It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An-225 owns each and every plane on planet earth

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   
I mean in only conventional terms,flying saucers owns An 225 but yestarday when i saw in the news that people were thinking that it wont fly,well they haven't seen the discovery channel superstructure serials.That plane has 2 tail wings,6 engines and its cockpit is 3 storeys high.Maybe they haven't seen the real deal.Tu can hold 1500 passengers compared to 800 passengers that the a 380 holds.

[edit on 28-4-2005 by warthog911]




posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 12:05 AM
link   
your not referring to a Tupolev design, your referring to a design by the Antonov Design Bureau, the An-225. And you are right in some respects, it 'owns' the a-380. But its a super-heavy lift craft, designed for the soviet space shuttle program and now its in the cargo lifting business for antonov. It is not a passenger aircraft.






a testament to soviet ingenuity and engineering.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Are there any comparision diagrams of the an 225 and a 380?



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Isn't there only just 1 An-225 in service?



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83
Isn't there only just 1 An-225 in service?


Theres one in service, and one in parts. The company operating the 225 wants to assemble the second one because theres so much demand for the operating 225.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by warthog911
Are there any comparision diagrams of the an 225 and a 380?


There probabely isn't any, because you can't compare a shuttle lifter/heavy strategic transporter quasi-handcrafted , with the A380, which is an Airliner, designed to be mass produced, and disposed for PAX transport...

I don't think An-225 owns anyone, and certainly not the A380... Maybe the C-5 Galaxy, or the Airbus Beluga, that kind of huge cargos can be compared (and therefore owned
)! It's as if you were comparing a Greyhound Bus with a Bradley!



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Excuse me there warthog911, but if I may, your comparing apples and oranges here.

One is a military transport, while the other is a commercial airliner.

Are you seeing a difference here?





seekerof



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 08:02 AM
link   
That's not to say that one can't become the other. Boeing tried to develop a passenger plane from the B-29 (C-97) and, as I remember, the Dash-80 forerunner of the 707 was developed as a tanker.
Practicality and efficiency from one role to another are a different matter...



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Excuse me there warthog911, but if I may, your comparing apples and oranges here.

One is a military transport, while the other is a commercial airliner.

Are you seeing a difference here?


seekerof


Scratch the 'military', its run by a commercial consortium providing lifting capabilities for outsized loads.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   
In case your interested, many, many photos of this giant over at airliners.net.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by warthog911
I mean in only conventional terms,flying saucers owns An 225 but yestarday when i saw in the news that people were thinking that it wont fly,well they haven't seen the discovery channel superstructure serials.That plane has 2 tail wings,6 engines and its cockpit is 3 storeys high.Maybe they haven't seen the real deal.Tu can hold 1500 passengers compared to 800 passengers that the a 380 holds.

[edit on 28-4-2005 by warthog911]


This is the kind of stuff that gets me mad. The An-225 was pretty much a one off design for transporting the Buran. The US used a converted 747 to transport the Shuttle. Cheaper than building a new aircraft. The An-225 was never really ment for military transport anyways. It's so big any fighter aircraft could shoot it down.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jetsetter

This is the kind of stuff that gets me mad. The An-225 was pretty much a one off design for transporting the Buran. The US used a converted 747 to transport the Shuttle. Cheaper than building a new aircraft. The An-225 was never really ment for military transport anyways. It's so big any fighter aircraft could shoot it down.


I agree with you. The 225 was never ever meant to carry passengers, and Im betting that to convert it to carry passengers in a two or three deck configuration wouldnt be worth the money as it would prove very costly. Its unfair to say that the 747 conversion was better for the task because the USSR had no such aircraft to convert, and the 225 was also meant to ship the OTHER parts of the system around too, so it was arguably just as good a solution.

Plus, name one 'stealthy' military transport that a fighter cant shoot down



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Excuse me there warthog911, but if I may, your comparing apples and oranges here.

One is a military transport, while the other is a commercial airliner.

Are you seeing a difference here?





seekerof

I said in conventional terms the AN- 225 is the largest plane in the world and owns the A 380.Comparing apples to oranges would mean comparing AN 225 with a flying saucer



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by warthog911
I said in conventional terms the AN- 225 is the largest plane in the world and owns the A 380.Comparing apples to oranges would mean comparing AN 225 with a flying saucer


Technically, the largest planes in the world are those Ekranoplan aircraft, because they are classed as aircraft in the conventional sense.

The 225 is the largest aircraft in active use tho


[edit on 28/4/2005 by RichardPrice]



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   
HEY;

The spruce goose was bigger dimension wise than all of those planes!!!!!

Train



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   
The Spruce Goose had the largest wingspan of any aeroplane ever flown, however overall it was much smaller than the An-225, C-5, 747, A380 or any of the very large modern jets.

Besides, whats this 'owns' business about anyway? How can one aeroplane 'own' another? Thats just silly childish-speak surely?



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   
OWNAGE!!!
World of Warcraft.. lol..



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   
AN225 has terrible range (around 3000km I believe), so as a passenger jet it's too costly.

As a specialist aircraft though, being the only aircraft in the world that can carry such oversized cargo... it's excellent at what it does.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius
AN225 has terrible range (around 3000km I believe), so as a passenger jet it's too costly.

As a specialist aircraft though, being the only aircraft in the world that can carry such oversized cargo... it's excellent at what it does.

nope
4000km with full load and 15,000 with no load.Google it and it can lift 250 tons!.I just wnat to see the AN 225 and the A380 together .

[edit on 28-4-2005 by warthog911]



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   
For a background on the history of the Soviet Union one may refer to numerous commentaries on "giganto-mania." Huge cranes, and other machines were produced at great expense and paraded or ballyhooed regularly. Those large things constructed in these years were mostly to prove a certain point politically. Perhaps the most huge instance of it was the 60 Megaton fission-fusion ordnance. Thinking bigger is always better is just as to wish something. In the real world to wish something does not necessarily make it so.

In the case of nuclear weapons, smaller weapons spread out of equal megatonage was greater in destructive capacity. Now whether that is entirely a good thing even militarily is highly subject to question, however in the bean counting deparatment such things were part of the strategic depth of deterrence.

Now to return to our aircraft here, I wonder if it really can be considered "giganto-mania," since the functional purpose of it is not simply to show off something huge. If it was designed for trolleying the Soviet Shuttle, maybe there is some point to it. Currently I have heard it is independently contracted these days to carry cargo.

[edit on 29-4-2005 by SkipShipman]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join