VC10 vs IL-62

[1103]

I've just read the article on the IL-62 and noted that a comment was made regarding the apparently over large tail surfaces on the VC10. I would suggest that Peter Skipp, author of the article wrote it with the benefit of hindsight, not from the perspective of the developments Vickers had in mind for the VC10 design in 1957/8

The tailplane area would have been dictacted by the size of the original VC10 before BOAC chopped it down. The orginal 10 was going to be 186 feet long with a stretch to 196' for the Super instead of the 158' (Std), 171' (Super) as built.

[Peter Skipp]

Thank you for writing. Apologies for my very late reply.

Regarding the respective sizes of tailplanes, the Il-62 as built is 174' long and has a 165 tonne gross weight. An unbuilt version, however, matched the 196' of the unbuilt stretched VC10 and models of it showed no visible changes to the empennage. On this basis, I would submit that the Il-62 would still have been "leaner".

All this apart, Basil Smallpeice intriguingly writes that the initial VC10 of 1958 was a "long range airliner for temperate climates". How apt a description for the Il-62!

[vc10boy]

ive flown on both aircraft,flew on the il62 in 1985..moscow to tashkent,i remember i spilt my coffee over my lap and a rather large middle aged air hostess came over and promply told me off!..they seemed to be chopping up chicken in the centre galley area that was curtained off,the fizzy water that was served had bite markson the rim of the plastic cup.My father who worked at hawker siddley near Hull could,nt beleive the build quality of the aircraft,i think the vc10 was built to a much higher standard and seemed superior in every way to me..like comparing a Rolls Royce to a 1983 skoda.

[skippiebg2]

Hi vc10boy and sorry again for the very late reply. Indeed, I agree entirely that the VC10 was made to much higher engineering and build standards than the Il-62 and state this in my article. Here (and also in the topic on CAAC sales) you seem to be taking umbrage with the article, perhaps because you feel it claims that the Il-62 was "better" than the VC10. It does not (quite apart from my definite refusal to be drawn into "which aeroplane is better or wrose"-type discussions which are self-evidently infantile). All it states is that the two machines (which are often compared merely because their visual similarity invites comparison) were in fact very different, and that each had its strengths. Fair enough?

[ACLVC10]

Obviously the VC10 is my favourite by far between these 2

[vololiberista]

There is one big difference between the two a/c and that is that in no way can/could they possible advertise the IL-62 as being "quiet!!!!!!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT2HQYefPMU
vololiberista

[ACLVC10]

IL-62, just a cheap Russian copy