Russia State Transport Company Ilyushin Il-62MK 【RA-86468】

[rkapo7]

The IL62 has been one of the safest Airliners ever built and operated. Considering a greater proportion of them compared to 707's etc. have been flown longer and often by substandard airlines. That makes them an inherently safer airplane overall even if there loss rate is about similar. Aeroflot achieved over 17 hours per day flying them when they had them - 97% available. Like most Russian aircraft they are easy to maintain an dvery rugged.

[av21031]

Several plane-makers copied the landing gear & wing design of this plane, and it has perhaps the strongest airframe of any airliner. Nowadays airliners are built much lighter so planes like this are not economic to operate. And the Il-62M version had a safety record second to none, even if you include the 1987 LOT accident (which we now know from Polish archives was partly due to factors quite apart from the plane). If maintained, this plane is in fact as safe or safer than any modern plane.

[maskara23]

this is very dangerous plane !

[nepilotvanya]

@maskara23 это ты денджирас плэйн,буржуй.

[maskara23]

sorry but i don ' t speak russia only for english please

[nepilotvanya]

@maskara23 Why you consider this plane dangerous?

[maskara23]

because constructional's defect's only in Poland to bring the 2 catastrophes : in 14 march 1980 and 9 may 1987 in Warsaw Airport ,, Okecie ''. Together die 270 people . Sorry my english is no good :)

[jiko12]

@maskara23

he said that you're a STUPID DUMBASS YOU DUMBASS

[ArcticEwi]

Whoho what a landing! Nice capture!

[ILTUSU]

Amazing aircraft!! A true classic. Build for 32 years! Not only beautiful but also very strong.

Build with quality in mind.

It's safety record is far better than the safety record of the Boeing 707 and McDonnel Douglas DC-8 in the same class from that same era. Ilyushin's rock!! 5 stars!!

[sakoshooter48]

@ILTUSU Oh bullshit!  The 707 flew so many more miles than the Il-62 that your statement is flawed. And if I am wrong, please post your data, I really would like to see it. And the Il-62 IS a beautiful aircraft!!!!!

[av21031]

@sakoshooter48 There were more 707s but on a km/year/plane, according to ICAO the IL-62 is by far the safer plane (and also safer than DC8). There were no fatal incidents between 1989-2009 (at same time 707 had 9 crashes, 7 fatal). The LOT crashes occurred because of 1) lack of servicing equipment (they couldn't test turbines until after 1987) and 2) they intentionally ignored overhaul intervals to cut costs (only revealed this year from Polish govt archives).

[rrynek]

@av21031 It's peculiar because ICAO paper I've read reveals that safety level of IL-62 and IL-62M in comparison with similar Western products, for a total period of operation is the same as a DC-8 and a little better than B-707. They refer to number of accidents (fatal and not fatal) per 100000 flight hours.

[ILTUSU]

@av21031

Exactly!! LOT didn't do proper maintenance. Only after the second crash they changed maintenance procedures wich is proof that they didn't do proper maintenance to begin with. Interflug and CSA flew IL-62's for over 30 years without any engine failure. Why? Because they did vibration checks on the engines on a regular basis. That they cut costs was already known before btw.

[rrynek]

@ILTUSU Vibration checks which were designed to detect faulty bearing in D-30KU engines were introduced after SP-LBG crash. The same refers to magnetic probes which would help to reveal that bearing was worn out. LOT wasn't the only airline to modify maintenance procedures after an accident in 1987. As a result of this crash Ilyushin also modified flight control system in Il-62 as well as fire detection and fire suppression systems.

[ILTUSU]

@sakoshooter48

Facts. The IL-62 wiped the floor with the 707 and DC-8. It's direct rivals.

Please do some research.

[sakoshooter48]

@ILTUSU Come on! Wiping the floor!!!!!! Don't give me a bullshit red herring arguement! The IL-62 wiped the floor with 707's and DC-'s! What does that mean. I have worked in aviation for the last 25 years and I still have not found an engineering description of "Wiped the floor!" Give me a break here guys, show me the numbers as I am interested. Seems to me as though you need to do the research Mr. Wiped the floor!!!! Idiot!

[ILTUSU]

@sakoshooter48

Yep. Is it that difficult to understand? And you worked in Aviation? Then you should know that the safety record of the 707 and DC-8 doesn't even come close to the safety record of the IL-62. And the fact that you resort to name callings makes you very weak indeed.

Typical of people who can't deal with facts because of their misplaced pride.

Get in line because more US Americans here have that misplaced pride problem. But thankfully not all.

[sakoshooter48]

@ILTUSU Not misplaced pride, tired of dealing with old Soviet mentalities. Your vaunted IL-62 was only built in one quarter the volume of the 707. The safety record of the DC-8 and B-707 stands as a watermark for modern aircraft and the safety they brought to the industry.  Statistically they had more accidents as there were four times as many aircraft built compared to the IL-62. You are dodging the obvious and playing a ridiculous arguement. Educate yourself! Russian aviation is a mess!

[av21031]

@sakoshooter48 No-one questions that the 707 has flown longer than the 62 but the 707 has far higher accident rates no matter which way you measure it. There were 3.4 times 707s as 62s (not 4 as you claim). The 707 hull loss rate = 16.4% (highest in its class) vs 7.7% for the 62. If the 62 is a 'dismal failure', why is it still in civilian use after 48 yrs?? If you worked in aviation you would know that blacklists are primarily based on maintenance issues, not aircraft type.

[rrynek]

@av21031 Hull loss rate calculated for B-707 is incorrect- I recommend that you check number of hull losses for entire B-707 family. Hull loss rate which you've given for Il-62 is also interesting because a total number of planes includes non- flying examples such as prototypes used for static tests and planes which have never been completed and delivered to airlines. The total number of aircraft written off as a result of accidents and incidents is also larger than the one given by ASN.

[av21031]

@rrynek Most sources list 23 IL-62/62M hull losses which includes the prototype СССР-06156 lost during maximum weight testing in 1965. If you exclude prototypes from the calculation then the loss rate drops to 7.6 (eg. 22 of 287). Bear in mind that some 62 hull losses listed by ASN were 'economic' losses (planes were operational but not put back into service for economic or other reasons eg. CU-T1283).

[sakoshooter48]

@ILTUSU You need to familiarize yourself with the aviation blacklist and which airlines are blacklisted and why, mainly because they fly shoddy Russian aircraft. Certainly maintenance is the leading factor in making it to the blacklist, but remember, aviation isn't just about flying. It is logistics, support, efficiency, MTBF, and several other factors that play into the efficacy of and airline and what they fly. Soviet airliners are a dismal failure for all of the above reasons,IL-62 included

[rrynek]

@ILTUSU Il-62 couldn't wipe the floor with B-707 and DC-8 in 1959 because it didn't exist, whereas both American aircraft had already entered service by then. Il-62 wasn't a direct rival of B-707 and DC-8 because it was a second generation jet airliner.

[sakoshooter48]

@ILTUSU And by the way, 1011 707's of all variants were/are built. The Il-62 only had 292 of all types built. Consider the floor wiped, with the IL-62!

[ILTUSU]

@sakoshooter48

I know how many are build but that has nothing to do with it's safety record.

[Takanozana]

Russian jets are very unique. Rarely sees IL-62s at international airports outside china,north korea and pre-soviet countries.