Stupid propaganda salad 1. The PS-90 engine has gone through three stages of modernization over 30 years of operation on many aircraft. Now the third version of the PS-90A3 modernization is working on the IL-96-400. Of course there was no information about this about Pratt & Whitney's work on this engine because you are limited to information in English only. But this company completed the work and sold the license for the modernized engine. 2. The new double cabin being developed with new avionics for the MC-21 will easily make it possible in a few years to move on to the creation of the IL-96 with two crew members. This is an obvious thing and an obvious advantage of sanctions, which pushes the nation and business to develop. 3. The PD-35 jet engine is confidently in line for development by 2027, not much time left. Work on PD-8 for SuJet-100 will be completed this year. Work on the PD-35 version will be improved.
The problem is indeed the engine issue. If I am not mistaken the IL 96-400 has 4 engines, each providing some 180kN thrust. As a comparison, the RR Trent engines mounted on the Airbus A350 XR has 330 to 380 kN thrust, allowing the plane to run on two engines only. I am ready to bet that the A350 is already more fuel efficient than is the IL 96...
The aircraft will have a temporary place in Russia during sanctions. However, once sanctions are lifted, the aircraft will be parked as too expensive. It may have a post sanction future as a cargo carrier.
Bạn nghĩ là người Nga tiếp tục ngây thơ như vậy ư? Họ đã nhận được bài học đắt giá khi tự phế bỏ công nghiệp hàng không dân dụng tuyệt vời của Liên xô để lại để chạy theo " xu thế " 2 động cơ và hậu quả thì ai cũng thấy, họ phải phát triển những sản phẩm riêng của họ, trong quá khứ họ đã làm xuất sắc, họ sẽ làm được điều đó trong tương lai, họ đã đánh mất thời gian họ phải bù lại nó nhưng đất nước đó quá dồi dào dầu mỏ vậy nên 4 động cơ cũng chả phải là thảm họa miễn là máy bay tốt, an toàn,tiện nghi và điều quan trọng là độc lập khỏi luật chơi của một nền kinh tế " tự do" của phương tây theo kiểu không quản lý được thì cấm, đó là cái gì vậy kinh tế thị trường hay là một nơi để phô diễn các kỹ năng quản lý rủi ro.
To tell the truth, I have more trust on engineers than business executives; quite never understood their obsession with two engines, cause I am confident to go to sleep in a B747, or AB340 with 4 engines in a long haule flight than a B777 or AB350 with 2 huge engines, the Il96 of Cubana has been a work horse for many years hasn't killed anyone that should be the most important factor. As many old soviets planes they have been flying for decades with no incidents, with the unfortunate accidents with the 747 max one would assume that people in the industry should have learned a thing or two; the lessons of those events and their consequences on the industry is; it's better to have higher costs incroching on maximal profits in exchange of maximum reliability and uncompromize safety; than pursuing short sighted profits with a minimum acceptable level of risks, because when that minimal risks materializes the cost is abyssimal; I predict that if Boieng doesn't do a drastic move they are on their way to bankruptcy because of their decision to sick a compromize balance between risks and profits with their MCast system, that's how being reckless in that industry punishes you because no one want to board a plane that can potentially kill them no matter what business people say.
I do think you make excellent points. The aversion to risks with old soviet planes is to be lauded. When we think about the engineering stations and all the gauges that had to be monitored, someone was responsible for a key aspect of an aircraft. The IL76 engineering station is a thing of wonder. In modern western places, these have been reduced to a few indicators. The common view is that Boeing's problems started when corporates took over from the engineers. The drive for profit will always end up in risk taking as this culture is at the heart of many businesses. There is always a level of risk that some business are prepared to take especially when they know that the worse that had happen is to lose their jobs with a great payoff.
It's now not expected to enter into service until 2025. Limited information has been given as regards the reasons. It has still not received full certification from the Russian authorities.
Probably this plane does not appeal to a any Western airlines at all, but considering sanctions over Heavy long haul aircrafts wich are still in operations over Russian territory, it makes sense that this IL96-400M will be the natural local made airplane replacement to all that Airbus-Boeing material in order to serve with new planes the vast territory needing for a long range-one flight equipment. The costumers or clients would be the same 3 or 4 Russians well established companies, and surely, the foreing candidate to operate a bunch of them would be Cubana de Aviaciòn, Cuba`s national Airline. In my own humble opinion, I do prefer in long distance schedule, 4 engine model rather than 2 big ones, considering the latest blowns-out and fire issues in flight or taking-off, decribed by media and footage coming from the passengers aboard those flights. What about if delays-trouble assembly lines from Boeing and Airbus continue or get worst? Here is the another good and reliable player.
It may have a limited market in Russia - although probably more western planes will find their way into Russia through Iran, Turkey or other states than will ever produced in Russia. Who will buy an A340 these days?
Maybe Iran's aviation industry under sanctions is perhaps the best example though they don't have the historic know-how of the Russians. I should add that I personally love the A340-600
@@javic3458 Maybe you think they are all from the same mold, but no. For example the avionics and the slats of the A310 are 100% different from the A300 not mentioning the trim tank system. For the A330 we are in an another world, new wing, new landing gears, flybywire, new avionics, new engines and so on. The fuselage diameter is not the determining factor to consider that an A330 is an "evolution" of the A300.
@@stabilo3170 I work for Airbus, I flew all From A300 to 330 NEO, and all a340 family wich is also from de A300, you are almost right, but still is a base design from the 60,s, a lot of systems and the frame are from the 60,s, the A350 is a whole new aircraft with not even a single nut from any other aircraft. As I said it comes from the A300 which was developed in the 60,s…
@@javic3458 You are probably an Airbus flight test team member? If I understand your pow, the fuselage width and nose section community are only to be considered.
Unfortunately, no future. Like Tsar-cannon and Tsar-bell. Something like this. UPD: maybe as a passenger jet for a Cuba route and as a military model, but there aren't any requests from russian VKS.
Exactly! Perhaps they'd have *some* luck if they developed the twin-engined IL-90 variant of the plane, but there's no guarantee it would appeal to those outside of Russia.
@randomscb-40charger78 it's not obsolete because they don't have any other option. Access to western planes is cutoff. If Russian made planes is all they have then by definition those planes are the top of the line over there, so they aren't obsolete. Unless you want them flying on top of birds
@@diegoflores9237 The IL-96 is over 30+ years old from its maiden flight in 1989, it is quite obsolete even if it’s Russia only widebody jet in production. Post-Soviet Russian aviation is quite the mess compared to the somewhat more organized COMAC of China.
I agree, obviously propaganda the reviewer does not know what he is talking about ....he mentioned the plan flew at a height of 3000 metres just over 6000 ft !!!! I don't know much about flying but what I know 3000m equates to over 9000 ft.
IL-96 is a very beautiful aircraft.
the IL96 has a good safety record , it has been operated by Cuba for decades now
Stupid propaganda salad
1. The PS-90 engine has gone through three stages of modernization over 30 years of operation on many aircraft. Now the third version of the PS-90A3 modernization is working on the IL-96-400. Of course there was no information about this about Pratt & Whitney's work on this engine because you are limited to information in English only. But this company completed the work and sold the license for the modernized engine.
2. The new double cabin being developed with new avionics for the MC-21 will easily make it possible in a few years to move on to the creation of the IL-96 with two crew members. This is an obvious thing and an obvious advantage of sanctions, which pushes the nation and business to develop.
3. The PD-35 jet engine is confidently in line for development by 2027, not much time left. Work on PD-8 for SuJet-100 will be completed this year. Work on the PD-35 version will be improved.
Must admit i do find these russian widebodies good looking planes, certainly different in style!
Without access to any western planes or parts, this is the only real option for a widebody plane they have, in a country with 11 time zones.
The problem is indeed the engine issue. If I am not mistaken the IL 96-400 has 4 engines, each providing some 180kN thrust. As a comparison, the RR Trent engines mounted on the Airbus A350 XR has 330 to 380 kN thrust, allowing the plane to run on two engines only. I am ready to bet that the A350 is already more fuel efficient than is the IL 96...
Quite agree. PD35 is still years away.
The aircraft will have a temporary place in Russia during sanctions. However, once sanctions are lifted, the aircraft will be parked as too expensive. It may have a post sanction future as a cargo carrier.
I do doubt a return to normality anytime soon. I suspect for security reasons they would want to be self reliant going forward.
Bạn nghĩ là người Nga tiếp tục ngây thơ như vậy ư? Họ đã nhận được bài học đắt giá khi tự phế bỏ công nghiệp hàng không dân dụng tuyệt vời của Liên xô để lại để chạy theo " xu thế " 2 động cơ và hậu quả thì ai cũng thấy, họ phải phát triển những sản phẩm riêng của họ, trong quá khứ họ đã làm xuất sắc, họ sẽ làm được điều đó trong tương lai, họ đã đánh mất thời gian họ phải bù lại nó nhưng đất nước đó quá dồi dào dầu mỏ vậy nên 4 động cơ cũng chả phải là thảm họa miễn là máy bay tốt, an toàn,tiện nghi và điều quan trọng là độc lập khỏi luật chơi của một nền kinh tế " tự do" của phương tây theo kiểu không quản lý được thì cấm, đó là cái gì vậy kinh tế thị trường hay là một nơi để phô diễn các kỹ năng quản lý rủi ro.
To tell the truth, I have more trust on engineers than business executives; quite never understood their obsession with two engines, cause I am confident to go to sleep in a B747, or AB340 with 4 engines in a long haule flight than a B777 or AB350 with 2 huge engines, the Il96 of Cubana has been a work horse for many years hasn't killed anyone that should be the most important factor. As many old soviets planes they have been flying for decades with no incidents, with the unfortunate accidents with the 747 max one would assume that people in the industry should have learned a thing or two; the lessons of those events and their consequences on the industry is; it's better to have higher costs incroching on maximal profits in exchange of maximum reliability and uncompromize safety; than pursuing short sighted profits with a minimum acceptable level of risks, because when that minimal risks materializes the cost is abyssimal; I predict that if Boieng doesn't do a drastic move they are on their way to bankruptcy because of their decision to sick a compromize balance between risks and profits with their MCast system, that's how being reckless in that industry punishes you because no one want to board a plane that can potentially kill them no matter what business people say.
I do think you make excellent points. The aversion to risks with old soviet planes is to be lauded. When we think about the engineering stations and all the gauges that had to be monitored, someone was responsible for a key aspect of an aircraft. The IL76 engineering station is a thing of wonder. In modern western places, these have been reduced to a few indicators. The common view is that Boeing's problems started when corporates took over from the engineers. The drive for profit will always end up in risk taking as this culture is at the heart of many businesses. There is always a level of risk that some business are prepared to take especially when they know that the worse that had happen is to lose their jobs with a great payoff.
3000M is not 6353’ … cant even get the basics right .
Yes all it would take is a little calculation 😂 More like 9842 ft
Any news on what is happening with this hird? Its been long since its maiden flight, and then medi silence!
It's now not expected to enter into service until 2025. Limited information has been given as regards the reasons. It has still not received full certification from the Russian authorities.
It's the only 4-engine widebody passenger jet still in production.
Very niche, but the small demand will be there.
Ultimately they may have no option if they have to replace their widebodies during sanctions.
Outdated!
Probably this plane does not appeal to a any Western airlines at all, but considering sanctions over Heavy long haul aircrafts wich are still in operations over Russian territory, it makes sense that this IL96-400M will be the natural local made airplane replacement to all that Airbus-Boeing material in order to serve with new planes the vast territory needing for a long range-one flight equipment. The costumers or clients would be the same 3 or 4 Russians well established companies, and surely, the foreing candidate to operate a bunch of them would be Cubana de Aviaciòn, Cuba`s national Airline. In my own humble opinion, I do prefer in long distance schedule, 4 engine model rather than 2 big ones, considering the latest blowns-out and fire issues in flight or taking-off, decribed by media and footage coming from the passengers aboard those flights. What about if delays-trouble assembly lines from Boeing and Airbus continue or get worst? Here is the another good and reliable player.
The Airbus/Boeing production delays would increasingly have an adverse effect on passenger capacity and growth.
It may have a limited market in Russia - although probably more western planes will find their way into Russia through Iran, Turkey or other states than will ever produced in Russia. Who will buy an A340 these days?
Maybe Iran's aviation industry under sanctions is perhaps the best example though they don't have the historic know-how of the Russians. I should add that I personally love the A340-600
And even the A340-300 is better!
Definitely it has,make it lighter,fuel efficient,long range,has a greater cargo and passenger capacity and owners friendly.
Upgraded engines would also help.
3000 metres is closer to 10 thousand feet, not 6 thousand feet.
Fair point. I strive to improve and avoid silly mistakes.,
The A330 NEO is an evolution of the A300, wich was developed in the 60´s…..
You've missed some steps, after the A300 we have the A310, then the A330 Ceo and then only the A330 Neo.
@@stabilo3170 is an evolution, the basic desing is the same in all of these!!!! All are the A300!!
@@javic3458 Maybe you think they are all from the same mold, but no. For example the avionics and the slats of the A310 are 100% different from the A300 not mentioning the trim tank system.
For the A330 we are in an another world, new wing, new landing gears, flybywire, new avionics, new engines and so on.
The fuselage diameter is not the determining factor to consider that an A330 is an "evolution" of the A300.
@@stabilo3170 I work for Airbus, I flew all From A300 to 330 NEO, and all a340 family wich is also from de A300, you are almost right, but still is a base design from the 60,s, a lot of systems and the frame are from the 60,s, the A350 is a whole new aircraft with not even a single nut from any other aircraft. As I said it comes from the A300 which was developed in the 60,s…
@@javic3458 You are probably an Airbus flight test team member?
If I understand your pow, the fuselage width and nose section community are only to be considered.
I have a strong dislike of Russia - particularly now - but I think most of their aircraft are aesthetically interesting and attractive.
I find them interesting. I particularly like the IL76, beast of a plane. Ugly and attractive at the same time.
I have a strong dislike of your opinion
@@miles-thesleeper-monroe8466 Tough luck. It's my opinion.
@@jjaus no it's fine
Congrats, you've been well trained to dislike a country and nation you know nothing about but media told you so.
No.
Unfortunately, no future. Like Tsar-cannon and Tsar-bell. Something like this.
UPD: maybe as a passenger jet for a Cuba route and as a military model, but there aren't any requests from russian VKS.
All I saw was your fear of competing with Russian planes.When the USSR was, 40 % of all air traffic in the world was carried out by Russian Aeroflot.
They even stole Airbus' typography and color code. What a shame! These people have no self-esteem.
Obsolete already! Pure junk
Exactly! Perhaps they'd have *some* luck if they developed the twin-engined IL-90 variant of the plane, but there's no guarantee it would appeal to those outside of Russia.
How is it obsolete if because of sanctions that's their only option? By definition if it's the only option there then it's not obsolete there.
@@diegoflores9237 No the IL-96 due to its design is obsolete, not because of sanctions.
@randomscb-40charger78 it's not obsolete because they don't have any other option. Access to western planes is cutoff. If Russian made planes is all they have then by definition those planes are the top of the line over there, so they aren't obsolete. Unless you want them flying on top of birds
@@diegoflores9237 The IL-96 is over 30+ years old from its maiden flight in 1989, it is quite obsolete even if it’s Russia only widebody jet in production. Post-Soviet Russian aviation is quite the mess compared to the somewhat more organized COMAC of China.
90% of the information are pure uninformed guesses, or completely irrelevant facts - "the color of the cockpit is not modern"
I agree, obviously propaganda the reviewer does not know what he is talking about ....he mentioned the plan flew at a height of 3000 metres just over 6000 ft !!!! I don't know much about flying but what I know 3000m equates to over 9000 ft.