@FullMetalJackSquat How else do you want him to get out of the plane? Jump? The plane landed on a meadow, not at an airport/airfield so there are no gangways to use.
@catrachocolo LOL- I think what FULLMETAL's saying is 'HOW did he get into the aft cargo belly .FROM the main deck. In 'Most' if not all US/French/British made planes, this access is not possible. I was on an IL-86 at JFK one time and walked thru the Jetway, onto the airplane,.down great big wooden steps, twice, and somwhow ended up down in the rear cargo belly ! - walked down steps attached to the aircraft and was like-
'How the heck did I just do that'.? very odd ! but kool.!
@jimmywacked The IL-62 is the same. You can walk into the cargo bay from the passenger deck and early planes had really large storage areas at the rear where passengers could store large baggage. I'm sure the later MK versions of the 62 had smaller storage areas as they were configured to take takeup to 198 passengers.
@av21031 Why is that? that one can enter thru a Jet Bridge and end up in the belly~ cargo hold- and then on the ground..? Off a ladder.? that was not attached to the acft.! NOT ON AnY OTHER AIrCRAFT TYPE..
Anywhere - just weird Russian science.!!?? again.. a good grass strip landing.!
@FullMetalJackSquat That was the "luggage at hand" system that the IL-86 used to speed up boarding when there were no air bridges. Passengers deposited their luggage in underfloor compartments as they entered the airliner and then went to the upper deck. The system was used in the Lockheed Tristar and was also considerd by Airbus but is rarely used nowadays.
The IL-62 is a cool old jet but id be hesitant to fly in one if i could. Flawed engine design, even the M models. They had a sharp step in diameter of the turbine shaft and it creates a stress-riser = shaft breakage and the turbine overspeed to incredible RPM till it explodes in a matter of seconds. 2 crashed in Poland taking with it, all souls because of that flaw. Turbine disk destroyed 2 more engines and control linkages, no escaping fate after that. Excellent pilots that did this though!
@mytmousemalibu Many 1000s of D-30 engines have been fitted to many types of aircraft and a number of countries used IL-62s for presidential transport so it's highly unlikely that it's unsafe. You can't conclude much from the 2 LOT crashes as both involved other factors (they were unable to do maintenance until 1987 and were cost-cutting in the 1980s due to the industrial situation). The IL-62M actually has the lowest hull loss rate of its class (over 37 years) by whatever measure one uses.
@mytmousemalibu The difference between D-30s and western engines is that their turbine blades are more strongly attached to the shaft. As to which is safer is a circular argument that depends on the situation. Western engines have shed turbines and crashed in hailstorms, and I've never heard of that happening to an IL-62. Conversely, if a D-30 is left unmaintained and the bearings fail, the turbines may take out the shaft but vibration tests are designed to detect that.
Great airmanship, love the Il-62. I hate that they showed the faces of the scared old ladies... of course they're gonna gasp: they do that when someone drops their change at the grocery store.
@etiennedauphin They told that in German TV broadcast. Kallbach (the captain) didn't really tell his wife, what he was going to do, before he made his landing.
IL-62s were and still are good planes. Trusworthy, perfectly controlable plane. It was quite more physicaly demanding than to fly the A330 but she behaved perfectly. I wish I could fly (with) her. Just the only dark side is their thirst... and her loud singing.
One thing the American's and European's can't beat the Russians with. Tough, Built to last, All terrain planes(even airliners). Congratulations Russians!
1:25 reminds me of the landing scene in the movie "Airplane!" where the woman is grabbing at the guy's shirt. ROFL!
Seriously though, much respect to the person that woke up that morning knowing they're going to land an IL-62 in a 1000m stretch of grassy meadow. That's takes a lot of guts considering it's done voluntarily.
First thing I would say after opening the door would be; "If you think that was cool, wait until you see my next stunt." lol
@mamukacool The IL-62 was developed from Ilyushin's Supersonic Airliner project of the 1950s (the IL-66) as well as the IL-18, both of which pre-dated the VC10 project. The IL-66 had a similar powerplant layout to the IL-62 but was never built (the Russians opted for the Tu-144). The IL-66 was re-designed for subsonic flight and increased passenger/load-carrying capability, and became the IL-62 which was later upgraded to the IL-62M (the one in use today).
@av21031 Vickers started working on V1000 model for RAF in early 1950's and it would be offered as VC-7 on civilian market. From the very beginning it was meant to be subsonic, long range airliner with six-abreast seating- it was larger than B-707 and DC-8, which were being designed at the same time. It would have Conway engines embedded in the wing, just like Comet. The project was cancelled in 1955 and almost completed prototype was scrapped.
@av21031 Vickers continued working on the project though and in 1957 when BOAC approached them with an order for a long range airliner, which could operate from airports at high altitudes and in hot climate, they came up with VC-10. It had shortened fuselage and in early 1957 engines were moved from wing roots and aircraft received rear engine layout- the same as production models. Il-66 was a project from 1959 and as such it certainly didn't 'pre-date' VC-10 project.
The VC10 was actually a totally different design to V1000 or VC7 (apart from the engines) and there is probably more similarity between IL-66 & original IL-62. Russian SST research began before the IL-66 project (M-53/55A, M-55B & M-55V) which itself was cancelled 3 years before the VC10 flew. Several IL-62 features suggest supersonic research (high G -force fuselage/wings, landing gear/undercarriage design etc) none of which could have been 'acquired' from the west because of the Cold War.
@av21031 Actually engines in VC-7 had to be different to those installed in VC-10. Conways installed in VC-7 were burried into a wing structure( like in comet) so they had to have limited bypass ratio, and VC-10 didn't have such limitations. Those two planes had similar capacity, similar range, they were both subsonic (just like Il-62) so they had swept wings (like il-62 and unlike Il-66).
@av21031 Ilyushin started working on Il-66 in 1959 and it was cancelled in 1962 and one of the reasons for cancellation was that Ilyushin was too busy working on other projects such as Il-62. VC-10 received its well known shape with rear mounted engines in 1957 so it pre-dates both Il-66 and Il-62
@av21031 I just wanted to point out that there are indications that VC-10 project started much earlier than Il-62 and therefore it was possible for Soviet spies to obtain certain information about British aircraft. However I am aware that there are too many differences between those two types to claim that one was a copy of the other. Il-62 had completely different wing for example( diffrent sweep angle- 35 degrees instead of 32,5, no slats, 20% larger fuel tanks compared to VC-10, etc)
@av21031 Il-66 had canards and delta wings- very different to those you can find in Il-62. It was meant to travel at 3 times the speed of sound which meant it could not be made of aluminium, Ilyushin would have to use steel instead. And fuselage was also much smaller that the one in Il-62. The only thing those two designs had in common was rear engined layout, but it had been used on Caravelle before and on VC-10 as well. Lockheed L-193 was probably the first airliner to have such layout.
@av21031 Il-18 was of course an earlier project, but with straight wings, wing mounted engines and narrower fuselage it is very difficult to find any similarities between this type and Il-62.
mamukacool It was the other way around. Later versions of the VC10 'adopted' aspects of the IL-62 wing (and other manufacturers copied the high speed IL-62 type undercarriage). As to the 144 and Concorde, the delta shape was/is standard under the dictates of supersonic flight (although the two still had their differences). US supersonic designs from the '60s looked more like cadillacs than planes - which may explain why they never actually flew....
@av21031 Some of regular(shorter) VC-10's had wing chord extension which made their wings look like the ones used in Super VC-10. And Super VC-10's had this "dog tooth" as a standard feature in 1964. So if anything VC-10s adopted aspects of wing used in Super VC-10 and that was done to reduce fuel consumption at high speed cruise. And it wasn't the first plane to have such modifications- in 1962 B-707-320B received a dogtooth on leading edge of a wing
IL -62 is copy of British VC 10. The Soviet designers liked to steal models of planes. Another example: Concorde and Tu -144. I can tell you about many other examples like this...
Russian planes are by far better than their reputation. I say this without beeing a Russian. From my point of view the aircrafts are very robust and reliable. The Tu 154M for example is also very fast. One of the fastest commercial planes in the world. We are not talking about high tech but it works out. The USA invented the ballpen for the NASA to write with ink under zero G conditions. It cost 10 million dollars. The Russians simply used a pencil. A matter of attitude ! :-)
@Slaterator I read that the 154M is the fastest jet today, but I'm not sure if it is faster then an IL-62M at full throttle. Saw a Flight Global article on the retirement of some European airline's 154 and as they were prepping on the tarmac a new Boeing took off in front of them. The 154 pilot commented to the journalist that he would overtake him later on, and they did. BTW a Hungarian László Bíró invented the ballpoint (1938) & Fisher modified it for 0-gravity (1965) as used by NASA.
Ok, I didn´t know the whole story about the ballpen. But I know that NASA invested 10 million dollars to make it spaceproof. :-) The 154 is still one of the fastes aircrafts. Maybe the IL 62M is even faster at full throttle but who cares ? It is faster than Boeing or Airbus. What I tried to say was that Russian aircrafts should not be seen as flying coffins, because it is simply not true. I´am an Airbus fan. But I also like the Tu 154M, the IL 62M etc. Great planes !
@av21031 Maximum operating speed for Tu-154M is Mmo=0,86 and its Mmo=0,83 for Il-62M. Obviously both can fly faster, but it wouldn't be in normal operations with passengers. Tu-154M( and B) are limited to Mmax=0,95- this is speed limit specified by manufacturer. Il-62M is not limited by thrust, but by stability at higher speeds.
I hate moronic videos that keep showing reactions to the event rather than the event itself. I wanted to see the landing uninterrupted, not some morons making faces!
It was possible to do this because the Il-62 has a strongly reinforced hull which makes it somewhat heavy. It was intended to allow undercarriage-up landing, but in practice the undercarriage proved very robust (especially compared to planes like the B 707) and the design was later copied by other manufacturers. Interflug really knew these planes inside out (and they always used them as government transport) so they would have known that the plane could withstand such a rough landing.
The main issue here was the landing gear holding out. This is probably the later version L-62M with the more powerful Soloviev engines('71) and STOL characteristics like the competitive VC-10, 727, Trident of its day. While unlike its competitors using Manual Flight Controls! Talk about about genuine feel kinda like the 707. Although not selling well it remains in service today some 40 yrs later as a passenger airliner produced until 1995! Long range and short field! Not bad.
@lionheart270866 Nope:) Soloviev engines had different nacelles and different type of thrust reverse. So this is an older version with Kuznetsov NK-8 engines.
@donnchadh5 Yeah, those old Soviet planes like the IL-62, Tu-134 and Tu-154's were rugged indeed. And don't think planes from other countries couldn't do that, a C-17 can land anywhere and that's about as west as you can get.
@phillyslasher youve prob broken the east half of a compass lmao i didnt say the c17 cudnt but its a military aircraft cant say a 767 cud do that lol or even a 727 any all american aircraft of the roughly the same size lol
@donnchadh5 No you're definitely right about that. But, maybe a configured 737. They fly a few of those on some pretty sketchy strips up in Alaska. Then again, I don't think it would matter. If you wanted to, you could put a 767 down on a grass strip if it was long enough, it's not like the IL-62 was specifically designed for that either. Very good pilots.
IL-62 is a great airplane much better than the VC-10, strange that people like to say Russian plane copy western planes while nobody say that the DC-8 is a copy of B707
@AugmentedB737@AugmentedB737 "strange that people like to say Russian plane copy western planes" Most of them did.and especially from the Europeans. Just look at the concorde knockoff that ultimately failed. Most of the Russians original designed where the heavy lift airplanes such as the antonov's and their fighter jets.
@EpiDemic117 i say that because those people don't see that some western planes are based on or look similar to other too like the DC-8 is based on 707 but nobody say that the "DC-8 is a copy of 707" or "DC-9 is a copy of BAC One Eleven" that why i think it's strange
Congratulations from Poland!It's a marvellous and spectacular landing with a very high risk!Anyway the IL-62,a "step brother" of VC-10 was designed to service in a short runways in Africa.Visiting Germany i must see this extraordinary monument of brave and glory of the German Aviation!Gruess Gott!
This is one of the old Interflug IL-62s 'Lady Agnes' now a museum. The engines were tested after it landed and they worked fine in spite of the dirt ingestion. You could not do this with a new airliner (the IL-62 has a reinforced hull so could take the impact. Still they weren't 100% sure so had fire trucks/ambulances there just in case). They landed on only 900m because the rough ground meant much more friction on the landing gear plus, like most Russian planes, the IL-62 has reverse thrust.
@rrynek As far as I know the IL-62 only ever had two thrust reversers (on the outer engines only). This is because its brakes alone are insufficient to stop the plane on a short runway.
@augusta613 Yes of course. B-707 didn't like short runways either but it had thrust reverser on each engine. I know that initially VC-10 had only 2 and later on 4 but they had some problems when all 4 were activated. I just wonder why Il-62 had only 2.
@rrynek The problem with having only 2 thrust reversers is that if one doesn't engage the plane becomes hard to control when all thrust is on the same side. That's what happened to СССР-86470 in Luxembourg airport when she ran off the runway and hit a water tower.
@rrynek What is surprising is how few crashes were due to bad weather given where these planes flew (esp Siberia/far east). In 43 years there are 2 definites (CCCP 86671 & CU T1281) and possibly P889? (also airport ILS system was not operating in 86671 crash). In comparison 707/DC8/9s (but not VC-10) seem to have many weather-related crashes/fuselage failures. Thiel claims that IL-62s are almost immune to turbulence due to the wing/tail design so perhaps that may be a factor for IL-62 & VC-10.
@augusta613 One Tu-154M (RA-85185) was lost in very heavy storm in August 2006. It isn't the same size as Il-62 but you cannot call Tu-154 small. This accident together with accidents of CU-T1281 and B-707 G-APFE show that airliners should stay away from extremely heavy storms regardless of design. As for B-707- most weather related accidents occurred during landing when heavy rain and/or strong tail wind extended landing run so planes overshot runways.
@augusta613 There were also situations where difficult weather conditions were not main cause of accident but were one of contributing factors ( for example Flight AVA052 on 25th of January 1990). VC-10 wasn't involved in large number of crashes but only few of them ever flew and for short period of time so it is difficult to say about their behaviour in bad weather.
That is a fantasic landing with soviet aircraft doing what they do best. Congrats to the pilots as well!
Regarding some of the comments below, yes, this aircraft is flawed with its engines, but all other major soviet AC have crashed due to human error. I believe this means they are a safe ac. If you look at American planes, the 737 had a flaw with the rudder which caused it to jam and the DC-10 had a cargo door which was knowingly not fit for use.
@GatwickVideo The main problem was engine layout- 4 engines were close together so in case of damage of one the other could be damaged as well. But in this case it turned out to be very useful that engines had been mounted at the rear part of fuselage. Engines under wings could have touched the ground.
@GatwickVideo The engine configuration requires more thorough turbine inspections (as in VC-10) so as to minimise chance of contagious engine failure. But that was the design of the '60s and the odds of serious damage was statistically tiny (in 2 cases where it occurred, turbine inspections had been only rudimentary and no vibration tests had been done. There is also question over how many hrs the engines had accrued). Contagious damage can and has also occurred in wing mounted engines.
@GatwickVideo The Douglas was not bought out by Boeing yet when the DC-10 incidents happened. That reason is what forced Douglas into bankruptcy. Just look at the MD-90. The rudder flaw was fixed immediately and the 737 has still become the best selling twin engine jets ever (surpassing Boeing's own 727). Look at the forest, not the trees!
@jojo12455 I was just stating that western a/c have their design flaws in the past, as did some Russian types. Nowadays though, design flaws are very rare and relativley minor. I agree with you on the 737, a marvelous A/C, much better than the scare-bus!
All engines from that Era needed proper maintenance wich includes vibration checks. LOT's accident rate was 30 times as high as any other Carrier who used
the IL-62. In fact the IL-62 has a far better safety record than it's direct Western rivals it competed against. Aviation has become safer. Even US planes, who have a history of ridiculous and unecessary structural failures, have become stronger. But when it comes to overall structural integrity no plane beats an Ilyushin.
I don't call a tail strike on landing anything to be proud of. The potential for damage is too great, and the cost of getting that bird inspected is astronomical. And, I feel he could have been going 10-20 kph slower on approach; at least thats what I would have done.
You are embarassing yourself because of your ignorance. (Yes, ignorance does that to people). There is no "tail strike" in this video whatsoever. Moreover, IL-62 by design has a 4-point landing gear with the fourth set of wheels in the tail. It is specifically designed as an airplane that can purposedly use (or "strike") its tail for support on landing with zero damage. The landing in this video is school-book perfect.
This is a great video, but the camera work was very annoying. Instead of focusing purely on the landing, the camera person starts to document audience reactions instead of filming the ENTIRE landing from start to finish.
LOL!! Check out NaziKiller profile. He is Swiss, has a Russian flag on his profile, hates the Nazis so he also hates Poles. This guy needs some mental help or a clown's job in the circus!
The only thing that russia is the strongest in the world in, is immitating africa and its monkeys. Africa is the biggest continent and a garbage dump, russia is the biggest country and a garbage dump. So FU. :)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I think this plane is a copy of the VC-10, and I dont understand why that plane is getting that record when its a copy, I swear Russia really do copy other planes.
I would rather fly an Il-62, Tu-134, or Tu154 any day of the week over that fucking abortion, dangerous, disgustingly cheap heap of crap Boeing 737. It's patently unsafe, and is just CRAP.
How do I know? I USED to fly them, with over 2,000 hours command on them (real, not in freaking Flight Stimulator). Nearly every flight there was SOMETHING. I REFUSE to put my wife and family on them, and would rather wait for an A320 then a fucking 737.
Don't even mention the fact that this plane was still a ticking time bomb that went off several times in the 1980's. Name one quality aircraft that the Russians have made........yeah, exactly. Whether it's Tupelov or Illuyshin, boarding a Russian passenger aircraft is like playing Russian roulette with your life (no pun intended). Numerous accidents with the Tu-134, 154, Illuyshin IL-62, IL-76; you name it, and it has fallen out of the sky in pieces.
Name one? No problem. IL-96. Modern, fly-by-wire, glass cockpit, widebody, and not a single crash or serious incident in its 20-year history. Definitely the best commercial aircraft Russia has built.
The TU-154 had incidents, but the overall percentage of crashes to aircraft still in service makes it ABOVE AVERAGE in safety and reliability, and this is WITH third world countries taking poor care of it.
Yeah, you can stfu now. Don't post senseless garbage anymore.
"After the TU-154 had been in service for 26 years and logged some 21 million flight hours (1998), it had a better than average safety record (1.7 times fewer incidents than the world average [ICAO 1998 stats])."
Same exact thing for the tu-134, and every other russian aircraft EXCEPT for the IL-62, which DOES have a design flaw with its engines.
Why don't you look up the accident stats on something like a 737 for comparison?
You're an idiot...the number of IL-62 flights and TU-154 flights put together would still be a small fraction of the number of 737 flights and number of planes built...you obviously never took a basic statistics class, or else you would know what Sample Size means when taking inferences from statistics. 737s have more accidents because they are responsible for an OVERWHELMING number of flights flown, planes put into service etc. Look it up dipshit.
Yeah, right, while a simple reality check shows that the abovementioned aircraft significanly surpass the safety repord of many non-Russian and/or American aircraft, not even mentuioning such examples as, say, IL-96, which is one of the most safe aircraft ever built in the world. "Ticking time bomb", LOL! What with McDonell-Douglas out of circulation, you think their middle name now suddently belongs to Russians? May I remind you that many of the MDs are still in use in USA.
IL-62s, like all Russian planes, are built HEAVY. That plane must've had some heavily built, tough landing gear to allow for a grass strip landing. I doubt even a B-727 would be capable of that!
I guess they had to pull it out of service right then and there. The FOD (foreign object damage) from a grass strip takeoff or landing can be very worrisome.
takkeitfed, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? I was writing to someone about the movie we both saw, how the russians fucked up the engine in the factory by removing parts of a bearing. They didn't care, just like the russian government doesn't care about its own people. Did I lie about anything? NO. Man, you need some mental help dude...
Cool stuff.Thanks for sharing.
MrCriticOfAll 1 week ago
In 1998, I travelled with Captain Kallbach to Teneriffe - a real great little man.
kuvwuk 2 months ago 2
The narrator's muffled voice means that I cannot hear the name of the German village where this is, anyone know? Thanks
CaptBubble 3 months ago
@CaptBubble The village is called Stölln, some 45km west of Berlin. Otto Lilienthal died there. The IL-62 was a gift to the local glider school.
catrachocolo 3 months ago
@catrachocolo Many thanks!
CaptBubble 3 months ago
Comment removed
fortyninepages 4 months ago
Captain Kallbach was extremely lucky. The nose wheel stopped four feet short of a ditch.
ontologix 6 months ago
The Best Pilots!!!
punchoo 8 months ago
Can someone tell me how did they get the plane out of the grass.
Aalvafaust 9 months ago
captain gets off the plane thru the aft cargo belly..on a ladder.. thats a great design.
nice landing► #FAIL for an airplane.!
FullMetalJackSquat 9 months ago
@FullMetalJackSquat How else do you want him to get out of the plane? Jump? The plane landed on a meadow, not at an airport/airfield so there are no gangways to use.
catrachocolo 8 months ago
@catrachocolo LOL- I think what FULLMETAL's saying is 'HOW did he get into the aft cargo belly .FROM the main deck. In 'Most' if not all US/French/British made planes, this access is not possible. I was on an IL-86 at JFK one time and walked thru the Jetway, onto the airplane,.down great big wooden steps, twice, and somwhow ended up down in the rear cargo belly ! - walked down steps attached to the aircraft and was like-
'How the heck did I just do that'.? very odd ! but kool.!
jimmywacked 8 months ago
@jimmywacked The IL-62 is the same. You can walk into the cargo bay from the passenger deck and early planes had really large storage areas at the rear where passengers could store large baggage. I'm sure the later MK versions of the 62 had smaller storage areas as they were configured to take takeup to 198 passengers.
av21031 8 months ago
@av21031 Why is that? that one can enter thru a Jet Bridge and end up in the belly~ cargo hold- and then on the ground..? Off a ladder.? that was not attached to the acft.! NOT ON AnY OTHER AIrCRAFT TYPE..
Anywhere - just weird Russian science.!!?? again.. a good grass strip landing.!
FullMetalJackSquat 8 months ago
@FullMetalJackSquat That was the "luggage at hand" system that the IL-86 used to speed up boarding when there were no air bridges. Passengers deposited their luggage in underfloor compartments as they entered the airliner and then went to the upper deck. The system was used in the Lockheed Tristar and was also considerd by Airbus but is rarely used nowadays.
av21031 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@av21031 COPY- Russian "luggage at hand" theory applied !
FullMetalJackSquat 8 months ago
The IL-62 is a cool old jet but id be hesitant to fly in one if i could. Flawed engine design, even the M models. They had a sharp step in diameter of the turbine shaft and it creates a stress-riser = shaft breakage and the turbine overspeed to incredible RPM till it explodes in a matter of seconds. 2 crashed in Poland taking with it, all souls because of that flaw. Turbine disk destroyed 2 more engines and control linkages, no escaping fate after that. Excellent pilots that did this though!
mytmousemalibu 9 months ago
@mytmousemalibu Many 1000s of D-30 engines have been fitted to many types of aircraft and a number of countries used IL-62s for presidential transport so it's highly unlikely that it's unsafe. You can't conclude much from the 2 LOT crashes as both involved other factors (they were unable to do maintenance until 1987 and were cost-cutting in the 1980s due to the industrial situation). The IL-62M actually has the lowest hull loss rate of its class (over 37 years) by whatever measure one uses.
av21031 8 months ago
@mytmousemalibu The difference between D-30s and western engines is that their turbine blades are more strongly attached to the shaft. As to which is safer is a circular argument that depends on the situation. Western engines have shed turbines and crashed in hailstorms, and I've never heard of that happening to an IL-62. Conversely, if a D-30 is left unmaintained and the bearings fail, the turbines may take out the shaft but vibration tests are designed to detect that.
av21031 8 months ago
Those are damn good pilots especially since there was no hi technology back then.
MayorMcCheese47 9 months ago
I will never be able to understand how they managed to do that. That was one good pilot.
MrFlightfan 10 months ago
Great airmanship, love the Il-62. I hate that they showed the faces of the scared old ladies... of course they're gonna gasp: they do that when someone drops their change at the grocery store.
etiennedauphin 11 months ago
@etiennedauphin Well, the lady making faces is the captain's wife.
eltfell 6 months ago
@eltfell Really? I'll take it you know what you're talking about.
Did the Il-62 have an elevator like the Il-86 and others? You know, for hauling up food and stuff from the lower cargo bay...
etiennedauphin 6 months ago
@etiennedauphin They told that in German TV broadcast. Kallbach (the captain) didn't really tell his wife, what he was going to do, before he made his landing.
Beside that, I'm not a IL-62 expert, sorry.
eltfell 6 months ago
@eltfell Gotcha, thanks for that bit of translation :)
The more technical question was for anyone who knows the answer.
etiennedauphin 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IL-62s were and still are good planes. Trusworthy, perfectly controlable plane. It was quite more physicaly demanding than to fly the A330 but she behaved perfectly. I wish I could fly (with) her. Just the only dark side is their thirst... and her loud singing.
QantasB747 1 year ago
Comment removed
QantasB747 1 year ago
One thing the American's and European's can't beat the Russians with. Tough, Built to last, All terrain planes(even airliners). Congratulations Russians!
Techno04335 1 year ago
nice short field performance! Great technique!
XBoeingCapt 1 year ago
this's a great maneuverable aircraft.
ichbintharaka 1 year ago
1:25 reminds me of the landing scene in the movie "Airplane!" where the woman is grabbing at the guy's shirt. ROFL!
Seriously though, much respect to the person that woke up that morning knowing they're going to land an IL-62 in a 1000m stretch of grassy meadow. That's takes a lot of guts considering it's done voluntarily.
First thing I would say after opening the door would be; "If you think that was cool, wait until you see my next stunt." lol
kasteman1 1 year ago
Comment removed
kasteman1 1 year ago
Comment removed
kasteman1 1 year ago
Soviet pilots always will be the best.
erjamon1 1 year ago
@erjamon1 Yeah, your airshows proove it. Too many times the spectators ended up in pieces...
plsniper 1 year ago
@mamukacool The IL-62 was developed from Ilyushin's Supersonic Airliner project of the 1950s (the IL-66) as well as the IL-18, both of which pre-dated the VC10 project. The IL-66 had a similar powerplant layout to the IL-62 but was never built (the Russians opted for the Tu-144). The IL-66 was re-designed for subsonic flight and increased passenger/load-carrying capability, and became the IL-62 which was later upgraded to the IL-62M (the one in use today).
av21031 1 year ago
@av21031 Vickers started working on V1000 model for RAF in early 1950's and it would be offered as VC-7 on civilian market. From the very beginning it was meant to be subsonic, long range airliner with six-abreast seating- it was larger than B-707 and DC-8, which were being designed at the same time. It would have Conway engines embedded in the wing, just like Comet. The project was cancelled in 1955 and almost completed prototype was scrapped.
rrynek 1 year ago
@av21031 Vickers continued working on the project though and in 1957 when BOAC approached them with an order for a long range airliner, which could operate from airports at high altitudes and in hot climate, they came up with VC-10. It had shortened fuselage and in early 1957 engines were moved from wing roots and aircraft received rear engine layout- the same as production models. Il-66 was a project from 1959 and as such it certainly didn't 'pre-date' VC-10 project.
rrynek 1 year ago
The VC10 was actually a totally different design to V1000 or VC7 (apart from the engines) and there is probably more similarity between IL-66 & original IL-62. Russian SST research began before the IL-66 project (M-53/55A, M-55B & M-55V) which itself was cancelled 3 years before the VC10 flew. Several IL-62 features suggest supersonic research (high G -force fuselage/wings, landing gear/undercarriage design etc) none of which could have been 'acquired' from the west because of the Cold War.
av21031 1 year ago
@av21031 Actually engines in VC-7 had to be different to those installed in VC-10. Conways installed in VC-7 were burried into a wing structure( like in comet) so they had to have limited bypass ratio, and VC-10 didn't have such limitations. Those two planes had similar capacity, similar range, they were both subsonic (just like Il-62) so they had swept wings (like il-62 and unlike Il-66).
rrynek 1 year ago
@av21031 Ilyushin started working on Il-66 in 1959 and it was cancelled in 1962 and one of the reasons for cancellation was that Ilyushin was too busy working on other projects such as Il-62. VC-10 received its well known shape with rear mounted engines in 1957 so it pre-dates both Il-66 and Il-62
rrynek 1 year ago
@av21031 I just wanted to point out that there are indications that VC-10 project started much earlier than Il-62 and therefore it was possible for Soviet spies to obtain certain information about British aircraft. However I am aware that there are too many differences between those two types to claim that one was a copy of the other. Il-62 had completely different wing for example( diffrent sweep angle- 35 degrees instead of 32,5, no slats, 20% larger fuel tanks compared to VC-10, etc)
rrynek 1 year ago
@av21031 Il-66 had canards and delta wings- very different to those you can find in Il-62. It was meant to travel at 3 times the speed of sound which meant it could not be made of aluminium, Ilyushin would have to use steel instead. And fuselage was also much smaller that the one in Il-62. The only thing those two designs had in common was rear engined layout, but it had been used on Caravelle before and on VC-10 as well. Lockheed L-193 was probably the first airliner to have such layout.
rrynek 1 year ago
@av21031 Il-18 was of course an earlier project, but with straight wings, wing mounted engines and narrower fuselage it is very difficult to find any similarities between this type and Il-62.
rrynek 1 year ago
mamukacool It was the other way around. Later versions of the VC10 'adopted' aspects of the IL-62 wing (and other manufacturers copied the high speed IL-62 type undercarriage). As to the 144 and Concorde, the delta shape was/is standard under the dictates of supersonic flight (although the two still had their differences). US supersonic designs from the '60s looked more like cadillacs than planes - which may explain why they never actually flew....
av21031 1 year ago
@av21031 Some of regular(shorter) VC-10's had wing chord extension which made their wings look like the ones used in Super VC-10. And Super VC-10's had this "dog tooth" as a standard feature in 1964. So if anything VC-10s adopted aspects of wing used in Super VC-10 and that was done to reduce fuel consumption at high speed cruise. And it wasn't the first plane to have such modifications- in 1962 B-707-320B received a dogtooth on leading edge of a wing
rrynek 1 year ago
Comment removed
av21031 1 year ago
IL -62 is copy of British VC 10. The Soviet designers liked to steal models of planes. Another example: Concorde and Tu -144. I can tell you about many other examples like this...
mamukacool 1 year ago
Amazing landing.
(And a nice view of Pearson from the Old T1 to boot!)
mapleavenue77 1 year ago
RUSSIAN PLANES = DEATH
miamad 1 year ago
@miamad
cried Nazi panzers, when approached by IL-2
However, that was faaar ago
Ann0ynimouse 1 year ago
@miamad well it doest show that here ! and most crashes are to human error !
cvonta 1 year ago
@miamad
Russian planes are by far better than their reputation. I say this without beeing a Russian. From my point of view the aircrafts are very robust and reliable. The Tu 154M for example is also very fast. One of the fastest commercial planes in the world. We are not talking about high tech but it works out. The USA invented the ballpen for the NASA to write with ink under zero G conditions. It cost 10 million dollars. The Russians simply used a pencil. A matter of attitude ! :-)
Slaterator 1 year ago
@Slaterator Thats funny. Nice try.
miamad 1 year ago
@Slaterator I read that the 154M is the fastest jet today, but I'm not sure if it is faster then an IL-62M at full throttle. Saw a Flight Global article on the retirement of some European airline's 154 and as they were prepping on the tarmac a new Boeing took off in front of them. The 154 pilot commented to the journalist that he would overtake him later on, and they did. BTW a Hungarian László Bíró invented the ballpoint (1938) & Fisher modified it for 0-gravity (1965) as used by NASA.
av21031 1 year ago
@av21031
Ok, I didn´t know the whole story about the ballpen. But I know that NASA invested 10 million dollars to make it spaceproof. :-) The 154 is still one of the fastes aircrafts. Maybe the IL 62M is even faster at full throttle but who cares ? It is faster than Boeing or Airbus. What I tried to say was that Russian aircrafts should not be seen as flying coffins, because it is simply not true. I´am an Airbus fan. But I also like the Tu 154M, the IL 62M etc. Great planes !
Slaterator 1 year ago
@av21031 Maximum operating speed for Tu-154M is Mmo=0,86 and its Mmo=0,83 for Il-62M. Obviously both can fly faster, but it wouldn't be in normal operations with passengers. Tu-154M( and B) are limited to Mmax=0,95- this is speed limit specified by manufacturer. Il-62M is not limited by thrust, but by stability at higher speeds.
rrynek 1 year ago
@miamad
Ye agree and French too.
gary851 1 year ago
I hate moronic videos that keep showing reactions to the event rather than the event itself. I wanted to see the landing uninterrupted, not some morons making faces!
cdallacosta 1 year ago 15
Comment removed
sablatnic 3 months ago
Totally agree. Must have been cut by a woman.
sablatnic 3 months ago
american plane cant do that
fcbcdl 1 year ago
My compliments to Captain Kalmbach on this impressive feat!
Flies2FLL 1 year ago 2
Fantastyczne :) 5/5
Nowodworzak 1 year ago
why?
myrandomspaces 1 year ago
So super klip. Danke, Kiitos, Kap Khun Kapp
Dr John
Carsanook
Bangkok
carsanookdotcom 1 year ago
It was possible to do this because the Il-62 has a strongly reinforced hull which makes it somewhat heavy. It was intended to allow undercarriage-up landing, but in practice the undercarriage proved very robust (especially compared to planes like the B 707) and the design was later copied by other manufacturers. Interflug really knew these planes inside out (and they always used them as government transport) so they would have known that the plane could withstand such a rough landing.
av21031 1 year ago
balls of steel
antyTVP 1 year ago
were the pilots german or russian? anyway, that's what I call one of the best landings I've ever seen!
AirbusA330Pilot 1 year ago
@AirbusA330Pilot There were german, russian and a bottle of vodka:)
oncelostmain 1 year ago
great landing but madness
spencedanny1 1 year ago
The main issue here was the landing gear holding out. This is probably the later version L-62M with the more powerful Soloviev engines('71) and STOL characteristics like the competitive VC-10, 727, Trident of its day. While unlike its competitors using Manual Flight Controls! Talk about about genuine feel kinda like the 707. Although not selling well it remains in service today some 40 yrs later as a passenger airliner produced until 1995! Long range and short field! Not bad.
lionheart270866 1 year ago
@lionheart270866 Nope:) Soloviev engines had different nacelles and different type of thrust reverse. So this is an older version with Kuznetsov NK-8 engines.
rrynek 1 year ago
HA BEAT THAT AIRBUS!!!
r1oot 1 year ago
great video
dom86juve 1 year ago
this landing is a testoment to the russian aircrafts durability in contrast with other global cmpetitors its simply HARD
donnchadh5 1 year ago
@donnchadh5 . Wonder why then nobody buys them..
matatan69 1 year ago
@matatan69 cus their arguebly inefficient and some countries boycott russia
donnchadh5 1 year ago
@donnchadh5 Yeah, those old Soviet planes like the IL-62, Tu-134 and Tu-154's were rugged indeed. And don't think planes from other countries couldn't do that, a C-17 can land anywhere and that's about as west as you can get.
phillyslasher 1 year ago
@phillyslasher youve prob broken the east half of a compass lmao i didnt say the c17 cudnt but its a military aircraft cant say a 767 cud do that lol or even a 727 any all american aircraft of the roughly the same size lol
donnchadh5 1 year ago
@donnchadh5 No you're definitely right about that. But, maybe a configured 737. They fly a few of those on some pretty sketchy strips up in Alaska. Then again, I don't think it would matter. If you wanted to, you could put a 767 down on a grass strip if it was long enough, it's not like the IL-62 was specifically designed for that either. Very good pilots.
phillyslasher 1 year ago
@phillyslasher hmm true lol
donnchadh5 1 year ago
I still dont beleave its real. No more comments. Superb.
doberman921 1 year ago
IL-62 is a great airplane much better than the VC-10, strange that people like to say Russian plane copy western planes while nobody say that the DC-8 is a copy of B707
AugmentedB737 1 year ago
@AugmentedB737 @AugmentedB737 "strange that people like to say Russian plane copy western planes" Most of them did.and especially from the Europeans. Just look at the concorde knockoff that ultimately failed. Most of the Russians original designed where the heavy lift airplanes such as the antonov's and their fighter jets.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 i say that because those people don't see that some western planes are based on or look similar to other too like the DC-8 is based on 707 but nobody say that the "DC-8 is a copy of 707" or "DC-9 is a copy of BAC One Eleven" that why i think it's strange
AugmentedB737 1 year ago
Congratulations from Poland!It's a marvellous and spectacular landing with a very high risk!Anyway the IL-62,a "step brother" of VC-10 was designed to service in a short runways in Africa.Visiting Germany i must see this extraordinary monument of brave and glory of the German Aviation!Gruess Gott!
Sowka1967 1 year ago
Nice video. The Russian 'sister' of Super VC-10. Love 'em!
andreaprodan 1 year ago
What an awesom video! American, Russian, whatever. An airplane is a airplane and I love them all!
maousn75 1 year ago 34
@maousn75 Russian Beast
Flyglobespan93 1 year ago
@maousn75 it´s german :D
YyMaxyY94 9 months ago
WOW!!!!
munndrekki 1 year ago
do you know why they did this? they were try of landing to use this planes in invasion on europe . simply it was a tryout and test of gears.
wojbert 1 year ago
@wojbert How about listening the comment? Everything´s said...
TheBluewaterII 1 year ago
@wojbert WTF.. you on drugs or something.....
61Wasser 1 year ago
Wowowow just look at that nose waaaay up in the air, luckily there was no tail strike... Russian made planes are indeed rugged champions
florinbaiduc 1 year ago
By the way, the pilot - now in retirement - still flies a DC3 for sightseeing flights from Berlin Tempelhof airport... Happy chap!
And the blonde lady gasping at 1:25 is his wife. He dind't dare tell her that there would be... hum... certain hazards :)
pjoerghh 2 years ago
Holy shit!
pkdavis1495 2 years ago
Great video! This is a neat plane!
I gotta say though, I'm pretty sure the pilot probably needed to change his drawers after he popped up the front end on touch-down. Crazy!
0Myles0 2 years ago
This is one of the old Interflug IL-62s 'Lady Agnes' now a museum. The engines were tested after it landed and they worked fine in spite of the dirt ingestion. You could not do this with a new airliner (the IL-62 has a reinforced hull so could take the impact. Still they weren't 100% sure so had fire trucks/ambulances there just in case). They landed on only 900m because the rough ground meant much more friction on the landing gear plus, like most Russian planes, the IL-62 has reverse thrust.
augusta613 2 years ago
@augusta613 Did they use only two thrust reverser in order to reduce weight?
rrynek 1 year ago
@rrynek As far as I know the IL-62 only ever had two thrust reversers (on the outer engines only). This is because its brakes alone are insufficient to stop the plane on a short runway.
augusta613 1 year ago
@augusta613 Yes of course. B-707 didn't like short runways either but it had thrust reverser on each engine. I know that initially VC-10 had only 2 and later on 4 but they had some problems when all 4 were activated. I just wonder why Il-62 had only 2.
rrynek 1 year ago
@rrynek The problem with having only 2 thrust reversers is that if one doesn't engage the plane becomes hard to control when all thrust is on the same side. That's what happened to СССР-86470 in Luxembourg airport when she ran off the runway and hit a water tower.
augusta613 1 year ago
@rrynek What is surprising is how few crashes were due to bad weather given where these planes flew (esp Siberia/far east). In 43 years there are 2 definites (CCCP 86671 & CU T1281) and possibly P889? (also airport ILS system was not operating in 86671 crash). In comparison 707/DC8/9s (but not VC-10) seem to have many weather-related crashes/fuselage failures. Thiel claims that IL-62s are almost immune to turbulence due to the wing/tail design so perhaps that may be a factor for IL-62 & VC-10.
augusta613 1 year ago
@augusta613 One Tu-154M (RA-85185) was lost in very heavy storm in August 2006. It isn't the same size as Il-62 but you cannot call Tu-154 small. This accident together with accidents of CU-T1281 and B-707 G-APFE show that airliners should stay away from extremely heavy storms regardless of design. As for B-707- most weather related accidents occurred during landing when heavy rain and/or strong tail wind extended landing run so planes overshot runways.
rrynek 1 year ago
@augusta613 There were also situations where difficult weather conditions were not main cause of accident but were one of contributing factors ( for example Flight AVA052 on 25th of January 1990). VC-10 wasn't involved in large number of crashes but only few of them ever flew and for short period of time so it is difficult to say about their behaviour in bad weather.
rrynek 1 year ago
Brave pilots, and a wonderfull plane
Emoddd 2 years ago 25
i wonder if it can still fly
101BNP 2 years ago
fantastic!!!!!
lorensiuswlt 2 years ago 2
brave crew. amazing landing respect!!!
velisarios2 2 years ago 2
WOW! Amazing landing! Try doing this with an A380.
Jeteaime65 2 years ago
@Jeteaime65 Good idea:) And now imagine 853 passengers in one Il-62:) Then compare take-off run of both planes at maximum take-off weight:)
rrynek 1 year ago
You don't see that every day ! Kudos to the pilot........and the aircraft for being able to accomplish this feat.
airbus340driver 2 years ago 2
Tja, die Deutschen schaffen das eben :P
TheRichylitschy 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
cjdrange 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
damn they just left that ugly peice of shit (dont hate) their im guna jack it lol
KartKing4ever 2 years ago
that´s the craziest thing i´ve ever seen!!!!!
bac102b737b747 2 years ago
That`s fucking crazy!
ssmows6 2 years ago
That is a fantasic landing with soviet aircraft doing what they do best. Congrats to the pilots as well!
Regarding some of the comments below, yes, this aircraft is flawed with its engines, but all other major soviet AC have crashed due to human error. I believe this means they are a safe ac. If you look at American planes, the 737 had a flaw with the rudder which caused it to jam and the DC-10 had a cargo door which was knowingly not fit for use.
GatwickVideo 2 years ago 36
@GatwickVideo The main problem was engine layout- 4 engines were close together so in case of damage of one the other could be damaged as well. But in this case it turned out to be very useful that engines had been mounted at the rear part of fuselage. Engines under wings could have touched the ground.
rrynek 1 year ago
@GatwickVideo The engine configuration requires more thorough turbine inspections (as in VC-10) so as to minimise chance of contagious engine failure. But that was the design of the '60s and the odds of serious damage was statistically tiny (in 2 cases where it occurred, turbine inspections had been only rudimentary and no vibration tests had been done. There is also question over how many hrs the engines had accrued). Contagious damage can and has also occurred in wing mounted engines.
augusta613 1 year ago
@GatwickVideo The Douglas was not bought out by Boeing yet when the DC-10 incidents happened. That reason is what forced Douglas into bankruptcy. Just look at the MD-90. The rudder flaw was fixed immediately and the 737 has still become the best selling twin engine jets ever (surpassing Boeing's own 727). Look at the forest, not the trees!
jojo12455 1 year ago
Comment removed
GatwickVideo 1 year ago
@jojo12455 I was just stating that western a/c have their design flaws in the past, as did some Russian types. Nowadays though, design flaws are very rare and relativley minor. I agree with you on the 737, a marvelous A/C, much better than the scare-bus!
GatwickVideo 1 year ago
@GatwickVideo
Flawed engines? Many people think that because of 2 LOT accidents with the IL-62. But what most people don't know is that LOT neglected maintenance.
CSA and Interflug flew 45 IL-62's for 30 years without any engine failure.
Only after the second IL-62 accident LOT changed their maintenance procedure
wich is proof that they negleted maintenance before. SCA and Interflug held regular vibration checks on the engines wich made all the difference.
LOT only did visual check ups.
ILTUSU 1 year ago
@GatwickVideo
All engines from that Era needed proper maintenance wich includes vibration checks. LOT's accident rate was 30 times as high as any other Carrier who used
the IL-62. In fact the IL-62 has a far better safety record than it's direct Western rivals it competed against. Aviation has become safer. Even US planes, who have a history of ridiculous and unecessary structural failures, have become stronger. But when it comes to overall structural integrity no plane beats an Ilyushin.
ILTUSU 1 year ago
o piloto é bom.Pousar um avião do porte do IL-62 na grama e sem problemas, ele(o piloto) é bom e o avião é bem resistente
adenilson707 2 years ago
Comment removed
KomendantHauer 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
technology stolen from uk
poor russian quality
tom123ek 2 years ago
Nope, uk stole the technology from the nazis :D
KomendantHauer 2 years ago 2
I flew in an Il 62 as a kid,must have been either LOT or Interflug.Very comfortable plane,pretty tail.
exeuroweenie 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
HAHAHA, this is funny stuff. Poor Russians, is it true that image of Russia is very well shown in movie Borat??? I thought it was Kazakhstan. LOL
TadiR1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Flying coffin-ski.
AdamJLemon 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Haha... a Russian calling Americans "vicious".
You don't know anything about us.
And you assholes lead the world in cyber terrorism.
America helps the world. Europe only takes from the world and doesn't give back unless there's someting in it for them.
When disaster strikes who does the world ask for help,money and materials?
It aint fucking Russia or France I'll tell you that.
It's the USA. And we always help.
Plus you all have no problems with using our websites all day long. So suck it.
patton303 2 years ago
you're not american, you just live there
lemmy3001 2 years ago
Who's Amarica? Your mother?
videocritic999 2 years ago
I don't call a tail strike on landing anything to be proud of. The potential for damage is too great, and the cost of getting that bird inspected is astronomical. And, I feel he could have been going 10-20 kph slower on approach; at least thats what I would have done.
TheCannonofMohammed 2 years ago
Wiseguy...
videocritic999 2 years ago
You are embarassing yourself because of your ignorance. (Yes, ignorance does that to people). There is no "tail strike" in this video whatsoever. Moreover, IL-62 by design has a 4-point landing gear with the fourth set of wheels in the tail. It is specifically designed as an airplane that can purposedly use (or "strike") its tail for support on landing with zero damage. The landing in this video is school-book perfect.
korben4dallas 2 years ago
Doesn't matter at all. It was the last flight for this plane.
ambientflier 2 years ago
Suck my dick, comrade.
bibleisfake 2 years ago
From the look of that flare move during the landing, I bet there was a rather deep furrow left in the ground by the tail :)
perfgeek 2 years ago
This is a great video, but the camera work was very annoying. Instead of focusing purely on the landing, the camera person starts to document audience reactions instead of filming the ENTIRE landing from start to finish.
byromania 2 years ago
Best controlled landing I have ever seen.
RCVideoCanada 2 years ago 4
boeing #1
elcora18 2 years ago
It's amazing that most of the recent comments are not even related to the video or aviation...
venichen1 2 years ago 3
LOL!! Check out NaziKiller profile. He is Swiss, has a Russian flag on his profile, hates the Nazis so he also hates Poles. This guy needs some mental help or a clown's job in the circus!
plsniper 2 years ago
The only thing that russia is the strongest in the world in, is immitating africa and its monkeys. Africa is the biggest continent and a garbage dump, russia is the biggest country and a garbage dump. So FU. :)
plsniper 2 years ago
I could have done this better xD
DeKarle1992 2 years ago
stolen from VC10
tom123ek 2 years ago
Too bad engines were falling apart, otherwise this piece of junk could actually be remembered as more than flying coffin. LOL
TadiR1 2 years ago
LOL!! I actually laughed when I read this shit!!
musico81986 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I think this plane is a copy of the VC-10, and I dont understand why that plane is getting that record when its a copy, I swear Russia really do copy other planes.
moviesunrated 2 years ago
I would rather fly an Il-62, Tu-134, or Tu154 any day of the week over that fucking abortion, dangerous, disgustingly cheap heap of crap Boeing 737. It's patently unsafe, and is just CRAP.
How do I know? I USED to fly them, with over 2,000 hours command on them (real, not in freaking Flight Stimulator). Nearly every flight there was SOMETHING. I REFUSE to put my wife and family on them, and would rather wait for an A320 then a fucking 737.
Not saying Airbus is good either!
LONG LIVE THE 777
Vulch777 2 years ago
LOL omg i dunno man 737s arnt that bad.
Iamfukenripped 2 years ago
ten bucks says you have never stepped foot in a 73 cockpit
whod you fly for?
cessnapilot05 2 years ago
Don't even mention the fact that this plane was still a ticking time bomb that went off several times in the 1980's. Name one quality aircraft that the Russians have made........yeah, exactly. Whether it's Tupelov or Illuyshin, boarding a Russian passenger aircraft is like playing Russian roulette with your life (no pun intended). Numerous accidents with the Tu-134, 154, Illuyshin IL-62, IL-76; you name it, and it has fallen out of the sky in pieces.
AdamJLemon 2 years ago
Name one? No problem. IL-96. Modern, fly-by-wire, glass cockpit, widebody, and not a single crash or serious incident in its 20-year history. Definitely the best commercial aircraft Russia has built.
The TU-154 had incidents, but the overall percentage of crashes to aircraft still in service makes it ABOVE AVERAGE in safety and reliability, and this is WITH third world countries taking poor care of it.
Yeah, you can stfu now. Don't post senseless garbage anymore.
ambientflier 2 years ago
Continued: Here's a quote about the tu-154:
"After the TU-154 had been in service for 26 years and logged some 21 million flight hours (1998), it had a better than average safety record (1.7 times fewer incidents than the world average [ICAO 1998 stats])."
Same exact thing for the tu-134, and every other russian aircraft EXCEPT for the IL-62, which DOES have a design flaw with its engines.
Why don't you look up the accident stats on something like a 737 for comparison?
So once again, stfu.
ambientflier 2 years ago 2
You're an idiot...the number of IL-62 flights and TU-154 flights put together would still be a small fraction of the number of 737 flights and number of planes built...you obviously never took a basic statistics class, or else you would know what Sample Size means when taking inferences from statistics. 737s have more accidents because they are responsible for an OVERWHELMING number of flights flown, planes put into service etc. Look it up dipshit.
AdamJLemon 2 years ago
These statistics take into account the number of planes built. Overall, the 737 has a worse record if you go by the numbers of miles flown.
ambientflier 2 years ago
Yeah, right, while a simple reality check shows that the abovementioned aircraft significanly surpass the safety repord of many non-Russian and/or American aircraft, not even mentuioning such examples as, say, IL-96, which is one of the most safe aircraft ever built in the world. "Ticking time bomb", LOL! What with McDonell-Douglas out of circulation, you think their middle name now suddently belongs to Russians? May I remind you that many of the MDs are still in use in USA.
korben4dallas 2 years ago
I think you mean a copy of the VC10!
070090 2 years ago
IL-62s, like all Russian planes, are built HEAVY. That plane must've had some heavily built, tough landing gear to allow for a grass strip landing. I doubt even a B-727 would be capable of that!
I guess they had to pull it out of service right then and there. The FOD (foreign object damage) from a grass strip takeoff or landing can be very worrisome.
hananokuni2580 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
TaKKeiTfED 3 years ago
takkeitfed, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? I was writing to someone about the movie we both saw, how the russians fucked up the engine in the factory by removing parts of a bearing. They didn't care, just like the russian government doesn't care about its own people. Did I lie about anything? NO. Man, you need some mental help dude...
plsniper 3 years ago