By: greekdude1 - 12th May 2003 at 01:22
The gas guzzler being the standard IL-96, not the upgraded ‘M’ version, right Kabir?
By: BigredMD-11 - 11th May 2003 at 05:18
Yup, but it used to come to LAX, before they got the Irish registered 767-300ER. The Route was LAX-SEA-Moscow. It wasn’t as loud as those DC-10-40 engines, LOUD!!
By: KabirT - 11th May 2003 at 05:04
Its a gas guzzler. Doesent support the economics of an airline.
By: mongu - 10th May 2003 at 23:18
In IL-96M guise the figures aren’t too bad:
IL-96M
Range: 11,482 km
Passengers: 375
Fuel burn: 9.9 litres/km
A342
Range: 14,816 km
Passengers: 400
Fuel burn: 10.5 litres/km
B763
Range: 11,230 km
Passengers: 351
Fuel burn: 8.1 litres/km
However the standard IL-96 is markedly lower in performance terms.
By: greekdude1 - 10th May 2003 at 22:30
Actually, it’s really not that bad in performance. The IL-86 is the one that was a huge disappointment. As far as western engines go, they tried that with the IL-96M. They stretched the fuselage, put Pratt&Whitney engines (basically 757 engines), and used Collins Avionics. That makes for a pretty good 4 engined widebody. But all that aside, which ‘western’ based airline is going to buy one of those over Boeing or Airbus?
By: Ren Frew - 10th May 2003 at 21:03
Mibbe with some Rolls Royce Trents on the wings it would appeal to the west ?
By: T5 - 10th May 2003 at 20:52
Nice photo, it’s a shame these aircraft don’t prove to be popular sellers in the rest of the world.
By: KabirT - 10th May 2003 at 16:43
good looks…bad performer.
By: A330Crazy - 10th May 2003 at 15:59
Very nice!!!!! Il-96 is a nice looking aircraft… to tell you the truth, gimme that over an A340 anyday! 😀
Sign In
May 10, 2003 at 3:53 pm