The Ilyushin 76

uk 75

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
6,399
Reaction score
6,782
Whenever I look at the Ilyushin 76
en.m.wikipedia.org

Ilyushin Il-76 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
I always wonder why the West did not build it.
It looks like the aircraft the RAF should have had in 1968
 
uk 75 said:
Whenever I look at the Ilyushin 76
en.m.wikipedia.org

Ilyushin Il-76 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
I always wonder why the West did not build it.
It looks like the aircraft the RAF should have had in 1968
Click to expand...
I always liked how the West simply portrayed it as a 'C-141 Starlifter' rip-off, when in fact the IL-76 was superior in almost all aspects. Ironically, I think the West should have designed and built something more akin to the IL-76 also uk 75...
Yes the McDonnell Douglas (Boeing) C-17 is unquestionably a good and capable design, but it also took something like a couple of decades later to arrive in operational service, cost a ridiculous amount of $$$$....


Regards
Pioneer
 
The West could have, if only the Hawker Siddeley the HS.681 had been designed with some proper turbofans without all that thrust-vectoring weirdness.
 
Your Atlas book is on my lap as I type..
 
Ok I revise my statement on the HS.681, if they had put some decent turbofans and grown up the airframe a bit.
I have to agree with uk75, the Jet Belfast looks a better contender, just needs a decent tail ramp arrangement and ditch the swing nose.
 
With out getting into childish arguments about this or that aircraft being “copies” of another (they are almost never such) I would note that the IL-76 entered service approx 8-9 years after the C-141 and 4 years after the C-5 Galaxy.
So “the Wests” (US) airlifters were always as advanced if not more so than the Soviets equivalents. This is not a criticism of the IL-76 or the later AN-124 (probably better than the Galaxy but at least a decade later so it should be), both well proven designs.
Given that at the time other western countries couldn’t afford (to buy and operate) or decided not to prioritise their own C-141 or C-5 equivalents (the Belfast and its travails and its 10 year RAF service being the exception that rather proves the rule) then seems unlikely any non-US IL-76 equivalent would have emerged in anything like the same timescale (the programme that became the Atlas is considerably later). The international sales of the C-17 are also a much later post-Cold War phenomenon (and a non-US aircraft would not have been realistic given the volume of non-US orders).
 
Without being childish or picky, the obvious advantage of the IL76 was that it offered the wider body and short field performance which the smaller and more complicated 681 did not.
All credit to the Ilyushin Bureau for remedying the shortcomings of Western designs.
I am sure the sophisticated designers of MdDD or Airbus would never have dreamt of copying the IL76.
 
Nobody appreciated the need, nor was the technology available, for a stractical aircraft like the C-17. At the end of the day there is only one configuration for such a beast - high-mounted high-lift wing, rear ramp. floaty undercarriage and lots of power. No copying, just convergent evolution.

Chris
 
Last edited:
With all those Airborne Divisions to move around, the IL76 was a must. Does it count as "stractical"? If it does, I bet the Russians have a fun word or phrase for it.
 
I first came across the term in discussions with a Shorts chap, WRT to the Belfast. I bet the Germans have an even better word for it.

Chris
 
kaiserd said:
With out getting into childish arguments about this or that aircraft being “copies” of another (they are almost never such) I would note that the IL-76 entered service approx 8-9 years after the C-141 and 4 years after the C-5 Galaxy.
So “the Wests” (US) airlifters were always as advanced if not more so than the Soviets equivalents. This is not a criticism of the IL-76 or the later AN-124 (probably better than the Galaxy but at least a decade later so it should be), both well proven designs.
Given that at the time other western countries couldn’t afford (to buy and operate) or decided not to prioritise their own C-141 or C-5 equivalents (the Belfast and its travails and its 10 year RAF service being the exception that rather proves the rule) then seems unlikely any non-US IL-76 equivalent would have emerged in anything like the same timescale (the programme that became the Atlas is considerably later). The international sales of the C-17 are also a much later post-Cold War phenomenon (and a non-US aircraft would not have been realistic given the volume of non-US orders).
Click to expand...

I think it should be appreciated that the fundimental American and Soviet doctrine which lead to the C-141 and IL-76 respectfully were very different.
I think it would be safe to say that the Soviet's was much more demanding than that of the American - hence the similar looks of the C-141 and IL-76, but the vast difference in true capabilities between the two designs.

Regards
Pioneer
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom