Il-112V/Il-212 light military transport

VASO stopped assembling the Il-112V transport aircraft and is engaged in the large Il-96-400M airliner


At the Voronezh Joint-Stock Aircraft Building Company (VASO) they stopped assembling a new prototype of the Il-112V light military transport aircraft to finalize the aircraft engine. This was announced at a briefing by the governor of the Voronezh region Alexander Gusev.

The head of the region clarified that the production of the aircraft was postponed until technical decisions were made and the design was completed.

At the same time, it should be noted that the actual freezing of the project occurred much earlier. The suspension of work on the project due to the investigation of the accident with the first prototype was announced six months ago by a representative of PJSC Il.

Recall that on August 17, 2021, a terrible tragedy occurred in Kubinka (Moscow region) . The board was supposed to participate in the Army-2021 forum, but a technical malfunction prevented this. Then, as a result of the crash of the plane, the crew, consisting of three people, died.

As for VASO, recently appeared on the Webthe first unofficial photo of the not yet painted flight prototype of the Il-96-400M wide-body long-haul airliner, rolled out of the shop. Perhaps now the company will direct all efforts to the development of this particular project, as a higher priority, in demand on the market and quickly implemented technically.

https://topcor-ru.translate.goog/34156-vaso-prekratilo-sborku-transportnika-il-112v-i-zanimaetsja-krupnym-lajnerom-il-96-400m.html?utm_source=finobzor.ru&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en

They were talking about more powerful engines for the Il-112V, which makes sense because it is a bit of a fatty for better internal space compared with the An-24/5/6.

Well, there should be the PDV4000 in work, which should be between 4000 and 5000 hp. Similar to the C27J  and C130 engines and more powerful than the An-8 / An-12 / Il-38 engines.

I feel that the il-112V would benefit of a couple of meters stretch, however, to fully benefit of the increased power.

Again, at this point I do not know if it is easier to continue with this aircraft or if it would be better to restart the project from scratch, of course taking into account all the lessons learnt.

For some of the tasks for which the il-112 was needed, maybe a cargo version of the TVRS-44 Ladoga could at least partially cover, until the new military cargo is ready.

I would see the military transport needs for small and medium aircrafts covered by:

1. TVRS-44 (with or without ramp) up to 5 tons payload
   
   New aircraft or il-112M with PDV-4000 engines - max payload around 8-12 tons
   
   An-12 replacement (either with 4 PDV-4000 turboprops, or with 2 turboprop derived from PD-8 turbofan, or with 2 PD-14 turbofan). Around 20 tons (or slightly more) payload
   
   Tu-330 (with either PS-90 or PD-16 engines) - 30 to 35 tons payload
   

Well before we read too much into this we need to be clear the project was frozen when the accident happened so they could review the design and the situation and work out how to move forward, so production was not happening in this factory so changing it to making something they want to produce in volume makes perfect sense.

They only built the prototypes in this place... there is no evidence they were going to serial produce these aircraft there at all... if they can make Il-96s there it was probably too big for Il-112V sized aircraft anyway... they probably built the prototypes there because at that point they didn't need it for anything else.

Now that bigger aircraft are needed it is being used for that, which is reasonable.

What is not reasonable is to suggest that now the Il-112V is dead or needs replacement.

It might get a minor redesign, perhaps redesign the wing engine mounts so they are less likely to catch fire and mount rather more fire extinguishing systems on each engine in a way they are directed to cover more area... and honestly a review of other light aircraft to make sure their fire suppression systems are suitable for the task too would be in order.

If they go for a 4-5K HP engine I would think derating it would be in order or designing it to operate at a very low power setting in cruise flight to prevent it burning too much fuel and dramatically reducing flight range.

Giving it too much more power would just shift it up into a higher capacity slot that is already being taken by other designs.

Having it in the 8-10 ton weight capacity means it can replace the An-24/5/6, and also the An-72 in a new aircraft.

They already have the Baikal single engined aircraft and the twin engined TVRS-44 (Let-410 based isn't it?) using the same engine, which essentially replaces the An-2 in light transport duties out in the far east and far north, but the also have the bigger more powerful Let-610 based aircraft as well, plus the Il-112V and Il-114, and the next step up would be the Il-276 at 20 tons payload, and I would like to see the Tu-330 in the 35 ton payload class filling the gap as older Il-76s (40 ton payload) aircraft slowly retire and are replaced by the Il-476s with a 62 ton payload capacity.

The Baikal and TVRS-44 use the same turboprop engine and hopefully the Il-112 and Il-114 and the Let-610 based aircraft could all use the same turboprop engine too, while the Il-276 and Il-476 use the same turbofan engine as well. The Tu-330 would use a turbofan engine too but probably slightly more powerful than those used on the Il-276/476. Perhaps PD-12s for the Ilyusions and PD-16s or PD-18s for the Tupolev.

No the TVRS-44 Ladoga is a derivative of the Let L610 and a replacement for the An-24.

It uses a derated version of the Klimov TV7-117 (TV7-117CT-02 with 2400 hp) engine.

The TV7-117ST-01 is used on the Il-112V and on the Il-114.

As I said before, it is an aircraft with about 5 tons of payload, and would compete with the Il-112 if not for the narrower cargo hold and (till now) the lack of a rear ramp).

I see in this case a duplication of aircrafts in this payload range, and probably what Russia needs is something slightly bigger and with larger payload (but that the il-112v could not have because of both design defects and engine power limits).




Note:
The russianised version of the Let L-410 is the aircraft which is supposed to use the same engine as the Baikal (VK-800).
Until now there are not yet official news on an eventual new name for the Let. L-410 produced in Russia or issues with licences for it ( since  the let aircraft company has been sold to a Czech owner at the start of the military operation in the Ukraine).
Probably this will have to wait until the final certification of the modernised version of the VK-800.

By the way, strangely, according to public available data, the Baikal and the L-410 are supposed to have a similar max payload (around 1800 -2000 kg) and range (1500 km). The advantage of the let-410 is probably the higher cruise speed (more than 400 km/h Vs about 300 km/h of the Baikal and the higher passenger space 19 against 9 (or 12 with some airworthiness special permit) of the Baikal.

So the TVRS-44 Ladoga is for up to 50 passengers... but the Il-114 is for up to 64 passengers and is a Russian design.

The Il-112V can carry 44 passengers too and is also Russian.

It seems to me the only Let that makes sense would be a Let 410 able to carry 20 odd passengers to replace the An-2 in that role, while the Baikal can perform the roles of taking smaller groups of people to rougher places further out.

I see in this case a duplication of aircrafts in this payload range, and probably what Russia needs is something slightly bigger and with larger payload (but that the il-112v could not have because of both design defects and engine power limits).

Sounds like total stupidity... why invest money upgrading foreign types and not upgrading a domestic type that could do the job?

Dump the Let crap and make Russian stuff.

By the way, strangely, according to public available data, the Baikal and the L-410 are supposed to have a similar max payload (around 1800 -2000 kg) and range (1500 km). The advantage of the let-410 is probably the higher cruise speed (more than 400 km/h Vs about 300 km/h of the Baikal and the higher passenger space 19 against 9 (or 12 with some airworthiness special permit) of the Baikal.

Russian rules on aircraft mean the Baikal would need two engines to carry 19 passengers... perhaps what they should do is scale up the Baikal and have a small single engined version and a scaled up twin engined version and just junk these Let designs completely.

Not like lots of aircraft designs have not come and gone in the past trying to replace the An-2... there have been dozens.

The TVRS-44 Ladoga should be for about 44 passengers (it is also in the name).

The company developing it says that they used the design of the let l610 as a starting point, but it is a different aircraft, and it has also some solutions from the An-72 and from the An-140.

So now it is a fully Russian plane.
The TVRS-44 Ladoga is not a foreign type.
And it will be manufactured in Russia entirely from russian components.

Furthermore it is a high wing aircraft, so it is more adapt for some harsh conditions than the low wing il-114 (which is more rugged than an equivalent western aircraft but is also more delicate than the an-24).

The il-114-300 is for 68 passengers, so it is a larger aircraft and  both of them are needed for Russian regional aviation (and possibly for export to friendly countries).


The il-112, like any military cargo can transport troops but it is a different thing than passenger transport.

What I mentioned is that except for vehicle transport, most of the things that an il-112v could transport could be also carried by a Ladoga (which has the same payload), and eventually a rear ramp derivative of the Ladoga could be also done.

Please also take into account that the engines of the An-26 were also less powerful than the engines of the il-112V (2800 hp of takeoff thrust vs 3000 hp (3500 is the emergency max performance)).


You do not need a more powerful engine for a 6 tons payload military transport aircraft.

You need a more powerful engine if you want a larger aircraft with an higher payload (e.g. An-8 or the C-27J (which albeit slightly shorter than the il-112V has a wider cargo area and twice the payload (about 11 tons).

Russia could even think about developing 2 aircrafts, with the same cargo size (except the length).

One with 2 PDV-4000 engines and a max payload of about 10-12 tons and a longer one with 4 PDV-4000 (or two turboprops derived from the PD- with a max payload of 20-25 tons.

This would be similar to the relationship between An-12 and An-8.


By the way, here some data

C295 cargo area

The lenght of its cargo hold is12.69 m lenght

 1.90m cabin  height, 2.70 meters max cabin width (actual width Limit for large object 2.23 m)

C27j cargo hold width 3.33m widthby 2.60m heigh

Il112v

The cargo hold is 8.4 m long, 2.45 m wide and 2.42 m high

An 26
HOLD SIZE (L X W X H): 11m  X 2.22 M width X 1.6 M 
DOOR SIZE (W X H): 230 X 167CM 
TOTAL LOAD VOLUME: 30 M

Cabin width (m) 2.78
Cabin height (m) 1.91

TVRS-44

Cabin width (m) 2.60 (same as An-140)
Cabin height (m) 1.90

No data about potential cargo hold size, but the cabin width is 18 cm narrower than the An-26, so we can expect about 2.04 m width of useful cargo hold

Concluding 
The TVRS-44 Ladoga is the aircraft derived from the let-610 prototype (with also some parts previously used in the An-140, manufactured in Aviakor in Samara).
It has the same fuselage width than the An-140, so a little bit narrower than the il 112v.
Anyway the TVRS-44 Ladoga can probably substitute the Il-112 in most tasks (and the An140 in everything) and is fully Russian.

Note: the CASA (now airbus) C295 has a longer but narrower cargo hold which is optimised for pallets transportation (and also less powerful engines).
In theory it has a higher max payload than the TVRS-44 or the il-112v.

By the way
There are a lot of silly comparisons online saying that the C295 is much better than the C-27J, but they are most BS.

Some even say that they have the same payload 9tons (they compare the max payload (with overload and gload limitations of the C295 with the max air droppable payload of the C-27J).


Off topic.

Concerning the "foreign" aircrafts from Let, the development of the let- L410 and of the let L610 was paid by Russian (Soviet) money.

Yes there were some soviet alternatives (to the 19 passengers let l410), like the Beriev Be-30 or the Antonov An-28, but they are not in production anymore (Poland is still building a derivative of the latter called PZL M28 Skytruck, with Pratt and Whitney engines).

The Ural Civil aviation plant is instead fully capable of building both the Baikal and the TVRS-44 Ladoga aircraft and in the last 5years has also built let L410 (albeit with a certain amount of imported components).

Thanks to the Baikal there will be a russian engine also for the let-410. What Russia needs is just to do a russian derivative/modernisation of it (like Poland did for the An-28/ PLZM28) and the problem is solved for the 19 passengers sector.

The cargo part will instead be covered by the Baikal (which has similar payload and range).

The company developing it says that they used the design of the let l610 as a starting point, but it is a different aircraft, and it has also some solutions from the An-72 and from the An-140.

So now it is a fully Russian plane.

It is a mongrel made of Czech and Ukrainian planes to create a franken monster.

Furthermore it is a high wing aircraft, so it is more adapt for some harsh conditions than the low wing il-114 (which is more rugged than an equivalent western aircraft but is also more delicate than the an-24).

They have the combination of the low wing Il-114 and the high wing Il-112, which together should replace the old antonovs.

The il-112, like any military cargo can transport troops but it is a different thing than passenger transport.

The Il-112V is the military cargo plane, they could easily build a version for airline use.

What I mentioned is that except for vehicle transport, most of the things that an il-112v could transport could be also carried by a Ladoga (which has the same payload), and eventually a rear ramp derivative of the Ladoga could be also done.

Not very convincing as to why you go that way and not the other way and just make a passenger version of the Ilyusion?

The Ladoga is a Czech/Ukrainian mix design.

The TVRS-44 Ladoga is the aircraft derived from the let-610 prototype (with also some parts previously used in the An-140, manufactured in Aviakor in Samara).
It has the same fuselage width than the An-140, so a little bit narrower than the il 112v.

The Ladoga is a plane design based on the planes the Russians want to replace... the Lets and the Antonovs.

The Il-112 and Il-114 are Russian designs intended to replace foreign types...

There are a lot of silly comparisons online saying that the C295 is much better than the C-27J, but they are most BS.

Neither are options for the Russian military and should not be relevant to Russian airlines, despite their keenness to fund other countries aerospace industries and not their own.

Concerning the "foreign" aircrafts from Let, the development of the let- L410 and of the let L610 was paid by Russian (Soviet) money.

So were Antonovs, yet design ownership seems to be an issue.

With the Il-112 and Il-114 there are no issues.

Airlines might choose aircraft based on foreign types, but I doubt the Russian AF will if they can help it.

Didn't an engine catch fire on the Il-112V prototype?

That is more likely if the engines are stressed. Upgrading to more powerful engines might be the ticket

The TVRS-44 Ladoga is not a foreign type.

And again, at least for regional passenger aviation there is no current alternative, since many smal russian  regional airline were flying still with old an-24 or with foreign types like Bombardier dash-8 q200, ATR 42 or even 50 passengers regional jets (Canadair CRJ-200).

The production of the Ladoga is in Russia (Ekaterinburg with several parts made in Aviakor in Samara) and all the parts are sourced domestically.

And Russia already ordered many of them.

Furthermore, even if what you said were true, when the work of the airplane started let aircraft was owned by a russian firm. I hope they were not so stupid like in the past and properly defined the IP for this.

The problem is eventually for the smaller L410 turbolet but it all the official production plans until 2030 (even those made after the sale of let aircraft), a large number of these airplanes is planned to be produced each year (together with Ladoga and Baikal).


For passenger aviation both the Ladoga and the il-114 are needed.

For small and medium military cargo, Russia needs replacements for An-2, an-26, an-72, an-12.

Till now, the only confirmed airplane is the Baikal, as An-2 replacement.

As far as the il-112v fate we do not know anything yet.
However what we know is that the aircraft seats in the same niche as the Ladoga.


About the engine not powerful enough. This is BS. For a 5 or 6 tons max payload aircraft, the TV7-117 ST engines are powerful enough (and they are a bit more powerful than the engines of the An-26, which had a max payload of 5.5 tons).

The engine are not powerful enough in case you want to build a larger aircraft with a much higher payload (like the an-8 or the C-27J).


As it is right know, the il-112v project can be savaged, but it will be anyway underperforming compared to its peers (and to the aircraft it is supposed to substitute (the An-26).

It they want something sensible, it would be preferable at this point to go back to the drawing board (taking into account all the mistakes and lessons learnt) and make a slightly stretched version (just a couple of meters) with higher payload and good weight balance, in order to benefit for the more powerful engines that should be available in the next 3 or 4 years (PDV4000).

For smaller loads, a cargo version of the Ladoga is more than enough (its cabin is as large as the one of the An-140).


The Ladoga is in final development phase and a relatively large production rate is already defined.

With the limited resources available, it doesn't make sense to have 2 aircrafts in the same weight and payload range (also because the il-112v does not have the increased payload to really benefit from the larger cargo bay.

Also because the il-112 cannot even transport an IMV like the Tigr or the Volk, while a modern An-8 could.

The TVRS-44 Ladoga is an import-subsidized, enlarged and modernized design of an aircraft class (Let L-610) the design & rights of which belonged to a company that Russian investors had bought out a decade earlier anyway, and whose remaining production capacities had existed only in Russia for some time now.

As of last year that company with its intellectual property has been nationalized in NATO member the Czech Republic, but frankly even if that does cause legal issues now, who the fk cares.

Let has been sold, but the TVRS-44 Ladoga has been developed by Ural civil aviation plant UZGA (where also the russian assembly line for the let L410), not by Let itself.

Didn't an engine catch fire on the Il-112V prototype?

That is more likely if the engines are stressed. Upgrading to more powerful engines might be the ticket

AFAIK the fire had nothing to do with an over stressed engine, and it spread to the wing and damaged the wing. It had an inadequate number of fire extinguishers and they were pointing at the engine instead of the wing where the fire was.

The crash was caused by the propeller not feathering... so it acted like an airbrake...

The TVRS-44 Ladoga is not a foreign type.

It is a modified Let-410 using features of Antonovs... you said as much yourself.

It would be a natural replacement for the L-410 because it is adapted and improved and modified to be more Russian, but it is in the same basket as the An-124... it makes sense to develop aircraft to replace it than keep giving it upgrades.

Furthermore, even if what you said were true, when the work of the airplane started let aircraft was owned by a russian firm. I hope they were not so stupid like in the past and properly defined the IP for this.

That is the problem with dealing with the west... they fight tooth and nail for the IP rights because they know Russia is the enemy and further down the track sanctions will be imposed that breaks up the arrangement and so they want to keep IP rights so they can continue to make Russian stuff.

Look at the Yak-130.

For passenger aviation both the Ladoga and the il-114 are needed.

This is the Russian AF section, and I rather suspect the Russian military would rather have the Il-112 and Il-114 to replace their foreign types (Antonovs and Lets).

The problem has been waiting for the engines, and that problem remains though is getting close to resolution soon hopefully.

Till now, the only confirmed airplane is the Baikal, as An-2 replacement.

As far as the il-112v fate we do not know anything yet.
However what we know is that the aircraft seats in the same niche as the Ladoga.

Can't see the Russian military waiting all this time for engines to then start buying modified Lets and Antonovs to replace their obsolete (antonov) types.

As it is right know, the il-112v project can be savaged, but it will be anyway underperforming compared to its peers (and to the aircraft it is supposed to substitute (the An-26).

You keep bollocking on about underperforming and comparing it with foreign aircraft with less internal volume and space... of course a fat plane is not going to perform as well as a thin plane but think about it for a minute why it is fat...

They are making it to spec... if they wanted thin planes that were faster and had better range don't you think they would make such a plane?

They don't need an An-24 with longer range or higher flight speed, they want more internal capacity... which is exactly what they are getting... only internet trolls are complaining that some foreign alternatives seem to have better performance... but who cares... foreign alternatives are not viable alternatives for the Russian military because most of those foreign alternatives use western engines and avionics so if Russia bought some they would essentially have to replace everything anyway...

It they want something sensible, it would be preferable at this point to go back to the drawing board (taking into account all the mistakes and lessons learnt) and make a slightly stretched version (just a couple of meters) with higher payload and good weight balance, in order to benefit for the more powerful engines that should be available in the next 3 or 4 years (PDV4000).

The saying... going back to the drawing board... usually means starting again from scratch, which is not appropriate. A minor stretch is simple and easy and would be quick to test and then build... that is why the Il-276 is being suggested because taking off two engines and making the fuselage shorter should create a good An-12 replacement... and is pretty much standard practise on transport planes... many of which get stretched and get bigger or more engines fitted and become excellent planes in their class.

For smaller loads, a cargo version of the Ladoga is more than enough (its cabin is as large as the one of the An-140).

Side door version they might, but with the Il-112V having a rear ramp door already... it will be used by the military for light vehicles and various loads.

With the limited resources available, it doesn't make sense to have 2 aircrafts in the same weight and payload range (also because the il-112v does not have the increased payload to really benefit from the larger cargo bay.

The Il-112v is being funded by the Russian military... if there can only be one type then the Lagoda is the one that does not make sense because the Il-114 is already in production and is fully Russian and can do the job.

Also because the il-112 cannot even transport an IMV like the Tigr or the Volk, while a modern An-8 could.

Would not really make sense to move such vehicles around one at a time... Il-276 or Il-476 would make more sense.

The Il-112 has more space than the An-24.

Hi Garry, we disagree on this topic, but I am glad that we are able to have a good discussion.

Anyway, as it was posted in the civil aviation topic, Mishustin said that Russia's need for Ladoga aircraft is about 550 pieces. So this aircraft will be mass produced for sure. Having a few more for the needs  of russian airforce would cost much less than setting up an independent assembly for the Il-112v.


And it is true that the il-112V offers more internal space.

Unfortunately the il-112v does not have the increased payload to really benefit from the larger cargo bay.

There were a lot of mistakes on it, also because it was started and interrupted several times, always with new designers which did not have much experience with this class of aircrafts.

If we see the il-112 project as a teaching prop and learning opportunity, that it was not too bad (except for the loss of personnel in the accident). Many lessons were learnt and probably several engineers and designers in the new generation have improved their skills.

I am sure that they can do better with next project.

Two things are now important.

[1]What does the russian air force needs?

[2]What capabilities this new aircraft has to offer (that could not be already covered by a cargo version of the Ladoga)?

Maybe all of it can be solved by a stretched version of the il112v with a payload of 8-10 tons.
As a 5 tons payload aircraft, it is redundant.

As far as light vehicles, it can transport a Toyota or UAZ pickup, or a couple of sedan cars but that's all.

A 10 ton aircraft would have to be much larger. Once they have the PD-8 available they could try designing an An-72 like aircraft I guess.
But it is kind of questionable what would the demand for such an aircraft be really.

I think they have no other way than getting the Il-112 right even if they need to redesign the whole aircraft and engine. Just get people from the civilian airline side to help.

Hi Garry, we disagree on this topic, but I am glad that we are able to have a good discussion.

We do disagree, but that does not mean either of us are right or wrong.

Having a few more for the needs of russian airforce would cost much less than setting up an independent assembly for the Il-112v.

Except the Ladoga is not what the Russian AF wants, it wanted and paid for and developed the specs for the Il-112V... to be clear the only reason it is not in mass production right now is because the engines are not ready.

The production space for it has been taken over for producing Il-96s, but that does not mean anything except they needed that space for something else.

And it is true that the il-112V offers more internal space.

Do you think that is an accident, or that they did it on purpose to make the aircraft fly slower over shorter distances on the same power plant a smaller lighter aircraft might use, or do you think that was a design requirement to have better internal volume than the Antonovs it was replacing?

Unfortunately the il-112v does not have the increased payload to really benefit from the larger cargo bay.

You keep hammering on about a potential to carry larger payloads... do you have any evidence that the Russian military NEEDS a bigger capacity performance from this aircraft, because I am pretty sure if they did want that then it would also be part of the specs for the aircraft and that would be part of the design too.

The design requirements for the MTA and then Il-276 was not for 25 or 30 or even 35 tons... the requirements were for 20 tons payload... exactly the same as the An-12 aircraft it will be replacing... why is it so hard for you to accept that they want to replace the Antonov-24/25/26 with an aircraft that carries a very similar load... requiring a doubling of load will require more engine power and a heavier bigger aircraft that wont be as cheap to buy or operate.

They don't need to improve a lot over what they are replacing because they are replacing Ukrainian types, they are not introducing new aircraft to replace aircraft that can no longer do the job any more because their capacity or speed or range is no longer good enough.

That means more internal volume might be good enough to make it more successful in the role.

There were a lot of mistakes on it, also because it was started and interrupted several times, always with new designers which did not have much experience with this class of aircrafts.

There were mistakes and those were fixed and some more problems and those seem to have been corrected, and now they wait for the engines to get into production and for changes to be implemented.

Now is not the time to throw the baby out with the bath water and start again.

If we see the il-112 project as a teaching prop and learning opportunity, that it was not too bad (except for the loss of personnel in the accident). Many lessons were learnt and probably several engineers and designers in the new generation have improved their skills.

I am sure that they can do better with next project.

So if we are throwing out aircraft designs lets throw out the Let 410 and Let 610 and also start those completely from scratch and get some pure Russian designs based on excellent experience...

Maybe all of it can be solved by a stretched version of the il112v with a payload of 8-10 tons.
As a 5 tons payload aircraft, it is redundant.

The Il-112V is the 5 ton payload aircraft... there is no Ladoga for the Russian Air Force... it is not their programme.

As far as light vehicles, it can transport a Toyota or UAZ pickup, or a couple of sedan cars but that's all.

Nobody uses light aircraft to transport vehicles. We have LAV III BMPs and theoretically we can fit them in our C-130s... but we never do... we always send them by sea.

Air transport is too expensive and too vulnerable and would not work very well at all... it would make more sense to deliver them by Il-476 and deliver them in numbers.

The TVRS-44 Ladoga is not a modified Let-410, but a modified Let-610, which is a prototype light passenger aircraft that Let produced a few examples of in the 90s.

And in no way is it comparable to the An-124. For one thing Russia maintains the capabilities to produce the TVRS-44 Ladoga with exclusively its own capacities. Russia cannot produce new An-124s and that's really the main problem with the class.
For another it's a much smaller, cheaper and simpler aircraft to produce than a giant like the An-124 anyway. There aren't as much risks associated with it. You have a perspective aircraft that's nearing readiness, might as well use it.
About the rights and legal issues I have no idea, but even if NATO owns part of it so then sod them.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Unfortunately the il-112v does not have the increased payload to really benefit from the larger cargo bay.

There is a common saying among air cargo people:
"Most loads will max out before they gross up"

The larger internal size of the IL-112V is a blessing. Very rarely it will transport anything close to its 5 or 6 Tons maximum payload.

Ladoga, with its small internal volume, is unlikely to be considered or accepted by the RuAF.

In the civilian passenger airline topic, Ladoga is a 44 pax high wing aircraft while the IL-114 is a 58 pax low wing aircraft with higher cruise speed. Different roles altogether and meant for different airline needs and for different airfields.

And in no way is it comparable to the An-124. For one thing Russia maintains the capabilities to produce the TVRS-44 Ladoga with exclusively its own capacities. Russia cannot produce new An-124s and that's really the main problem with the class.

I would say that is not true... really the only part of the An-124 the Russians can't make for themselves is the engines and that can be easily changed with the introduction of something like a PD-25 type engine, but they are working on a family of transports that can replace the AN-22 and the An-124 and the An-225, and it seems this new family will be based around the PD-35 engine where the Il-106 will have two PD-35s and be in the 90-100 ton payload class... perhaps up to the 110 ton payload class taking off with reduced fuel and topping up with inflight refuelling just after takeoff to regain flight range lost by the offloaded fuel to add weight capacity to the payload. The second family member would have four PD-35s and be an An-124 replacement with similar thrust to the AN-225 it should be rather impressive, and a super heavy plane with perhaps an H tail for external loads on the back of the fuselage perhaps with six engines... it might also have an enlarged fuselage for large volume internal loads... the Russian space agencies are expanding and looking at all sorts of alternatives in terms of shuttles and tugs.

About the rights and legal issues I have no idea, but even if NATO owns part of it so then sod them.

No problem operating in Russia but will kill export sales if western companies can go around hunting examples on international flights they can confiscate... don't give them the option.

The point of replacing the Antonovs is to get new planes into service but also to give Russian engineers experience working on transports that previously went to Antonov.

Create Russian options and fund them and produce them and modify them to make them better as you need to.

Antonovs are getting near the end of their service lives and need replacements and it is getting urgent.

I agree, but basically Russia needs replacement aircrafts in all categories of military transport.

If there is something in production that can be adapted in a military role, maybe it is better to use it and have the engineers and designer work on a different niche.

(E.g. something larger than the il112, but smaller than the an-12).

Or have them work on a An-12 replacement, if the il-276 Is not of interest anymore and the Tu-330 Is considered useful but too Large to cover that niche as well.

By the way the Tu-330 has a wider cargo area (4 M Vs 3.3) than the il-76, so it can also carry some loads which do not fit on the il-76 (provided that they do not exceed the payload limit).

P.S. Russia plans to export (to friendly countries) the passenger version of the TVRS-44 Ladoga. That means they do not believe they will have issues with IP and similar.

P.P.S.
The fact that those An-124 from Volga Dnepr were taken "hostage" in Canada and Germany has nothing to do with them being Antonov. The same would have happened if they were Il-76.

I agree, but basically Russia needs replacement aircrafts in all categories of military transport.

They certainly do and pretty soon a huge number of aircraft are going to need to be replaced over a fairly short period of time... the problem is that the figures are skewed and don't reflect reality.

You could say there is little demand for An-124s because in the recent past they have not been excessively used, but is that because they really weren't needed, or is that because they were no available in large numbers so alternative solutions were found and used.

The Army is moving to vehicle families to reduce the size of the logistics tail to make armoured forces more compact and more efficient but also more mobile, now in the past armour has rarely moved by air because although it is the fastest it is also the most expensive way to move, but given the choice it would be the quickest way to get an armoured force into position quickly, ready for action.

The whole reason for the An-70 was for the VDV.

If there is something in production that can be adapted in a military role, maybe it is better to use it and have the engineers and designer work on a different niche.

From the start the Il-114 and Il-112 were intended for the roles you are suggesting for these other planes, their was a slight hiccup with an engine fire that caused a crash, but that is no reason to throw away an entire aircraft design. There were weight issues but they were quickly resolved too... the point is that the aircraft you are suggesting to replace them are not at a place where they could without modification and who is to say those modifications will go perfectly?

Swapping to a different aircraft means tests go back to zero and start again and these other aircraft likely wont meet the requirements the Army has to replace its An-24/25/26s... it is already clear that the Il-112V is fatter than the planes you suggest and that is likely because of demands over internal volume which these other aircraft wont meet without modification.

Who is to say that the Ladoga wont suddenly have rather worse performance when you increase the internal volume to meet the same requirements the Il-112V meets?

You will have cancelled an aircraft programme to find yourself in the same position with a different aircraft.

More delays and pissing around for no gain at all... in fact worse because Let might be pressured into suing Russia and having western governments seizing the aircraft every time they land in one of their Juristictions... what a pain in the arse that would be... who is going to buy them then?

Or have them work on a An-12 replacement, if the il-276 Is not of interest anymore and the Tu-330 Is considered useful but too Large to cover that niche as well.

The whole point of the Il-276 is that it is a quick and easy plane to make... it is essentially an Il-476 with shorter body and wings and half the number of the same type of engines... if they design it right it could replace the An-12 and the AN-72.

The advantage of the An-72 was that it was faster than the An-12 so any loads that were no where near max 20 ton payloads could be carried faster by the smaller faster An-72... well an Il-276 operating at low weights should be relatively cheap to operate too, but equally with the Tu-204 going into serial production I think the Tu-330 should go into production too, it would be an excellent international replacement for the An-12 with it being in the niche between the An-12 and the original 40 ton payload Il-76s. For countries that just had An-12s the Tu-330 would be an excellent step up, but for countries that used Il-76s and An-12s then the Il-476 and Il-276 would make a lot of sense replacing both platforms with essentially the same aircraft with the same engines (just in a different numbers).

By the way the Tu-330 has a wider cargo area (4 M Vs 3.3) than the il-76, so it can also carry some loads which do not fit on the il-76 (provided that they do not exceed the payload limit).

I think there would be an international demand for both the Tu-330 and the Il-276 because they have their advantages and are different enough to be useful for different roles.

P.S. Russia plans to export (to friendly countries) the passenger version of the TVRS-44 Ladoga. That means they do not believe they will have issues with IP and similar.

They also filled the Superjet and MS-21 with foreign components in the hopes of attracting foreign airlines who already use those foreign components... that turned out to be a mistake that later had a real cost, but a cost worth paying.

Knowing how childish and petty the west can be is it really worth the risk?

As I said this is a military thread for a military plane and I rather doubt the Russian military would consider the TVRS-44 when they have Il-114 and Il-112 for the passenger and cargo roles respectively.

The fact that those An-124 from Volga Dnepr were taken "hostage" in Canada and Germany has nothing to do with them being Antonov. The same would have happened if they were Il-76.

It is a Soviet design and they are committed to replace Soviet era gear as quickly as possible.

The Irony is that one of the oldest serving items they have is so old it is actually Russian.... the 7.62x54Rmm rifle cartridge... still used in machine guns and sniper rifles.... despite entering service in 1891.

From what we have been told they were working on the engines for the Il-114 which are also used on the Il-112... there has been no statement about ending any programme or aircraft design... they need these planes sooner rather than later and having to redesign the TVRS-44 to allow rear ramp access for vehicles would take rather more time than they really have... especially when the Il-112V is almost ready to go.

One of the many issues with the An-140 was the lack of the rear ramp.

The Iranian HESA Simorgh is a modified/improved An-140 with a rear ramp. Russia could do the same with the TVRS-44 Ladoga (which has in the rear some commonalities with the An-140 and should have the same fuselage size), maybe even read across a similar modification to the rear of the plane.

https://www.airdatanews.com/iranian-aircraft-simorgh-performs-maiden-flight/

HESA already had the manufacturing license for the turboprop, when it assembled it with IrAn-140. The Simorgh, however, was modified so that the plane gained features for military use, such as the rear cargo door with a ramp – a component that required a major modification to the empennage, which had to be raised.

Question, does it take more time and effort to "fix" the il-112v or to make a rear ramp version of the Ladoga (similar change that was done from the An-24 into An-26 and from the An-140 into the Simorgh?)

There will also be a benefit due to the commonalities between the baseline Ladoga and the military transport with rear ramp.

It is anyway probable that to perform as desired the Il-112V still needs some work (if not a full redesign) and possibly more powerful engine. This will allow Ilyushin to work out a better plane ready once the PDV-4000  are available.

I know that the il-112v has a wider cargo area than the An-26, An-140/ Simorgh and the TVRS-44 Ladoga, but is it really needed a 4-5 tons payload with such cargo width?

Or it is better to have in production a slightly narrower (but better performing and with better flight behaviour) aircraft like a modified Ladoga with rear ramp and develop in the meanwhile a slightly longer airplane with more powerful engines, larger wingspan, the desired cargo width and a 8-10 tons payload?

Maybe it is just my impression, but it is possible that the il-112 was conceived so large because they thought it could also carry some of the loads that fitted only on a larger an-12 (even if it was supposed to have only 1/4 of its payload), since Russia at that time was not able to have an aircraft covering all of the previous segments ( 5 tons payload An-26 and 20 tons payload An-12)

GarryB wrote:there has been no statement about ending any programme or aircraft design... they need these planes sooner rather than later and having to redesign the TVRS-44 to allow rear ramp access for vehicles would take rather more time than they really have... especially when the Il-112V is almost ready to go.

the Ladoga is expected to go in production next year and in service in 2026, in the meanwhile a similar rear ramp variant can be ready.
The il-112v is not almost ready to go, it is currently frozen. Even if restarted it would need at least the same amount of time to be ready as the rear ramp version of the Ladoga.

The il-112v is not almost ready to go, it is currently frozen. Even if restarted it would need at least the same amount of time to be ready as the rear ramp version of the Ladoga.

Stop making stuff up, the Il-112V is the rear ramp version and the only issue they seem to have left was the engines that now seems to be fixed so there is nothing to stop them putting it into small scale production and sending it out into the field for operational testing.

The rear ramp version of the Ladoga does not exist except in your head.

Iran has done this so you think Russia should copy them... if they put an AESA radar on their new plane will you also suggest that Checkmate be cancelled and they could modify the Baikal to be the new light 5th gen fighter?

Question, does it take more time and effort to "fix" the il-112v or to make a rear ramp version of the Ladoga (similar change that was done from the An-24 into An-26 and from the An-140 into the Simorgh?)

Who says the Ladoga is ready and there wont be any issues with its engines or design or equipment?

There will also be a benefit due to the commonalities between the baseline Ladoga and the military transport with rear ramp.

Do you think the airlines that operate the Ladoga will let the Russian Air Force borrow parts?

Different jobs are being sorted with different designs... the fuselage of the Ladoga is slim and the fuselage of the Il-112V is not... do you think that is an accident or perhaps it is for a reason?

It is anyway probable that to perform as desired the Il-112V still needs some work (if not a full redesign) and possibly more powerful engine.

AFAIK the Il-112V was passing its tests and fulfilling its requirements... only you seem to be complaining that the specs are not up to your standard.

I know that the il-112v has a wider cargo area than the An-26, An-140/ Simorgh and the TVRS-44 Ladoga, but is it really needed a 4-5 tons payload with such cargo width?

And there we go... do you think they would make it wider if they didn't have to? Wider aircraft generate more drag which means more power is needed to move the same weight the same distance and reduces flight speed... would they do that for fun, or are they designing the aircraft the Russian Air Force wants and that is the reason why they wont consider an An-140 or a Ladoga fitted with a rear ramp door.

Or it is better to have in production a slightly narrower (but better performing and with better flight behaviour) aircraft like a modified Ladoga with rear ramp and develop in the meanwhile a slightly longer airplane with more powerful engines, larger wingspan, the desired cargo width and a 8-10 tons payload?

If adding a rear ramp door is so damn quick and easy why wouldn't they be adding a rear ramp door to the Il-114?

the Ladoga is expected to go in production next year and in service in 2026, in the meanwhile a similar rear ramp variant can be ready.

The Ladoga is to meet the needs of the airlines... don't think they would be too happy being told that the Russian Air Force wants versions with rear ramps which will take 4 years to complete and test and get into serial production so you have to wait 5 years for your planes till the Russian AF has what it wants... especially when the Russian AF was already developing its own plane for the job.

Sorry if I sound hostile, but if you want to suggest they save money by making more Ladogas... why don't they save even more money by buying these new Iranian planes instead?

The engines of the Ladoga are basically a downrated version (possibly with some minor mod) of the TV7-117 engine of the Il-114 and 112, with about 2400 hp at takeoff.
Since there was not the need to push it more for additional power, it should have more reliability than the 3000/3500 hp version of the il-112.

Furthermore, even if there were issues with that it could temporarily use the older TV3-117 (previously produced in Ukraine under licence, but now produced from the OEM Klimov) of the An-140, since it has a similar power rating.

Rodion wrote:There will also be a benefit due to the commonalities between the baseline Ladoga and the military transport with rear ramp.

GarryB wrote:Do you think the airlines that operate the Ladoga will let the Russian Air Force borrow parts?

Different jobs are being sorted with different designs... the fuselage of the Ladoga is slim and the fuselage of the Il-112V is not... do you think that is an accident or perhaps it is for a reason?

It is not a matter of borrowing spare parts for the airliners, it is economy of scale. If the two versions are common for 95% it means that they have to produce a larger amount of the same part numbers. That cost less than producing different parts, even if the total amount is the same.

In post 532 above I also wrote the cabin size of the aircrafts in this niche. The il-112 is also wider than the an-26 it is supposed to replace. Furthermore before the coup d'etat against yanukovic the russian air force was going to get an-140, which has the same cabin width as the Ladoga.

My impression with the il-112v is that they tried to do a sort of one size fits all, instead of an aircraft designed and developed according to the needs.

Unfortunately we do not have the official requirements or announcements from the Russian air force.

As I wrote before I would like to see a military cargo version of the Ladoga AND a larger and redesigned il-112V (if the larger cargo area is needed) with increased payload AND range.

The engines of the Ladoga are basically a downrated version (possibly with some minor mod) of the TV7-117 engine of the Il-114 and 112, with about 2400 hp at takeoff.
Since there was not the need to push it more for additional power, it should have more reliability than the 3000/3500 hp version of the il-112.

The Ladoga is a civilian aircraft for the civilian market, the Il-112V is for the Russian military to their specifications and requirements.

Even if it is less reliable are you suggesting the Il-112V is unsafe?

Are you claiming the Russian military are idiots introducing an unsafe aircraft into Russian military service?

More unsafe than the ancient Antonovs they are using in service at the moment?

It is not a matter of borrowing spare parts for the airliners, it is economy of scale. If the two versions are common for 95% it means that they have to produce a larger amount of the same part numbers. That cost less than producing different parts, even if the total amount is the same.

Do you think parts are unique to aircraft?

Does the multifunction display screen in a MiG-35 have to be totally different from the screen in an Il-76?

Are the control components in a new aircraft type A designed specifically for new aircraft type A and cannot be used on any other aircraft type?

Unification and standardisation of parts and components is not a separate issue that can only be achieved if all aircraft are replaced by one design.

The il-112 is also wider than the an-26 it is supposed to replace. Furthermore before the coup d'etat against yanukovic the russian air force was going to get an-140, which has the same cabin width as the Ladoga.

So Ilyusion was giving them what they wanted and those nazi orcs were just hammering out a plane they could sell to most countries with the Russian military essentially paying for it all...

The Russian military want the Il-112V.

Get over it.

My impression with the il-112v is that they tried to do a sort of one size fits all, instead of an aircraft designed and developed according to the needs.

So you do impressions... do Tony Blair...

My impression is that the Il-112V is the design the Russian military wants, and a few minor problems with weight and balance and then with an engine fault but when the engine issues are sorted things should be good... certainly not the point in time you scrap something.

You scrap a design when you work out at the early prototype stage that it wont fly and it has lots of things wrong with it THAT CAN'T BE FIXED.

The design process is to take a paper plane and make it reality and a big part of that process is finding problems and fixing them so it does what you want it to do.

A nuclear powered bomber is a good case in point... it was designed and built and when they finished the design the realised the massive weight of the reactor and the cooling system and the shielding meant although it could fly for weeks or months its payload capacity was tiny so it actually made more sense to use conventional engines and conventional fuel with much less range and much less endurance which could be extended to good enough with inflight refuelling, but while carrying a decent payload of offensive weapons.

The Il-112V might not be perfect, but it is Russian and after they make 200 they might upgrade the engine with a new one available by then which makes it better than any other aircraft in the class... but even if they don't, if it can do the job the planes it is replacing did then that is good enough.

Russia is buying new planes to replace old worn out foreign designed planes from a hostile country... they don't need to be better... they just need to get the job done and potentially be the basis of future improvement.

The point is to get rid of the obsolete Soviet designs with aircraft that are Russian designed and made.

The bar is set very high for new engineers wanting to create the next new fighter, but it is not the end of the world for new engineers looking to design a new replacement light transport plane, or to upgrade the new models to make them better.

Unfortunately we do not have the official requirements or announcements from the Russian air force.

We don't but if we look at the Lagoda that was just designed to be a passenger transport to replace the Antonovs already doing the job, we can see it is different to the Il-112V that the Russian Military has funded to replace those same Antonovs in the cargo transport role.

As I wrote before I would like to see a military cargo version of the Ladoga AND a larger and redesigned il-112V (if the larger cargo area is needed) with increased payload AND range.

I am sure they will do it if you are prepared to fund the work yourself, but the Russian military so far don't seem very interested in the Ladoga in any form and seem to be funding the Il-114 and the Il-112V which seems to me to cover cargo and passenger transport roles performed currently by the light Antonov aircraft... so if that is the case why would they spend more money to change anything at all?