In hindsight, I see it’s a positive thing the Antonov 225 was destroyed.

I absolutely admire the An225 and respected what its capabilities were.

I am on neither side though with Zelensky constantly badgering for equipment, and especially pallets of money from the rest of the world.

The an225 would have made it easier to get the cash into Zelenskys bank acct.

Plus more rapid distribution for his black market sales of gifted military equipment to other nations, due to its heavy lift and size load.

In saying i am glad it was destroyed us that it is slowing down mass transport of money in snd equipment, and now possibly personnel.

I know I will get flamed for this, though now from another oP ON ATS, Zelensky calling for foreign troops to Ukraine.

a reply to: robsmith

Yes it was an amazing aircraft.
Unfortunately not many strips have the capability of allowing such a frame to land.
And the us government isn't sending pallets of cash to ukraine. That is made up bs that users here for some reason think it's true because someone on Twitter said so.

a reply to: robsmith
I'm pretty sure most of that military equipment never even sees the Ukrainian border, so flying it out of Ukraine is not required.

As for the AN225, it was certainly a unique aircraft, but the fact is it was just too big & heavy for most airports.
Much like the Concorde, which was fast & cool, but could only land at about 3 or so airports. (Did you notice how they retired the remaining Concordes almost before the wreckage had stopped burning? They were a white elephant, and British Airways jumped on the chance to get rid of them.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Concordes were cool...also the Valkyrie x-b with it's "wing ears"

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: robsmith

Yes it was an amazing aircraft.
Unfortunately not many strips have the capability of allowing such a frame to land.
And the us government isn't sending pallets of cash to ukraine. That is made up bs that users here for some reason think it's true because someone on Twitter said so.

Imagine thinking that the US is sending pallets of cash to Ukraine, and that MORE pallets could have been sent with a bigger plane. Hilarious.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: robsmith
I'm pretty sure most of that military equipment never even sees the Ukrainian border, so flying it out of Ukraine is not required.

As for the AN225, it was certainly a unique aircraft, but the fact is it was just too big & heavy for most airports.
Much like the Concorde, which was fast & cool, but could only land at about 3 or so airports. (Did you notice how they retired the remaining Concordes almost before the wreckage had stopped burning? They were a white elephant, and British Airways jumped on the chance to get rid of them.

it wasn't just too few fields Concords could use, especially long enough runways. but the biggest problem, limiting use and airports, was it's sonic boom at high speeds. it was pretty much banned from fling over North America at supersonic speeds (except for airshows), making it impractical. even worse they were fuel hogs, much worse of course at slower speeds. so pretty much all it was useful for in the end was for flying across the oceans. and it was so expensive to cover operating costs, compared to conventional aircraft, that it priced most people from being able to afford it. something like even basic seats (and remember it was a narrow fuselage aircraft, more resembling a commuter jet in width to a normal, long haul passenger jet), cost at least as much as first class on a normal aircraft.

the truth is, they wanted to retire them years earlier, from a financial point. but they were also country flagships, so there was the prestige thing. in fact i recall hearing about plans for their retirement before the crash['i], because of operations costs. then there was the crash, then 9-11, scaring passengers away from flying at all, cutting big time into their cash supply, and so, they got rid of them.