# Il-86 late rotate



## Ramirezzz (Aug 16, 2008)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2VlIKt6EK0_


80 knots trottle hold..V1..V2...rotate... I said rotate God da...it!


----------



## v2 (Aug 16, 2008)




----------



## Gnomey (Aug 16, 2008)

Pretty close


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 16, 2008)

Almost looks like the pilot was trying to empress the peanut gallery.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 16, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Almost looks like the pilot was trying to empress the peanut gallery.


I agree , those folks were probably spotted by ATC the aircraft advised and the rest is a show , at the end you can hear a siren as airport security arrives


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 16, 2008)

I thought it was one of their car alarms going off from the turbulence. Didn't sound like a siren. And if they were breaking any laws or breeching the airport property, ATC would have denied the takeoff. Looks like a tourist spot like St. Maartens.


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 16, 2008)

Yeah looking back at it again I would agree with Matt. If it had been Airport Security you would of also thought to of seen some of guys running away which they don't.


----------



## ccheese (Aug 16, 2008)

I think he kept it on the deck on purpose. You notice he didn't waste any
time hauling the gear up. 

Charles


----------



## Ramirezzz (Aug 18, 2008)

lol guys it's not that serious))). The Il-86 is famous for its last meter takeoffs, mainly because of unsufficient engines thrust during takeoff. 
Look at that pictures from Phuket, Tailand: a high temperature , humidity - all this contrubutes to the long take off run of the Ilyushin.

Photos: Ilyushin Il-86 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Photos: Ilyushin Il-86 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 18, 2008)

It's VERY serious, Ramirezzz. Operations here in the US under Part 129, such performance would be uncertifiable with Vr reached so late in the takeoff run. 
I can't vouch for JAA certification, but the Il-86 is not type certified to Part 25. Therefore, I must conclude either the Il-86 is underpowered, the runway was exceptionally short, the plane is overloaded or the pilot chose to make the takeoff run long. Perhaps being underpowered (and thus not receiving type cert by western standards) is why the Il-86 never sold to world markets as envisioned.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 18, 2008)

Actaully Matt I think 121 would apply...

§ 121.189 Airplanes: Turbine engine powered: Takeoff limitations.
top
(a) No person operating a turbine engine powered airplane may take off that airplane at a weight greater than that listed in the Airplane Flight Manual for the elevation of the airport and for the ambient temperature existing at takeoff.

(b) No person operating a turbine engine powered airplane certificated after August 26, 1957, but before August 30, 1959 (SR422, 422A), may take off that airplane at a weight greater than that listed in the Airplane Flight Manual for the minimum distances required for takeoff. In the case of an airplane certificated after September 30, 1958 (SR422A, 422B), the takeoff distance may include a clearway distance but the clearway distance included may not be greater than1/2of the takeoff run.

*(c) No person operating a turbine engine powered airplane certificated after August 29, 1959 (SR422B), may take off that airplane at a weight greater than that listed in the Airplane Flight Manual at which compliance with the following may be shown:

(1) The accelerate-stop distance must not exceed the length of the runway plus the length of any stopway.

(2) The takeoff distance must not exceed the length of the runway plus the length of any clearway except that the length of any clearway included must not be greater than one-half the length of the runway.

(3) The takeoff run must not be greater than the length of the runway.

(d) No person operating a turbine engine powered airplane may take off that airplane at a weight greater than that listed in the Airplane Flight Manual—
*
(1) In the case of an airplane certificated after August 26, 1957, but before October 1, 1958 (SR422), that allows a takeoff path that clears all obstacles either by at least (35+0.01D) feet vertically (D is the distance along the intended flight path from the end of the runway in feet), or by at least 200 feet horizontally within the airport boundaries and by at least 300 feet horizontally after passing the boundaries; or

(2) In the case of an airplane certificated after September 30, 1958 (SR 422A, 422B), that allows a net takeoff flight path that clears all obstacles either by a height of at least 35 feet vertically, or by at least 200 feet horizontally within the airport boundaries and by at least 300 feet horizontally after passing the boundaries.

(e) In determining maximum weights, minimum distances, and flight paths under paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, correction must be made for the runway to be used, the elevation of the airport, the effective runway gradient, the ambient temperature and wind component at the time of takeoff, and, if operating limitations exist for the minimum distances required for takeoff from wet runways, the runway surface condition (dry or wet). Wet runway distances associated with grooved or porous friction course runways, if provided in the Airplane Flight Manual, may be used only for runways that are grooved or treated with a porous friction course (PFC) overlay, and that the operator determines are designed, constructed, and maintained in a manner acceptable to the Administrator.

(f) For the purposes of this section, it is assumed that the airplane is not banked before reaching a height of 50 feet, as shown by the takeoff path or net takeoff flight path data (as appropriate) in the Airplane Flight Manual, and thereafter that the maximum bank is not more than 15 degrees.

(g) For the purposes of this section the terms, takeoff distance, takeoff run, net takeoff flight path and takeoff path have the same meanings as set forth in the rules under which the airplane was certificated.

[Doc. No. 6258, 29 FR 19198, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 121–268, 63 FR 8321, Feb. 18, 1998]


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 18, 2008)

This is serious - if that aircraft lost an engine on VR and had to put back down - it won't.

Those kind of take offs are left to the military where the mission dictates short field operation. Something like that should never be the norm for civilian operations.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 18, 2008)

Part 121 is actually for domestic air carriers. I'm not aware of any domestic flagged carriers using Il-86s, especially since they do not have a Part 25 type certificate. I would find that highly unlikely.

Part 129 would apply in the US for foreign air carriers and thus the Il-86. Many rules applicable to Part 129, also invoke Part 91. But not all. An example would include some flight data recording requirements.

Your post is spot on technically and serves as the regulatory basis of which FAA judges all Part 25 large multi-engined aircraft. For type design approval, Advisory Circular 25-7A Section 13, serves as the basis for regulatory approval of the airplane take-off distance and run.

"13. TAKEOFF DISTANCE AND TAKEOFF RUN - § 25.113.
a. Takeoff Distance on a Dry Runway - § 25.113(a).
(1) The takeoff distance on a dry runway is the greater of the two distances depicted in (i) or (ii) below.
The distances indicated below are measured horizontally from the main landing gears at initial brake release to that
same point on the airplane when the lowest part of the departing airplane is 35 ft. above the surface of the runway.
(i) The distance measured to 35 ft. with a critical engine failure occurring at VEF as shown in Figure
13-1. *
(ii) One hundred fifteen (115) percent of the distance measured to the 35 ft. height above the
takeoff surface with all-engines-operating as shown in Figure 13-2. In establishing the all-engines-operating takeoff
distance, § 25.113(a)(2) requires the distance to be “...determined by a procedure consistent with § 25.111” (Takeoff
Path). The interpretation of this statement is that the all-engines-operating takeoff distance should:
(A) Be based on the airplane reaching a speed of V2 before it is 35 feet above the takeoff
surface; and
(B) Be consistent with the achievement of a smooth transition to the steady initial climb
speed at a height of 400 feet above the takeoff surface."


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 18, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> This is serious - if that aircraft lost an engine on VR and had to put back down - it won't.
> 
> Those kind of take offs are left to the military where the mission dictates short field operation. Something like that should never be the norm for civilian operations.



That is exactly right. The ability to abort takeoff at V2 cannot be assured if V2/Vr occurs at the last 500ft hash marks. Again, this is likely why the Il-86 was never a western success. It was likely uncertifiable. In fact, the Il-96 was quite the endeavor. And a failure even with Rockwell-Collins support.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 18, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Part 121 is actually for domestic air carriers. I'm not aware of any domestic flagged carriers using Il-86s, especially since they do not have a Part 25 type certificate. I would find that highly unlikely.



Great info Matt - actually the Il 96 and 103 have TCDS!!!!

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

I figure either 121 or 25 would have that take off data - when I did the sim at TK that was briefed prior to every take off per United's SOPs


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 18, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great info Matt - actually the Il 96 and 103 have TCDS!!!!



Yep, remember it well. Yeah I use to have Part 25 in a leather bound book translated in Cyrillic. Gave it to a buddy who works for me that was a Russian Language Professor at Berkeley and has an extensive Russian library. He's now FAA Regulation and Safety Chief Aircraft Architect working on the US JPDO NextGen effort.


----------

