Was this Soviet transport really the last of its kind?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Buran_AN-225.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Buran_AN-225.jpg
Last edited:
Antonov An-225
- Thread starter Sgt.Banes
- Start date
Super Nimrod
New Member
Didn't Antonov announce at the end of last year that the second airframe was finally going to be completed by 2008 ? What happens then ? Can they build more if required ?
I can only see aircraft getting bigger in the very long term.
I can only see aircraft getting bigger in the very long term.
Last edited:
I seem to recall another An-225 was being constructed as the first one is in heavy demand. I wonder whether it will go for the 6 50,000 lb thrust Russian engines, or 4 90,000 lb thrust western ones as fitted to the A380 and 777. Funny really that the biggest current users of Russian heavy lift aircraft is the Western military establishment, even if it is due to natural disasters.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #5
I was talking in regards to it moving large military or civilian forms of cargo, I wasn't really going to mention the Buran project.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6
There is a partially completed one that is supposed to be finished by next year. But the purpose of it is unclear, although more likely it will be in the service of Antonov Airlines.
Thanks for the clarification.
It does seem to me that there is a move towards countries acquiring their own heavy lifters for their air forces rather than relying on chartered civilian aircraft. This must reduce the size of the market that large Antonov aircraft seem to have dominated in recent years. Maybe there will still be a case for a small number of super sized airlcraft that are required in such small numbers that they will need to be shared by users from many countries. If this is the case the An-225 may still have a future. I suspect it will be a long time, though, before another aircraft of this size is put into production.
Cheers
although there is the aurbus 380 - if they ever get to sought out the cargo model problems...
Yes the specs show the max take off weight of the A380-800F version as being very close to that of the An-225.
Cheers
But the A380 would never be able to carry anywhere near the weight or outsized loads of the An-124/225, C-5 or even C-17. The A380 is designed primarily as a package or container freighter, whereas the others can carry vehicles, helicopters, tanks and even railway locomotives.
Cheers
Magoo
Airbus is saying they're putting the A380F variant on indefinite hold until the pax versions of its aircraft are being fully delivered. This was due to its only 2 major orders being cancelled (UPS and FedEx). With no orders to purchase the plane Airbus is trying to save its development money as much as possible.
Nor density. Like you said the A380F if it ever got completed was almost specifically designed for package carriers rather than bulk carriers.
Thanks Magoo and hybrid for clarification re the A380's carrying capability.
From the comments made it seems as though the need for the big Antonov will still be there in the future but with countries like Canada and Australia now joining the USA and UK with C17s, it seems to me like the demand will be reduced.
Cheers
From the comments made it seems as though the need for the big Antonov will still be there in the future but with countries like Canada and Australia now joining the USA and UK with C17s, it seems to me like the demand will be reduced.
Cheers
true, but I guess I was looking at the issue of sheer mass rather than capability. the thread seemed to be driven by the issue of "presence" etc.. over capability.
either way, its a big aircraft (concept) with less capability than some of the existing smaller brethren.. even the Airbus version of the "guppy" is more useful...
The An-225 still has other useful advantages including the ability to carry cargo on the outside. Though in commercial cargo world it rarely has to, but it still is an option the aircraft is capable of. The Myria also has the advantage since it was based on a military aircraft it is capable of operate from unprepared landing strips and runways. Though with heavy loads it rarely does so, but with light but bulky cargo it can land in area's where commercial cargo aircraft could only dream of. Aircraft like the Myria, Galaxy, and Condor hold a very niche use and shouldn't be compared to bulk package aircraft like Boeing and Airbus freighters.
maybe we can finesse it further by only looking at heavy lifters that use the me gigant legacy suspension....
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Max payload for an An-225 Mriya is 250,000 kg (550,000 lbs).
I haven't found a max payload for the 747, but I did come across the weight of a loaded 747-400, which is 394,625 kg (868,175 lbs) the empy weight is 182,754 kg (402,059 lbs). On the An-225, the max listed takeoff weight is 600,000 kg (1,322,750 lbs) or nearly 50% more than a 747-400.
Hope this was what you were looking for.
-Cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Sure thing. Unfortunately I don't have info on Buran (currently) so while the Space Shuttle (Enterprise IIRC) might be physically larger, I don't know which had greater weight. Also to keep in mind, the first space shuttle wasn't really a "space shuttle" since it wasn't designed to go exo-atmospheric (sp?) rather is was to test the design to see if it could operate in the atmosphere. That, and Buran was a decade+ later.
-Cheers