I don't think it's the "Cold War" that created it per se - it was the Space Race. We need another one of those, doesn't matter with whom.
The AN-225: How the Cold War created the world's largest airplane
91–100 of 111 posts
Re: The AN-225: How the Cold War created the world's largest airplane
#92"...20 tons of fuel per hour..." holy cow. Pretty impressive statistics all around, apparently the A380 uses closer to 12.5 tons per hour to put it in perspective.
Pretty impressive given that: Type MTOW [kg] ICAO category Antonov An-225 640,000 Heavy Airbus A380-800 575,000 Super and that 225 is made with much less than an ideal aerodynamics, heavy frame, 6 thrust reversers, and oversized control surfaces to accommodate external cargo. Its 6 engines are also prehistoric. D-18T was made with a much more focus on getting the highest take off thrust over cruise speed performance.…
Curious where you got the category info there. ICAO doesn't have a super category (proposed designation was `J`, but they don't publish anything under that).
FAA list the 225 as NOWGT, which puts it over "heavy", requiring 10nm separation.
Re: The AN-225: How the Cold War created the world's largest airplane
#93I have been inside this airplane and I've got some pics to share: https://egorfine.com/photo/mriya/
Thanks for this.. killer photos.. Was this at an airshow? Was someone following you around to make sure you didn't pull on any wires or anything you weren't supposed to be touching?
The last photo in the deck shows the plane with an engine removed; this makes me think the photos were taken during maintenance.
Re: The AN-225: How the Cold War created the world's largest airplane
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that is why it is not surprising if it uses 60% more fuel. My question was why is it impressive? What would you expect given all the things you have mentioned? Twice as much fuel? Ten times? 100 times? I'm not arguing against your opinion, just asking for context that seemed to be missing.
> What would you expect given all the things you have mentioned? Twice as much fuel? Pretty much. Most 4 engine airplanes can fly with just 2, or 1. Take off thrust is few times the cruise thrust an all jet airplanes. In flight, the engines needed to achieve the take off thrust are dead drag, and dead weight. This is why one of crazy ideas for very early large jet planes was to have parachutable, jettisonable engines…
Speaking as a passenger, the right solution is CATOBAR. Passenger airports should install linear motor catapults that can get a 500-ton aircraft up to Mach 0.85 in about 10 seconds. (it can support the plane, allowing launch with already-retracted gear) They should also install arrester cables, or something better, such as a moving platform that could handle both tasks.
Re: The AN-225: How the Cold War created the world's largest airplane
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What would you expect given all the things you have mentioned? Twice as much fuel? Pretty much. Most 4 engine airplanes can fly with just 2, or 1. Take off thrust is few times the cruise thrust an all jet airplanes. In flight, the engines needed to achieve the take off thrust are dead drag, and dead weight. This is why one of crazy ideas for very early large jet planes was to have parachutable, jettisonable engines…
Speaking as a passenger, the right solution is CATOBAR. Passenger airports should install linear motor catapults that can get a 500-ton aircraft up to Mach 0.85 in about 10 seconds. (it can support the plane, allowing launch with already-retracted gear) They should also install arrester cables, or something better, such as a moving platform that could handle both tasks.
A much cheaper solution is just having really long runways.
Re: The AN-225: How the Cold War created the world's largest airplane
#96Jeez CNN is really terrible. The Myasishchev VM-T didn't "carry the spacecraft unassembled" as anyone with eyes can plainly see, and the AN-225 was designed as a replacement for the VM-T (and, truth be told, as a sort of stunt). https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a30930668...
>> Jeez CNN is really terrible.
Related: it was very satisfying to watch uBlock Origin block no less than 82 scripts/trackers.
Re: The AN-225: How the Cold War created the world's largest airplane
#97here is a great tour inside the aircraft with 1 of it's pilots (in russian, but with a comprehensible English subs): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TX9L62_Eac
Wow, just wow.
I knew it carried its whole crew with it, but the cabins are almost a little hotel, two kitchens! Three sleeping quarters! And that's all just tucked into the parts that aren't used for cargo.
I got a few good chuckles out of the back-and-forth, just from the subtitle, I'm sure it's even better if you speak Russian. Well worth a watch, thank you for posting it!
Re: The AN-225: How the Cold War created the world's largest airplane
#98I don't think it's the "Cold War" that created it per se - it was the Space Race. We need another one of those, doesn't matter with whom.
And the space race was created by the Cold War. Without the Cold War, I doubt we would have ever sent a man to the moon.
Re: The AN-225: How the Cold War created the world's largest airplane
#99here is a great tour inside the aircraft with 1 of it's pilots (in russian, but with a comprehensible English subs): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TX9L62_Eac
Wow, just wow. I knew it carried its whole crew with it, but the cabins are almost a little hotel, two kitchens! Three sleeping quarters! And that's all just tucked into the parts that aren't used for cargo. I got a few good chuckles out of the back-and-forth, just from the subtitle, I'm sure it's even better if you speak Russian. Well worth a watch, thank you for posting it!
There was a piece, where the pilot explained why airports are not in favor of accepting AN225 for landing and takeoff on theirs runways:
they have to check the runway surface after landing/takeoff.
but even more crucial (not now, but in those times) is that suitable for landing airports are in most cases are those with high throughput of aircrafts and tight schedule and according to the international safety regulations it is possible give permittion for the next takeoff only after 7-10 min due to turbulent wake(is it the right term?). while common passenger flights have an interval of 30 sec
Re: The AN-225: How the Cold War created the world's largest airplane
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that is why it is not surprising if it uses 60% more fuel. My question was why is it impressive? What would you expect given all the things you have mentioned? Twice as much fuel? Ten times? 100 times? I'm not arguing against your opinion, just asking for context that seemed to be missing.
> What would you expect given all the things you have mentioned? Twice as much fuel? Pretty much. Most 4 engine airplanes can fly with just 2, or 1. Take off thrust is few times the cruise thrust an all jet airplanes. In flight, the engines needed to achieve the take off thrust are dead drag, and dead weight. This is why one of crazy ideas for very early large jet planes was to have parachutable, jettisonable engines…
I've heard the opposite: that the large, high-thrust engines needed on twin-engine wide bodies for takeoff and ETOPS certification can have greater aerodynamic and performance losses at cruise, as well as higher maintenance costs, than the smaller engines on four-engine wide bodies. And in the specific case of the A380, having four engines did not put them at a fuel economy disadvantage, notwithstanding the widely held belief that it did.
A greater difference in fuel economy, however, comes from the generation of the engine. The A380 is no longer cost efficient not because it has 4 engines, but because those 4 engines are 1.5 generations behind modern engines.[1] Airbus and Emirates killed the A380 mere months after Rolls Royce firmly shut the door on developing an engine upgrade, and the whole multi-year saga hinged the entire time on Rolls Royce's vacillations. (Of course, Rolls Royce wouldn't invest in the engine because the market was too small, and they were also struggling with other issues that required their time & capital, but those are different matters.)
[1] Likewise, the 747 was less efficient than the 777 partly because the 777 was equipped with a newer generation of engines. But this difference was never factored into the calculus that gave rise to the belief that two engines were inherently more efficient than four, regardless of context.