World's only An-225 destroyed by Russian airstrikes(ch-aviation.com)
ch-aviation.com
World's only An-225 destroyed by Russian airstrikes
https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/113016-worlds-only-an-225-destroyed-by-russian-airstrikes
179 comments
I was lucky enough to see her in 2020, when she delivered medical supplies from China to Poland. I lived around 3 km from Chopin airport, and seeing the An-225 gave me the same feeling as seeing a 747 for the first time, up close at an airport after having only flown A320's and smaller. I recently (Dec 2021) saw another really cool plane at the same airport, the Airbus Beluga [1].
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Beluga
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Beluga
I used to live in Kaneohe, Hawaii.
What you're describing matches my experience watching C-5M for the first time, heading in to land at what was Marine Corps Base Hawaii. I was out walking and watched one flying around the bay, turning in to land. Thought it was low and slow. I remember quite a feeling of cognitive dissonance, as subconscious parts of my brain were refusing to accept what my senses were really saying. Then this slowly dawning realisation no, it's bloody huge! I stopped in my tracks with my jaw dropping.
To some degree I still didn't believe it, until it had actually touched down at the strip in the distance, and I could see how it was in scale next to other planes and buildings.
I haven't seen the AN-225, guess I never will. Comparing specs I'm staggered.. I can't fathom what it would be like to see that one. C5 on left, AN-225 right:
Wingspan: 222' 9" <-> 290'
Length: 247' 10" <-> 275' 7"
What you're describing matches my experience watching C-5M for the first time, heading in to land at what was Marine Corps Base Hawaii. I was out walking and watched one flying around the bay, turning in to land. Thought it was low and slow. I remember quite a feeling of cognitive dissonance, as subconscious parts of my brain were refusing to accept what my senses were really saying. Then this slowly dawning realisation no, it's bloody huge! I stopped in my tracks with my jaw dropping.
To some degree I still didn't believe it, until it had actually touched down at the strip in the distance, and I could see how it was in scale next to other planes and buildings.
I haven't seen the AN-225, guess I never will. Comparing specs I'm staggered.. I can't fathom what it would be like to see that one. C5 on left, AN-225 right:
Wingspan: 222' 9" <-> 290'
Length: 247' 10" <-> 275' 7"
That was my experience with a C-5 as well. I was on a commercial airliner taking off from Bangor, Maine. We were taxing towards the runway and we had to pause and hold while a C-5 did a practice touch-and-go on the same runway we were about to takeoff on. Watching the shadow of the looming C-5 drift across the forest on approach was surreal.
As a kid, I lived for several years at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida (my dad was stationed there). The C-5A was tested there; we got used to seeing and hearing it passing right overhead in the landing pattern.
This video of the plane landing matches your description:
https://twitter.com/samchuiphotos/status/1497963593563791361...
https://twitter.com/samchuiphotos/status/1497963593563791361...
Here it is landing in Raleigh. I sure wish I went out to see it that day.
https://youtu.be/sJxSN9x5oZU
https://youtu.be/sJxSN9x5oZU
https://youtu.be/i7PhWzBc8Q0 it's staggering in HD
I saw it taking off and climbing out of Houston on my way to go sailing with a friend so I was headed to clear lake. It was just all wrong, it was clearly an airplane headed away from me but it didn't move! It just hung in the sky as if suspended by strings. For what seemed like many minutes it just hovered there. Eventually it started a turn and it started to make a little more sense.
I can only imagine. Once in a while an An-124 will fly over my house (I'm pretty close to the typical pattern entry for an international airport, so I see a lot of airliners go by at 5-6K feet). It seems fairly impressive, but it's nothing compared to that An-225.
It's like seeing the Guppy in Houston. It looks like it will just fall out of the sky.
I hadn’t seen that one before! Very cool plane. Even though it was designed long ago, physics doesn’t change…
I'm not an aviation enthusiast, but I'm in awe just looking at the picture on that site. I would love to have seen it in the flesh.
From wikipedia:
> The Antonov An-225 Mriya (Ukrainian: Антонов Ан-225 Мрія, lit. ''dream' or 'inspiration''; NATO reporting name: Cossack) was a strategic airlift cargo aircraft designed in the 1980s by the Antonov Design Bureau in Soviet Ukraine. It was originally developed as an enlargement of the Antonov An-124 to transport Buran-class orbiters, and only one example was ever completed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225_Mriya
> The Antonov An-225 Mriya (Ukrainian: Антонов Ан-225 Мрія, lit. ''dream' or 'inspiration''; NATO reporting name: Cossack) was a strategic airlift cargo aircraft designed in the 1980s by the Antonov Design Bureau in Soviet Ukraine. It was originally developed as an enlargement of the Antonov An-124 to transport Buran-class orbiters, and only one example was ever completed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225_Mriya
It was also by a fair margin the largest plane actively flying when measured by weight (285T empty, 640T fully loaded), wingspan (88m) or even number of engines (6).
At GTW of 640T it could support up to 260T of multi-item cargo or 190T single item payloads, truly in a class of it's own. Even Boeing and Airbus internal transports pale in comparison.
RIP beautiful bird.
RIP beautiful bird.
Boeing and Airbus freighters being a pale comparison is not surprising. They are optimised for cargo volume, much less weight.
Comparing the Mrija to heavy military airlifters (Ruslan, Galaxy, Globemaster III...) would make more sense.
The impressive thing about the Mrija is that it's both good at lifting volume (over-wing transport) and weight.
Comparing the Mrija to heavy military airlifters (Ruslan, Galaxy, Globemaster III...) would make more sense.
The impressive thing about the Mrija is that it's both good at lifting volume (over-wing transport) and weight.
> They are optimised for cargo volume, much less weight.
An other interesting bit is Mriya’s hold was pressurised (though apparently relatively low, it was not a plane for paras), neither dreamlifter nor beluga have pressurised holds.
> Comparing the Mrija to heavy military airlifters (Ruslan, Galaxy, Globemaster III...) would make more sense.
It still dwarfs them all since it’s an enlarged version of the Ruslan (124). It could carry almost twice the weight a 124 can.
An other interesting bit is Mriya’s hold was pressurised (though apparently relatively low, it was not a plane for paras), neither dreamlifter nor beluga have pressurised holds.
> Comparing the Mrija to heavy military airlifters (Ruslan, Galaxy, Globemaster III...) would make more sense.
It still dwarfs them all since it’s an enlarged version of the Ruslan (124). It could carry almost twice the weight a 124 can.
Doesn't the B52, a much smaller aircraft have 8 engines.
I must mention that the B-36 had a whopping 10 engines, a mixture of both jet engines and piston driven engines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36_Peacemaker#Specif...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36_Peacemaker#Specif...
B-36 slogan of "six turnin' and four burnin'" - transition aircraft are some amazing pieces of work.
Yes, it does. It's not that obvious though as they are grouped in pairs of two.
They’re much smaller engines though.
It wasn't designed for transporting just Buran, but all sorts of rocket parts that exceeded Soviet rail loading gauge, which was limiting factor in transport between Moscow and Kharkiv, where they were built, to Baikonur where final assembly happened.
Re-posting from another thread on this plane
Funny ATC comms when this amazing plane landed in Oakland: https://youtu.be/UFwQiaH5ZsU
The controller has basically arranged an ad-hoc photoshoot, sending planes to the best positions for viewing the Antonov :)
Funny ATC comms when this amazing plane landed in Oakland: https://youtu.be/UFwQiaH5ZsU
The controller has basically arranged an ad-hoc photoshoot, sending planes to the best positions for viewing the Antonov :)
I was confused about this.
I presumed Antonov Airlines was a Russian airline, so I was wondering why the Russians would destroy their own planes.
But Antonov Airlines is a Ukrainian company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_Airlines
The plane was designed in Soviet (Russian) Ukraine (ie before 1991) to carry the Soviet (Russian) space shuttle.
edited to say Soviet, not Russian
I presumed Antonov Airlines was a Russian airline, so I was wondering why the Russians would destroy their own planes.
But Antonov Airlines is a Ukrainian company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_Airlines
The plane was designed in Soviet (Russian) Ukraine (ie before 1991) to carry the Soviet (Russian) space shuttle.
edited to say Soviet, not Russian
The Russian space program isn't even in Russia. Baikonur Cosmodrome is in Kazakhstan. So you can see these countries hold a very high strategic value to Russia. The ghosts of the Soviet Union are still haunting us to this day.
There is a new launch site within Russia.
https://spacenews.com/the-long-road-to-vostochny-inside-russ...
https://spacenews.com/the-long-road-to-vostochny-inside-russ...
I new they were building a new cosmodrome I hadn't heard much about it. Most of their launches are still from Baikonor, but I could be mistaken.
Antonov wasn’t even an airline originally it was a design bureau, the airline was set up to handle chartering of 124s, and later the restored 225.
What is Russian Ukraine? How old are you?
To be fair, it was pretty common to refer to the Soviets as Russians, even if not strictly accurate. Though I don't think I'd ever phrase it as Russian Ukraine if I were writing it out.
The Eastern part of Ukraine used to be called "little Russia" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Russia); just like eastern Belarus was simply "White Russia". That's also why from 1721 the Czar was called "Emperor of all the Russias".
Belarus means white russia by itself.
Interesting fact I learned a while back. Belarus is named white russia because mongols used color based cardinal directions ( gold = center, white = west, black = north, red = south, blue = east ).
So white russia means west russia ( west of russia ). Red and black ruthenia means south ruthenia and north ruthenia. White, gold and blue hordes, you get the idea.
If you ever wonder what made white russians white as opposed to other russians, not you know. For the longest time, I thought it was because it snowed more in belarus.
So white russia means west russia ( west of russia ). Red and black ruthenia means south ruthenia and north ruthenia. White, gold and blue hordes, you get the idea.
If you ever wonder what made white russians white as opposed to other russians, not you know. For the longest time, I thought it was because it snowed more in belarus.
Before Ukraine became an independent country in 1991, it was part of the USSR. The plane and space shuttle etc were part of the USSR.
I'm using the term 'Russian Ukraine' because it describes the fact that it was part of the USSR when created. Its not my own term - I read this earlier today, and I think it indicates the placement in time accurately.
Do you object to the term 'Russian Ukraine'?
And what does my age have to do with it? How old are you?
Edited to say - 'Soviet Ukraine' is probably an even better term.
I'm using the term 'Russian Ukraine' because it describes the fact that it was part of the USSR when created. Its not my own term - I read this earlier today, and I think it indicates the placement in time accurately.
Do you object to the term 'Russian Ukraine'?
And what does my age have to do with it? How old are you?
Edited to say - 'Soviet Ukraine' is probably an even better term.
ukraine was pretty much always at least partially owned by russia. One of the first centralized slavic states were the kieven rus.
russia and ukraine are tied and its not offensive or wrong to say something like "russian ukraine"
russia and ukraine are tied and its not offensive or wrong to say something like "russian ukraine"
If by "pretty much always" you want to completely ignore the period where large part of it used to be Polish, then sure. Pretty much always.
The entire western section of Ukraine was Polish before WW2.
Don't forget the Mongols. I believe they were around for a few centuries.
This is the reason why we should never redraw lines on a map over historical claims. It gets messy fast.
This is the reason why we should never redraw lines on a map over historical claims. It gets messy fast.
Well, "Kievan Rus" was Ukraine centric state, as the name says.
Moscow, and future tsarist Imperial Russia, happened much later
Moscow, and future tsarist Imperial Russia, happened much later
> Ukraine was pretty much always at least partially owned by russia. One of the first centralized slavic states were the kieven rus.
This is wrong on so many levels :)
In times of Kievan Rus Moscow was a far province of forests and marches. Kyiv was the capital.
What you're saying basically: "Italy (Ukraine) was always owned by France (Russia) because Roman Empire (Kievan Rus) was the first centralized state there".
If you insist on applying modern names to historical states it was the other way around - Ukraine "owned" Russia back then.
Also for a few centuries Ukraine was owned by Mongols, Lithuanians and Poles. And Russia was only starting to exist (and wasn't called Russia at first - just Muscovy). But that's besides the point.
This is wrong on so many levels :)
In times of Kievan Rus Moscow was a far province of forests and marches. Kyiv was the capital.
What you're saying basically: "Italy (Ukraine) was always owned by France (Russia) because Roman Empire (Kievan Rus) was the first centralized state there".
If you insist on applying modern names to historical states it was the other way around - Ukraine "owned" Russia back then.
Also for a few centuries Ukraine was owned by Mongols, Lithuanians and Poles. And Russia was only starting to exist (and wasn't called Russia at first - just Muscovy). But that's besides the point.
I think it's up to Ukrainians to say if it's offensive to them (probably).
Is it wrong? I don't know, is it wrong to call the Sun cold, or the Universe small? Maybe not. Googling "russian ukraine" will not result with articles about Ukraine, it will result with news about the war between Russia and Ukraine.
Can you point to some respectable sources that use the term "Russian Ukraine"?
Is it wrong? I don't know, is it wrong to call the Sun cold, or the Universe small? Maybe not. Googling "russian ukraine" will not result with articles about Ukraine, it will result with news about the war between Russia and Ukraine.
Can you point to some respectable sources that use the term "Russian Ukraine"?
Here's a photo of it: https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/t6d2eh/closer_pho...
[deleted]
stemc43(1)
It feels strange that amongst all the destruction and loss of life that I should feel upset that this big plane got destroyed but here we are.
There are a lot of reasons to be upset despite the fact it's an inanimate object.
It was one of a kind.
During the last few years it's been primarily chartered for humanitarian aid missions, largely in support of the response to Covid-19 delivering PPE, medication and equipment.
Not to mention it being a national symbol and point of pride of the Ukrainian people.
It was one of a kind.
During the last few years it's been primarily chartered for humanitarian aid missions, largely in support of the response to Covid-19 delivering PPE, medication and equipment.
Not to mention it being a national symbol and point of pride of the Ukrainian people.
>"all the destruction and loss of life"
It was / is always there yet people still having fun and care about all kinds of things. This is how we were "designed".
It was / is always there yet people still having fun and care about all kinds of things. This is how we were "designed".
symbols are important.
don't be so hard on yourself friend
How will this affect global supply chains? I heard it was essential to transport certain extra large goods to exotic locations.
Badly. Even more so because it's little brothers ( still enormous, second biggest cargo aircraft), the An-124s, and everything else by Antonov, will have to be grounded due to lack of spares.
Even more so because shipping via sea has faced so many challenges due to covid (and probably still is). For example, companies in Australia have used these gigantic planes to deliver items that would have been shipped by sea in normal times, but that was just taking far too long now. The costs are exorbitant in comparison, but if your business needs some gigantic item now there was no alternative.
There are still the Boeing Dreamlifter and the Airbus Beluga.
This is true, but according to the Flexport CEO [1][2], the An-225 and An-124 were vital parts of the global air freight network/system. And only 5 of them were outside Ukraine when the invasion started.
[1] https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1498406751749611521 [2] https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1497656877731094528
[1] https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1498406751749611521 [2] https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1497656877731094528
The AN-225 was in a category of its own. In fact, the Dreamlifter was modified to fit components for the 787, but it actually has a lower max takeoff weight (803k lbs) than the original 747 it came from (875k lbs).
Meanwhile, the Beluga XL only has a max takeoff weight of 500k lbs.
The AN-225 had a max takeoff weight of 1.4m lbs.
Meanwhile, the Beluga XL only has a max takeoff weight of 500k lbs.
The AN-225 had a max takeoff weight of 1.4m lbs.
Well yeah, both the Dreamlifter and the Beluga were designed to carry aircraft parts, which are large, but not particularly heavy. Also, they are modified versions of civilian cargo aircraft. Both the AN-124 and the AN-225 are (were) basically military transport aircraft with high wings and short landing gears to allow loading via ramps - so a different kind of beast...
Mriya also has internal crane to help in loading and unloading - a legacy of being designed for carrying all sorts of "project cargo" that isn't easy to palletize (it, and M4 bombers modified into VM-T, had to carry rocket parts that were too big to move by rail as Baikonur can't be supplied easily otherwise)
The crane is actually a hold-over from the 124.
In fact the 124's is more capable: to save on weight, the 225 dropped the rear cargo doors.
On the 124, the crane extends into the tail and over the rear doors, meaning it can crane loads in and out of the plane, so you can just reverse a truck behind the plane and load straight from the trailer (obviously flatbed or intermodal). The crane can lift 30 tonnes so it's pretty damn capable.
In fact the 124's is more capable: to save on weight, the 225 dropped the rear cargo doors.
On the 124, the crane extends into the tail and over the rear doors, meaning it can crane loads in and out of the plane, so you can just reverse a truck behind the plane and load straight from the trailer (obviously flatbed or intermodal). The crane can lift 30 tonnes so it's pretty damn capable.
Nice, forgot that bit.
And IIRC, AN-124 can be abused into rough landing deliveries if necessary, just rarely seen because of rarity of the plane and costs.
And IIRC, AN-124 can be abused into rough landing deliveries if necessary, just rarely seen because of rarity of the plane and costs.
wow 747 doesn't mess around huh, just a naive lb/engine would bring 747 up to 1.3m lbs (4 on 747 and 6 on AN-225)
very cool
There really isn't.
The Beluga has especially low (not to mention unpressurised) lifting capabilities, it can only lift about 45 tonnes. The XL can lift a bit more, but the main change was internal volume.
The Dreamlifter is better (by quite a bit), but also way short.
An other issue is because both were designed for ferrying airline parts between plants neither is autonomous: both need lifting gantries (especially the beluga but the dreamlifter isn't exactly ground-level), and the dreamlifter needs dedicated trucks to open and close its tail.
Meanwhile the Antonovs are fully autonomous. Both the 124 and 225 were roll-on/roll-off (and able to "kneel" for easier access, not sure about the 225 but the 124 even packs extension ramps for even shallower angles), with a very capable internal crane. On the 124, the crane even extends out back so you can just drop containers there and let the loadmaster handle it. They even carry a bunch of spare parts and a maintenance team. In fact they even carry their own tow bar.
The Beluga has especially low (not to mention unpressurised) lifting capabilities, it can only lift about 45 tonnes. The XL can lift a bit more, but the main change was internal volume.
The Dreamlifter is better (by quite a bit), but also way short.
An other issue is because both were designed for ferrying airline parts between plants neither is autonomous: both need lifting gantries (especially the beluga but the dreamlifter isn't exactly ground-level), and the dreamlifter needs dedicated trucks to open and close its tail.
Meanwhile the Antonovs are fully autonomous. Both the 124 and 225 were roll-on/roll-off (and able to "kneel" for easier access, not sure about the 225 but the 124 even packs extension ramps for even shallower angles), with a very capable internal crane. On the 124, the crane even extends out back so you can just drop containers there and let the loadmaster handle it. They even carry a bunch of spare parts and a maintenance team. In fact they even carry their own tow bar.
The Belugas and Beluga XLs are only used internally by Airbus. The biggest cargo aircraft Airbus sell are the A330 and A340 cargo versions.
This is not correct. The older Belugas entered chartered service recently.
https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/airbus-setting-up...
https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/airbus-setting-up...
Oh, didn't know that, thanks! That's a fairly recent development ( dated January of this year), and is only for the old Belugas, not the XLs, which will remain exclusive for Airbus. I don't see why they can't build a few more for charter.
> I don't see why they can't build a few more for charter.
I guess they could but then again, not sure how their customers feel when you enter their very own segment long term.
I guess they could but then again, not sure how their customers feel when you enter their very own segment long term.
How does type rating work for this one off kind of plane? How do you get hours in the one plane, and is there a simulator?
Also what do you do when the plane you're rated for is destroyed?
Also what do you do when the plane you're rated for is destroyed?
Mriya’s crew were definitely rated for other planes (almost certainly the An-124 it was derived from for instance): Mriya was expensive to fly, and you’d only charter if if you really needed its lifting capabilities (whether weight or volume). It would not be flying year-round in the first place, so you’d want multiple crew rated for it (so one would be available when an order came in) but you wouldn’t want those crews sitting around with their thumbs up their asses all year.
For people looking at it from afar it was an amazing sight, but I expect for the crew it was mostly monday. If you listen at their ATC transmissions they sound jaded and bored even for slavic pilots (whereas ATC and other pilots nearby sound like kids at candy store).
I don’t know if the price sheets were ever public, but it would not surprise me to learn that you could charter two 124s for the price of the 225, with more flexibility to boot (the 225 had no rear cargo door, no passenger compartment, and obviously more concerning airfield size requirements — mostly owing to its size and takeoff distance, the landing gear is so overbuilt it’s supposedly got a pretty light ground pressure compared to other large aircrafts).
For people looking at it from afar it was an amazing sight, but I expect for the crew it was mostly monday. If you listen at their ATC transmissions they sound jaded and bored even for slavic pilots (whereas ATC and other pilots nearby sound like kids at candy store).
I don’t know if the price sheets were ever public, but it would not surprise me to learn that you could charter two 124s for the price of the 225, with more flexibility to boot (the 225 had no rear cargo door, no passenger compartment, and obviously more concerning airfield size requirements — mostly owing to its size and takeoff distance, the landing gear is so overbuilt it’s supposedly got a pretty light ground pressure compared to other large aircrafts).
I think it was in-use more than you might think. I remember seeing a program about it and there are plenty of people needing to shift large cargo at expedited speed and as one customer put it, "if you are 2 weeks behind, you can pay for the 225 and buy that 2 weeks back compared to a ship". Also, the amount of time it takes for them to fly these vast distances means it was only available 2 or 3 times per week anyway.
They had an office in London for booking and planning so it must have earned them some decent wedge, especially without any direct competitors.
I don't know how much maintenance it needed in between though.
They had an office in London for booking and planning so it must have earned them some decent wedge, especially without any direct competitors.
I don't know how much maintenance it needed in between though.
Most of the large cargo would be shifted by the eminently capable, more easily available, and in many ways more flexible, 124s.
Keep in mind while Mriya was a towering giant, the An-124 is literally the next best thing. You'd only call on the 225 if the 124 did not suffice either in lift or in volume[0]; of possibly in the rare cases where no 124 was available, the 225 was, and you didn't mind paying a premium.
[0] mostly in length as the 124 and the 225 holds have the same cross-section of 6.4m wide and 4.4 high, but the 225's is 6 meters longer.
Keep in mind while Mriya was a towering giant, the An-124 is literally the next best thing. You'd only call on the 225 if the 124 did not suffice either in lift or in volume[0]; of possibly in the rare cases where no 124 was available, the 225 was, and you didn't mind paying a premium.
[0] mostly in length as the 124 and the 225 holds have the same cross-section of 6.4m wide and 4.4 high, but the 225's is 6 meters longer.
> the landing gear is so overbuilt
That was something that caught my eye in the picture, it seems to have an endless number of tires on the ground.
That was something that caught my eye in the picture, it seems to have an endless number of tires on the ground.
Yep, the 225’s main landing gear had two sets of 7 pairs of wheels (so 28 wheels, plus 4 nose wheels). Up from 5 pairs on the An-124 (and the same 4 nose wheels).
Interestingly it’s not such a high number, the C5 galaxy has 24 in the MLG and and 4 at the nose, despite being slightly lighter than the An-124 (it’s older though). The C5 looks a bit less weird from the side because its MLG is organised in 4 sets of 6 with each set having one pair at the front, and two pairs side-by-side at the back. So from the side it looks like it has 4 pairs per side rather than the actual 6 (it makes the C5 look absolutely alien from the bottom though).
Interestingly it’s not such a high number, the C5 galaxy has 24 in the MLG and and 4 at the nose, despite being slightly lighter than the An-124 (it’s older though). The C5 looks a bit less weird from the side because its MLG is organised in 4 sets of 6 with each set having one pair at the front, and two pairs side-by-side at the back. So from the side it looks like it has 4 pairs per side rather than the actual 6 (it makes the C5 look absolutely alien from the bottom though).
> Also what do you do when the plane you're rated for is destroyed?
Presumably there are numerous other reasons you already wouldn't want it to be the only plane you were flying, so you just fly the others a bit more?
Presumably there are numerous other reasons you already wouldn't want it to be the only plane you were flying, so you just fly the others a bit more?
Even in the unlikely event you only were rated for it, you just do a bit of training and get another rating. How much training depends on the target, some need more than others.
There is a sim; https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Antonov_An-225_fli...
Not sure if all of the cockpit is in that sim; there are 6 seats!
I expect the pilots all started out flying other types, so will go back to doing that.
Not sure if all of the cockpit is in that sim; there are 6 seats!
I expect the pilots all started out flying other types, so will go back to doing that.
> Not sure if all of the cockpit is in that sim; there are 6 seats!
That would be correct, like the AN-124 the An-225 has a crew of 6 (plus 2 loadmasters I think?). While the planes were retrofit and modernised they kept a pretty heavy crew scheme, nominal crew is 2 pilots, 2 FE, and 2 comms. Might be that they didn’t see the need to change the crew scheme, or might be the origins in strategic military transportation (the C5 also has a hefty crew with FEs).
That would be correct, like the AN-124 the An-225 has a crew of 6 (plus 2 loadmasters I think?). While the planes were retrofit and modernised they kept a pretty heavy crew scheme, nominal crew is 2 pilots, 2 FE, and 2 comms. Might be that they didn’t see the need to change the crew scheme, or might be the origins in strategic military transportation (the C5 also has a hefty crew with FEs).
It also had space for extra people (not many), whether for transit or as second/third crew
Yes there’s a crew compartment, pretty large one really. It’s also for ground crew as there’s load-mastering, a lot of specific knowledge, plus probably the ability to do some maintenance even far from home base.
The 124 also has a passenger cabin which can hold 80 but I don’t think they’d kept that in the 225.
The 124 also has a passenger cabin which can hold 80 but I don’t think they’d kept that in the 225.
Just give us some time to win this war and we'll do another one :)
AN-225 landing in Rzeszow Jasionka Airport (Poland)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HIddtgGzDE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HIddtgGzDE
Does anyone know why this will cost "over USD$3 Billion to restore"? The entire aircraft costs approximately $300 million, so I would have expected a number less than or equal to that.
Even the B-2 Spirit bomber, most likely the most expensive aircraft only costs $2.1 billion.
Even the B-2 Spirit bomber, most likely the most expensive aircraft only costs $2.1 billion.
All the tooling, manufacturing, everything for the b2 is gone. They made twenty something, then converted the factories to other things. So whatever the sticker associated with one b2 is, the replacement cost is much higher because you have to include redevelopment, new tooling, everything.
Exactly. Since the Antonov was built before the Soviet Union fell, I wouldn't be surprised if none of that exists for this plane as well, and will take a lot of resources to build it back up.
I can't read the article right now-- are they seriously talking about restoring, as in repairing it? I'd think it would be a total loss and not possible to 'restore'.
Because it looks pretty screwed up: https://i.imgur.com/idYr7br.png
Updated with pictures:
https://www.aeroinside.com/16738/antonov-an-225-at-kyiv-host...
https://www.aeroinside.com/16738/antonov-an-225-at-kyiv-host...
I think this is the plane that helped japan during the fukushima disaster by delivering extremely heavy machinery (pumps?). Rest in peace :-(
> "It will cost over USD3 billion to restore the plane, the restoration shall be time-consuming. Ukraine will make every effort to ensure that the aggressor state pays for these works,"
And if you believe that will happen, I have a bridge to sell you…
There’s a lot of ways this war can go, but that it should somehow end with Russia paying reparations to Ukraine is rather unlikely. And that the Ukrainian government would then spend a fortune of those (badly needed) reparations to build a new An-225 is even less likely.
And if you believe that will happen, I have a bridge to sell you…
There’s a lot of ways this war can go, but that it should somehow end with Russia paying reparations to Ukraine is rather unlikely. And that the Ukrainian government would then spend a fortune of those (badly needed) reparations to build a new An-225 is even less likely.
As a Guinness Book of World Records kid, from the U.S., and disappointed back in the day that we didn’t have the biggest plane, I’m stunned to find out this thing was unique and effectively a one-off.
I've never gotten the image out of my head every time I see the AN-225 that its missing its Russian space shuttle on its back. Also strange that Soviet Russia built it only for Russian Federation to destroy it. But after Ukraine saved it from the same fate that fell on almost all the other equipment from the Buran program.
The Antonov 225 is featured in Episode 2 of a short documentary series called Exceptional Planes [1].
[1]: https://tubitv.com/series/300004925/aircraft-exceptional-pla...
[1]: https://tubitv.com/series/300004925/aircraft-exceptional-pla...
Related: AN-225 in Oklahoma City (1990)
> https://youtu.be/eDEC66kam34
> https://youtu.be/eDEC66kam34
is a Chinese company actively casting new parts for the unfinished airframe from what I understand it also has drawings.
Everyone loses when it comes to war
stemc43(2)
Iwan-Zotow(1)
zttg(1)
Nothing compared to loss of life and suffering of the Ukrainian people of course, but: this is sad.
From the article: "It will cost over USD3 billion to restore the plane [...]".
This seems extremely high. I'd expect maybe high hundreds of millions. I appreciate that they're hardly like-for-like, but the A380 unit cost was something like $400M, which I think has maybe double the tonnage of the An-225. Where does the extra couple of billion come from?
From the article: "It will cost over USD3 billion to restore the plane [...]".
This seems extremely high. I'd expect maybe high hundreds of millions. I appreciate that they're hardly like-for-like, but the A380 unit cost was something like $400M, which I think has maybe double the tonnage of the An-225. Where does the extra couple of billion come from?
The A380 is $400m per plane coming off a production line. The total programme cost for the A380 is something like $30bn.
There was only one An-225 built, and it was built 34 years ago. Presumably the tooling and much of the manufacturing knowledge is long gone. Antonov as an aircraft manufacturer was barely a going concern before all this - it's fallen a long way from its Soviet heyday. They haven't built a single aircraft since 2016 - and I can't imagine having a battle fought at your main facility helped things.
Making one of something always costs a lot more than making many.
There was only one An-225 built, and it was built 34 years ago. Presumably the tooling and much of the manufacturing knowledge is long gone. Antonov as an aircraft manufacturer was barely a going concern before all this - it's fallen a long way from its Soviet heyday. They haven't built a single aircraft since 2016 - and I can't imagine having a battle fought at your main facility helped things.
Making one of something always costs a lot more than making many.
No production lines versus relatively high volume manufacturing.
It's not clear whether it truly was destroyed by Russian airstrikes. The plane was based on the Gostomel airport, which got captured by the Russian airborn forces in the early days of the invasion. The news of destruction begun after the Ukrainian forces tried to retake the airport.
Do you have a source? A comment in another thread here[0] says:
> Ukraine says the An-225 was destroyed on the 26th. And their artillery strike came on the 27th.
In any case, it's Russia who attacked, so it's not like whose shelling actually reached the plane is very important when it comes to responsibility.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30552930
> Ukraine says the An-225 was destroyed on the 26th. And their artillery strike came on the 27th.
In any case, it's Russia who attacked, so it's not like whose shelling actually reached the plane is very important when it comes to responsibility.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30552930
This is a minor issue. Title may be misleading, I don't know how things went, but Russia started the war that caused plane destruction.
On this image it is clear that shell or missile which killed Mria came from the left
https://s30121.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Screen-Sho...
That is North direction. Right toward the Russian forces which at the time had made that huge advance through Chernobyl toward Kiev. The trace in the pavement points to a large and fast shell or missile. Ukrainians are using up to 203mm which looks too small for that trace in the pavement. Also making that long trace in concrete pavement suggests low angle which for artillery would mean relatively close position - bringing large caliber like 203mm that close is usually not done, as well as you don't bring such your strategic artillery assets into position where enemy's tanks would be rushing right into your back. Such low angle is indicative of missile, cruise (not ballistic) or air launched. Cruise missile like Russian Kaliber would make bigger bang, so most probably it was an aircraft launched air-to-ground missile.
Edit: downvoting without clear technical counter-arguments - i take it such people just don't like where the technical analysis leads to while not able to provide their own technical analysis :)
https://s30121.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Screen-Sho...
That is North direction. Right toward the Russian forces which at the time had made that huge advance through Chernobyl toward Kiev. The trace in the pavement points to a large and fast shell or missile. Ukrainians are using up to 203mm which looks too small for that trace in the pavement. Also making that long trace in concrete pavement suggests low angle which for artillery would mean relatively close position - bringing large caliber like 203mm that close is usually not done, as well as you don't bring such your strategic artillery assets into position where enemy's tanks would be rushing right into your back. Such low angle is indicative of missile, cruise (not ballistic) or air launched. Cruise missile like Russian Kaliber would make bigger bang, so most probably it was an aircraft launched air-to-ground missile.
Edit: downvoting without clear technical counter-arguments - i take it such people just don't like where the technical analysis leads to while not able to provide their own technical analysis :)
Your pucture is rotated.
Here is the place: https://goo.gl/maps/kPKyJVTkDoFyWZD47
It looks like the south part of the hangar was damaged.
Here is the place: https://goo.gl/maps/kPKyJVTkDoFyWZD47
It looks like the south part of the hangar was damaged.
Yes, the south part of hangar is damaged. That the missile came from the left (North) on the image i posted is obvious by the pattern of blast effects and the trace in pavement the missile made - it is very clear that the right end of the trace is deeper visually and by the blast effects geometry. The missile pierced the hangar roof - it is thin metal sheet not affecting anything - either where it was microsecond later damaged by the blast or where you see the hole over the tail of the plane on my original link as well as here https://d3lcr32v2pp4l1.cloudfront.net/Pictures/780xany/4/4/5...
The missile struck pavement ~30m from hangar, the hangar is ~30m high and the roof is damaged to the point about ~30m from the edge. The missile came at low angle, so it could have come through the area there the roof was damaged by the blast (that gives minimum angle for the missile - by the 60m to 30m ratio - of a bit under 30 degree), and the hole over the plane's tail gives the low angle which is also a good candidate.
The missile struck pavement ~30m from hangar, the hangar is ~30m high and the roof is damaged to the point about ~30m from the edge. The missile came at low angle, so it could have come through the area there the roof was damaged by the blast (that gives minimum angle for the missile - by the 60m to 30m ratio - of a bit under 30 degree), and the hole over the plane's tail gives the low angle which is also a good candidate.
> That the missile came from the left (North) on the image i posted is obvious by the pattern of blast effects and the trace in pavement the missile made
I don’t know how can you see any patterns or traces on the pavement in this blurry screenshot with resolution probably around 1 pixel per foot.
I can see the damaged hangar, but I for sure can’t see traces on the pavement.
I don’t know how can you see any patterns or traces on the pavement in this blurry screenshot with resolution probably around 1 pixel per foot.
I can see the damaged hangar, but I for sure can’t see traces on the pavement.
Looks destroyed to me: https://img.pr0gramm.com/2022/03/04/1d4413a6ea3e5d8a.jpg
Edit: I misread your comment...
Edit: I misread your comment...
What? Where did I say that it was not destroyed? My point is that it's quite possible that it was destroyed by Ukrainian artillery strikes which supported counter-attack on the Gostomel airport.
I think most people would consider it destroyed by Russia, even if it were Ukrainian artillery that actually struck.
Destroyed due to the Russian invasion would be better then.
Sure, but saying destroyed by Russian airstrikes like the article would be inaccurate.
In the way that you don't die from a bullet, but rather from your body's reaction to the abrupt entering of that bullet in its perimeter.
Saying it happened as a result of the Russian invasion is accurate, saying it happened because of Russian airstrikes is not.
If you agree it is a result of the Russian invasion, you can't say it's not a result of Russian airstrikes. Maybe not a direct result in the sense that a Russian rocket destroyed it (although there's no reason to rule that out at this point), but definitely as an indirect result.
No invasion, no destroyed An-225. No Russian airstrike, no destroyed An-225.
No invasion, no destroyed An-225. No Russian airstrike, no destroyed An-225.
> If you agree it is a result of the Russian invasion, you can't say it's not a result of Russian airstrikes.
Airstrike has a specific meaning. From what I understand Russian attack on the airport was primarily an assault by airborne infantry. It's entirely possible that the Antonov was destroyed by a Russian munition. It still doesn't mean it was a result of a Russian airstrike.
Airstrike has a specific meaning. From what I understand Russian attack on the airport was primarily an assault by airborne infantry. It's entirely possible that the Antonov was destroyed by a Russian munition. It still doesn't mean it was a result of a Russian airstrike.
The formal cause of the destruction is the Russian invasion, the efficient cause might be Ukrainian artillery, or it might be Russian airstrikes, as the article indicates.
It's a useful distinction, and I wager most people would consider the efficient cause to be the appropriate cause in a sentence like "object destroyed by causal subject".
Otherwise we end up with difficulty parsing "Russian MiG destroyed by Russia", are we saying it's all Russia's fault, or that Russian forces shot their own jet?
It's a useful distinction, and I wager most people would consider the efficient cause to be the appropriate cause in a sentence like "object destroyed by causal subject".
Otherwise we end up with difficulty parsing "Russian MiG destroyed by Russia", are we saying it's all Russia's fault, or that Russian forces shot their own jet?
Oh, I misread your comment :(
Well that's nice.
I am sure there wouldn't have been a nice for any kind of Ukrainian weaponry, let alone artillery strikes if Russia didn't forcefully capture said airfield in the first place.
I am sure there wouldn't have been a nice for any kind of Ukrainian weaponry, let alone artillery strikes if Russia didn't forcefully capture said airfield in the first place.
I’d heard it was under maintenance, but from the looks of it it needs a serious overhaul.
More seriously. Damn. I hadn’t had any non hedged confirmation of the destruction before :( this kind of settles it.
More seriously. Damn. I hadn’t had any non hedged confirmation of the destruction before :( this kind of settles it.
I had the luck of seeing this plane on approach to IAH airport while driving in Houston.
For the first few minutes, it looked like a normal size plane, but felt too low and too slow. Then for the next few minutes, it kept getting bigger and bigger. Then I saw it had 6 engines. And a tail wing that seemed as large as a normal plane’s wingspan. I was lucky that it crossed right in front of me as I was near the airport (about 2.5 miles from the runway). It looked so low, so slow, and just massive. I went home and figured out what it was by googling it. That time it was transporting part of an oil rig. I tried to find it to go see again ever since, but I could never get a clear schedule and it didn’t line up with where I was in the world. I was telling my wife the other week that this was something I’d like to seek out. It’s something that anyone on this site, aviation enthusiast or not, would have appreciated seeing.