The Il-62 / M is a large and beautiful aircraft, but it had a mechanical control system, without booster, by means of a cable wiring. From the controls to the rudders there are tubular rods, just direct manual control!Knowing this, it is categorically impossible to call the Il-62 / M a more advanced aircraft!
If we talk about the exputation characteristics of Il-62/M, not having data on Vickers-10, we can compare with american aircraft of that time Boeing-707 and DS-8. Boeing 707 and DC-8 from the very beginning of their operation assigned resource three times, and inter-repair resource almost twice as much as originally had Il-62.With engines on American and Soviet aircraft - the same story. For example, the D-30KU-2 engines on the Il-62M aircraft at the end of the 1980s had a designated resource of 18,000 flight hours or 3,800 cycles (launches), and the inter-repair resource - 5,000 flight hours, or 905 cycles (launches), or 6 calendar years - a limit on the figure that would be reached before that list. American engines of the same class have twice as much of these resources.
The Ilyushin-62 / M had a more beautiful design, but Peter Skipp's conclusion about the better aerodynamics of the Il-62 / M glider is very controversial.
I think that Ilyushin's decision on the tail support was unusual, but controversial and not as high-tech as the solution to this problem in VC10. The Soviet aircraft industry probably simply could not build such a sophisticated and reliable hydraulic system as that of the Vickers-10.
The Ilyushin-62 / M was slightly larger, had a larger wing area and a slightly elongated fuselage, and could carry 12 more passengers. But Peter Skipp argues that the VC10 has never been as fuel efficient as the Soviet Il-62 / M, which is highly debatable.
The Super VC10 had a lower takeoff weight, carried slightly fewer passengers over about the same distance as the Il-62 / M, but the Super VC10 had a higher payload than the Il-62 / M and consumed less fuel!
Peter Skipp does not take into account that the Russians could hide the true characteristics of their aircraft, and tried to overestimate them. Tupolev, especially for the USSR Politburo, overestimated the maximum speed of the Tu-144 so that it could fly faster than the Concorde, but in reality this is not the case.
Peter Skipp argues that the VC10 was not originally designed for long distances! That's not true!The VC10 was planned as a long-haul aircraft.
There is no evidence that the Russians copied Vickers, but they simply could not do it and did not want to! The Soviet aviation industry could not qualitatively repeat the complex technical solutions in the Vickers design, in addition, the design of some Vickers elements did not meet the Soviet requirements for the Il-62 / M. The Russians needed another wing, they needed a more massive chassis to work with rougher runways in the USSR, they had very massive engines in motorcycle gondoles.In the design of the IL-62 / M, the center of the aircraft has changed, which required an unusual solution with the design of the tail section and tail support. Оne Russian, in a discussion of the Il-62 and Vickers, left an interesting comment on this matter, perhaps he knows more than he wrote:
"By the way, the data on VC - 10 HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND TRANSFERRED to Moscow by MRS. Connan Young (maybe in 10 years we will find out the real name). Thus, the Ilyushin people took the concept. There can be no question of copying."
Peter Skipp twisted the VC10's technical capabilities. After that, I think a more competent analysis of these two planes is needed!
