Jump to content

Talk:Ilyushin Il-76/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

US Goverment Operators

Is this a factual statement - I don't believe so, but if anybody has evidence, that would be welcome... Jkstark 05:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they refer to the US registered IL-78 tanker, N78GF, that is on a tarmac in Texas. It is supposed to be in the US doing Air to Air refueling training under a US Government contract. I wonder si the fact that a US company owns an IL-78 and that it is US registered, if the USA should not be added to the IL-76 operators map and countries? Hudicourt 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

IL-76 Operators

Someone added Canada's Skylink as a IL-76 operator. Skylink does not own or lease IL-76s. Its pilots do not fly IL-76s. Skylink serves as a Canadian agent for other IL-76 operators. Il do not think that Skylink should be listed here. If it is, the map should be edited to add Canada to the countries that operate the IL-76.Hudicourt 14:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The map of users of the IL-76 is incomplete as it excludes New Zealand where Pacific Express operated at least 1 X IL-76 for international freight delivery (especially to 3rd world countries) for many years.

KJ-200 or KJ-2000

The Article on the Shaanxi Y-8 claims that the accident on June 3 2006 in China was a KJ-200 AWACS, based on the Y-8 airframe. The IL-76 article claims the same accident was a IL-76 based KJ-2000. It cannot be both.Hudicourt 16:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

My research indicates in was the Y-8 based KJ-200 that crashed [1] Hudicourt 18:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ [1]

I removed this section:

  • On June 3 2006, A Chinese AWACS KJ-2000, based on the Il-76 or KJ-200 based on Y-8 crashed in Anhui; about 40 personnel were lost, most of them radio experts. There is a controversy about the actual type of aircraft involved.

Although early reports speculated that it was a KJ-2000 that had crashed, mostly due to the large number of on-board fatalities, all news articles and websites published in 2007 agree that the crash involved a KJ-200 aircraft Hudicourt (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

RIA Novosti Letters to the Editor

On the Il-76 waterbomber controversy: http://en.rian.ru/letters/20070322/62443079.html

Bulgaria: http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/28.html?id_issue=11795239 For this winning effort, Russian crews received special awards from Bulgaria.

Further, for the record, the IL-76 waterbomber was used in Montenegro and Serbia this summer. The airplane was the subject of a further offer to Greece by President Putin just before Greek wildfires subsided. This offer was reported to have been solicited by Greek Prime Minister Karamanlis.

The EU's Stavros Dimas, among others, has advocated for a more comprehensive approach to EU disaster response; something Russian Emergencies Minister Sergei Shoigu has been advocating for years. Minister Shoigu touts his nation's aerial firefighting strengths here: http://mnweekly.ru/business/20070802/55265228.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigorous (talk • contribs) 12:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In Serbia, outcomes of July's successful free service IL-76 waterbombing have begun to surface: http://www.b92.net/eng/news/society-article.php?yyyy=2007&mm=08&dd=30&nav_id=43392&fs=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.75.13.242 (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In Paraguay, the IL-76 waterbomber will soon be trying to stop the unstoppable, compliments, President Hugo Chavez, of Venezuela. http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B7DCBA28C-2954-43A9-8CDB-54AC74FA9D1B%7D)&language=EN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigorous (talk • contribs) 04:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Reuters doesn't name the plane: http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/44346/story.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigorous (talk • contribs) 04:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

LA Times reports the IL-76 will not be going to Paraguay: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-paraguay15sep15,1,7503627.story?track=rss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.75.13.242 (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Author's appeal for help bringing the IL-76 waterbomber to fire-ravaged Southern California

Alan Dean Foster (again) supports the IL-76 waterbomber by asking fire victims directly to go after the authorities for answers on the IL-76 waterbomber. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-tuesday23oct23,0,1311069.story?coll=la-news-comment-letters

Author Foster last made such an appeal to an Arizona readership: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0625sunlets251.html

Unsupported Claims and weak references

The IL-76 article makes several unsupported claims. Specifically

" The IL-76is the most widely used large cargo plane in the world."

Widely might include the C-130. MOST is probably the 747.

    • Note wording 'most widely used large CARGO plane'. How many cargo version 747s are operated world-wide? The C130 is a very different size category to the IL-76 (and most are in military use rather than freight/cargo). Perhaps it would be better to say 'most widely-used large cargo jet' or 'most widely used jet for outsized cargo' Either would be correct for the size category of the IL-76.

"The Il-76 was responsible for carrying some 90 percent of ramp-delivered airfreight from all of Europe, and at least 90 percent of all disaster relief aid worldwide." (intel from Ilyushin or where?)

    • See Gordon, Y, 2004. OKB Ilyushin: a history of the design bureau and its aircraft. Leiscester: Midland. ISBN 1857801873 for IL-76 facts and figures.

List of Incidents and Accidents cites 5 accidents total. IL-76 family has suffered at least 19 major accidents or crashes.

      • This was a commonly used bit of data to prevent the Russians from introducing the IL-76 waterbomber in the west. (At time of posting it is sorely needed.) If you examine the causes of the crashes, you will see they had nothing to do with aircraft design and everything to do with the people who interacted with them, including people who wanted to shoot them down for one reason or another and e.g. people who shorted them on fuel or overloaded them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.75.13.242 (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The Reference list cites too many weak references not enough authoritative ones.

Page needs to be marked extensively with CITATION NEEDED.

IL-76 Wikipedia Page seems to be a bit of a Promotion Ad rather than encyclopedia reference Bwebb00 23:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"The IL-76is the most widely used large cargo plane in the world."

It's false so I took it out.

As far as I can ascertain, the IL-76 seems to be the most widely used freighter in its class. I don't see that as a promotional statement, but simply a statement of fact.

      • I don't think it is false so could be reinserted with rephrased wording. See statement above.
        • According the the World Airliner Census published in the Oct 3-9 2006 Issue of Flight International, there were 362 B-747s counting all-cargo and combi aircraft, there were 188 A-300 cargo aircraft, 157 MD-11 cargo aircraft, 134 Cargo DC-10s, 72 A-310 cargo aircraft and 66 Cargo 767s, all of which qualify as "large aircraft". That same document lists 255 civilian IL-76s, so the only way for that statement to be true, is if the Military IL-76s are counted. Hudicourt 21:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"The Il-76 was responsible for carrying some 90 percent of ramp-delivered airfreight from all of Europe, and at least 90 percent of all disaster relief aid worldwide."

It may be true but needs to be sourced. There are only so many ramped types of aircraft in the World and the others are smaller aircraft or exist in small numbers

Otherwise, I don't see where the article goes wrong. Hudicourt 02:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

IL-82 (IL-76VKP)

What is this aircraft's role, anyone know? Chwyatt (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[2]

It's said to be an airborne command post Hudicourt (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, thought it might be. Chwyatt (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Iraqi versions

Added a very short entry to the main article, describing yet another version. Statement about current service is negated by the recent pictures of the iranian machine. But the question is... are there photos or drawings of the very first version... probably having a bulge on the rear cargo door —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.73.173.88 (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

2008 Myanmar and China relief operations

Since the western media is quite light on reports of Il-76 relief flights the story is obviously of little interest there so no liinks will be provided by this writer. Of course, the IL-76 was predominant during the tsumani relief operation, flying out of India and Russia in support. IL-76s also provided lift operations to Katrina victims. There is no verification that relief provided by those flights ever reached victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigorous (talk • contribs) 15:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

California rejects top Russian firefighting plane

Russia Today

The Unites (sic) States has rejected Russia's offer of an Ilyushin 76 firefighting plane, which experts say is first rate at dealing with fires of the sort now tearing through southern California.
http://www.russiatoday.ru/news/news/15979
gone 404

From 2005: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's take on the IL-76 waterbomber: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_200507/ai_n14684507 link removed

Forest Service Putting Up Smokescreen About Using Super Tanker?

This is the only US news source you will find quoting a US expert on Russian aircraft and the Il-76 waterbomber's capability to make a difference: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3319268/detail.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.100.85 (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Taken down at original publisher's website. Preserved under the original title Forest Service Putting Up Smokescreen About Using Super Tanker? at (spam-protected) Free Republic.

Last Time the Il-76 Waterbomber was invited to the US

http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/los-alamos-01.htm Too Proud - Russian version (dead Venik link)

http://www.vadscorner.com/tooproud.html -- Too Proud - American MSNBC version

Last Time the Il-76 waterbomber was rejected by Australia

http://www.theage.com.au/national/russian-offer-of-fire-jets-rejected-20091020-h6xt.html -- Russian offer of fire jets rejected - The Age

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/21/2720002.htm?section=justin -- Victoria rejected Russian waterbombers -- ABC News —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.103.93 (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Russia played 'central' role in combating Israel fires - Netanyahu

http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?pg=7&id=207306 --In another Israeli news item, the IL-76 waterbomber was said to have 'spearheaded' this 'central role' and yet Carmel wildfire news from all around the world strongly featured a late arrival from the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.17.12 (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Large lists

There are a lot of lists in the article.

One in particular, list of operators, is too big IMHO to remain in here.

The list of variants was in bold and I have de-boldened it per MoS

The section "Foreign variants" - Foreign to what? can a different label be found- perhaps "Variants made outside Russia" or something similar?

Chaosdruid (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearification

I am confused by following

"On 9 March 2007, a Transaviaexport Il-76TD s/n 1003499991, registered EW-78826, on approach at Mogadishu, Somalia, was hit by a projectile, later confirmed as an RPG by Belarus officials.[48]"

Does it mean that RPG was fired by Belarus officials or Belarus officials identified the RPG?--قیصرانی (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The sentence reads more like the Belarus officials confirmed it. The reference listed there does not seem to mention anything about the 9 March accident, only the 23 March one. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

IL-76 in Cuban service

The IL-76 also served in Cubana de Aviación airline.

Cubana's IL-76s

Registration CU-T1271 : http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/8/5/4/0074458.jpg

Registration CU-T1258 : http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/9/2/0/0092029.jpg

Miguel.A.Lopez.Regalado (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


Another picture of Cubana de Aviación IL-76 CU-T1258

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/23077579

Miguel.A.Lopez.Regalado (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Images are not generally good references. Shouldn't Cubana's web site list info on their fleet, including Il-76s? -Fnlayson (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Cuban IL-76s belong (or belonged) to Cuban Air Force, 25th Transport Regiment; but operates under Cubana de Aviación markings. Don't know if still operatives. I haven't seen then flying for a long time. Sorry, no other reference except for the pictures by now. I'll keep searching. (Just as a comment, my ex-brother-in-law jumped 24 times from an IL-76 during his military service)

Miguel.A.Lopez.Regalado (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

See this link. It is not official.

http://urrib2000.narod.ru/Mil-Hoy2.html

Miguel.A.Lopez.Regalado (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

In this link I found that Cuban IL-76 are currently in Gira Globo Aeronautica from Angola. Don't know if leased, rented or sold.

http://russianplanes.net/EN/REGINFO/3204

Miguel.A.Lopez.Regalado (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

: More about Cuban IL-76s in Gira Globo Aeronautica.

http://www.aerotransport.org/php/go.php?query=operator&where=114174&luck=

Miguel.A.Lopez.Regalado (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ilyushin Il-76/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The piece has been edited to remove all material surrounding

a controversy regarding use of the IL-76 waterbomber.

For original material, see Quickseek's version of this page. http://il76.quickseek.com/ key word - controversy

The editor-out of original material supporting the fact there has been controversy is known to this writer to be hostile.

The most recent article supporting the fact there has been controversy is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15065829/

Vigorous 02:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The controversy continues in Australia at this popular

article and forum: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5312

Last edited at 17:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Congo Brazzaville Issue

The map needs to be updated for Congo Brazzaville, it is civilian + military operator. At least one comapny operates such aircraft for freight shipping from Point noire to Brazzaville: http://radiookapi.net/actualite/2012/12/01/brazzaville-le-crash-dun-avion-cargo-fait-25-morts/

http://www.jeuneafrique.com/Article/DEPAFP20121201101336/congo-accident-brazzaville-pointe-noirecongo-une-trentaine-de-morts-dans-l-accident-d-avion-de-brazzaville.html

ALibrarywik(talk) 15:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The aircraft in question was actually Armenian. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

IL 476 page

The page needs a link to a new page created for IL 476. There are many sources available for IL476 and buyers could be too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.75.84 (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

8 IL-76 craft sent to fight forest fires in Siberia

http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_05_01/8-IL-76-craft-sent-to-fight-forest-fires-in-Siberia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.181.252.113 (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC) http://www.itar-tass.com/en/c32/725824.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.181.252.113 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

IL-76 waterbomber spoken to by Rep Dana Rohrabacher on the floor of the US House of Representatives April 26, 2005

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2005-04-26/pdf/CREC-2005-04-26-pt1-PgH2530-2.pdf#page=1

Does Zimbabwe operate the Il-76?

The map shows it does, but the country list does not mention Zimbabwe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnome of zurich (talk • contribs) 00:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly had a least one, search for the registration "Z-WTV". MilborneOne (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance templates

I've reverted the last removal of maintenance templates ([3]). The IP who removed them did not provide a valid reason for the removal, i.e. it suggested to use inline tags, but the presence of these maintenance templates are there in order not to tagbomb the article with inline citations.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Stop joking. YOU or others who want to add templates have to give DETAILED reasons what to do to remove them. Please list ALL reasions here, but imho inline tags are possible. As though you failed to give any reason your edit was reverted. 77.185.241.237 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
My own 2 cents...Rather than adding/reverting a maintenance template....maybe let's start a new section on the talk page here, highlighting the specific issues with this article, and then maybe revisit if a maintenance template is necessary? Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was wondering after the IP templated me at my talk page. Templating me won't solve anything. I already added a number of references to the article. My question is: how many sources has the IP added so far? The maintenance templates have been re-added. Further removals of them without a valid explanation will prompt me to seek for admin intervention.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Wonderful. But: At the moment the reasons for adding article templates remain unclear, and imho its only pride, like: you think it could be better, but don't like to invest even the time to tell how others can do it, i remove the templates according to Wikipedia rules, which require detailed reasons.
AGAIN: i do NOT need to provide any reasons to remove templates unlike they are not obvious: Can't seen here.
Don't hesitate to list details, be constructive. 77.12.67.150 (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The main reason is that there are lots of unsourced statements all over the article. That's pretty clear by taking a look at it. Those particular templates do not require any reasons for their placement, they are self-explanatory. Others do, like {{cleanup}} for which a reason is mandatory; try to place it on an article and it will require that reason before saving the changes. Almost everything is well-thought here.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I've requested semi-protection of the article at WP:RPP for the persistent removal of valid maintenance templates. I've provided my reasons right above. It's at least obtuse to proceed with their removal before posting here, asking for the reasons, and not waiting for my response.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
One more thing: I invite you and everyone else to visit my user page in order to check how constructive I've been since I started editing.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No reasons listed: "Lots..." is NOTHING, like your claim: "constructive". Start thinking. EOD. 77.186.59.191 (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion ended when you removed the templates for the third time. Please note that the administrator that protected the page did not think your removals were constructive.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Shootdown

What is the issue with the link to the Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down article being removed from the "incidents and accidents" section? I fully agree that it is not an "accident", but it is an Incident. A wikilink there is valid. 17:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

A shoot down is not an aviation accident in any way. The shoot down text was moved to the more fitting Operational history section. No reason to duplicate the text in the wrong place. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
@Fnlayson: - where did I say it was an accident? The section is titled "Incidents and accidents" for a reason. People are going to be looking for the info there, not in the operational history section. Mjroots (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Is there precedent for this in other articles? I don't know that too many military cargo transports have been shot down in modern times, but surely there must be a few? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyraider1 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think shooting down an aircraft is part of the operational history, which is intended for details regarding the entry of service, the countries the aircraft have been operated by, upgradings, and so on. A shootdown belongs in the "Incidents and accidents" section.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Accidents and incidents sections are meant only for aviation accidents and incidents. How does combat type event such as shoot down qualify as an aviation incident? It is not a hijacking or terrorist bombing. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Shoot downs are much closer to being combat-related than being aviation accidents/incidents. This event is more than just about loss of lives. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Then list it as a intentional act, but do not simply omit it. As a pilot myself, any incident that results in loss of the plane, of lives or property is always considered a "accident" from the (US) FAA's perspective. Factually speaking this is a "accident" that was deliberately caused. talk→ WPPilot  14:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

NATO reporting name

Hello there. Please note this reversion. I've reinstated the NATO reporting name for the aircraft in the lead. Can we get consensus on whether to include this information for this aircraft in particular, or for Russian aircraft in general. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree It is one of official alternate names, which is fine. — Nick the Red37 (talk · contribs) 14:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
There's a consensus at the project level for mentioning NATO code names at WP:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#NATO reporting names. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, the project guideline is based on WP:BOLDTITLE, as the NATO code names are significant alternate titles. Note the the project.guidelines do not encourage the NATO name's use anywhere else in the article, and we don't generally mention them in other articles either when the aircraft's designation is given. - BilCat (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly, ru:Ил-76, the Russian-language version of Ilyushin Il-76, places the NATO name in the exact same place as we do on English WP! Hmmmm. - BilCat (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Does Pakistan operate the Il-76?

The map shows it does, but the country list does not mention Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaurav.p.chaturvedi (talk • contribs) 16:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

No I dont think they do, but they do operate the Ilyushin Il-78 tanker variant so are listed under that article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Archived references not used in the article

--Jetstreamer Talk 15:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Henry V. Novozhilov

Henry V. Novozhilov has been added to the infobox as designer of the Il-76, the field is intended for sole-designers ("Only appropriate for single designers, not project leaders") and it appears from the reference that he was leader of the design bureau - do we have a reliable source that he designed the aircraft all on his own? MilborneOne (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Destroyed in Yemen

Any details about Il-76 destroyed at Sanaa International Airport? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f-WgZ8VJU4 Mykobox (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of information if you try Google (other search engines are also available) none of which is relevant to this article other than to reduce the head count for Yemeni Government Il-76s. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ilyushin_Il-76/Archive_1&oldid=1188666410"