CIA HISTORICAL REVIEW PROGRAM RELEASE AS8
Economic Intelligence Report
COMPETITIVE ASPECTS OF SOVIET AND WESTERN TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY Office of Research ;md Reports
Economic Intelligence Report
COMPETITIVE ASPECTS OF SOVIET AND WESTERN TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY Office of Research -ind Reports
tK-T
FOREWORD
TblB report reviews tne competitive aspects of Soviet and Western turbojet and turboprop transport aircraft ln relation to performance, costs, utilization, facilities required for operation, and otherfactors that Influence the selection of Soviet aircraft forby countries outside the Sino-Soviet Bloc. In addition, such aspects as safety of operation and life of aircraft, engines, andare reviewed. The report is not intended toetailed study of Individual aircraft but to give sufficient Information to bring to light areas of advantage or disadvantage between comparable Soviet and Western transports.
- ill -
Pa...
Summary and Conclusions
I. Characteristics and Performance
II. Carrying Capacity, Coafort, and Convenience
III.
IV.
V. Cost and Economy of Operation
VJ. Life of Engines, Propellers, and
s_J
Appendix A. Statistical Tables
Appendix B. Photographs cf Aircraft
Appendix C. Methodology
Appendix D.
Source
le
of Structural Wei^M. or Soviet and Western
Transport Aircraftercentage or Takeoff Weight . .
Capability of Comparable Western and Soviet
Transport Aircraft
J. Comparison of Flying Hours per Aircraft Day of Selected
US, UK, and Soviet
Cociparison of Data On Overhaul and Total Life ofSoviet Alrcrart
5. Specifications of Comparable Western *nd SovietJet and Turboprop Tram-yen
6. of Comparable Westernransport Aircraft
Specifications of Comparable Western anil SovietJot Transport Aircraft
C. Specifications of Comparable Westnn and SovietTurboprop Transports
9. Speciflcationn of Comparable Western ana SovietTurboprop Transports
of Comparable Western and Soviet Cargo
Aircraft
of Heplace;nent Daua for Frequently Changed Izexs
Irom Camel (Tu-ICAA) Aircraft '
7
COMPETITIVE ASPECTS of soviet ahd westebw TRABSPORT AIRCRAFT*
Su^cary and Conclusions
omparison for purchase between Soviet high-performanceand those of Western designs, several competitive aspects aust be taken Into account. Because the USSR usually apparently offers an attractive pricerospective customer, the Soviet price for Initial equipment probably will be lower than thatomparable Western
The operational economy of toe Soviet Jet transports is very poorln fact, too poor for profitable operation by Western standards. The refueling und turnaround time for the Soviet transports, from allis excessive. The acquisition of spore parts from the USSR may be slow, although the USSR has demonstrated the capability to supply requested parts on short notice as well as to provide Information and modification rate rial3 quickly. Some of the Soviet transports exhibit maintenance deficiencies, and some turboprop aircraft have hadproblems. Such factors favor the purchaseestern transport ln spite of the lower Initial costomparable Soviet
Along with operational economy the safety aspects of Sovietaircraft suffer by comparison with those of Western aircraft. The safety deficiencies are noteworthy on both tbe Soviet Jet and turboprop
The estimates and conclusions in this report represent the best Judgment of this Office asI. ** when the term comparable is used, it ls used advisedly, for the Soviet turbojet or turboprop airliner does possess comparable aircraft characteristics and basically similar carrying capacities. Theof Western transport aircraft lie lo economy of operation, safety, higher rates of utilisation, andf prime Importanceife of the aircraft and aircraft engine.
*** oviet transport is offered for salearticular country, the various aircraft companies in the US will make available, free of charge, sales engineers to assess the Soviet offer. These Baleswill compare the pertinent US and Soviet aircraft and will study the aircraft needs of the particular country at no charge. Furthermore, the US companies, if given the price or the Soviet aircraft offered in any particular case, will compare the operating costs of the Soviet transport and the Western aircraft.
aircraft an in evidenced by the recently publicized crashes ol' Camel (Tu-lCO and Cootircraft.' The Tu-iot apparently suffer* from Lift problems during taKeoff and braking difficulties wnilewhereas proolees wltli tbe engine and with vibration have thus far piqued the operational existence of. Western aircraft, on tbe other band,tested at greater length nnd nre accepted according to the international standards of airworthiness prescribed by theCivil Aviation Organisationn organization that the USSRot recognize and has not joined.
According to all available Information, Soviet transports are utilized far less than are comparable Western models. For example, individual US Jet transports fly moreiven period of time Ln.-in the combined hours of three Soviet jet transports. The vastor utilization may be in part attributed to difficulties In obtaining spare parts, especially when outside tbe USSR,ariety of maintenance problems that odd to tbe ground tlse Of the Sovietack of requirements lor travel also mayajor factorhe excessive groundlnR of the Soviet transports.
The greatest contrast between Western and Soviet transportsthe respective guaranteed life, timeverhaul,art:; al rcr.ift. -.
holers the guaranteed time tu the. first overhaulomparabler> pmpuLsion system. Guarantees of propellers and parts who* equalt. The wide discrepancy in Rjaranteed and actual life beforeof such expensive items as engines, propellers, and partsicreases tbe operational cost of the Soviet aircraft. Even should the Soviet aircraft be acquiredift, the- of these replacement: ii.ay makeSoviet aircraft unsatisfactory economically, especiallyontrasted with coops-able Western iru:iol5.
" Operational faiLures occur in the use of any new aircraft whether Liuvlet or Western. The craohea of Tu-lV't aircraft, however, have been reported late In the operational lii'e of the aircraft. The engine problems disclosed by the crasheslfl aircraft were of cucbs tc have precluded ct-:tifl cationo JS.
T. C'haracteri sties and PerforBanee
A comparison of tbe characteristics and [Wrforaaoce of Sovietrt aircraft with Western transports reveals Tew significant It should be noted, however, that the capabilities listed for Western aircraft are actualbereae for the cost part those listed for the Soviet models are based on Soviet claims or have been estimated.
There Is no long-range Western transport that is closely comparable In size to the Kiunt turboprop aircraft, the Cleat (Tu-ll'i). Although it compares favorably vith theB turbojet in both range and speed, the Tu-ll'iich heavier ond larger aircraft. As to thu- comparable performance of the two aircraft. Western airlines* prefer the frequency of flight oret to the single long haul of the Tu-llueavier load. Downtime of the Tu-llfc probably Is greater than that ofecause of difficulties with Us engine reductionropellers,anding gear. Also, the failure to obtain theYork rjn, one oi" the few for which theeasible, probably is afactor to the lengthv downtime of the aircraft.
A Western turbojet transport, the French Cnravelle (abouteet, r. barter than thes superior in performance and passenger aeeominodations to many of the Soviel. Jet transports. The Caravelle V) carriesfirst-class or Oo tourist-class passengers, vhcreas the Tn-lOU carriesourist-cUm pas-ien-;ers. The, also
the weight and size category ;1 Mi, superior to
the Soviet .let transporta in speoi, range, nnd other performance
In shorter range Jethere arc few Western oircraftrable to the nev Soviet CooK-iethich has not yet entered operational service in the USSR. Therobably is comparable to the British, which, like the Tu-Lfft has not enteredrvicc. The Caravelleigher passengeroer-"nns, compared with toor the The estimated piM-foraiance for the* indicates thnt Itruising speed
veJ.le, but ithorter Ai.heis the fact that it reportedly is fitted with ulnK leading edge slots fori short runway:!.
For characteristic* and performance data on the variousppendixthrough belov. For pboto-
f aircraft mcntiorsod In this report, see Appendix B. Fcr netti, see Appendix C.
Coou comparisons may be made between tbe Soviet medium-rangetransports,nd tbe Catnd the LockheedlUfJ. The fuselageand maximum takeoff weight of the Electra .'ire leas than thoae or the An-lO. eanreater payload than tbe Electro, itlower cruliiing speed and shorter ran^e. The cxternul appearance of Lhe Electra Is somewhat more refined than that of the s very sinllar to the Electra in both perfonaance andnd few differences arehe in? turboprop transports.
ALso very simiLar ln performance arc the short-range turbopropthe Fairchllduilt in the US under license to trnkjeer of the .Netherlands, and the Soviet-designed Coke The reported range of7 with maxlmus fuel is, however, greater than that of the Furthermore,7n airline use at present
roved, successful carrier, whereas theas yet to be proved li- airline service.
Marked similarities alsoetween Soviet and Western cargo aircraft, "i'he Cubn Antonov-designer! turboprop transport. Idilitary version of theith the aft fuselage mudified toargo-loading ratp through large doors on the underside of the upswept rear fuselage. Although completeand performance data on there not available, theyare iruch like tlie An-lO. Tbeppears to resemble very closely in performance theJO-i. ransportuilt under the Joint French -German "Transport Alliance" is not yet lnbut specifications and predicted performance indicate thati.lL ti" comparable vith the An-o.
Soviet aircraft. In general, compare 1'avorabLy with Westernin the Landing facilities required. Tho minimum takeoff field length for the turboprop Tu-UA to cleareet is the snmc distance nr. it, required for theo break ground. The Camel series
long runway andt'.of the runway before becoming airborne. The braking action'l'u-loft on landing is described us violent and must oftenarachute. Cloudy comparable In takeoffeet are the Lockheed Electra nnd the Il-lo. eet compared uitheet for.
Thebena the An-&l| (particularly the two latter typos)istinct advantage over Western aircraft in thatperated from sod fieldo, and they can use any hard-surfaced fields from whieh Western hlea-eerformruicc transports customarily take ui'f with loads. These Soviet aircraft may have considerable appeal tit underdeveloped countries, for auch aircraft do not require theof expensive, long, concreteor operation.
It ia apparent that there are lew striking differences between Western transport aircraft and their Soviet-designed counterparts in cither characteristics or performance. In cost cases, shortcomings in one nre balanced by slight comparable deficiencies in the other. The two weaknesses common to all the Soviet transports should be noted. The USSR has lost economy of operation because of the high rate of fuel consumption in eiiRlne utilisation. Also, In order to maintainand ease in production, the USSR consistentlyeavier ntructure than is manufactured in the West. The structural weight and fixed equipment of the Soviet transport lsoercent heavier than the comparable Western aircraft. The operating empty weight ofven without seats nnd internal starting equipment, foris aboutercent greater than that of the Lockheed Electro, althougherforms about the some mission with an equalomparison or the structural weight of the Tu-ICA with that of comparable Western transport aircraft ls given In Table 1.
Components of Structuralestern Transport Aircraftercentage of Takeoff Weight a/
Aircraft
Nacelle
IV Corset Ivji Hoeing YCi' Caravelle 1
7.W
:.
a
5.0
8
i.:
18
serially numbered_eo Appendix E.
The- structural weight or the Tu-joJi Is heavier in all respects than that of the Western transports, indicating that the Tu-lO^ lackslructural erriciency of the Western transports, j/ esult, Soviet transport aircraft eacrificc either range or carryingostly sacrifice for the prospective customer.
additional facts not evident free, any comparison of dataorne in mind: first, as previously mentioned, because some data concerning Bloc transport aircraft arc based on Soviet claims, the actual capabilities may fall somewhat short of the estimates submitted; and, second, the Western transports arc designed and produced according to specifications and requirements determined by the lengthy experience of airlines in hauling passengers and cargo. This invaluableot avuilable to the Soviet airline, Aeroflot. Therefore, some of the Soviet aircraft may not measure up to the intended roles prescribed for economical usage on airlines.
1 f. Carrying Capacity, Comfort, ond Convenience
a-wng the most Important competitive aspects of Western and Soviet aircraft i" th* pj.: capacity sf the aircraft.comparison of Soviet and Westernith iv.fc.ird toliabilities is given in
i1 is apparent from thet then- are fevin payloadies that arc readily apparent : . ,
with tbe comparison of performance in Tablethe figures given for Western aircraft are actual carrying capabilities, whereas those stated for the Soviet transports are those claimed by the USSB or orei
'i'hc one outstanding exception in passenger capacity, as shown In Table y, le the Soviet-designedivil derivative of the Bear) heavy turboprop bomber. Clearly capable of carrying moreonger distance than any Western transport, thedocs nothreat in terms of its being exported to foreign countries. No underdeveloped countryand mass so great as to require such an extremely long-range transport. Even Uie USSR admits that theis not suitable for operations of LessCC nautical Bilesip, and Khrushchev Innsclf stated that the 'l'v-llt is basicallynd as such is unsuitable for passenger service. Furlhcreorc, the aircraft, first shownid not enter scheduled service in Lhe liSSP.hus Sndicatinp. continued or recurrent development a: problems. Finally, it is unlikely that the Tu-ll't can be used in any
ollows on p. 7.
-
0 o
- i- t
* OH-
I M
o c
f
pc ini
^ r*
o f>
<>
t>
K
B ft
fo roa
"eft
Tfl
OOOUl o
P
o o
2
Payload Capability of Comparable Western and Soviet Transport Aircraft a/ (Continued.)
Range
Cargo Range Maximum In Nautical
of
Nautical
with
of Aircraft
Origin
Pounds
Cargo
Elec-
188
to 98
Vanguard
c/
)
"
F-27
to h&
Page Herald
to 42
c/
c/
cargo
CL4MD5
Britannic
B
(An-8)
For additional characteristics, seep.hrough 2k, below.
full fuel but with passenger furnishings With passenger furnishings reraoved.
d. With less than full fuel.
fl
Mong-range transport, at least in its present configuration. The small doors and extreme height frtl the ground preclude the aircraftargo role without an extensive modification or developmental program.
le significant difference in passenger or cargobetween Western and Soviet transports (other thai theexlstE- *he trying capacity of m^i'cduced *y surprisingly .the0BlrCraftof thengine used
o cS^ounds heavier than original Western estimates. This weight for the iXr-engine aircraft amounts toon in excess weight,reducing the potential range and the potential carrying capacity?
Although leas Important than carrying capacity, tho comfort and convenience of Soviet aircraft deserve mention. The Tu-lC* aScrtft
aB belne Veryhile
H Purthennore'ressurization is often erratic, and rlUT Ifte^eratJrc has bcen ascribed as never exceeding fiVpanr-enheit. J/ Also of inconvenience and discomfort to the patsenger is the fact that the passenger doors are considerably smaller thaS those on Western transports, thus causing the traveler to bend or lowerlla An& Tbe vibrationf the
III. Safety
SP?ft alf"aft ar* ^snificantly Inferior in tbe safetv turSnrn-f operations than are Western models. Both Soviet jet and turboprop models suffer by comparison with Western aircraft in safety
ircraft within the past few years. Significantly, even in the
ransports J/ East German pilots, for instance, considernsafe and have stated that "it should be taken off the airways."
Three safety problems have been noted in the operation of the Care* series of turbojet transports, andhe problem of fuel consumption, previously mentioned, is ot importance'
Soviet practice apparently is touel reserve at night, it has been reported that even in the USSR where fields are available or,
tteindicated
that the aircraft was on reserve fuel at each landing. Fuel problem^
Ve-t
of this nature vould be greatly increased in underdeveloped areas in which numerous adequate landing facilities are not available.
A second safety factor of tbe Tu-ICA series relates to theof takeoff. The average time before the aircraft is airborne is approximatelyeconds, followedelatively slow rate of climb to altitudeet aircraft. This performance is in direct contrast to the high safety standards required by the ICAO. 9/
A third safety defect Involves the landing distance required for the Tu-lOd series ln contrast to such comparable Western transports as the Comet, the Caravelle, and the. The stalling speed in landing configuration and the required approach speeds appear very high in theeries,ph over the end of the runwayph at touchdown. The following braking action Is violent, and the braking is supplemented in an emergencyrag parachute. Because of this landing difficulty, many cases of tire failure have been Numerous cases of the aircraft running beyond tne runway and of brakes smoking and catching fire also have been reported. Water trucks even have been employed to vet down the tires. According to US safetyunway of more0 feet is required for an aircraft with the landing weight of the Few such runways are available in the underdeveloped areas of the world.
Several Bufety deficiencies also are evident in the operation of Soviet turboprop transports, notably. All Il-lo aircraft were grounded0 following the widely publicized crashes of some of the transports during the year. The trouble at that time appeared to involve the fuel injection nozzles of the engine, which allowed the flame to burn through the engine case into the nacelle compartment where adequate fire protection was notlthoughircraft are again flying, considerable skepticisr. toward the aircraft is still noted, und Soviet and Satelliteeportedly are most reluctant to travel via the
A significant safety deficiency of Soviet turboprop transports is the comparatively lengthy time required toalfunctioning engine. ew seconds lost in this operation causes multiple Structural failures on the aircraft, and virtual, disintegration Far more attention has been placed on Western transports in the solution of this problem than has beer, noted on tlie Soviet models.
The engine problems with the Tl-lS transport are obviously Reportedly the crash on0 ofear Kiev, ir, which all aboard were killed, resulted from fire originating In engine that burned off one of tbe Because the An-lC, An-8,
-
ndircraft all use the same engine, the enginewithlso would apply to the other aircraft and would affect their operational safety. Along with these defects,eportedly has excessive vibration in the forward part of theerious operational safety problem.
IV. Utilization
One of tbe most significant comparisons of Soviet and Western trans port aircraft is found in the comparative utilization of the aircraft. Soviet transports suffer by comparison with the Western transports in respect to utilization. The average revenue hours per aircraft day for US airlines and for aircraft hours flown per day by the UK and by Aeroflot, by type of aircraft, are shown In Table 3.
Table 3
Comparison of Flying Hours per Aircraft Day of Selected US, UK, und Soviet Transports a/
US
Revenue Hours per Aircraft Day iV
Flown per Aircraft Dav
Flown per Aircraft Dav
Hours
Hours
Hours
707 ouglas DC 8 ockheed Electra
701 omet h ritannia Ji?
amel (Tu-lO-i)
on which an aircraftoute. Total aircraft hours lue, nonrevenue, training, or Mown per day include only 'er-all basis, total flying ic byercent. Thus
figures for US airlines include average revenue hoursaircraft day. An aircraft dayby an airline and isall flying timewhetherwhereas average revenueflown in revenue service.0 exceeded revenue flyjnj
the average revenue hours flown per day In some Instances understate the average flying time per aircraft day. The figures flown perday for UK airlines likewise apply to all days in whichwere flown, but no differentiation is believed to have been made between revenue and nonrevenue hours flown.
-
Tbe USSR bus not published figures on the utilization of itsand even If it had, it Is doubtful whether such figures would be meaningful in terms of the actual performance of these aircraft. The only high-performance transport that has been intensively utilized is the Tu-lOU, although several aircraft of this model have remained in year-round inactive status. nd thelthoughin quantity, have had engine trouble and have only recentlycompletely operational. The Tu-ll'i, produced in low numbers, entered regular service only innd neither tbet nor theas entered operational service.
f transports operated by commercial airlines areown, on thereater number of hours than were the three Soviets combined. ransports owned by one airlineours andinutes per month each in the period between8 and
It is apparent that the Soviet transports are utilized far less than are their Western counterparts. eports indicate that the ground time of the various Soviet transports considerably exceeds that of the Western models. ariety of causes, including difficulty in obtaining spare parts when outside the USSR, maintenance deficiencies on the aircraft, and other overhaul problems probably keep thegrounded
V. Cost and Economy of Operation
The USSR ls reportedly flexible in the terms offered tbepurchaser of Soviet transports. The USSR is willing to adjust the price, to offer favorable credit terms and low rates of interest, and. Of considerable importance, to accept payment in kind or commodity or in the purchaser's own currency in order to make sales. Accompanying benefits, such as technical training, also may vary from purchaser to purchaser. The wide difference between the original cost of the Soviet and the US aircraft and the wide difference ln financing terms should not, however, discourage the sale of Western aircraft. The difference in original price and purchaseountry's own currency is often made up by extremely highor spare aircraft engines and costs fcr spare parts purchased from the USSR.
Such was the case with one of the European Satellites, Hungary. The Hungarians were offeredransport aircraft without cost. The aircraft were assessedalueillion rubles each. The Hungarians later learned that spare parts for thetransports would costillion, rubles.
It is clear that in spite of the apparent difference In original cost, based on hidden charges; on acceptability to the traveling public; on ease of maintenance; and on ease of obtaining spare parts it is more economical to buy Western aircraft. Perhaps for these reasons. Communist China reportedly ls negotiating for the purchase of the British Viscount rather than buying comparable transports from the USSR.
The ease of maintenance and rapid delivery of spare parts is of particular Importance. US firms have offered, along with the purchase of their aircraft, complete maintenance facilities located in thenation, thus obviating the need for lengthy waits for parts and overhaul operations.
Furthermore, aa stated above, the USSR lsember of ICAO.esult, its aircraft are not manufactured and tested according to international standards of airworthiness set up by
In addition to the price of the aircraft, the economy of operation must also be considered. Operational economy of the Tu-lOd series, for example, is very poorin fact, too poor for profitableby Western commercial airlines. The Tu-lO'i and Tu-1CAAare too costly even by Soviet standards, andesult the USSB developedassenger. Tbe passenger load wasbut the range of the aircraft was drastically decreased. Consequently, the operational cost of theB is Still too high, and the profit potential of the aircraft in normal air travel markets is very likely low. lg/
The fact that single point refueling has not been installed on theircraft is of some Importance as is the fact that the individual filler necks of the fuel tank are relatively email. The economical operation of the aircraft is thus hampered as the refueling time and the turnaround time Of the aircraft are
Along with poor operational economy, Soviet aircraft purchasedcountries have displayed operational problems of some urboprop transports in particular have exhibiteddifficulties. Fuel tanks have hurst; tires have blown outon steel matting, which buckles under the weight of therc'raft hr-.r, ig problems.
- 13
It. is therefore apparent that more thar. the original cost of the aircraft must be considered in evaluating the cost aspects or Western transports in comparison with transports produced by the USSR. the cost and inconvenience of overhaul or spare parts and engine replacements, the acquisition of spare parts, and the high operating coat of the Soviet transport must be added to the Initial cost nitial cost or the Soviet aircraft becoaes less attractive Inwith that or Western aircraft. Low initial cost Is of little importance -hen accompanied by unsatisfactory operational performance and indications are that airline operators using Soviet transportcontinue to experience the difficulties outlined above.
V C- L^LiLnglnc^^Pj:^^
Another significant competitive aspect of Western and Soviet trans-iwrts In which the Soviet aircraft suffers badly by comparison Is the life or equipment andcnt parts. The life of the engine and or tbe propeller blades for the Soviet transports faLls far short of those for conparable Western aircraft.
The estimated engine hours before major overhaul for Sovietengines averageours, and the estimated totalf Soviet engine life before discarding the engine average only GOO By comparison, the engine hours to first overhaul for Western aircraft enginesours. omparison or Western and -aoviet overhaul time and total life is shown in Table
ife of Soviethai, of the engines,ry unlnvorahly with the life of Western counterparts. The esLinated
I noropeller blade for the Soviet turboprop engine, other lsJnd that or thes an estinot'-t
nours. The comparable Life for theropeller ishour-;
egulaior plate nust be checkedours.
ddition to the very short overhaul ttac and total Life of.aftand propeller a, -wayn the Soviet trai: sport
Table k
Comparison of Data on Overhaul and Total Life of Western and Soviet Aircraft Engines
Hours
Hours
Hours
Hours
Major Overhaul
Total Life
Major Overhaul
Total Life
and Whitney
a/
and JT-4
b/
The producer gives no fixed time before scrapping the engine. The engine can undergo annumber of overhauls, each of which prolongs its life. Although no figure can bethe life should be prolonged to coreours and may run as highours after overhaul.
b. The Federal Aviation Agency requires an overhaulours, although theours of operation ls safe before on overhaul is required.
- 15
are changed frequently.*
veals that the components on the Soviet transports frequently rail long before the guaranteed tine has elapsed. An example of such Soviet equipment that is subject to failure long before the guaranteed date is the TsN-lK fuel One such pump vas replaced four times on one aircraftonths,econd on another aircraft was replaced five timesonths. In spite of the guaranteed life of the pump Obviously, the high rate of replacement will ground the aircraft for extended periods should the purchaser have to obtain the parts from the USSB. US airlines could not accept the short guaranteed life of parts and the high rate of replacement of these components.
The great difference in the life of the Soviet transports and that of transports designed and produced in the West is emphasized in many reports. For instance, Ghana Airways has changed its scheduled flight from Khartoum to Accra to bimonthly rather than weekly because thengines used inery high rate of failure in the heat at Khartoum. In addition, when President Toure of Guinea visited Khartoum enroute from Cairo,n which he was riding bad three engines fail when preparing for takeoff in the afternoon heat. It was necessary foro remain in Khartoum until late in the evening souccessful takeoff could be made. gU/
Even Bloc countries are reluctant to accept the Soviet aircraft, primarily because of the high cost of frequent replacement of engines and parts. Officials of the Polish Airlines (LOT) were reluctant to8 aircraft0 because of the necessary replacement of parts afterours of flying time. The Poles, in fact,the Il-l8 as "no good" because the operation of the aircraft was so expensive.
It is apparent that the Soviet transportsar short-jr iifs as regards overhaul and replacement of engines and components than io comparable Western models. The cost of these frequent overhauls and early scrapping of engines and parts renders the Soviet transporteconomically unsatisfactory, even if acquiredery Lowcost or in the nation's own currency when comparedo-cp*-rable Western transport. Of equal significance for theircraft probablyrounded an extended period while svni ling shipment of the part fron, the
* For data on change and replacement, as indicated fromransport aircraft, see
-
pecifications
of Comparable Western and Soviet Long-Range Jet and Turboprop Transport Aircraft
Vailn.rt
Welters
"miliar st tz&tff
TtUMIt
Xaxlxun weight Lanllnc "CIgCt
J
fuel
Operational "H'
r and
CO
1 fe-.
LaaiUi fleicnt MIPS loading
Velghl-lO-lbrunl
ratio Cab la length. Cable widtb CabinCable veiana Pa/load
Caj-p
UUu carfio Carp ranc" Mailoa carco
act and intact
Taal IM
Feat andTaal and Inehe-andfeet
H'-r
s.iso
Faat and incaea Fiur-da parl
nauticalautirU mi*=
iw-r lcc-r
I. Hita full rial but
" 19 -
S-Z
VC-10
Coe-ey
CO/hJ/W
K-ie
h
CO
M
:,loc
ito-
tiN IM''
'1
*
'
to au
38,
S-r
pecifications
of Comparable Vvstern and Soviet Short-Sange Jet Transport Aircraft
Engine
NunMl oi .
KailRUN
Lfc--!
Ualgfcticra lu-1
rwi
- :N
LeAftt
flof ItMdlr*:
Cabin ler.gtft Cabin Hidth CabinPayload
P*CMni(*rs
Raxintut Cargo range Kexlnun cargo rnngt
Unit Of MSflllN
fountl -Pound-
Poo rids
L"S
Souar*ui meantaei ?ojfxl! per ifflATt foot
*nd
Feet And incnra
Feet and mcnei
KfOltiOAl rillet Kautieal Rllei
<ron.
rutal B5 75
2
O0
BOO
80*
65
"
>t2 to0
o
*35
Western Aircraft
Hunting
riatol BS 75
2
OO
BS
o 59
HO
kkO
t/
Roll! Koyce
a
990
"
59
9,eco
lfc.OOO
600
Soviet Alrc.-aft Tupole*
CooKpOt (Tvi-iaU)
SoloVyev
B
to M
Table 7
SpecifIcaticns of Comparable Western and Soviet Medium-Range Jet Transport Aircraft
t
TI-vH
' rati
lulu '
Ragif*
WUM W
CnttdaiTTil" UT7
ii
.
1."
w
litfl*.
I* I
hutlcitl MlnMitt
ur-s"
icy
kJB
- W
JMttL
at cntcv
JT.tOJ
o
u.no Am
n
h*
V
at
'55
Table 8
Specifications
-if Comparable Western and Soviet Medium-Range Turboprop Transports
'liurnll
TlnMr at' vagi* -
' .
OlK-IK'.ljr.afurl
Vint nip*
ulliu>
IMIlO
L" r,
'J.'jln .'Li "I
t.ia.i
en ji-
WVj
*tt-aUA
SIM
M It it
jh'-ii"
I,
j:.
OT HI
OXi
r
.
W
JS'-l-
86
67'
afcu
rrf i
rauo*
Vith puwwrr JttnjjiiJ-v
w in
CC ft
a> io icv
Tabla 9
Specification*
nf 'J'MpnrobK' Western nnd Soviet Short-Pange Turboprop Tranaporta
Hitongv
n-u
*&-
cart K
Stfl
!
w
i
-
u,.M "
aaaa*v
I"'
IBTH.
Nv**>
*
* iii-t
.
1
4 .
c
U
.
l.l
lUV
. -.
M al
a* ..
to w
aa aa
vi-
'
a,'
1 IfmJ .li-.
JUJUaajii
H
H
rl-
A ,1
1 t- '1
Jill "IM
1
Vi
E
i?3
3 a
1
33
7
f
/
(
r
A,
MrTHODOLOCT
Statements concerning tbe sai'ety, comfort, and convenience or Soviet transports as opposed to Western transports were takenariety ol" knowledgeable sources. Information concerning tho cost of Sovietvas derived fron the prices that the USSR lifted for prospectivei
Knterial concerning the flying time nnd utilizotion of Soviet'orts was obtained bynalysis
Life of engines and components ac well as the guarantees for the enginesomponents also was obtained by the analysis of Soviet components nnd aircraft engines. Overhaul data, life, and utilization of Western aircraft and aircraft englr.es were obtained fron the actual experience Of US airlines and the US aircruft Industry.
i: -c
Al'ltvWDTX E
nwncE refereko::;
'{valuations, following the classification entry arid designatedave the following significance:
'Jource oi* Information
- Documentary
Confirmed by other sources
- Completely reliable
Probably true
- Usually reliable
Possibly true
- Fairly reliable
Doubtful
- Kot usually relinblc
Probably false
- Kot reliable
Cannot be judged
- Cannot be Judged
nociur.Dnti.ry refers to original documents of forciRn governments und organizations; copies or translationseh documentstuffifficer; or Information extracted fra=documentstaffall of vi,ich nyy carry the field evaluation
Evaluations not Otherwise designate arc vbOSe appearing on the cited document; those designated "RR" ore by tbe author of this report. liR" evaluation is given when the author agrees will, -be evaluation mi ttic cltud Cocumcat.
:cpl.IA finished intelllgi-ccc. all sources arc evaluated KH
.
Ibid.
CA-MJQfb,ay OI,t. OFF USE.
Ibid.
ibid.
Ibid.
Transport Association of Anerlea. Hem datednv . u.
. 3- '
f
16.
otate, Cairo. 3 Jun 6l- C.
Stater (Outgoing to, C.
19.
20.
viA. HCBul 6l, p. 3.
o
ar'60. C.
26.
, OFF USE.'
c' p* - 3-
- V* -
Original document.
Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic: