@MyAccount4TrollingU How do you know? have you seen all those airbus and Boeing crashes? how many people died? Y not say American/European Planes=Death? don't be stupid and come up with a conclusion in your little head.
@MyAccount4TrollingU So your'e telling me both have 40 crashes? Ask the dead wether they would have chosen a boeing or Airbus that eventually crashed. It doesn't matter where the plane is from, if not maintained it will lead to an accident. And only 40? Boeing 747 has 35 crashes on its own. where did you get your info from fuckface?
@MyAccount4TrollingU No you are the stupid one. You talk to someone and say 40 crashes. You expect the person to GUESS you are talking about percentages? Maybe your'e too stupid to make a complete sentence or better, you never knew of the word "percentage" and just google it.
Love the bleating of "RUSSIAN PLANES ARE RUBBISH." Go compare the safety record of this plane with that of a comparable jetliner. Say an airbus a340. The Il 96 has yet to have a hull loss incident. The a340 has had five. Compare it with a boeing 747 and it looks wonderful. The 747 has had 48 hull loss accidents resulting in 2,850 fatalities. Fatalities from this jet = 0.
I've always been puzzled why Russia never concentrated on building an upgraded version of ultra-advanced IL-96 and try to compete w/ Airbus or Boeing... IL-96 is a very nice looking aircraft and Ruskies do have the manpower to build planes... they already build good air force jets...
@EsotericDesi Their planes are great (*wince*), but they are always too late nowadays. Look at the Tu-154, perfect competitor to the A320/757 but too late, market is already over-saturated with medium-long narrowbody aircrafts. And it certainly doesn't help that the Cold War ended about 20 years ago, tensions still remain.. ultimately making Russia the only customer of Russian aircraft manufacturers.
@TS2ST Only 23 were manufactured, from the commercial-introduction in 1992. That's 23 aircraft manufactured over a span of 18 years. A little over one a year. During it's short lifespan one of these 23 airframes already encountered a crash. Not safe. And really, no excuses considering that the production rate is so slow the aircraft should be manufactured to a point of obsessed perfection.
@scaremenga sorry to rain over your Russia-bashing parade, but you are wrong - there have never been crushes with Il-96 - there was one crush (technical flight without passengers) of Il-86 (the same big plane) of those Il-86 hundreeds were build - but both are considered to be the most safe aircrafts in the world. - you confused Il- 96 to Il- 86... by the way - I can't even imagine what would make me to go to US or Brazilian or Chineese comments boards to bs. about their planes-you are sick
@Ura293 Russia-bashing? If you don't have enough integrity for your country, if Russia is indeed yours, as to call my comment a Russia-bashing parade then that's really sad. I never brought up the word Russia, or said it was a Russian aircraft. My comment was, if anything, pro-Russia. It supports people's comments of it being safe. That's okay, you don't need to. I'm not going to be visiting your country anytime soon. I'm sick of seeing anti F-22 propaganda. I'm sick? Stalker, you are.
Not on the 96. That was removed as most airports it would be flying to would be prepared to handle such an aircraft by then, and to add that they just added dead weight, so without really much use, they took it out of the IL-96 final design.
Thanks for the info. I always thought that was a great idea - to be able to board pax through a downstairs entrance (carrying their own luggage aboard), and then proceed upstairs to the main cabin. I always thought of it as Russia's version of the A380.
Seems like fun planes to ride on (both the IL86 & the 96.
especially, when they're flying vertically ;) just joking. well, I heard too much about crashes, and because of that I would be pissing in my pants if i were among the IL or TYupolev passengers
"No Russian plane is reliable"? What statistics do you rely on? Or is ist just blablabla? Some Facts: At present Airbus has big probs with their "advanced" electronics, esp. in the A320 and A380, and Boeing is not able to put out their "Dreamliner"in time.......
Just dealing with aircrashes without looking at the reasons (pilot´s error, bad maintenance, bad spare parts etc.,) is not serious.
So what? No one´s discusssing that here. The issue is if russian planes are less reliable than western ones. They aren´t. And it´s a fact that the A380 is over two years late because the electric wires turned out to be some inches too short......
Neither are some western types at some airport. Have you ever heard of something called noise regulation? Types like the Tu-154B2, Tu-134 and IL-76s are banned from the EU simply because the engines they carry no longer meet up to EU noise regulation (though with the IL-76, if it's on a special mission, it is allowed to fly).
Other cases of aircraft getting banned is simply because of bad regulation, ran by politicians who only know that planes fly, rather than looking at why a plane crashed.
@LOTIL62 You mean like when the EU banned almost all Indonesia airlines do to piss poor safety standards. Heaven forbid the airlines are told to clean up there act.
@Epica124 That second paragraph was a bit misleading (though that word limit wouldn't let me get more in depth). Basically what I mean is something like when the Indonesian Government was almost getting ready to ground all 737s because of the airlines who had manged to pick them up for 2nd hand cheap had them fall out of the sky like that (due to bad maintenance standards). Nigeria has/had a similar proposition banning any aircraft older than 25 years old from flying. Due the problems there.
@LOTIL62 You are still missing the point. Look up Alaska Airlines Flight 261forget what kind of plane it is. Look at the airline. The airline to make money cut corner they could when it came to maintenance.
@Epica124 I believe that we may not be understanding each other properly. Cutting on Maintenance is something that I'm talking about here too. What I am saying is that people will often blame the type and not the maintenance of the plane by it's owners. As a matter of fact, It seems that we are screaming the same thing at each other, but in a different way.
@LOTIL62 I love how people never want to take any airline to task for there poor maintenance and just put all the blame on Boeing. Heck Southwest airlines was starting to do what Alaska Airlines did at one point. You can't blame Boeing when Southwest says F it we will half ass the maintenance.
@19nobbes49 It´s Ignorance they are rely on not fact´s. Everything that´s not European or American is crap. And i have checked out statistics on Il-96 and russian aeroplanes. And they are safe, and sometimes they can cope whit more then western aeroplanes. But the thing is that they are under represented whitin western companies..and American companies.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
AeroFloat is a pretty lousy airline. I have a friend that works for the airlines and he flies the same plane and he says the plane is the most difficult thing in the world. Even in my opinion when i flew Aeroflot. I have seen business and it feels like the same thing in economy. Not a reliable plane what so ever. No russian plane is reliable. American made planes and german/italian/ and france which is airbus are the best plane companies in the world. This same exact plane crashed in Iran.
The planes what crashed in iran in some months ago are Tu-154 and IL-62, not Il-96. And Il-86 and IL-96 are pretty safe planes, not like old Tu-154. And also maintance in those areas is also bad, so western planes also fail more often in areas like Iran, than more safe areas in world.
Facts ? According to facts IL 86/ 96 are the most reliable wide-body airplane with only one lost in 27 years ( btw that flight was technical with no passengers). No facts means bla-bla-bla.
Exactly!! The Ilyushins are the safest planes around. If the IL-86 and IL-96 would have been build by a Western planebuilder we would have seen them fly all over the World in large numbers.
@thekostya2001 That´s right. If you consider a number of Il86 of Il96 that have been constructed by now comparing those numbers with those of the planes of Airbus and Boeing in the end you get the same level of reliability as the western airplanes have. The major problem is lack of proper and regular service on the ground and human mistakes in the cockpit on both sides...
@thekostya2001 according to facts they have more accidents per million miles flown than any Airbus or Boeing. the reason there are so few crashes over all is because between the IL86 and 96, only around 120 airframes were built. Compare that to the 747 (1300 frames) 777 (almost 900 frames delivered and another 200 or so orders) A330/340 (1,100 frames delivered and 400 more orders for 330s) and you're looking at Millions of miles flown for for Ilyushin, and billions of miles flown for A+B.
@Kiraina but the facts are that NO ONE passenger have ever been killed by both Il-86 and Il-96 - and those fly for more then 30 years already - so there is simply nothing to compare - you can compare only number of passangers killed per million miles flight (for example) - but Il-86 and Il-96 NEVER killed a passanger - that proves that you are wrong - these planes have very good safety record
@Kiraina A recent major ICAO study looking at 30 years of Russian plane operation found that their turboprops were 2.5 times safer than western models, and their narrow-bodied airliners had similar accident rates (per km) as western ones even though they operated in more difficult climates (in addition, models like the IL-62M had far lower hull loss rates than western equivalents and the Tu-154 (1015 built) had much lower mechanical failure rates than Boeing equivalents).
@av21031 You've forgotten to mention that according to ICAO Tu-154 had twice as many fatal accidents per 100000 flight hours compared to B-727, and Il-62 together with Il-62m had the same number of fatal accidents per 100000hrs as DC-8. ICAO didn't refer to hull loss rates because this doesn't show intensity of use of particular type of plane. As for turboprops- they compared An-24 to Fokker F-27
@rrynek Nor the fact that only a couple of Tu-154 accidents up to 2001 were due to 'mechanical failure' compared to numerous mechanical failures leading to B-727 accidents over the same period. The B-727 wasn't able to operate in many areas serviced by 154s and the only way to compare the two would be to put the 727 in the same conditions (unpaved and gravel landing strips, extreme arctic conditions etc) and see what would happen. I have no doubt what the results would be.
@av21031 Actually ICAO didn't mention mechanical failure rates for B-727 and Tu-154, but they compared the number of accidents caused by mechanical failures for both types since the beginning of operation. According to them Tu-154 had 29 accidents caused by equipment failure. B-727 has been in use for longer period of time, typical B-727 has logged more flight hours, there's been more of them and even with higher number of mechanical failures, the rates you have mentioned are lower for B-727.
@rrynek You are again bringing in different statistics in your arguments. You say 29 accidents in Tu-154s were caused by equipment failure but an accident (or incident) is clearly not the same as a fatal hull loss and you don't mention how many 'equipment failures' there were in total for 727s. In fact there were only 2 fatal hull losses due to mechanical failure of all Tu-154 incidents before 2001 (and several since then). The vast majority were for reasons totally unrelated to the plane.
@av21031 You frequently use ICAO study as a reference but you always use other statistics in your posts, not only the ones used by ICAO so why shouldn't I do the same? Besides, if you really have read ICAO report you should know how many B-727 suffered from accidents due to mechanical failure. And not all of them were hull-loss accidents. And according to the same ICAO study a fleet of B-727's had accumulated 100 000 000 flight hours at the moment when they collected data (2004)
@rrynek You can easily check the causes of fatal 154 losses on any database including wikipedia and ASN (both of which are comprehesive) so I don't know why you keep arguing the point here rather than simply checking the original data for yourself.
@av21031 I recommend that you do the same with B-727. I've found that 14 have been lost due to mechanical problems, 2 of those accidents resulted in fatalities. Number of hull loss accidents was much larger but in most cases they were caused by pilot's error, weather, atc or combination of those factors. ASN has got accurate data about serious accidents( hull-loss accidents and accidents with fatalities) because it is relatively easy to find articles describing those occurrences.
@av21031 ICAO has got more accurate data about accidents than ASN and certainly they have more info about less serious accidents and incidents. In case of B-727 and Tu-154 ICAO compared a number of accidents caused by mechanical faults and they didn't say whether those were fatal or hull-loss accidents, it just wasn't a point of this comparison. ICAO compared those planes because, according to them they represented the same level of aviation science and technology.
@av21031 B-727 had more accidents caused by mechanical faults compared to Tu-154 but it doesn't mean that, as you claimed- "Tu-154 had much lower mechanical failure rates compared to Boeing equivalents". There's been more B-727's than Tu-154's, they have been used for longer and average B-727 has logged more flight hours than typical Tu-154.
@av21031 With 1832 planes ever made it gives almost 55000 flight hours per plane. This is just basic maths. By the way- in case of soviet planes ICAO concentrated on statistics from USSR and Commonwealth of Independent States and that's because majority of those planes was and still is used in those countries. But it also means that flight safety data from outside USSR, Russia and the rest of CIS was not included.
@av21031 A number of 29 accidents due to mechanical failure comes from ICAO study again. And they used word "accidents" not "incidents" so they referred to occurrences which resulted in substantial damage to airframes and/or serious or fatal injuries to passengers.
@av21031 Boeing designed B-727 so it could operate from smaller airports compared to B-707. So unsurprisingly it was the first jet airliner certified by FAA for operation from gravel runways ( B737 was another). On top of that B-727's used in northern Canada could be used from ice runways since those planes operated in Arctic conditions.
@rrynek That may well be the case but I don't see these planes being used in the conditions that TUs were. Aeroflot is known for often substituting older Russian aircraft for services scheduled for newer western types. They leased two Boeing 777s from 1998 but allegedly found them difficult to maintain and returned them in 2005.
@av21031 How many gravel runways are there in the US? That serve commercial operations? Let me help you. None.
And why do you think it was difficult for Aeroflot to have just two 777's? Because they had just two! It makes no sense for any airline to have a subfleet that small. Aeroflot plans to have 45 Airbus and 82 Boeing aircraft. Over 120 western aircraft. They plan to have about 120 Russian-built aircraft. An equal number.
@av21031 Do this search on Google: aeroflot and the 777. Click on the first link. You will find a reply which summarizes why it was stupid for Aeroflot to have such a small subfleet. The aircraft served it's purpose substantially well. "They had to give it up because it wasn't profitable to operate only 2 of the type. Then, around the same time, SU went through a major re-branding, and decided to order 22 Boeing 787s and 22 Airbus 350s."
@scaremenga I know of numerous airlines (even national ones) that have 2 planes of a certain model. Aeroflot originally planned on operating several 777s but after leasing two for several years they decided against this and returned the two. As to your other posts, there are 100s of Russian regional airlines that use domestically-made regional and medium-range aircraft. Aeroflot International (which operates western types) split from its national services in the early 1990s.
@av21031 Yes! They decided against this, and ordered around 20 787's and 20 A350's! They got rid of the 777's as to prepare themselves for expansion when their next forty widebody WESTERN aircraft arrive. I'm talking about Aeroflot here, why? Because you brought up that they're known for choosing Russian aircraft over Westerns ones. What are you trying to prove? What can you prove?
@scaremenga I don't have to prove anything because I'm sticking to the facts (like most posters) unilke your earlier post regarding the IL-96 which contained false statements. I made no statement that Aeroflot chooses Russian planes over western ones. I said that they frequently substitute older planes for flights scheduled for new western models. If you read the posts more carefully and check your facts before you post, you won't get people having to correct you.
@av21031 "Aeroflot is known for often substituting older Russian aircraft for services scheduled for newer western types." Well one, the grammar is off in that statement, and the re-statement. Thus, that throws off the implied meaning of the statement and re-statement. And in context, your comment implies that Aeroflot either prefers Tupolev, or that Tupolev is more robust, over Western aircraft. No? "I don't see these planes being used in the conditions that TUs were."
@av21031 What false IL-96 statement? Where? I said that there were 23 built, I was one number off. Does that really throw my entire point off? No, not really. Perhaps one was finished in that time frame, six months to this day. Maybe you should check your facts as well, because I corrected you several times as well. One thing I really hate is someone who tells someone to follow guidelines that they themselves can't follow.
@av21031 Does the little snipe jab at me, "like most posters", really have any purpose? I'm talking about the plane, not you. Want to show that same respect back? I could infuse my personal ideas about you, but that's not the point of this conversation, is it?
As for Il-62s you have forgot to mention most crashes was with Polish airlines failed to follow an instruction to counter a metal fatique in an engine gondolas. Polish jokes aren;t there for no reason. It took them more than one crash to go back following the rules.
Soviet airliners are by far the most reliable being designed as a nilitary aircraft. Not too much economic but surely the safest if you are to put it into same conditions as Boeing and Airbus.
My friend, Russian planes are FAR MORE SAFER and reliable than its western counterparts.
You cannot even compare the maintenance standards between an Iranian, Uzbekistan or whatever vs western maintenance standards. The latter are far lower if not almost inexistent and yet the accident are relatively low.
If an Airbus or Boeing were put under those countries maintenance plans, trust me, there would be a lot more crashes.
It's obvious that you have absolutely no knowledge about airplanes.
It's Boeing and McDonnel Douglas planes that broke up in mid air, have lost doors, lost engines, had the roof peeled off like a sardine can, faulty adhesives, faulty insulation, faulty bolts in elevator and lost tails. Structural failures you don't see with Russian planes because Russian planes are the toughest when it comes to structural build.
yea its at the back of the plane where it shrinks and tilts a little bit up. just a airframe design. at about 6 or 7 rows from the back of the plane. very sterdy plane.
Or are saying this simply because it's a Russian plane? In my book Russian planes look better because they have a natural look to them. They have more character than Western planes. Both Civil and Military.
самолёт безусловно, очень надёжный и супер просторный, правда никогда не летал на нём, но много раз летал на 86-ом, уверен, что эта модель ещё круче. Но когда же наконец они обратят внимание на интерьер и дизайн салона, такое ощущение, что это борт из 60-их.
Как-то летел на ил-96м на Камчатку в г.Петропавловск-К. На полуострове бушевал циклон. При посадке самолет снесло в сторону от ПП. Пилот быстро по газам и вверх!
Вот это аттракцион! Круче всяких там американских горок! Со второго захода сели. Если не ил-96, а какой-нибудь боинг или аэробус вряд ли бы я вам про это рассказал ;)
This huge cabin interior is looking outdated but very spacious. Do you note the broken-down safety-card of this IL-96. It,s a big shame for Aeroflot. To provide their customers with such fucked and broken cards.
Want a PEPSI?
loudness96 3 weeks ago
They are nice looking planes inside
marcosdosh 5 months ago
those galleys are huge! never seen anything close in an airbus or boeing
snes317 7 months ago
the best plane in the world!!!
powerpod100 9 months ago
Poor guy in the blue jacket, now the whole world can watch him go to the loo. Probably not the best claim to fame.
istvanklein 9 months ago
RUSSIAN PLANES = DEATH. Warning! DO NOT FLY ON THEM.
MyAccount4TrollingU 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MyAccount4TrollingU AMERICANS PLANES = DEATH. Warning! DO NOT FLY ON THEM.
SuperAlansar 9 months ago
@MyAccount4TrollingU
Haha- Troll.
RainfulPhenix 7 months ago
@MyAccount4TrollingU How do you know? have you seen all those airbus and Boeing crashes? how many people died? Y not say American/European Planes=Death? don't be stupid and come up with a conclusion in your little head.
joshun28 7 months ago
@joshun28 10,000 Boeing and Airbus aircraft.... 40 accidents. 300 Russian aricraft.... 40 accidents. You get it now, dumb shit?
MyAccount4TrollingU 7 months ago
@MyAccount4TrollingU So your'e telling me both have 40 crashes? Ask the dead wether they would have chosen a boeing or Airbus that eventually crashed. It doesn't matter where the plane is from, if not maintained it will lead to an accident. And only 40? Boeing 747 has 35 crashes on its own. where did you get your info from fuckface?
joshun28 7 months ago
@joshun28 It's called "percentages". I concept I know you are too stupid to understand.
MyAccount4TrollingU 7 months ago
@MyAccount4TrollingU No you are the stupid one. You talk to someone and say 40 crashes. You expect the person to GUESS you are talking about percentages? Maybe your'e too stupid to make a complete sentence or better, you never knew of the word "percentage" and just google it.
joshun28 7 months ago
Reliable, comfortable, pretty and economic - who needs more? Il 96 is flawless plane!
AwesomeMikers 11 months ago
There goes another perfect airliner ruined by the western propaganda..
85LARGE 1 year ago
0:51, he went skydiving lol
TheLiftoffExperement 1 year ago
Safest Plane ever built!
Gadeto 1 year ago 2
This plane is amazing, I fle on the 86 though, there is enough room in there to play football!
zx169 1 year ago
19nobbes49 - Americans will eat their own shit what they know about airplanes.
They are dumb brainwashed idiots.
Iraqi and Afgani mujaheedens will show them how powrfull their army is.
aviomaster 1 year ago
its great to see inside this plane..thank you!
seatgurus 1 year ago
This can of Pepsi, they'll have given the plane? or, you had made up with you?
nemlou 1 year ago
Comment removed
nemlou 1 year ago
Love the bleating of "RUSSIAN PLANES ARE RUBBISH." Go compare the safety record of this plane with that of a comparable jetliner. Say an airbus a340. The Il 96 has yet to have a hull loss incident. The a340 has had five. Compare it with a boeing 747 and it looks wonderful. The 747 has had 48 hull loss accidents resulting in 2,850 fatalities. Fatalities from this jet = 0.
vulgarmachine2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RUSSIAN PLANES = DEATH
miamad 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@miamad
I think your brain is already dead!
YaropolkMSK 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@miamad
I think your brain is already dead
YaropolkMSK 1 year ago
@miamad RUSSIAN PLANES = LIFE
lemmy3001 1 year ago
@lemmy3001 RUSSIAN PLANES = LIFE IN HELL
miamad 1 year ago
@miamad Another friendly foreigner.
maxvideostorage 1 year ago
Look at the line over the luggage carrier, looks like the plane i gonna break in half, Heh
Sgndk 1 year ago
no inflight entertainment?
MACKBOOK123456 1 year ago
@MACKBOOK123456 nope
armyof2brothers 1 year ago
I've always been puzzled why Russia never concentrated on building an upgraded version of ultra-advanced IL-96 and try to compete w/ Airbus or Boeing... IL-96 is a very nice looking aircraft and Ruskies do have the manpower to build planes... they already build good air force jets...
EsotericDesi 1 year ago
@EsotericDesi Their planes are great (*wince*), but they are always too late nowadays. Look at the Tu-154, perfect competitor to the A320/757 but too late, market is already over-saturated with medium-long narrowbody aircrafts. And it certainly doesn't help that the Cold War ended about 20 years ago, tensions still remain.. ultimately making Russia the only customer of Russian aircraft manufacturers.
scaremenga 1 year ago
@scaremenga It is Tu-204, not Tu-154. Tu-154 was introduced much earlier than B757 or A320
rrynek 1 year ago
@rrynek I was two numbers off. Point in fact, you know what I was referring to.
scaremengaviation 1 year ago
From the comments I read that this plane is very safe.
And I'm willing to belive that. (btw it looks nice and I like Russian planes)
But is it also a reason that tis plane is being seen saver, because of the fact that there aren't many of these planes or not????
TS2ST 1 year ago
@TS2ST Only 23 were manufactured, from the commercial-introduction in 1992. That's 23 aircraft manufactured over a span of 18 years. A little over one a year. During it's short lifespan one of these 23 airframes already encountered a crash. Not safe. And really, no excuses considering that the production rate is so slow the aircraft should be manufactured to a point of obsessed perfection.
scaremenga 1 year ago
@scaremenga sorry to rain over your Russia-bashing parade, but you are wrong - there have never been crushes with Il-96 - there was one crush (technical flight without passengers) of Il-86 (the same big plane) of those Il-86 hundreeds were build - but both are considered to be the most safe aircrafts in the world. - you confused Il- 96 to Il- 86... by the way - I can't even imagine what would make me to go to US or Brazilian or Chineese comments boards to bs. about their planes-you are sick
Ura293 1 year ago
@Ura293 Russia-bashing? If you don't have enough integrity for your country, if Russia is indeed yours, as to call my comment a Russia-bashing parade then that's really sad. I never brought up the word Russia, or said it was a Russian aircraft. My comment was, if anything, pro-Russia. It supports people's comments of it being safe. That's okay, you don't need to. I'm not going to be visiting your country anytime soon. I'm sick of seeing anti F-22 propaganda. I'm sick? Stalker, you are.
scaremenga 1 year ago
1234typeman,
On this one (IL-96) engines are very powerful. It's IL-86 that had low bypass engines.
Frunzenskiy 2 years ago
inside it looks good,(modern),but i heard,that the motors aren´t very powerfull,is that right??
1234typeman 2 years ago
Except for the ripped safety manual, this is what american airliners need! More bathrooms, they give you A FULL CAN of pepesi!
southwestguy223 2 years ago
Looks like a fine plane. but even the russian airlines don't buy it in numbers........
squadman33 2 years ago
No center overhead bins eh? Makes the cabin look really huge?
I think it makes more sense to have the air vents on the seatbacks, rather than above your head. You'll get the airflow better...
Do pax board the IL-96 "downstairs" such as they do on the IL-86?
flubbaj 2 years ago
Not on the 96. That was removed as most airports it would be flying to would be prepared to handle such an aircraft by then, and to add that they just added dead weight, so without really much use, they took it out of the IL-96 final design.
LOTIL62 2 years ago
Thanks for the info. I always thought that was a great idea - to be able to board pax through a downstairs entrance (carrying their own luggage aboard), and then proceed upstairs to the main cabin. I always thought of it as Russia's version of the A380.
Seems like fun planes to ride on (both the IL86 & the 96.
flubbaj 2 years ago
especially, when they're flying vertically ;) just joking. well, I heard too much about crashes, and because of that I would be pissing in my pants if i were among the IL or TYupolev passengers
saszer20 1 year ago
@WorldAirwaysMD11
"No Russian plane is reliable"? What statistics do you rely on? Or is ist just blablabla? Some Facts: At present Airbus has big probs with their "advanced" electronics, esp. in the A320 and A380, and Boeing is not able to put out their "Dreamliner"in time.......
Just dealing with aircrashes without looking at the reasons (pilot´s error, bad maintenance, bad spare parts etc.,) is not serious.
19nobbes49 2 years ago 44
Airbus A380 have a bigger flying range than Il 96.
Ahuntsicspotter 2 years ago
So what? No one´s discusssing that here. The issue is if russian planes are less reliable than western ones. They aren´t. And it´s a fact that the A380 is over two years late because the electric wires turned out to be some inches too short......
19nobbes49 2 years ago 4
Yes but some russian planes are not allowed to land in some airports of the world.
Ahuntsicspotter 2 years ago
Neither are some western types at some airport. Have you ever heard of something called noise regulation? Types like the Tu-154B2, Tu-134 and IL-76s are banned from the EU simply because the engines they carry no longer meet up to EU noise regulation (though with the IL-76, if it's on a special mission, it is allowed to fly).
Other cases of aircraft getting banned is simply because of bad regulation, ran by politicians who only know that planes fly, rather than looking at why a plane crashed.
LOTIL62 2 years ago
Comment removed
LOTIL62 2 years ago
Yes but fortunatly in response, Russia do not bannig the EU registered airplanes.
Ahuntsicspotter 2 years ago
well, because EU has the safest plane/flight regulations in the world, and Russia doesn't have.
saszer20 1 year ago
Europes airline blacklist was proposed to be globalized and these proposal was made by french goverment.
Ahuntsicspotter 1 year ago
@LOTIL62 You mean like when the EU banned almost all Indonesia airlines do to piss poor safety standards. Heaven forbid the airlines are told to clean up there act.
Epica124 1 year ago
@Epica124 That second paragraph was a bit misleading (though that word limit wouldn't let me get more in depth). Basically what I mean is something like when the Indonesian Government was almost getting ready to ground all 737s because of the airlines who had manged to pick them up for 2nd hand cheap had them fall out of the sky like that (due to bad maintenance standards). Nigeria has/had a similar proposition banning any aircraft older than 25 years old from flying. Due the problems there.
LOTIL62 1 year ago
@LOTIL62 You are still missing the point. Look up Alaska Airlines Flight 261forget what kind of plane it is. Look at the airline. The airline to make money cut corner they could when it came to maintenance.
Epica124 1 year ago
@Epica124 I believe that we may not be understanding each other properly. Cutting on Maintenance is something that I'm talking about here too. What I am saying is that people will often blame the type and not the maintenance of the plane by it's owners. As a matter of fact, It seems that we are screaming the same thing at each other, but in a different way.
LOTIL62 1 year ago
@LOTIL62 I love how people never want to take any airline to task for there poor maintenance and just put all the blame on Boeing. Heck Southwest airlines was starting to do what Alaska Airlines did at one point. You can't blame Boeing when Southwest says F it we will half ass the maintenance.
Epica124 1 year ago
@19nobbes49 It´s Ignorance they are rely on not fact´s. Everything that´s not European or American is crap. And i have checked out statistics on Il-96 and russian aeroplanes. And they are safe, and sometimes they can cope whit more then western aeroplanes. But the thing is that they are under represented whitin western companies..and American companies.
xirux01 1 year ago
@19nobbes49 Go fly UNITED ;-) Usa dream ;-)
maxvideostorage 1 year ago
nice bogs!!!!
airmax1973 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
AeroFloat is a pretty lousy airline. I have a friend that works for the airlines and he flies the same plane and he says the plane is the most difficult thing in the world. Even in my opinion when i flew Aeroflot. I have seen business and it feels like the same thing in economy. Not a reliable plane what so ever. No russian plane is reliable. American made planes and german/italian/ and france which is airbus are the best plane companies in the world. This same exact plane crashed in Iran.
WorldAirwaysMD11 2 years ago
The planes what crashed in iran in some months ago are Tu-154 and IL-62, not Il-96. And Il-86 and IL-96 are pretty safe planes, not like old Tu-154. And also maintance in those areas is also bad, so western planes also fail more often in areas like Iran, than more safe areas in world.
Pvjinflight 2 years ago 6
Facts ? According to facts IL 86/ 96 are the most reliable wide-body airplane with only one lost in 27 years ( btw that flight was technical with no passengers). No facts means bla-bla-bla.
thekostya2001 2 years ago 43
thekostya2001,
Exactly!! The Ilyushins are the safest planes around. If the IL-86 and IL-96 would have been build by a Western planebuilder we would have seen them fly all over the World in large numbers.
ILTUSU 2 years ago
@thekostya2001 That´s right. If you consider a number of Il86 of Il96 that have been constructed by now comparing those numbers with those of the planes of Airbus and Boeing in the end you get the same level of reliability as the western airplanes have. The major problem is lack of proper and regular service on the ground and human mistakes in the cockpit on both sides...
SuperBoris81 1 year ago
@thekostya2001 according to facts they have more accidents per million miles flown than any Airbus or Boeing. the reason there are so few crashes over all is because between the IL86 and 96, only around 120 airframes were built. Compare that to the 747 (1300 frames) 777 (almost 900 frames delivered and another 200 or so orders) A330/340 (1,100 frames delivered and 400 more orders for 330s) and you're looking at Millions of miles flown for for Ilyushin, and billions of miles flown for A+B.
Kiraina 1 year ago
@Kiraina but the facts are that NO ONE passenger have ever been killed by both Il-86 and Il-96 - and those fly for more then 30 years already - so there is simply nothing to compare - you can compare only number of passangers killed per million miles flight (for example) - but Il-86 and Il-96 NEVER killed a passanger - that proves that you are wrong - these planes have very good safety record
rex82969 1 year ago
@Kiraina A recent major ICAO study looking at 30 years of Russian plane operation found that their turboprops were 2.5 times safer than western models, and their narrow-bodied airliners had similar accident rates (per km) as western ones even though they operated in more difficult climates (in addition, models like the IL-62M had far lower hull loss rates than western equivalents and the Tu-154 (1015 built) had much lower mechanical failure rates than Boeing equivalents).
av21031 1 year ago
@av21031 You've forgotten to mention that according to ICAO Tu-154 had twice as many fatal accidents per 100000 flight hours compared to B-727, and Il-62 together with Il-62m had the same number of fatal accidents per 100000hrs as DC-8. ICAO didn't refer to hull loss rates because this doesn't show intensity of use of particular type of plane. As for turboprops- they compared An-24 to Fokker F-27
rrynek 1 year ago
@rrynek Nor the fact that only a couple of Tu-154 accidents up to 2001 were due to 'mechanical failure' compared to numerous mechanical failures leading to B-727 accidents over the same period. The B-727 wasn't able to operate in many areas serviced by 154s and the only way to compare the two would be to put the 727 in the same conditions (unpaved and gravel landing strips, extreme arctic conditions etc) and see what would happen. I have no doubt what the results would be.
av21031 1 year ago
@av21031 Actually ICAO didn't mention mechanical failure rates for B-727 and Tu-154, but they compared the number of accidents caused by mechanical failures for both types since the beginning of operation. According to them Tu-154 had 29 accidents caused by equipment failure. B-727 has been in use for longer period of time, typical B-727 has logged more flight hours, there's been more of them and even with higher number of mechanical failures, the rates you have mentioned are lower for B-727.
rrynek 1 year ago
@rrynek You are again bringing in different statistics in your arguments. You say 29 accidents in Tu-154s were caused by equipment failure but an accident (or incident) is clearly not the same as a fatal hull loss and you don't mention how many 'equipment failures' there were in total for 727s. In fact there were only 2 fatal hull losses due to mechanical failure of all Tu-154 incidents before 2001 (and several since then). The vast majority were for reasons totally unrelated to the plane.
av21031 1 year ago
@av21031 You frequently use ICAO study as a reference but you always use other statistics in your posts, not only the ones used by ICAO so why shouldn't I do the same? Besides, if you really have read ICAO report you should know how many B-727 suffered from accidents due to mechanical failure. And not all of them were hull-loss accidents. And according to the same ICAO study a fleet of B-727's had accumulated 100 000 000 flight hours at the moment when they collected data (2004)
rrynek 1 year ago
@rrynek You can easily check the causes of fatal 154 losses on any database including wikipedia and ASN (both of which are comprehesive) so I don't know why you keep arguing the point here rather than simply checking the original data for yourself.
av21031 1 year ago
@av21031 I recommend that you do the same with B-727. I've found that 14 have been lost due to mechanical problems, 2 of those accidents resulted in fatalities. Number of hull loss accidents was much larger but in most cases they were caused by pilot's error, weather, atc or combination of those factors. ASN has got accurate data about serious accidents( hull-loss accidents and accidents with fatalities) because it is relatively easy to find articles describing those occurrences.
rrynek 1 year ago
@av21031 ICAO has got more accurate data about accidents than ASN and certainly they have more info about less serious accidents and incidents. In case of B-727 and Tu-154 ICAO compared a number of accidents caused by mechanical faults and they didn't say whether those were fatal or hull-loss accidents, it just wasn't a point of this comparison. ICAO compared those planes because, according to them they represented the same level of aviation science and technology.
rrynek 1 year ago
@av21031 B-727 had more accidents caused by mechanical faults compared to Tu-154 but it doesn't mean that, as you claimed- "Tu-154 had much lower mechanical failure rates compared to Boeing equivalents". There's been more B-727's than Tu-154's, they have been used for longer and average B-727 has logged more flight hours than typical Tu-154.
rrynek 1 year ago
@av21031 With 1832 planes ever made it gives almost 55000 flight hours per plane. This is just basic maths. By the way- in case of soviet planes ICAO concentrated on statistics from USSR and Commonwealth of Independent States and that's because majority of those planes was and still is used in those countries. But it also means that flight safety data from outside USSR, Russia and the rest of CIS was not included.
rrynek 1 year ago
@av21031 A number of 29 accidents due to mechanical failure comes from ICAO study again. And they used word "accidents" not "incidents" so they referred to occurrences which resulted in substantial damage to airframes and/or serious or fatal injuries to passengers.
rrynek 1 year ago
@av21031 Boeing designed B-727 so it could operate from smaller airports compared to B-707. So unsurprisingly it was the first jet airliner certified by FAA for operation from gravel runways ( B737 was another). On top of that B-727's used in northern Canada could be used from ice runways since those planes operated in Arctic conditions.
rrynek 1 year ago
@rrynek That may well be the case but I don't see these planes being used in the conditions that TUs were. Aeroflot is known for often substituting older Russian aircraft for services scheduled for newer western types. They leased two Boeing 777s from 1998 but allegedly found them difficult to maintain and returned them in 2005.
av21031 1 year ago
@av21031 How many gravel runways are there in the US? That serve commercial operations? Let me help you. None.
And why do you think it was difficult for Aeroflot to have just two 777's? Because they had just two! It makes no sense for any airline to have a subfleet that small. Aeroflot plans to have 45 Airbus and 82 Boeing aircraft. Over 120 western aircraft. They plan to have about 120 Russian-built aircraft. An equal number.
scaremenga 1 year ago
@av21031 Current fleet standings. 87 "western" aircraft. 6 Russian-built aircraft, being the IL-96. Entirely outnumbered.
scaremenga 1 year ago
@av21031 Do this search on Google: aeroflot and the 777. Click on the first link. You will find a reply which summarizes why it was stupid for Aeroflot to have such a small subfleet. The aircraft served it's purpose substantially well. "They had to give it up because it wasn't profitable to operate only 2 of the type. Then, around the same time, SU went through a major re-branding, and decided to order 22 Boeing 787s and 22 Airbus 350s."
scaremenga 1 year ago
@scaremenga I know of numerous airlines (even national ones) that have 2 planes of a certain model. Aeroflot originally planned on operating several 777s but after leasing two for several years they decided against this and returned the two. As to your other posts, there are 100s of Russian regional airlines that use domestically-made regional and medium-range aircraft. Aeroflot International (which operates western types) split from its national services in the early 1990s.
av21031 1 year ago
@av21031 Yes! They decided against this, and ordered around 20 787's and 20 A350's! They got rid of the 777's as to prepare themselves for expansion when their next forty widebody WESTERN aircraft arrive. I'm talking about Aeroflot here, why? Because you brought up that they're known for choosing Russian aircraft over Westerns ones. What are you trying to prove? What can you prove?
scaremenga 1 year ago
@scaremenga I don't have to prove anything because I'm sticking to the facts (like most posters) unilke your earlier post regarding the IL-96 which contained false statements. I made no statement that Aeroflot chooses Russian planes over western ones. I said that they frequently substitute older planes for flights scheduled for new western models. If you read the posts more carefully and check your facts before you post, you won't get people having to correct you.
av21031 1 year ago
@av21031 "Aeroflot is known for often substituting older Russian aircraft for services scheduled for newer western types." Well one, the grammar is off in that statement, and the re-statement. Thus, that throws off the implied meaning of the statement and re-statement. And in context, your comment implies that Aeroflot either prefers Tupolev, or that Tupolev is more robust, over Western aircraft. No? "I don't see these planes being used in the conditions that TUs were."
scaremenga 1 year ago
@av21031 What false IL-96 statement? Where? I said that there were 23 built, I was one number off. Does that really throw my entire point off? No, not really. Perhaps one was finished in that time frame, six months to this day. Maybe you should check your facts as well, because I corrected you several times as well. One thing I really hate is someone who tells someone to follow guidelines that they themselves can't follow.
scaremenga 1 year ago
@av21031 Does the little snipe jab at me, "like most posters", really have any purpose? I'm talking about the plane, not you. Want to show that same respect back? I could infuse my personal ideas about you, but that's not the point of this conversation, is it?
scaremenga 1 year ago
@rrynek av21031 +100
As for Il-62s you have forgot to mention most crashes was with Polish airlines failed to follow an instruction to counter a metal fatique in an engine gondolas. Polish jokes aren;t there for no reason. It took them more than one crash to go back following the rules.
Soviet airliners are by far the most reliable being designed as a nilitary aircraft. Not too much economic but surely the safest if you are to put it into same conditions as Boeing and Airbus.
zipacna1980 1 year ago
@zipacna1980 Could you explain what metal fatigue in engine nacelle had to do with accidents of Polish Il-62's?
rrynek 1 year ago
@thekostya2001 well, the only plane crashes that took place in my country were " thanx "to the poor Il96 design
saszer20 1 year ago
@thekostya2001 most reliable just because there are so few flying...that's proportion compared to 100000s of boeing's and airbus' planes on service.
sheverardez 1 year ago
My friend, Russian planes are FAR MORE SAFER and reliable than its western counterparts.
You cannot even compare the maintenance standards between an Iranian, Uzbekistan or whatever vs western maintenance standards. The latter are far lower if not almost inexistent and yet the accident are relatively low.
If an Airbus or Boeing were put under those countries maintenance plans, trust me, there would be a lot more crashes.
Paulo412349 2 years ago 3
WorldAirwaysMD11,
It's obvious that you have absolutely no knowledge about airplanes.
It's Boeing and McDonnel Douglas planes that broke up in mid air, have lost doors, lost engines, had the roof peeled off like a sardine can, faulty adhesives, faulty insulation, faulty bolts in elevator and lost tails. Structural failures you don't see with Russian planes because Russian planes are the toughest when it comes to structural build.
ILTUSU 2 years ago 2
WorldAirwaysMD11,
Did you know that the IL-62 has a far better safety record than the Boeing 707 and McDonnel Douglas DC-8 from the same class and era and even beyond??
I bet you didn't know that.
ILTUSU 2 years ago
It is most reliable in the world the plane
interflug 2 years ago 3
lmao, hell yes! move over 737, IL 96 is much much more secure.
likeupskirts 2 years ago 2
a chto samolet byl pustoi?
stasisnu18 2 years ago
yea its at the back of the plane where it shrinks and tilts a little bit up. just a airframe design. at about 6 or 7 rows from the back of the plane. very sterdy plane.
sabk21 2 years ago
Anybody else think the cabin looks like it's bent/sagging..?
HugelyBig 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Looks like seets in the city-bus
hotototro 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
yeah it stinks
andrejerome12 2 years ago
yeah
andrejerome12 2 years ago
any commercial airplane has seats like a city bus.. if you want good seats then fly with bussiness class
stasisnu18 2 years ago 3
if you want a good seat, stay home in your La-Z-Boy recliner.
pete5668 2 years ago 3
@1:07, lol, where he go? Outside?!?
dallyborr 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wow thats an UGLY airplane!
waielg 3 years ago
waielg,
Ugly?? You really have no taste lol!
Or are saying this simply because it's a Russian plane? In my book Russian planes look better because they have a natural look to them. They have more character than Western planes. Both Civil and Military.
ILTUSU 2 years ago
самолёт безусловно, очень надёжный и супер просторный, правда никогда не летал на нём, но много раз летал на 86-ом, уверен, что эта модель ещё круче. Но когда же наконец они обратят внимание на интерьер и дизайн салона, такое ощущение, что это борт из 60-их.
iwillshowyou 3 years ago
Жалко, а можно сделать намного лучше, думаю, вместо того, что бы ругать Американцев, надо просто у них научится, современному дизайну.
iwillshowyou 3 years ago
needs more passangers no doubt!
drusha1 3 years ago
Как-то летел на ил-96м на Камчатку в г.Петропавловск-К. На полуострове бушевал циклон. При посадке самолет снесло в сторону от ПП. Пилот быстро по газам и вверх!
zindv 3 years ago
Вот это аттракцион! Круче всяких там американских горок! Со второго захода сели. Если не ил-96, а какой-нибудь боинг или аэробус вряд ли бы я вам про это рассказал ;)
zindv 3 years ago
Comment removed
freezedelaru 2 years ago
Comment removed
freezedelaru 2 years ago
Comment removed
freezedelaru 2 years ago
Comment removed
freezedelaru 2 years ago
96-й самый лучший самолет!
ilyaon77 3 years ago
Love flying this one. So far the safest aircraft in the world.
VHOJB 3 years ago 3
This huge cabin interior is looking outdated but very spacious. Do you note the broken-down safety-card of this IL-96. It,s a big shame for Aeroflot. To provide their customers with such fucked and broken cards.
markuss1977 3 years ago
nice aircraft !!
YMMLA340 3 years ago
Kiraly
postas78 4 years ago