This is one of my favourite planes from Russia, a few years ago I had the chance to fly on one as part of a special tour, it was operated by a small private company, the crew were amazing, allowing us avgeeks to look at every aspect of the jet, sadly I’m not sure when I will get the opportunity to visit Russia again, for reasons I don’t need to explain, but hopefully I will get the chance to visit some of the amazing aviation museums that are in Russia. Thank you for a wonderful channel
I love Russia and don't have a problem loving it while it's engaged in war. America killed over a million children across Iraq, Afganistan and Syria. Russia don't even come close.
Indonesian low cost airline, Lion Air, famous for being the launch customer of Boeing 737-900ER, and one of its subsidiaries also become the first to fly 737MAX (Malindo Air - now Batik Air Malaysia). They also operated 5 x Yak-42Ds for about a year, from 2001 to 2002. What makes the plane rather obsolete is the noise, among local Indonesian plane spotters, the Yak-42Ds are known as "trumpet plane" as they make a distinctive turbine whine noise. The plane was used to fly many major Lion Air routes at the time (e.g. to Kupang, Singapore, or even Surabaya), complementing its fleet of Boeing 737-200 and Airbus A310-300, before post-9/11 give them a chance to hoard more than a dozen of extra MD-80s from major US carriers at cheap leasing rate. When the MD-80s arrived, the Yak-42D's tenure simply ended. The little Soviet regional jet briefly helped bridge and transition the airline to become Indonesia's largest airline and Boeing's 2nd largest customer (the entire group) after Southwest Airlines and also ATR's largest operator.
Back in 2013, I flew on a Cubana Yak-42 from Cancun to Havana. The flight was short and uneventful but I enjoyed the experience. When we returned to Cancun we flew on a Tu-204, which reminded me of a 757.
The Yak42/D was never my favorite, I flew it here in Cuba, back in the nineties; were nice rides... My biggest concern were about the lack of speed and some problems with the pressurization system. However was not a bad aircraft for a country like the mine... As many other Soviet aircraft, the Yak42 fleet (around 15) did the job in the island for many years (20+), where the only accident was due to the crew bad performance approaching Valencia, Venezuela... Again, thank you for this new material friends of Sky; you do are my favorites! :)
Hey man, I appreciate these videos that go beyond Wiki reading. Also, your English is so much better than a few years ago and you're getting the harder syntax of native speakers way more often.
Dear Sky, great channel, just discovered you and working through 'Back catalogue'. You produce good and interesting videos indeed and I am happy to congratulate you. More on Russian/soviet aerospace will be welcome, it is hard to find much at all in English. Thank you.
Thank you for another entertaining informative video. You have a great channel. Here in my hometown, Wichita, Kansas. The Beechcraft Co. just launched a new single engine aircraft called the Denali. It is a turboprop powered aircraft with seating for 10 - 12 passengers.
I am glad that ia bring my work into your home :) , However in regards to airvraft its self It's slower than single turbo prop aircraft like the tbm 930 and pc12 ngx , not to mention a lot slower the king air 350 😂 , after having a look on beechcraft site ,I am not that impressed tbh seems too akin to the pc12
Thank you for your work! For us it would take several hours of research and reading to get these informations. But you just make it like an interesting story in a 18min video! Great video!
I remember flying in one back in 1998 I was a teenager and it was actually my first time flying alone in a Jet.! We had to get in from the planes behind… literally the rear door of the plane retracted and has a built in stairway. No need for a Tunnel or a stair. When it reached cruising altitude the cabin filled with what I thought was smoke and I freaked out but the pilot announced that it was mist from the Airconditioning. It was an uneventful flight otherwise. And the leg space in economy was way better than todays jets.
A good looking aircraft; in fact, I think the tri-engine layout is the most graceful jetliner arrangement. The tri-engine concept just didn't have longevity anywhere in the world. The plane I'm most familiar with, the Boeing 727 was hamstrung because the design could not accommodate the new, economical turbofans which were also larger than the jets it was designed around.
Also, with more powerful and reliable engines around, there was no need for a third engine any longer. The DC9- variants were much longer in service than the 727 because of this. Also, the need for a flight engineer didn't help. The 9ers got rid of the third man right from the start.
That was a nice video, thank you. Soviet-era airliners and the stories behind them make for some fascinating reading/watching. Sad to hear about another three-engine airliner going by the wayside, but such is the world of aviation.
I think the main issue was plane design bureau wasn’t in sync with engine design bureau like it is in the West. The original plan was for a jet with either 2 outdated engines or 3 too heavy engines. The entire project either should have new engines designed for it or not start at all
@@grafhilgenhurst9717that had nothing to do with it. They always knew that two engines is more efficient than three (although that's a very complicated question). About then they decided that modern engines were safe and powerful enough that two was sufficient margin of safety, a plane could keep flying just fine in one engine. That was the main reason for trijets to start with. The regulations in the West prohibited twin engines on overwater flights of more than a certain distance, because it was felt two wasn't safe enough if one failed. So it had to be four or three, and they were well aware of the extra drag and weight each engine created, so three was the more efficient option. But in the 70s they reviewed the latest engine data and removed the restrictions, allowing twins to fly ETOPS as long as they are approved, so the main incentive to have three was removed. Not that three inherently uses more fuel. It depends on the exact scenario. Mostly it's the weight and drag, and the cost (each engine costs millions of dollars and requires maintenance). You are running three engines, but you can run them at lower, more efficient settings. Sometimes running more engines at lower ratings is more efficient, and you have a larger reserve of power. But in the end, if two will do the job and there is no legal requirement to have more, two is more efficient in all ways. Same reason they tried to couple four engines into two prop units on the He 177. Same number of cylinders firing, but much less drag than four individual units.
Nice! 🙂 I flew three times with one on Cubana Nassau - Havanna - Nassau, one time not by choice as a passenger collapsed and we returned to Havanna before taking off again to Nassau.
Ashamed to say I never heard of this aircraft before!! Seems to be in a similar category to the BAC 1-11. Sadly once you get beyond a certain size, a tough,regional jet becomes very niche I think
@@petesheppard1709I think the 727 is a step or two larger than this. This is more like a DC-9 or ACR-72, or an early 737. It's only similar to the 727 in engine layout, but that doesn't mean very much. And there is a large market for mid sized regional jets, but there is also a lot of competition.
"index" "Resource" "Firey hearts" "Aviators" I love all the interesting translation artifacts that appear in these videos. They make the whole thing more interesting to me.
Love them guys in the clip at 1min20 that had to duck down for the wing haha The yak42 is certainly a very compact well proportioned aircraft slightly smaller than your 737 and a320 aircraft
When i started a job with a lots of business trips all around Russia, those birds were still in use. Aaaaand i was really glad that they were rare. In fact i flown on Tu-134 more times than on Yak-42 and from the point of passenger comfort, Tu-134 were way more comfortable than Yaks.
@@samy7013 tu-134 was narrower with 2+2 seats and a big round windows, yak is 3+3 but it is 10cm narrower than for example a320 so it felt more overcrowded. For me the bigest difference was in quality on interior components. My last busines trip on tus and yaks way in 2000s, while tu's interior holder pretty well, yaks had seats thaw would not recline or recline kn their own, signs that was made more crudely and so on.
one of my favourites.. the yak-40. its a shame they didnt update the yak-40 ever in its lifetime. money could have been better spent on yak-40 upgrades & tu-134 upgrades. still though soviet planning. no one can argue with that. another top quality video production !
There is only so far you can upgrade a small jet like the Yak-40. It's still going to be limited in capacity, fuel load. You can stretch the fuselage a little, you can give it better engines, but there will be a barrier to how far you can go. Why not invest that same money into a new design? Boeing did will because their initial design could be made shorter or longer, turned into the 727 and 737, etc, because they had a relatively large fuselage to start with. But there is only so much you can do with a 20 passenger jet. It was already crowded just fitting four rows in it, and the range was pitiful. At best they might make it carry a few more and then the range into "acceptable" with better engines.
I like it too, it has a nice feeling to it. It gives you a glimpse into the idiom of the Russian language, his little unfamiliar expressions that I have never heard and things like that. It gives these videos a special appeal for me. Only rarely does it make it difficult to understand him. Like it took me a long time to figure out that the "resource" of an engine is engine life, or time-between-overhaul rating (and I would argue that's a better word and we should use it too). Pretty sure that's a direct translation, but we didn't use that word that way. If he has measured it in operating hours I might have figured it out, but it took me a long time to learn what that meant. "Firey hearts" I think is also a direct translation, I like that as well. Some people always have to complain but I like it, and I hope he doesn't "improve" his English so much that he sounds just like all the rest. Something would be lost.
Mr Sky my respect 4 u amigo iam from Colombia and know for the fact that people in the state they make fun of everibody accent you have a heavy accent but you go ahead to make it bettter have a very good knowlege on the planes history congrats i dont miss your videos amigo
I can't deny there are some people from the US who will laugh at accents, but not everyone is like that. And I don't see very many of them on this channel. I enjoy his accent very much, it makes the video more enjoyable for me. And he can at least speak English, I can't speak Russian, or Spanish. So I would be a fool to mock someone for not learning my language perfectly when I can't even speak his language poorly. The US doesn't have a monopoly on ignorant people. Our fools are simply louder and more visible than most.
I loved to fly on this Yak-42 and IL with 4 engine wide body from Karachi to Lahore route in Pakistan in early 1990s. I really liked the flight, crew and serving etc.
7:10 it's interesting to see how the spray from the landing gear shoots back in a perfect line that just misses the engine inlet, so most of the water doesn't enter the engine. That's the kind of thing you don't think about very often, but i would bet that they spent a lot of time and money designing and adjusting the landing gear and the engines to make sure that the water sprayed exactly that way, every time. Because that much water would kill the engine if that spray struck the inlet directly. Kind of a good example of the thousands of small details that they have to consider and change while designing an aircraft. You can't just pop the landing gear wherever you want and hope it works, you need to test it to make sure it works, or you need to relocate the engines. If you need to change the gear or engines , that always effects something else, and other changes need to be made, and you need to consider _all _ of the implications every time you change anything, and make more changes, which require additional changes. And you need to test every change carefully to make sure you didn't forget some factor. There is a reason aircraft testing and design takes a very long time and a lot of money. Im pretty sure that's exactly what they were doing in those clips, making sure it handled correctly on wet runways. Don't want to find out that you messed something up by wrecking a brand new $10,000,000 engine. Or worse, the whole plane is wrecked because you didn't accommodate for water on the runway. I do know that's a huge design factor in flying boats, but im sure it's significant even in commercial planes.
Didn't he do a video about that? I know he at least covered the topic in one of his videos about one of the failed airliner prototypes of the 1980/90s.
The 99% of development are realistically achievable, but that final ONE Percent, the tiny bit which prevents aircraft from falling from the sky….well….thank you for shining the spotlight on Soviet domestic airliners. The aircraft known as the Yak 20, AND Yak 40, thank you also.
@@filanfyretrackerit is way more than 99% of the time or the accident rate would be unacceptably high. Like there are thousands of 737s flying at any given moment, something like 20,000 daily flights. If one out of 100 flights ended in parts flying off we would have hundreds of crashes. I suppose if you want to count all forms of mechanical failure in that number, that might be accurate, but that usually only amounts to some minor system acting up somewhere and needing service, backup being used to complete the flight. Parts "leaving the formation" is pretty rare. But yes, a large aircraft is unbelievably complex. People love to complain about airlines and maintenance, but the fact that they manage to keep these intensely complex and expensive machines flying multiple times a day for years, decades, with such a low failure rate, is really incredible. If you tried using a normal passenger car on a duty cycle like an airliner, constantly being used, a stream of passengers coming on and off, rough landings, takeoffs, cold and heat, rain, running for hours on end, it would only last a few years before it was totally worn out, even with regular maintenance. Airliners are built more like commercial trucks, which can easily do a million miles in their career, pulling tens of thousands of pounds of freight. They don't make cars that way because most people don't need anything like that capability, and because the quality is reflected in the cost of the product. People like to flex that they paid $200,000 for a fancy car, but that's not an unusual price for a heavy truck or tractor, let alone an aircraft, which also has to be light and fail-proof. I just find that idea amusing, the guy in his Ferrari feeling all superior while he doesn't realize the farmer plowing his field next to him actually paid three times as much for his "mundane" tractor. And the farmer will get his money back out of his tractor, hopefully. The Ferrari is just a method of wasting money to demonstrate that you can afford to waste money. You could just go burn stacks of cash and get the same result. I remember when I was a kid and I found out that a pedestrian, slow, boring little Cessna Caravan cost $1.5M to buy. That's about the cheapest passenger/transport plane you can get. It's closer to $2M now. Somehow that was very eye-opening to me.
Right because there are definitely no planes like that in the Western aviation world. We are here because we _like_ planes, not to hear about all the ways they suck and were terrible and someone else did it better. Most of my favorite aircraft were flawed in some way, it makes them more interesting. And bad aircraft don't serve for decades in large numbers.
I follow the channel in spanish. Love your videos. Could you make a video about military aerial refueling tanker aircrafts? Thank you so much. Greetings from Spain.
@@Rudy_Play no, because of MCAS. The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) is a flight control system designed for the Boeing 737 MAX to improve handling and reduce pitch-up at high angles of attack. MCAS is designed to activate automatically in manual flight when the flaps are up and the plane's angle of attack (AOA) is too high relative to air speed. When activated, MCAS pushes the nose down to reduce the AOA to an acceptable level. The Boeing Company 737 MAX Software Update Inteq Group Boeing 737 Max MCAS Software Epiphany - Inteq Group Jan 25, 2024 - Rather than redesigning the airframe to accommodate the new engines Boeing cho... SKYbrary Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) | SKYbrary Aviation Safety MCAS has several safety features to prevent it from overriding the pilot's control of the plane: It only activates if data from two AOA sensors agree. It only activates once. In 2018, after the Lion Air accident, Boeing instructed pilots to take action if the plane entered a series of automated nosedives, but didn't reveal the existence of MCAS until pilots asked for more information. In December of that year, the FAA privately predicted that MCAS could cause 15 crashes over 30 years. Boeing later admitted to misleading statements about MCAS and settled with victims' families and airlines, paying $2.5 billion in total. Generative AI is experimental.
I worked for an airline that leased the YAK 42 D for a short period in Iran. It was very underpower and didn't like any temperature above 24 C. Made to fly in Russia only !!!
The Yak-42D is a nice looking aircraft that could have been successful hadn't it have some design flaws which could have been fixed like the Boeing 737 which is known for high rates of technical failures. The model could be successful if revived with a full digital modernization and motorized with 2 high bypass fuel efficient turbofan engine.
@@ChipMIKTu-134, Yak-40, Tu-154, Il-62, An-24, Il-76. All these aircraft actively flew to the USSR and abroad. The Yak-40 even managed to fly in Italy, and the Il-76 is still All these aircraft actively flew to the USSR and abroad. The Yak-40 even managed to fly in Italy, and the Il-76 and An-24 are still produced.
@@Rudy_Play Yeah surely they flew...And that an aircraft manages to fly in Italy doesn't really make it a winner vs. competitors and can be due to many factors. That Il-76 & An-24 still are in production doesn't really tell how efficient and economic it is in production in a regime like Russia when comparing those to what else is on the market across the world...Just like the other models you mentioned where most if not all are outdated by a zillion standards and never were a true competitor for anything in anything but 3. world countries or dictatorship countries that for other reasons couldn't get or afford new modern aircrafts.
@@ChipMIK An-24 produced in China. And there is no need to speculate about the effectiveness of the Il-76. It is enough to look at how many airlines operate it, and this plane even is flying with one US airline, given that the U.S. has it's own cargo planes. Oh, really? The Il-62 was a direct competitor to the Boeing 707, DC-8 and VC-10, at the same time, it was safer than all of them. Moreover, it was developed in parallel with the VC-10, while being easier to maintain and did not fail unlike the VC-10. And Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan also operated the Tu-154. I think they could afford Western aircraft.
You went from talking about a crash, caused by a design error and a stabiliser mechanism failure and went straight to solving the chronic problem of short range? You should have talked about how the stabiliser problem was resolved and how grounded planes where released. The issue of short range was only resolved, I am sure, after the stabilizer problem was resolved. I have included a link to the full story of the failure in design. YAK-42 remains my absolute best Soviet era plane. As a matter of fact, it remains my absolute best looking commercial plane, along with Lockheed Tristar, till date. See link below for details about the tragic crash. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_8641
Soviet era airframes were always a curiosity in the west. Its final design was more functional (unimproved runways little ground support ) then flash. But the biggest baine of all past and current Soviet/Russian/UKRAINE airframes were those absolutely rotten engines. Over sized underpowered gas guzzling maintenance queens!
In 2024, when Russia makes daily news in a bad way? There is something sweet about seeing these beautiful (if sometimes flawed -- like recent Boeing MAX) SO COOL Soviet planes that I feel a personal sad regret that I will never get to fly.
I flew on a yak airplane in the late 2000s. I believe it was in Ukraine and I think it was with the Ukraine National Airline?? I know for a fact it was a yak,, and the 42 sounds very familiar. I also flew on a Saab plane which was a prop plane,, noisy but smooth!
I rember the crash that killed the hocky team that was'nt the fault but the dude flying it. It hit the hocky fans in the Us hard to the life taken away at sunch at a young age.❣️❣️❣️🌹🌹💖💖🌺🌺💞💞🥺🥺😬😬
If history has told one thing never get in a Russian I was travelled in a YAK airliner I was shocked how badly made it was not even the seat belts worked.
@@JohnnyWednesday well, like this. just a f-14 bent like a stamped part, and the f-15 has stupid square air intakes, as if it were a MiG-25 kit. Yes, I think the Starfighter is prettier. It has the perfect shape of a cruise missile. engine, fuel tank and cockpit with pilot. Wings are needed only for maneuvers, because it flies thanks to the thrust of the engine. Aerodynamics is only for those idiots who do not know how to build powerful engines.
They had bad reputation of making "unscheduled descents into ground terrain" I last flew on example by Південна "South" airline in Ukraine in 2008, it was quite contrast to flying Boeing 737. Windows whistled from pressure leak, tray tables like guillotine etc. By that time many Yak-40 and Yak-42 made to fly executive duties for apparatchikii.
@@wanderschlosser1857 true. I'm just joking of course, but the fact that Soviet/Russian airliners look like Western airliners has more to do with the limited number of best configurations for airliners. The American and Soviet Space Shuttles look almost exactly the same, yet the Soviet Shuttle was a completely independent design. If you want to make a space shuttle that side, that is how it will always look.
Don't try to understand a socialist economy in capitalist terms; there is a lot there that is irrational from a capitalist point of view. For example, the Soviet Union did not own a single enterprise or company operating abroad that profited from workers from other countries; from the Soviet point of view, this was ideologically unacceptable, which is why modern Russia could not retain its allies that the USSR had. Capitalist and socialist economies are fundamentally different, they have different goals and, because of this, different products that cannot effectively exist and be produced in the opposite system. That is why most Soviet products in the capitalist world turned out to be unclaimed, because they were originally created for other conditions in the outside world.
Had they fixed the Yak-42 problems earlier, it's likely the plane would have been common sights even in Western Europe, operated by eastern European airlines flying to western Europe.
This is one of my favourite planes from Russia, a few years ago I had the chance to fly on one as part of a special tour, it was operated by a small private company, the crew were amazing, allowing us avgeeks to look at every aspect of the jet, sadly I’m not sure when I will get the opportunity to visit Russia again, for reasons I don’t need to explain, but hopefully I will get the chance to visit some of the amazing aviation museums that are in Russia. Thank you for a wonderful channel
Yeah, Great time to be celebrating all things Russians.
I love Russia and don't have a problem loving it while it's engaged in war. America killed over a million children across Iraq, Afganistan and Syria. Russia don't even come close.
@@shakiMiki really ??? It’s a documentary about a Soviet jet made by a Russian UA-camr whom I admire, get a grip
@@dpairlines1480lol, some people prefer a black and white world, it's easier, you don't need to think, everything other is bad by default.
@@shakiMikiAm I a bad person if I Watch Messi the Puma?
Indonesian low cost airline, Lion Air, famous for being the launch customer of Boeing 737-900ER, and one of its subsidiaries also become the first to fly 737MAX (Malindo Air - now Batik Air Malaysia). They also operated 5 x Yak-42Ds for about a year, from 2001 to 2002.
What makes the plane rather obsolete is the noise, among local Indonesian plane spotters, the Yak-42Ds are known as "trumpet plane" as they make a distinctive turbine whine noise. The plane was used to fly many major Lion Air routes at the time (e.g. to Kupang, Singapore, or even Surabaya), complementing its fleet of Boeing 737-200 and Airbus A310-300, before post-9/11 give them a chance to hoard more than a dozen of extra MD-80s from major US carriers at cheap leasing rate. When the MD-80s arrived, the Yak-42D's tenure simply ended. The little Soviet regional jet briefly helped bridge and transition the airline to become Indonesia's largest airline and Boeing's 2nd largest customer (the entire group) after Southwest Airlines and also ATR's largest operator.
I saw the plane once, and indeed it was cery noisy
Tu-134 is the actually noise plane. The right sound of soviet turbine!
Back in 2013, I flew on a Cubana Yak-42 from Cancun to Havana. The flight was short and uneventful but I enjoyed the experience. When we returned to Cancun we flew on a Tu-204, which reminded me of a 757.
The Yak42/D was never my favorite, I flew it here in Cuba, back in the nineties; were nice rides... My biggest concern were about the lack of speed and some problems with the pressurization system. However was not a bad aircraft for a country like the mine... As many other Soviet aircraft, the Yak42 fleet (around 15) did the job in the island for many years (20+), where the only accident was due to the crew bad performance approaching Valencia, Venezuela... Again, thank you for this new material friends of Sky; you do are my favorites! :)
They were loud!!
@@OOpSjmless loud then turbo prop plane 😉 😂 joke a side yak40 for it time was great small regional airlines bringing people to small regional airport
Hey man, I appreciate these videos that go beyond Wiki reading. Also, your English is so much better than a few years ago and you're getting the harder syntax of native speakers way more often.
Such a good looking bird, so well proportioned, flowing lines, easy on the eyes.
Always loved it.
Are there any ugly trijets?
Love your coverage Soviet and Russian aircraft.
Dear Sky, great channel, just discovered you and working through 'Back catalogue'. You produce good and interesting videos indeed and I am happy to congratulate you. More on Russian/soviet aerospace will be welcome, it is hard to find much at all in English. Thank you.
I appreciate your hard work to make these videos. So interesting and informative.
I'm glad that you finally added proper subtitles comrade, I hope more viewers come to your channel!
man your videos are getting better and better, keep it flying in!
A favorite channel of mine, thanks for your work and best wishes!
Great video as always - I've always loved tri-jets and this one is a beauty!
Thank you for another entertaining informative video. You have a great channel. Here in my hometown, Wichita, Kansas. The Beechcraft Co. just launched a new single engine aircraft called the Denali. It is a turboprop powered aircraft with seating for 10 - 12 passengers.
Does it have a GMC interior , LoL? ....
Building the aircraft like this means jobs for my hometown.
You are right. It does look a lot like the PC-12, @jimbee7342
...and cost $6,000,000!😁
I am glad that ia bring my work into your home :) , However in regards to airvraft its self
It's slower than single turbo prop aircraft like the tbm 930 and pc12 ngx , not to mention a lot slower the king air 350 😂 , after having a look on beechcraft site ,I am not that impressed tbh seems too akin to the pc12
Been watching your channel for a while now , very interesting , explanations simple and good production.
I'm glad you like the channel
@@SkyshipsEng im glad i found your channel in the first place
Sad because it is in my opinion one of the most beautiful regional jet of its time
Thank you for your work! For us it would take several hours of research and reading to get these informations. But you just make it like an interesting story in a 18min video!
Great video!
I remember flying in one back in 1998 I was a teenager and it was actually my first time flying alone in a Jet.! We had to get in from the planes behind… literally the rear door of the plane retracted and has a built in stairway. No need for a Tunnel or a stair. When it reached cruising altitude the cabin filled with what I thought was smoke and I freaked out but the pilot announced that it was mist from the Airconditioning. It was an uneventful flight otherwise. And the leg space in economy was way better than todays jets.
I'm glad I'm still subscribed to your channel; been waiting for a video about this plane
A good looking aircraft; in fact, I think the tri-engine layout is the most graceful jetliner arrangement. The tri-engine concept just didn't have longevity anywhere in the world. The plane I'm most familiar with, the Boeing 727 was hamstrung because the design could not accommodate the new, economical turbofans which were also larger than the jets it was designed around.
Also, with more powerful and reliable engines around, there was no need for a third engine any longer. The DC9- variants were much longer in service than the 727 because of this. Also, the need for a flight engineer didn't help. The 9ers got rid of the third man right from the start.
which one? is this an airliner from 70s so 50 years ago?
That was a nice video, thank you. Soviet-era airliners and the stories behind them make for some fascinating reading/watching. Sad to hear about another three-engine airliner going by the wayside, but such is the world of aviation.
I'm glad I watched this. I thought I knew what the Yak-42 was. Great video.
I think I flew on one in about 1995 from an oilfield location to Tomsk. It was interesting!
Good timing. The Russian company, Irkut, that bought Yakovlev in 2004 just changed its name back to Yakovlev.
I think the main issue was plane design bureau wasn’t in sync with engine design bureau like it is in the West. The original plan was for a jet with either 2 outdated engines or 3 too heavy engines. The entire project either should have new engines designed for it or not start at all
...and right about then they discovered that 2 engined airliners were more fuel efficient than 3 engined airliners.
@@grafhilgenhurst9717that had nothing to do with it. They always knew that two engines is more efficient than three (although that's a very complicated question). About then they decided that modern engines were safe and powerful enough that two was sufficient margin of safety, a plane could keep flying just fine in one engine. That was the main reason for trijets to start with. The regulations in the West prohibited twin engines on overwater flights of more than a certain distance, because it was felt two wasn't safe enough if one failed. So it had to be four or three, and they were well aware of the extra drag and weight each engine created, so three was the more efficient option. But in the 70s they reviewed the latest engine data and removed the restrictions, allowing twins to fly ETOPS as long as they are approved, so the main incentive to have three was removed. Not that three inherently uses more fuel. It depends on the exact scenario. Mostly it's the weight and drag, and the cost (each engine costs millions of dollars and requires maintenance). You are running three engines, but you can run them at lower, more efficient settings. Sometimes running more engines at lower ratings is more efficient, and you have a larger reserve of power. But in the end, if two will do the job and there is no legal requirement to have more, two is more efficient in all ways.
Same reason they tried to couple four engines into two prop units on the He 177. Same number of cylinders firing, but much less drag than four individual units.
Nice! 🙂
I flew three times with one on Cubana Nassau - Havanna - Nassau, one time not by choice as a passenger collapsed and we returned to Havanna before taking off again to Nassau.
Ashamed to say I never heard of this aircraft before!! Seems to be in a similar category to the BAC 1-11. Sadly once you get beyond a certain size, a tough,regional jet becomes very niche I think
As a Yank, my comparison is the Boeing 727.
@@petesheppard1709 yep that works too
@@petesheppard1709I think the 727 is a step or two larger than this. This is more like a DC-9 or ACR-72, or an early 737. It's only similar to the 727 in engine layout, but that doesn't mean very much. And there is a large market for mid sized regional jets, but there is also a lot of competition.
You making your clips / videos lots more interesting and it is beautiful thank you
Another Excellent Video !!!
"index"
"Resource"
"Firey hearts"
"Aviators"
I love all the interesting translation artifacts that appear in these videos. They make the whole thing more interesting to me.
Love them guys in the clip at 1min20 that had to duck down for the wing haha
The yak42 is certainly a very compact well proportioned aircraft slightly smaller than your 737 and a320 aircraft
When i started a job with a lots of business trips all around Russia, those birds were still in use. Aaaaand i was really glad that they were rare. In fact i flown on Tu-134 more times than on Yak-42 and from the point of passenger comfort, Tu-134 were way more comfortable than Yaks.
Do you mind describing the differences in passenger comfort between the Tu-134 and Yak-42? I’m very curious about this.
@@samy7013 tu-134 was narrower with 2+2 seats and a big round windows, yak is 3+3 but it is 10cm narrower than for example a320 so it felt more overcrowded. For me the bigest difference was in quality on interior components. My last busines trip on tus and yaks way in 2000s, while tu's interior holder pretty well, yaks had seats thaw would not recline or recline kn their own, signs that was made more crudely and so on.
one of my favourites.. the yak-40. its a shame they didnt update the yak-40 ever in its lifetime. money could have been better spent on yak-40 upgrades & tu-134 upgrades. still though soviet planning. no one can argue with that. another top quality video production !
There is only so far you can upgrade a small jet like the Yak-40. It's still going to be limited in capacity, fuel load. You can stretch the fuselage a little, you can give it better engines, but there will be a barrier to how far you can go. Why not invest that same money into a new design? Boeing did will because their initial design could be made shorter or longer, turned into the 727 and 737, etc, because they had a relatively large fuselage to start with. But there is only so much you can do with a 20 passenger jet. It was already crowded just fitting four rows in it, and the range was pitiful. At best they might make it carry a few more and then the range into "acceptable" with better engines.
there is still a Yak-42 in good condition being displayed in the VDNKh/ VDNH, Park in Moscow, visitors can even going inside of the plane
Very interesting!
How come the men standing near the Yak-40 in the start of the video not wearing some kind of ear protection?
Always interesting.
Another great video my friend! I really enjoy your videos
I saw a Cubana Yak-42 in Cancún in the 1990s. I was hoping to fly on one, but never got the chance.
Great video. I had no idea it was tested with both a straight and swept wing. Thank you😊
I flew in one of these as a kid. I loved it. I was obsessed with planes
Looks very much like the successful Hawker Trident.
Wonderful channel.
Thank you
The 2-134? What are all these 2-models you keep mentioning?
Good to see a new video Sky
I like this style of narration. It sounds to my English ears as if it is being translated directly from Russian. It's a different psychology.
I like it too, it has a nice feeling to it. It gives you a glimpse into the idiom of the Russian language, his little unfamiliar expressions that I have never heard and things like that. It gives these videos a special appeal for me. Only rarely does it make it difficult to understand him. Like it took me a long time to figure out that the "resource" of an engine is engine life, or time-between-overhaul rating (and I would argue that's a better word and we should use it too). Pretty sure that's a direct translation, but we didn't use that word that way. If he has measured it in operating hours I might have figured it out, but it took me a long time to learn what that meant.
"Firey hearts" I think is also a direct translation, I like that as well.
Some people always have to complain but I like it, and I hope he doesn't "improve" his English so much that he sounds just like all the rest. Something would be lost.
Mr Sky my respect 4 u amigo iam from Colombia and know for the fact that people in the state they make fun of everibody accent you have a heavy accent but you go ahead to make it bettter have a very good knowlege on the planes history congrats i dont miss your videos amigo
I can't deny there are some people from the US who will laugh at accents, but not everyone is like that. And I don't see very many of them on this channel. I enjoy his accent very much, it makes the video more enjoyable for me. And he can at least speak English, I can't speak Russian, or Spanish. So I would be a fool to mock someone for not learning my language perfectly when I can't even speak his language poorly. The US doesn't have a monopoly on ignorant people. Our fools are simply louder and more visible than most.
I loved to fly on this Yak-42 and IL with 4 engine wide body from Karachi to Lahore route in Pakistan in early 1990s. I really liked the flight, crew and serving etc.
Love seeing all the footage from my home airport PDX 😁
Thank you for the video.
7:10 it's interesting to see how the spray from the landing gear shoots back in a perfect line that just misses the engine inlet, so most of the water doesn't enter the engine. That's the kind of thing you don't think about very often, but i would bet that they spent a lot of time and money designing and adjusting the landing gear and the engines to make sure that the water sprayed exactly that way, every time. Because that much water would kill the engine if that spray struck the inlet directly. Kind of a good example of the thousands of small details that they have to consider and change while designing an aircraft. You can't just pop the landing gear wherever you want and hope it works, you need to test it to make sure it works, or you need to relocate the engines. If you need to change the gear or engines , that always effects something else, and other changes need to be made, and you need to consider _all _ of the implications every time you change anything, and make more changes, which require additional changes. And you need to test every change carefully to make sure you didn't forget some factor. There is a reason aircraft testing and design takes a very long time and a lot of money. Im pretty sure that's exactly what they were doing in those clips, making sure it handled correctly on wet runways. Don't want to find out that you messed something up by wrecking a brand new $10,000,000 engine. Or worse, the whole plane is wrecked because you didn't accommodate for water on the runway.
I do know that's a huge design factor in flying boats, but im sure it's significant even in commercial planes.
Can you make a video about the propfan I think it is a very interesting topic to talk about please.
And also I love soviet planes even my favorite plane is a soviet plane and also ther is a plane that use propfan that is the AN-70
Didn't he do a video about that? I know he at least covered the topic in one of his videos about one of the failed airliner prototypes of the 1980/90s.
I believe there's a yak 40 on display in the aviation museum of Tartu, Estonia. Not completely sure though.
The 99% of development are realistically achievable, but that final ONE Percent, the tiny bit which prevents aircraft from falling from the sky….well….thank you for shining the spotlight on Soviet domestic airliners. The aircraft known as the Yak 20, AND Yak 40, thank you also.
I think there is a joke that airplanes are 100,000 parts flying in formation and 99% of the time they agree on the same destination.
@@filanfyretrackerit is way more than 99% of the time or the accident rate would be unacceptably high. Like there are thousands of 737s flying at any given moment, something like 20,000 daily flights. If one out of 100 flights ended in parts flying off we would have hundreds of crashes. I suppose if you want to count all forms of mechanical failure in that number, that might be accurate, but that usually only amounts to some minor system acting up somewhere and needing service, backup being used to complete the flight. Parts "leaving the formation" is pretty rare.
But yes, a large aircraft is unbelievably complex. People love to complain about airlines and maintenance, but the fact that they manage to keep these intensely complex and expensive machines flying multiple times a day for years, decades, with such a low failure rate, is really incredible. If you tried using a normal passenger car on a duty cycle like an airliner, constantly being used, a stream of passengers coming on and off, rough landings, takeoffs, cold and heat, rain, running for hours on end, it would only last a few years before it was totally worn out, even with regular maintenance. Airliners are built more like commercial trucks, which can easily do a million miles in their career, pulling tens of thousands of pounds of freight. They don't make cars that way because most people don't need anything like that capability, and because the quality is reflected in the cost of the product. People like to flex that they paid $200,000 for a fancy car, but that's not an unusual price for a heavy truck or tractor, let alone an aircraft, which also has to be light and fail-proof. I just find that idea amusing, the guy in his Ferrari feeling all superior while he doesn't realize the farmer plowing his field next to him actually paid three times as much for his "mundane" tractor. And the farmer will get his money back out of his tractor, hopefully. The Ferrari is just a method of wasting money to demonstrate that you can afford to waste money. You could just go burn stacks of cash and get the same result. I remember when I was a kid and I found out that a pedestrian, slow, boring little Cessna Caravan cost $1.5M to buy. That's about the cheapest passenger/transport plane you can get. It's closer to $2M now. Somehow that was very eye-opening to me.
The only soviet plane that I flew in the end of the 80s, and it was my first ever plane ride.
The Yak 40. A legend in your own mind.
Right because there are definitely no planes like that in the Western aviation world. We are here because we _like_ planes, not to hear about all the ways they suck and were terrible and someone else did it better. Most of my favorite aircraft were flawed in some way, it makes them more interesting. And bad aircraft don't serve for decades in large numbers.
Well that's a shame things didn't turn out like they wanted it to. It wasn't a bad looking plane. Nice and simple straightforward.
Its an elegant aircraft. I like the design very much.
I flew on one, it was very comfortable.
I follow the channel in spanish. Love your videos. Could you make a video about military aerial refueling tanker aircrafts? Thank you so much. Greetings from Spain.
15:20 What the heck is that thing?
I'm really curious about the status of projects such as MS21 following international sanctions.
3:33 or "Soot sling" in Czechoslovakia.
Good morning from Toronto ❤
Good morning!
I thought you said yak 42... Then i heard stabilizer problem and grounded for 2 years... Then it's Booing you are talking about right? 737 Maxi pad.
As far I know 737 MAX crashed because of autopilot, wasn't it?
@@Rudy_Play no, because of MCAS.
The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) is a flight control system designed for the Boeing 737 MAX to improve handling and reduce pitch-up at high angles of attack. MCAS is designed to activate automatically in manual flight when the flaps are up and the plane's angle of attack (AOA) is too high relative to air speed. When activated, MCAS pushes the nose down to reduce the AOA to an acceptable level.
The Boeing Company
737 MAX Software Update
Inteq Group
Boeing 737 Max MCAS Software Epiphany - Inteq Group
Jan 25, 2024 - Rather than redesigning the airframe to accommodate the new engines Boeing cho...
SKYbrary
Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) | SKYbrary Aviation Safety
MCAS has several safety features to prevent it from overriding the pilot's control of the plane:
It only activates if data from two AOA sensors agree.
It only activates once.
In 2018, after the Lion Air accident, Boeing instructed pilots to take action if the plane entered a series of automated nosedives, but didn't reveal the existence of MCAS until pilots asked for more information. In December of that year, the FAA privately predicted that MCAS could cause 15 crashes over 30 years. Boeing later admitted to misleading statements about MCAS and settled with victims' families and airlines, paying $2.5 billion in total.
Generative AI is experimental.
A few days ago, Russia announced that the MC will be officially re-named YAK
I worked for an airline that leased the YAK 42 D for a short period in Iran. It was very underpower and didn't like any temperature above 24 C. Made to fly in Russia only !!!
Yak 42 was flying many years in Cuba with flights to Cancun ( Mexico), Nassau ( Havana) and there are all days temperature above 24 C..
Very interesting! Poor old Yak42! 🛩 💙 🛩
15:52- RIP Karlis Skrastins.
Always love your great work and russian sorviet aircrafts
With five percent of the aircraft built being involved in fatal accidents I’m not sure I’d ever feel safe on a YAK-42☹️!
Most of them Human error like the locomotiv disaster or in Turkey with Spanish soldiers returning from Afghanistan
The aeroplane failed due to heavyweight. Instead of two three engines were installed further the over seating capacity resulted in a failure.
Good afternoon from the Wild Atlantic Way
And good afternoon!
The Yak-42D is a nice looking aircraft that could have been successful hadn't it have some design flaws which could have been fixed like the Boeing 737 which is known for high rates of technical failures. The model could be successful if revived with a full digital modernization and motorized with 2 high bypass fuel efficient turbofan engine.
When do the other things 🤔
You forgot "Also" in the headline...
Why? Many Soviet aircraft were successful.
@@Rudy_Play Which? When comparing equal age since intro, regarding passengers, payload, noise levels, fuel burn etc. etc. ?
@@ChipMIKTu-134, Yak-40, Tu-154, Il-62, An-24, Il-76. All these aircraft actively flew to the USSR and abroad. The Yak-40 even managed to fly in Italy, and the Il-76 is still All these aircraft actively flew to the USSR and abroad. The Yak-40 even managed to fly in Italy, and the Il-76 and An-24 are still produced.
@@Rudy_Play Yeah surely they flew...And that an aircraft manages to fly in Italy doesn't really make it a winner vs. competitors and can be due to many factors. That Il-76 & An-24 still are in production doesn't really tell how efficient and economic it is in production in a regime like Russia when comparing those to what else is on the market across the world...Just like the other models you mentioned where most if not all are outdated by a zillion standards and never were a true competitor for anything in anything but 3. world countries or dictatorship countries that for other reasons couldn't get or afford new modern aircrafts.
@@ChipMIK An-24 produced in China. And there is no need to speculate about the effectiveness of the Il-76. It is enough to look at how many airlines operate it, and this plane even is flying with one US airline, given that the U.S. has it's own cargo planes.
Oh, really? The Il-62 was a direct competitor to the Boeing 707, DC-8 and VC-10, at the same time, it was safer than all of them. Moreover, it was developed in parallel with the VC-10, while being easier to maintain and did not fail unlike the VC-10.
And Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan also operated the Tu-154. I think they could afford Western aircraft.
You went from talking about a crash, caused by a design error and a stabiliser mechanism failure and went straight to solving the chronic problem of short range? You should have talked about how the stabiliser problem was resolved and how grounded planes where released. The issue of short range was only resolved, I am sure, after the stabilizer problem was resolved. I have included a link to the full story of the failure in design. YAK-42 remains my absolute best Soviet era plane. As a matter of fact, it remains my absolute best looking commercial plane, along with Lockheed Tristar, till date. See link below for details about the tragic crash.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_8641
Apparently, 42 wasn’t the answer to everything.
Make a video on ussar 's naval awacs aircraft
Soviet era airframes were always a curiosity in the west. Its final design was more functional (unimproved runways little ground support ) then flash. But the biggest baine of all past and current Soviet/Russian/UKRAINE airframes were those absolutely rotten engines. Over sized underpowered gas guzzling maintenance queens!
Yak 42 is a very slow aircraft as has been seen when yak42 took off much before 737 and destinations were the same and 737 arrived much earlier
Best airplane channek
17:30 DC-10ski
0:40 Who taught that guy how to fly? Also, who painted that runway?
russian "special civilization" on display
I always like the YAK-40
East Germany in the 60’s seems preferable to the USA today.
In 2024, when Russia makes daily news in a bad way? There is something sweet about seeing these beautiful (if sometimes flawed -- like recent Boeing MAX) SO COOL Soviet planes that I feel a personal sad regret that I will never get to fly.
I flew on a Tu-134, but never a Yak-42. Too bad.
Well, it is still flying
I flew on a yak airplane in the late 2000s. I believe it was in Ukraine and I think it was with the Ukraine National Airline?? I know for a fact it was a yak,, and the 42 sounds very familiar. I also flew on a Saab plane which was a prop plane,, noisy but smooth!
Cannot forget the FC lokomotiv disaster
I rember the crash that killed the hocky team that was'nt the fault but the dude flying it. It hit the hocky fans in the Us hard to the life taken away at sunch at a young age.❣️❣️❣️🌹🌹💖💖🌺🌺💞💞🥺🥺😬😬
god i hate it when i get retired
If history has told one thing never get in a Russian I was travelled in a YAK airliner I was shocked how badly made it was not even the seat belts worked.
*Hey man, how about F-104 Starafighter? Best looking american jet fighter.*
it's an ugly death trap with two disgusting stubby wings. You think it's more attractive than the F-14 or the F-15? well ooookaaaayyy....
@@JohnnyWednesday well, like this. just a f-14 bent like a stamped part, and the f-15 has stupid square air intakes, as if it were a MiG-25 kit. Yes, I think the Starfighter is prettier. It has the perfect shape of a cruise missile. engine, fuel tank and cockpit with pilot. Wings are needed only for maneuvers, because it flies thanks to the thrust of the engine. Aerodynamics is only for those idiots who do not know how to build powerful engines.
It was soooooo loud you will not believe it…
I really cannot understand the USSR: even when it had a good product it couldn't use it nationally or sell it abroad. WTF ?
They had bad reputation of making "unscheduled descents into ground terrain" I last flew on example by Південна "South" airline in Ukraine in 2008, it was quite contrast to flying Boeing 737. Windows whistled from pressure leak, tray tables like guillotine etc. By that time many Yak-40 and Yak-42 made to fly executive duties for apparatchikii.
Time for the American taxpayers to stop funding corrupt ukraine, Not Our War.
If you aren't Boeing, don't try to build a 727.
They built the Tu-154 which was successful and was more comparable to the 727.
@@wanderschlosser1857 true.
I'm just joking of course, but the fact that Soviet/Russian airliners look like Western airliners has more to do with the limited number of best configurations for airliners.
The American and Soviet Space Shuttles look almost exactly the same, yet the Soviet Shuttle was a completely independent design.
If you want to make a space shuttle that side, that is how it will always look.
Have you heard about Hawker Trident? It was before 727
The problem is that Russia does not partner with its allies to develop and obtain funding
Don't try to understand a socialist economy in capitalist terms; there is a lot there that is irrational from a capitalist point of view. For example, the Soviet Union did not own a single enterprise or company operating abroad that profited from workers from other countries; from the Soviet point of view, this was ideologically unacceptable, which is why modern Russia could not retain its allies that the USSR had. Capitalist and socialist economies are fundamentally different, they have different goals and, because of this, different products that cannot effectively exist and be produced in the opposite system. That is why most Soviet products in the capitalist world turned out to be unclaimed, because they were originally created for other conditions in the outside world.
Had they fixed the Yak-42 problems earlier, it's likely the plane would have been common sights even in Western Europe, operated by eastern European airlines flying to western Europe.