Likbez: four engines or two? How much more dangerous are two than four? Rotary wing aircraft. Why does the plane have such a tail

Russia approached World War I with the largest air fleet. But big things start small. And today we want to talk about the very first Russian aircraft.

Aircraft Mozhaisky

The monoplane of Rear Admiral Alexander Mozhaisky became the first aircraft built in Russia and one of the first in the world. The construction of the aircraft began with a theory and ended with the construction of a working model, after which the project was approved by the War Department. Steam engines designed by Mozhaisky were ordered from the English firm Arbecker-Hamkens, which led to the disclosure of the secret - the drawings were published in the journal Engineering in May 1881. It is known that the airplane had propellers, a fabric-covered fuselage, a wing covered with balloon silk, a stabilizer, elevators, a keel and landing gear. The weight of the aircraft was 820 kilograms.
The tests of the aircraft took place on July 20, 1882 and were unsuccessful. The airplane was dispersed on inclined rails, after which it rose into the air, flew several meters, fell on its side and fell, breaking its wing.
After the accident, the military lost interest in development. Mozhaisky tried to modify the airplane, ordered more powerful engines. However, in 1890 the designer died. The military ordered the plane to be removed from the field, and its further fate is unknown. steam engines for some time they were stored at the Baltic Shipyard, where they burned down in a fire.

Aircraft Kudashev

The first Russian aircraft to be successfully tested was a biplane designed by design engineer Prince Alexander Kudashev. He built the first gasoline-powered aircraft in 1910. On tests, the airplane flew 70 meters and landed safely.
The mass of the aircraft was 420 kilograms. The wingspan covered with rubberized fabric is 9 meters. The Anzani engine installed on the aircraft had a power of 25.7 kW. On this plane, Kudashev managed to fly only 4 times. During the next landing, the airplane crashed into a fence and broke.
After Kudashev designed three more modifications of the aircraft, each time lightening the design and increasing the power of the engine.
"Kudashev-4" was demonstrated at the first Russian International Aeronautical Exhibition in St. Petersburg, where it received a silver medal from the Imperial Russian Technical Society. The aircraft could reach speeds of 80 km / h and had a 50 hp engine. The fate of the airplane was sad - it was smashed at aviators' competitions.

"Russia-A"

The biplane "Russia-A" was released in 1910 by the "First All-Russian Association of Aeronautics".
It was built on the basis of Farman's airplane design. At the III International Automobile Exhibition in St. Petersburg, he received a silver medal of the Military Ministry and was bought by the All-Russian Imperial Aero Club for 9 thousand rubles. A curious detail: up to this point, he had not even risen into the air.
From the French aircraft "Russia-A" was distinguished by a high-quality finish. Wings and plumage were covered with double-sided, the Gnome engine had 50 hp. and accelerated the plane to 70 km / h.
Flight tests were carried out on August 15, 1910 at the Gatchina airfield. And the plane flew over two kilometers. A total of 5 copies of "Russia" were built.

"Russian Knight"

Biplane "Russian Knight" became the world's first four-engine aircraft designed for strategic intelligence. The history of heavy aviation began with him.
The designer of the Vityaz was Igor Sikorsky.
The aircraft was built at the Russian-Baltic Carriage Works in 1913. The first model was called "Grand" and had two motors. Later, Sikorsky placed four 100 hp motors on the wings. every. In front of the cockpit was a platform with a machine gun and a searchlight. The aircraft could lift 3 crew members and 4 passengers into the air.
On August 2, 1913, the Vityaz set a world flight duration record - 1 hour 54 minutes.
"Vityaz" crashed at the competition of military aircraft. The engine fell out of the flying Meller II and damaged the plane of the biplane. They did not restore it. On the basis of the Vityaz, Sikorsky designed a new aircraft, the Ilya Muromets, which became the national pride of Russia.

"Sikorsky S-16"

The aircraft was developed in 1914 by order of the Military Department and was a biplane with an 80 hp Ron engine, which accelerated the C-16 to 135 km / h.
The operation revealed the positive qualities of the aircraft, mass production was started. At first, the S-16 served to train pilots for the Ilya Muromets, in World War I it was equipped with a Vickers machine gun with a Lavrov synchronizer and used for reconnaissance and escorting bombers.
First air battle C-16 took place on April 20, 1916. On that day, ensign Yuri Gilsher shot down an Austrian aircraft from a machine gun.
C-16 quickly fell into disrepair. If at the beginning of 1917 there were 115 aircraft in the Airship Squadron, then by the autumn there were 6 of them. The remaining aircraft fell to the Germans, who handed them over to Hetman Skoropadsky, and then went to the Red Army, but some of the pilots flew to the Whites. One C-16 was included in the aviation school in Sevastopol.

And yet, I found a topic for another educational program. On the background another cheer-news about the resumption of production of IL-96(I’ll also say a few words about this) on the Internet, as usual, a bubbling of faces with a pronounced PGM begins, but this dialogue prompted me in one of the entries on this topic, which seemed to start culturally:

Even more interesting comments can be read at this link: http://victor-male1.livejournal.com/70071.html?thread=4557495#t4557495

Lozhkamoyda_73 apparently fears that reducing the number of engines from four to two actually reduces the thrust-to-weight ratio by half. Well, this is forgivable to the layman, and let the further behavior of this character remain on his conscience.

So is Mr. Boeing and Mademoiselle Airbus so inhumane that for the sake of economy (it is logical to assume that two engines consume less fuel than four) they are ready to sacrifice the lives of their customers by removing "extra" engines from the aircraft?

Really modern aircraft with two engines not enough thrust to perform a go-around?

I will be brief: No And No

Four engines does not mean a twofold advantage in traction over two. This misconception can only occur to a very outsider for aviation. That is, as the aircraft are different, so the engines can also be different.

But one thing is common in all aircraft - the ability to ensure a safe continuation of takeoff in the event of an engine failure. That is, if one engine fails on the B777, or if one engine fails on the Il-96, it is possible to continue the takeoff safely. Since we are talking about go-around, then a safe go-around too, but the go-around itself will be easier to perform, because. it is understood that the aircraft is already lighter (than it was on takeoff), and the speed with altitude has already been gained (handling is better and the margin over obstacles is higher).

In order to achieve the necessary safety performance, pilots must comply with the calculation requirements maximum masses(for takeoff and for landing), which are just the same and are limited to a scenario with one failed engine.

To do this, the pilot must take into account:

runway length
- obstacles on the takeoff course
- normalized climb gradient, which the aircraft must withstand in any case in case of engine failure
- conditions - temperature, wind, pressure.

Now all this is easier to consider than before, because. various specialized (and certified!) programs came to the rescue, which can quickly and accurately calculate the conditions for any lane. Well, before I had to calculate all this according to graphs, nomograms, tables.

I repeat, the need to calculate the maximum takeoff (landing) weight does not depend on the number of engines. That is, if the pilot "scored" on the calculation and decided to "risk" taking off with a mass exceeding the maximum for the given conditions, then with all the engines running, he will, of course, take off ... but if one fails, he will have problems.

Somehow I wrote about personal experience postponement of departure from Chambery due to tailwind, which did not allow us to make a decision to fly

Modern engines are very, very powerful. Moreover, for twin-engine aircraft, this power has to be set with a certain margin - just for the reason that if the 1st engine fails, the liner with the 2nd one loses half of the thrust. That is, twin-engine liners can have greater thrust-to-weight ratio than three or four engines. Let's say my 2-engine B737-800 has a thrust-to-weight ratio similar to the Tu-154 (even a little more), which has three engines

Accordingly, for people like lozhkamyoda_73 I will specially note: to fall down during go-around due to lack of power on the B777 (two engines) less probably than on a similar capacity Il-86 (four engines). You can dump, but only intentionally or out of your own stupidity.

In fact, there is some disadvantage that twin-engine liners have - in the event of an engine failure, a large turning moment appears, which the pilot must parry in time. Again, on aircraft such as B777/787, Airbus, starting with the A320, there are electronic assistants that reduce this problem to zero. Well, we, B737 pilots, have to demonstrate our skills, which we constantly train (and confirm) on simulators. I wouldn't say it's difficult.

If one engine fails on an aircraft with 4, the turning moment will also be present, but not so pronounced.

Modern engines are very, very reliable. The failure of an engine on a modern aircraft is a very rare event. The vast majority of pilots in their entire career do not experience this failure. Accordingly, the failure of two engines is even less likely, although landing on the Hudson (the defeat of the aircraft by wild geese) showed that this could still happen.

I mean, maybe, but unlikely.

What is IL-96? Yury Sytnik, honored pilot of Russia, member of the presidential commission on the development of general aviation, explains:

“About 10 aircraft flew to Sheremetyevo. They flew for 55 thousand hours, not a single accident, not a single disaster. the car is very good. The fact is that if the engines are now installed differently, so that they eat a little less fuel, and you need to make ladders, as on the IL-86, they were specially produced, the car will be very good. They decided to restore the IL-96 now, because there were many speeches, on my part too, and we wrote a note specifically to the president. I don't know if she got it or not. But all of us old pilots were indignant why such a wonderful aircraft was not produced. The car flies smoothly Far East without landing. From there, it is in the air for 8-10 hours. Carries 300 passengers.

I highlighted the key sentence, after which I only had to smile sadly. If Yury Sytnik is really not aware of his inconsistencies, then, in fact, everything is clear to me why general aviation in the country is in decline.

"The glider is good, if only we could put in different engines" - I have been hearing this almost from the very beginning of my career - about the Tu-154, Tu-134, about the Il-86 and now about the Il-96. Like, everything is so simple - I changed the engines, and forward.

But this is a very, very global rework, especially if the aircraft was not originally designed with an eye to the future. By the way, the IL-96, as a continuation of the IL-86, turned out to be something like this - not only the engines were replaced, but also two thirds of the aircraft. Is it true, even in this form, he did not find demand in the market. People with PGM, of course, will write about the intrigues of capitalism that ruined a competitor to Boeing.

But the second half of the sentence "ladders to make, as on the IL-86" Is this a misunderstanding or is Yuri joking? These doors were specially disposed of on the IL-96, because they turned out to be unnecessary on the Il-86, besides, they complicated and made the structure heavier - after all, any opening in the fuselage requires work to increase the strength of this element.

And any weighting of the structure leads ... to an increase in fuel consumption.

The IL-86 was originally intended for mass flights on routes like Moscow-Sochi, so these ladders seemed like a good idea - I walked up to the plane on foot, threw my suitcase and climbed to the second floor. When the plane was placed under a rare at that time air bridge, some problems began with the issuance of suitcases.

However, today there are a lot of airports equipped with air bridges. Make these ladders on modern liner- not the best idea.

I can't imagine who will need the IL-96 even of the new generation. I can't imagine how much money will need to be pumped into this project to make it truly competitive.

Of course, I really want to see the Russian aviation industry blooming and fragrant, but somehow I don’t believe in the Russian wide-body, especially against the backdrop of the Superjet still making its way to world fame. Not the time, not the resources, not the heads. Spreading the budget left and right on controversial projects is, in my opinion, a stupid idea.

Anyway

Fly safe!

IL-96. 1994

Denis Okan (pilot-instructor Boeing 737): So is Mr. Boeing and Mademoiselle Airbus so inhumane that for the sake of economy (it is logical to assume that two engines consume less fuel than four) they are ready to sacrifice the lives of their customers by removing “extra” engines from the aircraft?

Is it really not enough thrust for a modern twin-engine aircraft to perform a go-around?

I'll be brief: no and no

But one thing is common in all aircraft - the ability to ensure a safe continuation of takeoff in the event of an engine failure. That is, if one engine fails at , that if one engine fails at , it is possible to continue the takeoff safely. Since we are talking about a go-around, then a safe go-around too, but the go-around itself will be easier to perform, because. it is understood that the aircraft is already lighter (than it was on takeoff), and the speed with altitude has already been gained (handling is better and the margin over obstacles is higher).

In order to achieve the necessary safety performance, pilots are required to comply with the maximum mass calculation requirements (for takeoff and landing), which are just the same and are limited to the scenario with one failed engine.

To do this, the pilot must take into account:

runway length
takeoff obstacles
the normalized climb gradient that an aircraft must withstand in any event of an engine failure
conditions - temperature, wind, pressure.

I repeat, the need to calculate the maximum takeoff (landing) weight does not depend on the number of engines. That is, if the pilot “scored” on the calculation and decided to “risk” taking off with a mass exceeding the maximum for the given conditions, then with all the engines running, he will, of course, take off ... but if one fails, he will have problems.

Modern engines are very, very powerful. Moreover, for twin-engine aircraft, this power has to be set with a certain margin - just for the reason that if the 1st engine fails, the liner with 2 loses half of the thrust. That is, twin-engine liners can have a greater thrust-to-weight ratio than three- or four-engine ones. Let's say my 2-engine has a similar (even a little more) thrust-to-weight ratio, which has three engines

I would like to make a special note: a Boeing 777 (two engines) is less likely to fall down during a go-around due to a lack of power than an Il-86 of similar capacity (four engines). You can dump, but only intentionally or out of your own stupidity.

In fact, there is some drawback that twin-engine liners have - in the event of an engine failure, a large turning moment appears, which the pilot must parry in time. Again, on B777 / 787 aircraft, airbuses, starting with, there are electronic assistants that reduce this problem to zero. Well, we, pilots, have to demonstrate our skills, which we constantly train (and confirm) on simulators. I wouldn't say it's difficult.

If one engine fails on an aircraft with 4, the turning moment will also be present, but not so pronounced.

I mean, maybe, but unlikely.

There was another case on the B777, in which both engines stopped and it did not reach the runway (everyone survived thanks to the unique “volatility” of the aircraft and the coordinated actions of the crew and ground services. But in that case there were certain problems with the fuel, which began to freeze during prolonged flying in very low temperatures. A similar situation happened with the Tu-154 in Novosibirsk, which also managed to safely fly to the runway after successively stopping all THREE engines (low-quality fuel).

That is, if there are problems with fuel, then there is no big difference in the number of engines.

Now let's talk about the resumption of history with the IL-96. As I understand it, they are thinking of “modernizing” the plane, and a certain Yuri Sytnik (a well-known person in the past) described his wishes for “modernization” in an article on Mail.ru in this way:

What is IL-96? Yury Sytnik, honored pilot of Russia, member of the presidential commission on the development of general aviation, explains:

“About 10 aircraft flew to Sheremetyevo. They flew for 55 thousand hours, not a single accident, not a single disaster. the car is very good. The fact is that if the engines are now installed differently, so that they eat a little less fuel, and you need to make ladders, as on the IL-86, they were specially produced, the car will be very good. They decided to restore the IL-96 now, because there were many speeches, on my part too, and we wrote a note specifically to the president. I don't know if she got it or not. But all of us old pilots were indignant why such a wonderful aircraft was not produced. The car quietly flies to the Far East without landing. From there, it is in the air for 8-10 hours. Carries 300 passengers.

“The airframe is good, if only the engines were different” - I hear this almost from the very beginning of my career - about the Tu-154, Tu-134, about the Il-86 and now about the Il-96. Like, everything is so simple - I changed the engines, and forward.

But this is a very, very global rework, especially if the aircraft was not originally designed with an eye to the future. By the way, the IL-96, as a continuation of the IL-86, turned out to be something like this - not only the engines were replaced, but also two-thirds of the aircraft. True, even in this form, he did not find demand in the market. People with PGM, of course, will write about the intrigues of capitalism that ruined a competitor to Boeing.

But the second half of the sentence “make ladders, like on the IL-86” - is this a misunderstanding or is Yuri joking? These doors were specially disposed of on the IL-96, because they turned out to be unnecessary on the IL-86, besides, they complicated and made the structure heavier - after all, any opening in the fuselage requires work to increase the strength of this element.

And any weighting of the structure leads ... to an increase in fuel consumption.

The IL-86 was originally intended for mass flights on routes like Moscow - Sochi, so these ladders seemed like a good idea - he walked up to the plane, threw his suitcase and climbed to the second floor. When the plane was placed under a rare at that time air bridge, some problems began with the issuance of suitcases.

However, today there are a lot of airports equipped with air bridges. Making these ladders on a modern liner is not the best idea.

I can't imagine who will need the IL-96 even of the new generation. I can't imagine how much money will need to be pumped into this project to make it truly competitive.

Of course, I really want to see the Russian aviation industry blooming and fragrant, but somehow I don’t believe in the Russian wide-body, especially against the backdrop of still making its way to world fame. Not the time, not the resources, not the heads. Spreading the budget left and right on controversial projects is, in my opinion, a stupid idea.

I often pay attention to planes flying over me, when I have access to a computer and desire, then on the Internet it is easy to determine the type of aircraft, and the altitude-speed of flight, even the flight number and destination, but if there is no computer and Internet, what should I do? Gradually developed methods for determining the model by appearance, and in such a way as to determine it confidently under very unfavorable observation conditions.

In fact, if we take ordinary planes landing in major airports, then there are not so many models. Of course, there are all sorts of exotic flying, but it is not so common, so most of the aircraft that you can see in real life, are reduced to the following modes:

Boeing:

Boeing747 - an easily recognizable "humped" profile, it is impossible to confuse with anyone, there is no second such aircraft in the world.

A380 is also an easily recognizable giant, a two-story salon (two rows of windows along the entire length), it does not require special skill when recognizing.

A340 - against the background of the above aircraft, it is just a long narrow aircraft, so we recognize it.

With three engines, we have two aircraft - a Boeing727 and a DC10. They differ with a bang in the location of the engines, in the first they are all in the tail (remember the Tu-154 or Yak-42).

The second one is generally exotic: two engines under the wings, the third one is skillfully built into the keel:

Looks pretty ugly, in my opinion. IN this moment both are used almost exclusively as cargo (there are no portholes).

Now let's pay attention to the location of the engines (there are only two left, I remind you). There are two standard schemes - engines under the wings and engines at the end of the fuselage. If the engines are at the end of the fuselage, then we begin the next stage of differentiation. If the plane is very long, then it is DC9/MD80/MD90 - I won’t help to distinguish them further, I didn’t work out the scheme myself, the process seems to be quite complicated, especially if you look at it from afar, the designers didn’t care much about innovations.
If the plane seems rather small and nimble, then we have three options:

Bombardier 100/200/440/700/900/1000

Embraer ERJ135/ERJ140/ERJ145

Let's look at the engines first. At Embraer, they are located high:

Boeing has it lower, at the level of the windows:

at Bombardier they stand with a noticeable downward slope of the exhaust:

In addition, at Boeing they are closer to the wings. Then we pay attention to the shape of the back. With Embraer, it practically does not stand out in any way, with Bombardier a tail is noticeable, with Boeing, the tail is simply striking. The shape of the cabin is also very different. Embraer has the most pointed, predatory, the largest panel covering the A-pillar (if, of course, it is open). Boeing has a nose shape familiar to other aircraft, and the panel is small, barely noticeable. The Bombardier has something in between in all respects, plus flaps on the wings (but this is an unreliable sign, they can be mounted on other models as well).
Now we deal with the most difficult: two engines under the wings. The most common scheme in modern aircraft construction, so there are plenty of models. It is quite difficult to distinguish them from each other. The following aircraft belong to this class:

Boeing737

Boeing757

Boeing767

Boeing777

Boeing787

A318/319/320/321

E-170/E-175/E-190/E-195

First, we try to visually attribute the aircraft to one of the classes: small or large. If it is small, then the choice is between:

Boeing737

A318/319/320/321

E-170/E-175/E-190/E-195

If the aircraft is seen close up in detail, then first of all we look at the engines, in Boeing they are not round, but with signs of the so-called "hamstering" - a complex convex shape:

Airbus and Embraer have strictly round engines:

In flight, it is best to distinguish aircraft by the shape of the nose and tail. We look at the nose and visually see that Airbus has a more rounded one:

Boeing has a pointed one:

while Embraer has an elongated shape at the bottom, more reminiscent of the contours of a high-speed train:

The next clear sign is the shape of the tail. For Boeing and Embraer, it exits the fuselage at a very sharp angle, increasing it after a while, this feature allows you to clearly recognize it even from afar, so remember it: