tail there are bound to be similarities. With these two were the similarities purely a coincidence of the fundamental design, or partly through industrial espionage as with Concorde/Tu 144?

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../4/0249405.jpg

To me, this does not look like an all-flying tail. Rather like a conventional elevator on a variable incidence tailplane as is standard on transonic airliners.

The picture that was posted by the thread starter rather looks like an extremely nose-up trim setting.

TU114 if you are right those are the smallest elevators ever in relation to the size of aircraft!

Correct. In fact the elevator, like all the other flying control surfaces on the Il-62, is manually powered via servo tabs.

joy ride

Largely industrial espionage, I believe.

Thanks, by "them" on "us" I presume; by "us" I understand that we did have post-WW2 technical "help" from German sources!

The Ilyushin 62 / VC10ski was a beautiful aircraft. That picture of the LOT aircraft brings back memories.

Quote
In fact the elevator, like all the other flying control surfaces on the Il-62, is manually powered via servo tabs.

The running joke in period was that the five-man flight crew was needed to power the manual controls. We thought of it as a coxed four, with four pilots and a commissar who would instruct them when to "heave"

Do I take it that, like "Concordski" this "copy" might have been bigger and had a greater range but was less advanced technically? Pretty sure I know the answer, just want to be certain!

Well, the Ilyushin shares the overall configuration with the VC-10, but aerodynamically and technically, the two types are rather different. To begin with, the fuselage has a circular cross-section on the Ilyushin vs. the double-bubble on the VC-10. The wings are not nearly similar either; compare the elaborate system on the VC-10 with the more simple single-slotted flaps and the sawtooth instead of the slats on the Ilyushin. In fact, in Interflug service the Ilyushin was noted for its rather high approach speed - not really a sign of a "hot and high" craft like the VC-10. Other external details like the only slightly swept tailfin and more rectangular horizontal stabilizer of the Ilyushin vs. the whale fluke of the VC-10 do not point to a carbon copy either. Neither does the retractable tail wheel on the Ilyushin - the engineers at Vickers apparently saw no problem with tail tipping during loading and offloading unlike their Soviet colleagues.

Navigation system wise, the Il-62 seemed to struggle with the low-tech I-11 INS equipment (coming from Soviet nuclear subs!) that not only is said to have taken ages to erect, but also required loading and boarding to wait until the INS was up and running. For North Atlantic routes, Interflug used CMA-771 Omega navigation devices bought from the Canadian class enemy, because the INS could not provide the required accuracy. As only a few of these units were available, they were rotated between aircraft as needed.

And I also have not heard about the VC-10 being plagued with the Conways not reaching their advertised TBOs unlike especially the NK-8 on the non-M Ilyushins. LOT had to find out the hard way that there is a reason why a NK8 should not be on the wing respective tail for too long.

But nevertheless, and here I better don my asbestos suit against the inevitable flames, I think the Il-62 surpasses the VC-10 a little bit in elegance and good looks.

Thanks Tu! The "whale fluke" tail is what decides the matter for me (just) looks-wise!

Clearly there are differences in styling, but also the 10 was intended for "hot and high" routes which needed particular characteristics.

Interesting thread.
in my spotting days the 62 was always a favourite-a very good looking aircraft and some nice colour schemes -especially the Czech OK jets . A very cool spool up noise to prior to take off . Mind you the VC ten-especially the super also looked great with nose down stance and the howl building to thunder of the four conways .

I was lucky enough to fly on a 62, mildly anxious because of the exploding NK turbo fans, on a trip from London to Prague in the early 70s. Nicely furnished interior , nice crew , free wonderful Czech beer just after take off. A quiet relaxing plane to travel in as indeed the VC 10 was .

of course back in the day LHR had a wonderful selection of aircraft types on any given day which design advances and consolidation have caused to vanish so that essentially we live in a world of 737 -200s with ever increasing lengths and ever fatter engines. technological marvels but a bit boring.

I cannot recall seeing a LOT 62 but Aeroflot and CSA yes , and being thrilled to run into an Interflug example doing a charter to Paris, best of all a North Korean State transport at Arlanda and most recently-though a few years back a Russian State at LHR.. Did anyone other than the three mentioned operate into LHR-