Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Not only payload capability but cargo compartment dimensions (and specially height and width) define the capabilities of a transport plane. So a stretched Il-76 is not a substitute for an Il-106/An-22, it could not even fit a tank.
+48
Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E
Robert.V
lancelot
Krepost
Russian_Patriot_
Tsavo Lion
Rodion_Romanovic
mnztr
slasher
flamming_python
Admin
Truck
Gazputin
Isos
DerWolf
dino00
franco
Hole
marcellogo
eehnie
LMFS
JohninMK
eridan
*BobStanley
Cyberspec
kvs
SeigSoloyvov
AMCXXL
Rmf
T-47
Firebird
Kimppis
miketheterrible
magnumcromagnon
KiloGolf
Project Canada
George1
TheArmenian
d_taddei2
Dorfmeister
Giulio
victor1985
wilhelm
PapaDragon
GarryB
Svyatoslavich
Berkut
par far
52 posters
Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)
LMFS- Posts : 5146
Points : 5142
Join date : 2018-03-03
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5960
Points : 5912
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
Russian tanks r already where they need to be, & can be delivered by rail & sea; so far, I don't recall them being deployed in large #s by An-22/124s anywhere. IL-76s can still take smaller vehicles and helos.
Stretch revives Il-76 prospects
Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:24 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add link)
GarryB- Posts : 40436
Points : 40936
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The difference is only 0.1m=10cm. They didn't want to spend extra $ & time stretching it more.
Well doesn't that answer your question... if they didn't bother stretching it then why both now?
For extra capacity, they may just widen the fuselage on some future IL-476s if the IL-106 is shelved.
Stretching is can be as simple as adding a fuselage section behind the wing.... making it wider is vastly more complex and would definitely be something you did because you had to do... ie someone really fucked up the original design...
this been done already by 2.12m on the Boeing Dreamlifter .
I doubt they widened existing models... they more likely just changed the design to make the aircraft wider and then produced them in that new form.
A stretched & widened IL-476 won't need as much $ to develop in Russia & will save more $ on the IL- 106 development & testing. Moreover, having them will prolong the service life of their AN-124s.
If they didn't have an Il-106 in development then they might have to look at widened or stretched Il-476s, but the existence of the Il-106 means stretching and making wider is redundant.
They don't want or need to prolong the service life of their An-124s... they ultimately want to replace their An-124s.
yeah but it will never be able to carry as much as a il106 anyway. At maximum it could end up as a sort of y20 equivalent (but with better engines). It may be useful, but i thought Russia would have liked something bigger.
There is no point in pissing money away trying to make an Il-476 into an Il-106... it would just be a stupid waste of time and money and it would make the Il-476 more expensive to make and operate because it will essentially have the body size and shape of a larger class of aircraft.
The money on the il106 is not wasted, if this is what they want. Some of the loads that are a bit too wide (but not too long or too heavy) could be even carried on a tu330
X2
If needed, a stretched & widened IL-476 could be stretched & widened again to approach the IL-106 size. Although smaller, there is also a design of Y-20F-100 .
True, but very very unlikely considering they are already funding the production of the Il-106 which is a longer wider Il-476 with much more powerful engines...
Il-76M length: 46,6 m payload , 47 tons
Il-76MD length: 53,2 m payload , 47 tons
Il-76MD-90A length: 53,2 m , payload 62 tons
Which clearly shows the stretch does not increase payload weight capacity it just creates greater internal volume... it was the introduction of new engines that increased the payload capacity...
If the C-141 was stretched by 7.11m & IL-76M by 6.6m to make the MD variant & further 6.6м to make the MF variant with 60T payload, IMO the IL-76MD & IL-476 could also be stretched by at least 6.6м more, esp. since they now have better & more powerful engines. That could add ~12Ts to its 60T payload, making it 72Ts, only 5Ts less than on the C-17.
Stretching changes the internal space... you need new engines to increase payload capacity. No amount of lengthening will allow it to carry some payloads that will just be too wide.
The Il-476 doesn't need to have comparable performance to the C-17 that is what the Il-106 is for.
If you stretch a C-130 and make it wider and put four PD-35s and it could replace an An-124... but it just makes more sense to build a proper suitable aircraft design to do that job... ie the Russians are not stretching and making wider an An-12... they are designing Slon because a custom designed aircraft will be better than a stretched existing type.
Not only payload capability but cargo compartment dimensions (and specially height and width) define the capabilities of a transport plane. So a stretched Il-76 is not a substitute for an Il-106/An-22, it could not even fit a tank.
Funny... agree with what you said till the second sentence... the only Russian armour that is deployed by air is BMD based vehicles for the VDV... and guess what plane they use for that...
Stretch revives Il-76 prospects
Did you even read that?
It is talking about the Il-476 as it is being a useful aircraft... any further stretches or engine increases would be redundant.
They had a plan... they were going to upgrade their Il-76s in relatively small numbers and they were going to buy An-70s and they were thinking about the Il-106 but Antonov wanted to make the replacement of the An-22.
The Ukraine has forced their hand, no An-70s, so production of the Il-476 is boosted to replace those orders and the Il-106 needs to be produced to replace the An-22. They are waiting for new engines, but while waiting they have clearly decided that the Il-106 is to be expanded to replace the An-124 in some roles too with specs for the Il-106 increased perhaps to 110 tons... which will make it smaller and lighter and cheaper to operate than an An-124 but with most of its capacity. The Slon, which is also waiting for those new engines, can complete the replacement of the An-124s.
As to how quickly the An-124s will be replaced might be seen when the Il-276 gets into production... how quickly will An-12s disappear from Russian service...
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5960
Points : 5912
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
Modifications were carried out in Taiwan by Evergreen Aviation Technologies Corporation,[3] a joint venture of Evergreen Group's EVA Air and General Electric.[9] Boeing reacquired the four 747-400s; one former Air China aircraft,[10] two former China Airlines aircraft,[11][12] and one former Malaysia Airlines aircraft.[13]that was then; now the situation may be a lot different.if they didn't bother stretching it then why both now?
I doubt they widened existing models... they more likely just changed the design to make the aircraft wider and then produced them in that new form.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Dreamlifter#Design_phase
no, they r not funding its production- it's still in the design phase that may last years & may or may not be approved.True, but very very unlikely considering they are already funding the production of the Il-106 which is a longer wider Il-476 with much more powerful engines...
both r needed; longer cargo deck=more space for cargo.Stretching changes the internal space... you need new engines to increase payload capacity.
The Il-476 doesn't need to have comparable performance to the C-17 that is what the Il-106 is for.
which may not be ready in time, if at all. They could restart the An-22 production in a lot less time & with less $ invested.
no, it's talking about the IL-76MF.Did you even read that? It is talking about the Il-476 as it is being a useful aircraft...
widened & stretched variants of the IL-476 could replace both An-22s & An-124s in some roles, like the C-17s that replaced the C-5s in some roles. If 4 engines r not enough on the super stretched/widened, 2 more could be added on their inner pilons...the Il-106 is to be expanded to replace the An-124 in some roles too..
As always, time will tell, since there r only 2 things guaranteed in this life: we r going to pay taxes & die!
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 2634
Points : 2803
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
Again with An-22 non sense?
No they can't restart its production. The production technologies also changed, and they do not have any digital drawings for it. Furthermore all the internal systems are obsolete, and need a full redesign.
The supply chain for it does not exist anymore.
So if you are China, and do not know where to start to do a modern very heavy military cargo of that size you could think about it.
For Russia? Not much. The cost, time and effort needed to recheck all the design, design together with the suppliers new internal systems for it, test everything and organize serial production is not less than what they need for the il106.
At the end it would mean a brand new project based on the an-22 (same shape and size).
It was not an easy task to move production of the il76 in the upgraded version to Ulyanovsk, and we are talking of an aircraft that was still in production.
The only thing that exists for the an22 are the engines. (Russia recently created an upgraded version of the NK12, but even that is a modernisation of an old engine, better to wait a couple of more years and have an engine a designed after the 1950s...)
No they can't restart its production. The production technologies also changed, and they do not have any digital drawings for it. Furthermore all the internal systems are obsolete, and need a full redesign.
The supply chain for it does not exist anymore.
So if you are China, and do not know where to start to do a modern very heavy military cargo of that size you could think about it.
For Russia? Not much. The cost, time and effort needed to recheck all the design, design together with the suppliers new internal systems for it, test everything and organize serial production is not less than what they need for the il106.
At the end it would mean a brand new project based on the an-22 (same shape and size).
It was not an easy task to move production of the il76 in the upgraded version to Ulyanovsk, and we are talking of an aircraft that was still in production.
The only thing that exists for the an22 are the engines. (Russia recently created an upgraded version of the NK12, but even that is a modernisation of an old engine, better to wait a couple of more years and have an engine a designed after the 1950s...)
LMFS- Posts : 5146
Points : 5142
Join date : 2018-03-03
GarryB wrote:Funny... agree with what you said till the second sentence... the only Russian armour that is deployed by air is BMD based vehicles for the VDV... and guess what plane they use for that...
Yeah, I hope they don't attempt to airdrop T-72 any time soon...
Those planes as An-22 and Il-106 are/will be used for strategic mobility mainly, so of course they need to transport tanks, big SAMs and all kinds of oversized equipment.
marcellogo- Posts : 674
Points : 680
Join date : 2012-08-02
Age : 55
Location : Italy
LMFS wrote:GarryB wrote:Funny... agree with what you said till the second sentence... the only Russian armour that is deployed by air is BMD based vehicles for the VDV... and guess what plane they use for that...
Yeah, I hope they don't attempt to airdrop T-72 any time soon...
Those planes as An-22 and Il-106 are/will be used for strategic mobility mainly, so of course they need to transport tanks, big SAMs and all kinds of oversized equipment.
Let's say that tanks are usually not moved using planes as they would eat a lot of both loading space (they are large) and above all weight.
A train can instead load a whole battalion of them w/o much problems.
LMFS- Posts : 5146
Points : 5142
Join date : 2018-03-03
marcellogo wrote:Let's say that tanks are usually not moved using planes as they would eat a lot of both loading space (they are large) and above all weight.
A train can instead load a whole battalion of them w/o much problems.
If the enemy is so nice to allow your military equipment to reach by train then ok. My point is that saying big strategic airlifters can be substituted with stretched smaller ones is simply questioning the need for strategic airlifting itself. We are seeing An-124 making a whole lot of transportation jobs to Syria for instance, where big planes are needed. VKS is pretty surely aware of the costs and compromises and they decided to have An-124 / An-22 / Il-76, obviously because they are appropriate for different kinds of operations and not because they wanted to waste money.
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5960
Points : 5912
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
And my point is that they were/are upgrading & stretching IL-76s after An-22/124s been hauling cargoes for years; since those planes r declining in #s & their replacements may take longer than planned/anticipated, it makes sense to expand the IL-76 family further in the meantime. The USAF did the same with C-141/17s after the 1st C-5As appeared.
LMFS- Posts : 5146
Points : 5142
Join date : 2018-03-03
Tsavo Lion wrote:And my point is that they were/are upgrading & stretching IL-76s after An-22/124s been hauling cargoes for years; since those planes r declining in #s & their replacements may take longer than planned/anticipated, it makes sense to expand the IL-76 family further in the meantime. The USAF did the same with C-141/17s after the 1st C-5As appeared.
It has just been stretched to 62 tons, at a certain time you cannot make the plane longer without compromising it. A stretched Il-76 remains a Il-76 with minimally better operational efficiency. Compared to the An-124 where you can put two rows of vehicles and each row is like twice the length as in Il-76, it is not adding that much for all the work and re-engining efforts needed. So I think they will stay as they are, and if the need to do 120 Il-76 flights instead of 100 they will do it without problems, since the nature of the loads carried is not affected. The Slon needs to be developed sooner than later, and the Il-106 /PAK-VTA too. As we saw these days, any accident can decrease the already low number of airframes, and together with the substantially increased pace of operations for the VTA they are going to put stress on Russia's strategic airlifting capacities. Increasing them is not something that can be done overnight, so I think they should definitely get going.
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5960
Points : 5912
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
not if it's also widened, as discussed before.A stretched Il-76 remains a Il-76 with minimally better operational efficiency.
As an alternative, the IL-96-400T could be modified with big tail/nose cargo doors & ramps for vehicles; its max. load is 92Ts, & its fuselage diameter = 6,08m vs. 5.3/6.4m on the 2 variants of Slon. To compare, it's 6.86m on the C-17.
LMFS- Posts : 5146
Points : 5142
Join date : 2018-03-03
Tsavo Lion wrote:
not if it's also widened, as discussed before.
As an alternative, the IL-96-400T could be modified with big tail/nose cargo doors & ramps for vehicles; its max. load is 92Ts, & its fuselage diameter = 6,08m vs. 5.3/6.4m on the 2 variants of Slon. To compare, it's 6.86m on the C-17.
Yeah, or they can make the plane they need proper instead of turning a Cessna into an An-124. The values you give for Slon are internal bay width, not external fuselage diameter, which is like 8.2 - 8.6 m. Changing the fuselage diameter in the Il-76 means making the plane anew, changing wing, engines, landing gear and essentially everything. The Il-96 cannot operate from the kind of unprepared runways they need. And so on.
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 2634
Points : 2803
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
They may eventually do a multirole il96 in tanker /cargo configuration, like the A330 MRTT, but it is not a replacement for il106, or similar dedicated military cargo aircraft.
Widening the il76 does not allow to have a solution in place before what they can have if they go forward with the il106 development, and it would be only a makeshift solution anyway.
The il76 is a good aircraft and has a definite role in Russian service, however it is not the solution for everything.
Probably if Russia had to make something from scratches it would have made an airplane with a wider cargo hold, similar to the Chinese Y20 (that is basically an Antonov, and looks like a slightly enlarged An70 with jet engines), however the Il-76 is what they have for that size and they finally manage to organize serial production of it in Russia.
Anyway, if they manage to develop in time the il106 (with its planned 6.4 meter cargo bay width (the same as the An-124), the relatively narrow cargo hold of the il-76 will not be a large problem anymore.
In 10 years time, after they will have already introduced the il106, the slon, the il 276 and/or the Tu330 they will be able to think about a new il76 replacement, with a cargo hold width larger than the 3,15 m of the il76 and il276, and of the 4m of the Tu-330 (and of the An70). Probably a good size could be exactly the 4.5m of the Y20.
Widening the il76 does not allow to have a solution in place before what they can have if they go forward with the il106 development, and it would be only a makeshift solution anyway.
The il76 is a good aircraft and has a definite role in Russian service, however it is not the solution for everything.
Probably if Russia had to make something from scratches it would have made an airplane with a wider cargo hold, similar to the Chinese Y20 (that is basically an Antonov, and looks like a slightly enlarged An70 with jet engines), however the Il-76 is what they have for that size and they finally manage to organize serial production of it in Russia.
Anyway, if they manage to develop in time the il106 (with its planned 6.4 meter cargo bay width (the same as the An-124), the relatively narrow cargo hold of the il-76 will not be a large problem anymore.
In 10 years time, after they will have already introduced the il106, the slon, the il 276 and/or the Tu330 they will be able to think about a new il76 replacement, with a cargo hold width larger than the 3,15 m of the il76 and il276, and of the 4m of the Tu-330 (and of the An70). Probably a good size could be exactly the 4.5m of the Y20.
LMFS likes this post
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5960
Points : 5912
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
The values you give for Slon are internal bay width, not external fuselage diameter, which is like 8.2 - 8.6 m. -I knew it, just didn't bother with details.Changing the fuselage diameter in the Il-76 means making the plane anew, changing wing, engines, landing gear and essentially everything. - I doubt it, it wasn't mentioned about B-747 Dreamlifter.The Il-96 cannot operate from the kind of unprepared runways they need.- in most cases, they won't need to. wrote:Widening the il76 does not allow to have a solution in place before what they can have if they go forward with the il106 development, and it would be only a makeshift solution anyway.- Agreed, but with An-124s still going strong, they won't need too many widened IL-76s & it's still better than none.
Anyway, if they manage to develop in time the il106 (with its planned 6.4 meter cargo bay width (the same as the An-124), the relatively narrow cargo hold of the il-76 will not be a large problem anymore.- that's a big "IF".
GarryB- Posts : 40436
Points : 40936
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Modifications were carried out in Taiwan by Evergreen Aviation Technologies Corporation ,[3] a joint venture of Evergreen Group's EVA Air and General Electric .[9] Boeing reacquired the four 747-400s; one former Air China aircraft,[10] two former China Airlines aircraft,[11] [12] and one former Malaysia Airlines aircraft.[13]
They did it because they needed a bigger aircraft... do you think the Russians are stupid? They had every opportunity to make the Il-476 as big as they wanted... they made it the size it is because that is what they want. There is no point in stretching the design to make it into an Il-106 if they are also making the Il-106...
no, they r not funding its production- it's still in the design phase that may last years & may or may not be approved.
Bullshit. The funding stopped for the Il-106 because there was no funding available for anything. If anything the An-22 replacement will be more useful than an An-124 replacement, so the Il-106 is more likely to go ahead than the Slon.
They need replacements for the Soviet aircraft.
both r needed; longer cargo deck=more space for cargo.
Bullshit. The Il-476 is a standard size width... everything it currently carries fits.
which may not be ready in time, if at all.
In time for what?
To increase the capacity and performance of the Il-476 they will need new engines... to get better capability they are making the Il-106 but they are also waiting... for the same engines... so don't bullshit me that the Il-476 can be modified and stretched and get new engines faster than the Il-106 can be made and fitted with those same new engines... the delay is the engines for both options so there is no point in pissing around stretching a plane they should be focussing on getting into service in large numbers in its current form.
They could restart the An-22 production in a lot less time & with less $ invested.
No they can't... and even if they could Antonov would claim design rights and demand royalties and also partial control... on a plane that hasn't been built in more than 30 years... which means the design would need to be digitised and fully improved and upgraded... 10 years at least.
no, it's talking about the IL-76MF.
It is western bullshit... I barely looked at it.
It is not in their interests for Russia to do well, they will do everything they can to sabotage anything that is not theirs... so I ignore them most of the time.
widened & stretched variants of the IL-476 could replace both An-22s & An-124s in some roles, like the C-17s that replaced the C-5s in some roles.
They already have designs for larger aircraft to do the job. There is a plan for a smaller twin engined model of the Il-476 to replace the An-12... that will improve commonality and parts... and they will make more smaller and middle sized planes (AN-12 replacements and Il-476) aircraft than they will ever make An-124 and An-22 replacements.
If 4 engines r not enough on the super stretched/widened, 2 more could be added on their inner pilons.
Why are you so impatient... they have a plan and they are following that plan.... it is not something taht will deliver instant results... new engines take time to develop and get right, but a new twin engined replacement for the An-22 and a four engined replacement for the An-124 in the form of the Slon both with PD-35 engines is the best solution... much better than squeezed and stretched smaller planes... if if they could do the job if they had to.
Yeah, I hope they don't attempt to airdrop T-72 any time soon...
Release the Kraken...
Those planes as An-22 and Il-106 are/will be used for strategic mobility mainly, so of course they need to transport tanks, big SAMs and all kinds of oversized equipment.
On paper... maybe, but in reality most of the time armour moves by ship or cross country in Russia by train... cheaper and it all moves together.
In Desert Storm if Saddam had realised the trouble he was in and decided to try to take Saudi Arabia as well as Kuwaite he would have been facing Sheridans instead of Abrams...
If the enemy is so nice to allow your military equipment to reach by train then ok. My point is that saying big strategic airlifters can be substituted with stretched smaller ones is simply questioning the need for strategic airlifting itself. We are seeing An-124 making a whole lot of transportation jobs to Syria for instance, where big planes are needed. VKS is pretty surely aware of the costs and compromises and they decided to have An-124 / An-22 / Il-76, obviously because they are appropriate for different kinds of operations and not because they wanted to waste money.
When the enemy is not nice and does not give you time to prepare that is when you send the VDV and they use Spruts and they use Il-76s.
And my point is that they were/are upgrading & stretching IL-76s after An-22/124s been hauling cargoes for years; since those planes r declining in #s & their replacements may take longer than planned/anticipated, it makes sense to expand the IL-76 family further in the meantime. The USAF did the same with C-141 /17 s after the 1st C-5A s appeared.
Making new versions of Il-476 would slow down production, not speed it up... they are already working on the Il-276 to fill a space no other design can properly fill, making something that duplicates what the Il-106 will do is a waste of production time and space... and money.
You can compare it with German production of armour... they met T-34s and KV-1s and realised their existing tanks were not good enough so they demanded the planned future tanks be rushed into production... the result was the Panzer fours which were well designed and effective tanks with the long barrel 76mm guns were stopped and the Tiger production took time to get going and the Panther design would take a while to get right... so instead of getting new tanks to counter these Soviet tanks for a while they got nothing because the Tiger was slow to make being a heavy tank, and even the Panther wasn't made in numbers either.
Keeping Panzer IVs in production a bit longer would have been useful for the German army even though they were not fully equal to the T-34 in practise they had a better layout and were very well handled by the German crews.
You want to stop production of the Il-476 while they stretch and expand the design but can't increase its payload without the new engines the other aircraft they are waiting for are waiting for...
As an alternative, the IL-96-400T could be modified with big tail/nose cargo doors & ramps for vehicles; its max. load is 92Ts, & its fuselage diameter = 6,08m vs. 5.3/6.4m on the 2 variants of Slon . To compare, it's 6.86m on the C-17 .
When was the last time the Russian military hired a C-17 to move Russian military gear because their domestic aircraft were not wide enough?
The Il-96 can't be modified with nose and tail ramp doors without completely changing its design and construction.
In 10 years time, after they will have already introduced the il106, the slon, the il 276 and/or the Tu330 they will be able to think about a new il76 replacement, with a cargo hold width larger than the 3,15 m of the il76 and il276, and of the 4m of the Tu-330 (and of the An70). Probably a good size could be exactly the 4.5m of the Y20.
The Il-76 is not a new design and wont remain in service forever, but if it was too narrow to be useful they have had plenty of time to make changes to its design and they have not taken those opportunities.
The width of an aircraft is critical in terms of drag and flight range... you never make a plane wider or bigger than it needs to be... that is just pissing money away.
The Il-96 cannot operate from the kind of unprepared runways they need.- in most cases, they won't need to. w
It is not just about unprepared airstrips... it includes icy and snow covered airstrips too... which most of the time you can't do much about at the time...
Agreed, but with An-124s still going strong, they won't need too many widened IL-76s & it's still better than none.
None is cheaper and faster... An-124s are already available and in use if you need wider.
The Il-106 will be wider too so making a few wider Il-476s would be a waste of time and money... in the short term An-124s can be used and later on Il-106 and Slons and An-124s can still be used.
Anyway, if they manage to develop in time the il106 (with its planned 6.4 meter cargo bay width (the same as the An-124), the relatively narrow cargo hold of the il-76 will not be a large problem anymore.- that's a big "IF".
No it isn't... this has been the plan for a few decades now... it is not rocket science... if you need to move something too wide to fit in an Il-76 or Il-476 then wait until you need 120 tons of them and put them in an An-124 and do it in one go.
wilhelm- Posts : 347
Points : 351
Join date : 2014-12-09
Tsavo Lion wrote:not if it's also widened, as discussed before.A stretched Il-76 remains a Il-76 with minimally better operational efficiency.
As an alternative, the IL-96-400T could be modified with big tail/nose cargo doors & ramps for vehicles; its max. load is 92Ts, & its fuselage diameter = 6,08m vs. 5.3/6.4m on the 2 variants of Slon. To compare, it's 6.86m on the C-17.
You are quoting the external fuselage width of the C-17 and comparing it with the internal cargo bay width of the Slon.
The C-17 cargo bay internal width is 5,5m.
GarryB likes this post
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5960
Points : 5912
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
they wanted it this size because bigger size would take longer time & more $ to make. Designing the IL-106 isn't = making it.They had every opportunity to make the Il-476 as big as they wanted... they made it the size it is because that is what they want. There is no point in stretching the design to make it into an Il-106 if they are also making the Il-106...
I'll believe it when I see it. IL-106 desired payload was increased to be closer to Slon, which is another indication that nothing is set in stone.The funding stopped for the Il-106 because there was no funding available for anything. If anything the An-22 replacement will be more useful than an An-124 replacement, so the Il-106 is more likely to go ahead than the Slon.
true, but at least longer cargo floor will have room for more palletized cargo &/ missiles,etc.The Il-476 is a standard size width... everything it currently carries fits.
not necessarily; it'll depend on the amount of increase & their ability to upgrade existing engines. Stretched IL-76s & C-141s used the same engines.To increase the capacity and performance of the Il-476 they will need new engines...
after they get them & in case the IL-106 is still a paper plane, some could still be stretched &/ widened. That would be a better option than buying Y-20s or Y-20F-100s...there is no point in pissing around stretching a plane they should be focussing on getting into service in large numbers in its current form. ..Making new versions of Il-476 would slow down production, not speed it up...
IMO, even in 20-30 years they'll be useful, if modernized.which means the design would need to be digitised and fully improved and upgraded... 10 years at least.
then don't write about things u don't bother to read on.I barely looked at it.
not all designs & plans materialize in #s, budget & time, if at all; they may take another decade or 2, if at all, to implement.They already have designs for larger aircraft to do the job. ..they have a plan and they are following that plan...The Il-106 will be wider too so making a few wider Il-476s would be a waste of time and money... in the short term An-124s can be used and later on Il-106 and Slons and An-124s can still be used.
this has been the plan for a few decades now...
even if so, being in production & with larger side doors they would add extra capacity a lot faster than planned IL-106s. The IL-96-400T cargo bay width is 4.8m, which IMO could be widened; IL-106 cargo bay width was set at 6m (1.2m more), but later it was increased to 8.8м.The Il-96 can't be modified with nose and tail ramp doors without completely changing its design and construction.
Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Tue Nov 17, 2020 7:11 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add text)
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 2634
Points : 2803
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
Tsavo Lion wrote:
[th]IL-96-400T cargo bay width is 4,8m, which IMO could be widened;IL-106 cargo bay width is 6m, 1.2m more, butlater it was increased to 8,8м.[/th][th][/th]
Actually for civilian needs it wouldn't be bad at all.
https://www.anacargo.jp/en/download/label/pdf/ANAcargo_777_e_light.pdf
At the moment Russia cannot build a twin engine aircraft with such load capacity (100 tons) and long range. Possibly it is not even needed, anyway the il96-400T has a max payload of 92t but with shorter range than the B777F.
Maybe later Russia will also develop an engine with 50tons takeoff thrust, like the GE engine on the 777, but it is not as important as the first step to get a 35 tons takeoff thrust engine is.
With those Russia will be able to do an excellent cargo version of the twin engine il96, and there will be a lot of companies interested in it, probably more than those interested in the passenger version of the same plane.
Volga dnepr will be especially interested, as they had an order for several dozens B777F.
However for special cargo and special military needs converted civilian cargo planes are not sufficient. They are only good as multirole tanker transport.
Civilian cargo have different flight profiles and lower max g load that they can tolerate.
They are optimised for lightweight and efficiency, while a military cargo like the il112v, the C27J, the il76, the An-124, etc is much heavier and stronger, because it may need to operate in much harsher conditions.
In addition civilian cargo have limits on the max load and size of the single items they transport (e.g the B777F is perfectly ok for transporting pallets or even SUV cars or aircraft engines, but cannot transport heavy combat vehicles or objects longer than 8.5 metres).
Adapting them for performing the same role as An22 or An-124 will need almost complete redesign (e.g Tu204 into Tu330), unless you want a compromised result.
And it would definitely not save time compared to finish designing and developing the Il106.
To conclude: there will be a modern and efficient civilian cargo based on a twin engined il96, and such airplane can be also useful for the Russian airforce in a multirole tanker transport version, but this is not an alternative to An22, il106 or An124, it is like comparing a bus (even a double-decker bus) to an heavy truck.
LMFS likes this post
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5960
Points : 5912
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
They have landing gear under the fuselage that could be enlarged with more wheels, if needed.It is not just about unprepared airstrips... it includes icy and snow covered airstrips too...
they could have IRPs for extra range; having a few of such planes would allow more flexibility & less wear & tear on the IL-76s, as they could haul containers & small vehicles, leaving bigger cargoes to them. The IL-106 isn't essential at this point.the il96-400T has a max payload of 92t but with shorter range than the B777F.
they were saying that too many things will need to be changed, so it'll be a new plane in the C-929 family that is being designed with China.there will be a modern and efficient civilian cargo based on a twin engined il96,..
GarryB- Posts : 40436
Points : 40936
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
they wanted it this size because bigger size would take longer time & more $ to make. Designing the IL-106 isn't = making it.
The Il-476 is already bigger and with a heavier payload capacity than the Il-76 it is replacing.
The Il-106 was intended to replace the An-22 and had its own engines.
They are now going for new engines called PD-35 which are rather more powerful than the originally planned engines for the Il-106 so instead of an 80 ton capacity plane to replace the 80 ton capacity An-22, they can increase the payload capacity because of the extra engine power...
Before they had 20 ton capacity An-12, 40 ton capacity Il-76, 80 ton capacity An-22, and 120 ton capacity An-124.
Their current potential plans include a 20 ton capacity faster jet Il-276 to replace the An-12, the Il-76 is being replaced by the Il-476, the Il-106 is replacing the An-22, and the Slon is going to replace the An-124.
The thing is that the payload capacities have changed... the Il-276 with its 20-25 ton capacity is not much different, but the Il-476 can carry rather more than the Il-76 could and could do some jobs they would previously get the An-22 to perform. The Il-106 equally with a 110 ton capacity could perform a lot of missions only the An-124 used to be able to do... so the Il-476 and Il-106 are going to get rather more use than the aircraft they replaced because of their increased capacity allowing them to do jobs previously only larger aircraft could manage... but they will do it cheaper.
The Slon at 180 ton capacity is just a better An-124 that can carry rather more further.
I'll believe it when I see it. IL-106 desired payload was increased to be closer to Slon, which is another indication that nothing is set in stone.
Only because the more powerful engines means a twin engined Il-106 could easily carry 110 ton payloads which is very close to the 120 ton capacity of the first An-124s. With four of these powerful engines the Slon will have more engine power than the six engined An-225 so its payload capacity should be 180 tons plus.
true, but at least longer cargo floor will have room for more palletized cargo &/ missiles,etc.
Weight will be more of a problem than length. Pallets are not random and will generally have a weight limit... the difference between the length of the Il-76 (40tons) and the Il-476 (60 tons) will likely be the number of pallets they carry... say 4 ton pallets... the Il-76 has the cargo bay length to carry 10 (10x4 = 40) and the lengthened Il-476 has space for 15 pallets (15 x 4 = 60)... It doesn't matter how long the cargo bay is... most Russian tanks are about 50 tons so it is not going to carry more than one no matter how long you stretch it.
not necessarily; it'll depend on the amount of increase & their ability to upgrade existing engines. Stretched IL-76s & C-141s used the same engines.
The stretched versions of the Il-76 that kept the same engines were heavier and slower and only had longer range because they carried more fuel... they had no payload increase...
after they get them & in case the IL-106 is still a paper plane, some could still be stretched &/ widened. That would be a better option than buying Y-20s or Y-20F-100s.
The only option worth considering is making the Il-106s. Buying Chinese transports is not an option for the Russian military.
IMO, even in 20-30 years they'll be useful, if modernized.
But they wont be more useful than the much more advanced and much better Il-106 which will be cheaper to make and easier to use.
then don't write about things u don't bother to read on.
Not interested in western propaganda.
not all designs & plans materialize in #s, budget & time, if at all; they may take another decade or 2, if at all, to implement.
That is very true, but where your thinking turns to shit is when you suggest starting a new programme to revive a design that has not been in production for 30 years and has never been produced in Russia as a backup in case a newer programme fails.
About as sensible as the US building a few factories to put Mustangs back into production in case the F-35 turns out to be a dog...
even if so, being in production & with larger side doors they would add extra capacity a lot faster than planned IL-106s.
How are they going to get a T-14 or a T-16 into the side door of an Il-96?
I am pretty sure they can use An-124s until the Il-106s are ready... there is no need to panic and do something idiotic like revive a cold war relic at great expense to cover for its replacement aircraft if there are some delays...
IL-106 cargo bay width was set at 6m (1.2m more), but later it was increased to 8.8м.
The advantage of a paper plane waiting for engines... they can change its stats and dimensions much cheaper than doing it with an existing type.
They have landing gear under the fuselage that could be enlarged with more wheels, if needed.
It could be, but the military wont want side door cargo planes, they want roll on roll off designs able to move material fast... and operate from rough airfields.
they could have IRPs for extra range; having a few of such planes would allow more flexibility & less wear & tear on the IL-76s, as they could haul containers & small vehicles, leaving bigger cargoes to them. The IL-106 isn't essential at this point.
Normal vehicles can place and remove pallets or themselves onto and off Il-106 and Il-476 aircraft already. Side loading Il-96 are not suitable... just let it go.
they were saying that too many things will need to be changed, so it'll be a new plane in the C-929 family that is being designed with China.
That would be fine too.
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 2634
Points : 2803
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
Tsavo Lion wrote:they were saying that too many things will need to be changed, so it'll be a new plane in the C-929 family that is being designed with China.Rodion_Romanovic wrote:there will be a modern and efficient civilian cargo based on a twin engined il96,..
Was there an official source from UAC or the Russian government saying that? Or it was someone in a forum?
I am aware of the fact that the il96 will need considerable modifications to turn it into a two engines airplane (even if some solutions, e.g the wings, engine pylons and nacelles could be "borrowed" from the CR929). I still believe that this is well worth the effort.
It is fundamental for Russia to keep widebody production (and sourcing) in house. According to the current agreements all of the CR929 will be assembled in Shanghai and noone in Voronezh.
Also many components for the CR929 will be designed and produced in China.
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/uac-comac-developing-widebody-aircraft
Comac's will be in charge of the fuselage sections, horizontal and vertical stabilizers, wing fairings, nose cone and landing gear; UAC will develop the composite wing, wing flap systems, engine pylons and main landing gear, with Chinese manufacture if it is cheaper
It would be especially important if they want to build refueling tankers or other airplanes for military or government purposes, that they do not have foreign (including Chinese) parts or components.
Anyway, this is for a civilian cargo airplane interesting to Volga-Dnepr (and other airlines) as alternative to the B767F and B777F and to the Russian airforce as refueling tanker, not as a replacement for An-22 or An-124, so it is partially off topic.
LMFS likes this post
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5960
Points : 5912
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
they could take less fuel but more cargo.The stretched versions of the Il-76 that kept the same engines were heavier and slower and only had longer range because they carried more fuel... they had no payload increase...
u wrote many times that planes max. capacity is seldom used- how is 120T fuel gazler vs. 80T payload prop driven plane is better for operating costs? If they had a dozen or more improved An-22s, less IL-106s/Slons will be needed.But they wont be more useful than the much more advanced and much better Il-106 which will be cheaper to make and easier to use.
so was the IL-76, & it had a gap in production. Recently they started producing many things to substitute imports...a design that has not been in production for 30 years and has never been produced in Russia..
there was nothing propagantistic, just objective analysis by an expert.Not interested in western propaganda.
we agreed that Russian tanks r moved by trains & ships, didn't we?How are they going to get a T-14 or a T-16 into the side door of an Il-96?
the C-5 has front loading & swing nose; the B-747 Dreamlifter has swing tail- no need for large cargo doors on IL-96-400T. with such arrangements.Side loading Il-96 are not suitable... just let it go.
Was there an official source from UAC or the Russian government saying that?
yes, some official said that in an interview that it's not feasible- don't remember which site I saw it on.
the IL-62 & Tu-330/IL-276 could also be used as tankers, just like the VC-10s & KC-390s.It would be especially important if they want to build refueling tankers ..
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 2634
Points : 2803
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
Tsavo Lion wrote:they could take less fuel but more cargo.The stretched versions of the Il-76 that kept the same engines were heavier and slower and only had longer range because they carried more fuel... they had no payload increase...
U wrote many times that planes max. capacity is seldom used- how is 120T fuel gazler vs. 80T payload prop driven plane is better for operating costs? If they had a dozen or more improved An-22s, less IL-106s/Slons will be needed.But they wont be more useful than the much more advanced and much better Il-106 which will be cheaper to make and easier to use.
so was the IL-76 it had a gap in production. Recently they started producing many things to substitute imports.a design that has not been in production for 30 years and has never been produced in Russia..
According to wikipedia from 2006 to 2010, TAPO in Tashkent (Uzbekistan) delivered 5 civilian IL-76TD-90s to Volga-Dnepr and to Silk Way Airlines. And On 29 October 2010, the first production Il-76MF for the Jordanian Air Force was ferried to Moscow for further test and completion.
The gap in production was quite short, and the company that was building them (TAPO in Tashkent) offered full assistance.
Basically when they realised that they could not integrate TAPO into the UAC and continue production there, they immediately organised the move of the production to Ulyanovsk.
In addition it was a russian design from a Russian company.
So it is not the same thing as the An22, which production stopped in 1976, 44 years ago!.
Nevertheless they had to digitalise the design, and create new production lines.
Furthermore there was no other Russian project in this weight class.
So it took considerable money and time, but there was no alternative. Designing one from scratches would have meant waiting at least 5 more years..
In the case of the an22 it is a foreign design. It would makes even less sense than building the Chinese Y20 (that has almost the same cargo hold width as the An-22 (4.5 m vs 4.4 m).
Russia does not own the IP of the An22.
Unless they want to build a set of experimental prototypes at incredible cost, all the design would have to be be checked, and digitalised, in order to allow modern serial production. Furthermore it would have to be certified anyway. The internal systems would also need to be completely replaced. At the end the effort is not less than starting from the preliminary design of the il-106 and create a brand new aircraft.
Tsavo, again for the n-th time: one thing is adding an order for 10 or 20 aircrafts before you stop production, another thing is restarting production after you interrupted it
Tsavo Lion wrote:
the IL-62 & Tu-330/IL-276 could also be used as tankers, just like the VC-10s & KC-390s.it would be especially important if they want to build refueling tankers ..
The vc10 has been retired, and anyway the il62 has not been produced for 25 years. It was a good airplane in the 1980s, now not anymore.
Why are you always so obsessed by aircrafts not anymore in production?
I would understand if they covered an important niche for which there is no better modern alternative (e.g the Tu160 or the Beriev A40)
A tanker based on the il276 or tu330, or even directly on the tu204 would make sense, but it is a different category of aircraft.
The porposed il96 400TZ would have been able to transfer more than 65 tons (IL-78M 40 tons) of fuel at a distance of up to 3500 km (Il-78M 3000 km).
An aircraft based on the il276 will be able to transfer around 20 tons at a shorter range, it is not a replacement for the bigger tankers, and the KC390 is not a replacement for the A330 MRTT or the Boeing KC-46 Pegasus (a modified Boeing 767).
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5960
Points : 5912
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
the VKS has them now, so there r still some that could be so converted & used for at least 5-10 years, if not more; their payload is 40Ts.the il62 has not been produced for 25 years.
apparently, since it was cancelled, that capability wasn't essential. All IL-478s will have cargo doors & be able to carry the same things IL-476s can carry, so there's no need to make extra planes.The proposed il96 400TZ would have been able to transfer more than 65 tons (IL-78M 40 tons) of fuel at a distance of up to 3500 km (Il-78M 3000 km).
Also, as A-50s r being replaced with A-100s, some could be converted to haul cargo/fuel or other roles.
GarryB- Posts : 40436
Points : 40936
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
I am aware of the fact that the il96 will need considerable modifications to turn it into a two engines airplane (even if some solutions, e.g the wings, engine pylons and nacelles could be "borrowed" from the CR929). I still believe that this is well worth the effort.
It is a powerful engine, which will be used on quite a few platforms as a twin engine propulsion solution... on an Il-96 its wing will likely be more like a CR929 because it is a long range low drag fuel efficient cruise type wing expected to operate from long flat hard runways. An Il-106 wing on the other hand will also need long range efficient cruise performance but also lots of high lift gear to get airborne from more variable strips... not necessarily paved and possibly soaking wet or even icy...
The wing designs wont be identical but both will be twin engined and good lift and low drag.
They could use Il-96s for strategic inflight refuelling aircraft... their size means they can carry rather more fuel than the Il-78 and go further out to meet aircraft that need refuelling.
I would think a new command version could be considered as well, and perhaps an AWACS platform with next generation radar antenna perhaps...
Another use could be troop and crew transport to remote Russian bases like the new one they are building in Sudan... they could carry a few submarine crews in one flight and take the relieved crews back to Russia so the subs themselves could remain off the coast of Africa for rather longer and not spend so much time transiting to and from Russia all the time... more time on patrol with fresh crews...
they could take less fuel but more cargo.
That sounds logical, but the payload capacity is not changed for the different versions so I would say not likely.
u wrote many times that planes max. capacity is seldom used- how is 120T fuel gazler vs. 80T payload prop driven plane is better for operating costs?
They have a set of tools... different aircraft in different size and weight classes and they choose which aircraft to use based on the problem at hand.
If they have to fly a 20 ton payload but they have to fly it 9,000km some times it is easier to send an An-124 because it can carry extra fuel in internal fuel tanks and just fly the whole trip in one go. The bigger heavier aircraft will burn more fuel doing the job compared with an Il-76, but time might also be a factor.
And there are many factors... the location that 20 ton payload has to go to might have an 80 ton payload that has to come back, so sending an Il-76 there with a 20 ton payload that makes two or three landings or refuelling stops on the way might require three Il-76s to bring back the 80 ton payload... whereas sending the An-124 means it can bring the 80 ton payload back with one refuelling stop on the way back
A civilian airline would make sure the smallest aircraft able to do the job is used because that cuts costs, but there are other factors as well... time might be a constraint and the location might mean refuelling stops on the way might not be possible at all.
The An-22 was valuable because when the Il-76 wasn't big enough or didn't have the flight range the An-22 was cheaper than the An-124.
In the same way the Il-106 is going to be valuable with its flight range and payload capacity it is going to be cheaper than the Slon because it has two engines and Slon will have four of the same engines. For a while An-124s might operate with PD-24s or something, but with four of those the Il-106 might work out cheaper to operate than a PD-24 equipped An-124 because it is smaller and lighter and has less drag...
Just the same as you can say the Chinook uses less fuel than the Mi-26, but for some missions like carrying a Chinook then only an Mi-26 can do the job.... with no Mi-26s available the crashed Chinook would need to be destroyed in placed and written off.
If they had a dozen or more improved An-22s, less IL-106s/Slons will be needed.
I understand what you are suggesting, but I think you are under estimating the problems and cost and time it would take to digitise the An-22 design, and to then update it and then build a factory to produce them in useful numbers... digitising the design alone would likely take 5 years... by which time the Il-106 will likely already be in production.
The money and time and energy put into reviving the An-22 could be spent to ensure the Il-106 is what they really want and is produced in useful numbers...
It is essentially a Russian C-17 but will be much much cheaper and have better payload capacity and better range and likely be cheaper to run.
Raising some dead An-22s just in case is a waste of time and money... it would actually be cheaper and quicker to produce a dozen brand new An-124s... they have the facilities to make them and can make them themselves except the engines, but fitting them with PS-90A3s at 17.5 tons thrust means they will be carrying 70-80 ton payloads rather than 120 to 150 ton payloads like other An-124s... when newer PD -24 engines are ready the new build and upgraded existing An-124s could be re-equipped with the new more suitable engines... but even that would be a waste of money, because the An-124s like the An-22s are going to be replaced... the Il-106 will completely replace the An-22s and many of the roles the An-124 currently performs... the extra money should be invested in production capacity for Il-476 and Il-106 aircraft so that they can get them into mass production ASAP.
Money for the Il-276 and Tu-330 would also be well spent... probably even more urgent to be honest.
so was the IL-76, & it had a gap in production. Recently they started producing many things to substitute imports.
Il-76 took a long time to redesign and get into production... the An-22 would be worse because they likely don't have the drawings, or the design bureau that worked on the plane originally.
there was nothing propagantistic, just objective analysis by an expert.
A western expert with no interest in Russia, working against Russia as a competitor...
we agreed that Russian tanks r moved by trains & ships, didn't we?
In bulk, but when you move 2,000 VDV peace keepers to some place urgently you often have to move all sorts of heavy gear quickly... your biggest planes are often the most efficient way of doing this...
Most army equipment moves by itself and is not suited to side doors in transports.
the C-5 has front loading & swing nose; the B-747 Dreamlifter has swing tail - no need for large cargo doors on IL-96-400T. with such arrangements.
The nose and tail section of the Il-96 is integral to its structure... if you make the tail and nose open it would break like a twig.
In comparison the An-124 and Il-76 have a pressurised upper floor that runs the length of the aircraft that acts like a back bone... the Il-96 does not have this and would need this for a nose and tail ramp redesign. The cost would be enormous and you end up with a plane that is a bit fragile that carries less payload than an An-124.
Why bother?
Designing one from scratches would have meant waiting at least 5 more years..
Very optimistic in my opinion... would probably take 2-3 years to digitise the design... and likely another 2-3 years to update and upgrade the design looking at new materials and systems...
The vc10 has been retired, and anyway the il62 has not been produced for 25 years. It was a good airplane in the 1980s, now not anymore.
If you intend to use it for the next 30-40 years you might as well base it on a new aircraft design, which will boost production numbers and make it more attractive to use in the civilian market...
the VKS has them now, so there r still some that could be so converted & used for at least 5-10 years, if not more; their payload is 40Ts.
Would make more sense for them to start producing new aircraft rather than looking for new uses of old aircraft.
All IL-478s will have cargo doors & be able to carry the same things IL-476s can carry, so there's no need to make extra planes.
Of course there is... in an emergency they will likely need both... not making enough planes means they would have to choose, which means they wont have enough transport or enough inflight refuelling capacity or both.
Making enough planes means the convertability makes them more flexible but it is a trap to think you can save money and buy less planes for the job.
HATO is making the same mistake... with all their fighter planes that are also their attack planes they think they can do both but their numbers means they will be doing one or the other most of the time which leaves a huge gap which will make them very vulnerable if they ever get that scrap with the Russians they keep trying to start.
Also, as A-50s r being replaced with A-100s, some could be converted to haul cargo/fuel or other roles.
They would be more useful keeping them in their current role with current equipment gradually updated with A-100 level stuff and being sent to gaps in the Russian air defence network like mountain regions etc...