Should we buy some AN-225s, the largest transport plane in the world?

To be honest based on the facts and figures, the plane seems more like the "Spruce Goose" than anything else. Big nay huge, but not much interest other than that

reply to post by FredT


Well its got the size issue down pat the the weight the range etc etc and its only one plane flying and its huge expensive. I think the main issue here is that since they started to fly it again and it got more then 80ft off the ground/water people may be a little less happy to see only one ever and no production.


[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

reply to post by Canada_EH

You stated that the Miyra never was grounded and you where very cocky in claiming that you knew what you where talking about.

Quote me! If you can’t follow the conversation, take your time to catch up.

reply to post by waynos

As you have been told, the An 225 was designed for a specific role that ultimately failed to materialise, no fault of the plane there, however it has struggled ever since to find a role beyond being an aeronautical Paris Hilton ("look at me, look at me").

Who is Paris Hilton, what are her talents and what does she have to do with aviation?

reply to post by Zaphod58

Yeah, you're right Iskander, anything in the past is COMPLETELY irrelevant.

Where did I say that? I don’t believe I did, and why are you putting words in my mouth?

As for proving that cost has anything to do with the limited number, please explain why there is only ONE flying, with another that MIGHT be completed in 2008? If cost had nothing to do with it then why aren't there already a bunch of them being built?

It's not just building cost, it's OPERATIONAL costs as well. The AN-225 is NOT profitable, and never will be.

The source just CLEARLY explained, that An-225 is “not really” profitable when it not filled to capacity in light of An-124s capabilities!

Further more, It’s obvious that An-225 was CUSTUM built for a mission specific task, not to run a business!

???!!!!???

What is your point?

The second airframe was "nearing completion" in 2005, and now it's "nearing completion" for 2008. If it was so cheap, or so profitable they would have rushed it and finished it already, and have it flying.

Who said it was cheap or profitable? YOU HAVE! Why?

FALLACYFILES.ORG – educate your self!

Funny how when the Buran went away, the AN-225 was grounded ain't it.

Childish snipes are not funny, they are embarrassing, grow up.

Spin this however you want iskander, I'm done with this one, because you'll NEVER admit that you're wrong about ANYTHING.

What was I wrong about exactly?

Take your time sport.

reply to post by FredT

To be honest based on the facts and figures, the plane seems more like the "Spruce Goose" than anything else

In my book “Spruce Goose” was a fundamental achievement which was sabotages by greed and corruption of the military industrial complex, and just like the great American visionary Mr. Hughes said, “if it doesn’t fly I’ll leave the country”.

It sure is a good thing that it flew, because if Mr. Hughes would have taken his company to Europe like he promised, America would not be what it is now, specifically;

Hughes Network Systems, LLC - the world's leading provider of broadband satellite services, networks, and products for small and large businesses,

The very label “Spruce Goose” was used by corrupted and bough out journalists which were paid to mount a mud slinging campaign against Mr. Hughes, so if you choose to label An-225 a “Spruce Goose”, I agree, it sure is a marvelous and historical achievement in aviation engineering!

Big nay huge, but not much interest other than that

Your interest maybe, but Boeing seems to have a lot of interest, especially in delivering its 777 engines, and other stuff like that.

We could also fly fify million Cessna 172 to transport our armies. They'll only be PRIVATE planes so they won't be shot down. That will be 1/50th the cost and will carry 5 times as much as a il-76.


Why do you think thousands of people by Cessna 172s?



[edit on 8/11/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]

reply to post by iskander


The Paris Hilton simile does not matter, it was an example of brevity to make a point, which was clearly wasted on you. You can sometimes spot an internet nerd when a light hearted simile completely passes them by. At least you realised it was a person didn't think Paris Hilton was a hotel.

What was I wrong about exactly?

I think you were wrong when you said that a Boeing modified version of the An 124 is absolutely necessary. I don't think it is as Antonov are perfectly capable of adding any mo9ds that are needed and would certainly appreciate the business. I think the whole An 225 argument is a red herring as it will just stay on the list of planes that started with the Tarrant Tabor, and includes the Hughes Hercules and Bristol Brabazon, of planes that were very impressive but too big to sell. Well, ok, maybe the Tabor wasn't that impressive, except for when it crashed.



[edit on 9-11-2007 by waynos]

reply to post by iskander


Hmmm, I obviously have a different view of Howards plywood monster. More like a boondoggle than anything else. Now how many feet did that thing fly?

As far as Boeing using it to fly in the 777 engines where are you getting your information?

GE Engines to the best of my knowledge are rail and truck shipped from plants in the US. The GE-90 can also be shipped by a 747-F if the core is removed, or fully assembled by an AN-124. But rail and truck is far cheaper. If you could point me to a link that shows the Antonov Goose delivering these engines to Boeing i would appreciate it.

[edit on 11/9/07 by FredT]

Originally posted by FredT
As far as Boeing using it to fly in the 777 engines where are you getting your information?

I would guess he means for an in-field replacement of an engine on a stranded airliner...


Operative word being guess.

Originally posted by FredT
Hmmm, I obviously have a different view of Howards plywood monster. More like a boondoggle than anything else. Now how many feet did that thing fly?
[edit on 11/9/07 by FredT]

Oh Oh I know this one, what is 80ft. (actually answered this question early on in my reply to iskander)

Originally posted by iskander
In short, Antonov super transporters allow BIG things to be airlifted, while others can’t.

Do we need An-225? Not really, but a joint venture Boeing /Volga-Dnepr modernized An-124, ABSOLUTELY, will if ever happen?

Absolutely not, we’ll keep leasing from the Russians just like everybody else.

You should of stayed with this point. Is this your main thought about the An-225 and its feaseability.

Umm Richard was right when he posted

Canada only had one C-17 at the time of the first article, and it was already deployed on missions - the An-124 was probably available sooner than either a USAF C-17, a USAF C-5 or the Canadian C-17, and that is probably why it was used.

Your reply

Originally posted by iskander
Read the source please, don’t make assumptions.

How about you do a bit of research and you would find out that the first leased aircraft only arrived on August 12 in CFB Trenton and needed to complete check outs on the base before going operational. Our cc-177 pilots have done training with the USAF on the C-17 but proficany is different for all airforces. The second C-17 only arrived at 8 Wing Trenton on October 18, 2007 and as shuch the airpower hasn't been aviable to its full power. Also from the quote you pulled from your oh so informitive website bashing the cc-177 purchase its even cleared up.

Hon. Gordon O'Connor "However, I anticipate that from time to time we will still have requirements to rent Antonovs when our C-17s are fully committed."

The cc-177 only arrived in Trenton on the 12th and the operation of the tank deployment/shippment happened on the 17th. The first operational mission by the cc-177 was on the 23rd as a humanitarian relief mission to Jamaica. I'm not part of the CFB Trenton base but I assume they needed training time and the like with the first airframe before it could be used.

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

Zaphod said

When the Buran program fell apart, the AN-225 was grounded.

You said

Prove it! What do you base your opinion on? It was a Buran lifter,

Zaphod said

When the Buran program fell apart, the AN-225 was grounded.

You said

No kidding? It’s happily flying to this day buddy! Are you even aware of what we’re talking about it?

Seriously you need to go back and read your own posts. I'm pretty sure what I'm proving here is that you like Ukraine/An-225 design. Nothing wrong with that, but when you post information that proves your bias towards the Antonov designs and at the same time show complete disregard to valid points being brought up. Also great work in saying that the An-225 grounding was only Zaphods opinion (holy cr@p).

With my previous post will you admit that your source on the use of the cc-177 missed important information and is incorrect in as to why it even questioned why the cc-177 didn't fly the tanks into theater but failed to do "research" which you took as fact.

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

Originally posted by kilcoo316
I would guess he means for an in-field replacement of an engine on a stranded airliner...
Operative word being guess.

There is one reported case of a GE-90 failing in flight and the plane had to make an unscheduled landing. The replacement engine was flown in on an AN-124 not the -225.

They can only be airfreighted in assembled form by outsize cargo aircraft such as the Antonov An-124 'Condor', presenting unique problems if due to emergency diversions, a 777 was stranded in a place without the proper spare parts. If the fan is removed from the core, then they may be shipped on a 747 Freighter. As a consequence, airlines often utilize above average levels of preventive maintenance on their GE90's in order to minimize such risks. On December 17, 2005 a GE90-94B failed on an Air France 777 flying from Seoul to Paris resulting in an unscheduled landing in Irkutsk, Siberia. A replacement engine was flown via an An-124 and the engines were exchanged.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by waynos

The Paris Hilton simile does not matter, it was an example of brevity to make a point, which was clearly wasted on you. You can sometimes spot an internet nerd when a light hearted simile completely passes them by.

You’re making me feel old, and I don’t know what qualifies to even be an internet nerd.

At least you realised it was a person didn't think Paris Hilton was a hotel.

You did not say Hilton IN Paris, you clearly said Paris Hilton. Logic confuses you?

I did look that one up, and it simply escapes me how you compare An-225 to a spoiled daughter of the Hilton family, that got her celebrity from some porn videos.

Who’s an internet nerd here?

I think you were wrong when you said that a Boeing modified version of the An 124 is absolutely necessary.

Are you aware of the Boeing operation in Moscow, and what they are out to do?

I don't think it is as Antonov are perfectly capable of adding any mo9ds that are needed and would certainly appreciate the business.

Again, look into Boeing level of involvement in Russian civil and transport aviation.

I think the whole An 225 argument is a red herring as it will just stay on the list of planes that started with the Tarrant Tabor, and includes the Hughes Hercules and Bristol Brabazon, of planes that were very impressive but too big to sell. Well, ok, maybe the Tabor wasn't that impressive, except for when it crashed.

The difference is that An-225 is actively operating as designed, thus fully fulfilling its intended purpose of being a custom built for airlifting large cargo that no other plane can accommodate.

The 9 year break had to do with the collapse and reorganization of the entire Soviet system, and not with capabilities of the plane it self.

An-225 did exactly what it was made fore, and then some. In other words, mission accomplished.

reply to post by FredT

Hmmm, I obviously have a different view of Howards plywood monster. More like a boondoggle than anything else. Now how many feet did that thing fly?

Main word here is “plywood”, because it was the main specification do to wartime shortage of aluminum.

The fact that it flew at all is entirely amazing, because no wooden plane boat of this massive size ever flew at all.

As far as Boeing using it to fly in the 777 engines where are you getting your information?

From a local newspaper. I’ve already posted this before;

The six-engine Antonov An-225 is supposed to land there between 5 and 5:30. Its cargo is four GE 777 engines that are being delivered to Boeing's propulsion unit at Boeing Field. Usually, Boeing's jet engines are delivered by smaller cargo planes, including the Antonov An-124.[/ex[

If you could point me to a link that shows the Antonov Goose delivering these engines to Boeing i would appreciate it.

Right here, enjoy –

blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com...


That’s a good one! “Antonov Goose”, be it a fallacy, I have to agree it is catchy. You are aware why it is fallacy, right?

reply to post by Canada_EH


Canada_EH, with all do respect, I’ll prefer to refrain from personal discussions with you until you do a little work and get up to speed on your communication and comprehension skills.

Again, no offense is intended, just the reality of the situation, and if you care to PM me, please do.

The AN-225 would never be able to take on the roles of the C-17 or C-5's in any form and you've said it best Iskander, you said it yourself, it's the best custom specialized transport out there.

There's only one and it's fulfilled its mission of transporting the Buran when it was in service, you're right about that no one has argued that to this point. But alas, simply finding a use for the plane now is difficult because it can no longer carry out its original mission of transporting the Buran.

Shattered OUT...

reply to post by iskander


Frankly I don't care what a person who just struts into this forum and starts handing out smack talk thinks about me.

I asked you a question that you can't answer thats fine. Continue on with your little rantings. I'll wait and until you answer me why you drew that conclusion out of false facts about the CC-177 because frankly I'm 90% sure you now cr@p all about the Canadian forces.