Talk:Ilyushin Il-62/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Stopping distance in rain

Anecdotal evidence (admittedly meagre: one conversation with one pilot) suggests that the Ilyushin-62 had problems with its stopping distance in rain. I was on a flight in the summer of 1979 from Warsaw to New York with one scheduled stop in Mirabel. Before we reached the Atlantic we had to make an unscheduled refueling stop in Shannon. It was raining heavily. The continuation of the flight was delayed because, as the pilot told me, he couldn't risk attempting a takeoff in such heavy rain, because there might not be enough runway left if he had to abort.

Grandmotherfrompeoria (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Accidents

This source will prove useful to expand the article. Mjroots (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Banned in EU?

I hear this plane is banned in the EU, is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.152.145 (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Not actually banned more not allowed as it fails to meet noise standards for use in the EU although I think it doesnt apply to government aircraft and special permission for one off flights can be obtained if you have a good enough excuse (for example this allows noisy IL-76s to operate on humanitarian flights although they dont meet the noise standards). MilborneOne (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of why accident rate after 1989 much lower?

It might be nice to know if the reason there were very few fatalities after 1989 with this aircraft is at all related to the fall of communism in eastern europe in 1989. My guess is the plane was engineered fairly decent but the inheritant problems with worker quality in maintaince, and airport operations under communism plus not having as much access to higher quality materials and components from the west (so glad I never had to fly on a communist run airline) might have contributed very heavily to some of the accidents before 1990. 24.56.37.14 (talk) 06:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The accident rate was already low compared to other similar planes so it's unlikely there is any correlation. As far as I know Il-62s never used western mechanical components. In any case, most planes were flying with Russian airlines, and countries like Cuba and Czechoslovakia long after the changes in eastern Europe. Czech Airlines lost one Il-62 (OK-DBF) in a CFIT due to a language misunderstanding between Damascus control tower and the pilots (metric vs imperial altitude settings) and they kept Il-62s in service until 1997. Cuba lost CU-T1281 while it was trying to take off during a storm (the plane should not have been cleared for takeoff but it had been delayed several times and the pilots decided to risk it). Cuba kept theirs in service until 2010. As more IL-62s entered service, the fatal accident rate dropped to zero so it was likely due to pilots/airlines becoming accustomed to the plane's operation and service requirements. Even the Iranian accident in 2009, the only fatality in two decades, was pilot error - the crew landed UP-I6208 too quickly on a runway that was simply not long-enough and had a concrete barrier at one end into which the plane collided, destroying the front fuselage. UP-I6208 had quite a history having been in service with four countries. maxzden —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxzden (talk • contribs) 21:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This paper http://www.icao.int/icao/en/dgca/ip/dgca_06_ip_48_e.pdf was published after an ICAO conference and it analyzes state of flight safety of the aircraft designed and manufactured in former USSR for the period of 30 years. As far as I am aware it covers a period between 1974 and 2004. It also compares flight safety of those planes with similar Western designs. ICAO decided to compare a number of fatal accidents per 100000 flight hours for different types of aircraft. According to ICAO Il-62/Il-62M had the same flight safety level as a DC-8 (0,075 fatal accidents per 100000 flight hours) and slightly better than B-707(0,085). ICAO also reveals that in a period between 1992 and 1998 a scope of aircraft operations in former USSR dropped 4.5 times and increase in air traffic has been observed since 2000. They also claim that annual flying time of the fleet of aircraft under review in the member States of the Agreement(Commonwealth of Independent States) was approximately ten times less than the flying time of the aircraft fleet of other ICAO Contracting States, at the moment of publication. I guess it is one of the reasons why Il-62s has had few accidents in last 20 years. As for UP-I6208- it was made in 1989 for Interflug then it was bought by Aeroflot, later it was used by Uzbekistan Airways and finally by Aria Air, but for entire period of 20 years between 1989 and 2009, when it crashed, this plane has accrued only 13573 flight hours and 3987 cycles, which is not much for a long range plane used by airlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rynek (talk • contribs) 19:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to comments by Rynek on Nov 16

The reason for the zero fatal accident rate wouldn't have anything to do with the lower total flight hours of CIS planes following the collapse of the USSR because the ICAO stats covered a period of 30 years long before and after that period. In 1973 the primary user Aeroflot had only 60 62s in service but by 1989 it had 165 which I think may have been the most it operated at any one time. Therefore the lower rate clearly coincided with higher numbers. Russian 62s were not pulled from scheduled service in any great quantity until the 2008 recession, and there were still many operating in 2004 when the ICAO data was collected. For the same reason, Domodedovo Airlines, which had 45 62s, scaled down their internal route 62 operations after the recession. The accident rate was far more likely due to the triplex navigation system and other various upgrades that the Il-62M version received during its career, as well as greater experience with the plane etc.

There is very close relation between flying time of the fleet of aircraft and number of accidents, for example KC-135's used by USAF had lower number of accidents compared to B-707's used by airlines and KC-135's have been used for longer period of time. Both designs are similar but flying time of each KC-135 is below 700hrs per year whereas B-707 would normally spend several thousands of hours in the air every year. And according to ICAO after a collapse of USSR a scope of aerial work in former Soviet republics has dropped, hence the lower number of accidents.Rynek (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to comments by Rynek: I don't want to overly stress a point but you appear to be confusing two very different measures: 1) the average of CIS flight hrs for several years after the SU collapse (which is only a small portion of the ICAO period looked at), and 2) flight hours of one model over a longer period than you mention as being relevant. No-one is arguing that total (average) aviation hours dropped for several years, but it's clear that the number of Il-62s in sevice also increased over that same period, as Aeroflot progressively added 62Ms into its fleet (the last Ms weren't made until the mid '90s). You mentioned the B-707 but its relative accident rate (planes lost per no. in service) didn't decrease with time as did the Il-62 (for example, since 1990 there were nine 707 crashes). The 62 is a 60s design that has been progressively upgraded with enhanced navigational systems and powerplants allowing it to stay in service perhaps longer than originally intended. Part of the reason is also the relative lack of success of subsequent models namely the 86 and 96 (pobably moreso for the 86 which, whilst no doubt an excellent design in other respects, was limited by its short range). Maxzden Nov 2010

You need to make up your mind- at first you claimed that Aeroflot had the largest number of Il-62's in 1989 now you say that they added new planes into its fleet in 1990's. I guess you have seen the register of Il-62's so you should be aware that continuous production of this type ended in 1993 and several planes were kept unfinished in factory in Kazan because no airline wanted to collect them for this simple reason that they didn't need them. This is consistent with reduction of aerial work in former Soviet Union. Large number of planes available didn't mean that they were used- for example planes sold by LOT were still used by Ukrainians in 1990's, they were withdrawn from service at the and of this period but they were not scrapped. Only 2 were sold to Kazakhstan- the rest was left to rot at the airport in Kiev, although they were still in register. UP-I6208 is another example of plane which was stored for long period of time or which was used very infrequently. I would like to point out that in my first comment I said that lower number of flight hours logged by typical Il-62 was one of the reasons why they had smaller number of accidents, there were other reasons, but to say that number of fatal accidents had nothing to do with lower number of flight hours flown by planes is simply incorrect. As for B-707, 56 of them were lost in accidents and incidents between 1990-2010, most of them were freighters. You mentioned 9 crashes- those were passenger planes. Those 707's in general left assembly lines in 1960's or early 70's and at the time of accident many of them were flying wrecks that wouldn't be considered airworthy in civilized countries.Rynek (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to Rynek:

1) "You need to make up your mind- at first you claimed that Aeroflot had the largest number of Il-62's in 1989 now you say that they added new planes into its fleet in 1990's".

The last Aeroflot 62 delivery appears to have been Oct 1995, with a batch delivered earlier in 1993. Obviously Aeroflot wasn't operating the same planes in the 1990s as it took delivery of in the late 1960s as most of those would have already been retired. For this reason we get the largest number in operation around 1989. From 1994, many were going to Domodedovo Airlines which used them on internal routes. In total, some 212 62s were in the Aeroflot registry at one time or other between 1967 and about 2003, but clearly never all at the same time.

2) "...for example planes sold by LOT were still used by Ukrainians in 1990's, they were withdrawn from service at the and of this period but they were not scrapped. Only 2 were sold to Kazakhstan- the rest was left to rot at the airport in Kiev, although they were still in register."

The reason those planes were not used after 2000 is due to the fact that Air Ukraine went backrupt. Those planes were not part of the Aeroflot register mentioned by Thiel so I'm not sure why you mention them as being relevant. Remember, Thiel is talking about Aeroflot registries, not Air Ukraine.

3) "This is consistent with reduction of aerial work in former Soviet Union."

The reduction in aerial traffic in the SU was clearly a far smaller period than the two decades mentioned, and secondly it was mainly internal flights that were affected rather than international. After the collapse of the SU, Aeroflot split its internal routes into many smaller airlines but maintained its international operations quite separately. Yes even in this situation, you will notice that there were 62s being added to internal routes, including some that were far longer than many international routes (due to the number of time zones flown). To give you some idea of how many planes were involved, in 1989, Air Transport World reported that before the Soviet breakup, Aeroflot had 2,500 jetliners, more than 2,500 turboprops, 9,000 helicopters and smaller planes, and employed half a million people. By 1992, following the breakup of the U.S.S.R., about 70 airlines were flying in the Commonwealth of Independent States, nearly half of them former divisions of Aeroflot.

4) "As for B-707, 56 of them were lost in accidents and incidents between 1990-2010, most of them were freighters. You mentioned 9 crashes- those were passenger planes. Those 707's in general left assembly lines in 1960's or early 70's and at the time of accident many of them were flying wrecks that wouldn't be considered airworthy in civilized countries."

This confirms what I said earlier, that the 707 accident record does not mimic that of the 62 but remained high for a long time. If you look at ASN, a number of quite new 707s were involved in crashes over the years and they were hardly all 'flying wrecks' when lost. I don't wish to respond to your comment about countries using Boeing 707s that recently crashed not being 'civilised' - they include Australia, Argentina, Colombia, Brazil, Ethiopia, Iran and Sudan (most of which, I might add, have very good aviation records). Maxzden Nov 2010.

This way or another you have responded. I would like to notice I never claimed Australia was not civilised, it never even crossed my mind. Apparently you didn't notice that I said "many of them", not "all of them", when I spoke about B-707's lost in a period between 1990 and 2010. Many of planes used in certain African countries(such as Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, etc.) were very old and worn out, with more than 60000 hrs or more than 20000 landings and needed an overhaul or should have been scrapped. It's not a surprise they suffered from mechanical problems and in some cases this resulted in loss of aircraft. And none of them was new so I don't know why you mentioned that, I guess you referred to planes lost in late 50's and early 60's but I never claimed those plane could be called 'flying wrecks'. I have never heard of 30 or 40 years old Il-62 with more than 60000hrs and more than 20000 landings still in use in some remote regions of Africa. Typically Il-62 would be withdrawn from use much earlier than B-707. This is one of the reasons why their safety records are so different.Rynek (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to Rynek: Whilst I hesitate to respond yet again on this thread, for reasons of clarification (and no other) I think you will find that far from teeming with vintage 707s (as your post might suggest), certain African countries were far better known for operating obsolete Russian airliners such as IL-18s and Antonovs, many of which were 40 years or older and serving in conditions outside the operational parameters of any 707 (or other models for that matter). Very few 62s were used by African countries originally and the ones that did operated from full service airports so it is not surprising that you "have never heard of 30 or 40 years old Il-62 with more than 60000hrs and more than 20000 landings still in use in some remote regions of Africa." The lifetime of the 62 airframe is rated at 50 years (incidentally, the same as the IL-18) and the reason many European examples were retired long before (especially since the 2008 recession) is due to the fuel consumption rates (why would any airline fly a plane of this type if it could operate a more economical one?) You mentioned the Aria Air example as a 62 with low flight hours but that particular plane was only delivered to Interflug shortly before that airline's demise and not onsold for some time after unification. Many 707s listed in current registries were/are stored or non-operational examples. For example, the only airline that uses 707s for passenger services (but not scheduled ones) is Saha Airlines which has five. They are ex-airforce planes with low flight hrs after having spent most of their life in storage (just out of interest, one of their 707s crash landed in 2005 at Teheran when the undercarriage failed, and another was involved in a [non-fatal] engine failure emergency landing last year). Maxzden Dec 2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxzden (talk • contribs) 13:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I know about Il-18. I had an opportunity to watch LOT's planes very frequently in 1980's and I was surprised some of them were still in use in 2010. But Il-62 is a different plane. I know that several of them have been offered for sale recently and they have lifetime of 35000hrs, 20 years or 7500 cycles- those were limits set by manufacturer in 1990. Since they are already 20 years old, they are offered with prolongation to 50 years. But this is just a theory because none of Il-62's has been used for that long. The oldest currently in use are the ones used by Ukrainian government and they are 30 years old. You might also check what's written about Il-62's service life on Ilyushin's website http://www.ilyushin.org/eng/products/passenger/62.html. If you'd been bothered to read accident descriptions on ASN you would have known why I mentioned 40 years old B-707's or the ones with more than 60000 flight hours- in fact the last B-707 to crash was exactly 40 years old and it was from Sudan. I didn't claim that B-707 was a type of aircraft widely used in Africa but if you look at hull-loss list for B-707 you'll see that most of B-707's lost in last 20 years were from various African airlines. As far as I am aware Iran has got no access to original parts for B-707 so I am not surprised they have mechanical problems especially that those planes were made before Iranian Revolution.Rynek (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to Rynek:

You say that no IL-62 has been used for 50 years and that this is "just a theory". Yet clearly no Il-62 could ever have been flown for 50 years (even if it had been the very first one to go into service in 1967). Also the 50 years life relates to the IL-62M version (which only entered service in 1974). So an IL-62M made in 1990 given a 50 year span would get retired in 2040. I'm well aware of the service life given to the original IL-62 by the manufacturer and also well aware that such service lives were historically overly modest in Soviet times (which has been commented on by various authors). The planes were never intended to be used by state airlines for longer than about two decades because it was assumed that by then the state would have then replaced them with a new model from the same manufacturer. You might have noticed that the service life of the Tu-154 was originally 45,000hrs yet now they are rated to 80,000hrs. Many IL-18s (which first flew in 1957) still being used today in passenger service have gone way past their allocated life spans. In Soviet times, some planes were even given service lives close to their total engine life. I read of similar things in the automotive industry where VAZ cars were given service lives of say 100,000 mls (or 10 years), and yet decades later some were still running (mechanically unrestored) after more than 300,000 mls. The Lithuanian journal 'VilNews' commented on this in a feature article on Soviet era cars (Sep 2010). Of course after the Soviet Union collapsed, manufacturers like Ilyushin and Tupolev lost much of their main market which resulted in a marked drop in the number of passenger planes they made. Amongst airliners you only have to look at the numbers for IL-18 (564), IL-62 (292), IL-86 (106) and IL-96 (29) and the same with Tupolev with the TU-154 (1015), TU-204/214 (69/10) to see the progressive decreasing numbers over time (having said that, I recall that Ilysuhin reportedly made something like 65,000 planes in total, a figure which few of today's manufacturers could match). Maxzden Jan 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxzden (talk • contribs) 16:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Note to: Response to Rynek

Just a note that Aerotransport lists the average service life of the IL-62M as 26.5 years which would appear to substantiate what I said earlier about 30 years being not unusual (and what Gordon et al 2004 also said regarding the service life). Recent upgraded IL-62Ms with a service life of 50 years have an engine life of 18,000-20,000 hrs which is probably higher than earlier powerplants. As the other upgrades are mainly to the navigation systems (triplex) and the fuselages are presumably the same, the body probably wouldn't limit the service life. Also, regarding the B-707, you implied that you were not surprised to see such planes having had accidents after high flight hours or because they were "flying wrecks". Yet some accidents caused by structural failure clearly occurred in new planes, even ones that hadn't yet flown. The Encyclopedia of commercial aircraft (1980) for example mentions one 707 that was taxiing for its maiden flight when the undercarriage collapsed and broke through the wing. Maxzden Jul 2011

Aviation News article

I happened upon an issue of Aviation News from Sep 2010 which had a short feature article on the IL-62 with some background on the development of the plane resulting from early space travel. They also say:

"The IL-62 was one of the most successful Russian aircraft....and it had a safety record substantially better than the Boeing 707, the DC-8 and the VC-10 series. The only fatalities between Sep 1989 and the present involving an IL-62 occurred on July 24th 2009 when an Aria Air aircraft (UP-16208) struck a wall after touching down 50 mph too fast killing 16."

It also mentions that its design influenced western jets (esp the landing gear) and the wing design of later VC-10 variants. Maxzden May 2012

But there is no evidence to suggest this. If you are referring to "dog-tooth" wing design, it had already been introduced to the VC10 by 1965, possibly long before anyone in Vickers had ever seen an Il-62 The Il-62 was first revealed to the"West" at the Paris Airshow in 1965.

Dubious data?

Recently I came across a VC-10 enthusiasts website that also had some information on the Il-62 (which was apparently written by someone other than the webmaster). It mentions the EMERCOM Il-62 (registration RA-86570) amongst planes lost in accidents, stating that this happened in Lisbon years ago. RA-86570 is the EMERCOM airborne command post for a fleet of Il-76s, AN-72s and helicopters which have operated in 60 countries and is said to have saved 50 000 lives since 1994. I found some of the dates mentioned on the website didn't correspond with dates on other databases and references. Also, various aviation sites appear to have quite recent photos of RA-86570 in operation. What I did find out was that some years back, the plane slightly overran the short Lisbon runway onto an adjacent unsealed area. It was undamaged and was towed back on to the tarmac after an inspection of the undercarriage. Does anyone else know much about this plane and if it is still in service? Maxzden Nov 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxzden (talk • contribs) 07:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Google is your friend, just enter RA-86570 to find links to images some as recently as August 2010. MilborneOne (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Seen those already thanks (even ones showing it just off the runway at Lisbon) but was really wanting to know more about the plane and its operations. Maxzden Nov 2010

IL-62 retired from Cubana de Aviación service

The last IL-62 in Cuban service was retired after its last flight on March 1, 2011; according to the official newspaper "Granma" (see link below). The type is no longer flying for Cuban airlines since it was officially retired.

http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/2011/03/11/pdf/pagina11.pdf

Miguel.A.Lopez.Regalado (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Miguel. Cubana has for several years now been saying that it would retire the last of its IL-62s but for enthusiasts still hoping to catch a ride on one it will still be sad news. Cubana operated 28 IL-62s in all , 11 of which were the original IL-62 and 17 were IL-62Ms. It owned 19 of the planes and leased the rest from Aeroflot and Tarom. For non-Spanish-speakers, here are the salient points from the Granma article (some of which is somewhat lost in translation). Any Cubans out there feel free to correct any obvious errors.

Tribute to a Titan

On 1st. March 2011 the aircraft IL-62M performed its last flight in Cuba, elegant and safe until the last minute. It passed in beautiful low level flight above the runway of "José Marti international airport, joy and excitement for all that had accomplished a stage of our lives with it.

This moment demands a necessary remembrance, because IL-62M aircraft is an inseparable part in the history of our Revolutionary Aviation, a right earned for over 33 years of being kept and piloted by worker’s hands, of men and women that had gave our sweat and blood with true pride.

On June 1st, 1977, with the arrival of CUT-1208, the IL-62M started to fly for CUBANA de AVIACION. Since the beginning it would accomplish commercial duties, but also it would dress on olive green to lend our helping hand and support to our friends worldwide.

How can we forget the epic journeys of Africa, particularly Angola and Ethiopia, how can we forget Pakistan, Timor Leste, Vietnam, flights to service Presidents of fraternal peoples, such as Guinea Bissau and Burkina Faso, among others; the transfer of delegations the Non-Aligned mediators in armed conflicts in Middle East, or the first flight of Operation Miracle turned-in ALBA flights. We saw, at a time transcendent and unique, how it carried Pope John Paul II during his visit to our homeland.

How can we forget the transfer of remains of the Heroic Guerrilla Che Guevara and comrades in the struggle to land that keep them.

I have not translated Fidel Castro's words.

We hope that it have been preserved to comply with its mission of enriching our heritage to new generations, with the same dignity that it accomplished its flight missions.

IL-62M workers

Cubana

Miguel.A.Lopez.Regalado (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: According to the most recent airliner survey (Aug 2011), Cubana operates one IL-62M (reg. not given) but it is not a civilian example so I assume it is for govt use only. I have adjusted the main article accordingly. Maxzden, Sep 1 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxzden (talk • contribs) 02:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is that survey available? Miguel.A.Lopez.Regalado (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Flight International magazine for Aug. Maxzden, Oct 1 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxzden (talk • contribs) 18:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Mystery of OK-DBF

I have refrained from adding information in the main article about the inconclusive circumstances of the loss of OK-DBF ("Brno Trade Fair") and its bizarre similarity to the loss of Malev flight 240 that happened nearby the following month. If anyone has information on this, feel free to add it. The Malev plane, a Hungarian-registered Tu-154, was downed while in a holding pattern waiting to land at Beirut; there was no distress call sent out by the crew and the weather was good at the time. Both Israel and Syria have been suggested as possible suspects. However, the radar signature picked up at Akrotiri (Cyprus) apparently matched that of an F-4 Phantom (which was only used by the Israeli airforce) and there are allegations that the missiles were AA side-winders (again these were only available to Israel at that time) which struck the starboard fuselage. Some sources doubt that the Syrians were capable of bringing a plane down in such a fashion (even if they wanted to). In the case of OK-DBF, it has been surmised that the pilot confused metres with feet when setting the altimeter whilst in communication with Damascus control tower (due to a language misunderstanding between the Czech crew and the Syrian controller), and that the plane flew into the ground in a controlled descent at midnight, the crew not realising they were far nearer the ground than they actually were. There were only two survivors of the 128 people on board. There are some unusual similarities between these two losses. Apart from the fact that the planes were lost in the same region only 40 days apart and in fine weather, it appears that Czechoslovakia opened Prague PLO offices shortly before the IL-62 incident, while the Malev incident also happened shortly after the opening of PLO offices in Budapest. The Malev flight was in fact supposed to be carrying a high-ranking PLO delegation, but there was a change of plan and they did not board the plane. The Hungarian National Security produced a report on the crash in 2003, but stated that there are no available secret service documents concerning the case, and the report itself remains top secret even today, for reasons unconnected to the incident. There were 60 people on board the 154 and there were no survivors. Maxzden Dec 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxzden (talk • contribs) 00:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

IL-62MK

The development of the IL-62MK medium range airliner was begun in June 1974 and prematurely terminated in August 1978. The IL-62MK project never materialized. Therefore it is utterly impossible that Germany could have operated two examples.

I know of five Il-62M that some aircraft databases list as IL-62MK, but all five planes were built after 1985 and bear the type designation IL-62M.

Since one or the other detail improvement developed during the IL-62MK project made it into the ongoing IL-62M production or got implemented during mid-life updates of existing airframes, someone invented the unofficial type designator IL-62M(K). This just added to all the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.246.100.57 (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Can this sentence be made clearer?

"The LOT accidents involving different engine types (but same engine position) was a fatal crash-rate 30 times higher than the Il-62 average (2.8% vs 0.092%)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.97.247 (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably not, the whole section is trying to rubbish LOT engine maintenance so goes of on a tangent which is not really relevant to the Il-62 article. Probably needs a re-write and prune to make it viable. MilborneOne (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

"Non-circular fuselage cross section"

In the introduction it states that Il-62 "...was the first Soviet pressurised aircraft with non-circular cross-section fuselage...". Can someone clarify this? Because a quick Google search (and a glance at a photograph) only reveals what very much appears to be a circular fuselage cross section, like any other jet liner. If it is not in fact circular, it is very close, so close that it is not apparent from photographs, and most artists tasked with making drawings of it mistakenly draw it as circular. Why would you go through the effort to make a fuselage almost circular, but not quite, when you lose most of the benefits and gain all the drawbacks of an irregular fuselage shape? And if it truly is so close that you cannot tell by looking at it, can you really say that it is not circular? How many aircraft have fuselages that are truly circular in cross section? If you need fine instruments to tell whether it is truly round or not, you may as well just call it a circle. It is obviously not ovular or lobed or oblong, it is basically round, like almost all other pressurized aircraft (which are that way for a good reason). All I can think is that the editor was actually speaking of the interior cross section, i.e. it had a cabin roof. Although that makes no sense either, because previous Soviet aircraft had cabin floors, and so would not be circular either.

64.222.105.236 (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The “Design” section states “fuselage dimensions of 3.8 m width x 4.1 m height”. Mr Larrington (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)